Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council-Agenda Packets-4/18/2000 ~~. ~~ ~~ ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ si 1 `~ ~`~ ~`~ ~~, ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ - ~~ z _, ~ ~~ ~. ~0 -_~-rl~~ AGENDA ~ ~~ CITY COUNCIL MEETING ~~ 5400 BRANSFORD ROAD APRIL 18, 2000 5:00 P.M. -INTERVIEWS OF LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICANTS 6:45 P.M. -CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. EXECUTIVE SESSION - In accordance with Texas Government Code Chapter 551, Subchapter D Sec. 551.071- Legal -Gammon lawsuit Sec. 551.071- Legal -Murray Construction lawsuit Sec. 551.072- Property Acquisition -John McCain Road Sec. 551.072- Property Acquisition - Colleyville Boulevard Sec. 551.072- Property Acquisition -Hall-Johnson Road Sec. 551-074- Personnel -The City Council may consider the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline or dismissal of public officer ~x, ~:~~;~ sjy~~~;' rr~~l~ding the City Manager, City Secretar~a, .City Attome~=, aid City board and commission members. A r,-t<mp!f~te list cn:.the City boards and commissions is on file in the ~g2~a `~aG'@t21~+'s Offlce 7:30 P.M. - RESUME REGULA~IR 1~-~~E TINS,; INVOCATION: Reverend Carter Foster, Metroplex Covenant Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Ross Foster City Attorney P.O. BOX 185 COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS 76034 (817) 577-7575 Texas 2. CORRESPONDENCE, MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS OF MEETINGS ATTENDED BY THE COUNCIL AND CITY OFFICIALS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS, PROCLAMATIONS, OR PRESENTATIONS. Presentation -Proclamation -National Day of Prayer CONSENT: 3. READING AND PUBLIC HEARING -Resolution R-00-1635- Consent Items: a. Approval of minutes of the regular City Council meeting of April 4, 2000 b. Approval of minutes of the City Council worksession held March 16, 2000 c. Approval of minutes of the City Council worksession held March 20, 2000 d. Approval of a professional services contract with Management Plus, Inc., for Computer Networking, Phase II, of the City Hall Complex in an amount not to exceed $21,500 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 4. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - 0-00-1214 -Amending the ~~~~'' Subdivision Ordinance, Impact Fee Ordinance, Tree Preservation Ordinance, and Zoning Ordinance by adopting a Land Development Code 5. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - 0-00-1215 - A zoning change requested by W. Douglas Jennings, from CC2 to CPO (commercial professional office) on 2.4779 acres located on the south side of Gateway Drive in the 4100 block, Heritage High School Addition ls. o,~a,. ,, q~8. I~fl~t' V'1' FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - 0-00-1216 -Amending Chapter 11 -Parkland Dedication of the Land Development Code READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - R-00-1637 -Approving the use of Parkland Dedication Funds, in an amount not to exceed $35,000, #o purchase trail right-of-way for the Cottonbelt Trail READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - R-00-1638 -Approving McPherson Park Master Plan READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - R-00-1639 -Appointing members to the Celebrate Colleyvitle Steering Committee 0. READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - R-00-1640 -Appointing members to the Historical Preservation Committee and expanding membership '1~1. - - READING AND PUBLIC HEARING R-00-1641 Opposing H.R. 2372, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2000 . h ~~~~AB~~ LED ITEMS: 2. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 0-00-1210 - A zoning change requested by David Whisenant, from R20 to PUD-C on 23.709 acxes located on the north 3,?i side of Glade Road, east of Oak Timbers Court - Riverwalk at Colleyville CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 0-00-1211 - A zoning change requested by Lanny Wilkinson, from ML, AG, and CC1 to PUD-C on 8.789 acres located on the west side of Colleyville Boulevard in the 6400-6500 block -Winding Creek ddition 4. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION R-00-1619 -Appointing members to the Library Advisory Committee STAFF REPORTS: 15. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT 16. REPORTS: PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES -APRIL 3, 2000 PARK LAND DEDICATION COMMITTEE MINUTES -MARCH 27, 2000 TRAFFIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE -APRIL 10, 2000 TREE BOARD MINUTES -APRIL 3, 2000 CITIZEN COMMENTS: 17. CITIZEN COMMENTS/PRESENTATIONS REGARDING ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA ACTION/RESOLUTION: 18. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION RATIFYING COUNCIL AGENDA ACTION FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 18, 2000 - Reading and Public Hearing -Resolution R-00-1636 ADJOURNMENT: 19. ADJOURNMENT ~ certify the above agenda was posted on the bulletin board at City Hall on April 14, 2000 at 4:30 p. m. ~~ ~~ Je Harris, TRMC, CMC Ci y Secretary If you plan to attend this public meeting and have a disability that requires special accommodations, please advise the City Secretary at least 48 hours in advance at 577- 7575, and reasonable accommodations will be made to assist you. CITY COUNCIL din ~~ `\ n ~ TC[15 AGENDA BRIEFING For mt .: 04/18/00 CMO Approval: Item # 1 Ordinance # N/A Previous Action: None DEPT. CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT Executive Session - In accordance with Texas Government Code Chapter 551, Subchapter D Sec. 551.071 - Legal -Gammon lawsuit Sec. 551.071 - Legal -Murray Construction lawsuit Sec. 551.072 - Property Acquisition -John McCain Road Sec. 551.072 - Property Acquisition - Colleyville Boulevard Sec. 551.072 - Property Acquisition -Hall-Johnson Road Sec. 551.074 - Personnel -The City Council may consider the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline or dismissal of public officers or employees, including the City Manager, City Secretary, City Attorney, and City board and commission members. A complete list of the City boards and commissions is on file in the City Secretary's Office. FINANCIAL REVIEW (IF NECESSARY CITY COUNCIL C'i~~' of ~~ T~~:,$ AGENDA BRIEFING For mt .: 04/18/00 CMO Approval: Item # 2 Ordinance # N/A Previous Action: None DEPT. CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT CORRESPONDENCE, MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS OF MEETINGS ATTENDED BY THE COUNCIL AND CITY OFFICIALS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS, PROCLAMATIONS, OR PRESENTATIONS PRESENTATION -PROCLAMATION - COLLEYVILLE -UNITED IN PRAYER -~ Public prayer and national days of prayer have a long standing and significant history in American tradition. John Hancock, Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan all signed congressional orders, resolutions or Federal Laws, which ultimately established the first Thursday in May as the National Day of Prayer in the United States. It is fitting that we should give thanks for the freedom and prosperity, which God has graciously bestowed, upon this nation since its inception. The churches of Colleyville are united to provide a forum for all citizens to participate in prayer for all aspects of our community, our families, our youth, and our schools. The official Colleyville recognition of the National Day of Prayer will be held on May 4, 2000, from 7:00 p.m., to 8:30 p.m., in the Colleyville Community Center. FINANCIAL REVIEW (IF NECESSARY { k ocr~n~~tior~ CITY OF Colleyville, Texas WHEREAS: the Founding Fathers of the United States were single- minded individuals seeking wisdom and guidance through prayer to the one Almighty God; and WHEREAS, public prayer and national days of prayer have a long standing and significant history in American tradition; and WHEREAS, both Houses of Congress and the Supreme Court begin each day with prayer; and WHEREAS, John Hancock, Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan all signed congressional orders, resolutions or Federal Laws which ultimately established the first Thursday in Mayas the National Day of Prayer in the United States; and WHEREAS, prayer to the Almighty God is regarded by millions as the most important utterance of mankind because God aids us through prayer; and WHEREAS, it is fitting that we should give thanks for the freedom and prosperity which God has graciously bestowed upon this nation since its inception; and WHEREAS, the City of Colleyville will benefit from sincere prayer by its faithful residents; and WHEREAS, Americans will unite across our land on May 4, 2000 to acknowledge our dependence upon God, to give thanks for the many blessings our k:ountry has received from Him, to recognize our need for personal and corporate renewal of moral values, and to invoke God's blessings upon our leaders; and WHEREAS, the churches of Colleyville are uniting to provide a forum for all citizens to participate in prayer for all aspects of our community, our families, our youth, and our schools, NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONNA ARP, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS, do hereby procaim that the celebration COLLEYVILLE -UNITED IN PRAYER to be held from 7:00 PM to 8:30 PM May 4, 2000 in the Colleyville Community Center is the official Colleyville recognftion of the National Day of Prayer. Furthermore, invite all residents to come to the Community Center and pray in unity for our churches, community, city and citizens. _, "'w . ~~ Mayor. City of Colleyville RESOLUTION R-00-1635 A RESOLUTION APPROVING COUNCIL ACTION UNDER CONSENT ITEMS AT THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 18, 2000 WHEREAS, Council has taken action on certain items on the agenda under Consent Items. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS: Sec. 1: THAT the agenda decisions approved by Council action under Consent Items as follows are hereby adopted: a. THAT the minutes of the regular City Council meeting of April 4, 2000, are hereby approved. b. THAT the minutes of the City Council worksession held March 16, 2000, are hereby approved. c. THAT the minutes of the City Council worksession held March 20, 2000, are hereby approved. d. THAT a professional services contract with Management Plus, Inc., for Computer Networking, Phase II, of the City Hall Complex in an amount not to exceed $21, 500, is hereby approved. AND IT IS SO RESOLVED. Passed by a vote of ayes, of , 2000. ATTEST: Jean Harris, TRMC, CMC City Secretary nays, and abstentions on the day CITY OF COLLEYVILLE Donna Arp Mayor MINUTES OF THE COLLEYVILLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 4, 2000 Interviews of Library Advisory Committee Applicants were held at 6:00 p.m. The regular meeting of the Colleyville City Council was called to order by Mayor Donna Arp on April 4, 2000, at 6:47 p.m. ROLL CALL: Councilpersons Jody Short, Mike Taylor, Frank Carroll, Ginny Tigue, and Mayor Pro Tem Thibodeaux were present. Mayor Donna Arp, City Manager Bob Stripling, Assistant City Manager Dianne McWethy, Financial Analyst Ken Kolsti, Public Services Director Bob Whitehead, Community Development Manager Bany LeBaron, Development Coordinator Clayton Husband, Public Works Manager Randy Brown, Engineer Chris Steubing, Project Manager Keith Fisher, City Attorney Ross Foster, and City Secretary Jean Harris were also present. 1. EXECUTIVE SESSION - In accordance with Texas Government Code Chapter 551, Subchapter D Sec. 551.071- Legal -Gammon lawsuit Sec. 551.071- Legal -Murray Construction lawsuit Sec. 551.072- Property Acquisition -John McCain Road Sec. 551.072- Property Acquisition - Colleyville Boulevard Sec. 551.072- Property Acquisition -Hall-Johnson Road Sec. 551-074- Personnel -The City Council may consider the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline or dismissal of public officers or employees, including the City Manager, City Secretary, City Attorney, and City board and commission members. A complete list of the City boards and commissions is on file in the City Secretary's Office. Mayor Arp explained that the Executive Session had been called in accordance with the Texas Government Code Chapter 551, Subchapter D, Section 551.071 -Legal, Section 551.072 -Property Acquisition, and Section 551.074 -Personnel. She further explained that there would be no decisions made or action taken during this time. The meeting was recessed at 6:48 p.m., and reconvened at 7:43 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 The invocation was given by Reverend Lloyd McCutchen, Pleasant Glade Assembly of God Church, after which Ross Foster led the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. CORRESPONDENCE, MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS OF MEETINGS ATTENDED BY THE COUNCIL AND CITY OFFICIALS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS, PROCLAMATIONS, OR PRESENTATIONS. Mayor Arp presented Proclamations for Trash Off/Arbor Day to Ms. Jamie Thibodeaux, representing Colleyville Proud and Ms. Susan Brandt and Ms. Karen Birkes, representing the Colleyville Garden Club. Ms. Susan Brandt of the Colleyville Garden Club presented Mayor Arp a check in the amount of $200 for the City's Tree Mitigation Fund. CONSENT: 3. READING AND PUBLIC HEARING -Resolution R-00-1628 -Consent Items: a. Approval of minutes of the regular City Council meeting of March 21, 2000 b. Approval of the testing services contract for Geotechnical Engineering Services on the Hall-Johnson Road Reconstruction Project to Rcne Engineers, in the amount of $49,764.00 c. Approval of the recommendation of the Sign Board of Appeals for a front yard setback variance for a sign at Mac's Steaks and Seafood located at 5120 State Highway 121 Mayor Arp opened the public hearing and read Resolution R-00-1628 in its entirety. There was no one present wishing to speak concerning this item and Mayor Arp closed the public hearing. Councilman Carroll moved to approve Resolution R-00-1628. Councilman Tigue seconded the motion. Ayes: Councilpersons Short, Taylor, Can'oll, Tigue, and Mayor Pro Tem Thibodeaux Nays: None Mayor Arp declared the motion carried. 2 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 4. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - 0-00-1210 - A zoning change requested by David Whisenant, from R20 to PUD-C on 23.709 acres located on the north side of Glade Road, east of Oak Timbers Court - Riverwalk at Colleyville Mayor Arp opened the public hearing and read the caption of Ordinance 0-00-1210. Mr. Jim Moore, 1416 Glade Road, spoke regarding the TIF district, approving residential zoning in the TIF district, and reducing the commercial property in Colleyville by approving residential uses. Mr. Moore also thanked Councilpersons Carroll and Taylor for supporting the City's ordinances. Mr. Mark Howe, 3100 Carisbrooke Court, representing the applicant, spoke regarding the design, open space, drainage, minimum house size, and square footage limitations on the proposed homes. Discussion ensued regarding the cost of the homes, tabling the item, increasing the minimum house size to approximately 3200 square feet, and reducing the number of proposed lots. Mayor Pro Tem Thibodeaux moved to table Ordinance 0-00-1210. Councilman Short seconded the motion. Ayes: Councilpersons Short, Taylor, Carroll, Tigue, and Mayor Pro Tem Thibodeaux Nays: None Mayor Arp declared the motion carried. 5. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - 0-00-1211 - A zoning change requested by Lanny Wilkinson, from ML, AG, and CC1 to PUD-C on 8.789 acres located on the west side of Colleyville Boulevard in the 6400-6500 block - Winding Creek Addition Mayor Arp opened the public hearing and read the caption of Ordinance 0-00-1211. There was no one present wishing to speak concerning this item and Mayor Arp closed the public hearing. 3 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 Mr. Lanny Wilkinson, 1705 Altacrest Drive, Grapevine, applicant, was present to answer questions of the Council. He spoke regarding increased open space, brick/stone in front of the creek, 50 ft. building set backs, elimination of trees, and the storage units across the street from the proposed development. Discussion ensued regarding Mr. Wilkinson developing the property himself, sales tax producing businesses, percentage of the TIF district this project represents, and parking for the day care center. Councilman Tigue moved to table Ordinance 0-00-1211. Councilman Short seconded the motion. Ayes: Councilpersons Short, Taylor, Tigue, and Mayor Pro Tem Thibodeaux Nays: Councilman Carroll Mayor Arp declared the motion carried. 6. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - 0-00-1212 - A zoning change requested by Derek DeGuire, from AG to PUD-R on 7.217 acres located at 400 West Glade Road -Madison Place Mayor Arp opened the public hearing and read the caption of Ordinance 0-00-1212. Mr. Jeff Morris, 310 W. Glade, spoke in opposition to the proposed Ordinance. He requested the trees along the property line remain, an 8' wooden fence with steel posts with a chair rail along the top be installed rather than the proposed 6' fence, and that the fence be built 3' into the development to avoid the trees. Ms. Caron Murchison, 406 W. Glade, spoke regarding the density and requested a stone fence. Mr. Jay Boyd, 3320 Glade Creek Drive, Hurst, spoke in favor of the proposed development and complimented Mr. DeGuire for his efforts in working with the citizens. Ms. Nancy Boyd, 3320 Glade Creek Drive, Hurst, spoke in favor of the proposed development and the competency of Mr. DeGuire. Ms. Priscilla Jordan, 3400 Glade Creek Drive, Heatherwood Subdivision Homeowner's Association, spoke in favor of the proposed Development and regarding the personal effort of Mr. DeGuire to work with the citizens to get their approval. 4 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 There were no others wishing to speak concerning this item and Mayor Arp closed the public hearing. Mr. DeGuire was present to answer questions of the Council. Discussion ensued regarding the meetings with the citizens, the additional height requested on the fence, the three foot set back request, easements, the City's tree ordinance, the stone fence requested by Ms. Murchison, entrance enhancements, placement of the fence, issues discussed at the Hurst City Council meeting, ongoing maintenance of the fence by Mr. DeGuire, width of Hurst's sidewalk on the western boundary, and preservation of the trees. Mr. Elliott, Engineering firm of Elliott and Hughes, was present to answer questions of the Council. Mayor Pro Tem Thibodeaux moved to approve Ordinance 0-00-1212, adding the language that Mr. DeGuire install a 6' cedar fence with steel posts or allocate $20 per linear foot for fencing along the property fines of Ms. Murchison and Mr. Morris. Councilman Carroll made a friendly amendment to change the fence height from 6' to 8'. Mayor Pro Tem Thibodeaux accepted the amendment. Councilman Carroll seconded the motion. Councilman Carroll moved to amend the Ordinance to say that the Homeowner's Association will maintain the proposed fence. Councilman Tigue made a friendly amendment to include language regarding the preservation of the trees. Mayor Pro Tem Thibodeaux accepted the amendments. Ayes: Councilpersons Short, Taylor, Carroll, Tigue, and Mayor Pro Tem Thibodeaux Nays: None Mayor Arp declared the motion carried. 5 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 7. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - 0-00-1213 -Amending the roadway capital improvement plan and the imposition of impact fees Mayor Arp opened the public hearing and read the caption of Ordinance 0-00-1213. There was no one present wishing to speak concerning this item and Mayor Arp closed the public hearing. Councilman Taylor moved to approve Ordinance 0-00-1213. Mayor Pro Tem Thibodeaux seconded the motion. Discussion ensued regarding the rate being proposed, the comparison of the Cities of Southlake and Keller for residential rates, commercial rebates, consideration of changing the commercial rebates from 100% to 75%, and perimeter street fees. Councilman Carroll moved to approve Ordinance 0-00-1213, with an amendment changing the commercial rebates to 75°~. Councilman Tigue seconded the motion. Ayes: Councilpersons Short, Taylor, Carroll, Tigue, and Mayor Pro Tem Thibodeaux Nays: None Mayor Arp declared the motion carried 8. FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - 0-00-1214 -Amending the Subdivision Ordinance, Impact Fee Ordinance, Tree Preservation Ordinance, and Zoning Ordinance by adopting a Land Development Code Mayor Arp opened the public hearing and read the caption of Ordinance 0-00-1214. Ms. Sheila Cross, 7001 Gladwyne Court, spoke regarding the proposed changes and requested further information. 6 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 Ms. Linda Baker, 404 W. McDonwell School Road, spoke regarding Chapter 3, Permitted Uses. She asked the Council to consider adding in the R30 and R40 zoning districts permitted uses for farming and livestock breeding and raising. She also asked the Council to consider the commercial equestrian boarding stable and school use to be extended to the R40 zoning district and that a special use permit be required for R20 and R30 commercial equestrian boarding stables and schools. Ms. Baker asked that the year round roadside fruit, vegetable and produce stands in the AG district not be required to have a special use permit. There were no others wishing to speak concerning this item and Mayor Arp closed the public hearing. 9. FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - 0-00-1215 - A zoning change requested by W. Douglas Jennings, from CC2 to CPO (commercial professional office) on 2.4779 acres located on the south side of Gateway Drive in the 4100 block, Heritage High School Addition Mayor Arp opened the public hearing and read the caption of Ordinance 0-00-1215. There was no one present wishing to speak concerning this item and Mayor Arp closed the public hearing. 10. READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - R-00-1630 -Authorizing the move of a modular building to Colleyville Elementary School at 5800 Colleyville Boulevard, requested by the Grapevine-Colleyville Independent School District Mayor Arp opened the public hearing and read Resolution R-00-1630 in its entirety. There was no one present wishing to speak concerning this item and Mayor Arp closed the public hearing. Councilman Carroll moved to approve Resolution R-00-1630, with an amendment stating the building must be removed within one year. Mayor Pro Tem Thibodeaux seconded the motion. Ayes: Councilpersons Short, Taylor, Carroll, Tigue, and Mayor Pro Tem Thibodeaux Nays: None Mayor Arp declared the motion carried. 7 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 11. READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - R-00-1631 - Approving a waiver of perimeter street improvement requirements request of Robert L. Scott, Bink's. Construction Company for the Ketner Addition at the northwest corner of Cheek Sparger Road and Warwick Mayor Arp opened the public hearing and read Resolution R-00-1631 in its entirety. There was no one present wishing to speak concerning this item and Mayor Arp closed the public hearing. Mr. Ron Sturgeon, 3046 Monument Butte, representing the applicant, was present to answer questions of the Council. Councilman Tigue moved to approve Resolution R-00-1631. Mayor Pro Tem Thibodeaux seconded the motion. Discussion ensued regarding the waiver of sidewalks as well as the perimeter street fees. Ayes: Councilpersons Short, Taylor, Carroll, Tigue, and Mayor Pro Tem Thibodeaux Nays: None Mayor Arp declared the motion carried. 12. READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - R-00-1632 -Approving a waiver of perimeter street improvement requirements request of John A. Grant, III, Grant Engineering for the Luxor Addition at 6208 Pleasant Run Road Mayor Arp opened the public hearing and read Resolution R-00-1632 in its entirety. There was no one present wishing to speak concerning this item and Mayor Arp closed the public hearing. Mr. David Reaves, Grant Engineering, 3244 Hemphill, Fort Worth, representing the applicant, was present to answer questions of the Council. Discussion ensued regarding subsequent subdividing of the property. 8 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 Councilman Carroll moved to approve Resolution R-00-1632. Councilman Taylor seconded the motion. Ayes: Councilpersons Short, Taylor, Carroll, Tigue, and Mayor Pro Tem Thibodeaux Nays: None Mayor Arp declared the motion carried. 13. READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - R-00-1633 -Approval of a construction contract with Gilco Contracting, Inc., up to the amount of $3,688,241.32, for the Hall-Johnson Road and Bluebonnet Drive Reconstruction Project Mayor Arp opened the public hearing and read Resolution R-00-1633 in its entirety. Mr. Rich Munson, 1905 Hall-Johnson Road, spoke in opposition to Resolution R-0O- 1633. There were no others wishing to speak concerning this item and Mayor Arp closed the public hearing. Councilman Carroll moved to approve Resolution R-00-1633. Mayor Pro Tem Thibodeaux seconded the motion. Ayes: Councilpersons Short, Taylor, Garroll, Tigue, and Mayor Pro Tem Thibodeaux Nays: None Mayor Arp declared the motion carried. 14. READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - R-00-1634 -Approving the abandonment of the public pedestrian easements within Caldwell's Creek Mayor Arp opened the public hearing and read Resolution R-00-1634 in its entirety. Mr. Robert Flynn, 7005 Whippoorwill Court, Mr. Stewart Asimus, 1509 Caldwell Creek, Ms. Jan Asimus, 1509 Caldwell Creek, Mr. Steve Magee, 6900 Shepherds Glen, Mr. Rob Timmons, 7011 Orchard Hill Court, and Mr. Marc Juele, 7000 Lismore Court, spoke in favor of the proposed Resolution. 9 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 There were no others wishing to speak concerning this item and Mayor Arp closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued regarding the protection of the citizens of Caldwell's Creek, PUD-R including private open space that stays with the PUD-R zoning, "double-dipping" private open space, history of law suits with the developer, integrity of the zoning and property values of the citizens in Caldwell's Creek being diluted or deteriorated, and abandoning all public easements in Caldweil's Creek to the Caldwell's Creek Homeowner's Association. Councilman Carroll moved to approve Resolution R-00-1634, with an amendment stating that the public rights-of way on Lots 40A and 41 A and Lots 21, 22, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 38 of Block 2 are also abandoned. Councilman Taylor seconded the motion. Mayor Pro Tem Thibodeaux requested an amendment be made to the Resolution stating the private space in question be owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association of Caldwell's Creek. Councilman Carroll accepted the amendment. Councilman Taylor accepted amendment. Ayes: Councilpersons Short, Taylor, Carroll, Tigue, and Mayor Pro Tem Thibodeaux Nays: None Mayor Arp declared the motion carried. TABLED ITEMS: 15. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION R-00-1619 -Appointing members to the Library Advisory Committee There was no motion to remove this item from the table. 10 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 REPORTS: 16. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 13 AND MARCH 27, 2000 IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES -MARCH 13, 2000 PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES -MARCH 6, 2000 COLLEYVILLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS MINUTES -MARCH 21, 2000 There was no action taken on this item. CITIZEN COMMENTS: 17. CITIZEN COMMENTS/PRESENTATIONS REGARDING ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA There was no one present wishing to speak. ACTION/RESOLUTION: 18. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION RATIFYING COUNCIL AGENDA ACTION FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 4, 2000 -Reading and Public Hearing -Resolution R-00-1629 This Resolution was not needed. ADJOURNMENT: 19. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the City Council, Councilman Carroll moved to adjourn. Mayor Pro Tem Thibodeaux seconded the motion. Ayes: Councilpersons Short, Taylor, Carroll, Tigue, and Mayor Pro Tem Thibodeaux Nays: None Mayor Arp declared the meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 2000, BY A VOTE OF AYES, NAYS, AND ABSTENTIONS. 11 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Minutes taken and prepared by: Jean Harris, TRMC, CMC City Secretary APRIL 4, 2000 12 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION MARCH 16, 2000 The City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission worksession was called to order by Mayor Arp on March 16, 2000, at 7:00 p. m. ROLL CALL: Councilpersons Jody Short, Mike Taylor, Frank Carroll, Ginny Tigue, Mayor Pro Tem Nelson Thibodeaux, Planning and Zoning Commission members Rob Rutherford, Jim Fletcher, Luann Edwards, and Tom Hart were present. Mayor Donna Arp, Community Development Manager Barry LeBaron, and Development Coordinator Clayton Husband were also present. 1. DISCUSSION OF A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE Community Development Manager Barry LeBaron presented an overview of the proposed Land Development Code. He presented a brief summary of each chapter and answered questions from the Council. Mr. LeBaron explained that the Land Development Code was scheduled for public hearings in April, 2000. There being no further business before the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 2000, BY A VOTE OF AYES, NAYS, AND ABSTENTIONS. Minutes taken and prepared by: Barry LeBaron Community Development Manager MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION MARCH 20, 2000 The City Council worksession was called to order by Mayor Arp on March 20, 2000, at 6:40 p. m. ROLL CALL: Councilpersons Jody Short, Mike Taylor, Frank Carroll, Ginny Tigue, and Mayor Pro Tem Nelson Thibodeaux were present. Mayor Donna Arp, City Manager Bob Stripling, Assistant City Manager Dianne McWethy, and Financial Analyst Ken Kolsti were also present. 1. TRAINING REGARDING THE USE OF SOFTBOOK READERS Financial Analyst Ken Kolsti explained the operation of the Softbook Reader to the City Council and answered questions. 2. INTERVIEWS WITH LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICANTS The Council interviewed seven applicants for the Library Advisory Committee. There being no further business before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p. m. APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 2000, BY A VOTE OF AYES, NAYS, AND ABSTENTIONS. Minutes taken and prepared by: Bob Stripling City Manager CITY COUNCIL ~~~, ~~ ~~ y Teti AGENDA BRIEFING For mt .: 04/18/00 CMO Approval: Item # 3d Resolution # R-00-1635 Previous Action: None DEPT. CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE SUBJECT Authorizing a professional services contract with Management Plus, Inc., for Computer Networking, Phase II, of the City Hall Complex in an amount not to exceed $21,500 - by Consent Reading and Public Hearing Background In 1998, the City Council authorized Phase I, of the Computer Networking of the City Hall Complex. During Phase I, staff worked with Management, Plus, Inc. to conduct a computer system assessment and to develop a phased approach for the network integration plan. This assessment included the evaluation of the current state of the City's computer and a-mail systems. As a result of this evaluation, the City replaced and upgraded its existing systems and added network interface cards to address Y2K problems and provide systems to support software applications. (continued) CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT HEAD FINANCIAL REVIEW (IF NECESSARY) Agenda Briefing Resolution R-00-1635 Page 2 The City also standardized software applications to Microsoft Office Professional or Microsoft Office to establish a common basis for communication within the City. To continue with Phase II of the Computer Networking system for the City Hall complex, staff prepared and distributed a Request for Proposal (RFP) and Statement of Qualifications for Consulting Services related to the Design, Installation and Support of a Computer Network. Of the nine (9} RFPs mailed to interested vendors, the City received four (4) responses from the following firms: Management Plus, Inc. $21,500 OTM Engineering $65,000 Professional Advantage Production Association, Inc. $16,800 Data Max $88,690 Although Professional Advantage Production Association (PAPA) presented a proposal at a cost $4,700 below Management Plus, Inc., PAPA did not submit any references of firms for whom it had provided this type of services. The principals of the firm have experience with other companies, but the firm itself has been in existence a relatively short period of time. Given the complexity of the installation and long-term support needs of the City, we do not believe the consulting fee savings would be worth the risk with a firm with so little corporate experience. Upon completion of review of the above proposals, according to the established selection criteria, staff selected Management Plus, 'Inc. to perform services identified in Phase II of the Computer Networking proposal. Management Plus, Inc., under the management of John Johnstone, worked with staff to complete Phase I, on time and within budget. Management Plus, Inc. currently manages computer systems for other companies and has experience with the design, management, and operation of a corporate MIS system. During Phase II, Management Plus, Inc. will manage the system design, the RFP process for hardware and software purchases, vendor(s) selection and will provide oversight during the cabling, installation and testing of the system. Financial Impact In December 1999, the City Council appropriated $81,300 for Phase II of the City Hall Network Project, including design and implementation, as part of a supplemental appropriation of FY99 funds. Agenda Briefing Resolution R-00-1635 Page 3 Recommendation Staff recommends approval of a professional services contract with Management Plus, Inc., for Computer Networking, Phase II, of the City Hall Complex in an amount not to exceed $21,500. Attachments • Management Plus, Inc. Proposal and Statement of Qualifications (see paper copy) MANAGEMENT Pllr~ inc. C~.apyttr Syrte>yr Conirltr+rg April 3, 2000 Ms. R. Dianne McWethy Assistant City Manager City of Colleyville 5400 Bransford Road Colleyville, Texas 76034 13154 Coit Road Suite 208 Dallas, Texas 7524C 972.437.6630 972.437.6619 FAX info®ManagementPlus.net Response to: Sealed Proposal and Statement of Qualifications for Consulting Services related to the Design, Installation and Support of a Computer Network for the Colleyville City Hall Complex The area of concern is the main city hall complex consisting of the permanent building and its adjacent temporary structures. Only the requirements of departments and personnel housed in this complex are addressed in this implementation. The GIS system is not a part of this implementation. The current system design for this complex is covered in the analysis submitted on June 1, 1999. All completion dates mentioned are approximate and are dependent upon timely receipt of requested materials from Department heads, software vendors, etc. and compliance with statutory requirements. System Review and Changes to System Design The existing system plan will be reviewed to determine the feasibility of changing the Network Operating System from Windows NT 4.0 to Windows 2000. The departmental specific software will be reviewed to confirm that it will operate using a Windows 2000 server. Departmental data storage requirements will be re-confirmed and total server capacity adjusted as deemed appropriate. Impact on hardware and software requirements will be evaluated as to costs and long- term viability. Internet connectivity specifications will be added to the system design. This additional system design will determine what type, if any, firewall will be installed and how to provide both external a-mail and Internet connectivity to the workstations (desktops). The a-mail system will be re-evaluated to provide external pickup of e-mail from the in- house server and other appropriate functionality. Management Plus, Inc. Page 1 of 6 Apri13, 20110 Hardware and software specifications on the June 1999 specification will be adjusted as appropriate. The projected completion date is prior to the release of the RFQ and projected to be approximately May 22, 2000. The cost for this review and redesign is $2,000.00. Payment is due upon completion of the review and report. RFQ Preparation and Evaluation of Returns Based upon the system design, Management Plus, Inc. (MP) will prepare the necessary specifications for the system's RFQs. Once the bids are received and opened, MP will evaluate proposals and recommend (with supporting comments} suggested vendor(s). It is anticipated that the RFQ will be broken into sections covering • Server and related hardware and software • Electrical work • Cabling • Internet connectivity • Installation of the RFQ's hardware and software and enabling the connection of the desktops to the network for network, a-mail, and Internet connectivity. The Internet connectivity portion addresses the required hardware and software for a relatively safe connection of the network to the Internet for both external a-mail and Internet research. The Internet Service Provider is separate from the system acquisition and is not part of the RFQ process. Since some vendors are specialists, it is anticipated that a vendor may choose to bid on selected items. Projected dates for this section are to issue the RFQs on May 26, 2000 and that the quotes be back and evaluated by June 30, 2000. Cost for this project is $4,500.00. Payment to be made as follows: $2,000.00 on the date the RFQ information is presented and $2,500.00 when the evaluations and recommendations are completed and delivered. System Implementation Covered in this area are the following: • Preparation and management of the Project's Timeline • Management of delivery, installation, etc. of materials covered by the RFQ process. Management Plus, Inc. Page 2 of 6 April 3, 2000 • Implementation of the system design • Testing of the installation • System Documentation • Training in re network logon procedures, a-mail, and Internet usage for City Hall staff (as per discussion this is four two hour sessions.) • Onsite support the day the system goes "live". The current anticipated major timeline points are: • Equipment on site, cabling finished, and installation starting -July 21, 2000 • Installation and testing completed -August 18, 2000 • Training sessions -August 23 thru 25, 2000 • System live -August 31, 2000 Cost for this work is $15,000.00. Payment scheduled as follows: $5,000 on July 21, 2000 $5,000 installation and testing completed, system documentation presented. $5,000 one week after the completion of the staff training sessions and the system is live and operational References and Projects Ciry of Colleyville: A municipality Performed a computer system assessment for the City to determine the current state of the City's computer infrastructure. This information was used to design a plan to standardize and integrate the systems throughout the City including taking into account the projected development and relocation of various City departments. Training and educational aspects of the implementation were also addressed via staff seminars and training classes. Building upon the initial computer system assessment, we assisted in selecting vendors for the standardized PCs and software platforms for the City. We also revised the specifications as equipment, software, departmental needs, et cetera changed over a period of several years. Contact: Mr. C. Robert Stripling City Manager City of Colleyville 5400 Bransford Road Colleyville, Texas 76034 817.577.7575 Management Plus, Inc. Page 3 of 6 April 3, 2000 Crown Group, InG: A publicly traded corporation with current net assets of approximately $275 million. Management Plus is responsible for the design, management and operation of the corporate MIS function. This includes Internet related functions. It is also responsible for various other ongoing, changing, and new projects in areas such as due diligence work, video conferencing, etc. Developed the Y2K checklists for the corporation and supervised the reporting and testing for three of the operating sub-divisions in the areas related to computer equipment and software. Contact: Mr. Michael Cloud Controller 4040 N. MacArthur, Suite 100 Irving, Texas 75038 972.717.3423 H. Pearson and Company, P. C. A C.P.A. firm. Manage the data processing system for the firm. This particular group includes a number of laptops used by the staff to allow remote preparation of tax and audit documents as well as the usual preparation of letters and the use of the Internet including a-mail. Contact: Mr. Henry R. Pearson, CPA H. Pearson and Company, P.C, 2823 Kendale Ave. Dallas, Texas 75220 214.350.1100 Assigned Personnel John Edward Johnstone Team Leader, President of Management Plus, InG He is active in the design, development, implementation, and support of numerous information and computer related systems for a variety of clients. His practice has been particularly extensive with professional and service organizations such as medical practices, accounting practices, and municipalities. He and his associates offer complete services to the genera] business community. He has designed, implemented, or used a wide variety of computer hardware. This hardware has included computers built by technicians to his specifications, common mid-range and IBM AS/400 computers, PC based networks, and single stand alone PCs or workstations. His extensive knowledge of various programming languages, operating systems, and computer architectures ensures that the client will have the best system required by their unique needs. A mathematician Management Plus, Inc. Page 4 of 6 April 3, 2000 by training, he established Management Plus in 1978 after service as a Research Scientist and Technical Director for Scientific Computation at Southwestern Medical School and as a Research Scientist Associate at Defense Research Laboratories. In addition to his computer system acumen, he participates in sports and has served with numerous civic and charitable organizations. He is currently Director for the Vocational Area and incoming Treasurer for the Addison Rotary club. Some other notable activities are the many years as North Dallas-Soccer Commissioner, board memberships with organizations such as the Park Cities Exchange Club and Dallas Squash Racquets Association, and support of Bryan's House through the Addison Rotary Club. Other Personnel Other Staff and Associates will be assigned to the project as required. An Administrator will be assigned to the project when the project is started. Appropriate curriculum vitas can be furnished as personnel are assigned. Understanding of Project Over the last several years, Management Plus has assisted the City in developing a master plan for the information structure of the City. As part of this procedure, we have discussed the needs and hopes for the computer system with all City department heads, with departmental contacts in re the data infrastructure, with various other City staff, and with some vendors to the City. We have taken the information, analyzed it, and worked with the City Manager's office to generate a workable plan to unify the City's computer related activities. Reports outlining various implementations have been prepared for the City and revised several times. The material has also been presented to the City staff via a seminar to assist them in preparing for an implementation. We have assisted the City in its phased acquisition of equipment and software and with the selection of "break/fix" contractors. Recapitulating some salient points re our knowledge of this project's tasks: • We have a working knowledge of the City's requirements through many conversations and visits with City personnel • We have a working relationship with many of the personnel that will be using the system • We have assisted the City Manager's Office in developing the master information system plan, with the staged plans, and with the previous staged implementations Thus, we believe that we are well qualified and very knowledgeable with respect to the needs of the City of Colleyville in re the Computer Network for the Colleyville City Hall Complex. Management Plus, lnc. Page 5 of 6 April 3, 2000 Project Time and Resources The proposed schedule and the necessary manpower required to complete this project are manageable within the framework of our staffing and resources. We would not propose a schedule that we could not meet. As is always true, the proverbial "acts of god" or other factors outside of our control can affect project timelines. Sincerely, ohnstone ~ resident Management Plus, Inc. Page 6 of 6 Apri13, 2000 CITY COUNCIL ~~ry or ~e~C~!~ ~~ T~~,; AGENDA BRIEFING For mt .: 04/18/00 CMO Approval: Item # 4 Ordinance # 0-00-1294 Previous Action: 04/04/00 DEPT. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT Amending the Subdivision Ordinance, Impact Fee Ordinance, Tree Preservation Ordinance, and Zoning Ordinance by adopting a Land Development Code Second Reading and Public Hearing Update At the April 4, 2000 meeting, Ms. Sheila Cross expressed her concerns about raising the minimum building design score from 15 to 30 points in the ML -Light Manufacturing district. She owns two lots zoned ML and wants to be exempt from the new standard. Staff is opposed to an exemption to the proposed new standards. Ms. Linda Baker offered several changes to the Permitted Land Use Table contained in Chapter 3. The Permitted Land Use Table identifies uses allowed by right in the various zoning districts and whether a particular use might additionally require a Special Use Permit. Ms. Baker recommended that Farming and Livestock Breeding and Raising be allowed by right in the R30 and R40 districts. Currently, these activities are only allowed by right in the Agricultural and RE (Residential Estate) district. Staff feels that it would be inappropriate to allow ranching and animal raising in the R30 and R40 zoning districts that are intended to be primarily single family residential areas. .~-~,~~ Q /~ C Y MANAGER ~. i3.L. DEPAR M NT HEAD. (continued) FINANCIAL REVIEW (IF NECESSARY) Agenda Briefing Ordinance 0-00-1214 Page 2 of 10 Another recommendation of Ms. Baker was the inclusion of Commercial Equestrian Boarding Stables and Schools in the R40 district by right and with a Special Use Permit in the R20 and R30 districts. Staff feels that this type of commercial activity would be a nuisance in these residential districts. There are such uses currently on F. M. 1171 in Flower Mound and they would not be compatible in a residential neighborhood. Ms. Baker also stated that Roadside Fruit, Vegetable and Produce Stands be allowed by right in the Agricultural district instead of requiring a Special Use Permit. Staff agrees with this. recommendation. The proposed ordinance to adopt the Land Development Code does not currently include any of Ms. Baker's recommendations. One item that has been added to Chapter 13 -Impact Fees involves the Roadway Impact Fee Schedule for Churches. It seems that when staff was incorporating the Roadway Impact Fee Ordinance approved by the City Council at the April 4, 2000 meeting, it was discovered that the "churches" category was inadvertently omitted by the consulting firm that prepared the fee schedule. The previous ordinance required churches to pay a Roadway Impact Fee of $1,600 per 1,000 s.f. of floor area as a condition to building permit approval. The new fee schedule requires a Roadway Impact Fee of $1,867 per 1,000 s.f. of floor area in Service Area 1 (east of S. H. 26) and a fee of $1,512 per 1,000 s.f. of floor area in Service Area 2 (west of S. H. 26). Staff has deleted Section 1.18C which authorizes the Director of Public Services to make modifications to the engineering design standards contained in Chapters 14 and 15. Staff is also aware of some citizen concerns regarding the lack of input from area developers and engineers about the engineering design standards in Chapters 14 and 15. There are three options for the City Council which are described as follows: (1) Adopt the Land Development Code as presented, including Chapters 14 and 15 as written. (2) Adopt the Land Development Code, except for Chapters 14 and 15, which could be brought back to the City Council at a later date, possibly in June. (3) Adopt the Land Development Code, including Chapters 14 and 15, but amending the portions of these chapters which are a concern to local developers. Recommendation Approval of Ordinance 0-00-1214. Agenda Briefing Ordinance 0-00-1214 Page 3 of 10 First Reading and Public Hearing Background A copy of the proposed Land Development Code is being provided to you as a separate attachment to this agenda briefing. The Land Development Code represents the consolidation of the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, Tree Preservation Ordinance, Landscaping Ordinance, Building Design Ordinance, Erosion Control Ordinance, Park Land Dedication Fee Ordinance, Sign Ordinance, and Impact Fee Ordinances into a single document. This project has been a high priority work element during Fiscal Year 1999 and the copy you received represents the first phase, which is now ready for approval. State law requires a public hearing prior to adopting or amending subdivision regulations and zoning ordinances with a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission met on March 27, 2000 and has unanimously recommended approval of the Land Development Code. Notices of the proposed ordinance amendments have been advertised in the official newspaper. No comments have been received from any citizen regarding the adoption of the Land Development Code or the proposed changes included in the document. This agenda briefing is divided into three major components, which are described as follows: (1) a brief summary of each chapter of the Land Development Code which also describes the features that are different from the current regulations, (2) a summary of the comments from the combined P & Z and City Council workshop held at the Community Center on March 16tH, and (3) a list of items discussed at the March 16cn workshop that will be reviewed by staff later this year and brought back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council for consideration. It was the direction of the Council at the March 16tH workshop for staff to continue the process for adopting the Land Development Code, as drafted, as soon as possible and to continue working on the other revisions later this year. 1. Summary of the Proposed Land Development Code Chapter 1 -The first chapter primarily deals with administrative functions of the code, such as listing the sources of authority for adopting the code, provisions for waivers and appeals, creation of the Zoning Board of Adjustment and the Sign Board of Appeals. This chapter also describes the authority given to each of these appeal bodies. Chapter One includes procedures for amending the code, requirements for submitting a rezoning application and the citizen notification requirements. This chapter contains the penalty provision. Agenda Briefing Ordinance 0-00-1214 Page 4 of 10 The primary regulation change in this chapter involves the appeal procedure associated with a rezoning denial. The proposed change would allow a rezoning request that has been denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission to automatically be placed on the next available City Council agenda if the applicant submits a written request within ten days after denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The next available agenda would be the next City Council meeting that provides sufficient time to re-notify those property owners within the 200-foot boundary prior to the City Council hearing. Currently, if the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial of a zoning change request, the applicant must submit a written letter to the City Secretary asking for the City Council to consider the appeal. The City Council must approve the appeal request and set the date for the public hearing. Staff feels that this puts the City Council in the position of possibly denying someone due process by voting to deny the appeal request and preventing the public hearing. Chapter 2 -The second chapter consolidates all the definitions that were originally in each of the separate ordinances into a single location. There are very few changes to individual definitions, but during the consolidation process, staff edited several of the definitions to clarify their intent and, in a few cases, relocated language that contained a regulation to the appropriate location within the Land Development Code applicable to that particular regulation. Definitions should not contain regulations because they tend to be overlooked and make enforcement questionable when a possible violation doesn't measure up to the letter of the definition. Chapter 3 -The third chapter deals with land use issues and is essentially the old zoning ordinance. Virtually all of the land use regulations that were originally a part of the zoning ordinance have been left in place. However, the landscaping regulations and building design regulations have been removed and placed in their own chapters and all of the definitions are contained in Chapter 2. One change has been made to Section 24, the Permitted Use Table, regarding convenience stores and gas stations in the ML -Light Manufacturing district. Previously these were allowed by right in the Light Manufacturing district, but staff is recommending that they only be allowed by requiring a Special Use Permit. Staff feels that there are too many negative issues associated with these uses, such as driveway curb-cut spacing and car wash locations, that suggest more restrictions are needed than in the past. Chapter 4 -This chapter contains the landscaping regulations that previously were a part of the zoning regulations. No changes have been made to the landscaping regulations. Landscaping regulations have become so important to the development process that staff felt they belonged in their own chapter. This should lend to better Agenda Briefing Ordinance 0-00-1214 Page 5 of 10 understanding of the landscaping regulations and allow easier amendment in the future. Chapter 5 -This chapter contains the tree preservation regulations. There are no changes to the tree preservation regulations. Previously, the tree preservation regulations were in a separate "stand-alone" ordinance. The new Land Development Code dedicates a special chapter for these regulations. Chapter 6 -This chapter contains the building design regulations. The purpose of these regulations is to produce commercial buildings with pleasing exterior appearances. The building design regulations were originally "hidden" within the Zoning Ordinance. Staff frequently receives questions about the building design regulations and having them in a separate chapter will make for better understanding by the general public. No changes have been made to the building design regulations. Chapter 7 -This chapter contains the sign regulations. The current sign regulations are a separate "stand-alone" ordinance. They have been amended on two different occasions, therefore, it is necessary to have copies of all three ordinances in order to have a complete set of sign regulations. There were no changes to the sign regulations, but the language of the three old ordinances has been amended to incorporate the two prior revisions. Chapter 8 -This chapter describes the procedures for obtaining approval of a subdivision. The language provides for various subdivision classifications, such as, preliminary plat, final plat, amended plat, etc., and describes the procedures for approval of each plat classification. A key feature added to the subdivision regulations is a full description of the application submittal requirements for each type of plat. Chapter 9 -This chapter contains the criteria for designing a subdivision. These criteria include minimum right-of-way widths, requirements for public facilities, maximum cul-de-sac lengths and regulations pertaining to lot sizes, frontage requirements, etc. There are a number of new features contained in this chapter regarding subdivision design. The new features clarify the submittal requirements for subdivision plats, such as the requirements for a preliminary drainage analysis, coordination of sidewalks with the Colleyville Pathways Plan and requirements for collector street improvements. Chapter 10 -This chapter contains the private street and entrance gate regulations currently found in the subdivision regulations. These regulations are used for development of "private gated subdivisions". No changes are proposed for this chapter at this time. Agenda Briefing Ordinance 0-00-1214 Page 6 of 10 Chapter 11 -This chapter contains the park land dedication regulations. The purpose of park land dedication regulations is to require each new subdivision to dedicate a small percentage of land for park purposes. The regulations provide for a "cash payment in lieu of dedication" for small subdivisions where an actual land dedication would be small for park use. No changes are proposed at this time for this chapter. However, staff is working with the Parks Department on changes that will effect the park land dedication regulations. These changes will be submitted separately at a later date. Chapter 12 -This chapter contains the erosion control regulations. These regulations were amended during 1999 and are included in this chapter as approved by the City Council. The purpose of the erosion control regulations is to require silt screening around construction sites and around new subdivisions to reduce the effects of erosion and siltation on public streets. In the past, these regulations were included with the subdivision ordinance. The Land Development Code dedicates a separate chapter for this topic. No additional changes are proposed at this time. Chapter 13 -This chapter contains the language of all the impact fee ordinances. Impact fees are charged to new development to help pay for water, sewer and collector roadway system improvements required due to the new development. No changes are proposed for this chapter. At the current time, staff is updating the Roadway Impact Fee Ordinance and when approved by the City Council, the new provisions will be incorporated into this chapter. Chapter 14 -This chapter contains the written specifications for the engineering design of public improvements such as water, sewer, street and other public improvements. The requirements for drainage studies are also a part of this chapter. The Director of Public Services is allowed to amend this chapter, but only after publishing a notice in the newspaper, waiting ten days for written objection, then putting the amendment in place after waiting an additional 30 day period. If written objection is received, the amendment must be approved by the City Council before the new regulation becomes effective. One of the key new features included with this chapter is the regulation regarding sidewalks. Four foot sidewalks have been a requirement in Colleyville for a number of years, but the new regulations require a five foot sidewalk when the sidewalk is adjacent to a collector street or larger as shown on the Master Thoroughfare Plan. Additional widths are required when the sidewalk is also intended to comply with the Trails System Plan. Chapter 15 -This chapter contains the Public Works Construction Details. This is a series of drawings used to graphically illustrate the requirements for constructing water, sewer, street and other public improvements. The drawings typically show cross sections of streets, water and sewer line trenching requirements and other construction details and are much more easily understood in graphic form than by using written text. The drawings in this chapter may be changed by the Director of Agenda Briefing Ordinance 0-00-1214 Page 7 of 10 Public Services after complying with the same public notification process described for Chapter 14. 2. Summary of March 16, 2000 Workshop Comments This portion of the agenda briefing describes the additional changes that were discussed at the March 16 workshop and which have been incorporated into the Land Development Code. Chapter 1 - General Provisions Section 1.18.B.5 -Changed the word "continuance" to "appeal" regarding a rezoning applicant's request to be heard by the City Council without having to have a separate "appeal" hearing. No change to the fee is recommended because the applicant has already paid a rezoning fee. Section 1.18.C - Added a requirement that any administrative changes approved by the Director of Public Services do not become effective until 30 days after notice in the newspaper. Chapter 2 -Definitions No additional changes were suggested at the March 16th workshop regarding definitions. However, later this year additional review of this chapter will be undertaken as a part of updates to the sign regulations. Chapter 3 -Land Use There were a number of comments made at the March 16th workshop that suggested that more regulatory control was needed in the ML district. Many of the uses allowed in ML (light manufacturing district) tend to have features often considered objectionable when located adjacent to a residential neighborhood. Contractor yards and automobile repair related uses are only two examples of uses that need additional site review during their development stage. Attached to this agenda briefing are copies of the "Permitted Land Use Tables" (see Attachment #1) with recommended changes circled for your review. The Land Use Tables contain "dots" to indicate a use that is "permitted by right" whereas a use that is indicated with an "S" is allowed only after approval of a Special Use Permit. Please note that a number of uses have been changed from the permitted by right status to requiring a Special Use Permit. Additionally, staff is recommending that parks and government buildings be added as permitted by right in all zoning districts to reflect the actual manner in which these facilities tend to be located. Parks, school buildings, fire stations can locate in all zoning districts. These minor changes are included in your draft copy of the Land Development Code. This chapter is Agenda Briefing Ordinance 0-00-1214 Page 8 of 10 scheduled for extensive review later this year and additional minor changes will be considered at that time. Chapter 4 -Landscaping and Buffering Section 4.3 -Staff had added a requirement that a commercial building that undergoes an extensive remodeling to the point that the value of the renovation exceeded 75% of the value of the structure would trigger bringing the lot into compliance with the current landscaping regulations. At the March 16th workshop it was suggested that this percentage be changed from 75% to 50% of the value of the building. Additionally, when a commercial building is expanding the size of the building by 30% or more of the existing building footprint, staff had recommended that the lot be brought up to the current landscaping standard. At the March 16th workshop, it was recommended that this percentage for expanding the footprint of an existing building which will trigger compliance with the landscaping regulations be changed from 30% to 20% of the existing square footage. Both of these changes have been included in your draft copy of the Land Development Code. Language was added to this section to insert the Tarrant Appraisal District as the source for determining property values in making the dollar value calculations. Chapter 5 -Tree Preservation No additional changes were suggested at the March 16th workshop. However, there were several comments that suggest further review of this chapter is warranted later this year. Chapter 6 -Building Design At the March 16th workshop, there were comments made that the building design point score needed review. The attached sheets (see Attachment #2) taken from the "ML" district reflect an increase from 15 points to 30 points. Additional changes suggested at the March 16th workshop will be reviewed later this year and a staff recommendation presented at that time. Chapter 7 -Sign Regulations No additional changes suggested at the March 16th workshop. This is a chapter that deserves considerable streamlining. The sign regulations are too complex for easy understanding by staff and by those wanting to install new signage. This will become a high priority for review for the second phase of the Land Development Code project. Chapter 8 - P/af Review Procedures Agenda Briefing Ordinance 0-00-1214 Page 9 of 10 No additional changes suggested at the March 16th workshop. Chapter 9 -Subdivision Design & Public Facilities No additional changes suggested at the March 16th workshop. Chapter 70 -Private Streets and Entrance Gates No additional changes suggested at the March 16th workshop. Chapter 77 -Park Land Dedication No additional changes suggested at the March 16th workshop. Chapter 12 -Erosion Control Regulations No additional changes suggested at the March 16th workshop. Chapter 73 -Impact Fees No additional changes suggested at the March 16th workshop. Chapter 74 -Engineering Design Standards Section 14.10.6 -Added reference to the various sidewalk types described in Chapter 15. Chapter 75 -Public Works Construction Details No changes suggested at the March 16th workshop. 3. Summary of Proposed Work Elements from March 16~h Workshop The following items were mentioned at the March 16th workshop for review and consideration later this year as additional items that are proposed for inclusion in the Land Development Code. 1. Review and propose a better definition of masonry construction. Possibly consider various types of masonry construction, such as Type A is brick or stone, Type B is concrete block, Type C is another masonry material. Agenda Briefing Ordinance 0-00-1214 Page 10 of 10 2. Review landscaping regulations regarding the percentages of remodeling that trigger upgrading a site to meet the current standards. Consider incorporating incentives for incremental landscaping enhancements to existing businesses. 3. Review the tree preservation regulations for better coordination with the landscaping regulations and for better understanding, especially about maintenance of trees that are planted as tree-replacements. 4. Review of the building design regulations to require more points to improve exterior building appearances. 5. Review the platting regulations to determine ability to attach conditions of approval. 6. Review of the flag lot policy as it applies to large lots with old houses in front. 7. Review trail system plan regarding sites where the trail runs through a property instead of along its perimeter. 8. Review traffic impact analysis criteria regarding number of lots and number of trips. 9. Consider developing a "rural" street standard. 10.Insert a requirement that any remaining R10 zoned areas must comply with the development requirements of the R20 district. This would keep the R10 from being "unregulated". Recommendation Approval of the Land Development Code, 0-00-1214, incorporating the additional changes referenced in Part 2 above. Attachments to follow: #1 - 3 pages of Section 24.C -Table of Permitted Uses #2 - Section 3.22E -Supplementary Requirements Attachment #1 (page 1) 8rcltoe"Z4.C . Tsbh oi:Pennltted Wes Zor~l Dbtrlot land iJas C#asslflCation ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ : .Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' Resid~edat 34:C.1 Single family home (a) • • • • • • S Two family dwelling ~ Townhouse /cluster /multifamily dwellings • Mobile home dwelling • S Hotel! motel • • Convalescent /retirement home S Private social recreation club (b) • • • • • • • • • Servants or caretakers quarters • • S S S S Bed 8~ breakfast lodging (g) S S S S S S S S Agdcuiturst Z4:C:S , Farming 8 livestock breeding & raising • • Non-commercial swine farming ~ Commercial equestrian boarding stable 8 school • Private horse stabbs for domestic use • • • S S Roadside fruit, veg. eg prod. stands (year md) S S S S S S S S S Eduaataonal (prNatay op~ratad~ 2i:C:3' Kindergarten, primary 8 secondary school S S S S S S Junior and senior colleges and universities S S S Vocational, technical and trade schools S S S • Business 8 professional school S S • Commun[ty Faalliti~ G vemment building ~ nr M • • • • • • • goH wuraes, 3 co uildings • • • • • • • is maintenance 8 storage buildings • Telecommunication tower (h) S S Solid waste disposal sites S Cemeteries 8 mausoleums S S S S S S S Bus or train passenger terminals S S • • Railroad or motor freight terminals • Automobile parking loffi 8 garages S S • • Transportation vehiGe storage yards or garages • Airport, heliport, or helistop S S S ~~ Attachment #1 (page 2) t3ectlon ~4.C -Table o1 PirmllHd Usaa; (cont't~ ':: - Zo a Dlstr~et ,- ILa,hd Use Claatslflcation ~. ~ ~ "~ RetaN ?iti;G.6 Convenience store w/o gasoline sales ~ ~ ~ Convenience store w/gasoline Gales 5 S S S Supermarket !grocery ~ ~ Bakery • • Meat i3 fish market ~ . Cafe, cafeteria & restaurant ~ ~ Restaurant with drive-in or drive-thru service ~ ~ General retail sales ~ ~ • Pharmacy ~ • • Drug store ~ ~ Retail plumbing, electrical 8 hardware w/a outside displa ~ ~ ~ ~ Hardware w/outside display ~ ~ ~ Book 8 stationary shop ~ ~ ~ Jewelry, camera, music -sales and/or repair ~ ~ ~ Florist shop ~ ~ ~ Commercial greenhouse • Furniture store • • • Pet shop ~ • Second hand goods shop S S S Feed 8 seed wloutside stor. i ~ Motorcycle B~ jet ski sales 8 repair ~ ~ Vehicle sales w/outside disp. S • Automobile sales S • • Gasoline service station S S Building materials w1o outside storage ~ ~ Bldg. mall. w/outside stor. S • 3rntle~ RatfiCN Z4.C.E "- _ Barber, beauty salons ~ ~ Self service laundromat S S S S Dry cleaners (station only) S ~ ~ Apparel alterations ~ ~ ~ HeaRh studios (c) ~ • Music 8~ dance studios ~ • Funeral home /mortuary S S S ~ ~i S Attachment #1 (page 3) a3ectlorr Z4:C - Tabh at:P~nllmed ilsee (cont'd~ Z~ nf DdeMot ~snd the C1asaMoatbn ~ oWG ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ >.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ Veterinarian office wlkennels (d) ~ ~ ~ Interior decorator shop ~ ~ ~ ~ Food catering ~ ~ Medical & veterinary Ginics (e) ~ ~ Medical office w/o clinic ~ ~ ~ Hospital ~ General office ~ ~ ~ ~ Banks, financial inatftufions ~ ~ Contractor office w/ yard ~ ~ Exterminator shop w/storege ~ Day care 1 day nunnery S S S S S S Pawn shop ~ CorrtmeririalY8~rviCe 34iC7 Motion picturo theater ~ ~ Indoor amusement S S Outdoor amusement S S S S S S Archery 8 firoarm ranges (f) S S Automotive repair 8 service w/o outside storage S ~ ~ Automotive repair 8 service wloubide storage ~ Laundry !dry cleaning plant ~ Appliance repair shops ~ ~ ing, a cond. 8 electrical trades shops ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ture repair ~ ~ ~ Self service storage ~ ~ induetrlat 2~I:ct3 __ Warehouse and diatributio e~~,,a Printing and bookbinding ~ ~ Food packaging and manufacturing Research and development labs ~ ~ all other manufacturing Table Lsaend ~ Permitted Use S Special Use Permft Required Uses with -see Section 3.24.8 i' ~.~ Ii r -~ r~,s I .,` '_: . Ns~- "ss Attachment #2 is limited to those uses that are not rotail in nature or in some cases those that need outdoor space. 3.22.B PERMI'I7'ED USES 1. Residential I Ag ! Educational I Community Facility Uses: vocational, technical 8 trade schools; business 8 profeaaional schooh, government buikinga; parka, goH courses 8 community buildings; public maintenance & storage buildimgs; bus or train passenger terminal; railroad or motor freight terminals; auto parking lots 8 garages; transportation vehicle storage yards or garages. 2. Retail Uses: convenience afore wlgasoline sales; vehiGe sales w/outside display; automobile sales; gasoline service station; building materials with outside storage. 3. Service 8 Office Uses: veterinarian office w/kennels; contractor office w/yard; exterminator shop w/atorage. 4. Commercial Service 8 Industrial Uses: automotive ropair 8 servioe with and without outside storage; laundry-dry cleaning plant; appliance repair shops; plumbing, heat, air conditioning 8 electrical tredes shop; welding shops; upholstery, fumituro ropair, seH service storage; warehouse 6 distribution; printing & bookbinding; food packaging 6 manufacturing; research & development labs; all other manufacturing. 3.22.C SPECIAL USES 1. Residential / Ag /Educational /Community Facility Uses: mobile home dwellings; servants or caretakers quarters; (privately operated) kindergarten, primary & secondary school; telecommunication towers; solid waste disposal sites; cemeteries 8 mausoleums; airport, heliport or helistop 2. Retail Uses: none 3. Service 8 Offtce Uses: none 4. Commercial Service $ Industrial Uses: outdoor amusement; archery 8 firearm ranges 3.22.D SATE REQUIREMENTS Genera! Requlnrninta: PRIMARY UsE & STRUCTUR .: Accessory Use 6 Structure: Minimum lot size: 10,000 s.i. Minimum setbacks: Permitted per Sec. 3.24 3 3.28 Maximum lot size: none front: 40 ft. Minimum bt width at front aide abutting reaklantiel: 25 ft. Setback line: 100 ft. aide abutting non-reaWenrial: 15 R. Minimum bt depth 120 ft. rear abutting rocidential: 25 ft. Maximum lol coverage 80°Yo roar abutting non-rosldenrial 10 ft. Max. Building height in stories: 2 et. Max. building height in feet: 35 ft. Max. building height adJ. To rssidsnrial district: see Sec. 324 (A3B) 3.22.F SUPPLEMENTARY RE QUIREMENTS: (SEE SECTIONS 24 25 AND 2'n General: Lendscaplnp Plans: Oh Street Parking: -outdoor storage k psnnittsd - roquirod as per Chapter 4 - es roqulrsd by Sec. 3.29 - ueea adjsoent to single famNy ueea Conrmarela/ B/dyr, Daslpn Stds: SMs Plans: Must be screened as per Sec. 3.24 . mw M ntimf.rl 7! Iw ,..Irlw ~~t) site must have a minimum of / s1..~...~ s~ d~a~~~ i... n.__.-- a -plans must be submRted In -----~_ _ ... _ - -- 30 ~,ts. ORDINANCE 0-00-1214 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS, AMENDING CHAPTER 78 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS, BY ADOPTING AND ENACTING A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS; PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDING OF CERTAIN ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR THE MANNER OF AMENDING SUCH CODE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION. WHEREAS, the City Council has determined the need to consolidate the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, Tree Preservation Ordinance, and Impact Fee Ordinance, by establishing a Land Development Code as Chapter 78 of the Code of Ordinances for the purpose of coordinating development policies of the City of Colleyville; and WHEREAS, the Texas Local Government Code requires public hearing prior to the adoption of subdivision, zoning and impact fee regulations; and WHEREAS, the Colleyville City Charter requires a public hearing prior to adoption of any ordinance; and WHEREAS, notice of a hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission was published in a newspaper of general circulation in Colleyville at least 15 days before such hearing; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing before the City Council was published in a newspaper of general circulation in Colleyville at least 15 days before such hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has held a public hearing for the purpose of adopting a Land Development Code and has forwarded its report and recommendations to the City Council for consideration; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the report and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission and held the required public hearings to receive citizen comment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS: Sec. 1. THAT Chapter 78 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Colleyville, Texas, is hereby amended to read as shown in the document entitled Land Development Code of the City of Colleyville, Texas, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A", Ordinance 0-00-1214 Page 2 of 3 Sec. 2. THAT Ordinance 0-77-248, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Colleyville Texas, as amended, is hereby amended and replaced by the adoption of tl Land Development Code. Sec. 3. THAT Ordinance 0-91-812, the Sign Code of the City of Colleyville, Texas, as amended, is hereby amended and replaced by the adoption of the Land Development Code. Sec. 4. THAT Ordinance 0-93-900, the Tree Preservation Ordinance of the City of Colleyville, Texas, as amended, is hereby amended and replaced by the adoption of the Land Development Code. Sec. 5. THAT Ordinance 0-95-1004, the Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Ordinance of the City of Colleyville, Texas, as amended, is hereby amended and replaced by the adoption of the Land Development Code. Sec. 6. THAT the rules, regulations, and procedures contained in the document entitled Land Development Code of the City of Colleyville, Texas, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A" shall be applicable to all development within the City from and after the date of approval of this ordinance. Sec. 7. THAT it is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council of the City of Colleyville, that the sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrase of this Land Development Code are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, or section of this Land Development Code shall be declared unconstitutional, such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs or sections of this Land Development Code since the same would have been enacted by the City Council without the incorporation in this Land Development Code of any such unconstitutional or invalid phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section. Sec. 8. THAT any person, firm or corporation violating any fire safety, zoning or public health and sanitation provision of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not to exceed Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). For violations of all other provisions, the fine shall not exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500). Each day that any violation of this ordinance shall continue shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as such. Sec. 9. THAT this ordinance shall become effective upon passage. Sec. 10. THAT the City Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to cause publication of the descriptive caption and penalty clause hereof as an alternate method of publication provided by law. Ordinance 0-00-1214 Page 3 of 3 AND IT IS SO ORDERED. The first reading and public hearing being conducted on the day of 2000. The second reading and public hearing being conducted on the day of .2000. ATTEST: Jean Harris, TRMC, CMC City Secretary CITY OF COLLEYVILLE: Donna Arp Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Ross T. Foster City Attorney 64/18/2666 68:24 214-36E-7740 DAVID BAGWELL CGMP. PAGE 61 '~~I~~~li'~~,I~ ~Y' April ~~, 2000 Mayor Dozlna Arp and Colleyville City Council c/o C. Robert Stripling, City 1~lanagez F.O. Box i85 Colleyville, Texas 76034 Dear Mayor and City Cauncil: I have only recently become aware of proposed changes to Colleyville City Ordinances that are scheduled for second reading at your meeting April i8, 2000. I believe the development community's perspectives on these proposed changes wrould prove useful in your evaluation of them. To the best of m y knowledge, howevez~, none of the development community active i n Colleyville knewof these propased changes until the last week or so. Therefore, we have not had sufficient time to complete a review of them and to forward comments far your consideration. Therefore, I request that the City Council not seek to reach a decision and vote on any of these proposed changes until at least its next meeting. This short delay should give us an opportunity to provide input far your deliberation i n considering the propased changes to current ordinances. It ~n~ould be useful to me and perhaps ~to others if we could receive information on those portions of the proposed changes which are what the City Staff describes as "policy" but which are not now found in City ordinances. If this is a proper inquiry, please ask that the City Staff provide this information to in e and tc~ others interested i n it so that we may share our thoughts on it with you. Thank you for considering my perspectives and requests. s avid S. Bag 11 President DSBjjs CO~aMur~Ir DEVELOPMENT 8_~.. Douc^„3 SUZTw 77~ D,~.r~. TExas 7,22j l14 368-7711 M~rxo 817 740-5760 F.~.`t 214 368- 7 744 CITY COUNCIL G~~~ n/ (( '! "„ ~y \~~_~ Tc~~> AGENDA BRIEFING For mt .: 04/18/00 CMO Approval: Item#: 5 Ordinance # 0-00-1215 Previous Action: 04/04/00 DEPT. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT A zoning change requested by W. Douglas Jennings, from CC2 to CPO (commercial professional office) on 2.4779 acres located on the south side of Gateway Drive in the 4100 block - Heritage High School Addition Second Reading and Public Hearing First Reading and Public Hearing Background Doug Jennings has applied for a zoning change on a 2.4779-acre tract of land located on the south side of Gateway Drive, between Heritage Avenue and State Highway 121. The applicant has submitted a zoning district change application for this property from CC2 Shopping Center to CPO Professional Office. The proposed uses for the property include office buildings similar to those that exist along Gateway Drive. Though this issue is more of a platting issue, the zoning exhibit shows a 25-foot front building line on the cul de sac. The CPO zoning district requires a front building line of CITY MA AGER >~ ~ a ~. DEP TM NT HEAD (continued) FINANCIAL REVIEW (IF NECESSARY) Agenda Briefing Ordinance 0-00-1215 Page 2 of 2 40-feet. The developer will request a modification to the building line requirement to allow the 25-foot setback due to the shallow depth of the lots. The DRC is not opposed to the 25-foot setback. It is likely at the time of site planning that the buildings will be setback 30 to 40 feet due to parking areas and fire lanes being located in front of the buildings. The Planning & Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing and considered this zoning change request at its March 13, 2000 meeting and recommended approval by a unanimous vote. Recommendation Approval of Ordinance 0-00-1215. Attachments ^ Statement of Planning Objectives ^ Location Map ^ Zoning Exhibit ^ List of Property Owners Receiving Notice of Public Hearing WCJ GLADE 94. LTD. 500 WEST 13T" STREET, SUITE 100 FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76102-4655 VoiCE (817} 336-2055 FAx (817) 332-5400 E-MraIL realestate@wcjco. com March 8, 2000 Mr. Clayton Husband City of Colleyville PO Box 185 Colleyville, TX 76034 Re: Case #Z-00-016 Dear Clayton: As part of the application for the above mentioned combination plat and zoning this letter will serve to address the city's questions/comments. Our planned objectives for the property are to divide the parcel into smaller sites to be more conducive to small user oriented office buildings similar to tt1e adjacent developments. The individual lots will be immediately marketed in hopes of selling each individual building lot to the end user. Currently, after the platting and zoning process, WCJ Glade 94, Ltd. (the applicant) would remain in ownership of the land until sales are finalized. Only one tract, Lot 2R, is under contract for an investment office. We anticipate this transaction will close but have no guarantees at this point. With the approval of the platting and zoning we will begin the bid process to complete the utility extension and construction of Gateway Drive. We anticipate constructing the road upon the completion of the sale of Lot 2R or within one year, whichever is sooner. Hopefully this answers the city's questions, if not please feel free to call me. Sincerely, X 51 Doug Jennings DJ/kao Statement of Planning Objectives 1 I ~, C ~~~ - >. rtru •1 nr ~K 1~K ... ,,~ ~ SUP 0-96-1026 ' i I I ~ ~ L ~ a wr, w «~ ~ .N • Lt7 K • G• 35 I i l~' ; ~ ~ ~ Y 111 W t31K ~ ~ 0 1 i I ~ U K ~ l ~ I ~ ~ - 1 i ~~* ~ 1 ~ TO Q ~ L!M • r f ® •PO ~ E ~.siw • E G R ~ Apy n Z~ ~ 00 5 ~ ~! • f ,,, /~ ..,. . , , polN 2 ~ ~ ~1 , vl • ur • au • u K ~ 0-98-1097 t ~ i ,.~.... .« . - --- --- S a lsu . .. w . ~. R K .ttl • V~'- Ii K t[7~ ~~ ~ ; ~ J• • I Location Map f+ ~ 1 ! ~r a~~'~~'~ '~~ .i t ~; ~~ N ~~ I I • R t •~ ~ ~# .,~, ~ ~_~ ~~ o ~ ~~ ~. .. ~ ~ 3~~ ~~~ ~ - ~. N ! ~ ~ i ~ ~ ev ~ Q I f ~ N` ~ y ~. ~s ~ , _ t i ~- ~. ~ a• `~ ~' ~ •; >~ I I ^~ r ~3~^i II'J ~ ~ ~ a f r r ~q -~~~~. W - ~~.. 1 ~ "i ~ ~ ~~ r +t g C r i ~ ~ 6 ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ ;~ 1 ~ `~ i ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f "' ~ a~'o ~ ~ , ~ 8. a x ~ ~'!~ !b D ~~ ~ p n ~r ~~~ y~ R z o0 ii{{~~~ • ~~' O~ ~f'!~ 1 ~~ rv~e ~ w N .~ .. --. -~ •~-~ .............. a .......................~ ................. . A ~i~ ~ !ii Y~ ~yi u~ ~i ~~ u r~ i~'7~ ~'i~ ,. ~ t n+ iii hE 1! IE h ~!' ~ ~i.r~ r ~ !•~ ai ~ir !r it i• ~ nwi jt~ ~ -!!'tt yi11~9P~ ,~~ ~. ,~EEI~~,~i~lr ~' ' + ~'~t~ i [ i ~ !,~ i;ile •~ii r ir! n r r r ri" i! !~~ ~i~~~`~iii~s~ ~~j,i't."' Zoning Exhibit Grapevine-Colleyville ISD 3501 Ira E Woods Avenue Grapevine, TX 76051 Partners in Gateway Success 4005 Gateway Drive, #200 Colleyville, TX 76034 Albertson Inc. P.O. Box 20 Boise ID 83726-0020 Greenway-Glade Partners 11 LP 2301 Cedar Springs Rd. #400 Dallas, TX 75201-7804 Richard & Lavonne Bradford 5817 Curzon Ave. Fort Worth, TX 76107 Case Z-00-016 According to the Tax Records, individuals who own property that is within 200' of the proposed zoning change request are listed above. I certify that the parties listed above have been notified of the proposed zoning change request as required by Section 211 of the Local Government Code. (Notices dated: March 3, 2000) Jan Levy Planning & Zoning Assistant List of Property Owners Receiving Notice of Public Hearing ORDINANCE 0-00-1215 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP AND CHANGING THE ZONING OF A 2.4779 ACRE TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE COX SURVEY, ABSTRACT 352, IN THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE FROM THE CC2 COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER DISTRICT TO THE CPO COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS AND AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION WHEREAS, an application for a zoning district change was filed by W. Douglas Jennings on February 18, 2000, under Case Number Z-00-016; and WHEREAS, notice of a hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission was sent to real property owners within 200 feet of the property herein described at least 10 days before such hearing; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing before the City Council was published in a newspaper of general circulation in Colleyville at least 15 days before such hearing; and WHEREAS, notices were posted on the subject land as provided by the zoning ordinance; and WHEREAS, public hearings to change the zoning and the Master Plan on the property herein described were held before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, and the Planning and Zoning Commission has heretofore made a recommendation; and WHEREAS, the City Council is of the opinion that the zoning change herein effectuated furthers the purpose of zoning as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and is in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Colleyville. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS: Sec. 1. THAT the Master Plan, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Colleyville, Texas, and the accompanying Zoning Map (Exhibit A) are hereby amended insofar as they relate to certain land located in Colleyville, Texas, described by metes and bounds (Exhibit B), by changing the zoning of said property from the CC2 district to the CPO district. Sec. 2. THAT any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this ordinance as read together with the Zoning Ordinance of the Ordinance 0-00-1215 Page 2 of 2 City of Colleyville shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in a sum not to exceed Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). Each and every day such violation continues shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as such. Sec. 3. THAT the City Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to cause publication of the descriptive caption and penalty clause hereof as an alternate method of publication provided by law. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. The first reading and public hearing being conducted on the day of 2000. The second reading and public hearing being conducted on the day of 2000. ATTEST: Jean Harris, CMC City Secretary CITY OF COLLEYVILLE: Donna Arp Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Ross T. Foster City Attorney Exhibit A -Zoning Map Field Notes ALL that certain tract or parcel of land situated In ELIZABETH COX SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 352, Tarrant County, Texas being a portion of Lot 2, Block 2, Heritage High School Addition, an Addition to the City of Colleyville, Tarrant County, Texas as recorded In Cabinet A, Slide 2678, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas and also being a portion of that same tract of land described in deed to WCJ Glade 94, Ltd., A Texas Limited Partnership as described in Volume 11633, Page 1358, Deed Records, Tarrant County, Texas and being more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows: BEGINNING at a '/z-inch capped steel rod stamped "MOAK SURV INC" found for the northeast corner of that same tract of land described in deed to Patricia Calabria and Andre Ellis as recorded in Volume 14083, Page 392, Deed Records, Tarrant County, Texas, said point being in the southerly right-of-way line of Gateway Drive and also being in a curve to the left whose radius bears North 26 degrees 28 minutes 45 seconds West at 615.00 feet; THENCE with said southerly right-of-way line and with said curve to the left through a central angle of 15 degrees 22 minutes 01 seconds and an arc length of 164.94 feet to a 'h-inch capped steel rod stamped "MOAK SURV INC" found for the end of said curve to the left; THENCE North 48 degrees 09 minutes 14 seconds East continuing with said southerly right-of-way line a distance of 87.49 feet to a '/z-inch capped steel rod stomped "MOAK SURV INC." found; THENCE South 37 degrees 20 minutes 46 seconds East a distance of 135.51 feet to a '/cinch capped steel rod stamped "MOAK SURV INC" found; THENCE South 79 degrees 04 minutes 21 seconds East o distance of 62.46 feet to a 1/2 Inch capped steel rod stamped -MOAK SURV INC- found: THENCE South 00 degrees 08 minutes 27 seconds West a distance of 89.38 feet to a '/z-inch capped steel rod stamped "MOAK SURV INC" set; THENCE South 39 degrees 11 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 71.00 feet to a'/2- inch capped steel rod stamped "MOAK SURV INC" set in a curve to the right whose radius bears North 80 degrees 50 minutes 30 seconds West at 310.66 feet; THENCE with said curve to the right through o central angle of 11 degrees 25 minutes 07 seconds and an arc length of 61.91 feet to a '/Z-inch capped steel rod stamped "MOAK SURV INC" set for the end of said curve to the right and the beginning of a curve to the left whose radius bears South 69 degrees 25 minutes 23 seconds East at 255.66 feet: Exhibit B -Metes and Bounds Description THENCE with said curve to the left through a central angle of 20 degrees 40 minutes 51 seconds and an arc length of 92.28 feet to a'/z-inch capped steel rod stomped "MOAK SURV INC" set in the southerly boundary line of said WCJ Glade 94, Ltd. tract; THENCE South 89 degrees 53 minutes 29 seconds West with said southerly boundary line a distance of 299.23 feet to a '/cinch capped steel rod stamped "MOAK SURV INC" found for the southeast corner of said Calabria and Ellis tract; THENCE North 00 degrees 06 minutes 31 seconds West with the easterly boundary line of said Calabria and Ellis tract a distance of 146.79 feet to a '/z-inch capped steel rod stamped "MOAK SURV INC" found; THENCE North 26 degrees 15 minutes 10 seconds West continuing with said easterly boundary line a distance of 130.57 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING and containing 2.4779 acres of land, more or less, as surveyed by David C. Moak Surveyors, Inc. in the month of December, 1999. Exhibit B -Metes and Bounds Description CITY COUNCIL I I - G~I~ n/ ~~~ Iy Tcc~~ AGENDA BRIEFING For mt .: 04/18100 CMO Approval: Item # s Ordinance # 0-00-1216 Previous Action: None DEPT. CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE SUBJECT: Amending Chapter 11 -Parkland Dedication of the Land Development Code First Reading and Public Hearing Background In October 1998, the City Council requested that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board review the Parkland Dedication Ordinance, particularly within the established criteria and fee credits for public and private land dedications and an amendment to increase the dedication fees. As a result of this request, the ordinance was revised in its entirety in December 1998. In January 2000, the City Council adopted the new Comprehensive Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan, which provides the framework for orderly and consistent planning and development of the City's park system. This Plan also provides direction in the area of acquisition and development of park land to meet future needs, as per the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) standards. (continued) C CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT HEAD FINANCIAL REVIEW (IF NECESSARY) Agenda Briefing Ordinance 0-00-1216 Page 2 of 4 As referenced in the Comprehensive Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan, the City would need to acquire an additional 146 acres of parkland, based on its build- out population of 25,540. On the basis of the adoption of the revised Master Plan, a subcommittee of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board met with staff to review the current provisions and fee structure of Ordinance 0-98-1129 to incorporate projected park land needs. (See attached excerpts from the Comprehensive Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan). Comparisons were made to the cities of Southlake, North Richland Hills and Keller. (See attached). In reviewing the Parkland Dedication Ordinance, the subcommittee considered the following three theories that may be used in the development of future parkland dedication needs of the City. Theory 1 Currently the City has 184 acres of parkland and a population of 19,250. The Comprehensive Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan recommends 330 acres of parkland for abuild-out population of 25,540, which equates to 12.93 acres per 1000 people. To obtain the necessary 146 acres of new parkland to give a total of 330 build-out acres would require increasing the parkland dedication to 1/acre per 14 housing units, or 23.21 acres per 1000 new population and would require collection of $3,248 per housing unit. Assumption of Theory 1 is that the new population will provide acres or monies to make- up current park acreage shortfall and provides for the additional parkland needed at build-out. Theory 2 The 12.93 acres per 1000 people recommended in the Parks Master Plan is the target for future parkland dedication. This would require increasing the parkland dedication to 1 acre/per 25 housing units, which equals $1,802 per housing unit. This dedication rate would only increase the total number of acres of parkland by 81 acres at build-out giving a total of 265 acres or 10.38 acres per 1000 people, 2.55 acres per 1000 people short of the desired level. Assumption of Theory 2 is that the new population will provide acres or monies to provide for the current parkland deficit with no additional parkland to accommodate new growth. excerpts of the Comprehensive Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan During the needs assessment phase, a common theme of "more land acquisition" was expressed by participants of focus groups and also members of the Master Plan Advisory Committee. The citizen survey listed Ooen SSlices, Additional Neighborhood Parks and Natural Areas among the top twelve priorities. (See page 80) Currently Colleyville owns/leases 184.43 acres of land. As compared to NRPA guidelines, with a population of 19,250, the City has a current short fall of 79.76 acres. Based on the NRPA Park Classification System (page 51) the City specifically needs to acquire the following acreages in three (3) of the park categories to meet the current population needs in Colleyville. Mini-Park 7.75 Acres Neighborhood Park 7.64 Acres Community Park 64.37 Acres 79.76 Total Land Acquisition (To meet 1999 population of 19,250, see page 56) As the City continues to grow towards its ultimate buildout population of 25,540, the shortfall in park land acres will increase to 145.81. Specifically, the City will need to acquire the following acreages in 3 of the park categories to meet the buildout population needs in Colleyville. Mini-Park 10.90 Acres Neighborhood Park 20.22 Acres Community Park 114.69 A r .c 145.81 Total Land Acquisition (To meet 2020 population of 25,540, see page 56) The City of Colleyville is unique because in most of the residential subdivisions, private open space has been set aside for the use of residents who live there. Though the City has been unable to quantify the amount of open space set aside, the Future Land Use Map (page 91) shows private open space to be well distributed throughout the City limits. (For a list of sub-divisions with private open space, see page 44). Because the City includes well distributed private open space, the need for additional neighborhood park sites is not as prevalent. Therefore, the focus of land acquisition should shift to larger land acquisition tracts that could accommodate community parks, greenway corridors and natural open spaces. Open spaces and natural areas, as already mentioned, were also high priority items. This type of park land is important, particularly because preservation of greenway corridors helps maintain riparian habitats, reduces the danger of flooding, and protects the natural environment. Open spaces and natural areas can also become connections from residential neighborhoods to schools, parks, shopping centers and other destinations. The City of Colleyville, like other cities, has a Parkland Dedication Ordinance (see Appendix C) which helps to acquire needed park land acres. Currently a formula is used to calculate acreage or dollar equivalents that developers must donate to the City when their developments are platted. December, 1999 'l_"1 92 ~ ~ ~ r -- 1999 Colleyville Comprehensive Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan ~~ Ca~te~•Burgess Agenda Briefing Ordinance 0-00-1216 Page 3 of 4 Theory 3 To remain consistent with other cities by implementing a rate comparable to the Southlake $1,500 per housing unit would equate to 1 acre/ per 20 housing units, which would equal $1,579 per housing unit. At build-out the total parkland would be increased to 255 acres, which is 9.98 acres per 1000 population, which would be consistent with the 1996 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. Assumption of Theory 3 is that the City of Colleyville would like to remain comparable with the current City of Southlake Parkland Dedication Ordinance. See attached comparisons. On the basis of the above, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended that the City Council consider the following amendments to the Parkland Dedication Ordinance: (Changes are denoted with boldface type or strike-through text). ^ Adopt Theory 2 Residential Dwelling Unit Fees: Fees paid in lieu of dedication shall be based on the determined cost of 1 acre of land divided by twenty-five (25), for a resulting residential dwelling unit fee of $1,802. This increases the residential dwelling unit fee from $1,260 to $1,802. In comparison of the difference between Theory 2 and 3, the Board considered the potential parkland monies that could be collected based on each scenario. Theory 2 would result in the collection of $3,645,466 and Theory 3 would result in the collection of $3,194,317 for a difference of $451,129. With a projected increase of 2,023 new residents to reach the build-out population of 25,540, at an average of 3 persons per household, the total per person cost difference between Theory 2 and 3 of $74 was considered to be minimal. ^ Non-residential developments: The fee payment alternative for non-residential development shall be calculated by dividing the determined cost of one (1) acre of land by fifty-six, for a resulting fee per non-residential acre of $800 per acre. This increases the non-residential (commercial) fee from $400 to $800. Agenda Briefing Ordinance 0-00-1216 Page 4 of 4 ^ Parkland Dedication fees in lieu of dedication shall be paid before the final plat is recorded with the County Clerk's office. A plat containing two (2) or fewer lots may pay parkland dedication fees at the time of issuance of any building permit for a dwelling unit within the subdivision. This change allows the City to collect parkland dedication fees earlier in the development process. ^ Revise the formula for PUD-R credits to allow zero credit for public and private open space over twenty (20) percent. In consideration of the PUD-R credits for the donation of public open space over twenty (20) percent, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board determined that this donation does not alleviate the burden of the City to provide for the athletic and recreational needs of the citizens. It was also determined that the City has no control over private park land and only citizens, who are property owners of the subdivision, will have legal access to this park land. These changes allow for zero credit for public and private open space over twenty (20) percent. This Parks and Recreation Advisory Board unanimously adopted these revisions. Recommendation Approval of Ordinance 0-00-1216. Attachments • Excerpts of the Comprehensive Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan (see paper copy) • Parkland 2000 Equivalents The City of Colleyville has the opportunity to adjust the formula to increase the amount of park land dedication required. This change would result in park land dedications that are more consistent with acreage ranges published by NRPA (see page 53). The City of Colleyville should begin to acquire available park land tracts which are 10 acres or larger in size. These larger tracts would meet the primary need of community parks, greenway corridors and natural open spaces. Additionally, the City should concentrate its efforts to provide more park land and recreation opportunities to current residents in the eastern portion of the City. Also, the recommendations in the Colleyville Pathways Plan (see Appendix D) should be used as a guideline when considering new acquisition and connections to existing parks, schools, neighborhoods and shopping centers. December, 1999 UV ~i Tea i+ 1999 Colleyville Comprehensive Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan ~ Cartes^BYl9efS IV. Standards and Guidelines The adequacy of existing parks, recreation facilities and open spaces is determined by comparing the needs of the present and forecasted populations of Colleyville to specific goals and standards. This Master Plan includes the standards established by the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) as included in the 1990 printing of Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines. "The NRPA standards have generally been the most widely accepted and used standards of their type, especially by local government." (Recreation, Parks and Open Space Standards and Guidelines, p. 7) This section includes a comparison of Colleyville to national standards based upon park acreage per population and facilities per population and selected Peer Cities park acreages per population and facilities per population. The most common standards for park planning guidelines, as recognized by park and recreation professionals, are the published standards by the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA). As written in the introduction, the NRPA "recognizes the importance of establishing and using park and recreation standards as: 1. A national expression of minimum acceptable facilities for the citizens of urban and rural communities. 2. A guideline to determine land requirements for various kinds of park and recreation areas and facilities. 3. A basis for relating recreation needs to spatial analysis within a community wide system of parks and open space areas. 4. One of the major structuring elements that can be used to guide and assist regional development. 5. A means to justify the need for parks and open space within the overall land use pattern of a region or community. The purpose of this document is to present park and recreation space standards that are applicable for planning, acquisition, and development of parks, recreation, and open space lands, at the community level. These standards should be viewed as a guide. They address minimum, not maximum, goals to be achieved. The standards are to be coupled with conventional wisdom and judgement relating to the particular situation to which they are applied and specific local needs" (Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines, p. 11). When evaluating existing or future parks in Colleyville, it is necessary to classify each park by type, size, service area, and acres per 1,000 population. The following six classifications for parks will be used in this Master Plan: December, 1999 51 ~~,_,,, .~~~~ G~ r~... C~ Carte~• Burgess 1999 Colleyville Comprehensive Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan Mini-Park The mini-park is used to address limited, isolated or unique recreational needs of concentrated populations. Typically less than '/< mile apart in a residential setting, the size of a mini-park ranges between 2,500 square feet to one acre in size. These parks may be either active or passive, but speak to a specific recreational need rather than a particular population density. N~~i,ghborhood Park Neighborhood parks serve a variety of age groups within a limited area or "neighborhood." They range in size from 1-5 acres and generally serve residents within a '/a- to '/z-mile radius. The neighborhood park is an area for active recreation such as field games, court games, playgrounds, picnicking, etc. Facilities are generally unlighted and there is limited parking, if any, on site. NRPA standards for these parks are 1.0 - 2.0 acres per 1,000 population. Community Park Community parks are larger than neighborhood parks and serve several neighborhoods. They range in size from 16-99 acres and serve the entire city. The community park may be a natural area or developed area for a variety of outdoor recreation such as ballfields, playgrounds, boating, fishing, swimming, camping, picnicking, and trail systems. NRPA standards for these parks are 5-8 acres per 1,000 population. Reaion~ al Park Regional parks are very large multi-use parks that serve several communities within a particular region. They range in size from 500 acres and above and serve those areas within aone-hour driving distance. The regional park provides both active and passive recreation, with a wide selection of facilities for all age groups. They may also include areas of nature preservation for activities such as sight-seeing, nature study area, wildlife habitat, and conservation areas. NRPA standards for regional parks vary due to the specific site and natural resources. Special Use Areas Special use areas and parks are for specialized or single purpose recreation activities. NRPA defines these as areas such as historical areas, nature centers, marinas, zoos, conservatories, arboretums, arenas, amphitheaters, plazas or community squares. There are no specific standards for size or acreage since each community will vary. Linear Park/Linkag.~ Linkages and linear parks are built connections or natural corridors that link parks together. Typically, the linear park is developed for one or more modes or recreational travel such as walking, jogging, biking, in-line skating, hiking, horseback riding, or canoeing. NRPA does not have any specific standards for linear parks other than they should be sufficient to protect the resource and provide maximum usage. ~~ ,,, ,r'~, . December, 1999 52 ~~ .~ ~ 1i~, Te. •s 1999 Colleyville Comprehensive Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan C~ Co~terBYrgess NRPA PARK ACREAGE GUIDELINES Type Size/Acres Service Area Acres per 1,000 Population Mini-Park 2,500 S.F. - 1 Acre Less Than '/. Mile 0.25 - 0.5 ac/1,000 Distance in Residential Setting Neighborhood Park 1 - 15 Acres One Neighborhood 1.0 - 2.0 ac11,000 '/. to % Mile Radius Community Park 16 - 99 Acres Several Neighborhoods 5.0 - 8.0 ac/1,000 Metropolitan Park 100 - 499 Acres Several Communities 5.0 - 10.0 ac/1,000 Under 1 Hour Driving Regional Park 500 + Several Communities Variable Within 1 Hour Driving Special Use Areas Varies Depending on No Applicable Standard Variable Desired Size Linear Park/Linkages Sufficient Width to No Applicable Standard Variable Protect the Resource and Provide Maximum Usage TOTAL 11.25 - 20.5 Ac /1,000 Population Standards from Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines, p. 56-57 and p. 68-69, 4th Printing, 1990, a publication of the National Recreation and Park Association. December, 1999 53 1~~-~1~~ (f ~i r~;y 1999 Colleyville Comprehensive Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan «~ Ca~tB~• BYlT9ess Based upon the NRPA standards for each of the previous park classifications, the recommended park acreage per 1,000 population ranges from 11.25 to 20.5 acres. The City of Colleyville includes a total of 184.43 acres for a ratio of 9.58 acres per 1,000 population at its current population of 19,250. When evaluating Colleyville's total park acreage as compared to NRPA Standards, it reflects that the City is currently below recommended standards. The City currently has a total of 184.43 acres of park land, and is below the recommended park acreage standard by 79.76 acres. By the year 2020, the shortage of park acres will increase to 145.81 acres. More specifically, by the year 2020, with a projected population of 25,540, the City of Colleyville will have a shortfall of 10.90 acres of mini-park land, a shortage of 20.22 acres of neighborhood park land and a shortage of 114.69 acres of community park land. The tables on the following pages summarize the NRPA acreage standards and the standards applied to the existing parks in Colleyville. December, 1999 54 ~' ~fi~~nyi~lli~ i~~., 1999 Colleyville Comprehensive Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan ~ Cf~~~~sYHJeif NRPA PARK ACREAGE GUIDELINES APPLIED TO COLLEYVILLE NRPA Guidelines for NRPA Guidelines for NRPA Guidelines for 1999 Population of 2005 Population of 2020 Population of Existing 250 " 19 22,245" 25,540 " Park Facility Acreage , Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Mini-Parks 1.87 4.81 9.62 5.56 11.12 6.39 12.77 Neighborhood 30.86 19.25 38.50 22.24 44.49 25.54 51.08 Community 89.63 96.25 154.00 111.23 177.96 127.70 204.32 Parks Special Use 62.07 N/A NIA N/A N/A NIA N/A Parks Linear Parks N/A NIA N/A N/A NIA N/A TOTALS 184.43 120.31 202.12 139.03 233.57 159.63 268.17 A. Population numbers provided by City of Colleyville Parks 8 Recreation Department. Mini-Parks Bransford Park 1.77 acres McCain Park 0.10 acres 1.87 acres Neighborhood Kimzey Park 20.45 acres Sparger Park 8.47 acres Woodbriar Park 1.94 acres 30.86 acres Community City Park 40.13 acres McPherson Park 27.50 acres Pleasant Run Park 22.00 acres 89.63 acres Special Use Parks Colleyville Nature Center 46.00 acres L.D. Lockett Park 4.60 acres Pleasant Run Practice Site 11.47 acres 62.07 acres TOTAL 184.43 acres December, 1999 ~~,_.,, 55 ~~''~~ ITt~ lea a+ 1999 Colleyville Comprehensive Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan ~~ Ca~terBv~gess NRPA PARK ACREAGE GUIDELINES COMPARED TO 1999 POPULATION IN COLLEYVILLE Zone Existing Acreage NRPA Guidelines for 1999 Population " of 19,250 Difference Between NRPA Guidelines and Existing Colleyville Parks Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Mini-Parks 1.87 4.81 9.62 (2.94) (7.75) Neighborhood Parks 30.86 19.25 38.50 11.61 (7.64} Community Parks 89.63 96.25 154.00 (6.62) (64.37) Special Use Parks 62.07 N/A N/A NIA N/A Linear Parks NIA N/A N/A N/A TOTALS 184.43 120.31 202.12 2.05 (79.76) A. Population numbers provided by City of Colleyville Parks and Recreation Department (NCTCOG). NRPA PARK ACREAGE GUIDELINES COMPARED TO 2020 POPULATION IN COLLEYVILLE Zone Existing Acreage NRPA Guidelines for 2020 Population " of 25,540 Difference Between NRPA Guidelines and Existing Colleyville Parks Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Mini-Parks 1.87 6.39 12.77 (4.52) (10.90) Neighborhood Parks 30.86 25.54 51.08 5.32 (20.22) Community Parks 89.63 127.70 204.32 (38.07) (114.69) Special Use Parks 62.07 NIA NIA N/A NIA Linear Parks N/A NIA N/A NIA TOTALS 184.43 159.63 268.17 (37.27) (145.81) A. Population numbers provided by City of Colleyville Parks and Recreation Department (NCTCOG). ~~_~, December, 1999 ~' 56 1~~ lIi$ Teau 1999 Colleyville Comprehensive Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan ~~ Ca~te~•BYrgess Parkland Dedication Equivalents O .~ L a V a O O N 1 ^O V ^~ L a ~ LOf1 ~ ,--~ N M Q Z ~O O ~ ~ N "-~ Lf~ N M ~ N ~ ~ ~ _ V C O ^. oa ~ tOf1 M O *-+ M z O z Y M N ~ ~ M ~ ~ O .-i ~ ~ ° ° n n o _ GO O ~ N s „~ o oC Z ~ °~ i°n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ Y ~ ~ O N ~ ~ o 0 o ~n ao ~ cYi ~ ~ ~ -i ~ --i _ , ,.i ,.i , ~ N M ,~ ~ ~ _ ~7 ~7 ~ C C p ~ C Q~ ~J -+~ p p ~ C ~ C ~ :~+ ~ ~' O '~ ~ V ~ 'u Q~ Q~ Q "I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ a, ~ ~ a. +3 ~ o a-' ~ ~ c O S V > 2 V C p ~ ~ _ • L L ~ L L ~ ~ N N Q N N !A L N Q Q W Q Q V m ~ a Q ~ 3 a~ C 0 ~ O V O ~ ~ U v p ~ ~ a .n oc o =o~ O '"~ 4J a~ c ~ ~ o ~ °o °' ~ ~ ~° a; c ~ ~ = a 0 N ~' c .fl ~ i ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~,~~ Y ~ Y f=C L N 0 Z ~ Q, Y ~ cv '~ a pp~ ~ (n U Z N O C ~ ~ fp _~ ~ n- o- ~ Q N N ~ ~ ~ I~J'f (~A V } O ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ C - ~ ~ ~ M O ~ o0 00 0° ^ Q V '~ x ~ TT TT \ H L V, V, O ~ ' \ ~ ~ O O •--~ ~~ O O M~ N 00 = N L~ M M~ O N O~ O N ~ d1 Ln N Ln ~p N O M O r-~ N ~ ~ fJ4- 1 {/~ 0 V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N co f° _~ ~ -a _ O 0 = ~C O ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ^~ .~ ~~ a..+ ~ 0 V N i ~ C 0 i ~ ~ ~ -p ~ i ~ ~ O O N ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a-+ Y ~ ~ ~ ~ cy OD = cn ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q cn N V .}.~ ~ Q V C V a GJ ~ U ~ ~ ~ C _~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N y- ~ ~ O ~ _> ~ ~ fl. ~ i ~ ~ fl. ~ ~ ~ W ~~ c~a~a=c°~wzQa~ as Q oD U Q uJ u. ~j ~ n Y J c O ~. a 0 0 0 N V f0 M N .-i w 0 c g~ ~a .6 v a L V f0 0 M M .o 0 a a~ rn co U fC Y L n N _ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ca ra fQ ~ ~ D Q L L ~ L 0 n v v~ o ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~- ~ ~ o M ~ 3 °° °° O~ Q V~ ,..,_, X C ~' ~' ~~ m C7 ~ ~ .~ O O ~ O O •--i M Ll') O O M •-~ O N N~~~ N O N O 0 0 OO ~ O~ Ln M ~ ~ ~O N O *~ ~ i O ~ ~ c O M o o ~ N ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ .-. ~ N ^O ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ y,_ O O~~ ~ ''~ ~ O O~ N~ O _ p O Q N M~ can ~~ N ~ ~ m = ~ ~ ~ Q ~ a ~ Q ~ ~ ~ O N C _ ~+ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ Q :~ Z ~ O V V'1 ~!1 ~ ~ ~L ~ ~ a. ~ i ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ V a l ate.. = U w Z Q Q~ as a om cv o uw ~ ~ ~ r; Y ~ a n 0 0 0 ~a M O .-i w 0 c .a a~ L Q [V 3 0 .~ a~ rn L V ra a .~ L .~ .~ .~ to a 1 ~ .~ 0 ~ ~ ~ N _ .~ .O ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ .V ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~' L ~ ~ ~ aQ N [Q ~ C ~ ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q L S. ~ L, p c~i~ t~"n V ~ p ~ t~ cv ~- ~ ~ ~ M O rn ~ ° rn a V ~ o ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m L7 `. r-, O O .--+ In O~ O O M ,-1 Ln O~ N~~ N N O N O ^ O ~ M •~ ~1 N .--~ to ~ N O +--~ d' ~ O Q a. N V O 1 m O O C O .~ o ~~ a. O O O _ ,~ •~ L ~ ~ = Q L f^~ V ~ ~ C ~ N ~ N ~ oC a O V ~ .-. o ~~ U ; O Q ~ C~ c i >. O a_+ ~ ~ ~ U O Q ~ ~ .-~ N ~ ,~ .~ O 0 0 ~ = V w 0 O O N C .~ DC N Z z C i Z Q C N .+..a V Q~ Q C Q a--~ .~ W Q m U p u.i u. V~~ Y _i c 0 a. 0 a 0 0 0 v u ca N O `~ 0 a~ m a~ -v C .X L a ORDINANCE 0-00-1216 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 - PARKLAND DEDICATION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS CUMULATIVE OF ALL OTHER ORDINANCES; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City of Colleyville, Texas is a home rule city acting under its charter adopted by the electorate pursuant to Article XI, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter 9 of the Local Government Code; and WHEREAS, the City of Colleyville has heretofore adopted a Parkland Dedication Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Parkland Dedication Ordinance has been incorporated into the Land Development Code of the City of Colleyville; and WHEREAS, the City has zoning classifications which require open space; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that in order to provide for adequate land for parks, recreation and open space, it is appropriate and in the best interest of the City to amend the Parkland dedication requirements. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS AS FOLLOWS: " Sec. 1. THAT Paragraph 2. Amount and Location, of Section 11.5.8 of Chapter 11, of the Land Development Code is amended in its entirety and replaced by the following text: 2. Amount and Location a. Residential Developments Based on the population projected to reside in the City of Colleyville, as stated in the 1998 Master Plan adopted by the City Council, the City desires to provide 12.93 iacres of parkland for every new 1,000 residents in an ultimate condition. Parkland meeting the requirements contained within this section shall be dedicated to the City at a ratio of one (1) acre of Ordinance 0-00-1216 Page2of5 parkland for every twenty-five (25) ty~iaresidential dwelling units or a prorated portion thereof. The subdivider shall dedicate to the City a minimum of 0.040 ~~ acres of parkland in fee simple for each DU (dwelling unit) within the subdivision; provided, however, no tract of parkland shall be less than seven (7) acres in total area unless approved by the City Council. b. Non-Residential Developments Although non-residential development does not generate residential occupancies per se, it does create environmental impacts, which may negatively affect the living environment of the community. These impacts may be ameliorated or eliminated by providing park or open space areas which buffer adjoining land uses, prevent undue concentration of paved areas, allow for the reasonable dissipation of automotive exhaust fumes, provide natural buffers to the spread of fire or explosion, and provide separation of lighting, waste disposal, and noise by-products of non-residential operations and activities from adjacent residential areas. The City has therefore determined that non-residential developments must provide dedicated parks and/or reserved open space at a ratio of one (1) acre of parkland for every fifty-six (56) non-residential gross acres of development or prorated portion thereof. c. Off-site Dedications A developer may dedicate the required parkland for a development at another location owned by the same developer within the City with the consent of the City, provided that the off- site dedication is in accordance with this ordinance. Sec. 2. THAT Paragraph 3. Calculation of Fees, of Section 11.5.C, of Chapter 11, of the Land Development Code is amended in its entirety and replaced by the following text: 3. Calculation of Fees The City Council shall establish an acreage land value cost figure to be used in calculating park fees. a. Residential Dwelling Unit Fees: Fees paid in lieu of dedication shall be based on the determined cost of 1 acre of land divided Ordinance 0-00-1216 Page 3 of 5 by twenty-five (25) ~ for a resulting fee per residential dwelling unit of $1,802 . b. Non-Residential Development Fees: The fee payment alternative for non-residential development shall be calculated by dividing the determined cost of one (1) acre of land by fifty- six, for a resulting fee per non-residential acre cost of $800 ~4~A8 per acre. Sec. 3. THAT Paragraph 4. Collection of Fees, of Section 11.5.C, of Chapter 11, of the Land Development Code is amended in its entirety and replaced by the following text: 4. Collection of Fees a. Parkland dedication fees in lieu of dedication shall be paid before the final plat is recorded with the County Clerk's office. A plat containing two {2) or fewer lots may pay Parkland dedication fees at the time of issuance of any building permit for a DU within the subdivision. b. By agreement approved by the City Council, the City and the subdivider may after the time and method of payment and fees in lieu of dedication. Sec. 4. THAT Paragraph 6.b, Fee Payments in Lieu of Dedication 8 Paragraph 6.c, PUD-R Zoning or Other Zoning Classifications Requiring Dedication of Open Space, of Chapter 11, of the Land Development Code are hereby deleted in their entirety as follows: Ordinance 0-00-1216 Page 4 of 5 ~, Ordinance 0-00-1216 Page 5 of 5 Sec. 5. THAT Chapter 11, Parkland Dedication, of the Land Development Code shall remain in effect, except where amended by this Ordinance. Sec. 6. THAT if any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this Ordinance shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this Ordinance. Sec. 7. The City Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to cause publication of the descriptive caption as an alternative method of publication provided by law. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. The first reading and public hearing being conducted on the day of April 2000. The second reading and public hearing being conducted on the day of May 2000. ATTEST: Jean Harris, TRMC, CMC City Secretary CITY OF COLLEYVILLE Donna Arp Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Ross T. Foster City Attorney CITY COUNCIL ~~~. of j^ ~ jib \~ ~i °°' Tc.,~ AGENDA BRIEFING For mt .: 04/18/00 CMO Approval: Item # 7 Resolution # R-00-1637 Previous Action: None DEPT. CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE SUBJECT Approving the use of Parkland Dedication Funds, in an amount not to exceed $35,000, to purchase trail right-of-way for the Cottonbelt Trail Reading and Public Hearing Background During FY99, staff has continued to work with Mesa Design Group, Texas Department of Transportation (TxDot) and Dallas Area Regional Transportation (DART) to complete the design of the trail within the monies allocated for Phase I. After reviewing the cost constraints associated with the design and construction of three railroad crossings (John McCain Road, Pleasant Run Road and Bransford Road), it was determined that the entire length of the Cottonbelt Trail within the City of Colleyville be constructed on the north side of the DART rights-of-way. The projected cost estimates for construction of the Cottonbelt Trail from John McCain Road to Pleasant Run to Station 330 (Bettinger Road) are as follows: (continued) CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT HEAD '~ FINA REVIEW (IF NECESSARY) Agenda Briefing Resolution R-00-1637 Page 2 $1,188,419.30 Estimated Project Cost $1,060,000.00 Available Monies (Phase I -Grant and Local Share) $ 128,419.30 Funding Shortfall Unfortunately, due to current construction costs and due to extensive drainage work that would need to be performed within the DART rights-of-way, the City would need to cut the budget $128,419 to build the trail from John McCain Road to Station 330 (Bettinger Road). In consideration of available funding and review of the proposed design, staff determined that the acquisition of a small strip, approximately 15 feet in width along the southern boundary of property owned by Mr. Joe Tirk, adjacent to the railroad right-of- way would assist the City with this funding shortfall. (See attached February 16 letter). The revised cost estimates with the easement are as follows: $1,060,000.00 Available Monies (Phase I -Grant and Local Share) $1,055,318.30 Estimated Project Cost with Easement $ 4,681.70 Balance (Contingency) The difference in the total estimated construction cost with the easement is $133,101. In response, Mr. Tirk has made an offer to the City to sell the City 16,040 square feet of right-of-way, contingent upon the City constructing 1,100 linear feet of fence along his property for an estimated cost of $35,000. (See attached). To reduce the Cottonbelt Trail, Phase I, grant project budget by $133,101 the City would need to expend $35,000 of City monies to bring the total project within the available budget allocation. Financial Impact On March 27, the Parkland Dedication Committee approved the use of $35,000 of Parkland Dedication Fund monies for the purchase of this trail right-of-way easement and construction of 1,100 linear feet of fence to facilitate construction of the Cottonbelt Trail. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board accepted their recommendation and unanimously approved the use of Parkland Dedication Funds for this purpose. (See attached Parkland Dedication Committee minutes). As per the attached Financial Status of the Parkland Dedication Fund as of February 29, 2000, monies are available in the Parkland Dedication Fund account. Agenda Briefing Resolution R-00-1637 Page 3 Recommendation Approval of Resolution R-00-1637 approving the use of Parkland Dedication Funds, in an amount not to exceed $35,000, to purchase trail right-of--way for the Cottonbelt Trail. Attachments: • Re-Alignment Cost Estimate Colltonbelt Trail (see paper copy) Tirk Letter of February 16, 2000 • Engineering Memorandum of March 22, 2000 Parkland Dedication Committee Minutes Financial Status of Parkland Dedication Fund at 02/29/2000 Re-Alignment Cost Estimate ('OLLEYVI . _ . lPortion'A' - Jo n Mc('ain to Ple?cant RLn_1 MESA Design Group,lnc. Cottonbelt Trail 97070 DESCRIPTION TOTAAL LEN QUANTITI' UNIT PRICE ORIGINAL COST TOTLAL LENGNEW EASEhiENI EW' ESMT.QT1 COST Trail Construction Cleanng. grubbing, prep 1 is $21.506.20 $21.506.20 1 15 521.506.20 Excavation 7,000 cv 59.00 563.000.00 7,000 cv 563.000.00 Fill Material 2.300 cv $15.00 $34.500.00 1,100 cv $16.500.00 Retaining wall 60 cy 5375.00 $22,500.00 60 cv $2_'.500.00 Handrail (54") 250 if $65.00 316.250.00 250 if 516,250.00 Drainage ] is $118.000.00 5118,000.00 1 Is $''5.000.00 10' concrete path (5" depthxWithin 3.986 sv 525.00 $99.650.00 3.986 sv $99.650.00 10' concrete path (5" depth) 4,077 sy $30.00 5122,310.00 4.077 sv 5122.310.00 Handicap Ramps 0 ea 5750.00 50.00 0 ea $0.00 Shoulder Fill 1.365 cyd $16.00 $21.840.00 1,365 cvd 52].840.00 SUBTOTAL 5519.556.20 S408.556.20 Additional Costs Utility adjustments I Is $9,490.35 59.490.35 1 is 59.490.35 Walkway paint, striping 1 is 55.536.02 35.536.02 1 is 55.536.02 Traffic Bamcades 1 Is 59.000.00 59,000.00 ] Is $9,000 00 Erosion control l is 59,490.35 59.490.35 I is 39.490.35 Signage • 46 ea $440.00 $20.240.00 40 ea $17.600.00 Removerreplace fencing 200 if $12.00 $2,400.00 200 if 52.400.00 Bollards 0 ea $400.00 50.00 0 ea $p.00 Utility Sign Relocattion (1/20 If. A 364 signs 535.00 $12.740.00 304 signs S10.640.00 SUBTOTAL 568.8%.72 564,156.72 TOTALS Total Trail Construction Cost 5588.452.92 5472.712.92 Mobillzauon fee (10° ° construction 1 $58.845.29 547,271.29 Contingence i 5°:° ~ $29.422.65 323,635.65 SUBTOTAL $676.720.86 5543,619.86 A/E Fees (Contract) $133.633.00 $133.633.00 Add Services (SurvevtngNlncludes $1,896.20 for Hurst) $8 553 80 Add Services (Expanded Scope) . . $8,553.80 A/E Fees (Re-Alignment) ••••• 513,425.00 50 $13.425.00 TxDOT Review Fees (2% of budget proposed by Collewille) 514,530.00 321 201 60 S 14,530.00 TOTAL COST PORTION A** . . 321,201.60 S ' 868.064.26 3 734.963.26 -Information supplied by DTA ••-Does not include trail estensions to meet - ~ proposed trails or the -, 110 If Timarron portion. r r r -Within 500' of roadway inrrrsernon. Does not inchde pricing on Terminal Facilities This coo prgection is based on information obtained 6om wbconsoltant and MESA. This information does not i of the toil, Prices are subiect to change without notice aRer 30 days due to conswcoon cost inereasudeanse. '• fees for this section arc included in Stn:tion A if B is done simultaneously. As an r • ndependett project, one fees of 12.5%. cost protetttons tie not valid u an independent tooVaet atttotmt qtly on Complete proiect letgih. prates are fonnulatnd only on cunertt data based on eorrtplere wait eontnn amount. Golltryvi11aA2-23-00 ~~~ PAGE 1 Cost Projection COLLEYVi ... fPnrtion'B' - Pleacant Rtm Park to 1~ART ~~ 4,516 LF. (14,206 LF. Total Trail Length) MESA Design Group,tnc. Cotton Belt Ttarl o-m/~ DESCRIPTION TOTLAL LEN QUANTITI' UNIT PRICE ORIGINAL ORIGINAL COST SUBTOTALS ORIGI~Ai SUBTOTALS Trail Construction Cleanng, grubbing, prop 1 is $12,966.90 $12.966.90 Tree Cleanng 1.8 ac $5.100.00 $9,180.00 Excavation 3.500 cy $9.00 $31.500.00 Fill Material 100 cv $15.00 51$00.00 Retatnrng wall 35 cv 5375.00 $13,125.00 Handrail (54") 0 If $65.00 50.00 Drainage 1 Is $28.300.00 $28.300.00 10' concrete path (5" depth)(Within 2.08] sv $25.00 $52.025.00 10' concrete path (S" depth) 2.264 sy $30.00 $67,920.60 Handicap Ramps 3 ea $750.00 $2.250.00 Shoulder Fill 670 cyd $16.00 $10.720.00 SUBTOTAL SZ29.487.50 5229.487.50 $.29,187.50 Additional Costs Utility adjustments 1 ]s $5.722.10 55,722.10 Walkway paint, stnping 1 Is $3,337.90 $3.337.90 Traffic Bamcades 1 Is $4,000 Op S4 000 00 Erosron control I Is $5.722.10 $5.722.10 Stgnage • 48 ea $440.00 $21.120.00 Removvreplace fencing 100 if $12 00 $1.20000 Bollards ti ea $400.00 $0,00 Utihn~ Sign Relocattion (1/20 If. A 228 signs $35.00 $7,980.00 SUBTOTAL 549.082.10 549.082.10 TOTALS Total Trail Construction Cost Mobilization fee (]0°o conswcuonl $278.569.60 Contingency (S%) $27,856.96 SUBTOTAL $13,928.48 A/E Fees (Re-Alienmenu $320.355.04 $0.00 TOTAL COST PORTION B** 5320355.04 SUMMARY ORIGINAL TOTAL COST PORTION A** 5868,064,26 TOTAL COST PROTION B** S320355.04 TOTAL COST PORTION A&B ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT 51.188.419.30 TOTAL COST PROTION A&B NEW ALIGNMENT BUDGET PROPOSED BY COLLEYVILLE TO TXDOT ' S1,060.000.00 -Information supplied by DTA ~~-Does not include vul extenswns [o meet ro p poxd vads "-Within 500' of roadway intersection Does not include pnemg on Terminal Faalmes This cosy projection is based on infnttnation obuitted from subcatsuhant and MESA. This in formation does not includ rf the veil. Prices tie subject to ehmge withom nontt after 30 days due to const ti e any re-ahgnmrnt ruc on cost ineteafHdca'4se. these tort prajeetions are no[ valid u an independtnt eonaatt amnnn4 oniy on covrpkte project knph. ' f hex prices are formulated only on current data based on complete wait Conlratt amount fhex numbers will change with Ne realignment. ColleyvilNB2-23-00 Z/~4/00 549,082.10 $278.569.60 $27,856.96 $13.928.48 $320.355.04 $0.00 S320,355.04 NEW EASEMENT S734,963.26 5320355.04 S 1.055318.30 51,060,000.00 PAGE 1 C~tY of ENGINEERING DEPARTMEN Texas February 16, 2000 Mr. Joe V. Tirk 909 John McCain Road Colleyville, TX 76034 Re: Cottonbelt Trail System. Dear Mr. Tirk: The City of Colleyville has an interest in acquiring a small strip, approximately 20 feet in width along the southern boundaries of your properties, adjacent to the railroad right-of- way, for the multi-use Cottonbelt Trail system. This trail system will provide a venue for recreational hiking and biking and will connect many of the communities in our area. You may have noticed the construction of a portion of that trail system along Highway 26 adjacent to the railroad track. That same trail will extend along the tracks through Colleyville toward North Richland Hills. Please contact me as soon as possible to discuss this matter. My fax number is (817) 577-7562. My telephone number is (817) 577-7587. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Troy Gray ENGINEERING /RIGHT-OF- Y Cc: Diane McWethy, Assistant City Manager Bob Whitehead, Director of Public Services Keith Fisher, Engineering Cottonbelt Trail System file P.O. BOX 185 COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS 76034 (817) 577-7575 Memorandum To: Dianne McWethy, Assistant City Manager CC: Troy Gray, Engineering Tech / RO W From: Keith Fisher, Project Managerljt~~ Date: 03/22/00 Re: Turk Trail ROW I received a confirmation from Mike Konold of Mesa regarding the proposed ROW take on the Turk tract. He verified the original numbers of 16.040 sf ROW and 1100 if for the installation of the fence. For your funding request, please use the following numbers for this project. Property take: $26,000 Fence installation: $5.000 Contingency: $4.000 Tota! 535, 000 Call me if you have any questions concerning this issue. Parkland Dedication Committee Minutes Monday, March 27, 2000 The meeting of the Park Land Dedication Committee was called to order on March 27, 2000, at 5:45 p.m. Members present: Rich Hendler, Joe Noorlag and Tom Hart Members absent: Jim Fletcher Staff Attendees: Dianne McWethy, Assistant City Manager, Monica Sue Walsh, Parks and Recreation Manager, and Keith Fisher, Engineering Project Manager The Park Land Dedication Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the City Council consider approval of the use of Park Land Dedication funds, in the amount of $35,000, for the purchase of a trail right-of-way easement and construction of 1,100 linear feet of fence to facilitate the construction of the Cottonbelt Trail. The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Dianne McWethy Assistant City Manager March 29, 2000 FINANCIAL STATUS OF PARKLAND DEDICATION FUND AT 2-29-2000 TOTAL REVENUES $418.958.54 TOTAL INTEREST INCOME RECD $56,940.90 LESS EXPENSES: KIDSVILLE DONATION $1,000.00 LANDSCAPING NATURE CENTER $1,169.07 NATURE CENTER TREES $1,035.00 KIMSEY PARK APPRAISALS $4,700.00 CITY PARK SOD $72,881.20 TPWD KIMSEY PARK GRANT $6,800.00 COTTONBELT TRAIL I $24,110.68 TOTAL EXPENSES $113,695.95 '.ESSENCUMBERANCES: COTTONBELT TRAIL I $187,905.32 COTTONBELT TRAIL II $76,298.00 TOTAL ENCUMBERANCES $264,203.32 TOTAL AVAILABLE AT 2-29-2000 $98,000.17 RESOLUTION R-00-1637 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE USE OF PARKLAND DEDICATION FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE COTTONBELT TRAIL RIGHT-OF-WAY WHEREAS, the City of Colleyville desires to assist the region, through coordinated efforts with adjacent cities, to provide cost effective, cost efficient and safe intermodal access for bicycle and pedestrian traffic; and WHEREAS, the planned Cottonbelt Trail will serve as the "spine" of the City of Colleyville citywide trail system; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to support the development of Phase I of the Cottonbelt Trail for the City of Colleyville. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS: Sec. 1. THAT the City Council hereby approves the use of Parkland Dedication Funds, in an amount not to exceed $35,000, to purchase trail right-of-way for construction of the Cottonbelt Trail. AND IT IS SO RESOLVED. Passed by a vote of day of ayes, nays, and abstentions, on this 2000. ATTEST: CITY OF COLLEYVILLE: Jean Harris, TRMC, CMC Donna Arp City Secretary Mayor CITY COUNCIL [il ~' n/ e ~ ~W ~i \~ T~.,,; AGENDA BRIEFING For mt .: 04/18!00 CMO Approval: Item # 8 Resolution # R-00-1638 Previous Action: None DEPT. PARKS AND RECREATION SUBJECT: Approving Master Plan for McPherson Park Reading and Public Hearing Background Since October 1999, the McPherson Park Master Plan Committee has been meeting with Karl Von Bieberstein of Newman, Jackson, Bieberstein Landscape Architecture to develop a Master Plan. Concept plans were developed from the committee input provided at these meetings. In developing the proposed Master Plan, the committee reached the consensus to preserve, in some manner, the historical dairy aspects of the site. Toward this goal, several committee members toured the Southwest Dairy Museum, which is located in Sulphur Springs about 80 miles east of Dallas. The development of this Master Plan will assist the City to meet the park needs identified in the recently adopted Parks and Recreation Open Master Plan, identify preliminary cost estimates, future grant opportunities and partnership opportunities, both public and private. CITY MANAG'ER/ ~~ G~ DEPARTMENT HEAD (continued) FINANCIAL REVIEW (IF NECESSARY) Agenda Briefing Resolution R-00-1638 Page 2 At the April 3 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting, Karl Von Bieberstein reviewed the planning process, the proposed Master Plan including park elements, phases for development and preliminary cost estimates of the park. During the Board's consideration of this item, discussion ensued regarding a proposal submitted by David Bagwell requesting to build a road along the west side of the park. Although Mr. Bagwell's proposal would provide a park entry road by the developer at an estimated cost of $200,000, the board felt that the cost savings did not compensate for a number of adverse impacts to the park design. The Board was concerned about the number of lots that would be served by the single access point, loss of approach view to the park, the need to re-design the park, elements of the park that would be impacted by the proposed road alignment, including the parks service center, and the traffic count(s) of a collector street versus an entry road to the park. After discussion, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board voted to recommend denial of this request to build a road along the west side of McPherson Park. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board voted unanimously to approve the McPherson Park Master Plan, as presented by Karl Von Bieberstein. The McPherson Park Master Plan was also presented to the Historical Preservation Committee on April 11 and was unanimously approved by the committee. Financial Impact None Recommendation Approval of Resolution R-00-1638. Attachments Proposed Park Elements McPherson Park Master Plan Possible Phased Implementation February 29, 2000 Phase I • Entry Road • Large Pond • Security Enclosure for Water Tower • Parking for 40 cars Picnic Area Restrooms • Upgrade and secure Park Service Center including new access road • Hike and Bike Trail • Tree Farm Phase 11 • Amphitheater • Group Picnic Area • Expanded Parking • Expanded Park Entry Dairy Museum Phase • Museum Building • Restore Dairy Outbuildings • Demolish Brick House • Additional Parking • Bus Drop-off - 1- McPherson Park Master Plan Analysis of Inclusion of Requested Park Elements P =Elements provided by this plan O =Elements not suited for this site Elements Discussed by Task Force for the McPh~ Dairy Museum Natural Open Space Arboretum /Tree Display 4H Facilities Arena Parking Tree Farm Pet Farm Vegetable Farming Exhibit Picnic Shelters /Pavilions Hike /Bike Trails Amphitheater March 29, 2000 Remarks site arson P P P O O P P O O P P P Priority Elements Identified in Colleyville Compre Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan Playgrounds Hike /Bike Trails Outdoor Performing Arts Facility /Amphitheater Recreation Center Practice Soccer Fields Playgrounds /Play Equipment Open Spaces Natural Areas Lighted Football Fields Tree Farm Practice Baseball Fields Lighted Soccer Fields Picnic Shelters /Pavilions hensive P P P O O P P P O P O O P Newman, Jackson, Bieberstein, Inc. RESOLUTION R-00-1638 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE McPHERSON PARK MASTER PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Colleyville desires to develop a Master Plan for McPherson Park for the development of its parks and recreation system. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS: Sec. 1. THAT the City of Colleyville adopts Resolution R-00-1638, approving the McPherson Park Master Plan, as shown on "Exhibit A". AND IT IS SO RESOLVED. PASSED BY A VOTE OF AYES, NAYS, AND ABSTENTIONS ON THIS THE DAY OF 2000. ATTEST: CITY OF COLLEYVILLE Jean Harris, TRMC, CMC Donna Arp City Secretary Mayor -- ~ EXHIBIT A ' ' I ~ = -' Page 1 of 6 ~ - - _: f ~'r~f R-00-1638 _ _ ~ o ~, _ . sue, ! ,~;.1f,-- ~r4 '? - I LhnrAof~r Parldeg ~ !~y,' :: i ~ ~17rlst nd ece JJ~~ i 1 r ,• - - Orly' ~ ~ " " ~ - ,, t ,~, "s r ~ ~ ~"7~i '" ,' ; rk44y Fo Lien ~ ~, ~. '~. ~ ~~ ~ - Tree Farm ~ l ~ +' ~ ,, ,' "~ {°- ~ , ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ v y ! ! ~. ~- ~ 3~ v _ ~ ~ ~, 1 ~ ~ ~ . F ~, ~ ~,~` Q r ,, e, -~r 4' ~~ ~ ~:\ ~.: may.. "~C _._ ~ .. .~ t ~. ~~ ~ " . t, t -~ , , ~ a-~ ~ _ - =~ ~~.~~ t ®. _ ~ ~ ~~ p t ;} Park ~w~--- -~ . -Service. a~~~: ~ , 1 ~ , -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,' j i ,+ ~: enter ~ ~~-~ ~ ~.t~_ ,~ ~~ - _ ~ + f I f 4 ~I "~[ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~, t" .t ~, ~ " ... r _.. _:~ ". ~ .c i '~ .., -- n , . / / r~ ~~,, .f f ~~ -,~ ~Y ~ i d4 ~ I ~ ° ~ 1 - _ - - Qfeilfl~ de ~~.~' r ' ~'4.l ~ } ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~' ~ - fir- ~ ~ I r . ~ ar" x" ~"~ ~ ~ _ - ~-~ ~ d ~. _ P -- --~ y r~ ~ ~: ~ _.._ ~ ~ ,F , ~ f x~~~. 1 ~_.._ ~' ~ ~~ ~ - ~ -~ -• / ~ ~~ 1 ~ ' ~ " ~ . ` ~ . ~ ~ i ~ ~ µ _ ~ ~~ ~ ~ , _.- _ ~ , . , ~~ "~ ~ ~ ~. r ~° - i ,. ..-- ~ - .. ~ " / ". - ~ ~_ - -._m ~ - ~. ~ - _~~ - McDonwoll School Road '., McPherson Park Master Plan _: Clle of G>Ile~~ ille, fexa~ NORTH EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 6 (.~i~;; ass ~ ~i~~V ~ i~s~{':. ~.i,T!` COST ESTIMATE PHASE( EXHIBIT A Page 3 of6 R-00-1638 JOB NAME: JOB NO: PHASE: DATE: BY: McPherson Park Master Plan 0042-99 Master Plan Phase I March 22, 2000 CLS ITEM NO. ITEM QTY. UNIT UNIT COST ITEM TOTAL CATEGORY SUBTOTAL n i ~ - A. 'Demolitio _ _ _ 1. ;Allowance 10,000, s.f. j $1.00 _ _ $10,000.00 ___ --- ~ -__ $10,000 B.Grading and Drainage ~ ~ _ _-_- 1 Strip and stockpile topsoil 1,000; cy $6.00., $6,000.00 ___ _ 2. ___ Site grading i 27,000' cy $3.00. $81,000.00 - 3. Pond liner I 1 ea. ~ $35,000.00'; $35,000.00 _ _ 4. 30" RCP 240 ea. $60.00 ~ $14,400.00 - __ __ ---5. !15" RCP_-- 200, ea. j $30.00, $6,000.00 -_ ____ _ 6. (Drain structures 10 ea. I $7,500.00; $75,000.00 -___ 7. !Erosion protection 1 j ea. ______ $25,000.00 ~ $25,000.00 ; - j ~ _ I __ _ _ - $242,400 C. !Utilities ~ - _.___-. - --- __._-. -- -- --- - 1. '.Sanitary sewer 1,2001 ea. ~ 2. Water 500 ea. i 3. Lighting -- ----------- i $15.00; $18,000.00 $9.00. __ - $4,500.00 ______ ervice allowance a. :S ~ 1 ea. j $15,000.00; _ $15,000.00 _ _ b. .Park entry 1 ea. $5,000.00; $5,000.00 ___ c. 30' lights 12; ea. ~ $3,500.00; $42,000.00 I ___ d 12' lights j 20' ea. I $2,500.00; $50,000.00 ; - - ----~ _.. _ $134,500 Construction and Equipment I ~ ~, ', ___ D. _ 1. Concrete roadway and parking i 4,000; sy ! $23.50' $94,000.00 ! __ 2. iConcrete walks ~ I ! _____ a. ;10' wide sidewalk 50,000' s.f. $3.00' $150,000.00. _ b. 8' wide sidewalk 25,000 s.f. $3.00 $75,000.00 ~ _ _ 3. I Enhanced paving at drop off I 18,000 s.f. $6.00' $108,000.00 __ _ _ _ 4. I Fencing at water tower 300 If $40.00; $12,000.00. _ _ 5. ~ Park service center improvements j 1 ea. $125,000.00: _ _ ___ I $125,000.00' ' • Renovate block house ~ I _ j i __ __ ' • Renovate pole barn f ' • Fencing ' • Re-pave yard I i j __ 6. New restroom facilities 1 j ea. , $150,000.00, $150,000.00 Tree farm improvements 7. j 1 j ea. ~ $75,000.00, $75,000.00 ___ _ 8 Restore old barn j 1 ~ ea. ~ $60,000.00; $60,000.00 ~ _ -_ _ 9 Park entry sign ~ 1 j ea. ~ $50,000.00 $50,000.00 _ __ _ _ McDonwell School Road 10. Fencing at ~ 300' If ~ $40.00; $12,000.00 ; __ _ _ 11. I Picnic areas ALLOW $20,900.00 i $20,900.00 , __ 12. I Playground ALLOW $100,000.00; $100,000.00 I _ $1,031,900 - I I T Newman, Jackson, Bieberstein, Inc. Page 1 COST ESTIMATE PHASEI page 4 of 6 R-00-1638 JOB NAME: JOB NO: PHASE: DATE: BY: McPherson Park Master Plan 0042-99 Master Plan Phase I March 22, 2000 CLS ITEM NO. ITEM QTY. UNIT UNIT COST ITEM TOTAL CATEGORY SUBTOTAL _ E. _ 1. 2. ~ 3 'Planting and Irrigation _ !, Site trees Tree_farm trees i Sod ~ 200; 60~ 180,000 ea. ea. ea. $450.00 $100.00 $0.50 S90,000.00 ______ _ _ _ $6,000.00 _ $90,000.00 ! ___ _ __ . 4. ------ 5 : Hydromulch ~ -.-- - ------- - Shrubs 810,000 ~ 50~ ~ s.f. ea. $0.05 $12.00 $40,500.00 i _ _ _ $600.00 . . 6. --7.---- 8. Groundcover ~ -Wildflowers -_- j Irrigation _ I _ - - -- -- 7,0001 195,000; 50,000'. s.f. s.f. s.f. j $3.00 $0.15 $0.50 ~ $21,000.00 ! _ _ _ $29,250.00 ~ ____ . $25,000.00 __ $302,350 j ~ --- - - i _ Subtotal ', ' $1,721,150 _ 10% Fees, Survey, etc. ~ _ _ _ _ _ $17?,115 15% Mobilizationllnsurance~, i ~ __ _-_ S258,1_73 20% Contingency; j j $344,230 PHASE I ESTIMATE TOTAL ~ ~ ~ ~ $2,495,668 I ------- i ------- i I ~ ~~ - i ~ ~ _ ---- ---- -_ ---- - --- ~ j --- --- --- -~ - ----- -.. _ .... -- - ' i ~ F ----- -- - ---- --- ---- i i -- - -- i ~ - --- I - --- - -- --- - - ( -- --- ---- -- I i i I I _ ---------- -----~---~ --- '----- i I _ ---- -- -- -------- I ~ ~ -- -- I --- Newman, Jackson, Bieberstein, Inc. Page 2 COST ESTIMATE Page 5 of 6 R-00-1638 JOB NAME: McPherson Park Master Plan JOB NO: 0042-99 PHASE: Master Plan Phase II DATE: March 20, 2000 PHASE II BY: CLS ITEM NO. ITEM QTY. UNIT UNIT COST ITEM TOTAL CATEGORY SUBTOTAL A. 1. --- Demolition_ _ Allowance - 1 ~ ~ ~ s.f. $10,000.00 _- .__ __ $10,000.00 ._ __ __-- _ _ - $10.000 B. Drainage and ~Grading I ~ _ _ 1. _ 2. _ _ 3. -- - C -- -- _ _ Strip and stock pile topsoil _Site grading Erosion protection - - --- Utilities _- ~ 0 i 0, ' 1 ~ i cy cy ea. $6.00 $3.00 $25,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $25,000.00 _ _ _ $25,000 -- 1. ;Lighting 10 j ea. $2,500.00 $25,000.00 _ 2. '.Service allowance ~ ea. I $15,000.00 $15,000.00 __- -_ ~ ~i I _$40,000 D. (Construction and Equipment ~ ' _ ____ __ _ 1. ~ Expanded parking 1 ! ea. i, $50,000.00 ~ - $50,000_00 _ _ _ _-_ 2. 3. 4. 5. (Amphitheater-- _ _ _ 'Large pavilion _____ I Expanded entry drive .Concrete sidewalk ~ 1 '~~ 1'! I 1,000 j ! 1,7001 ea. , ea. I sy ~ s.f. I $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $150,000.00 $150,000_00. _ _ $23.50 __ $23,500.00 _ $3.00:: $5,100.00 E.__ 1. _ -- 2. 3. - -4.--~ 5. --- -_ --- _ _' Planting and Irrigation Site trees - Sod Hydromulch Wildflowers 'Irrigation ~ I l ~ 100!. 15,000' 150,000, '~, 15,000'T I 10,0001 ~ ~ ea. ea. s.f. ' s.f. s.f. $278,600 ' $450.00 $45,000.00 ___ _ $0.50, $7,500.00 ____ $0.05!, $7,500.00 ~ $0.15' $2,250.00 I ______ _ $0.50j $5,000.00 ~ _ __ $67,250 - i Subtotal I ! _ ____$_420,85_0 _ 10% Fees, Survey, etc. ! I ! _ $42,085 - 15% Mobilization/Insurance; ------- - - - ---------- 9 y 20% Contin enc ~ _ _ _ ----- $63,128 _----- - -- - -- j $84,170 PHASE II ESTIMATE TOTAL - $610,233 I ~ ' ~ -- ~ ---- - i , , - --- _ - - - I ~ ~~ i j ; ~ ~ i i I ~ I I i _ i _. ! -_-. _ ! Newman, Jackson, Bieberstein, Inc. Page 1 COST ESTIMATE Page 6 of 6 R-00-1638 JOB NAME: McPherson Park Master Plan JOB NO: 0042-99 PHASE: Dairy Museum Phase (Phase III) DATE: March 20, 2000 PHASE III BY: CLS ITEM NO. ITEM QTY. UNIT UNIT COST ITEM TOTAL CATEGORY SUBTOTAL A. Clearing and Demolition ; ! __ _ _ 1. - 2. Demolish brick house and barns Miscellaneous site demolition j ALLOW 'ALLOW $50,000.00 $15,000.00 --- _ __$50,000.00 _ _ $15,000.00 -_ __ _ _ $65,000 B. _ _ 1. 2. Grading and Drainage Construct pond #2 _ General grading j 7,000 4,000 ~ ' cy ' cy $4.00 i $2.00! $28,000.00 $8,000.00 ' _ __ _ _ _ _ 3 ! Drainage structures ; ALLOW ! ~ , $50,000.00; $50,000.00 - - -- 4. ; Erosion protection ', ALLOW $7,500.00 ~ $7,500.00 j $93,500 ----- -- C. ( Utilities and Lighting ~ ! ~ ~ __ 1. i Sanitary sewer j 1501 , If ~ $15.00'. _ $2,250.00 __ - _ 2. ~ 3. 4 ^ Water I ----------- Gas __ I Lighting in-museum area (12' lights) , 200. 250' 12 If If ', ea. } $9.00' I $25.00 $2,500.00 _ _ $1,800.00 _ $6,250.00 ~ $30,000.00 _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ __ $40,300 D. 1. _ .. _ __ _ 2. __ __ _ 3. _ _ 4. Construction and Equipment l Construct new-museum building ; and meeting facility Renovate rock house - - Restore barn Restore concrete block dairy barn ~ 15,000', I 1,320' 1,728 I 1 044 ~ sf ~ j $120.00 $75.00 $50.00. $50.00' _$_1,800,000.00 i _ I T $99,000.00 $86,400.00 j $52,200.00 ___ _- __ _ __- --- --- 5. Renovate_sito, barn and trough I ALLOW i $100,000.00 ; _ 6. ' Construct bus drop-off 1,000 ~ If ; $30.00 i $30,000.00 I _ _ _ _ 7. I General site improvements i 50,000 ~ sf $10.00 $500,000.00 i ___ _ _ _ 8. ' Pasture fencing 1,025 If $40.00' $41,000.00 ' _ 9. I Playground/open space development I, ! ALLOW ~ ' $150,000.00 ' _ _ __ __ _ 10. : Outdoor exhibits ~ ALLOW ' _ $100,000.00~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i __ _ $2,958,600 E. Planting a_nd Irrigation '~ I _ 1. Site trees- _ - ~ 100 ea. j $450.00 $45,000.00 ~ _-- Z ! 3. ~ _ 4. _ ---- Lawn area Re-establish pasture grass i Irrigation _ - --- - - _- --- - _-- -- Subtotal', 10% Fees, Survey, etc.( 100,000 150,000 100,000, ~ sf ! sf ~ sf ~ ~ j $0.10 $0.05 $0.50' ~ _ $10,000.00 ~ $7,500.00 ' $50,000.00 ~ _ __ _ _ $112,500 ----- $3,269,900 x326,990 15% Mobilization/Insurance ~ ~ 5490,485 j 20% Contingency.. i i 5653,980 PHASE III ESTIMATE TOTAL - - ~ 54,741,355 I I I I Newman, Jackson, Bieberstein, Inc. Page 1 CITY COUNCIL Ciry nr n ~ if 0 I. ~red~Lr`~~ w ~~ ~~i Tcsa- AGENDA BRIEFING For mt 04/18/00 CMO Approval: Item # 9 Resolution # R-00-1639 Previous Action: None DEPT. CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE SUBJECT Appointing members to the Celebrate Colleyville Steering Committee Reading and Public Hearing In reviewing the successful Celebrate Colleyville event held last December, the City re-evaluated its approach to marketing Colleyville. The objectives of Celebrate Colleyville were to: 1) promote economic development; 2) promote citywide pride and spirit; and 3) provide a celebration event. In December each of these objectives were addressed with approximately 5,000 local and area residents attending this inaugural holiday event. In March the City Council created the position of Marketing Coordinator to assume primary responsibility for the marketing and promotion of the City, as well as to enhance support of existing businesses, for the purpose of achieving maximum benefit for the community with the continuance of Celebrate Colleyville and other special events. (continued) C ~~ CI MANAGER ~i.GtJ EPARTMENT AD FINANCIAL REVIEW (IF NECESSARY) Agenda Briefing Resolution R-00-1639 Page 2 A Celebrate Colleyville Steering Committee will provide an opportunity for citizens to be involved in the development of the structure, venue(s), budget and long range planning efforts of Celebrate Colleyville. Financial Impact None Recommendation Approval of Resolution R-00-1639 appointing members to the Celebrate Colleyville Steering Committee. RESOLUTION R-00-1639 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE CELEBRATE COLLEYVILLE STEERING COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the City Council desires to achieve the maximum benefit for the community with the continuance of Celebrate Colleyville and other special events; and WHEREAS, the City Council would like to involve citizens in the development of the structure, venue(s), budget and long range planning efforts of Celebrate Colleyville; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Council to create a Celebrate Colleyville Steering Committee consisting of nine members to serve two-year terms. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS: Sec. 1. THAT anine-member Celebrate Colleyville Steering Committee is hereby established. Sec. 2. THAT the Celebrate Colleyville Steering Committee's responsibilities shall be as follows: a) to review and make recommendations to the City Council on the schedule, structure, ~ venue(s), budget and long range planning of Celebrate Colleyville; and b) to provide to the City Council a written report of the Committee's activities and future plans for Celebrate Colleyville. Resolutio R-99- 6 9 Page of 2 Sec. 3 Sec. 4 THAT the following five persons are hereby appointed to the Celebrate Colleyville Steering Committee to serve until April 2001: Darla Dennison Donna Kauffman Elizabeth Salih Janie Helling Anna Khalil THAT the following four persons are hereby appointed to the Celebrate Colleyville Steering Committee to serve until April 2002. Bonnie Carroll Jamie Thibodeaux AND IT IS SO RESOLVED. Passed by a vote of day of ATTEST: Jean Harris, TRMC, CMC City Secretary ayes, Bill Kutka Tom Westerman 2000. nays, and abstentions, on this CITY OF COLLEYVILLE: Donna Arp Mayor CITY COUNCIL CCU. nine >~.,; AGENDA BRIEFING For mt .: 04/18/00 CMO Approval: Item # 10 Resolution # R-00-1640 Previous Action: None DEPT. CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE SUBJECT: Appointing members to the Historical Preservation Committee and expanding membership Reading and Public Hearing Background At the February 17 Historical Preservation Committee meeting, members identified and requested that staff send applications to persons, who have expressed an interest in serving on the committee. The City Secretary mailed and received applications from John Colby and Lila Coley. An application was also mailed to Linda Davis. Chris Faulkner also submitted an application for consideration. (See attached). As per the attached Resolution R-99-1552, in September 1999 the City Council reduced the membership of the Historical Preservation Committee from eleven (11) to seven (7) members. (continued) CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT HEAD FINANCIAL REVIEW (IF NECESSARY) Agenda Briefing Resolution R-00-1640 Page 2 Financial Impact None Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Resolution R-00-1640. Attachments • Historical Preservation Committee Applications (see paper copy) • Linda Davis letter, dated February 29, 2000 • Resolution R-99-1552 C1tY of ® e ~~ Texas APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT ~ NAME S~ ~ n ~ ~~ ~•, DATE 7 / , ADDRESS ,~ / _ / / / HOME T LEP ONE 6 ~ WORK I ~ E-MAIL ADD ESS FAX ~ ~ ~ ~' _~ ~ a' ~'t n s C T / ~-!~ _S ~ ~ APPOINTMENT DE RED (list Board, Commission or Committee for which you wish,~to be considered) i - - / ~ S ~Y `~ Cam. / I ~.[uHUr~t.H ~ IVNS (list educational background or experience that would assist you in carrying out the duties of this appointment) _ - ~~ ,~ h 7~ ~j / ~ ~ . I i ~~' !/ _ r, ~ ........ ~ ^~r1.7v~Va ruK StKVING (State briefly the contributions you can make to this appointment and your reasons for wanting to serve /on the Board, Commission, or Committee) ` _ in ~t~.s 7~-~~f I '~ ~~1 ~l~~i•^~ ~ C' '1 /f ~( ~I G.i ~t 51 ,~ ~ ~. ,z~ ~_ ~ ~]Lvv`~/ l/ ~~ ~• -~ n., ..,.... _~___ - - J --~ ~~ ~~`~ ~.q~ ~~ u~at anenoance and active support is required for each a ppointeeT Yes ^ No SIGNED ~ ,• _ once to .•c,;ity council has filled a position, your application will be removed from the fide and you st reapply for future ooeninas_ P. O. Box 185 Colleyville, Texas 76034 817/577-7575 FAX 817/577-7555 March 15, 2000 8:01 AM From: TeleCommander Fax #; Page 1 of 1 ~~ ~_ ~~ h ~~ ctty Of .a `a-- ~~ e i Texas APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT i i v'u ~'i NAME ~ ~' f a, ~ D l~ ~/ ~ DATE 3 _/ S _~ c~ o ADDRESS ~D / Ski e /~~ n 17 ~' HOME TELEPHONE WORK ~~~ - says- ~ ~'/~ E-MAIL ADDRESS Cd ~e ~ ~ l~s ~ , ~ ~~ !FAX y ~ 9 ~ -S~ ~ls- APPOINTMENT DESIRED (list Board, Commission or Committee for whicn yon w~sn to be considered) QUALIFICATIONS (list educational background or experience that would assist you in carrying out the duties of this appo~ntmen;} /s y C a t'S ~ ~ S eo`r C, ~ ~ ~ q REASONS FOR SERVING (State onefly the contributions you can make to this appointment and your reasons for wanting to serve on the Board, Commission, or Committee) ~•~ d~s;r~ ~D eor~~;~ke ~o b~; ng -~o~e-{- 1~er -~Rc~S ~- ~-~o~'cs o-~ 2ar 1~ Cdllc~v; 11t a.~ ~ i ,r>e ~ t ~. e -~+~ ~ f e s e ~' y e a -~D >r ~ e...~o `i c t,c, S~ Do you understand that attendance and active support is required for each appointee? Yes ^ No SIGNED ~ ~ _ 'Once the City Council has filled a posi your application will be removed from the file and ~ you must reapply for future openings. c:in' of ~' Texas APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT NAME ;DATE Chris A. Faulkner j Februan ~' 1. ~'~C1(} ADDRESS S l 0~ Montclair Dr., Collevville. TX 76034 HOME TELEPHONE ;WORK 817-~40-3447 ? 14-7~-1-1749 E-MAIL ADDRESS FAX cafaulknernaol.com 817-X40-~~~'7 APPOINTMENT DESIRED (list Board, Commission or Committee for which you wish to be considered) Colleyville Historical Committee QUALIFICATIONS Gist educational background or experience that would assist you in carrying out the duties of this a~pomtment • ` l ndergraduate degree in Education. • ~~~~or ~0 ~~ears of business e~cperience, and • research and presentation. of Collevville history in connection with Leadership Colleyville program. REASONS FOR SERVING (State briefly the contributions you can make to this appointment and your reasons for vrantinq to serve on the Board, Commission, or Committee) 1 hay c a strong interest in history and enjoyed preparing for and making a presentation on C'~~Ilev~~ille history to the current Leadership Colleyville participants. T also have available time t~~ de~~ote to the activities of the Collevville Historical Committee. Do you understand that attendance and active support is required for each appointee? SIGNED ~ / -~ ~,~ Once the City Council has filled a position, your application will be removed from the file and you must reapply for future openings. Yes No P. O. Box 185 Colleyville, Texas 7fi034 817/577-7575 FAX 817/577-7555 ~~ C~iy Of a ~ Il~ Texas February 29, 2000 Ms. Linda Davis 4600 W. Jim Mitchell Colleyville, TX 76034 Dear Ms. Davis: As requested by the Historical Preservation Committee, I am enclosing an application for you to complete to express your interest in serving on this committee. Please return your completed application to me via mail at P. O. Box 185 or via fax at 817-577-7555. Sincerely, QiS~.c-.- i / Je Harris, TRMC, CMC City Secretary P.O. BOX 185 COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS 76034 (817) 577-7575 !' RESOLUTION R-99-1552 RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION R-95-1126 AND !'. APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the Historical Preservation Committee was formed for the purpose of preserving historical information, artifacts, and sites: and ;; ', WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Council to continue the preservation of ';; Colieyville's history; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Council to amend the number of positions on~eo Historical Preservation Committee to seven (7) members serving ~. year terms; and i ~ WHEREAS, there are four positions on the Historical Preservation Committee whose terms have expired. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS: Sec. 1. THAT the Colleyville City Council hereby amends Resolution R-95- 112fi, Section 3, to read as follows: THAT the Historical Preservation Committee shall be '~ composed of seven (7) members serving two (2) year terms. Sec. 2. THAT the appointments of Dwight Packer, Sammie Bolling, Joe Deupree, and Ed Havran to the Historical Preservation Committee to serve two year terms, expiring August, 2001, are hereby approved. ii i Resolution R-99-1552 Page 2 of 2 ~~ AND IT IS SO RESOLVED. Passed by a vote of _~ ayes, a nays, and d abstentions on the 2! ~ day of ~.~o~~m~~r , 1999. ATTEST: ,_ QiSh.vy J n Harris, TRMC, CMC City Secretary CITY F COLLEYVILLE d1~Y~ D na Arp Mayor RESOLUTION R-00-1640 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION R-99-1552 APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMITTEE AND EXPANDING MEMBERSHIP WHEREAS, the Historical Preservation Committee was formed for the purpose of preserving historical information, artifacts and sites; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Council to continue the preservation of Colleyville's history; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Council to expand the number of positions on the Historical Preservation Committee to ten (10) members serving two- yearterms. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS: Sec. 1. THAT the Colleyville City Council hereby amends Resolution R-99- 1552, Section 1, to read as follows: THAT the Historical Preservation Committee shall be composed of ten (10) members serving two-year terms. Sec. 2. THAT the following two persons are hereby appointed to the Historical Preservation Committee to serve until August 2000: John Colby Lila Coley Sec. 3. THAT the following person is hereby appointed to the Historical Preservation Committee to serve until August 2001: Chris A. Faulkner Sec. 4. THAT Mayor Pro Tem Thibodeaux shall serve as the City Council liaison for the Historical Preservation Committee. Resolution R-00-1640 Page 2 of 2 AND IT IS SO RESOLVED. Passed by a vote of day of ATTEST: Jean Harris, TRMC, CMC City Secretary ayes, nays, and abstentions, on this 2000. CITY OF COLLEYVILLE: Donna Arp Mayor CITY COUNCIL C1~> n! ~~.,; AGENDA BRIEFING For mt .: 04!18100 CMO Approval: Item#: 11 Resolution # R-00-7 641 vrav~n~~c L1f_T~flf7" ~V[7f1P_ DEPT. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT Opposing H.R. 2372, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2000 Reading and Public Hearing Background On March 9, 2000, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee approved H.R. 2372, popularly known as the Private Property Rights Implementation Act. The bill was introduced by Representatives Charles Canady (R-Fla.) and Martin Frost (D-Texas). The full House voted 226-182 to approve the bill on March 26, 2000. The bill has been read in the Senate and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. President Clinton has threatened to veto the measure. Attached are several articles that describe the various provisions of the bill. Under the legislation, takings claims could bypass state courts and local zoning boards and proceed directly to federal court. The overriding concerns about this bill relate to the loss of local control over land use issues and zoning. The resolution will be sent to the Texas delegation of the U.S. Senate as well as the President of the United States. 2 CITY MANAGER DEPA E HEAD (continued) FINANCIAL REVIEW (IF NECESSARY) Agenda Briefing Resolution R-00-1641 Page 2 of 2 Recommendation Approval of Resolution-00-1641. Attachments ^ Text of H.R. 2372 (see paper copy) ^ Excerpt from American Planning Association website ^ Editorials & News Articles on Takings (see paper copy) ^ National League of Cities press release (see paper copy) Page 1 of 5 THIS SEARCH Next Hit Prev Hit Hit List THIS DOCUMENT Forward Back Best Sections Doc Contents GO TO New Bills Search HomePage Help Bill 4 of 4 _r.L:_ L:71 r nerc arc ~ ~rrici GPO's PDF version of this ~ ~~ ~,.,,.~ .,. ~,..~ References to this bill in the Congressional Record Link to House Committee Report Link to the Bill Summary & Status f l Frrll Displa}~ - 10,633 bytes. [Help] bill ~ 18 i e. Private Property Rights Implementation Act of zuuu Ixeierrea in ~enaie~ HR 2372 RFS 106th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 2372 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES March 20, 2000 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary AN ACT To simplify and expedite access to the Federal courts for injured parties whose rights and privileges, secured by the United States Constitution, have been deprived by final actions of Federal agencies, or other government officials or entities acting under color of State law; to prevent Federal courts from abstaining from exercising Federal jurisdiction in actions where no State law claim is alleged; to permit certification of unsettled State law questions that are essential to resolving Federal claims arising under the Constitution; and to clarify when government action is sufficiently final to ripen certain Federal claims arising under the Constitution. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the 'Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2000'. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c 106:4:./temp/~c 10647A6tR:: 04/12/2000 Page 2 of ~ SEC. 2. NRISDICTION IN CIVIL RIGHTS CASES. Section 1343 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: '(c) Whenever a district court exercises jurisdiction under subsection (a) in an action in which the operative facts concern the uses of real property, it shall not abstain from exercising or relinquish its jurisdiction to a State court in an action in which no claim of a violation of a State law, right, or privilege is alleged, if a parallel proceeding in State court arising out of the same operative facts as the district court proceeding is not pending. '(d) If the district court has jurisdiction over an action under subsection (a) in which the operative facts concern the uses of real property and which cannot be decided without resolution of an unsettled question of State law, the district court may certify the question of State law to the highest appellate court of that State. After the State appellate court resolves the question certified to it, the district court shall proceed with resolving the merits. The district court shall not certify a question of State law under this subsection unless the question of State law-- '(1) will significantly affect the merits of the injured party's Federal claim; and ' (2) is patently unclear. ' (e)(1) Any claim or action brought under section 1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1983) to redress the deprivation of a property right or privilege secured by the Constitution shall be ripe for adjudication by the district courts upon a final decision rendered by any person acting under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or territory of the United States, that causes actual and concrete injury to the party seeking redress. ' (2)(A) For purposes of this subsection, a final decision exists if-- ' (i) any person acting under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or territory of the United States, makes a definitive decision, as described in clauses (ii) and (iii), regarding the extent of permissible uses on the property that has been allegedly infringed or taken; ' (ii)(I) one meaningful application, as defined by applicable law, to use the property has been submitted but has been disapproved without a written explanation as described in subclause (II), and the party seeking redress has applied for one appeal and one waiver which has been disapproved, in a case in which the applicable statute, ordinance, custom, or usage provides a mechanism for appeal to or waiver by an administrative agency; or ' (II) one meaningful application, as defined by applicable law, to use the property has been submitted but has been disapproved, and the disapproval explains in writing the use, density, or intensity of development of the property that would be approved, with any conditions therefor, and the party seeking redress has resubmitted another meaningful application taking into account the terms of the disapproval, except that-- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c 106:4:./temp/~c 10647A6tR:: 04/12/2000 Page 3 of 5 '(aa) if no such reapplication is submitted, then a final decision shall not have been reached for purposes of this subsection, except as provided in subparagraph (B); and '(bb) if the reapplication is disapproved, or if the reapplication is not required under subparagraph (B), then a final decision exists for purposes of this subsection if the party seeking redress has applied for one appeal and one waiver with respect to the disapproval, which has been disapproved, in a case in which the applicable statute, ordinance, custom, or usage provides a mechanism of appeal to or waiver by an administrative agency; and ' (iii) if the applicable statute or ordinance provides for review of the case by elected officials, the party seeking redress has applied for but is denied such review, or is allowed such review and the meaningful application is disapproved. ' (B) The party seeking redress shall not be required to apply for an appeal or waiver described in subparagraph (A) if no such appeal or waiver is available, if it cannot provide the relief requested, or if the application or reapplication would be futile. '(3) For purposes of clauses (ii) and (iii) of paragraph (2), the failure to act within a reasonable time on any application, reapplication, appeal, waiver, or review of the case shall constitute a disapproval. '(4) For purposes of this subsection, a case is ripe for adjudication even if the party seeking redress does not exhaust judicial remedies provided by any State or territory of the United States. '(f) Nothing in subsection (c), (d), or (e) alters the substantive law of takings of property, including the burden of proof borne by the plaintiff'. SEC. 3. UNITED STATES AS DEFENDANT. Section 1346 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: '(h)(1) Any claim brought under subsection (a) that is founded upon a property right or privilege secured by the Constitution, but was allegedly infringed or taken by the United States, shall be ripe for adjudication upon a final decision rendered by the United States, that causes actual and concrete injury to the party seeking redress. (2) For purposes of this subsection, a final decision exists if-- '(A) the United States makes a definitive decision, as defined in subparagraph (B), regarding the extent of permissible uses on the property that has been allegedly infringed or taken; and '(B) one meaningful application, as defined by applicable law, to use the property has been submitted but has been disapproved, and the party seeking redress has applied for one appeal or waiver which has been disapproved, in a case in which the applicable law http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c 106:4:./temp/~c 10647A6tR:: 04/12/2000 Page 4 of ~ of the United States provides a mechanism for appeal to or waiver by an administrative agency. The party seeking redress shall not be required to apply for an appeal or waiver described in subparagraph (B) if no such appeal or waiver is available, if it cannot provide the relief requested, or if application or reapplication to use the property would be futile. '(3) For purposes of paragraph (2), the United States' failure to act within a reasonable time on any application, appeal, or waiver shall constitute a disapproval. ' (4) Nothing in this subsection alters the substantive law of takings of property, including the burden of proof borne by the plaintiff.'. SEC. 4. JURISDICTION OF COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS. Section 1491(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: '(3) Any claim brought under this subsection founded upon a property right or privilege secured by the Constitution, but allegedly infringed or taken by the United States, shall be ripe for adjudication upon a final decision rendered by the United States, that causes actual and concrete injury to the party seeking redress. For purposes of this paragraph, a final decision exists if-- ' (A) the United States makes a definitive decision, as described in subparagraph (B), regarding the extent of permissible uses on the property that has been allegedly infringed or taken; and ' (B) one meaningful application, as defined by applicable law, to use the property has been submitted but has been disapproved, and the party seeking redress has applied for one appeal or waiver which has been disapproved, in a case in which the applicable law of the United States provides a mechanism for appeal or waiver. The party seeking redress shall not be required to apply for an appeal or waiver described in subparagraph (B) if no such appeal or waiver is available, if it cannot provide the relief requested, or if application or reapplication to use the property would be futile. For purposes of subparagraph (B), the United States' failure to act within a reasonable time on any application, appeal, or waiver shall constitute a disapproval. Nothing in this paragraph alters the substantive law of takings of property, including the burden of proof borne by the plaintiff.'. SEC. 5. DUTY OF NOTICE TO OWNERS. Whenever a Federal agency takes an agency action limiting the use of private property that may be affected by the amendments made by this Act, the agency shall, not later than 30 days after the agency takes that action, give notice to the owners of that property explaining their rights under such amendments and the procedures for obtaining any compensation that may be due to them under such amendments. SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. http://thomas.loc. gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c 106:4:./temp/~c 10647A6tR:: 04/ 12/2000 _ __ ._ __ Page ~ of ~ The amendments made by this Act shall apply to actions commenced on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. Passed the House of Representatives March 16, 2000. Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, Clerk. By Martha C. Morrison, Deputy Clerk. THIS SEARCH Next Hit Prev Hit Hit List THIS DOCUMENT Forward Back Best Sections Doc Contents GO TO New Bills Search HomePage Help http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:4:./temp/~c10647A6tR:: 04/12/2000 Excerpt from American Planning Association website (http'//www planning.org/govt/talkingpoints.htm) Key Points Regarding H.R. 2372 H.R. 2372, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act, was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 16, 2000, by a vote of 226 - 182. The American Planning Association opposes H.R. 2372 as detrimental to sound community planning and strongly encourages Senators to oppose this legislation. • H.R. 2372 undermines local control of land use and zoning decisions. Land use and zoning are the historic responsibilities of local government and local citizens. By allowing for the premature federal adjudication of takings claims, H.R. 2372 essentially federalizes local land use decisions. Political accountability to the community and its citizens rests with local elected officials, not non-elected and far-removed federal judges. The bill would allow corporations and developers to burden localities with federal litigation if the developer's proposal is not approved. Merely the threat of this costly and time- consuming litigation would be enough to force many small communities to acquiesce to developer's demands. By changing the ripeness standard for takings claims, federal courts could become a refuge of first resort. Federal courts could be pulled into local land use disputes even before landowners and local officials had the opportunity to consider alternatives and compromises. • H.R. 2372 radically alters the process for the review and consideration of takings claims. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the principle that a locality must have reached a "final and definitive position" before a takings claim can be brought to federal court. The Court has also held that a claimant must pursue all available remedies at the state level before a federal takings suit can proceed. These `ripeness' tests articulated in the landmark Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City ruling would be completely changed with takings claims proceeding directly to federal court without a final state ruling or even a final local appeal. According the new standard contained in H.R. 2372, a federal takings claim could be filed if the local appeal process was "futile." According to Chief Justice Rehnquist on behalf of the U.S. Judicial Conference, the provisions of H.R. 2372 "would alter deeply- ingrained federalism principles by prematurely involving the federal courts in regulatory proceedings involving property that have historically been decided by state and local administrative bodies or courts. By relaxing the current requirement of ripeness in takings cases and limiting a federal judge's ability to abstain from hearing certain cases, the bill may also adversely affect the administration of justice and delay the resolution of property rights claims." H.R. 2372 imposes potentially significant financial burdens on local communities. According the Census Bureau, 48 percent of America's local governments (almost 18,800 small towns and cities) have less than 1,000 residents and average annual revenue of less than $200,000. The cost associated with the potential avalanche of federal takings litigation would force small towns and cities to choose between allowing developers to set land use policy or severely cutting back on municipal services, such as fire, police and environmental protection H.R. 2372 undermines the ability of local governments to control locally undesirable land uses. Instead of protecting private property rights, H.R. 2372 would actually endanger the private property rights of ordinary citizens while offering special advantages to developers and corporations willing to pay the costs of federal litigation. Local governments would be hampered in their efforts to protect the property rights of citizens from a range of undesirable land uses and environmental threats. Land use issues from adult entertainment and liquor stores to hog farms and incinerators would all be subject to federal court review. • H.R. 2372 impedes, contrary to its claims, swift and fair judicial review. Proponents of H.R. 2372 claim that this legislation is needed because timely justice is not provided in takings cases. However, H.R. 2372 will only further complicate and delay judicial review. According to the International Municipal Lawyers Association, "because key provisions probably would be struck down as unconstitutional, the bill would create more confusion, disruption and delay for all interested parties." The vague and undefined standards regarding "futility" and "reasonableness" in the bill are certain to the subject of lengthy litigation that will inevitably delay resolution of cases. • H.R. 2372 creates an unfair presumption that local and state governments operate in bad faith when considering land use or zoning cases. Currently, local governments resolve the vast majority of land use disputes without litigation and even the bill's author acknowledges that most localities act responsibly when deciding these cases. But, H.R. 2372 makes sweeping, one- size-fits-all national changes under the misguided assumption that cities, counties and states are somehow denying and delaying justice. APA firmly believes that landowners receive fair treatment and just compensation when their property is taken under the Fifth Amendment. If procedural reform is needed in some areas, that reform should take place at the local and state level. This bill only encourages federal litigation as a means of making local land use decisions. Editorials & News Stories on Takings Page 1 of 7 Editorials & News Stories on Takings The Herald Palladium (St. Joseph-Benton Harbor, MI) Property Rights and Local Control at Odds in Congress (Quotes APA) Detroit Free Press Editorial Bill Gives Developers Too Big An Advantage Scripps Howard News Service Editorial Don't Make a Federal Case Out of Local Land Use Disputes Roanoke Times Editorial Congress Takes Liberties With Takings Back to main page From The Herald Palladium Property rights and local control at odds in Congress By JIM DALGLEISH / H-P City Editor The banners of property rights and local control aze headed for another legislative clash, but this time in Washington, D.C. A Florida congressman is leading the charge for a bill to make it easier for property owners to appeal quickly to federal courts if they feel wronged by local zoning and planning commissions. The bill sponsored by Republican Rep. Charles Canady comes in the wake of Michigan legislative efforts to restrain local zoning and planning commissions. But Southwest Michigan officials say mandates from Washington are no easier to take than mandates from Lansing. "I think there is already a process set up for every property owner who wants to appeal a local government decision. Here it's Berrien County (Trial) Court," said St. Joseph City Manager Frank Walsh. "We have to be careful to let local government manage themselves and the federal government manage itself." Local government officials have been wondering aloud if the state's House and Senate Republicans, who hold majorities, are abandoning their historic passion for local control. A series of Republican-backed bills ranging from creating Detroit City Council wards to standardizing zoning have frustrated mayors, city commissioners, township officials and planners. http://www.planning.org/govt/editorials.htm 04/12/2000 Editorials & News Stories on Takings Page 2 of 7 U.S. Rep. Fred Upton, R-St. Joseph, said he doesn't intend to vote for Canady's bill unless amendments cushion the potential jolt to local governments. Besides, he said, federal courts have enough work already.But Upton said he and fellow members of Congress understand the frustrations of property owners and the importance of property rights. "For me this is a tough one," he said. "Generally, I support local control. I'm inclined to agree with the (local government) people. Here in Michigan the system works." Upton said the zoning/property rights issue is more intense in western states where land-use laws are few and case law is less established. But Jerry Howard, senior staff vice president of the National Association of Home Builders, said the situation is getting worse for property owners everywhere. "The problem is the no-growthers and radical environmentalists who have become adroit at manipulating the system," Howard said in a phone interview from his Washington, D.C., office. "You can never get a final decision about what you can or cannot do." Howard said that in some instances property owners have waited up to 20 years for courts to decide whether a case really should be heard by local planners. He said Canady's bill won't undermine traditional local control. "(The bill) is very careful about not straying from processes," Howard said. "All it's asking for is a time frame for making decisions." If the bill passes, a local government's failure to act promptly would quickly put the matter in federal district court, Howard said. The bill additionally includes language to force local governments to reimburse property owners for decisions that hurt property values. Howard said that local governments, in regulating private property usage, often violate the U.S. Constitution's 5th Amendment, which reads, in part: "... nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." Howard said property regulation, performed in the name of the public good, amounts to a 5th Amendment "taking" or "partial taking." Since nearly all property improvements enhance values, a local unit of government therefore must compensate the affected owner if it rejects his or her plans. The idea that property regulation amounts to a 5th Amendment taking is still a novel way to look at the law, said Jason Jordan, government affairs coordinator for the American Planning Association. Jordan said most case law supports the idea that compensation is largely restricted to public works projects. For instance, a local government pays owners when it takes their property for a highway project. "Our feeling is there really is no debate over the 5th Amendment," Jordan said. http://www.planning.org/govt/editorials.htm 04/12/2000 Editorials & News Stories on Takings Page 3 of 7 ~~ Jordan said the Canady bill "is more like a Full Employment Act for attorneys. He said that if the bill becomes law it would take matters from local planners, who answer to elected officials, and leave the decisions up to unelected federal judges who often are in distant cities. Some House conservatives who are states' rights advocates and have a professed distrust of federal courts are distancing themselves from the bill, Jordan said. Just the knowledge that federal courts could get involved and award compensation would just be a way to intimidate local planners, Jordan said. "We do believe it would undermine the ability of communities to do effective planning and zoning," Jordan said. Tom Halicki, executive director of the National Association of Towns and Townships, said almost half of the nation's 39,000 local governments serve communities of fewer than 1.000 citizens. As of a 1992 Census Bureau report, those small governments had average annual budgets of $186,000. When property disputes arise, the small towns would have to give in because they could not afford the legal fights, Halicki said. Despite the arguments of property rights purists, zoning protects everybody's property rights and values, Halicki said. Glenn Sugameli, senior counsel with the National Wildlife Federation, said the reach of Canady's bill would go well beyond housing developments. If it becomes law, it would cripple local government control of strip bars, adult bookstores, taverns, factories and hog farms. he said. Upton said he expects the bill to pass in the House, perhaps in the next few weeks, but fizzle in the Senate. A nearly identical bill to Canady's passed in the House in the previous Congress but died in the Senate. Upton said he voted for the previous bill. Sugameli said a filibuster by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont and Sen. John Chafee, R- Rhode Island (who has since died), killed the bill in the previous Congress. The previous bill was introduced by Elton Gallegly, R-Cal. Gallegly was skewered in his home district for his involvement, Sugameli said. Jordan, of the American Planning Association, said that Gallegly, who is seeking re-election, is not a sponsor this time and Canady is not seeking re-election. Detroit Free Press Editorial Bill Gives Developers Too Big An Advantage March 7, 2000 back to t~ http://www.planning.org/govt/editorials.htm 04/12/2000 Editorials & News Stories on Takings Page 4 of 7 It isn't enough that Lansing is in the business of subverting local control these days; now Congress is getting into the act. This week the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to take up a beast of a bill that purports to protect property rights but really strips ordinary people and small communities of their ability to control their own growth and future. Call it the Developers' Wildest Dreams Act, and you get some idea of the flavor of it. The bill would make a federal case -- literally -- out of every planning and zoning dispute. Forget the local appeal process; skip the state courts. If HR2372 passes, every business owner or developer with a gripe gets to push local governments straight into an expensive federal court fight. Why is this so bad? Because local hearings are where ordinary people get to put in their two cents' worth about decisions that affect their property, safety, environment and quality of life. Sending every land use dispute into a distant federal court means only those who can afford lawyers are heard. Most people recognize that land ownership comes with reasonable restrictions. Zoning ensures that there won't be a topless bar or an adult video store next door to a school or church, or a landfill in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Communities adopt plans to balance growth and green space, the rights of one landowner against the rights of a community of owners. The so-called property rights bill would blow all that away. You don't have to look very far to see what its impact would be in metro Detroit. The most important land use decisions are made on the urban fringe, as small towns and townships try to cope with sprawl. Those are the very communities that can least afford a federal court fight and would feel most pressured to roll over for every developer ~~~ho challenged them. Indeed, that's what the "property rights" bill is all about. It's the classic case of special interests writing their own bill and greasing its way through Congress over the objections of the real people it affects. Scripps Howard News Service Editorial Don't Make a Federal Case Out of Local Land Use Disputes back to top What could the U.S. Congress possibly be thinking? In recent weeks, the House of representatives awoke from its winter slumbers to push through the Judiciary Committee a bill entitled the Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 1999. In fact, Committee Chair Henry Hyde has promised to bring the bill to the floor for an immediate vote. The proposed legislation is so blatantly special interest, so contrary to principles of federalism and local authority, and so out-of--step with the public's demand for smarter growth and less sprawl that one wonders how this bill could possibly have legs. Under current law, a developer who believes that a local law unfairly restricts land use must first negotiate with local officials. If negotiations fail, the developer may seek compensation in state court. The developer can sue for compensation in federal court only after local and http://www.planning.org/govt/editorials.htm 04/12/2000 Editorials & News Stories on Takings Page 5 of 7 state procedures have been employed. This process makes sense because local officials and state courts are best positioned to decide local land use matters and most responsive to the needs of developer, neighboring landowners, and the community at lazge. Deference to local control is not only sensible, but required by the Constitution, for Supreme Court rulings make clear that a developer cannot seek compensation fora "taking" of property under the Fifth Amendment in federal court until after local officials reach a final decision and a state court has denied compensation. The proposed legislation, drafted and pushed by the National Association of Home Builders, tries to change this commonsense approach. The bill would allow developers and others to short-circuit local land use procedures, forego efforts to seek compensation in state court, and sue local governments in federal court far earlier in the negotiation process. It's easy to see why the developers' national lobby is so energized. The legislation would give big developers a huge new club to wield over local officials in land use disputes: the threat of early, expensive federal court litigation. What is less clear is why this bill has found friends on Capitol Hill. After all, the legislation has attracted an impressive array of opponents, including the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, our nation's towns and townships, forty state attorneys general, and many others who believe in local authority over land use issues. Environmental groups object because the bill would undermine smart growth planning and harm our natural resources. The federal and state judiciaries oppose the bill because it would prematurely entangle federal courts in traditionally local matters. The irony is that the bill is moving in a Congress that prides itself on federalism and respect for local control, whose professed mission is to shift authority away from the federal government to local communities. But by overriding local procedures and imposing aone- size-fits-all process through this bill, the Congress would effectively federalize land use disputes, perhaps the quintessential domain of state and local governments. The bill also flies in the face of the one clear message sent in the 1998 elections: grow smarter. Voters weighed in on more than 240 ballot initiatives designed to control urban sprawl, approving more than 70 percent of the measures. Recent polls show that in many areas smart growth is replacing crime reduction, education, and other traditional issues as the citizenry's top priority. In the states, the smart-growth charge has been led by a remarkably bipartisan group of political leaders, with Republican governors like Christine Todd Whitman in New Jersey, John Rowland in Connecticut, Tom Ridge in Pennsylvania, and John Engler in Michigan all supporting strong government protections for open space and farmland. The developers' lobby argues that it takes too long to litigate land use issues, but there is no evidence that state courts are unwilling or unable to resolve these claims fairly and efficiently. If local land use procedures need reform, the answer is to improve those processes at the local level, not to shift the balance toward developers in every community in the country. In fact, local officials are streamlining land use procedures where needed to make them fairer and faster. Local land use planning is a cornerstone of our quality of life. Local officials keep noisy industrial plants, hog farms, adult bookstores, and the like a suitable distance from our homes, schools, and churches. They ensure that our neighborhoods have adequate roads, schools, and sewers. http://www.planning.org/govt/editorials.htm 04/12/2000 Editorials & News Stories on Takings Page 6 of 7 They preserve prime farmland, open space, and natural resources for future generations. Congress should respect the local control over land use that has served us well and reject this misguided, all-wisdom-resides-in-Washington proposal. Roanoke Times Congress Takes Liberties With'Takings' back to top The U.S. House has revived a "property rights" bill that would rush local land-use disputes into federal court -- and create a nightmare for hard-pressed Virginia localities. LIKE JASON, the maniac killer resurrected in sequel after sequel to the "Friday the 13th" teen- slasher movie, federal "takings" legislation is back. Spine-tingling this may not be, but it is a horror to advocates ofwell-managed growth. Passed by the U.S. House but killed last year by a narrow margin in the Senate, the so-called Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 1999 lives again in the House Judiciary Committee. There, Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte of Roanoke has signed on as a co-sponsor, one of three from Virginia's House delegation. Virgil Goode, Owen Pickett, Goodlatte and more than 100 other House patrons will try again to make a potential federal case out of every local land-use dispute. The bill they are backing would allow landowners and developers who think their property rights have been trampled to head straight into federal court to settle their grievances. State courts, local governing boards, local planning commissions all would be sidestepped as a federal court passed judgment on issues purely local in impact. The Virginia Municipal League, which opposes the legislation, says it would be particularly damaging to small or poorer localities without the resources to defend themselves in federal court. Just the threat of a federal lawsuit can force small jurisdictions to bow to the wishes of landowners and developers, no matter what the effect their plans might have on the community at large. Such an outcome is the fervent hope, of course, of "takings" proponents, who consider almost any regulatory control over land use a "taking." Virginia observers must be flabbergasted to find localities cast in the bully-boy role. Fast-growing counties tried in vain this year to wrest from the commonwealth greater authority to control rampant development. Virginia's General Assembly slashed that legislative package to ribbons. Local planners have not hobbled real-estate interests. Not so anyone would notice. Now three of Virginia's congressmen are pushing the effort to hack away at local governments' limited planning tools. Goodlatte, Goode and fellow conservatives who normally bristle at federal intrusions into state and local affairs suddenly are enamored of the federal bench and a "takings" bill that won't stay dead. It's scary. back to top ,.~r+~ APA • AICP • National Planning Conference • Planners Book Service • Research Publications • Planning Advisory Service • Educational Opportunities http://www.planning.org/govt/editorials.htm 04/12/2000 Untitled Document ~1+~~1T- 11~ational League of Cities FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 17, 2000 FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: Page 1 of 2 Randy Arndt (202) 626-3158 John Pionke (202) 626-3151 Susan Parnas (202) 626-3029 NLC Deplores House Action to Move Local Zoning Issues to Federal Courts in "Takings" Bill The House of Representatives has lost sight of basic principles of governance and lost touch with fundamental concerns of communities throughout America with its March 16 vote to preempt well- established local zoning and land use authority, the National League of Cities (NLC) said today following a House vote on takings legislation. Ignoring opposition from NLC as well as other state and local government groups, the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Clinton Administration, the House passed the so-called "Private Property Rights Implementation Act" (HR 2372). The vote was 226-182. "I know of no community where citizens believe a federal court should preempt the authority of local governments to protect public health and safety, or to seek appropriate balance among landowners, developers and the citizens living in that community," said NLC President Bob Knight, mayor of Wichita, Kan. "We oppose this legislation and abhor its disregard for deeply rooted concepts of federalism, due process and fundamental responsibilities of local governments. The federal courts are not and should not become local zoning boards." NLC commended the congressional leaders of both parties who opposed HR 2372, especially Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), who also led an unsuccessful effort to amend the bill to limit its potential impacts on local governments. In addition to NLC's opposition, the bill drew strong criticism from the Judicial Conference of the United States, presided over by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The Conference sent a letter to the House questioning the bill's "novel concept" which "would offend well-established principles of federalism by prematurely involving the federal judiciary in traditionally local maters and by depriving local and state officials of a full opportunity to resolve local disputes in a manner consistent http://www.nlc.org/ptakings.htm 04/12/2000 Untitled Document with both the Constitution and state or local law." Page 2 of 2 A statement by Vice President Gore also assailed the legislation. Saying the bill would "seriously weaken the control a community has over its future," Gore declared, "If it comes to President Clinton's desk, I am confident he will veto it." NLC Home http://www.nlc.org/ptakings.htm 04/12/2000 RESOLUTION R-00-1641 A RESOLUTION OPPOSING H.R. 2372, THE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 2000; URGING THE TEXAS DELEGATION OF THE U.S. SENATE TO VOTE AGAINST THE BILL; ENCOURAGING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO VETO THE BILL IF APPROVED BY THE U.S. SENATE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Colleyville, Texas, believes the enactment of H.R. 2372 would significantly reduce local control of land use issues that are of paramount importance to our citizens and voters; and WHEREAS, this bill would allow a property owner or developer to bypass the provisions for local oversight and control over land use decisions; and WHEREAS, throughout this country, local governments have been delegated the responsibility for regulating land use and development within their jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, land use decisions are the most significant decisions made in our community and more citizens and homeowners associations appear for zoning hearings than any other matter that comes before our City Council; and WHEREAS, land use decisions affect property values, control the possibility of locating incompatible uses next to a home, may alter neighborhood character and may affect the ability of a city to provide utility or roadway services by overloading densities or directing growth into areas where the community does not have adequate infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the existing system of judicial review of land use decisions is and has been wholly adequate to protect the rights of all involved individuals; and WHEREAS, moving disputes concerning these matters far away from the development site serves to remove the public from the debate and preclude them from participating in the process; and WHEREAS, H.R. 2372 will encourage litigation in the federal court system over land use decisions that could otherwise be averted through the local review and approval process, thereby removing traditional local control over these decisions and causing or contributing to backlog in the federal court system. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS: Resolution R-00-1641 Page 2 of 2 Sec. 1. THAT the Texas Delegation of the U.S. Senate is hereby urged to vote against the Private Property Rights Implementation Act, recognizing the authority of local governments for local zoning and land use decisions. Sec. 2. THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the office of the President of the United States, encouraging veto of this bill should it be approved by the U.S. Senate. AND IT IS SO RESOLVED. Passed by a vote of ayes, day of , 2000. ATTEST: Jean Harris, TRMC, CMC City Secretary nays and abstentions on this the CITY OF COLLEYVILLE: Donna Arp Mayor CITY COUNCIL ~~~• or ~~ •~ ~~ Tc..,. AGENDA BRIEFING For mt .: 04/18/00 CMO Approval: Item#: 12 Ordinance # 0-00-1210 Previous Action: 04/04/00 DEPT. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: A zoning change requested by David Whisenant, from R20 to PUD-R on 23.709 acres located on the north side of Glade Road, east of Oak Timbers Court - Riverwalk at Colleyville Tabled Item Update The City Council tabled action on this item at its April 4, 2000 meeting. Staff has had several discussions with the developer about storm water detention and minimum house sizes. Storm Water Detention -The ordinance was revised to require this development to provide a minimum of eight (8) acre-feet of storm water detention, as based on an engineering study provided by Washington & Associates. Minimum House Sizes -The applicant has proposed the following minimum house sizes for this development: 10 lots shall contain houses of 2,800 sq. ft. or larger; 10 lots shall contain houses of 3,200 sq. ft. or larger; and the remaining lots shall contain houses of 3,000 sq. ft. or larger. Staff does not recommend requiring an average size as is difficult to enforce and may be unable to achieve. (continued) \ ~.~,~ CITY MANAGER >~ ~. L. D T HEAD FINANCIAL REVIEW (IF NECESSARY) Agenda Briefing Ordinance 0-00-1210 Page 2 of 6 Recommendation Denial of Ordinance 0-00-1210. Attachments ^ Development Review Committee memo ^ Letter from Washington & Associates • Statement of Planning Objective ^ List of Property Owners Receiving Notification Second Reading and Public Hearing Update Staff has had several discussions with the developer's engineer and representative regarding this proposed subdivision. Ordinance provisions and drainage issues were discussed, and the following changes and clarifications have been made to the proposed ordinance. The attached ordinance contains strike-through and underlined text detailing the changes. Screening -The ordinance was revised to clarify the height of the screening wall on the commercial property. The ordinance requires an 8-foot screening wall along the west property line, and a 6-foot screening wall along the north property line. Fencing Along Riverwalk Drive -The ordinance was modified to allow a variable height fence along Riverwalk Drive. This provision would help provide a more open appearance along the roadway and allow the water areas to be visible from the street. Impact Fee Credit - A paragraph was added to allow credits and offsets against impact fees for water, wastewater and roadways. The Subdivision Regulations already allow these credits and offsets, and the language was added for clarification only. Park Land Dedication Fees -The developer is required to construct a portion of the trail system, as described in the Colleyville Pathways Plan. A 10-foot wide trail is required along Glade Road, and a 12'/2-foot wide trail is required along Riverwalk Drive. The developer is requesting that the costs associated with the wider sidewalk pavement be credited against the required park land dedication fees, and that the 12'/2-foot wide trail be reduced in size to a 10 foot wide trail. While this is a platting issue, requirements could be written into the PUD-R ordinance. The estimated amount of park land dedication fees generated by this development is $85,680 for the residential portion and $1,168 for the commercial portion. Agenda Briefing Ordinance 0-00-1210 Page 3 of 6 Storm Water Detention -Staff is discussing storm water detention requirements with the developer's engineer. Significant detention is needed on this site to protect downstream property owners from excessive runoff. The area north of this site, including the 70-acre Smith tract, drains through this area. Staff recommends tabling action on this request until discussions on detention are complete. Recommendation Table Ordinance 0-00-1210 First Reading and Public Hearing Background David Whisenant has applied for a zoning change on a 23.709-acre tract of land located on the north side of Glade Road, just west of Bluebonnet Drive. The property is also at the northwest corner of the future Riverwalk Drive. The applicant has submitted a zoning district change application for this property from R20 Single Family Residential to a PUD-R for single family residential and some non-residential development. The original zoning application was for aPUD-C Commercial district. After review, the Development Review Committee recommended that the application be changed to a PUD-R Residential since the project was primarily a single family project, and the development would be consistent with the adjacent project approved by the Council. Notices of public hearing were sent out before this change was recommended, but the change in the requested zoning designation does not affect the project proposal. The PUD-R district provides better regulations and protection for the adjacent property owners than does the PUD-C district. The proposed Planned Unit Development-Residential is for a 68-lot residential subdivision with a density of 3.2 dwelling units per acre. The average lot size is 7,666 square feet with the smallest lot shown at 6,331 square feet. The proposal sets aside 2.92 acres at the southern end of the property, adjacent to Glade Road, for non- residential uses. The non-residential area could allow for up to 33,600 square feet of office space, with associated parking and landscaping, according to the submittal. The attached zoning exhibit is also a preliminary plat, as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The Development Review Committee discussed the proposed zoning change, and forwarded comments to the applicant requesting that the exhibit be redrawn to conform to the PUD-R requirements. The applicant requested that the proposal be forwarded to the Council for consideration as presented. Both the DRC review letter and the applicant's response letter are attached for your reference since the applicant is requesting many waivers from the PUD-R requirements. The following table shows the differences between the PUD-R requirements and the applicants proposal. Agenda Briefing Ordinance 0-00-1210 Page 4 of 6 RIVERWALK AT COLLEYVILLE ZONING COMPARISON Cate o PUD-R A licant Pro osal 1. Minimum Lot Size 13,000 s . ft. 6,331 s . ft. 2. Avera a Lot Size 16,000 s . ft. 7,666 s . ft. 3. Minimum Lot Width 100 feet 60 feet 4. Minimum Lot De th 120 feet 115 feet 5. Total O en S ace Re uired 20% 3.873 acres 20.77 % 4.024 acres 6. Residential O en S ace Re uired 20% 3.87 acres 20.5% 3.97 acres 7. Commercial O en S ace Re uired 20% 25,459 s .ft. 20% at time of site Ian 8. No. of Lots on Cul-de-sac 12 lots 12 lots 9. Front buildin line 30 feet 20 feet 10. Side buildin line 10 feet 2 feet & 8 feet 11. Rear buildin line 25 feet 20 feet 12. Allowable non-residential uses 10 acres 2.92 acres The developer would be responsible for all public improvements to the property, such as water, sewer, street and drainage improvements. The developer would also construct '/2 of Riverwalk Drive and their share of the hike and bike trail system that affects this property. The following are the major issues associated with this zoning case. Street Widths -The Subdivision Regulations require all cul de sac streets to provide 56-feet right-of-way with a 37-foot wide pavement section. The proposed exhibit only provides for 50-feet of right-of-way with a 3-foot drainage, utility and pedestrian easement on each side of the road. The applicant requests that the 3-foot easement be allowed instead of providing additional right-of-way. Emergency Access -The development proposes 68 residential lots, served by only a single entrance. A second street access point for emergency access purposes into the development is required. The DRC considers this a significant issue for this property, given the number of lots proposed. The applicant proposes an emergency access drive from the commercial area adjacent to Glade Road, and proposes an easement to provide the same from the north whenever it develops. Glade Road Right-of-way -New City standards require an ultimate right-of-way width of 75 feet for Glade Road. The Council adopted these new standards within the last three months. The Subdivision Regulations require the dedication of the total amount of right-of-way. The applicant requests to dedicate sufficient right- of-way to provide 70 feet, and dedicate afive-foot wide drainage, utility and pedestrian easement adjacent to the right-of-way. Trail System -The developer is required to construct a portion of the trail system, as described in the Colleyville Pathways Plan. A 10-foot wide trail is required along Glade Road, and a 12'/2-foot wide trail is required along Riverwalk Drive. The developer is requesting that the costs associated with the wider sidewalk pavement be credited against the required park land dedication fees. While this Agenda Briefing Ordinance 0-00-1210 Page 5 of 6 is a platting issue, requirements could be written into the PUD-R ordinance. The estimated amount of park land dedication fees generated by this development is $85,680 for the residential portion and $1,168 for the commercial portion. Adjacent Development -The City Council approved a similar zoning request for property immediately east of the subject tract. That development, The Bridges at Riverwalk, consisted of 32 residential lots, with a density of 3.01 dwelling units per acre. The development also provided 1.53 acres of commercial property along Glade Road. MASTER PLAN ISSUES Below are excerpts from the Colleyville Master Plan that relate to the issue of housing and the Town Center area. The Plan establishes criteria for "alternative housing" such as town homes and garden homes with smaller lots (Issues 1 and 2). The Plan also addresses an objective to include residential areas within the Town Center area, though no specific location is described in the Plan. One of the issues before the Council is whether this zoning proposal substantially complies with the goals and objectives of the Master Plan. Since the Plan does not create specific criteria for the location of residences in the Town Center, staff evaluated the proposal with the assumption that the entire parcel should develop as non- residential uses. ISSUE 1: HOUSING QUALITY AND LAND USE Goal: Maintain current level of housing quality and density. Objective: Overall density for residential development should be compatible with existing neighborhoods. A guideline of no more than 1.8 units per acre should be adhered to in most situations. Town homes and garden homes that exceed 1.8 units per acre may be acceptable in areas that meet one or more of the following criteria: a transition area between commercial uses and less dense residential, near major street intersections, smaller parcels that make less dense development economically difficult and sites with unique topographical features. ISSUE 2: ALTERNATIVE HOUSING There is a desire for a limited number of upscale town homes and garden homes on small lots designed for easier living. The quality of construction needs to be compatible with the existing and proposed single-family housing standards. Goal: Allow the development of upscale town homes and garden homes within the city limits of Colleyville. Agenda Briefing Ordinance 0-00-1210 Page 6 of 6 Objective: Establish PUD-R guidelines for town homes and garden homes development. Objective: Ensure that such developments are only located in areas that meet the criteria in the objective under Issue 1. ISSUE 13: TOWN CENTER Colleyville has a beautiful, new community center on a nine-acre parcel of land initially designed to also include a library and city hall. This is the ideal area for the center of Town to include a library, city hall, restaurant and distinctive shopping area. Goal: Develop a center of town at the southeast corner of Hal! Johnson Road and Colleyville Blvd, that will serve as the catalyst to accelerate the development of the city's commercial center. Objective - Encourage a residential area of single family residences. The Planning & Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing and considered this zoning change request at its February 28, 2000 meeting and recommended approval subject to the following requirements: ^ The lots along the western edge of the development shall provide a 25-foot rear building line. ^ The commercial development shall require a building design score of 30 points. • The language relating to the screening fence along the western boundary be added to the ordinance. The Commission recommended approval by a 4-2 vote, with Commissioners Edwards and Tyler opposed. Recommendation Denial of Ordinance 0-00-1210. Development Review Committee owe fax to fax no FROM SUBJECT February 18, 2000 David Whisenant •~• Mark Howe •~• Jackey Fluitt (214) 522-1628 •~• (817) 581-8864 •~• (817) 485-4106 Clayton Husband, AICP, Development Coordinator Z-00-011 AG to PUD-R - Riverwalk at Colleyville The Colleyville Development Review Committee (DRC) has reviewed your zoning exhibit and zoning change request submitted to this office on January 28, 2000. The following comments are for your consideration. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. The Colleyville Master Plan designates the future land use of this property as retail, office and commercial development. The zoning request is inconsistent with the Plan, and a recommendation for denial will be made to the Planning & Zoning Commission for technical non-compliance with the Plan. While the Plan suggests that residential development be included in the area known as the "Town Center," it does not provide location criteria. The Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council have the discretion to approve residential components in this area. 2. The applicant should revise the previously submitted statements as to why the Plan should be changed to designate this area for residential and commercial development. The previous statements relate only to residential development. . 3. In the event the zoning request were approved, the property would be subject to the general provisions of the PUD-R zoning district and any conditions imposed by the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council. ZONING EXHIBIT DRAWING 1. The PUD-R zoning regulations require that the zoning exhibit comply with the requirements of a preliminary plan. Several of the comments may relate to preliminary plan and engineering requirements. 2. The zoning request should be for aPUD-R rather than aPUD-C. The PUD-R district allows commercial uses designated in the CN Neighborhood Commercial district. A copy of the CN regulations, listing the allowed uses, is attached for review. The Commission or Council may approval or restrict additional uses in a PUD-R. 3. The lots in the proposed development do not meet the minimum requirements for aPUD-R zoning district. The lots must be reconfigured to conform to the following requirements: a. Minimum Lot Size: 13,000 sq. ft. b. Average Lot Size: 16,000 sq. ft. c. Minimum Lot Width: 100 feet d. Minimum Lot Depth: 120 feet e. Front Building Line: 30 feet f. Side Building Lines: 10 feet g. Rear Building Line: 25 feet 4. This property fronts on Glade Road and the future Riverwalk Drive. Right-of--way dedication will be required for both roadways. Glade Road requires an ultimate right-of--way width of 75 feet. Riverwalk Drive requires an ultimate right-of--way of 80 feet. The right-of- way widths are based on the revised requirements adopted by the City Council. The developer must construct one-half of Riverwalk Drive as part of this development. 5. Clearly show the location and size of the areas proposed for right-of--way dedication along Glade Road and Riverwalk Drive. 6. A second street entrance to this subdivision is required by the Subdivision Regulations and Master Plan. The emergency access from the commercial area does not meet that requirement. 7. The design of the lakes/water features should include a varied edge to make the lakes look more natural and less man-made. The developer should consider extensive landscaping around the lake adjacent to Riverwalk Drive. 8. The Subdivision Regulations require sidewalks along all interior streets. Sidewalks along Glade Road and Riverwalk Drive must conform to the provisions of the Colleyville Pathways Plan for hike and bike trails. The Pathways Plan requires a 10-foot wide trail along Glade Road and a 12.5-foot wide trail on Riverwalk Drive. The developer is required to construct the trail as part of the public improvements for this property. Attached are specifications for the trail system, and the zoning exhibit should be revised to reflect those specifications. 9. It appears that the open space areas are intended to be privately owned by the homeowners association. If so, all open space areas, landscape buffers, and medians must be maintained by the homeowners association. Add a note to the drawing indicating this arrangement. 10. The Subdivision Regulations require all cul de sac streets to provide 56-feet of right-of--way with a 37-foot wide pavement section. The drawing must be revised to reflect this requirement. 11. Does the developer propose to provide screening adjacent to the water tank on the north property line? What is the purpose of the 30-foot wide easement immediately west of the water tank? 12. There are lots backing up to the open space adjacent to Riverwalk Drive. The developer is encouraged to consider restricting fencing along the rear of these lots to wrought iron or similar types of products. Wood privacy fences should be prohibited along the rear of these lots. 13. The plan indicates a masonry fence along the west and north property lines of the commercial tracts. Staff recommends that this masonry fence be constructed of brick or stone. Staff will also recommend that pre-cast concrete panels or tilt-up wall fences be prohibited at this location. 14. Provide a concept plan of the elevations of the commercial buildings. The developer could consider locating the parking in the rear or clustering the buildings to avoid the look of a strip center at this location. The dumpster locations must be revised to move the dumpsters away from the residences. 15. Revise the Colleyville Case Number on the drawing: Z-00-O11. UTILITY PLANS 1. Preliminary construction plans for water, sewer, fire coverage and drainage were not submitted. Preliminary plans are required by Section 6 of the Subdivision Regulations. These plans must be submitted and reviewed by the Engineering Department before final action on this zoning application by the City Council. The plans should show the size and location of existing utilities and the proposed size and location of future utilities. 2. A preliminary drainage analysis must be submitted. This property has significant drainage implications on downstream properties. The analysis must include detention calculations. These plans must be submitted and reviewed by the Engineering Department before final action on this zoning application by the City Council. 3. Grading on this property may not extend beyond the property boundaries onto adjacent properties. OTHER INFORMATION 1. Perimeter street improvements are required for this property since Glade Road is an unimproved street. The developer is required to construct one-half of Glade Road or provide an equivalent amount of escrow for future improvement by the City. 2. Water, sewer and roadway impact fees are due at the time a building permit is issued for a new residence or commercial structure on the lots. A formal assessment of impact fees will be provided to the Building Inspection Department by the Engineering Department upon the submittal of a building permit application. The fees listed below are intended to provide general information on the fees that could be assessed. The Capital Improvements Advisory Committee is in the process of reviewing the current impact fees, as required by State law. The fees may change in the next 6 months. ^ Roadway $1,600 per lot for single family uses $3,000 per acre for non-sales tax generating commercial ^ Water $2,936 fora 1-inch meter (fee dependent on water meter size) ^ Sewer $256 fora 1-inch meter (fee dependent on water meter size) 3. Parkland dedication fees are due at the time of approval of the final plat. The fee for residential uses is $1,260 per dwelling unit. The fee for commercial uses is $400 per acre. An assessment of parkland dedication fees will be provided upon the review of the final plat. PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE Planning & Zoning Commission: Monday, February 28, 2000, 7:00 p.m. City Council: Tuesday, March 21 and April 04, 2000, 7:30 p.m. RESUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS There may be additional comments recorded on the set of marked-up plans. These plans aze ready to be picked up for revisions. The marked-up plans must be returned with the next submittal. Once you have completed the changes to the exhibit, please submit the following to our offices: ^ 22 folded copies of the revised Preliminary Plan/Zoning Exhibit drawing ^ one 8-1 /2" X 11 " reduced copy of the exhibit ^ 3 copies of the preliminary utility plans and drainage analysis ^ a written letter addressing each comment stating the comment has been addressed or offering reasons why the requirement should be modified or waived The revised exhibit and preliminary utility and drainage plans must be submitted by Wednesday, February 24 in order to make the scheduled hearings. Please call me if you have any questions. C: CHOYCE MORROW, PE, ENGINEERING CHRIS STEUBING, ENGINEERING KEITH FISHER, ENGINEERING RED BAILEY, FIRE DEPARTMENT RUSSELL WEST, BUILDING INSPECTION MIKE SOAB, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIANNE MCWETHY, CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE = WASHINGTON & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS PLANNERS February 23, 2000 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Colleyville P.O. Box 185 Colleyville, Texas 76034 Reference: Case Z-00-011 Riverwalk at Colleyville In response to staff comments dated February 18, 2000. The following are points of clarification and requests regarding the zoning exhibit. We have addressed the comments except for the following: Item No.3 The developer will grant the necessary right-of-way on Glade Road, however it is preferred that an additional five- foot drainage, utility and pedestrian easement along Riverwalk Drive be granted. Item No.S The developer request the emergency access easement through the commercial tract to the south provide as the secondary access for emergency vehicles. They have also provided another emergency access point to the north at which time the commercial tract develops to the north. Item No.7 Sidewalks on the interior lots will be constructed with the construction of the houses and the walk along Glade Road will be constructed with the commercial buildings. The developer had planned on constructing a curvilinear sidewalk along Riverwalk and request that any additional width required be credited towards the Park Fees that are required. Item No.9 We have provided for afifty-foot right-of-way on all cul-de-sacs and three- foot drainage, utility, and sidewalk easements on each side of the right-of-way to provide a total of fifty- six (56) feet as has been the policy in the past. Item No.13 The developer has currently employed an architect to generate a concept elevation of proposed structures on the commercial tracts. Asa point of clarification on comments 1 and 2 under the category of "Other Information": Perimeter street fees and or thoroughfare impact fees for Glade Road will be paid at the issuance of building permits for the commercial lots. Since the developer is constructing one-half of Riverwalk Drive, it is requested that credit be given for such construction on the thoroughfare impact fees for the residential lots. Should you have any questions regarding these issues a representative will be present at the meeting. Sincerely, & Ass ~~ .~CiG[~ Cc: David Whisenant Mark Howe Riverwalk at Colleyville Riverwalk at Colleyville is a proposed exclusive residential community consisting of 109 lots averaging 6,250 square feet, situated on 26 acres at the intersection of Glade Road and proposed Riverwalk Drive. Riverwalk at Colleyville will provide for single-family housing ranging in price from $300,000 to $350,000 with a minimum house size of 2,800 square feet. The developer will be Riverwalk at Colleyville, L.P., David Whisenant, general partner. Mr. Whisenant has been involved with commercial and residential developments throughout the Metroplex for over 26 years. It is the intention of the developer to provide an amenity package consisting of the following: A divided and landscaped entry area on Riverwalk Drive from Glade Road to the north. A gazebo within a landscaped island at the main entry to Addition within public right-of- way. The main entry will consist of a divided street with treatment, a waterfall and extensive landscaping. The river (ponds) will consist of 4' masonry walls, which will provide for pass-through drainage and storm water detention for the subdivision. The flows downstream will not exceed what exist there today. There will be four lighted fountains -one at Glade Road, two at the main entry and one at the northern end of the river (pond). The perimeter fencing along Riverwalk Drive will consist of an articulating brick column, wrought iron fence with a meandering walk along Riverwalk Drive. The brick column, wrought iron fence will be continued along each side of the main entry of The Addition. The fencing along Glade Road will consist of a solid masonry fence from west to east until approximately 100' from Glade Road where brick column, wrought iron will be placed to allow visibility of the river (pond) and the lighted fountain from Glade Road. The fencing along the west of the river (pond) will be 61 wrought iron. The lots adjacent to the river (pond) will be deed restricted accordingly. The perimeter lots adjacent to the subdivision to the west and the remaining perimeter lots will also be deed restricted to require a minimum 6' wood fence. The landscaping in the river (pond) area will be grass on slopes not exceeding 5:1. Trees will be scattered throughout the area with the installation of Japanese Maples, Purple Plums and Crepe Myrtles to provide color. Low shrubs with a scattering of trees along Riverwalk Drive so as not to deter visibility of the river (pond). Some special treatment will be required around the water tank site. Riverwalk at Colleyville Page 2 The developer will encounter some issues regarding drainage and oversizing of the street for Riverwalk Drive as requested by City Staff . The pass through drainage cost in order to provide for the existing flows (373-cfs) could approach $500,000. This cost does not include the drainage facility for The Addition itself. City Staff has recommended that the proposed Riverwalk Drive be expanded from a 601 right-of-way and a 411 back-to-back street to a 701 right-of-way and a 491 back-to- back street. The oversizing cost for the street will approach $80,000. The cost for the drainage and street oversizing does not include engineering, surveying or testing. Should approval be received on this concept, we anticipate construction to begin immediately after Council approval of the final plat and construction plans. We expect construction to be complete within nine months after approval. The developer feels this is a product that will be well received by the buying public, as it will allow aColleyville-type home on a smaller lot to eliminate a majority of the maintenance required. The Riverwalk at Colleyville Homeowner's Association will maintain all common areas and front yards which will be active immediately upon completion. For Information Contact: David Whisenant 3838 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1416 Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: 214-521-4010 Fax: 214-522-1620 Barnard Partners XIII Ltd. Herman Smith & Company 210 W. 6"' St. 302 City of Colleyville 1903 Central Drive, #403 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Bedford, tX 76021 Charles 8 Maurine Wellman 1204 Glade Road Colleyville, TX 76034 Bernie Lee Crowder P.O. Box 1 Colleyville, TX 76034 Mrs. O. L. Gray P.O. Box 395 Colleyville, TX 76034 Floyd & Billie Sue Latham P.O. Box 44 Colleyville, TX 76034 Marguerite Laningham 5100 Oak Timbers Court Colleyville, TX 76034 Clifton Duke 1301 Glade Road Colleyville, TX 76034 Sennear 8~ Tony Rika 1201 Glade Road Colieyville, TX 76034 Conrad 8 Jackie Rodgers 1213 Garry Lynne Drive Colleyville, TX 76034 Case Z-00-011 John Quenichet 5005 Oak Timbers Court Colleyville, TX 76034 D. David & Norlene Gowdy 5105 Oak Timbers Court Colleyville, TX 76034 Robert Salter 5401 Coventry Place Colleyville, TX 76034 Terence 8 Candice Grisso 1205 Glade Road Colleyville, TX 76034 Harvey Collins 5013 Oak Timbers Court Colleyville, TX 76034 Charles Longueil 5112 Oak Timbers Court Colleyville, TX 76034 Dale 8 Katherine Lockwood 1117 Glade Road Colleyville, TX 76034 Aby 8 Rosamma George 1209 Glade Road Colleyville, TX 76034 According to the Tax Records, individuals who own property that is within the 200' of the proposed zoning change request are listed above. I certify that the parties I1stBd above have been notified of the proposed zoning change request as required by Section 211 the Local Government Code. (Notices dated: February 18, 2000) Jan Levy Planning & Zo ng Assistant ORDINANCE 0-00-1210 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP AND CHANGING THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 23.709 ACRES OUT OF THE J.L. LOONEY SURVEY, A-936, TRACTS 3B, 3B1, 3C, AND 4A FROM THE R20 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT TO THE PUD-R (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS AND AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION. WHEREAS, an application for a zoning change was filed by David Whisenant on January 28, 2000, under Case No. Z-00-011; and WHEREAS, notice of a hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission was sent to real property owners within 200 feet of the property herein described at least 10 days before such hearing; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing before the City Council was published in a newspaper of general circulation in Colleyville at least 15 days before such hearing; and WHEREAS, notices were posted on the subject land as provided by the zoning ordinance; and WHEREAS, public hearings to change the zoning and the Master Plan on the property herein described were held before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, and tine Planning and Zoning Commission has heretofore made a recommendation; and WHEREAS, the City Council is of the opinion that the zoning change herein effectuated furthers the purpose of zoning as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and is in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Colleyville; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS: Sec. 1. THAT the Master Plan, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Colleyville, Texas, and the accompanying Zoning Map (Exhibit A) are hereby amended insofar as they relate to certain land located in Colleyville, Texas, described by metes and bounds (Exhibit B), by changing the zoning of said property from the R20 (Single Family Residential) district to the PUD-R (Planned Unit Development- Residential) district together with all site plans which are conceptual in nature, supporting documents, and other conditions and restrictions imposed and approved by the Council which are Ordinance 0-00-1210 Page 2 of 4 incorporated herein by reference including, but not limited to the conceptual site plan (Exhibit C); and subject to the following conditions: 1. GENERAL a. The purpose of this PUD-R is for single-family residential development, constructed at an approximate density of 3.2 dwelling units per acre, and ewe commercial development comprising 2.92± acres b. This property is subject to all the regulations contained in the Colleyville Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, and other land development ordinances, except where amended by this ordinance. 2. RESIDENTIAL LOT REQUIREMENTS AND SETBACKS a. Minimum Lot Size b. Average Lot Size c. Minimum Lot Width d. Minimum Lot Depth e. Front Building Line f. Side Building Line g. Rear Building Line h. Rear Building Line for Westernmost Lots 6,331 square feet 7,666 square feet 60 feet 115 feet 20 feet 2 feet (one side} & 8 feet (other side) 10 feet . 25 feet 3. NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, LOT REQUIREMENTS AND SETBACKS a. All non-residential lots shall conform to the minimum standards of the CN Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. The building design score of all commercial buildings in this PUD-R shall be 30 points. b. The uses allowed in the non-residential portion of this PUD-R shall conform to the requirements of the CN Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. 4. OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING a. This development shall provide a minimum of 20% common Ordinance 0-00-1210 Page 3 of 4 open space for the leisure use of the development's residents. The open space shall comply with the provisions contained in the Zoning Ordinance, and shall be landscaped. b. The office development landscaping shall conform to the landscaping requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance. 5. SCREENING a. A screening wall shall be required between the office and residential areas. A screening wall eight (8) feet in height shall be constructed along the west propertv line of the commercial lots. A screening wall six (6) feet in height shall be constructed along the north propertv line of the commercial lots. b. A screening fence shall be required along this property's western property line. The fence shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in height, and shall be constructed of double-faced wood panels attached to metal posts, with a 6-inch concrete curb and brick columns constructed on 24-foot centers. c. A screening fence shall be constructed along the property's frontage on Riverwalk Drive. The screening fence e-a may be of variable height, and shall be constructed of a combination of brick, stone, and/or wrought iron. 6. SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS The developer shall construct the portion of the City trail system adjacent to this property. A ten (10) foot wide trail shall be constructed along this property's frontage on Glade Road. A twelve and one-half (12'/z) foot wide trail shall be constructed along this property's frontage on Riverwalk Drive. The trail shall be constructed according to City trail standards and specifications. T. PLATTING The developer shall submit a final plat of the property in accordance with Section 2 C of the Colleyville Subdivision Regulations. The conceptual site plan attached as Exhibit C to this ordinance shall constitute the preliminary plan. Ordinance 0-00-1210 Page 4 of 4 $. OTHER a Offsets and credits against impact fees for water, wastewater and roadways shall be provided as allowed by the Colleyville Subdivision Regulations. b. Storm water detention shall be required for this site. This development shall provide a minimum of eight (8) acre feet of storm water detention. Sec. 2. THAT any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this ordinance as read together with the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Colleyville shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in a sum not to exceed Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). Each and every day such violation continues shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as such. Sec. 3 THAT the City Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to cause publication of the descriptive caption and penalty clause hereof as an alternate method of publication provided by law. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. The first reading and public hearing being conducted on the day of 2000. The second reading and public hearing being conducted on the day of 2000. ATTEST: Jean Harris, CMC City Secretary CITY OF COLLEYVILLE: Donna Arp Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Ross T. Foster City Attorney Exhibit A -Zoning Map PROPERTY Description BEING all that certain tract, parcel, or lot of land located in the J. L. LOONEY SURVEY, Abstract No.936, Tarrant County, Texas, and more particularly described as follows; BEGINNING at a point in the centerline of Glade Road; Thence N 00 degrees 05 minutes 01 seconds W, 13J4.50 feet to a point; Thence S 89 degrees 38 minutes 36 seconds E, 262.89 feet to a point Thence S 89 degrees 38 minutes 44 seconds E, 127.12 feet to a point; Thence S 89 degrees 51 minutes 33 seconds E, 389.96 feet to a point; Thence S 00 degrees 01 minutes 21 seconds E, 1316.90 feet to a point; Thence N 89 degrees 20 minutes 42 seconds W, 388.58 feet to a point; Thence S 00 degrees 05 minutes 01 seconds E, 23.12 feet to a point; Thence N 89 degrees 20 minutes 42 seconds W, 390.03 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, and containing 23.709 acres of land (1,032,785 square feet), more or less. Exhibit B -Metes and Bounds Description ~` ~. i _ _ }~~ \ ~ ~ ~~ '~~ I ~ i t .. _.__ o i ~ ~ I ~ i ~ . r 1 1 IS ~e ~ ~i, ~~.i~ ,,; -- ~: f ~ k ~~ .~ ~~ ~ k S \ ~. _ /~ Z . e • ~i~ ~; ~ ~ ~. $ g ~~,~ ~ a ~. ~. +rt tp ;` d~j~ ~ `` jj f~i~`~ s g °~s.y0 A *. ~ ° oN5 m ~ ~~;~i ~Fi ~ v ° ~ ~ ~ ~ o a b ~ r c ~ c =~ n j. .~.~ .~~ ^ ~ . ~ ~ + ~ ~ ~ Q i 0 --- -E ~~ 1-_'~\ •___ _. __ ~, ~~ ~~' ~i ~y# Jj ±~e :~~ ~~i~~§~~~j~~RCQR~~ ~~~~~ yM ~~~Y~ R~.,.~gS~R ~~!! ti ~ ,~~ rr~~~r yr~i A~ ~ ~Q~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~g~~~~ ~~~i~ss ~~rrrrrrrri~~ri ~,~r,f ~ttt3i~i~ii~i~ ~~ ~ f~dy0 il`l~trilllti ~; ~ i~ ,f • F~ ~t j s c~£ j 1i 1 ~% ~~ ~~ •t~ [[ftti t1r(` t i ~ i Exhibit C -Zoning Exhibit CITY COUNCIL C+~)' ni G. - ~~ >~.,; AGENDA BRIEFING For mt .: 04/18/00 CMO Approval: Item # 13 Ordinance # 0-00-1211 Previous Action: 04/04/00 DEPT. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT A zoning change requested by Lanny Wilkinson, from ML, AG & CC1 to PUD-C on 8.789 acres located on the west side of Colleyville Blvd. in the 6400-6500 block -Winding Creek Addition. Tabled Item Update The City Council tabled action on this item at its April 4, 2000 meeting. Second Reading and Public Hearing Update Staff has received a letter from the applicant proposing changes to the PUD-C ordinance for this property and has discussed these changes with the applicant's representative. A copy of the letter is attached. The attached ordinance contains strike- through and underline text detailing the changes, and the changes are summarized below. (continued) C CITY MANAGER ~~L. DE M NT HEAD FINANCIAL REVIEW (IF NECESSARY) Agenda Briefing Ordinance 0-00-1201 Page 2 of 4 Land Uses -The convenience store with gasoline sales has been removed from the ordinance as a land use. The dry cleaning plant has been restricted in location to the most southeast lot in the development, and a conceptual elevation for this structure has been added. Automobile service uses has been added as an allowed use in the north 150 feet of the property. Automobile Use Design Standards -The design of any automobile use located in the northern portion of the property is required to provide exterior wall surfaces constructed of brick or natural stone. This requirement would only affect the area in the northern portion of the property between the creek and Colleyville Boulevard. A requirement has also been added to prevent bay doors or garage doors from facing Colleyville Boulevard. Drive Approaches -The number of drive approaches allowed for this site has been reduced to three. Recommendation Denial of Ordinance 0-00-1211 Attachments ^ Statement of Planning Objectives ^ Letter from Strategic Resources Group First Reading and Public Hearing Background Lanny Wilkinson has applied for a zoning district change on an 8.789-acre tract of land located on the west side of Colleyville Boulevard, just north Tinker Road. The applicant proposes a zoning district change for this property from AG, CC1 and ML to PUD-C Planned Unit Development Commercial. The proposed Planned Unit Development-Commercial is for retail and service uses. The applicant has submitted a conceptual plan that includes five lots containing 72,000 square feet of buildings. The following are the major issues associated with this zoning case. Land Use -The information submitted by the applicant proposes retail, office and other uses. The only uses specifically listed are a day care center, dry cleaner and convenience store with gasoline sales. Economic development goals for the City of Colleyville are focused on bringing in sales tax producing businesses and Agenda Briefing Ordinance 0-00-1201 Page 3 of 4 distinct retailers to the city. It is the opinion of the DRC that day care centers and convenience stores do not fall within that goal, and recommends that the uses allowed in this PUD-C be restricted to those uses allowed in the CC-1 Village Retail zoning district. The applicant requests approval of the PUD-C with the day care center, dry cleaner, and convenience store w/gasoline sales as allowed uses. Public Improvements -There are considerable amounts of public improvements required with the development of this parcel. The developer must construct and/or upgrade both on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer lines. Screening -This property abuts a residential area to the west. The documents submitted by the applicant propose a 50-foot building line adjacent to this property line. Screening, including a minimum 20-foot landscaped buffer, is also required by the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes asix-foot tall wood screening fence for this project. Since this development is adjacent to existing single family residences, the DRC recommends that the 50-foot building setback area also function as the green belt, and that evergreen trees and/or shrubs be planted within the greenbelt to provide additional buffering and screening. The DRC also recommends that the 50-foot greenbelt not be used for parking, delivery areas or driving aisles. The applicant requests that parking, delivery areas and driving aisles be allowed within the 50-foot building setback. Zoning Requirements -This property is subject to the regulations of the PUD-C ordinance and all related sections of the Zoning Regulations. The property must comply with parking, screening, landscaping, building design and site planning requirements. Other ordinances that will affect this development include tree preservation, signs, and drainage. The property will also be subject to the requirements of the actual approving PUD-C ordinance, which would include any conditions imposed by the Planning & Zoning Commission or City Council. Drive Approaches -The developer proposes up to four drive approaches along this property's frontage, spaced at 150-feet apart at the centerlines. City engineering requirements for driveway spacing along Colleyville Boulevard is 500 feet. The DRC recommends only three drive approaches along this property's 750-foot frontage, provided deceleration lanes are included in the design. The Planning & Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing and considered this zoning change request at its February 28, 2000 meeting and unanimously recommended approval subject to the following requirement: deceleration lanes shall be provided for the drive approaches entering this development. Recommendation Approval of Ordinance 0-00-1211 subject to the following: Agenda Briefing Ordinance 0-00-1201 Page 4 of 4 1. The uses allowed in the PUD-C be restricted to the CC-1 Village Retail district 2. A 50-foot landscaped green belt with evergreen trees and/or shrubs planted on 6- foot centers within the greenbelt be provided for additional buffering and screening. The 50-foot greenbelt shall not be used for parking, delivery areas or driving aisles. 3. A maximum of three drive approaches shall be allowed on Colleyville Boulevard. Zoning Application February 24,2000 Lanny Wilkinson, Applicant Request for re-zoning of: an 8.789 acre parcel of land located east of Kingston Addition and west of SH 26, and being comprised of the Haynie addition and an adjacent 6.058 acres immediately south of Haynie Addition, From ML, CC-1, and AG to PUD-C subject to the following conditions: 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10 The approved site plan is conceptual only. Actual building envelopes, lot areas and lot lines may be altered to suit future tenants. However, every change shall be regulated by these conditions. A. Any site plan change which would cause a numerical increase above a maximum standard approved herein, as defined in conditions 2, 4 or 12 below, will require approval of a new site plan by the Planning and Zoning Commission and .City Council. B. Any site plan change which would cause a numerical decrease below an minimum standard approved herein, as defined in conditions 3, 8, 9, 12 and 13 will require approval of a new site plan by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. C. Any site plan change maintaining numerical standards approved herein may be approved by City staff. The total floor area per lot may be greater or lesser than indicated on the conceptual site plan provided that there shall be a maximum of 80,000 square feet of building space within the entire development. The total amount of parking within the development may vary from what is indicated on the site plan, provided that all parking constructed within the development shall be open to use by all visitors within the development, and the overall ratio of parking spaces to enclosed building floor area shall not be less than 1 space per 250 square feet of floor. Gasoline pump islands for retail gasoline sales shall be permitted only on the most northerly 180 feet of the development. However, in such case that a retail store with 50 percent or more of its floor area devoted to the sale or service of automotive tires, batteries, auto accessories or other automotive parts and supplies shall locate in the most northerly 180 feet of the development, retail gasoline sales shall not be permitted. One, but not more than one day care center shall be permitted on the site. 6. One, but not more than one dry cleaning establishment shall be permitted on the site. Such establishment may include cleaning equipment and pickup facilities, provided the total floor space shall not exceed 5,000 square feet. In addition to the uses described in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 above, all uses within the CC- 2 district shall be permitted. At no time shall the total square footage of open space for the site fall below 25 percent of the square footage for each lot, nor 30 percent of the total square footage of the entire site. The developer of this PUD and his assigns waive the tree preservation ordinance building pad exemption, provided that at no time shall the total measurement of diameter inches of trees on the site fall below 1,200 diameter inches. In order to protect the community from flooding, and improve the delivery of utility and fire services, trees within utility and drainage improvement easements and construction areas shall not be subject to preservation or mitigation. 11. The minimum design score for buildings within the site shall be not less than 30 points per building. 12. Up to 4, but not more than 4 drive access locations shall be permitted from Colleyville Boulevard, provided that the spacing between drives shal- not be less than 150 feet, center line to center line. 13. There shall be a building setback of not less than 50 feet along the common boundary line with Kingston Addition. Statement of Planning Objectives Winding Creek continues a Colleyville development trend envisioned in the 1994 Colleyville Boulevard Corridor Plan. This is a true village concept, with staggered building setbacks to give the manmade environment an organic look. This pattern is enhanced by the "winding creek" that gives the development its name and which flows by each of the proposed building sites. The creek will need to be realigned to accomplish all this since the current location does not allow for very much frontage on Colleyville Boulevard. Ali proposed uses are non-residential, primarily a mixture of retail and office uses. All uses adjacent to Kingston Addition on the west have a 50 foot or larger building setback. An 8 foot screen will be provided and maintained by the applicant along the western edge of the site. A day care center is planned for the southwest corner of the site. The location of a daycare center on this particular tract is critical to the viability of the entire PUD. Prior to marketing this lot, the applicant has worked with the adjacent residential property owners in an attempt to determine the best use for the tot. Given that it would not be a good residential property so close to the highway, and given that it would not be a good retail site hidden behind the buildings and heavy landscaping along the development frontage, a destination oriented, low impact, non residential use, tolerant of the heavy open space requirement, was considered the solution. This left only schools, daycare centers, medical rehabilitation centers, assisted living centers and churches as possible uses. A contract has been signed with a day care center contingent upon approval of the PUD. The large setback, the heavy tree cover in the southwest corner will buffer this daytime use from the residential neighborhood. Because the northwestern corner of the development is more open and abuts existing industrial uses, it is a more viable retail site. However to reduce the impact on residential properties, the rear setback for these buildings will average out at around 75 feet. Another design challenge for the applicant is the northeastern corner of the development which is severely impacted by an overabundance of drainage and utility easements. This can never be a large retail site. It is currently zoned ML which permits gasoline sales by right. A small convenience store offering gasoline would represent a downward shift in potential zoning intensity I yet would be compatible with neighboring industrial uses, and could be designed around the trees and easements. There are 217 trees in the proposed Winding Creek Addition with a total of 2,366 caliper inches. This tree cover is an important factor in the overall design of the site. A tree survey was commissioned to look at every tree 3 inches and larger. The true design process started by identifying all hardwood trees over 12 inches in diameter, and setting up drip line markers for these. The pattern of open space which emerged, helped determine building pads. Because of the added weight given to hardwoods over 12 inches, some large but softer woods are sacrificed if they fell within ideal building locations. For the sake of design, some extremely large elms were preserved, if doing so did not impact the use of specimen oaks or pecans. As spelled out in the list of proposed conditions, the applicant is willing to waive the tree preservation ordinance exemption for trees under the building pad. In lieu of this, the plan calls for a minimum preservation standard whereby more than half of the trees currently standing on this heavily wooded site will be preserved. Conventional development under typical City of Colleyville standards would permit the primary use of the heavily wooded frontage along Colleyville Boulevard and the destruction of the large natural buffer along the west of the site protecting the residential neighborhood. Conventional development would remove 70 percent of the trees on the site. In accordance with the current ordinance, much of this loss would be exempt if the building pads were located in just the right, or wrong way. Further, there are no requirements in the current ordinance for mandatory preservation of any percentage of specimen hard wood trees. The applicant is therefore seeking concurrent approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission of this tree preservation plan as an alternative to the standards detailed in the Colleyville Tree Ordinance. Development Schedule Construction of the Day Care Center is planned for this year. Other uses will be developed later. Drainage Improvements will begin as soon as engineering plans are approved by City staff. Statement of Proposed Ownership The property will be owned initially by the applicant, CTL Properties. Although some property will be retained long term by the applicant, most of the lots will be offered for sale. Statement of Utility Development A sewer main was recently extended to this site by the City. Connections to this main will be made by the applicant in accordance with City standards. The applicant will extend a 12 inch water main to the site from a location near the Chamber of Commerce. The applicant will request City participation in the over- sizing cost of this extension in accordance with current policy. Strategic Resources Group Urban Design Economic Development Strategic Planning Doug Henderson, AICP 3602 Lake Champlain Drive Arlington, TX 76016 (817) T98-7006 March 29, 2000 Honorable Members of the City Council City of Colleyville 5400 Bransford Colleyville, TX 76034 Re: Winding Creek Re-zoning from AG, CC-1 and ML to PUD-C Dear Members of the City Council Thank you for your earnest consideration of the Winding Creek development plan. We share your desire for the growth and maintenance of a safe, prosperous and efficient community. We are especially grateful to those of you who have offered valuable insight regarding our site plan. Having redesigned some elements of the plan, we would like to offer the following amendments to our original PUD-C request. 1. To encourage greater opportunity for retail development in the more open center of the site, we would like to restrict the dry cleaners with plant and pickup to the first building pad immediately north and west of the southeast corner of the site. 2. In order to improve the appearance of the northern approach to the site we would like to: a. remove the opportunity for gasoline sales from our request. b. require 100 percent brick or natural stone for all exterior wall surfaces except windows, doors, decorative trim and roof trim for the building pad located between the creek and Colleyville Boulevard on what is now the Haynie Addition. 3. To further alleviate congestion on Colleyville Boulevard, we would like to reduce the number of drive access points into the site to not more than three. All other elements of the PUD-C are critical to the urban design and economic viability of the project. Sinc ly Doug Henderson, AICP ORDINANCE 0-00-1211 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP AND CHANGING THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 8.789 ACRES OUT OF THE A.J. LOTT SURVEY, A-963, TRACTS 2M AND 2N, AND LOT 1, BLOCK 1, HAYNIE ADDITION, FROM THE AG (AGRICULTURE), CC1 (VILLAGE RETAIL) AND ML (LIGHT MANUFACTURING) DISTRICTS TO THE PUD-C (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS AND AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION. WHEREAS, an application for a zoning change was filed by Lanny Wilkinson on January 28, 2000, under Case No. Z-00-012; and WHEREAS, notice of a hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission was sent to real property owners within 200 feet of the property herein described at least 10 days before such hearing; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing before the City Council was published in a newspaper of general circulation in Colleyville at least 15 days before such hearing; and WHEREAS, notices were posted on the subject land as provided by the zoning ordinance; and WHEREAS, public hearings to change the zoning and the Master Plan on the property herein described were held before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, and the Planning and Zoning Commission has heretofore made a recommendation; and WHEREAS, the City Council is of the opinion that the zoning change herein effectuated furthers the purpose of zoning as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and is in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Colleyville; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS: Sec. 1. THAT the Master Plan, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Colleyville, Texas, and the accompanying Zoning Map (Exhibit A) are hereby amended insofar as they relate to certain land located in Colleyville, Texas, described by metes and bounds (Exhibit B), by changing the zoning of said property from the AG (Agriculture), CC1 (Village Retail) and ML (Light Manufacturing) districts to the PUD-C (Planned Unit Development-Commercial) district together with all site plans which are conceptual in nature, supporting documents, Ordinance 0-00-1211 Page 2 of 4 and other conditions and restrictions imposed and approved by the Council which are incorporated herein by reference including, but not limited to the conceptual site plan (Exhibit C); and subject to the following conditions: 1. GENERAL The purpose of this PUD-C is for the development of retail and services type uses. 2. PERMITTED USES a. All commercial and office uses allowed in the CC1 Village Retail zoning district b. b. One automobile service use located on the north 150 feet of the property c. One day care center d. One dry cleaner not exceeding 5,000 s.f. in gross floor area 3. SETBACKS, OPEN SPACE & SCREENING a. A rear building line of 50 feet shall be provided along this property's western common property with the Kingston Addition. b. Open space and lot coverage shall be in accordance with the CC1 district regulations. A minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) open space shall be provided on each lot. A minimum of thirty percent (30%) open space shall be provided for the entire development. c. The property shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance at the time a building permit is requested. 4. TREE PRESERVATION a. A minimum of 1,500 caliper-inches of existing trees shall be preserved in-place on the property. Tree preservation shall be in general accordance with the Tree Preservation Plan attached as Exhibit D. Ordinance 0-00-1211 Page 3 of 4 b. Compliance with these tree preservation provisions shall be reviewed upon the submittal of a site plan. c. Trees located in a dedicated utility or drainage easement shall not be subject to preservation or mitigation requirements. An exemption shall not be granted for trees located under a building pad site. 5. OTHER a. Three 3 drive approaches shall be allowed on Colleyville Boulevard to provide access to the property. The drive approaches shall be spaced a minimum of one hundred fifty feet (150') apart, centerline to centerline. The driveway throat width shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35'). Deceleration lanes shall be provided. b. All buildings shall be designed to meet the minimum architectural design standards of the CC1 -Village Retail district, as contained in Section 24.17 of the Zoning Ordinance. c. The dry cleaner plant with pickup station shall be restricted to the most southeast lot in the development. d. The building elevations for the dry cleaner plant shall be generally consistent with the building elevation attached as Exhibit E. e. For all buildings constructed on the most northeast lot between the creek and Collevville Boulevard, one hundred percent (100%) of the exterior wall surfaces shall be constructed of brick or natural stone. The requirement shall apply to all wall surfaces, less the area of window and door openings. The requirement shall not apply to decorative trim or roof trim areas. f. Structures for automobile service uses shall be oriented in such a manner that the bav doors or garage doors do not face Collevville Boulevard. The walls containing bav or garage door openings shall be within fifteen degrees (15°) of perpendicular to the right-of-way line of Collevville Boulevard. Sec. 2. THAT any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this ordinance as read together with the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Colleyville shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in a sum not to exceed Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). Each and every day such violation Ordinance 0-00-1211 Page 4 of 4 continues shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as such. Sec. 3 THAT the City Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to cause publication of the descriptive caption and penalty clause hereof as an alternate method of publication provided by law. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. The first reading and public hearing being conducted on the day of 2000. The second reading and public hearing being conducted on the day of 2000. ATTEST: Jean Harris, TRMC, CMC City Secretary CITY OF COLLEYVILLE: Donna Arp Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Ross T. Foster City Attorney i K u .7r L' ~ w u u N tf It N p N 17 N • N • • N ~~ ~ • -.- . s s~ ~ '~ i a : ; t i t t Ns x• I »~ ~' ai r 6 ~. r j $ ~' i 1 ~ ~~ i ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ' See ., "' ~,~ P~NC6 1.~1 • ~ 37.1 ~ - 1 ass-~ 1 s~ • A y -'~F aiewnsu. aA ~ ,. 1t ,w ~5 M ~ K ~ R NA ~~ • F~j . T .-tom, E5 1 K j ~ i 1 f ~ 1R 173 ~ s+e tiK ~~" • 1J A=C ~ ws ~uw• ++• sr °~ - _ to w Z ~K ,E .. Exhibit A -Zoning Map Property Description Being a tract of land out of the H. Hughes Survey, Abstract No: 963, Tarrant County, Texas and being the same tract of land as described in deed recorded in Volume 7935, Page 1697, Deed Records, Tarrant County, Texas and in Volume 9031, Page 1352, Deed Records, Tarrant County, Texas and being Lot 1, Block 1 of Haynie Addition as described in deed recorded in Volume 388-164, Page 100, Deed Records, Tarrant County, Texas and being described as follows Beginning at an '/~- inch iron pin found in the West right of way line of Colleyville Road (SH 26) for the Southeast corner of tract being described, said point being the Northeast corner of the Conner Lam tract, a 3.18 acre tract of land as described in deed recorded in Volume 7225, Page 1257, Deed Records, Tarrant County, Texas; Thence South 86 degrees 28 minutes 47 seconds West 410.19 feet along North property line of said Conner Lam tract to a 5/8 inch iron pin set for corner; Thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 14 seconds East 474.87 feet along West boundary of the Kingston Addition as described in deed recorded in Volume 388-32, Page 71, Deed Records, Tarrant County, Texas to a 518 inch iron pin set for corner; Thence North 00 degrees 59 minutes 09 seconds East 176.67 feet along the West boundary of the Kingston Addition as described in deed recorded in Volume 388-32, Page 71, Deed Records, Tarrant County, Texas to a'/z -inch iron pin found for corner; Thence North 87 degrees 41 minutes 35 seconds East 775.11 feet along South boundary of the James David Bowden tract as described in deed recorded in Volume 11970, Page 1677, Deed Records, Tarrant County, Texas to a 5/8 inch iron pin set for corner; Thence South 29 degrees 16 minutes 50 seconds West 753.85 feet to '/2 inch iron pin set and continuing to the point of beginning and containing 382867.790 square feet or 8.789 acres or land, more or less. Exhibit B -Metes and Bounds Description O ~ Q H ~~' ~ ~ ~ W - -~iF Q ~~~rr ~.+ r W ~ W J ~ ~~! ~~ ~ m ~ U U } , ~ ,`~~ ~ vi ..+ ~ ~a lii3 ~ ~ w = CZ w p Z ~~ ., ~ W w U ~~ t~~ o F o a o I ~ ~ ~ V O m~ ~~ U~= ~Q~,~p~so1 aZ ~~~ Z U d ~~~~o < • (r~ V Z Z Ur J N Z ~ OUP ~~ O 1~ ~e r ~ d 1' *. ~" r / D .~ `~. l' " '~ e ; ~ Jd~ , ~~ i ~ - ~ ~ ` ~ ~~ `~ 1 ~ `_' } !~~ ` r _~ Q ~ ` ; ~~, ~ t h ~. ~ t ~ ~ ~J ~o 4 ~~ • . ``` ~. '~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~~ ~~ ~ ~o , Q ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ` M ~ ~ _ ~~ r ~~ ` _ ~=r p ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ° ~ g ~~! t1 I ~ ~ ~ ~~ = no J ~ ~ ~ .. g n ~ dl~` ~ ~ U ~ ~ 4~ ~ ~ U • , e Exhibit C -Zoning Exhibit g~ a ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ «~^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Zi m~~ Q iii .~ ~E E !^ li ,` ~ ~: ~ .\ ~ . ~~~ . -~ , ~ ~ey~~e. '~ `~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ moo, a ~ ~ ~ ' _------- ,~~ ~ 1'~ ~ ._ _ a~~~~ t~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ s ~d ~ ~ . ~~~ ...~ .. ,, ~ ' r I ~.~,,~ .,.. ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~li!IIlII~~l~~~ ~~ ! ~~ i .......... Exhibit D -Tree Preservation Plan Exhibit E -Day Care Center Conceptual Elevation CITY COUNCIL ~~n v ~~~ /~W Tc,,: AGENDA BRIEFING For mt .: 04/18/00 CMO Approval: Item#: 14 Resolution # R-00-1619 Previous Action: TABLED 03/07/00 DEPT. CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE SUBJECT: Appointing members to the Colleyville Library Advisory Committee Update This item remains TABLED. Reading and Public Hearing Background In October 1998, the City Council established the Colleyville Library Task Force with the following responsibilities: 1) to review and make recommendations to the City Council on issues related to the location, construction and operation of library services; and 2) to provide the Council with a written report of the Task Force's recommendation for future plans for library services. (continued) C CITY MANAGE/R ~~G~/ D PARTMENT H ~ D FINANCIAL REVIEW (IF NECESSARY) Agenda Briefing Resolution R-00-1619 Page 2 In April 1999, the Library Task Force presented their report to the City Council. The Task Force proposed that Council establish a permanent Colleyville Public Library Advisory Board consisting of seven to nine members. This advisory board would serve as a liaison between the citizens and the Council to promote library services and programs. It would fulfill an important role in providing an avenue for public participation in planning library policies and services. As the City continues its efforts for the design and construction of the Colleyville Public Library, the establishment of a Colleyville Library Advisory Committee will assist the City to determine the programming needs of the library and provide input concerning the architectural design and construction of the library. Financial Impact None Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Resolution R-00-1619 appointing a Colleyville Library Advisory Committee. Library Advisory Committee Applicants LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICANTS The following Colleyville residents have applied for a position on the Library Advisory Committee: Mary Andrews Judy Atwood Susan Barzelay Karen Birkes Nancy Bowen Joy Donovan Brandon Miriam Cohen David Coulson Lynda Davis Anna Eisen Nancy Eytcheson Chris Faulkner Dana Feldman Deborah Fentress Cathy Fryer Ed Havran Charlotte Hill Pat Jones Denise Light Steven Magee Mary Miller Jim Moore Jane Nelson Mary Ann Nicholson Lisa Peterson Richard Roxburgh Ibrahim Salih John Stanford Ret Stansburger Vaman Vengurlekar Linda Vincent Carol Wollin RESOLUTION R-00-1619 A RESOLUTION REPLACING RESOLUTION R-98-1424 AND APPOINTING A COLLEYVILLE LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the City of Colleyville desires to continue its efforts for the design and construction of the Colleyville Public Library; and WHEREAS, the City Council is committed to involving citizens in the development of the Colleyville Public Library. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS: Sec. 1. THAT the Colleyville Library Advisory Committee is hereby established. Sec. 2. THAT the Colleyville Library Advisory Committee membership be established by the City Council with a City Manager's Office designated staff liaison. Sec. 3. THAT the Colleyville Library Advisory Committee responsibilities are: a) to review and make recommendations to the City Council on issues related to the programming needs of the Colleyville Public Library and to assist with the identification of programming goals. b) to review and make recommendations to the City Council on the architectural design and construction of the Colleyville Public Library. Sec. 4. THAT the following persons are hereby appointed to the Library Advisory Committee to serve two-year terms: Sec. 5. THAT the following persons are hereby appointed to the Library Advisory Committee to serve one-year terms: Resolution R-00-1619 Page 2 of 2 AND IT IS SO RESOLVED. Passed by a vote of day of ATTEST: ayes, nays, and abstentions, on this .2000. Jean Harris, TRMC, CMC City Secretary CITY OF COLLEYVILLE: Donna Arp Mayor CITY COUNCIL ~~n' n/ ~, T~<,; AGENDA BRIEFING For mt .: 04118!00 CMO Approval: Item # 15 Report Previous Action: None DEPT.: FINANCE SUBJECT Monthly Financial Report -March 2000 General Fund Current year tax collections are almost 96.5% of the roll and are tracking to exceed 99% by year-end. Sales tax revenue exceeded the amount received in March 99 by over $22,000 (22% increase). The Lone Star Gas franchise payment was below the budgeted amount due to the warm winter conditions. Residential permits are up by twenty-five over the month of March 99 and are up by fifty-two for the year. Municipal Court revenues are up due to greater citations issued during all months of the fiscal year. The average amount expended by the departments at the end of March is 42.8% Utility Fund Water sales and usage are higher than the prior gear due to the heat and drought conditions we experienced this fall and early winter. Building related installations are up due to greater activity. Interest income is down due to timing of maturities and bond funds that were invested in FY 99 are now expended on projects. The average amount expended by the Utility Fund at the end of March is 36.46%. CITY MANAGER DEPART D FINANCIAL REVIEW (IF NECESSARY) MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT -MARCH 2000 GEfVERAL 1=UND RECEIVED F'ROJECTEO RECE11tE© ~Y 2000 AS C1F AS C3F AS OI= PERCENT REVENUE 50URCE E3UDGET ' 3r3ir~ 3131f00 3r31r99 CHANGE Current Taxes $4,369,195 Delinquent Taxes 30,500 Penalty & Interest 28,100 TL}TAL A© VALOREM TAXI=S $~t;427;79~ TU Electric Tri County Electric Lone Star Gas Southwestern Bell General Telephone Refuse Cable TV $665,000 27,885 147,000 153,693 18,296 79,206 99,000 $4,308,592 19,818 12,149 $4, 3~£~, 5 59'' $656,715 27,630 105,713 76,762 11,074 35,198 56,776 $4,228,916 ~ $3,767,753 15,250 21,252 14,050 14,704 $4:258,216 $3,8{}3.7x9 $665,000 $699,145 27,630 26,061 147,000 111,323 76,847 66.249 9,148 8,834 33,003 36,741 49,500 49,132 TOTAL FRANC#~ISE TAXES $1;190.080 $96,868 $1,;008,127 $997,485 Sales Tax $1,901,848 Mixed Beverage Tax 22,000 TOTAL SALES TAX $1;923.$4-$ Building Plumbing Electrical City License Building Plan Review Fee New Business Animal Sign Permit Fence Permit Fire Permits $764,056 8,276 $772,332.. $450,348 76,291 55,647 22,360 90,432 530 316 1,505 2.001 475 $834,901 11,000 $845, 90,1 $730,487 10,503 $74x,99'0 $520,000 101,000 91,000 40,000 57,000 1,000 1,510 2,900 3,000 225 TOTAL LICENSES'& PERMITS $817,635 $235,708.20 45,782 41, 249 18,131 25,833 500 755 1,450 1, 500 113 $223,477 45,366 40,896 19,255 2,425 505 1,371 1,395 1, 380 50 $699,905 ~ $371,02 ~ $336;120 14.35 -6.75% 17.38 ~~-.1 ~% -6.07% 6.02% -5.04% 15.87% 25.36% 4.20% 15.56% .2.77% 4.60% 21.2f '. 4.23% 101.52% 68.17% 36.07% 16.13% 3629.15% 4.95% -76.95% 7.89% 45.00% 850.00% ~' 108.23go Fines $424,091 $255,251 $212,046 $182,692 False Alarms 7,320 3,300 3,660 4,000 TOTAL FfNES $431,11 $258.581 $216,706 39.72% -17.50% $1$6;692 38.E-9%0 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT -MARCH 2000 R£C~1VEQ PRDJEGTE~ REC~3VED REVENUE 50LtRGE ~Y 2000 AS OI* AS L~F R5 OF P£RCE~JT BUDGET 3131 ff30 3131 /00 3f 31I.99 CHP,I~IGE Re-zoning Plat Fee/Site Plan Board of Adjustment Sale of Material Weed Mowing Animal Impoundment Ambulance Recreation Program Non-Resident Fee Parks Field Use Charge Engineering & Inspection Chgs & Reimbursements Commumity Center Rental Lot Drainage Insp Fee $10,506 10, 000 2,500 3,000 7,500 3,250 62,400 57,775 16,000 29,430 75,000 8,000 151,000 25,000 $8,000 9, 364 750 1,667 436 2.355 37,598 28,157 9,720 5,915 84, 554 10,920 91,175 17,875 $5.253 $6.467 23.70% 5,000 8,443 10.91% 1,250 1.000 -25.00% 1, 500 668 149.55% 450 3,420 -87.25% 1,625 1,235 90.69% 31,200 36,223 3.80% 11,000 3,929 616.65% 8,000 6,995 38.96% 6,750 10,062 -41.21% 37,500 38,005 122.48% 4,000 1,886 479.00% 75,500 65,561 39.07% 13,750 10.875 64.37% TC3T`AL CHARGES FOR SE=RVICE. $461,361 DARE Officer Reimb COPS FAST Grant $57,750 25,000 TOTAL 1NTERGOVERNMEP~TAL $82,7 $308,486 $0 0 $~J $202,78 $194;769' 58.39'0 $0 $0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% $0 $C O.OC?% Sale of Surplus Property $10,000 $0 $0 $16,328 100.00% Interest Income 296,500 56,569 52,530 88,652 -36.19% Miscellaneous 13,260 8,503 7,205 6,109 39.19% Tower Rental 69,925 23,567 22,514 21,758 8.31% TOTAL iVtkSCELLAN1=flU5 $389,:685 $$8,639 $82,249 $I32.,847 <33.28°jo Transfer from Utility Fd $382,817 $0 $0 $0 0.00% DOTAL TRANSFERS $3$2,817 $~ $0 $fl O.dC?% TOTAL GENERAL FiJND REVENUES $10,107;382 $7,438,840 $6;983,557 $6,392,612 16.35%. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT -MARCH 2000 TOTAL PERCENT THROUGH THROUGH INCREASE INCREASE 3/31/00 3/31/99 (DECREASE) (DECREASE) ~! ofo OF CURRENT TAX ROLL COLLECTED 96.49% 95.70% 0.79% 0.83% 'RESIDENTIAL BLDG PERMITS 137 85 52 61.18%I COMMERCIAL BLDG PERMITS 7 6 1 16.67%!, PLUMBING PERMITS 536 349 187 53.58% ELECTRICAL PERMITS 294 211 83 39.34% CITATIONS ISSUED 5,049 3,645 1,404 38.52% CITATIONS APPEALED 91 53 38 71.70% GENERAL FiJNL7 EXPI=NSES EXP~~fDED I~EAR~TQ-DATE %p EXPEN0E0 1=Y 2000 ' THRC?U~H 13Rt~~ECT~O 50% OE THE BUDGET BUDGET 3l31E#0 EXPEi~DITU#~:ES YI=AR COMPLETED REMAINING City Council and Secretary $200,233 $92,654 $92,942 46.3% $107,579 City Manager 468,341 201.016 201,234 42.9% 267,325 Finance 426,710 219,413 219,676 51.4% 20',297 Legal 100,000 73,579 65,000 73.6% 26,421 Economic Development 144,470 61,234 61,507 42.4% .83,236 Engineering 566,335 290,373 290,711 51.3% 275,962 Building Inspection 270,025 118,839 118,139 44.0% 151,186 Community Development 354,281 161,504 162,378 45.6% 192,777 Fire 2,150,173 973,524 813,693 45.3% 1,176,649 Police 2,294,165 1,089,388 893,355 47.5% 1,204,777 Parks 894,522 315,654 237,319 35.3% 578,868 Recreation 151,548 52,035 35,628 34.3% 99,513 Commumity Center 241,890 102,539 81,886 42.4% 139,351 Streets & Drainage 1,312,167 443,484 366,193 33.8% 868,683 Municipal Court 109,892 54,753 48,705 49.8% 55,139 Fleet Maintenance 118,505 70,636 59,547 59.6% 47,869 Merit Pool 80,000 0 0 0.0% 80,000 Compensation Study 223,326 0 0 0.0% 223,326 TOTAL EXPENSES $30,106;583 $4,320,625 $3;747,911 42,$% $5,785;958 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT -MARCH 2000 E.~TIL€TY FL3ND REGE11fED PRO.~ECTEI? -'FY 2000 A5 OF AS OI^ REVENUE SOURCE $UDGET 3131/fl£J 3131/00 Water Sales $4,868,869 Sewer Sales 1,606,264 Sewer Installation 22,000 Water Installation 61,600 Sewer Tie-on Charges 45,000 Engineering Charges 25,000 Penalties 145,690 Miscellaneous 7,500 $2,439,538 923,829 15,800 37,700 21,122 33,339 76,509 6,064 $2,114,517 803,132 11, 000 30, 800 22, 500 12,500 72,845 3,750 RECEIVED AS Of PERCENT 3/31199 CHAfVGE $2,016,590 764,465 8,200 22,930 23,039 15,197 72,719 7,241 20.97% 20.85% 92.68% 64.41 % -8.32% 119.38% 5.21% -16.25% TQ~AL C?PERATING INCC}ME $6,781;923 ~ $3,53,901 ~ $3,071:044 ~ $2,930:381 Interest Income $245,000 ~ $117,358 ~ 122,500 ~ $166,284 ~ TOTAL. >~i0'N OPERATING INCOME $245,000 $II7,358 $122:500 '$166.284 TONAL II~ICOM;r ;$7,026;923 I $3;671,253 ~ $3,193,544 ~ $3:096.665 21, 28% -29.42% -29.42% 18.56% TOTAL PERCENT THROUGH THROUGH INCREASE INCREASE 3/31/00 3/31/99 (DECREASE) (DECREASE) GALLONS OF WATER SOLD 832,098,300 686,295,450 145,802.850 21.24% NUMBER OF WATER CUSTOMERS 7,156 6,914 242 3.50% UTILITY-FUND FJfPENSES EXP~tvDED YEAR-TO-DATE % EXPENDED FY 2Q00 THROUGH P~O.JECTED 50% OF THE BUDGET BUaGST 3/31f00 EXPi^taISES YEAR C(?M+'LETEC R6.~tA~NfNG Administration $152,529 $69,074 $71,602 45.29% $83,455 Billing 135,796 66,897 67,279 49.26% 68,899 Operations 4,810,927 1,471,379 1,581,473 30.58% 3,339,548 Debt Service 1,097,761 816,310 816,310 74.36% 281,451 Merit Pool 22,000 0 0 0.00% 22,000 Compensation Study 41,628 0 0 0.00% 41,628 Transfer to General Fund 382,817 0 0 0.00% 382,817 TOTAL EXPENSES '..$6.643:458 $2.423<66fl $2,536;664 36.4$% $4,219,798 DRAFT PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES Monday, April 3, 2000 7:00 p.m. Chairman Rich Hendler called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. on Monday, April 3, 2000 at the Parks and Recreation office. ROLL CALL: Members: Chairman Rich Hendler, Mayor Pro Tem Nelson Thibodeaux, Karen Birkes, Ken Crooks, Steve Magee, Roger Nelson, Joe Noorlag and Dan Witte Absent: Vince Rosen Staff: Dianne McWethy, Assistant City Manager, Barry LeBaron, Community Development Manager, Monica Sue Walsh, Parks and Recreation Manager, Craig Dishman, Recreation Supervisor and Cynthia Singleton, Office Assistant 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of the March 6, 2000 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes Joe Noorlag moved and Steve Magee seconded the motion to approve the March 6, 2000 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board minutes. The vote was unanimous. 3. Discussion and Consideration of David Bagwell's Request Related to McPherson Park Development Barry LeBaron, Community Development Manger, gave an overview of David Bagwell's request related to McPherson Park development. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes April 3, 2000 Roger Nelson moved that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board defer action on this item until Item 4, Discussion and Consideration of Proposed Master Plan for McPherson Park is considered. Joe Noorlag seconded and the vote was unanimous. 4. Discussion and Consideration of Proposed Master Plan for McPherson Park Karl Von Bieberstein reviewed the planning process, the proposed Master Plan including park elements, phases for development and preliminary cost estimates of McPherson Park. Dan Witte motioned that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommend denial of the proposal presented by David Bagwell to build a road along the West side of McPherson Park. Joe Noorlag seconded and the vote was unanimous. Joe Noorlag motioned that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board approve the proposed Master Plan for McPherson Park. Dan Witte seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 5. Discussion and Consideration of Amending the Parkland Dedication Ordinance Dianne McWethy, Assistant City Manager, presented the proposed amended Parkland Dedication Ordinance. Joe Noorlag motioned that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board approve the proposed Parkland Dedication Ordinance as proposed by staff with the additional change: delete from Section 6C, second paragraph, fourth line, the wording after "PUD-R zoning ordinance, provided," to the end of Section 6. Dan Witte seconded and the vote was unanimous. 6. Discussion and Consideration of Approval for the Use of Parkland Dedication Monies, in the Amount of $35,000, to Purchase Trail Right-of- Way for the Cottonbelt Trail Dianne McWethy, Assistant City Manager briefed the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board regarding the proposed purchase of the Trail Right-of-Way for construction of the Cottonbelt Trail. Joe Noorlag motioned that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board approve the use of Parkland Dedication monies, in an amount not to exceed $35,000, to purchase Trail Right-of-Way for construction of the Cottonbelt Trail and Dan Witte seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes April 3, 2000 7. Recreation, Athletics, Tennis and Seniors Report Craig Dishman, Recreation Supervisor, provided an overview of the current and proposed recreation programs and activities available to the citizens of Colleyville and the surrounding areas. 8. Park Operations and Capital Improvement Status Report Monica Walsh, Parks and Recreation Manager, presented a status report of current projects. 9. Citizen CommentslPresentations Regarding Items Not on the Agenda* 10. Other Informational Items 11. Adjournment At 9:45 p.m. Dan Witte motioned to adjourn, Ken Crooks seconded and the vote was unanimous. 3 Park Land Dedication Committee Minutes Monday, March 27, 2000 The meeting of the Park Land Dedication Committee was called to order on March 27, 2000, at 5:45 p.m. Members present: Rich Hendler, Joe Noorlag and Tom Hart Members absent: Jim Fletcher Staff Attendees: Dianne McWethy, Assistant City Manager, Monica Sue Walsh, Parks and Recreation Manager, and Keith Fisher, Engineering Project Manager The Park Land Dedication Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the City Council consider approval of the use of Park Land Dedication funds, in the amount of $35,000, for the purchase of a trail right-of-way easement and construction of 1,100 linear feet of fence to facilitate the construction of the Cottonbelt Trail. The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Minutes submitted by: ~~G[GPilYriG ~' ~/G~ Dianne McWethy Assistant City Manager March 29, 2000 TRAFFIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES -APRIL 10, 2000 1. CALL TO ORDER. The meeting of the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee was called to order by Chief John Young at 7:14 P.M. in the Colleyville Community Center at 5300 Bluebonnet Rd. Those present were: Skip McDonnell Angela Davis Eileen Flanagan John Young, Chief of Police 2. DISCUSSION ITEMS. A. Introductions of new members. B. Discussion outlining the responsibilities of the TSAC. C. General discussion concerning types of traffic issues handled by the TSAC. D. Discussed timing of "school zone" traffic lights on Glade at Pool Rd. 3. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS A. Chairman's Position 4. ADJOURNMENT A. Meeting adjourned 8:30 P.M. DR,4FT COLLEYVILLE TREE BOARD MINUTES April 3, 2000 6:30 p.m. Chair Rich Hendler called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. on Monday, April 3, 2000 at the Parks and Recreation office. ROLL CALL: Members: Chair Rich Hendler, Dan Witte, David Bagwell, Donna Kauffman and Joe Noorlag Absent: Doug Rivers Staff: Dianne McWethy, Assistant City Manager, Monica Sue Walsh, Parks and Recreation Manager, Barry LeBaron, Community Development Manager and Cynthia Singleton, Office Assistant I. Call to Order II. Introduce New Committee Member Chairman Rich Hendler introduced new committee member Dan Witte. III. Approval of the November 1, 1999 Minutes Donna Kauffman moved and Dan Witte seconded the motion to approve the November 1, 1999 Tree Board minutes. The vote was unanimous. Tree Board Minutes April 3, 2000 IV. Overview of Colleyville Tree Ordinance Barry LeBaron, Community Development Manager presented an overview of the Colleyville Tree Ordinance. V. Identify 2000 Meeting Dates The Colleyville Tree Board established the following meeting dates for the year 2000: June 12, September 11, and December 4. VI. Citizen Comments/Presentations Regarding Items Not on the Agenda* None VII. Other Informational Items Monica Sue Walsh, Parks and Recreation Manager invited everyone to attend the Colleyville Trash-Off, Arbor Day and Tree City USA Celebration April 8, 2000 at City Park. VIII. Adjournment Dan Witte motioned to adjourn at 7:10 p.m. and Donna Kauffman seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. RESOLUTION R-00-1636 A RESOLUTION APPROVING COUNCIL ACTION UNDER BUSINESS AT THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 18, 2000 WHEREAS, Council has taken action on certain items on the agenda under Business NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS: Sec. 1. THAT the agenda decisions approved by Council action under Business this date and not otherwise adopted by Ordinance and/or separate Resolution, as follows are hereby adopted: a. THAT AND IT IS SO RESOLVED. APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 2000, BY A VOTE OF AYES, NAYS, AND ABSTENTIONS. ATTEST: CITY OF COLLEYVILLE Jean Harris, TRMC, CMC Donna Arp City Secretary Mayor