Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
April 04, 2000 Agneda
AGENDA CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL April 4, 2000 Agenda No._ ~genda Item~ -~' After determining that a quorum is present and convening in an Open Meeting, the City Council will convene in a Closed Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, April 4, 2000 at 5:15 p.m. in the City of Denton Work Session Room, Denton City Hall, at 215 East McKinney, Denton, Texas to consider specific items when these items are listed below under the Closed Meeting section of this agenda. When items for consideration are not listed under the Closed Meeting section of the agenda, the City Council will not conduct a Closed Meeting at 5:15 p.m. and will convene at the time listed below for its regular or special called meeting. The City Council reserves the right to adjourn into a Closed Meeting on any item on its Open Meeting agenda consistent with Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, as amended, as set. forth below. 1. Closed Meeting: B. Consultation with Attomey- Under TEX. GOV'T. CODE Sec. 551.071 Discuss and consider authorizing the City's attorneys to initiate litigation against TXU Electric & Gas, including, without limitation: litigation to collect delinquent franchise fees and a declaratory judgment action or injunction to prevent TXU Electric from operating on City rights-of-way and City streets without a franchise, and to discuss legal issues with the attorneys where to discuss these matters in public would conflict with the duty of the City's attorneys to the City Council under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas. Discuss and receive briefing from attorneys on status and possible settlement of litigation styled Municipal Administrative Services, Inc. v. City of Denton, Cause No. 99-50263-367 currently pending in the 367th District Court of Denton County, Texas. ANY FINAL ACTION, DECISION, OR VOTE ON A MATTER DELIBERATED IN A CLOSED MEETING WILL ONLY BE TAKEN IN AN OPEN MEETING THAT IS HELD IN COMPLIANCE WITH TEX. GOV'T. CODE CH. 551. THE CITY COUNCIL RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADJOURN INTO A CLOSED MEETING OR EXECUTIVE SESSION AS AUTHORIZED BY TEX. GOV'T. CODE SEC. 551.001, ET SEQ. (TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT) ON ANY ITEM ON ITS OPEN MEETING AGENDA OR TO RECONVENE IN A CONTINUATION OF THE CLOSED MEETING ON THE CLOSED MEETING ITEMS NOTED ABOVE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION SECTIONS 551.071-551.086 OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT. Regular Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, April 4, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas at which the following items will be considered: 1. Pledge of Allegiance Ao U.S. Flag Texas Flag "Honor the Texas Flag -- I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one and indivisible." 2. Consider approval of the minutes of February 11, February 15, and February 22, 2000. City of Denton City Council Agenda April 4, 2000 Page 2 PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS 3. April Yard-of-the-Month Awards Proclamations a. Sexual Assault Awareness Month CITIZEN REPORTS o o Receive a report from Willie Hudspeth regarding tree removal from his property. Receive a presentation from Jesse Martin of a resolution regarding ATM fees from LINT student government. Receive a report from Ross Melton regarding Rule 1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Receive a report Eric Jansen regarding Denton Affordable Housing placing MHMR group homes in a residential neighborhood. CONSENT AGENDA Each of these items is recommended by the Staff and approval thereof will be strictly on the basis of the Staff recommendations. Approval of the Consent Agenda authorizes the City manager or his designee to implement each item in accordance with the Staff recommendations. The City Council has received background information and has had an opportunity to raise questions regarding these items prior to consideration. Listed below are bids and purchase orders to be approved for payment under the Consent Agenda (Agenda Items 9-24). This listing is provided on the Consent Agenda to allow Council Members to discuss or withdraw an item prior to approval of the Consent Agenda. If no items are pulled, Consent Agenda Items 9-24 below will be approved with one motion. If items are pulled for separate discussion, they will be considered as the first items under "Items for Individual Consideration". 10. 11. 12. 13. Consider approval of a tax refund to Gary Kollmeier. The 1999 tax was overpaid, resulting in an overpayment. Consider approval of a tax refund to Linda Marsh Schlottig. The 1999 tax was overpaid, resulting in an overpayment. Consider approval of a tax refund to Scripture Medical Center. The 1999 tax was paid twice, resulting in an overpayment. Consider approval of a tax refund to Associates Leasing Inc. The 1998 taxable value was corrected per the Denton Central Appraisal District resulting in an overpayment. Consider approval of a tax refund to UUNET Technologies, Inc. The 1999 taxable value was decreased, resulting in an overpayment. City of Demon City Council Agenda April 4, 2000 Page 3 14. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding an annual contract for the rental of heavy equipment; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date. (Bid 2424A - Rental of Heavy Equipment awarded to Future Equipment Co., Inc. for Items l&2 and Crescent Machinery for Item 3) 15. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding an annual contract for the purchase of police uniforms; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date. (Bid 2470 - Police Uniforms awarded in the estimated expenditure amount of approximately $45,000) 16. Consider adoption of an ordinance approving the expenditure of funds for the purchase of certified softball officiating services available from only one source in accordance with provisions of State Law exempting such purchases from requirements of competitive bidding; and providing an effective date. (Awarded to North Texas Umpire Association in the amount of $36.50 per game for an estimated award expenditure of $45,990) 17. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas authorizing the Mayor or City Manager to execute the attached Professional Services Agreement for Software Implementation and Support between the City of Denton, Texas and Access Technologies, Inc., a Qualified Information Systems Vendor ("QISV") of the State of Texas, to be paid from previously budgeted funds in an amount not exceed six hundred thousand, five hundred and seventy dollars ($616,570); and providing for an effective date. (PO #04402 to Access Technologies, Inc. in the amount of $616,570) 18. Consider adoption of an ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds for emergency purchase of #4/0 stranded aluminum 15kv primary electric cable in accordance with provisions of State Law exempting such purchases from requirements of competitive bidding; providing an effective date. (PO #04337 to Temple, Inc. in the amount of $86,625) 19. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas authorizing the expenditure of funds for the payments by the City of Denton for Electrical Energy Transmission fees to those listed cities and utilities providing energy transmission services to the City of Demon; and providing an effective date. (PO #04394 to City of Garland, PO #04395 to City Public Service San Antonio, PO #04396 to TXU Elec.- Transmission Div., PO #04397 to Reliant Energy HL&P, PO #04398 to Central Power & Light Co. in the total amount of $1,375,698.50) 20. Consider approval of a resolution allowing LULAC to be the sole participant allowed to sell alcoholic beverages at the Cinco de Mayo Celebration on May 6, 2000, upon the conditions of obtaining booth, obtaining license and permit, providing general liability insurance, and agreeing to indemnify the city for any liability; authorizing City Manager to execute agreement for the conditions; and providing for an effective date. 21. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, authorizing the City Manager to submit an application under the National School Lunch Act to obtain funding for the 2000 Summer Food Service Program; if such funding is granted, the City Manager is authorized to execute the Summer Food Service Program Agreement with the City of Denton City Council Agenda April 4, 2000 Page 4 Texas Department of Human Services and execute a contract with the Denton Independent School District and all additional documents and agreements, as required; authorizing the expenditure of funds to administer the program; and providing an effective date. 22. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute an agreement between the City of Denton and State of Texas, acting through the Texas Department of Transportation to provide for advanced funding for certain color texturized concrete curbs for the 1-35 project; and providing for an effective date. 23. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas amending Ordinance 99- 298 providing for the schedule of miscellaneous fees, deposits, billings and procedures for administrative services to City customers and taxpayers contained in Ordinance No. 98-265, to increase insufficient fund check handling charge; providing for a repealer; providing for a severability clause; and providing for an effective date. 24. Consider approval of a resolution by the City Council of the City of Denton relating to the issuance of obligations by North Texas Higher Education Authority, Inc.; approving the issuance of such obligations and the use of the proceeds of such obligations; and making certain findings in connection therewith. PUBLIC HEARINGS 25. Hold a public hearing to consider rezoning approximately 0.24 acres, commonly known as 1504, 1506 and 1508 N. Elm, from an Office (O) zoning district to a Planned Development (PD) zoning district. The Detailed plan proposal is to allow office and residential uses on the property. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0) with conditions. (Z-99-083, 1508 N. Elm) 26. Hold a public hearing to consider rezoning approximately 0.19 acres, commonly known as 1513 N. Locust, from a Office (O) zoning district to a Planned Development (PD) zoning district. The Detailed plan proposal is to allow office and residential uses on the property. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0) with conditions. (Z-99-084, 1513 N. Locust) 27. Hold a public hearing regarding the Detailed Plan for Planned Development (PD-93) encompassing approximately 10 acres. The property is generally located on the southwest comer of Ryan Road and Teasley Lane. A 159 unit multi-family residential development is proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (4-3) with conditions. (Z-99-096, Ryan/Teasley) 28. Consider and take action on a request for relief from the Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance No. 2000-046, filed by Terra Baine, Inc. for 47.3 acres of the Lakeview Ranch located on the south side of McKinney Street (FM 426), approximately 3,000 feet east of the intersection with Trinity Road. (This is not a public hearing.) 29. Continue a public hearing and consider rezoning a 47.3-acre tract from an Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Planned Development (PD) zoning district. The property is City of Denton City Council Agenda April 4, 2000 Page 5 legally described as Tract 11 out of the W. Durham Survey (Abstract 330) and is located on the south side of McKinney Street (F.M. 426), approximately 3,000 feet east of the intersection with Trinity Road. The proposal is to develop a single-family subdivision with a minimmn 5,500 square foot lot size. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-1) with conditions. (Z-99-046, Lakeview Ranch - PD) 30. Consider and take action on a request for relief from the Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance No. 2000-046, filed by Terra Baine, Inc. for 410 acres of the Lakeview Ranch located between University Drive (Hwy 380) and McKinney Street (FM 426) east of Mayhill Road. (This is not a public hearing.) 31. Continue a public hearing and consider rezoning approximately 410 acres from an Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Single-family 7 (SF-7) zoning district on about 133 acres, Single-family 10 (SF-10) zoning district on about 85 acres, and Single-family 13 (SF-13) zoning district on about 192 acres. The property is legally described as Tracts 20, 23, 27A, 36, 40, 123, 124, 125, and 127 out of the M. Forrest Survey (Abstract 417) and Tract 10 out of the W. Durham Survey (Abstract 330) in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. It is located between University Drive (HWY 380) and McKinney Street (F.M. 426) east of Mayhill Road. The proposal is to develop a mix of single-family lots and housing types. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0) with conditions. (Z-99-072, Lakeview Ranch) 32. Hold a public hearing and consider adopting separate ordinances to annex and zone an 18-acre tract located on the north side of Spencer Road between Woodrow and Loop 288 in the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Denton, Texas. (A-98, DME Spencer Generation Plant) Consider adoption of an ordinance to voluntarily annex approximately 18 acres of land located on the north side of Spencer Road between Woodrow and Loop 288 in the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Denton, Texas, to approve a service plan for the annexed property, to provide a severability clause and to provide for an effective date. Second reading of ordinance. (A-98, DME Spencer Generation Plant) Hold a public hearing and consider rezoning an approximately 18-acre site to a Light Industrial (LI) zoning district. The property is located on the north side of Spencer Road between Woodrow and Loop 288 in Southeast Denton. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-0) with conditions. (Z-00-001, DME Spencer Generation Plant) 33. Hold a public hearing and consider approving a Detailed Plan for approximately 162 acres in the Planned Development 120 (PD-120) zoning district. The property is generally located between North Elm St (US 77) and Loop 288 roughly 1500 feet west of North Locust (FM 2164). The proposal is to develop a single-family subdivision. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0) with conditions. (Z-99- 101, North Pointe) City of Denton City Council Agenda April 4, 2000 Page 6 ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 34. Consider and take action on a Non-residential Project Plan request for Oak Tree Plaza Shopping Center. The 7.44-acre site is located at the southeast comer of Loop 288 and Spencer Road. (SP-00-001, Oak Tree Plaza) 35. Consider and take action on a request for relief from the Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance 2000-069, for Audra Oaks. A 2.93-acre parcel located on the south side of Audra Lane west of Mockingbird. The proposal is for SF-7 zoning. (RR-00-05, Audra Oaks) 36. Consider and take action on a request for relief from the Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance 2000-069, for 416 Bryan Street. The 0.432-acre site is located on the east side of Bryan Street approximately 110 feet south of Scripture. An apartment complex is proposed. (RR-00-07, Belle Bryan Apartments) 37. Consider and take action on a request for relief from the Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance 2000-069, for Robinson Oaks subdivision. The 36.1-acre property is located north of Robinson Road west of the future FM 2499 Right-of-Way. A single-family Planned Development (PD) is proposed. (RR-00-06, Robinson Oaks) 38. Consider and take action on a request for relief from the Non-Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance 2000-069, for a 4.315-acre property located at the southwest comer of Lillian Miller and Southridge. The proposal is for consideration of an amended Detailed Plan for a Bed and Breakfast on the property. (RN-00-06) 39. Consider and take action on a request for relief from the Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance 2000-046, Behning Place subdivision. The 0.52-acre site is located north of May Street approximately 200 feet east of Ruddell. A Planned Development (PD) zoning district for a single-family development is proposed. (RR-00-08) 40. Consider and take action on a request for relief from the Non-Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance 2000-069, for property located on Nowlin Road, a proposal to construct an accessory building used in conjunction with an existing cellular tower. (RN- 00-21) 41. Consider and take action on a request for relief from the Non-Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance 2000-069, for property located at 520 Fort Worth Drive, a proposal to construct a self-storage development. (RN-00-22) 42. Consider approval of a resolution of the City of Denton, Texas, accepting the sum of $1,000 from Windle Family Partners, Ltd. and Michael C. Ramos in consideration for extending the one hundred eighty (180) day period for exclusive negotiations for the possible lease of certain airport property as provided in City Council Resolution No. 99- 055 for an additional one hundred eighty (180) day period; and providing an effective date. City of Denton City Council Agenda April 4, 2000 Page 7 43. Consider adoption of an ordinance approving a Multiple Use Agreement between the City of Denton and the State of Texas by the Texas Department of Transportation for a Rain Gauge Station in the eastern right-of-way of FM 156 at Hickory Creek in the City of Denton, Texas; authorizing the City Manager or his designee to sign the agreement; and providing an effective date. 44. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute a Project Cooperation Agreement between the City of Denton and the Department of the Army for modification of the Lake Lewisville Lake Wildlife Management Area of Lewisville Lake, Texas; and providing for an effective date. 45. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the Mayor or City Manager to enter into an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with Denton County, Texas for road improvements regarding Brinker Road Project; and providing an effective date. 46. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City's attorneys to initiate litigation against TXU Electric & Gas to recover delinquent franchise fees and to prevent TXU Electric from operating within the City on the City's streets and rights-of-way without obtaining a franchise from the City; authorizing the City Attorney to seek the assistance of outside counsel; and providing an effective date. 47. Consider nominations and appointments to the City's Boards and Commissions. 48. New Business This item provides a section for Council Members to suggest items for future agendas. 49. Items from the City Manager A. Notification of upcoming meetings and/or conferences B. Clarification of items on the agenda 50. Possible continuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. 51. Official Action on Closed Meeting under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. CERTIFICATE I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall of the City of Denton, Texas, on the day of ,2000 o'clock (a.m.) (p.m.) CITY SECRETARY NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS IS ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. THE CITY WILL City of Demon City Council Agenda April 4, 2000 Page 8 PROVIDE SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED MEETING. PLEASE CALL THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 349-8309 OR USE TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF (TDD) BY CALLING 1-800- RELAY-TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE SCHEDULED THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE. Agendaltem.., CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 11, 2000 The City of Denton City Council held an Informational Briefing Session on Friday, February 11, 2000 at 11:30 a.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Beasley; Council Members Burroughs, Cochran, Durrance, and Kristoferson. ABSENT: Council Member Young 1. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding the progress of the Development Code Rewrite. John Fregonese presented an update on the progress of the code rewrite to date. He reviewed the results of the citizen survey, the visual preference survey, site design standards, environmental protection proposals, and a schedule of the project. Council held a discussion regarding the time schedule for completion of the committee's work. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:50 p.m. JACK MILLER, MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 15, 2000 After determining that a quorum was present and convening in an open meeting, the City Council convened in a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, February 15, 2000 at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Beasley; Council Members Burroughs, Cochran, Durrance, Kristoferson and Young. ABSENT: None 1. Closed Meeting Deliberations Regarding Real Property - Under TEX. GOV'T. CODE Section 551.072. Considered the purchase and value of real property located north and south of Hickory Street east of the Union Pacific Railroad and real property on the north side of Oak Street west of Exposition and east of Frame Street. B. Consultation With Attorney - Under TEX. GOV'T. Code Section 551.071. Considered, discussed, and gave staff direction regarding potential authorization of litigation against Northeast Mobile Home Park and its owner Philip Clemente, and discussed status of pending municipal courts complaints against same parties. Deliberations Regarding Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters --- Under TEX. GOV'T. CODE Section 551.086.** Deliberations Concerning Real Property --- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE, Section 551.072. Received information from staff, discussed, deliberated, considered, and provided staff with direction respecting the valuation of, and the possible sale, transfer, assigrnnent, or other divestiture of real property pertaining to the City of Denton's electric utility system, including, without limitation: the Gibbons Creek generation facility located in Grimes County, Texas; the Spencer generation facility located on Spencer Road in Denton County, Texas; the two hydroelectric facilities located in Denton County, Texas; and other components of the City's electric generation assets. Deliberations Regarding Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters --- Under TEX. GOV'T. CODE Section 551.086.** Consultation With Attorney --- Under TEX. GOV'T. CODE Section 551.071. Received information from staff, discussed, deliberated, considered, provided staff with direction, and took action as necessary pertaining to issues, problems, and strategies pertaining to: (a) the issuance of future Denton Utility System Revenue Bonds relined to Denton Municipal Electric ("DME"); (b) the possible unbundling or restructuring of existing Denton Utility System Revenue Bonds driven by the potential sale or City of Denton City Council Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 2 divestiture of all or a part of the DME system; (c) alternatives and options available to DME regarding the future issuance of utility system revenue bonds and the restructuring or unbundling of existing utility system revenue bonds likely to result in the most favorable financial impact upon DME and its ratepayers; and (d) legal requirements and legal advice pertaining to issues (a), (b), and (c) above. Consultation with the City's attorneys concerning the above issues, where to discuss such issues and matters in a public meeting would conflict with the attorneys' duties and professional responsibilities to their client under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Regular Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, February 15, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Beasley; Council Members Burroughs, Cochran, Durrance, Kristoferson and Young. ABSENT: None 1. Pledge of Allegiance The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flags. 2. The Council considered approval of the minutes of November 2, November 9, November 11, November 15, November 16, and November 19, 1999. Beasley motioned, Durrance seconded to approve the minutes as presented. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS 3. Mayor Miller presented a proclamation for Texas History Month. 4. Resolutions of Appreciation a. Resolution of appreciation for Mike Bucek. Durrance motioned, Burroughs seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. b. Resolution of appreciation for Ralph Harpool. This item was not considered. CITIZEN REPORTS 5. The Council received a report from Willie Hudspeth regarding tree removal from his property. City of Denton City Council Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 3 Mr. Hudspeth stated that he appreciated the assistance the City had finally given him regarding the situation of his tree removal and for his new trees. He still felt that staff members had misled the Council regarding the removal of his trees. 6. The Council received a report from Raymond Redmon regarding bridges. Mr. Redmon stated that he was still in favor of moving the bridge as soon as possible to the Fred Moore Park area. 7. The Council received a report from Mildred Hawk regarding bridges. Ms. Hawk again expressed her concern about the City receiving an historic bridge from the County for use in the City. CONSENT AGENDA Council Member Cochran asked that Item #19 be pulled for separate consideration. Kristoferson motioned, Beasley seconded to approve the Consent Agenda and accompanying ordinances and resolution with the exception of Item #19. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. 10. 11. Approved a tax refund to Nortex Motorsports, Inc., formerly Cycle Center of Denton. The 1999 property tax was overpaid. Resulting in an overpayment. Approved a tax refund to RV World of Texas. The 1999 property tax was paid twice, resulting in an overpayment. Approved a tax refund to Veterinary Medical Clinic. The 1999 property tax was paid twice, resulting in an overpayment. Approved a tax refund to James A. Lampin. The 1999 property tax was paid twice, resulting in an overpayment. 12. NO. 2000-050 13. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN 1NTERLOCAL AMBULANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND DENTON COUNTY FOR AMBULANCE SERVICES; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. NO. 2000-051 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF HVAC RENOVATION AT THE SERVICE CENTER; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS City of Denton City Council Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 4 THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2449 - RENOVATION OF HVAC AT THE SERVICE CENTER AWARDED TO BCI MECHANICAL, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $206,800) 14. NO. 2000-052 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITiVE BIDS AND AWARDING A PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A LANDFILL TREE BUFFER ZONE; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (BID 2452 - LANDFILL TREE BUFFER ZONE PHASE I AWARDED TO A & A LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $149,995) 15. NO. 2000-053 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT FOR DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS AND CLEARING OF LOTS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2453 - DEMOLITION PROJECT #30 AWARDED TO JMX ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,300) 16. NO. 2000-054 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OR CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION FOR LAKEVIEW BOULEVARD BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 17. NO. 2000-055 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF LAKEVIEW BOULEVARD; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2455 - LAKEVIEW BOULEVARD AWARDED TO JAGOE PUBLIC COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $798,106) 18. NO. 2000-056 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ETTL ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS, INC. TO PROVIDE HYDROGEOLOGICAL CONSULTING AND ANALYTICAL SERVICES PERTAINING TO THE CITY OF DENTON LANDFILL AS SET FORTH IN THE CONTRACT; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (PSA 2475 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR HYDROGEOLOGICAL CONSULTING AND ANALYSIS AT THE LANDFILL AWARDED TO ETTL ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $46,215.25) City of Denton City Council Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 5 20. NO. 2000-058 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ABANDONING AND VACATING THAT CERTAIN STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY BEING APPROXIMATELY 0.213 ACRE OF LAND AND BEING A PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PARKWAY STREET LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID STREET AND CARROLL BOULEVARD IN THE W. NEIL SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 971 IN THE CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; RESERVING A UTILITY EASEMENT; PROVIDING FOR A QUIT CLAIM DEED; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. PUBLIC HEARINGS 21. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption of an ordinance approving a Detailed Plan for the Robson Ranch Planned Development (PD-173) encompassing approximately 1,361 acres. The property was generally located at the northeast comer of Robson Ranch Road (formerly Crawford Rd.) and Florence Road. Residential development, open space, golf course and residential sales offices were proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7-0) with conditions. (Z-99-102) Larry Reichart, Assistant Planning Director, stated that this proposal was for 1,361 acres of a detailed plan for Robson Ranch as noted in the agenda materials. The Mayor opened the public hearing. The following individuals spoke during the public hearing: Steve Soroano, Robson Ranch - favor Harry Reynolds, 1900 Neck Road, Palmer, Texas, 75152 - favor Ronald Linam, 1411 Stuart Road, Denton, 76208 - favor Aubrey Turner, 3201 Broken Bow, Denton, 76201 - favor The following individuals presented comment cards: Richard Tucker, 406 Country Club Road, Argyle, 76226 - favor Ken Burdick, 2112 Pembrooke Place, Denton, 76205 - favor Dwight Evans, 2009 Hollyhill Lane, Denton, 76205 - favor The Mayor closed the public heating. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2000-059 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 99-265, TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPROVAL OF A DETAILED PLAN CONTAINING 1361.3 ACRES WITHIN THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR PLANNED City of Denton City Council Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 6 DEVELOPMENT 173 (PD-173) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF FLORENCE ROAD AND NORTH OF ROBSON RANCH ROAD (FORMERLY CRAWFORD ROAD); PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDNG FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z~99-102) Beasley motioned, Young seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "nay", Kristoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded with a 6-1 vote. 22. The Council held a public heating and considered an ordinance granting approval of a surface use of a portion of the Denton Branch Rail/Trail approximately 2000 feet north of Shady Shores Road for the installation of a public street in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code; providing for the issuance of an easement and providing an effective date. Council Member Cochran suggested postponing consideration at this time to determine priority of crossings relative to trains and vehicular traffic. The Mayor opened the public hearing. No one spoke during the public hearing. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2000-060 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SURFACE USE OF A PORTION OF THE DENTON BRANCH RAIL/TRAIL APPROXIMATELY 2000 FEET NORTH OF SHADY SHORES ROAD FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A PUBLIC STREET IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 26 OF THE TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE CODE; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF AN EASEMENT AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Young motioned, Burroughs seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "nay", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried with a 6-1 vote. 23. The Council held a public hearing and considered an ordinance granting approval of a surface use of a portion of the Denton Branch Rail/Trail approximately 2500 feet south of Loop 288 for the installation of a public street in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code; providing for the issuance of an easement of an easement and providing an effective date. The Mayor opened the public hearing. City of Denton City Council Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 7 No one spoke during the public hearing. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2000-061 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SURFACE USE OF A PORTION OF THE DENTON BRANCH RAIL/TRAIL APPROXIMATELY 2500 FEET SOUTH OF LOOP 288 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A PUBLIC STREET IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 26 OF THE TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE CODE; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF AN EASEMENT OF AN EASEMENT AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Young motioned, Beasley seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "nay", Durrance "nay", Kristoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded with a 5-2 vote. 24. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption of an ordinance amending Section 1, Conditions 5, 8 and 13 of Ordinance No. 96-187. Amendment of Condition 5 (maintaining trees larger than 2" in diameter within 10' of the southern property line), Condition 8 (removal of a 15 foot bufferyard along the southern property line) and Condition 13 (erecting an 8' solid fence along the southern property line) was requested. The 0.456 acre property was located at 2446 Lillian Miller Parkway. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (6-1) with conditions. (Z-99-071) Doug Powell, Director of Planning, presented the details of the request as noted in the agenda materials. The Mayor opened the pubic hearing. The following individuals spoke during the public heating: Gerald Yelson - favor- remove condition of closing the driveway Scott Libscomb - 1000 Lynhurst, Denton-favor- remove condition of closing driveway Larry Libscomb, Flower Mound, favor The Mayor closed the public heating. Council debated the pros and cons of leaving the driveway in the proposal. The following ordinance was considered: City of Denton City Council Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 8 NO. 2000-062 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONS OF ORDINANCE 96-187 WHICH ESTABLISHED AN OFFICE (O[C]) CONDITIONED ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR 0.456 ACRES OF LAND BEING LOT 10R IN BLOCK 1, OF THE J.W. ERW1N SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LILLIAN MILLER PARKWAY APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET SOUTH OF 1-35E; PROVIDING FOR A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Kristoferson motioned, Young seconded to adopt the ordinance maintaining Conditions 1-3 from the Planning and Zoning Commission and removing Condition #4 regarding the closure of the driveway. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. 25. The Council held a public heating and considered adoption of an ordinance approving a Detailed Plan for approximately 10 acres located between Mulkey and Audra Streets north of Paisley in east central Denton. The property was located in the Planned Development 9 (PD-9) zoning district. A D.I.S.D. education facility was proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7-0) with conditions. (Z-99-088) Doug Powell, Director of Planning, presented the details of the proposal as noted in the agenda materials. The Mayor opened the public heating. No one spoke during the public hearing. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2000-063 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 70-52 TO PROVIDE FOR A DETAILED PLAN FOR 10.06 ACRES LOCATED WITHIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 9 (PD-9) ZONING DISTRICT; THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEING LOCATED BETWEEN MULKEY AND AUDRA STREETS NORTH OF PAISLEY STREET; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z-99-088) Kristoferson motioned, Burroughs seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. City of Denton City Council Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 9 26. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately two acres of land from an Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Commercial (C) zoning district. The property was located approximately 550 feet north and 1000 feet east of the intersection of West University Drive (US 380) and 1-35. Development of a gas station and mini- warehouses had been proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7-0) with conditions. (Z-99-094) Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Development, presented the details of the proposal as noted in the agenda materials. The 20% rule was in effect as more than 20% of the adjoining property owners were in opposition. The Mayor opened the public hearing. No one spoke during the public hearing. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Young motioned, Burroughs seconded to approve the proposal. On roll vote, Beasley "nay", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "nay", Durrance "nay", Kristoferson "nay", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion failed with a 3-4 vote. The Council considered Item//19 from the Consent Agenda. 19. NO. 2000-057 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS PROVIDING FOR, AUTHORIZING, AND APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF BILLBOARD COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING FROM DAUM OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY, INC. RESPECTING DENTON MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC, WHICH PERTAINS TO THE LEASE OF REAL ESTATE, AND WHICH ALSO IS AVAILABLE FROM ONLY ONE SOURCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 252 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDD1NG; PROVIDING FOR RATIFICATION AND RETROACTIVE APPROVAL; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (PURCHASE ORDER 03166 TO DAUM OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $28,200) On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "nay", Durrance "nay", Kristoferson "nay", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried with a 4-3 vote. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 27. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of Medium & Heavy Trucks; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date. (Bid 2456-Medium & Heavy Trucks-Peterbilt Motor Co., in the amount of $139,802) City of Denton City Council Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 10 The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2000-064 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MEDIUM & HEAVY TRUCKS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Burroughs motioned, Kristoferson seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 28. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, amending Ordinance No. 99-474 as amended by Ordinance No. 2000-017 to extend the term of the moratorium that was established pending the adoption of interim standards for applying policies of the adopted comprehensive plan to certain specified nonresidential development applications prior to adoption of a revised land development code; providing for a savings clause; providing for a severability clause; and providing for an effective date. Dave Hill, Assistant City Manager for Development Services, stated that this ordinance would extend the moratorium until March 8th which would allow Council time to decide what to do with the interim ordinance. The following individuals submitted comment cards: Chad Miller, 7333 Somerset, Aubrey, 76223 - opposed Mark Reding, 211 Woodrow Lane, Denton, 76201 - opposed CliffReding, 211 Woodrow Lane, Denton, 76201 - opposed Bess Miller, 1205 Meadow Ridge Drive, Denton, 76201 - opposed J. A. Miller, 208 Wellington Oaks Place, Denton, 76205 - opposed Dana Miller, 419 S. Carroll #2B, Denton, 76201 - opposed Dean Garner, 3002 Manor Court, Denton,76205 - favor The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2000-065 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 99-474 AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 2000-017 TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE MORATORIUM THAT WAS ESTABLISHED PENDING THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM STANDARDS FOR APPLYING POLICIES OF THE ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CERTAIN SPECIFIED NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF A REVISED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; PROVIDING FOR A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City of Denton City Council Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 11 Beasley motioned, Cochran seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "nay", and Mayor Miller "nay". Motion can/ed with a 5-2 vote. 29. The Council considered approval of a resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designate to terminate two commercial leases for signboards located near the intersection of Loop 288 and the Denton Rail-Trail (formerly the Denton subdivision of the Missouri Pacific Railroad); and providing for an effective date. The following resolution was considered: NO. R2000-007 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNATE TO TERMINATE TWO COMMERCIAL LEASES FOR SIGNBOARDS LOCATED NEAR THE iNTERSECTION OF LOOP 288 AND THE DENTON RAIL-TRAIL (FORMERLY THE DENTON SUBDIVISION OF THE MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD); AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Kristoferson motioned, Cochran seconded to approve the resolution. On mil vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "nay", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried with a 6-1 vote. 30. The Council considered approval of a resolution approving a Right-of-Way Use Agreement between the City of Denton, Texas and Lakeview Ranch, L.P., a Texas limited partnership; and declaring an effective date. The following resolution was considered: NO. R2000-008 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A RIGHT-OF-WAY USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AND LAKEVIEW RANCH, L.P., A TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Beasley motioned, Cochran seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. 31. The Council considered the following requests Ordinance 99-474, establishing a moratorium to apply applications: for relief from the provisions of to certain specified development 1504-08 N. Elm Street, Detailed Plan with office uses 1513 N. Locust Street, Detailed Plan with office uses 2225 E. McKinney Street, Detailed Plan with office use 215 First Street, Zoning Case Z-99-090 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 12 Item a - Burroughs motioned, Cochran seconded to approve the request. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. Item b - Burroughs motioned, Cochran seconded to approve the request. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. Item c Dick Kelsey, 206 Ridgecrest Circle, Denton, 76205, spoke regarding the request. Kristoferson motioned, Burroughs seconded to approve the request. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. Item d Dudley Doyle, 4876 Luginbyhl Rd., Sanger, 76266, spoke regarding the request. Beasley motioned, Young seconded to approve the request. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. 32. The Council considered and took action on a request for relief from the Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance No. 2000-046, filed by Golden Triangle Joint Venture for Zoning Case No. Z-99-096, PD-93 located at the southwest comer of Ryan Road and Teasley Lane. Alyson Archer, 2112 West Spring Creek, Piano, spoke in support. Young motioned, Beasley seconded to approve the request. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "nay", Durrance "nay", Kristoferson "nay", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded with a 4-3 vote. 33. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, authorizing a special called joint public hearing with the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council to be held on Thursday, March 2, 2000, pursuant to Texas Local Government Code §211.007 (b), at the City Council Chambers, at 6 o'clock p.m., to consider recommendation and action upon an ordinance creating nonresidential interim regulations for the implementation of the new comprehensive plan of the City of Denton; prescribing notice of the joint hearing pursuant to Texas Local Government Code §211.007 (d); providing for a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission; superceding the provisions of all ordinances on the same subject matter to the extent of a conflict; and providing for an effective date. The following ordinance was considered: City of Denton City Council Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 13 NO. 2000-066 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING A SPECIAL CALLED JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL TO BE HELD ON THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2000, PURSUANT TO TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE §211.007 (B), AT THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, AT 6 O'CLOCK P.M., TO CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION AND ACTION UPON AN ORDINANCE CREATING NONRESIDENTIAL INTERIM REGULATIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF DENTON; PRESCRIBING NOTICE OF THE JOINT HEARING PURSUANT TO TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE §211.007 (D); PROVIDING FOR A RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION; SUPERCEDING THE PROVISIONS OF ALL ORDINANCES ON THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER TO THE EXTENT OF A CONFLICT; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Beasley motioned, Burroughs seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 34. The Council considered nominations and appointments to the City's Boards and Commissions. Council Member Kristoferson nominated Willie Hudspeth to the Keep Denton Beautiful Board. Council Member Burroughs motioned to suspend the rules and consider the nomination at this meeting. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. On roll vote for the appointment, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. 35. New Business There were no items of New Business suggested by Council Members for future agendas. 36. There were no items from the City Manager. 37. There was no continuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. 38. The following was official action on Closed Meeting under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act: Burroughs motioned, Beasley seconded to grant authority to the Legal Department to initiate legal proceedings against Northeast Mobile Home Park to enforce public safety regulations as City of Denton City Council Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 14 noted in Closed Session. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "nay", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded with a 6-1 vote. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:42 p.m. JACK MILER, MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 22, 2000 After determining that a quorum was present and convening in an Open Meeting, the City Council convened in a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, February 22, 2000 at 5:15 p.m. in the City of Denton Council Work Session Room. PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Beasley; Council Members Burroughs, Cochran, Durrance, Kristoferson and Young. ABSENT: None 1. The Council considered the following in Closed Meeting: Ao Personnel Matters - Under TEX. GOV'T. CODE Section 551.074 1. Evaluation of Municipal Judge 2. Evaluation of City Attorney 3. Evaluation of City Manager Work Session of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, February 22, 2000 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room in City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Beasley; Council Members Burroughs, Cochran, Durrance, Kristoferson and Young. ABSENT: None 1. The Council received a staff report, and held a discussion regarding a group counseling program for couples to be presented by the Police Department's Family Services Coordinator. Gary Matheson, Chief of Police, presented the background information on the proposal for a group counseling program. It was felt that there was a gap in services for couples who were experiencing conflicts in their relationships but had not yet escalated to the degree that the criminal statutes regarding family violence were applicable. Richard Godoy, Family Services Coordinator, stated that the seminar was a 10-week proactive program designed for couples who had experienced conflict in their relationship, had expressed a desire to maintain their relationship, and realized they needed assistance with communication skills and conflict resolution techniques. Couples in which one or both parties had been arrested for Class A Misdemeanor Assault involving Family Violence would not be eligible for this program. Council discussed the various aspects of the program and the potential liability of the City by initiating such a program. Jane Ogletree, Denton County Friends of the Family, spoke regarding her concerns of the program which included cheekg and balance~ of who would be enrolled in the program. Safety of the women in the program would be of the utmost concern. City Manager Jez stated that staff would continue to fine tune the proposal and bring it back in another work session with specifics in selection criteria, structure of the program, steps to mitigate city liability, etc. City of Denton City Council Minutes February 22, 2000 Page 2 2. The Council received a report and gave staff direction regarding use of volunteers by the City of Denton. Rodney Mitchell, Management Assistant, stated that Council Member Cochran had requested information on the use of volunteers in the City of Denton. He detailed what volunteers the City used to help in its delivery of services as noted in the agenda materials. 3. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction regarding the City of Denton Tax Abatement Policy. Linda Ratliff, Director of Economic Development, stated that the Council had asked that the Joint Tax Abatement Committee draft a new tax abatement policy for Council consideration. She highlighted the proposed changes in the policy as noted in the agenda materials. Council Member Young questioned the addition of a minority hiring percentage to the proposal. Consensus of the Council was to research further those cities that had a policy regarding minority hiring as a clause in the program but to encourage applicants for a tax abatement to hire minorities, change wording that tax abatement would not be based on land value of the property, and change the amount to $5 million. Changes would be made and brought back to Council for consideration. 4. The Council received an update on Region C Water Planning activities for North Central Texas. Howard Martin, Assistant City Manager for Utilities, stated that Senate Bill 1 put in place a grassroots regional planning process to plan for the water needs of all Texans for the next 50 years. He reviewed the formation of the Regional Water Planning Groups and the basic functions of those groups as detailed in the agenda materials. 5. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction concerning Intellisys Streaming Media System that will enable Intemet broadcasts of council meetings. Alex Pettit, Director of Technology Services, stated Council had requested that this item be considered at a Work Session. The proposal was to provide citizens the ability to access City of Denton City Council and/or Planning and Zoning Commission meetings from the Intemet and other sources. This program could be used for broadcasting other types of events that were being held in the City. Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the proposal. 6. The Council held a discussion and provided staff direction regarding odor abatement at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Howard Martin, Assistant City Manager for Utilities, stated that Council Member Young had requested this item be placed on a Work Session for discussion. The back-up materials indicated the current status of the facility and possible future considerations for the facility. City of Denton City Council Minutes February 22, 2000 Page 3 Consensus of the Council was to maintain present procedures as it was felt that the odors were minimal based on TNRCC findings. There were also other city facilities in the area that might be producing the odors and it was felt that it was necessary to find out where the odor might be coming from before other measures were implemented that might not correct the problem. 7. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction regarding the draft Interim Nonresidential Standards Ordinance. Dave Hill, Assistant City Manager for Development Services, presented a revised ordinance for Council consideration. This ordinance had been reviewed during two meetings sponsored by the Denton Chamber of Commerce. Three major issues were outgrowth of those meetings. Those issues included multiple lot platting, environmentally sensitive areas, and architectural design/ review. Chuck Carpenter, Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber still had some concerns regarding the provisions of the regulations. There were still some terms that needed to be better defined. Council debated the various options regarding the interim regulations and made suggestions to change those regulations. Consensus of the Council was to move forward with the recommended changes. 8. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction regarding Open Space Conservation options. Dave Hill, Assistant City Manager for Development Services, stated that Council Member Kristoferson had requested a work session on this item to discuss open space conservation options. Open space conservation was an effort to preserve rural characters of a particular area. Consensus of the Council was to develop any legal aspects of the concept before further consideration as part of the permanent code. Following the completion of the Work Session, the Council convened into a Special Called Session. 1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance ordering an election to be held in the City of Denton, Texas, on May 6, 2000, and, if a runoff election is required, on June 3, 2000 for the purpose of electing council members to Places 5 and 6 and electing a Mayor to Place 7 of the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas; designating voting places; appointing election officials; providing for early voting; providing for bilingual notice of the election; ordering that an electronic voting system be used; and providing for an effective date. The following ordinance was considered: City of Denton City Council Minutes February 22, 2000 Page 4 NO. 2000-067 AN ORDINANCE ORDERING AN ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ON MAY 6, 2000, AND, IF A RUNOFF ELECTION IS REQUIRED, ON JUNE 3, 2000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING COUNCIL MEMBERS TO PLACES 5 AND 6 AND ELECTING A MAYOR TO PLACE 7 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; DESIGNATING VOTING PLACES; APPOINTING ELECTION OFFICIALS; PROVIDING FOR EARLY VOTING; PROVIDING FOR BILINGUAL NOTICE OF THE ELECTION; ORDERING THAT AN ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEM BE USED; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Beasley motioned, Burroughs seconded to adopt the ordinance. On mil vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 2. The Council considered the following request for relief from the provisions of Ordinance 99-474, establishing moratoria to apply to certain specified development applications: a. Oaktree Plaza, southeast comer of Loop 288 and Spencer Road - 6.632 acres zoned C(c). b. Lillian Miller Parkway at Southridge Boulevard, 4.3 acres zoned PD-87 (single-family). c. Wind Januner, LTD., Lakes of Sundown Ranch (Unicom Lake), 133 acres zoned PD- 20. d. Kerestine property, northwest comer of Woodrow Lane and Morse Street - 0.6+ acres zoned LI. Item 2a was considered. Ralph Eisenberg spoke regarding the issue. Young motioned, Burroughs seconded to approve the relief. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "nay", Kristoferson "nay", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried with a 5-2 vote. Item 2b was considered. Rick Moore spoke regarding the issue. Cochran motioned, Burroughs seconded to approve the relirf. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. Item 2c was considered. Ike Shupe and Bob Shelton spoke regarding the issue. City of Denton City Council Minutes February 22, 2000 Page 5 Young motioned, Burroughs seconded to approve the relief. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "nay", Kristoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded with a 6-1 vote. Item 2d was considered. Don Frazier spoke regarding relief from the moratorium and the interim regulations. Cheryl Kerestine spoke regarding the issue. Young motioned, Beasley seconded to approve the relief. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. 3. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance suspending TXU Electric Company's Tariff Filing Pursuant to Substantive Rule 25.241 requesting revisions to 27 of its retail rates/riders for sales of electric service to its customers in the City of Denton, Texas filed on January 25, 2000, for 90 days beyond the effective date to permit the City time to study and make recommendations regarding the proposed changes; adopting declarations and findings in the preamble; providing the reasons therefore; providing a severability clause; and providing for an effective date. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2000-068 AN ORDINANCE SUSPENDING TXU ELECTRIC COMPANY'S TARIFF FILING PURSUANT TO SUBSTANTIVE RULE 25.241 REQUESTING REVISIONS TO 27 OF ITS RETAIL RATES/RIDERS FOR SALES OF ELECTRIC SERVICE TO ITS CUSTOMERS IN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS FILED ON JANUARY 25, 2000, FOR 90 DAYS BEYOND THE EFFECTIVE DATE TO PERMIT THE CITY TIME TO STUDY AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED CHANGES; ADOPTING DECLARATIONS AND FINDINGS IN THE PREAMBLE; PROVIDING THE REASONS THEREFORE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE Beasley motioned, Burroughs seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS JACK MILLER MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXS AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda No.~ Agenda Item , oate ...... AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: April 4, 2000 Fiscal & Municipal Services/Tax Kathy DuBose, Assistant City Manager of Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT: Consider approval of a tax retired to Gary Kollmeier. The 1999 tax was over paid, resulting in an overpayment. BACKGROUND: Chapter 31.11 of the Texas Property Tax Code requires the approval of the governing body of the taxing unit for refunds in excess of $500.00. The 1999 tax for Gary Kollmeier was over paid. On 1/31/00 a check in the amount of $3,549.50 was received, however the 1999 tax was only $973.67, resulting in an overpayment of $2,575.83. All documentation necessary for refund is attached. FISCAL INFORMATION: The tax overpayment revenue fund would be reduced by $2,575.83. Respectfully submitted: rDiana Ortiz * Director of Fiscal Operations Prepared by: Carolene Folse Revenue & Tax Analyst APPLICAT~'ON FOR TAX REFUND Collecting office name Collecting tax for: (taxing units) CITY OF DENTON TAX OFFICE CITY OF DENTON ' Present mailing address (number and street) 601 E. HICKORY SUITE F City, town or post office, state, ZIP code Phone (area code and number) DENTON, TX 76205 (940) 349-8318 To apply for a tax refund, the taxpayer must complete the following. uwner's Name Step 1:' GARY KOLLMEIER Present Mailing Address (number and street) Owner's name 3801 FORRESTRIDGE DR City, town or post office, state, ZIP code Phone (area code and number) and address DENTON TX 76206-5547 Step 2: Legal description (or attach copy of the tax bill or tax receipt): FORRESTRIDGE SEC 3, BLOCK G, LOT 7 Describe the property Address or location of property: 3601 FORRESTRIDGE DRIVE Account number of property: Tax receipt number: 120534 OR 9905030385 · ' N*~e of Taxing : i " 'Year ' Date Amount Amount Unit From Which For Which Refund Of The Of Of Tax Refund Refund is Required IS Requested' Tax Payment Taxes Paid Requested Step 3: 1. City of Denton 1999 1/31t00 $' 3,549.50 $ 2,575.83 Give t.he tax 2. payment 3. information 4. 5. Taxpayer's reason for refund ( attach supporting documentation): 1999 Tax was only $973.67, however~ check for $3549.50 was received resultin~l in on overpayment of $2575.83. *1 hereby apply for the refund of the above-described taxes and certify that the information I have given on Step 4: th s form is true an.~ correct to the best of my knoWledcie and belief.* ' :Sigr-~t~tre ~ /~ ' Date ot application tor tax retund: Any person who makes a false entry upon the foregoing record shall be subiect to one of the following penalties: 1. Impdsonment of not more that the 10 years nor loss than 2 years and/or a fine of not moro than $5,000 or both such fine and imprisonment; 2. Confinement in iail for a term up to 1 year or a fine to exceed $2,000 or both such fine and impri,onment a~ ~ot forth in Section 37.10, Penal Code. ~?:'This ta Approved~'~i · :; D sapproved~/ AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda Agenda Item Date ~/ W O0 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: April 4, 2000 Fiscal & Municipal Services/Tax (~. ) Kathy DuBose, Assistant City Manager of Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT: Consider approval of a tax refund to Linda Marsh Schlottig. The 1999 tax was over paid, resulting in an overpayment. BACKGROUND: Chapter 31.11 of the Texas Property Tax Code requires the approval of the goveming body of the taxing unit for refunds in excess of $500.00. The 1999 tax for Linda Marsh Schlottig was over paid. On 12/31/99 a check in the amount of $648.01 was received, which paid the 1999 tax in full. On the same day, another check was received in amount of $2,493.88, resulting in an overpayment of $2,493.88. All documentation necessary for refund is attached. FISCAL INFORMATION: The tax overpayment revenue fund would be reduced by $2,493.88. Respectfully submitted: Director of Fiscal Operations Prepared by: Carolene Folse Revenue & Tax Analyst APPLICATION FOR TAX REFUND . Collecting office name '~: ¢,';,~' ~ i - (,'-~-'{~ 0~ ~ ~* Collecting tax for: (taxing units) CITY OF DENTON TAX OFFICE CITY OF DENTON - Present mailing address (number and street) 601 E. HICKORY SUITE F City, town or post office, state, ZIP code Phone (area code and number) DENTON? TX 76205 {940) 349-83t8 To apply for a tax refund, the taxpayer must complete the following. uwners r~ame Step 1: LINDA MARSH-SCHLOTTIG Present Mailing Address (number and street) Owner's name 1113 HOPE ST City, town or post office, state, ZIP code Phone (area code and number) and address DENTON TX 76205-8911 Step 2: Legal description (or attach copy of the tax bill or tax receipt): Describe CROWN OAKD~ BLOCK A, LOT 4 the property Address or location of property: 1113 HOPE ST Account number of property: Tax receipt number: 189933 OR 9904030398 Name of Taxing Year Date Amount Amount Unit From Which For Which Refund Of The Of Of Tax Refund Refund is Required Is Requested Tax Payment Taxes Paid Requested Step 3: 1. City of Denton 1999 12/31/99 $ 648.01 Give the tax 2. City of Denton 1999 12/31/99 $ 2.493.88 $ 2.493.88 payment 3. information ~,. 5. Taxpayer's reason for refund ( attach supporting documentation): *99 tax paid In full in amount of $648.0t~ ;k for County tax was sent to our Lock Box and credited to City Tax in the amount of $2,493.88, resulting in an overpayment. *1 hereby apply for the refund of the above-described taxes and certify that the information I have given on Step 4: this form is tree and correct to the best of my knowled,qe and belief.* Signature _./..~ _ Date ot application tor tax retund: Sign the form signhere ~[~ .~'-~'~ ~.Cg. ~'"~/~' ~-- .~_(~7{tL~ ..~--..~--O O Any person who makes a false entry upon the foregoing record shall be subject to one of the following penalties: 1. Imprisonment of not more that the 10 years nor less than 2 years and/or a fine of not more than $5,000 or both such fine and imprisonment; 2. Confinement in jail for a term up to 1 year or a fine to exceed $2,000 or both such fine and imprisonment as set forth in Section 37.10, Penal Code. _iI § . ~ o o o ~i~::~!~ o o o ~::~!~i~i~ o o o i ........................ 3 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda No. Agenda Item_ // AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: April 4, 2000 Fiscal & Municipal Services/Tax Kathy DuBose, Assistant City Manager of Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT: Consider approval of a tax refund to Scripture Medical Center. The 1999 tax was paid twice, resulting in an overpayment. BACKGROUND: Chapter 31.11 of the Texas Property Tax Code requires the approval of the governing body of the taxing unit for refunds in excess of $500.00. The 1999 tax for Scripture Medical Center was paid twice. Two separate checks in the amount of $3,283.71 were received on 10/8/99 and on 11/22/99, resulting in an overpayment of $3,283.71. All documentation necessary for refund is attached. FISCAL INFORMATION: The tax overpayment revenue fund would be reduced by $3,283.71. Respectfully submitted: ~)ia~a Ortiz Director of Fiscal Operations Prepared by: Carolene Folse Revenue & Tax Analyst Sent By.: DMU Customer Service; 940 349 7211; Dec-7-99 2:06PM; Page 2/2 * APPUCATION FOR TAX REFUND ITY OF DENTON TAX OFFICE 1 E. HICKORY SUITE F ENTO .N, TX 76205 apply for a tax refund, the taxpayer must complete the following. IStepl; Scripture Medical Center, Tim McGuire, President Owner'~ name and address Step 2: 1614 Scripture, Suite 2 '" City, IOWfl ur past of11~, $1aM, ZIP caclm Denton, ?e×as 76201-3892 Legal descdDtkm (or attach ~n.y of tl~e tax ~1 or lax receipt): Ic04~ tax h~. (tattoo urms) CITY OF DENTON 349-03 8 I~nme (mea'mx~ and nu,,me~) 940,-387-6159 See attached the property Step 3: Dive the tax ~ayment nformation Step 4.' Sign the form Address or k;x;atlon of prol~rly: 1614 Scripture; Denton, Texas Account number Of pml~'"~y: Tax r~pt number. 029956 Name Yeer Taxed ~ From ~ For ~ Taxpayer's reason for refund ( attach supporting documentation): Tax paid twic~ *I hereby apply for the refund of the above-described taxes and certify that the information I have fliven on this form is true and correct fo the best of mv knowledne an,~ h,~',-F · · -- signature ~ ~ . f~ ~ ,~ x ~ / IDaleofaPPpcamm~m'mx'~4u"~* 1. Imprisonment of not more that the 10 years nor less than 2 yems an~/or a fine of not more Itmn $5,000 or both such fine ,,nd imprisonment; 2. Corfflnemont in jail for a term up to 1 year or a fine to exceed $2.000 or both such fine and imprisonment as ~et forth in Section 37.10, Penal Code. ~! ~!!!~!~ ~i~- ililif:~:.~::??:~i~i :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::[:~::::::~: ~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ............................ : :~:~:~:~:~:~ ~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~i;~!i~i~i~!~ >- ::i~[~i~!:~ w ........ ~i~i!ili~i~i~ilili~!!i~i!!~! ............................ :::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda No. Agenda Item AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: April 4, 2000 Fiscal & Municipal Services/Tax Kathy DuBose, Assistant City Manager of Fiscal and Municipal Services~) SUBJECT: Consider approval of a tax refund to Associates Leasing Inc. The 1998 taxable value was corrected per the Denton Central Appraisal District, resulting in an overpayment. BACKGROUND: Chapter 31.11 of the Texas Property Tax Code requires the approval of the goveming body of the taxing unit for refunds in excess of $500.00. The 1998 taxable value for Associates Leasing Inc. was corrected per the Denton Central Appraisal District on the 1998 Supplement #27, resulting in an overpayment of $12,017.86. All documentation necessary for refund is attached. FISCAL INFORMATION: The tax overpayment revenue fund would be reduced by $12,017.86. Respectfully submitted: l~ia~a Ortiz Director of Fiscal Operations Prepared by: Carolene Folse Revenue & Tax Analyst ...................................................... ....................... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda No. z~-~/'d~- Agenda Item . /.~ AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: April 4, 2000 Fiscal & Municipal Services/Tax Assistant City Manager of Fiscal and Municipal Services,~ Kathy DuBose, SUBJECT: Consider approval of a tax refund to LTUNET Technologies, Inc. The 1999 taxable value was decreased, resulting in an overpayment. BACKGROUND: Chapter 31.11 of the Texas Property Tax Code requires the approval of the governing body of the taxing unit for refunds in excess of $500.00. The 1999 taxable value for UUNET Technologies, Inc. was decreased per the Denton Central Appraisal District on Supplement #9, resulting in an overpayment of $890.53. All documentation necessary for refund is attached. FISCAL INFORMATION: The tax overpayment revenue fund would be reduced by $890.53. Director of Fiscal Operations Prepared by: Carolene Folse Revenue & Tax Analyst I ~i~!~i~!~'cc .c.c~i~i~i~c~ .c~c ~ ....................... ~ ............................. ?~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~ ~.:.~:~'~:~::::?~;??:? ~ w~:~:~w~:~:~:~:~:~: ~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~::;~:~:~:~ ................................................... ~ ................................................... ~:~:~ ~:~;~;~ ~ ~ ~:~ ............................ ~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~?~:~:~ :.~:~.~:~;~:~:::~:~*~:~:~ ~:;:~:~:::~:~:~'?:~:~: ~0 o oo~ooo~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::: ======================== ~;:~;;~;~:;~;~ .............. · ..... ~:::::::~::~ .................................................. ;;:::~;:~;?~t;;~;~ ;:~.~:~;~:~.~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~ .... :::::.;. ....... . .¥::. .............. .......... ~j~jt~:~;~;~:~;~ ...................... :;~:~;:~::~:~:~:::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :;:~:~?~:;:5¢~:i:;:~:~ ~:~:l:5:;:~75:~:;:~:;: ~i~i;~;i;~:::;:~: . :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ];?~;?);;]~]~;?(~:~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :~:~:5:5:;:~:;:5:}:;:~ ::.:;.:.::.:::.::.:; ............................ :~;~;~;~ .........................~:?~.~.~:~:i:?~: ~;~;~ ~ e ~ ~ ~:;:~:~:?~:~:~ ............ : ..................... ::~::::::::: > ~ ::~::::::::~ ~ ~:~:;:::::: ~:~:~]~;:~:~;~:~ ..................... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~:~:i:~;~:~:~:~::.:.::.:.:. ]~]:~;];?~;]~?~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..................::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ¢;~i~:~ii~i~ ~ ~a:~i~;~z ~ ~;~:~i~ ~?~?;:~:;:~:; :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :':::;::':::::':': ::::::::::':::'::.:.:::::.::.:::.::. · ~*~*~;~ :~*~:~**:~;~*~:~ ...................... · .... : ........................ ~:~;~;;~:~;~;~ ................ ........ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~[~}~:: :~:~:5:[:~:[:~:~:[:5:~:~:::::::::::::::::::::::::: :5:5:~:~:~:?~:5:~:~:~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~}}~}~?~[~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .............................................. ' ............................................................. 5~??i~i~i~?~i~i~i~ ~.~.~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~: ' ~:~:~:~:~:~;~:~;~:~:~:~: ~ .................. ~:~ ............................. ~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~ ........................................ -:::¥: ..... ::::::::: .............. .................... ~::::::,~:~ ~ ~ ...................................................... ~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~;~:~:< ......................................................... ~?~ ,~:~:~:~:~:~:~:?~:~:~:~ ....................... :.: ..................... ~:~ ...................... ~ ....... ~: ~:~:~ ~ ~;~ ~:~ ..................... ~i~?f '¥':': ................. :~ z ~:~:~ ~ :~::::::~:~:~:~:~:~: ~ ~?~ :~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~ .................................................................................... ======================= : ................. ~:~:~ ~+~ ~ :~ ~ ~ ............................: ........................... ~:~:~:~:~.~:~:~:~:.:.:: ................. ~:~:~:~:~ > ~ ~ ~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~ 2 ~ ~ ~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~ .................................................................................. ' ~¢~;~ ~oq~ ~> 0~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .... ::::::'::::.::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~: ~??~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: m~:~:~ ~ ~:~:~ m~ ~:::: '::'::':::'::'::::': ......... :':':':':':'::': .................... ~: ~)~}~ .... :':::':::'::'::: ~ ~ ~ ~ ..................... . ......::::.::::::.::: ....... :::::::::::::::::::::::: ~?~:~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ............................................... : ........................... '":~: ::::':: ::::::: ~ ................... .:::::::::.::. ......... ~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~: ~}~}~}} ~:~:~.~:~¢~:~ ~r~: ~:~.:.~:~:~.~:~:~:~: ~:~:~::~'~:~ ................. ~:~:~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ m m ~ ....,......,..,. AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: SUBJECT: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET April 4, 2000 Materials Management Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services Agenda Aoenda Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Jim Coulter 349-7194 An Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding an annual contract for the Rental of Heavy Equipment; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 2424A - Rental of Heavy Equipment awarded to Future Equipment Co., Inc. for Items 1 &2, and Crescent Machinery for Item 3, as listed below and in Exhibit A). BID INFORMATION: This bid is for an annual contract for the monthly rental of a select group of heavy earth moving equipment. The listed equipment will be utilized for maintenance and construction projects as needed. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest bidder as listed below: ITEM DESCRIPTION SUPPLIER PRICE PER MO. 1 Scraper 9380 Future Equipment Co., Inc. $14,500 2 Motorgrader Future Equipment Co., Inc. $ 3,640 3 4 Yd Loader Crescent Machinery $ 3,200 PRINCIPLE PLACE OF BUSINESS: Crescent Machinery Dallas, TX Future Equipment Co., Inc. Euless, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT: Bid requirements call for delivery of equipment within three days of notification. Agenda Information Sheet April 4, 2000 Page 2 FISCAL INFORMATION: The rental of this equipment will be funded from appropriate budget, bond and or CIP Project accounts. Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet Attachment 2: Exhibit A 1363 AGENDA Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent ~ '~0 0 ~ §~ o Z '5 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .-.'-'.'-'.'-'.'.'.'.'.-.'.,'.'.,'-'.'-'.'-'. i:i:i:!:i:!:i:!:ii:ii:ii:i:i:i$i:i:i:i!:i. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: '.'2.1'.'2.':.'.'.'::.'11'. i.Z.:{.X.X.X.:.Z.Z{~{~{{.X --}:.>:.X.X.:.:.X.:~.X.:e:.:.:.:.: :.:.X.X.:-:.:.:-:.:.:.X.:.X.:.:.:.:.X ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ATTACHMENT 2 EXHIBIT A ITEM DESCRIPTION SUPPLIER PRICE PER MO. Scraper 9380 Motorgrader 4 Yd Loader Furore Equipment Co., Inc. Future Equipment Co., Inc. Crescent Machinery $14,500 $ 3,64O $ 3,200 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING AN ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR THE RENTAL OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2424A- RENTAL OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT AWARDED TO FUTURE EQUIPMENT CO., INC. FOR ITEMS l&2, AND CRESCENT MACHINERY ITEM 3, AS LISTED BELOW AND IN EXHIBIT A). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of STATE law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the materials, equipment, supplies or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials. equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" on file in the office of the City Purchasing Agent, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: BID ITEM NUMBER NO VENDOR AMOUNT 2424A 1-2 FUTURE EQUIPMENT CO., INC. Exhibit A 2424A 3 CRESCENT MACHINERY Exhibit A SECTION II. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids for such items and agrees to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the terms, specifications, standards, quantities and for the specified sums contained in the Bid Invitations, Bid' Proposals, and related documents. SECTION III. That should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items and of the submitted bids wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the acceptance, approval, and awarding of the bids, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby authorized to execute the written contract which shall be attached hereto; provided that the written contract is in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities arid specified sums comained in the Bid PropOsal and related documents herein approved and accepted. SECTION IV. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount and in accordance with the approved bids or pursuant to a written contract made pursuant thereto as authorized herein. SECTION V. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this da~, of ,2000. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 2424A SUPPLY with Exhibit A. ORDINANCE. EXHIBIT A ITEM DESCRIPTION SUPPLIER PRICE PER MO. Scraper 9380 Motorgrader 4 Yd Loader Future Equipment Co., Inc. Furore Equipment Co., Inc. Crescent Machinery $14,500 $ 3,640 $ 3,2OO AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE CONTRACT FOR AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET April 4, 2000 Materials Management Agenda Agenda Item, Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Gary Matheson 349-7925 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING AN ANNUAL THE PURCHASE OF POLICE UNIFORMS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2470 - POLICE UNIFORMS AWARDED AS LISTED BELOW IN THE ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY $45,000). BID INFORMATION: This bid is for the annual contact for the acquisition of police uniforms. Each item will be ordered as needed throughout the year. The bid contract may be extended for an additional one-year period. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend this bid be awarded as listed on Exhibit A to the attached ordinance: ITEMS 1-10 Men's and Women's Uniform Shirts and Trousers awarded to Direct Action Uniforms The recommendation is based upon lowest overall bid meeting specification and maintaining, uniformity, continuity and compatibility with existing uniforms. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT: Delivery of uniforms and auxiliary items are quoted to be within 7 to 30 days. FISCAL INFORMATION: The pm'chase of these items will be funded from 1999-2000 budget funds. Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet 1365 AGENDA Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent ATTACHMENT 1 TABULATION SHEET Bid # 2470 Date: POLICE UNIFORMS No. Qty.I DESCRIPTION VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR Casco Direct Action Unforms dba Ladd Uniform Inc. ! Direct Action 1 100 Police Officer Men's Ils $36.50 $30.50 $32.97 $30.95 $39.04 shirt 2 100i Police Officer Men's sis $32.50 $27.70 $30.20 $28.65 $35.44 shirt 3 20 Police Officer Women's $36.50 $30.50 $32.97 $30.95 $39.04 Ils shirt 4 20 Police Officer Women's $32.50 $27.70 $30.20 $28.65 $25.44 sis shirt 5 20 Dispatcher Men's long $25.48 $23.99 $23.99 $19.64 $32.37 sleeve shirt 6 20 Dispatcher Men's short $22.68 $21.99 $21.99 $17.50 $28.69 sleeve shirt 7 20 Dispatcher Women's $25.48 $23.99 $23.99 $19.64 $32,37 long sleeve shirt 8 20 Dispatcher Women's $22.68 $21.99 $21.99 $17.50 $28.69 short sleeve shirt 9 20 Men's trousers $27.00 $24.55 $24.55 $29.15 $31.58 10 40 Women's trousers $27.00 $24.55 $24.55 $29.15 $31.58 no bids received: Galls, Casco oversized add 20% ORDINANCE NO. ~ AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING AN ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF POLICE UNIFORMS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2470 - POLICE UNIFORMS AWARDED AS LISTED BELOW IN THE ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY $45,000). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of STATE law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the materials, equipment, supplies or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" on file in the office of the City. Purchasing Agent, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: BID ITEM NUMBER NO 2470 1-10 VENDOR Direct Action Uniforms AMOUNT Exhibit "A" SECTION II. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids for such items and agrees to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the terms, specifications, standards, quantities and for the specified sums contained in the Bid Invitations, Bid Proposals, and related documents. SECTION III. That should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items and of the submitted bids wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the acceptance, approval, and awarding of the bids, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby authorized to execute the written contract which shall be attached hereto; provided that the written contract is in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained in the Bid Proposal and related documents herein approved and accepted. SECTION IV. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount and in accordance with the approved bids or pursuant to a written contract made pursuant thereto as authorized herein. SECTION V. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this __ day of ,2000. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 2470 SUPPLY ORDINANCE-2000 EXHIBIT "A" Bid # 2470 POLICE UNIFORMS No. Qty.I DESCRIPTION VENDOR Police Officer Men's Ils 1 100 $30.50 shirt Police Officer Men's sis 2 100 $27.70 shirt Police Officer Women's 3 20 $30.50 I/s shirt Police Officer Women's 4 20 $27,70 sis shirt 5 20 Dispatcher Men's long $23.99 sleeve shirt 6 20 Dispatcher Men's short $21.99 sleeve shirt 7 20 Dispatcher Women's $23.99 long sleeve shirt 8 20 Dispatcher Women's $21.99 short sleeve shirt 9 20 Men's trousers $24.55 10 40 Women's trousers $24.55 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda, No.~ ~- April 4, 2000 Materials Management Questions conceming this acquisition may be directed to Janet Simpson 349-8274 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT: An Ordinance approving the expenditure of fimds for the purchase of certified softball officiating services available from only one source in accordance with provisions of State Law exempting such purchases from requirements of competitive bidding; and providing an effective date. (Awarded to North Texas Umpire Association in the amount of $36.50 per game for an estimated award expenditure of $45,990). AGREEMENT INFORMATION: This agreement between the City of Denton and the North Texas Umpire Association is to supply officiating services for the Adult Slow-Pitch Spring and Fall Seasons for Men, Coed and Women ASA softball games. This agreement will cover the Spring and Fall Season consisting of approximately 1,260 games. The American Softball Association (ASA) regional office has been contacted to solicit alternate sources of certified softball officials. The other organizations have been contacted and are unavailable to participate in the officiating duties for the Denton program. The North Texas Umpire Association is the sole source for ASA certified softball umpires available for the City of Denton. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend this agreement be approved in the amount of $36.50 per game in the approximate total amount of $45,990. PRINICPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS: North Texas Umpire Association Denton, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT: This agreement will remain in effect through November 30, 2000. FISCAL INFORMATION: Funding for the Spring Season and approximately half of the Fall Season ($38,500) is available from 1999/2000-budget account (261-031-0062-R008-8502). The balance of the Fall Season ($7,490) will be funded from 2000-2001 budget funds after approved by Council. Agenda Information Sheet April 4, 2OOO Page 2 Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Purchase Order 04407 to North Texas Umpire Association Attachment 2: Agreement with North Texas Umpire Association 1368 AGENDA ATTACHMENT 1 Z O O ~Z ~00 U :~ O~ ~4 ~ 4~ o o o o o o o o u~ 00 o o ~o 0o% 0 o o o © o o o · 0 0 0 ul 0 0 ~,~ ~D 0 0 H H ATTACHMENT 2 AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF DENTON PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT AND NORTH TEXAS UMPIRE ASSOCIATION The City Of Denton Parks and Recreation Department (hereinafter "PARD") of Denton, Texas and the North Texas Umpire Association (hereinafter "NTUA") enter into the following Agreement: 1. CONTEST The NTUA agrees to officiate the 2000 Adult Slow-Pitch Season for Men, Coed, and Women ASA softball games that are scheduled by PARD at North Lakes Softball Complex, Denton, Texas. Said season shall be completed November 30, 2000. The umpires provided herein are not employees of PARD or the City of Denton but are independent contractors providing contractual services under the terms of this agreement. PARD will provide NTUA with a schedule of games depicting leagues and their field assignments for the season. NTUA will receive this information at least two (2) weeks before the season begins. PARD will also provide NTUA with the league's current rules and regulations that are modified from the current Amateur Softball Association (ASA) rules. NTUA will schedule officials so that the ability level of the official will match or exceed the level of league play on each field. NTUA will provide up to two (2) umpires and one (1) scorekeeper for each game. 1. Optimally, each field will have two (2) umpires, but when that is not possible, NTUA will insure that the official working alone wilt be a qualified umpire. The Umpire-In-Charge (UIC) scheduled for each night will ensure that the officials assigned to each field are capable of working that particular level of play. 2. PAYMENT A. In consideration of such services, the PARD will pay NTUA a total of $36.50 per game. B. Payment Determination. Both parties will determine the payment to be the calculated number of games scheduled for each particular league times the rate of $36.50 per game. Page 1 of 3 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET April 4, 2OOO Materials Management Ag,nS& No.__ ~gf/~- t9/~-'- ~ Agendaltem~, ,",~,~ .- ..... Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Alex Pettit 349-8595 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services~ SUBJECT: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Denton, Tex~ authorizing the Mayor or City Manager to execute the attached Professional Services Agreement for Software Implementation and Support between the City of Denton, Texas and Access Techologies, Inc., a Qualified Infomiation Systems Vendor ("QISV") of the State of Texas, to be paid from previously budgeted funds in an amount not to exceed six hundred sixteen thousand, five hundred and seventy dollars ($616,570); and providing for an effective date. (Purchase Order 04402 to Access ' Technologies, Inc., in the amount of $616,570). PURCHASE ORDER INFORMATION: A focus committee was formed in 1998 to review and select a new Financial Reporting and Human Resources, Management System. Representatives from Utilities, Budgeting, Human Resources, Accounting, Purchasing, Warehouse, Treasury and other end user departments participated in the software selection process. Based upon the software selection committee's. recommendation Council approved the acquisition of the ID Edwards Accounting/Financial Reporting and Human Resources Software on November 2, 1999 (Ordinance 99-403). In December of 1999 a second, smaller team from Finance and Technology Services began negotiations with a QISV approved professional services flint for implementation services of the ID Edwards Software. Access Technologies, Inc. (ATI) a professional services firm specializing in the implementation of ID Edwards Accounting/Financial Reporting and Human Resources Soi~vare into municipal government agencies was selected. The final negotiated price structure is based upon professional services fees, which are considered fair, reasonable, consistant with the fees charged by professional services firms performing similar services and the fees are lower than current QISV catalogue prices. ATI is well qualified to perform the needed services and has a good reputation in this area of expertise. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend Purchase Order 04402 to Access Technologies, Inc., and the related contract attached to the ordinance be approved in the amount of $616,570. PRINICPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS: Access Technologies, Inc. Mission Viejo, CA C. Schedule of Payment 1. Initial Payment: PARD will make an initial payment in the amount of one-half (1/2) of the total expected amount for estimated services no later than 7 days before the first game of each season. 2. Final Payment: PARD will make the final estimated amount owed to the NTUA on or before 14 days after the first scheduled game: If NTUA provides only one official for a game, then PARD will be credited $6.50 for each game that has one official working alone. This credit can be used during the current season or during the next season. 3. OFFICIALS NTUA represents officials that are, or will be by the date of the contest, a duly registered umpire who is a member in good standing of the ASA. 4. INTERPRETATION ASA Rules and City Softball Rules shall govern play and settle rule disputes. If PARD offers a "coaches meeting", NTUA recommends that the executive committee be notified of the date, time, and place of the coaches meeting. We would like to explain new rules, game procedures to the new coaches, and discuss how on-field disagreements will be handled. 5. VOIDING OF AGREEMENT This agreement shall become null and void upon the demise of either organization. This agreement may be canceled at any time by the mutual written consent of both parties upon 30 days written notice. In the event of early termination as provided heroin, PARD shall be refunded that portion of the payment associated with the games not yet officiated. 6. NOTIFICATION/SCHEDULE CHANGES All notifications concerning the provisions of the document or of schedule changes shall be in writing to the below address. All game changes will be given to NTUA Assignor 24 hours prior to the change. If notification is not given in this timely manner, an additional administration fee of $3.00 per game will be charged to PARD. A. If initial notification is by phone, then a written confirmation shall thereafter be sent within seven (7) days. Page 2 of 3 7. INDEMNITY NTUA agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless, PARD, the City of Denton, and their employees and officers from and against any and all claims or actions for injuries or damages, including death, arising out of NTUA's performance under this agreement, including the negligent acts or omissions of the umpires provided for under this agreement and any claims or actions made or brought by an umpire. 8. ACCEPTANCE This agreement is void if not signed by Athletic Coordinator and another representative from PARD and two (2) board members from NTUA on or before April 10, 2000. Date: Name: Title: Date: Name: Title: City of Denton Parks and Recreation Department Date: Name: Title: Date: Name: Title: North Texas Umpire Association City ofDenton Parks and Recreation Department KristieWeaver 349-8523 349-8384 fax North Texas UmPire Association 524 N Locust, Suite A Denton, TX 76201 898-1561 380-9235 fax Page 3 of 3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF CERTIFIED SOFTBALL OFFICIATING SERVICES AVAILABLE FROM ONLY ONE SOURCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (AWARDED TO NORTH TEXAS UMPIRES ASSOCIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $36.50 PER GAME FOR AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL EXPENDITURE OF $45,990.). WHEREAS, Section 252.022 of the Local Government Code provides that procurement of items that are only available from one source, including; items that are only available from one source because of patents, copyrights, secret processes or natural monopolies; films, manuscripts or books; electricity, gas, water and other utility purchases; captive replacement parts or components for equipment; and library materials for a public library that are available only from the persons holding exclusive distribution rights to the materials; need not be submitted to competitive bids; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to procure one or more of the items mentioned in the above paragraph; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That the following purchase of materials, equipment or supplies, as described in the "Purchase Orders" listed hereon, and the agreement attached hereto and on file in the office of the Purchasing Agent, are hereby approved: PURCHASE ORDER VENDOR AMOUNT 03370 North Texas Umpire Association $38,500 TBD* North Texas Umpire Association $7,490 *Subject to Council approval of funding in the 2000/2001 budget SECTION II. That the acceptance and approval of the above items shall not constitute a contract between the City and the person submitting the quotation for such items until such person shall comply with all requirements specified by the Purchasing Department. SECTION III. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute any contracts relating to the items specified in Section I and the expenditure of funds pursuant to said contracts is hereby authorized. SECTION IV. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2000. ATTEST: ~IENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 03370-sole source JACK MILLER, MAYOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF DENTON PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT AND NORTH TEXAS UMPIRE ASSOCIATION The City Of Denton Parks and Recreation Department (hereinafter "PARD") of Denton, Texas and the North Texas Umpire Association (hereinafter "NTUA") enter into the following Agreement: 1. CONTEST Ao The NTUA agrees to officiate the 2000 Adult Slow-Pitch Season for Men, Coed, and Women ASA softball games that are scheduled by PARD at North Lakes Softball Complex, Denton, Texas. Said season shall be completed November 30, 2000. The umpires provided herein are not employees of PARD or the City of Denton but are independent contractors providing contractual services under the terms of this agreement. Bo PARD will provide NTUA with a schedule of games depicting leagues and their field assignments for the season. NTUA will receive this information at least two (2) weeks before the season begins. PARD will also provide NTUA with the league's current rules and regulations that are modified from the current Amateur Softball Association (ASA) rules. NTUA will schedule officials so that the ability level of the official will match or e~ceed the level of league play on each field. NTUA will provide up to two (2) umpires and one (1) scorekeeper for each game. 1. Optimally, each field will have two (2) umpires, but when that is not possible, NTUA will insure that the official working alone will be a qualified umpire. The Umpire-In-Charge (UIC) scheduled for each night will ensure that the officials assigned to each field are capable of working that particular level of play. 2. PAYMENT A. In consideration of such services, the PARD will pay NTUA a total of $36.50 per game. B. Payment Determination. Both parties will determine the payment to be the calculated number of games scheduled for each particular league times the rate of $36.50 per game. Page 1 of 3 o C. Schedule of Payment Do Initial Payment: PARD will make an initial payment in the amount of one-half (1/2) of the total expected amount for estimated services no later than 7 days before the first game of each season. 2. Final Payment: PARD will make the final estimated amount owed to the NTUA on or before 14 days after the first scheduled game. If NTUA provides only one official for a game, then PARD will be credited $6.50 for each game that has one official working alone. This credit can be used during the current season or during the next season. OFFICIALS NTUA represents officials that are, or will be by the date of the contest, a duly registered umpire who is a member in good standing of the ASA. 4. INTERPRETATION ASA Rules and City Softball Rules shall govern play and settle rule disputes. Ao If PARD offers a "coaches meeting", NTUA recommends that the executive committee be notified of the date, time, and place of the coaches meeting. We would like to explain new rules, game procedures to the new coaches, and discuss how on-field disagreements will be handled. 5. VOIDING OF AGREEMENT This agreement shall become null and void upon the demise of either organization. This agreement may be canceled at any time by the mutual written consent of both parties upon 30 days written notice. In the event of early termination as provided heroin, PARD shall be refunded that portion of the payment associated with the games not yet officiated. 6. NOTIFICATION/SCHEDULE CHANGES All notifications concerning the provisions of the document or of schedule changes shall be in writing to the below address. All game changes will be given to NTUA Assignor 24 hours prior to the change. If notification is not given in this timely manner, an additional administration fee of $3.00 per game will be charged to PARD. A. If initial notification is by phone, then a written confirmation shall thereafter be sent within seven (7) days. Page 2 of 3 7. INDEMNITY NTUA agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless, PARD, the' City of Denton, and their employees and officers from and against any and all claims or actions for injuries or damages, including death, arising out of NTUA's performance under this agreement, including the negligent acts or omissions of the umpires provided for under this agreement and any claims or actions made or brought by an umpire. 8. ACCEPTANCE This agreement is void if not signed by Athletic Coordinator and another representative from PARD and two (2) board members from NTUA on or before April 10, 2000. Date: Name: Title: Date: Name: Title: City of Denton Parks and Recreation Department Date: Name: Title: Date: Name: Title: North Texas Umpire Association City ofDenton Parksand Recreation Department KristieWeaver 349-8523 349-8384 fax North Texas Umpire Association 524 N Locust, Suite A Denton, TX 76201 898-1561 380-9235 fax Page 3 of 3 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET April 4, 2000 Materials Management Agenda ItemT. .,/ ,/.., ., o.t._ Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Alex Pettit 349-8595 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services~ SUBJECT: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Denton, Tex~s authorizing the Mayor or City Manager to execute the attached Professional Services Agreement for Software Implementation and Support between the City of Denton, Texas and Access Techologies, Inc., a Qualified Information Systems Vendor ("QISV") of the State of Texas, to be paid from previously budgeted funds in an amount not to exceed six hundred sixteen thousand, five hundred and seventy dollars ($616,570); and providing for an effective date. (Purchase Order 04402 to Access ' Technologies, Inc., in the amount of $616,570). PURCHASE ORDER INFORMATION: A focus committee was framed in 1998 to review and select a new Financial Reporting and Human Resources, Management System. Representatives from Utilities, Budgeting, Human Resources, Accounting, Purchasing, Warehouse, Treasury and other end user deparhaents participated in the software selection process. Based upon the software selection committee's. recommendation Council approved the acquisition of the JD Edwards Accounting/Financial Reporting and Human Resources Software on November 2, 1999 (Ordinance 99-403). In December of 1999 a second, smaller team from Finance and Technology Services began negotiations with a QISV approved professional services firm for implementation services of the JD Edwards Software. Access Technologies, Inc. (ATI) a professional services finn specializing in the implementation of JD Edwards Accounting/Financial Reporting and Human Resources Sof~3vare into municipal government agencies was selected. The final negotiated price structure is based upon professional services fees, which are considered fair, reasonable, consistant with the fees charged by professional services firms perforating similar services and the fees are lower than current QISV catalogue prices. ATI is well qualified to perform the needed services and has a good reputation in this area of expertise. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend Purchase Order 04402 to Access Technologies, Inc., and the related contract attached to the ordinance be approved in the amount of $616,570. PRINICPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS: Access Technologies, Inc. Mission Viejo, CA Agenda Infot~nation Sheet April 4, 2000 Page 2 PRIOR ACTION OR REVIEW: Council approved (Ordinance 99-403) for the acquisition of JD Edwards Software on November 2, 1999. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT: Implementation of the JD Edwards Software is schedule to be completed by October 1, 2000. FISCAL INFORMATION: Funding for this Professional Service Contract is available in the Long Range Technology Plan · account (468-044-COMP-9847-9103). Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Purchase Order 04402 to Access Technologies, Inc. 1367.AGENDA ATTACHMENT 1 0 o o o o 0 O0 o o o ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OR CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR SOFTWARE IMPLEMENTATION AND SUPPORT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AND ACCESS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., A QUALIFIED INFORMATION SYSTEM8 VENDOR ("QISV") OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, TO BE PAID FROM PREVIOUSLY BUDGETED FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED SIX HUNDRED SIXTEEN THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY DOLLARS ($616,570.00); AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PURCHASE ORDER 04402 TO ACCESS TECHNOLGIES, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $616,570). WHEREAS, the Consultant for the Professional Services anticipated by the attached agreement is a Qualified Information Systems Vendor ("QISV") of the State of Texas for Auto- mated Information Systems, and WHEREAS, the contracted-for professional services fall within the scope of said QISV status for the purposes of the Catalog Purchasing Method prescribed by Chapter 2157 of the Texas Government Code, and WHEREAS, upon the evaluation and recommendation of staff, the City Council now finds that the contracted services represent the best value obtainable for said Professional Serv- ices; NOW, THEREFORE: THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute the attached Professional Services Agreement between the City of Denton and Access Technologies, Inc., for software implementation and support, substantially in the form of the attached docu- ments, and further authorizes the expenditure of previously budgeted funds in an amount not to exceed six hundred sixteen thousand five hundred and seventy dollars ($616,570.00) for that purpose. SECTION II. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2000. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY /' Page 2 STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DENTON § PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR soF'I'WARE IMPLEMENTATION This Professional Services Agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into as of March 1, 2000 ("Effective Date") by and between City of Denton, TX. ("Client"), a Texas Municipal corporation, with its principal place of business located at 601 E. Hickory, Suite A, Denton, TX 76205 and Access Technologies, Inc. ("Consultant"), a California corporation employing certified public accountants and computer professionals, with its principal place of business located at 11608 McDougall, Tustin, California 92782. WHEREAS, Client is a municipal corporation that wants to implement the JDEdwards software suite described in Exhibit B, by utilizing historical and future data in order to successfully achieve the criteria set forth in Exhibit C, in a fashion that maximizes efficiency and ease-of-use to the end user; and, WHEREAS, Consultant provides the professional judgment and expertise of accountants and computer professionals to provide advice and assistance with respect to the installation, implementation, development and modification of the JDEdwards suite of computer software and computer systems described in Exhibit B. WHEREAS, Client desires to engage the services of Consultant and Consultant agrees to accept such engagement all on the terms and conditions set forth below. Terms and Conditions NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants hereinafter set forth, Client and Consultant agree as follows: 1. Engagement Client hereby engages the services of Consultant, and Consultant agrees to provide to Client those professional services ("Professional Services") as described in paragraph 4 and more specifically as defined in any Professional Service Agreement Addendum(s) ("Addendums") that may hereinafter entered into in writing by and between the parties and incorporated herein by reference. Client acknowledges and agrees that Consultant may engage the services of subcontractors, consultants, entities and other agents ("Consultant Personnel") to perform the Professional Services hereunder, under Consultant's supervision. · - Professional Services Agreement - City of Denton, TX. page 2 of 11 2. Term and Termination 2.1 Term. The initial term of this Agreement shall be for a period of twelve (12) months, commencing on the Effective Date ("Term"). The Term shall automatically be renewed for successive twelve (12) month periods,, unless terminated in accordance with Section 2.2 below. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. Consultant shall make all reasonable efforts to complete the services set forth herein as expeditiously as possible and to meet the schedule established and agreed upon in writing by Consultant and Client, acting through its City Manager or his designate 2.2 Termination. a) b) This Agreement may be terminated at any time by either party upon a material breach by the other party of any of its obligations under this Agreement, and which breach continues for a period of thirty (30) days following receipt of written notice of breach. If the breach is cured within thirty (30) days following receipt of notice of the breach, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. This Agreement may be terminated at any time without cause by either party upon thirty (30) days' written notice to the other party. In the event either party terminates this Agreement with or without cause, Consultant shall immediately cease all services and shall render a final bill for services to Client within thirty (30) days after the date of termination. Client shall pay Consultant for all services rendered and satisfactorily performed, as reasonably determined by Client, and for reimbursable expenses to termination incurred prior to the date of termination, whether or not they have been reported, pursuant to Section 3.5 below. Should Client subsequently contract with a new contractor for the continuation of services on the Project, Consultant shall cooperate in providing'information. Consultant shall turn over all documents prepared or furnished by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement to Client on or before the date of termination, but may maintain copies of such documents for its use. The termination of a Professional Service Agreement Addendum in no event terminates this Agreement. 3. Consulting Fees 3.1 Rate of Compensation. During the Term, Client shall pay Consultant for work performed according to the staffing and rates specified in the Addendums for the specific Professional Services rendered. 3.2 Compensation for Travel Expenses. While Consultant will use its best efforts to reasonably minimize travel related expenses, Client agrees to reimburse Consultant for the following items: · Airfare, lodging, breakfast, lunch and dinner, rental cars, and reasonable phone charges while Consultant Personnel are away from home. Airfare reimbursement shall not exceed to the cost of round-trip coach class airfare from Orange County, California to D/FW Airport or Dallas Love Field. Meal reimbursement shall not exceed $30 per day per person, with receipts. Hotel reimbursement shall not exceed $110 per night, plus applicable taxes. Rental vehicle reimbursement shall not exceed $39.00 per day, plus gasoline. · - Professional Services Agreement - City of Denton, TX. page 3 of 11 · Mileage, at 32.5 cents per mile, driven by conSultant Personnel in their own cars to and from the job site, or airport. 3.3 Compensation for Remote Access Connect Time. In an effort to avoid the cost of travel, Consultant will endeavor to utilize its technical Consultant Personnel in its facilities. In order to work efficiently, Consultant Personnel may have to electronically access Client's computer system from Consultant's facilities. The actual charges for this connect time will be payable by Client pursuant to Section 3.6 below. 3.4 Time Accountinq Reports. Consultant Personnel shall prepare and present detailed Activity Summaries and summarized time accounting reports to Client on a weekly basis ("Period") for all Professional Services performed during the preceding Period. If Client disagrees with any amounts or figures on the time accounting reports, Client shall promptly notify C°nSultan~ i~ 'writing setting forth'the dispUted amounts and figures and the reason therefor. Upon receipt, Consultant has ten (10) working days to provide a written response to Client justifying and/or otherwise explaining the amounts and/or figures. Any disputed amounts and/or figures shall not relieve Client of its obligation to pay Consultant for all other amounts owing under the Agreement and/or Addendum. 3.5 Invoicinq for Services. Consultant shall prepare and present invoices to Client on a weekly basis for all Professional Services work performed during the Period. Client agrees to pay invoices submitted by Consultant within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt. Unpaid invoices will incur a finance charge on one-and-one-half percent (1-1/2%) per month Partial payments to Consultant will be made on the basis of detailed monthly statements rendered to and approved by Client through its City Manager or his designate; however, under no circumstances shall any monthly statement for services exceed the value of the work performed at the time a statement is rendered. Client may withhold the final five percent (5%) of the contract amount until the Project has been completed at which time two and one-half (2 1/2%) percent of the retainage shall be released to Consultant. The remaining two and one-half percent (2 1/2%) shall be released to Consultant upon the City Manager or his designee accepting the Project. 3.6 Work Hours. Consultant Personnel shall work within whatever reasonable schedule is required to provide the Professional Services and complete the work related to this Agreement and any Addendums. However, if Client requires work to begin at the job site before 7:00 a.m. or to continue at the job site after 6:00 p.m., or if Client requires more than 50 hours be spent by any Consultant Personnel in any one-week period, Client must present Consultant with written notice of any such requirement prior to that requirement being enforced as a condition of satisfactory performance. Any required work hours shall include such hours Consultant completes from a remote site pursuant to Section 3.3. 3.7 Nothing contained in this Article shall require Client to pay for any work which is unsatisfactory, as reasonably determined by the City Manager or his designee, or which is not submitted in compliance with the terms of this Agreement; provided, however, Client shall pay for all such work that is cured to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Manager or his designee or which is subsequently submitted pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. If Consultant is in material default of this Agreement, Client shall not be required to make any payments to Consultant until such time that such default is cured. Professional Services Agreement - City of Denton, TX. page 4 of 11 3.8 It is specifically understood and agreed that Consultant shall not be authorized to undertake any work pursuant to this Agreement which would require additional payments by Client for any charge, expense, or reimbursement above the maximum not to exceed fee of six hundred sixteen thousand, five hundred and seventy dollars ($616,570.00), without first having obtained written authorization from Client. 3.9 Standard of Work. Consultant shall perform the Professional Services with the degree of care, skill and diligence currently observed by major Certified Public Accounting firms performing software implementation of JDEdwards software, and shall use its best efforts to complete each of its projects in a timely manner. Consultant will exercise reasonable care and due diligence in discovering and promptly reporting to Client any defects or deficiencies in the work of Consultant or any subcontractors or subconsultants. 3.10 Approval by Client shall not constitute, nor be deemed a release of the responsibility and liability of Consultant, its employees, associates, agents, subcontractors, and subconsultants for the accuracy and competency of their designs or other work; nor shall such approval be deemed to be an assumption of such responsibility by Client for any defect in the design or other work prepared by CONTRACTOR, its employees, subcontractors, agents, and consultants.;provided, however that approval by the Client shall be deemed acceptance and assumption of the Professional Services ninety (90) days after the date of completion of such Professional Services. 4. Description. of Consultant's Professional Services Consultant shall provide Professional Services at Client's request pursuant to written Addendums which Professional Services may include the following activities as agreed upon by the parties in writing: 4.1 Application support including modifications to. the existing setup of JD Edwards' software as well as new setup of existing JD Edwards' software, training of Client's staff, and documentation of the JD Edwards' software setup; 4.2 Technical support including the installation of new releases of JD Edwards' software, custom modifications or enhancements of existing JD Edwards' software, the development of new custom programs, and the development of technical specifications that describe the custom modifications to and enhancements of existing software as well as the development new custom programs; 4.3 Project management including the planning, organizing and directing of Consultant resources as required under the Professional Services, as well as regular reporting to the Client's regional and executive management on issues relevant to the Professional Services provided under this Agreement; 4.4 Analyzing Client's business processes and needs relating to Client's information processing requirements and operating procedures; 4.5 Specifying and implementing those modifications to Client's existing computer programs and systems that are necessary in order to effectively and reasonably implement the Professional Services; · * Professional Services Agreement - City of Denton, TX. page 5 of 11 4.6 Designing and building new computer programs and systems that are necessary in order to effectively and reasonably implement the Professional Services; 4.7 Creating and/or amending documentation relating to operating procedures and to computer programs and systems that are necessary in order to effectively and reasonably implement the Professional Services; 4.8 Training operating personnel to use the computer programs and system developed by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement; 4.9 Providing continuing support to operating personnel with respect to the implementation and operation of computer programs and systems developed by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement; 4.10 Performing various other project management and professional consulting services related to information systems as such services are set forth and agreed upon in a written Addendum. 5. Supplies and Facilities Client's supplies (including but not limited to, forms and stationery), equipment (including but not limited to, computers, p139~0Copy machines, business machines, and typing facilities); ~'nd support -staff will be isrbvid-ed tS'CS'iisultant by Client, and will be used by Consultant's personnel for Client's business only, at no cost to Consultant. In addition, Client will provide necessary working space and computer time to Consultant for the completion of Consultant's work under this Agreement. 6. Independent Contractor Relationship a) Consultant shall act in the capacity of an independent contractor with respect to Client. Consultant shall not act as, nor represent itself as being, an agent of Client, and shall not act as, nor represent itself as being authorized to commit Client to any obligation. b) As an independent contractor, Consultant shall take direction from Client related to the results to be achieved by Consultant during the term of this Agreement. All such direction shall be consistent with the scope of services to be provided under this Agreement or any Addendum. c) As an independent contractor, neither Consultant nor its employees, agents, or contractors shall have the status of employees of Client or its subsidiaries. Neither Consultant nor its employees shall be eligible to participate in any employee benefit, group insurance, or executive compensation plans or bonus programs offered to employees of Client. Client shall not provide social security, unemployment compensation insurancel worker's compensation insurance, disability insurance, or similar coverage, nor any other statutory benefits of employment to Consultant. d) Consultant shall comply with all applicable State and Federal regulations including but not limited to the filing of all required State and Federal income tax and other related taxes. e) Consultant does hereby agree to waive all claims, release, indemnify, defend and hold harmless Client and all of its officials, officers, agents and employees, in both their public and private capacities, from any and all liability, claims, suits, demands or · ' Professional Services Agreement - City of Denton, TX. page 6 of I l causes of action which may arise by reason of injury to or death of any person or for loss of, damage to, or loss of use of any property occasioned by error, omission or negligent act of Consultant, its officers, agents, employees, invitees or other persons for whom Consultant is legally liable, with regard to the performance of this Contract, other than Client's own negligence, and Consultant Will, at its own cost and expense, defend and protect Client from any and all such claims or demands. f) Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Client from and against any claims, including reasonable legal fees and expenses, based upon infringement of any . United States copyright trademark or patent by the Software, as defined below, Client agrees to notify Consultant of any such claim promptly in writing. Client agrees to cooperate fully with Consultant during such proceedings. Consultant shall defend and settle at its sole expense all proceedings arising out of the foregoing, including the procurement of suitable counsel for Client's defense. In the event of such infringement, Consultant may replace, in whole or in part, and at no cost to Client, Softwarewith a substantially compatible and functionally equivalent computer program or modify Softwareto avoid the infringement. g) Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create a liability to any person who is not a party to this Agreement, and nothing herein shall waive any of the parties' defenses, both at law or equity, to any claim, cause of action, or litigation filed by anyone not a party to this Agreement, including the defense of governmental immunity, which defenses are hereby expressly reserved. 7. Non-exclusivity of Services Client acknowledges that Consultant may perform similar services for other clients or other businesses at any time during the term of this Agreement, and that the performance of such similar services ~hall not be deemed a breach of this Agreement or any Addendum hereto. 8. Proprietary Rights, Confidentiality and Nondisclosure 8.1 Generally. In connection with providing the Professional Services, Consultant may write, design, develop, implement and deliver to Client certain work product deliverables ("Work Product"). The Work Product may include, but shall not be limited to, computer software and modifications, training manuals and enhancements thereto ("Software"), drawings, designs, specifications and reports. All documents prepared or furnished by Consultant (and Consultant's subcontractors or subconsultants) pursuant to this Agreement are instruments of service, and shall become the property of Client upon the termination of this Agreement. Client hereby grants Consultant an irrevocable license to use any documents and Software Consultant created for Client. Consultant is entitled to retain copies of all such documents. The documents prepared and furnished by Consultant are intended only to be applicable to this Project, and Client's use of these documents in other projects shall be at Client's sole risk and expense. In the event Client uses any of the information or materials developed pursuant to this Agreement in another project or for other purposes than specified herein, Consultant is released from any and all liability relating to their use in that project. 9. Warranties Professional Services Agreement - City of Denton, TX. page 7 of 11 A. Warranty of Title. Consultant warrants that it has good title to any hardware sold pursuant to this Agreement and the right to sell it to Client free of any proprietary rights of any other party or any other lien or encumbrance. Consultant further warrants that it has good title and all proprietary rights to any software developed and provided by Consultant, to enable it to license its use to Client free of any proprietary rights of any other party or any other encumbrance. B. Software Warranty. Consultant warrants that any Software provided by Consultant will perform free of defects that would prevent the system from operating in the manner described in the contract documents and any other related user documentation for the version installed. Consultant further warrants that its implementation design of the JDEdwards software suite described in Exhibit B will perform in such a manner as to accomplish the criteria set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, in a fashion.~hich max!mizes efficiencY and ease-of-use to the end user, provided that the implementation design is installed and utilized by Client to Consultant's specifications; provided, however, Consultant expressly makes no warranties of title relating to the JD Edwards software. This Warranty shall commence upon date of acceptance by Client. C. Speci~! ~Year ~000 Warranty .... l_n~dditi_on...t_g the above warranties, Consultant warrants that each hardware, software, and firmware product designed by Consultant and delivered under the contract(s) shall be able to accurately process date data (including, but not limited to, calculating, comparing, and sequencing) from, into, and between the twentieth and twentyfirst centuries, including leap year calculations, when used in accordance with the product documentation provided by Consultant, provided that all other interfaces (e.g., hardware, software, firmware) used in combination with such product properly exchange date data with it. This warranty shall apply to Consultant's products as a system. The duration of this warranty and the remedies available to the Client for breach of this warranty shall be as defined in, and subject to, the terms and limitations of Consultant standard commercial warranty or warranties contained in the contract(s), provided that, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in such commercial warranty or warranties, the remedies available to the Client under this warranty shall include repair or replacement of any Consultant-supplied product whose noncompliance is discovered and made known to Consultant in writing. Nothing in this warranty shall be construed to limit any rights or remedies the Client may otherwise have under the contract with respect to defects other than Year 2000 performance. 10. Insurance A. Consultant, shall at Consultant's own expense, purchase, maintain and keep in force during the term of this Contract such insurance as set forth below. All insurance policies provided under this Contract shall be written on an "occurrence" basis. The insurance requirements shall remain in effect throughout the term of this Contract. 1. Worker's Compensation as required by law, Employers Liability Insurance of not less than $100,000.00 for each accident, $100,000.00 disease-each employee, $500,000.00 disease-policy limit. 2. Commercial General Liability Insurance - $1,000,000 Limit. Professional Services Agreement - City of Denton, TX. page 8 of 11 B. Concerning insurance to be furnished by Consultant, it is a condition precedent to acceptability thereof that: 1. All policies are to be written through companies duly approved to transact that class of insurance in the State of Texas; and 2. Insurance is to be placed with carriers with a Best rating of A:VII. C. Consultant agrees to the following: 1. Consultant hereby waives subrogation rights for loss or damage to the extent same are covered by insurance. Insurers shall have no right of recovery or subrogation against Client, it being the intention that the insurance policies shall protect all parties to the Agreement and be primary coverage for all losses covered by the policies; 2. Companies issuing the insurance policies and Consultant shall have no recourse against Client for payment of any premiums or assessments for any deductible, as all such premiums and deductibles are the sole responsibility and risk of Consultant. 3. Approval, disapProval or failure to act by Client regarding any insurance supplied by Consultant (or any subcontractors) shall not relieve Consultant of full responsibility or liability for damages and accidents as set forth in the Contract documents. Neither shall the insolvency or denial of liability by the insurance company exonerate Consultant from liability. D. Any of the insurance policies required under this section may be written in combination with any of the others, where legally permitted, but none of the specified limits may be lowered thereby. 11. Notices All notices and communications hereunder shall be in writing and shall be given by personal delivery or by registered or certified mail unless another form of delivery is mutually agreed upon in writing by the parties. Said notices shall be addressed as set forth below: If to Client: City of Denton 601 E. Hickory, Suite A Denton, TX. 76205-4305 Attn: Alex Z. Pettit Phone: (940) 349-8595 Fax : (940) 349-8533 If to Consultant: Access Technologies, Inc. Professional Services Agreement - City of Denton, TX. page 9 of 11 11608 McDougall Tustin, CA. 92782 Attn: Cyd Yamamoto, President Phone: (714) 669-7738 FAX: (714) 669r1421 or such other address as either party may designate to the other party hereto in accordance with the aforementioned procedure. 12. Interpretation Whenever possible, each provision of this Agreement and any Addendum shall be interpreted in such manner as to be valid and effective under applicable law. If any provision of this Agreement or any Addendum shall be unlawful, void or for any reason unenforceable, it shall be deemed separable from, and shall in no way effect the validity or enforceability of, the remaining portions of this Agreement, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be enforced to the fullest extent possible. All captions are for the convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in interpreting this Agreement. 13. Entire Agreement This Agreement'and the Addendum(s) if any, contain the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes and replaces any oral or written agreements heretofore entered into between the parties. This Agreement and the Addendum(s) cannot be modified or terminated or any performance Or condition waived, in whole or in part, except by a writing signed by the party against whom enforcement of the modification, termination or waiver is sought. The waiver of any breach of any term of condition of this Agreement or any Addendum shall not be deemed to constitute the waiver or any other breach of the same or any other term or condition. 14. Execution and Counterparts This Agreement and any Addendum hereto may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one (1) and the same instrument. The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that the individual executing this Agreement on behalf of such party has the requisite authority to do so. 15. Governing Law This Contract is entered into subject to the Denton City Charter and ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas, as they may be amended from time to time, and is subject to and is to be construed, governed and enforced under all applicable State of Texas and federal laws. If legal action is necessary to enforce this Contract or any attachment, exhibit or addendum thereto, venue shall lie exclusively in the courts of Denton County, Texas. 16. Attorney's Fees If either party hereto incurs any legal fees, whether or not an action is instituted, to enforce the terms of this Agreement or any Addendum hereto, or to recover damages or injunctive relief for breach of this Agreement or any Addendum hereto, it is a~lreed that the successful Professional Services Agreement - CitY of Denton, TX. page 10 of 11 or prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, expert witness fees, and other costs in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled. 17. Severability If any provision of this Agreement is found or deemed by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, it shall be considered severable from the remainder of this Agreement and shall not cause the remainder to be invalid or. unenforceable. In such event, the parties shall reform this Agreement to replace such stricken provision with a valid and enforceable provision which comes as close as possible to expressing the intention of the stricken provision. 18. Compliance With Laws Consultant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances applicable to the work covered hereunder as they may now read or hereinafter be amended. 19. Discrimination Prohibited In performing the services required hereunder, Consultant shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry, age, or physical handicap. 20. Assignability Consultant shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in this Agreement (whether by assignment, novation, or otherwise) without the prior written consent Of Client. 21. Modification No waiver or modification of this Agreement or of any covenant, condition, or limitation herein contained shall be valid unless in writing and duly executed by the party to be charged therewith, and no evidence of any waiver or modification shall be offered or received in evidence in any proceeding arising between the parties hereto out of or affecting this Agreement, or the rights or obligations of the parties hereunder, and unless such waiver or modification is in writing and duly executed; and the parties further agree that the provisions of this section will not be waived unless as set forth herein. 22. Miscellaneous A. The following exhibits are attached to and made a part of this Agreement: Exhibit A - Addendum A to Contract Exhibit B - Description of JD Edwards Software Suite Exhibit C - Functional Requirements for JDEdwards Software Implementation Exhibit D - Explanation of On-Track Implementation Methodology Consultant agrees that Client shall, until the expiration of three (3) years after the final payment under this Agreement, have access to and the right to examine any directly pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of Consultant involving Professional Services Agreement - City of Denton, TX. page 1'1 of 11 transactions relating to this Agreement. Consultant agrees that Client shall have access during normal working hours to all necessary Consultant facilities and shall be provided adequate and appropriate working space in order to conduct audits in compliance with this section. Client shall give Consultant reasonable advance notice of intended audits. Consultant shall commence, carry on, and complete any and all projects with all applicable dispatch, in a sound, economical, and efficient manner and in accordance with the provisions hereof. In accomplishing the projects, Consultant shall take such steps as are appropriate to ensure that the work involved is properly coordinated with related work being carried on by Client; provided, however, Consultant shall not be in breach of this Agreement or an Addendum if it is unable to commence or complete its work due to a conflict with existing or future work conducted by the Client. Client shall assist Consultant by placing at Consultant's disposal all available information pertinent to the Project, including previous reports, any other data relative to the Project, and arranging for the access thereto, and make all provisions for Consultant to enter in or upon public and private property as required for Consultant to perform services under this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Professional Services Agreement as of the date first written above. for Client: City of Denton, TX. signed: name: title: date: for Consultant: Access Technologies, Inc. signed: name: title: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ADDENDUM A between City of Denton, Texas ("Client") and Access Technologies, Inc. ("Consultant") This Professional Service Agreement Addendum is an integral part of the Agreement dated January 1, 2000, between the City of Denton, TX. (CLIENT), and Access Technologies, Inc. (ATI), and defines the business and computer software related consulting services requested, the fees, and the duration of the services. Tern3,' · Start Date: March 1,2000 · End Date: January 31, 2001 ATI staff will be ready to begin providing implementation resources within three (3) weeks of a mutually agreed upon date. In the event ATI determines that the effort as set forth herein will not be completed by the agreement upon Phase dates, ATI shall notify CLIENT of such promptly upon such determination. Such notice shall also include ATI's revised estimated completion date. ATI's management team will initiate the project by traveling on site to work with CLIENT to begin developing the Detailed Project Plan and discuss the delivery of services. Project Scope: The project scope will include the following services: General Activities · Provide direction and coaching in the use of JDEdwards World Solutions Company software function. · Assist CLIENT project team(s) in evaluating their current implementation status and completing the effort remaining to successfully implement the JDEdwards World Solutions Company software. · All services shall be performed under the supervision and direction of a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) to review the implementation of the chart of accounts, restatement of historical financial information after conversion, and address process changes necessary to conform to FASB and GASB requirements and pronouncements as deemed necessary. · Access Technologies, Inc. will provide one hundred and sixty (160) hours of Veronica Zimmerman's time to the City of Denton, free of all charges. Technical Activities · ATI and/or its subcontractor will assist the CLIENT in developing a detailed technology implementation work plan, specifying the timing of ATI involvement and establishing target dates for project m!lestones. · ATI and/or its subcontractor will provide a Pre-System Installation Audit. · ATI and/or its subcontractor will provide CNC Installation and Setup activities of the OneWorld environment. A,-.n~c:e. T~chnnlnoi~,~ fn~ Prnf'~;nnnl ~r~ce~ Aar~ment Arld~nd~,m Pnoe ! PSA Addendum A City of Denton, Texas ATI and/or its subcontractor will provide a Post Prototype Review of the technology environment to insure that the technical infrastructure for OneWorld is functioning as designed. ATI and/or its subcontractor will provide Production Planning and rollout tasks to prepare the OneWorld environment for live production activity. ATI and/or it subcontractor will assist in the data conversion by providing field mapping for the appropriate tables using the JDEdwards Batch Processing programs and performing the programming necessary to populate those tables. We will also traing the CLIENT in the usage of the JDEdwards Batch Processing programs. Application Activities · ATI will assist the CLIENT in developing a detailed software implementation work plan, specifying the tim!ng of ATI and/or its subcontractors involvement and establishing target dates for project milestones. · ~ · ATI and its subcontractors will follow the Implementation Approach defined within Attachment A. · ATI and its subcontractors will assist in the Implementation of the following software applications using a phased approach, as defined below: PhaseI Go-Live: Oct. 1, 2000 Phase II Go-Live: Jan. t, 2001 Address Book, Accounts Receivable, Accounts Payable, General Accounting, Budgeting, Fixed Assets, Procurement, Inventory Management and Warehousing. Payroll, Human Resources and HR Benefits Implementation Approach ATI and its subcontractors will follow the JDEdwards OnTrack Implementation Approach as defined in the Attachment D, or a modified version thereof, as the guiding methodology for the implementation. The activities in the project will include software installation and configuration, application and technical training, application and technical consulting and project management services. Key Assumptions The Addendum A has been developed based upon the following assumptions, changes to which may increase price and/or effect the project schedule. Customer has completed an Project Planning Meeting (PPM). The CLIENT and ATI will reinforce decisions regarding CLIENT resources and availability reached during the Project Planning Meeting during the implementation. It is Access Technologies understanding that the CLIENT is assuming full-time project management responsibility under the leadership of Alex Pettit. The project management team will be responsible for: · Review progress of implementation and assist with problems which delay progress. · Ensure that the vision, buSiness plan and processes are current and included in the implementation_ · Identify additional project team training needs. Access Technologies Inc. Professional Services Agreement Addendum Page 2 PSA Addendum A City of Denton, Texas Management of security plan including who controls set up. · Issue documentation and resolution. · Prepare procedure manual format. Maintenance of detailed technology implementation plan · Maintenance of detailed application implementation plan · Management of end user training · Management of phased rollouts · Management of conversion process · Communicate project status and implementation schedule to all the appropriate parties. Proiect Risks Every project inherently includes several types of risks, including schedule risk, budget risk; risk of provided solutions note being accepted by users and many others. We, Access Technologies and CLIENT will continuously look to identify any potential dsks, identify and select options to reduce or eliminate the risk and then implement the solutions. The joint management function is based largely on managing these risks by: · Establishing a skilled and experienced project team, supervised by CPA professionals. · Bdng technical software and hardware skills into the project team. · Enlisting the support of top management for resource commitments to the project. · Involving the user community and its representatives in all aspects of the project. · Documenting status information and open issues on a timely basis, and working to resolve those issues quickly. Access Technolo,qies Responsibilities Access Technologies role in the project is described above and within Attachment A, the OnTrack Definitions. We will serve in a support role, providing system installation, configuration and consulting services at your direction and request. Access Technolopies Staffing: Consultant Title Hourly Rate Cyd Yamamoto-Lem Certified Public Accountant $ 205.00 (California) CEO Gary Gustafson Accountant $190.00 Joe Harris Client Manager $ 205.00 Lynn Cardona Project Manager $185.00 TBD Senior Application $175.00 Consultants TBD Senior Technical $175.00 Consultants CLIENT Responsibilities Access Technologies Inc. Professional Services Agreement Addendum Page 3 PSA Addendum A City of Denton, Texas 1. CLIENT will provide access to database administrators, application leads, system administrators and project management as necessary to facilitate software set up and configuration, environment set up and all application implementation steps referred to herein. 2. CLIENT will provide full-time project management services as defined above. 3. CLIENT will provide sufficient resources to enable that the project set up, completion and testing can be done with the project time frame. 4. CLIENT will provide personnel to complete and/or assist in the writing of detail procedures for use by end users. 5. CLIENT will provide sufficient commitment of personnel to_perform any manual or programmatic data conversions required. 6. CLIENT will provide sample data to execute both the prototype and integrated acceptance tests. 7. CLIENT will provide on-site facilities for all ATI project team members which will include: · Work Area · Telephone Access · Analog phone line aCCess · System security and access Ids · Access to facilities Parking · Fax, copying and pdnting capabilities Pricin.q Assumptions ATI's project price includes all of the ATI resources to be provided for the scope of services defined herein. This Professional Services Agreement Addendum is supplementary to, but does not replace your Professional Services Agreement with our company. Please refer to this Agreement for discussions on billing issues. During the Project Planning Meeting we have developed an Implementation Strategy Document (Attachment B) and have estimated Access Technologies efforts through the various phased go live steps of the project. We estimate that Access Technologies implementation services, installation, training through the Go-Live will cost approximately six hundred sixteen thousand five hundred and seventy dollars ($616,570.00). These estimates are based upon our knowledge of the software and your project team's knowledge of your cities business environment. Many factors can account for changes in the time and cost of installing and implementing JDEdwards software systems, which could lengthen or shorten the project duration and, therefore, have an impact on odginal estimates for Access Technologies consulting services. These factors can include changes in the information needs, inaccurate descriptions of existing data, suspect data or incorrect level of detail and others. After the model step is complete in the first phase of implementation, there will probably be changes in the level of our participation, up or down. For the entire project, when the modeling step is complete in each phase, we will meet with you and the project team to discuss any proposed changes before proceeding. Access Technologies Inc. Professional Services Agreement Addendum Page 4 PSA Addendum A City of Denton, Texas Access Technologies recommends as part of the implementation and installation of your JDE Licensed Products, that the CLIENT operate the Licensed Products in parallel with the CLIENT'S existing computer software system until the CLIENT has satisfactorily completed the implementation. Chan,qes and Additional Work No modification or change to this Addendum will be binding on either party unless acknowledged in writing by their duly authorized representatives. Signed: Name: Title: For: Access Technologies By: . &~L~ ~~z/~'~ Acceptance.' ' ~.~ Access Technologies, Inc.. Date: For: City of Denton, Texas By: City of Denton, Texas Signed: Name: Title: Date: CLIENT may, at any time, request that Access Technologies perform additional work beyond the scope of the project work, hereinafter referred to as a "Change Ordef'. Compensation for each such Change Order will be negotiated by CLIENT and Access Technologies consistent with the compensation provisions set forth in the Professional Services Agreement and, if so authorized, shall be considered part of the Project work. Access Technologies shall not perform any additional work defined within a Change Order until the Change Order is approved by CLIENT in writing. Access Technologies Inc. Professional Services Agreement Addendum Page 5 Appendix B The following is a listing of JDEdwards software modules to be implemented at the City of Denton, pursuant to the implementation contract: 1. Foundation (System 00, JDE Release B733.2) 2. Address Book (AB) (System 01, JDE Release B733.2) 3. OneWorld Toolset (System 98, JDE Release B733.2) 4. Accounts Receivable (AR) (System 03, JDE Release B733.2) 5. Accounts Payable (AP) (System 94, JDE Release B733.2) 6. General Ledger/Accounting (GL) (System 09, JDE Release B733.2) 7. Financial Reporting (CAFR, PAFR, and SEA Models) (System 83, JDE Release B733.2) 8. Fixed Assets (FA) (System 12, JDE Release B733.2) 9. Financial Modeling and Budgeting (BUD) (System 10, JDE Release B733.2) 10. Inventory Management (IM) (System 41, JDE Release B733.2) 11. Procurement (PO) (System 43, JDE Release B733.2) 12. Work Order Management (WO) (System 48, JDE Release B733.2) 13. Job Cost (JC).(System 5_1, JDE Release B733,2): .. · t4. Subcontract Management (System 44, JDE Release B733.2) 15. Service Billing (SB) (System 48, JDE Release B733.2) 16. Contract Billing (System 52, JDE Release B733.2) 17. Grant Management (System 52, JDE Release B733.2) 18. Stand-Alone Time Accounting (System 05, JDE Release B733.2) 19. Payroll (PR) (System 07, JDE Release B733.2) 20. Human Resources Management (HRM) (System 08, JDE Release B733.2) 21. Call Center Management (System xx, JDE Release B733.2) 22. Service Order Management (System xx, JDE Release B733.2) 23. Information Architect (Custom Documentation Tool) 24. CBT for Foundation Suite 25. CBT for Financial Suite 26. CBT for Distribution Suite 27. CBT for Manufacturing Suite NOTE: The city will initially install JDE Release B733.2, but will undoubtedly upgrade to release B733.3 in the summer (Scheduled for July release). Exhibit C - Functional Requirements for JDEdwards Software Implementation: General Ledger: 1. A flexible chart of accounts which allows control over structure and terminology. 2. Supports multiple roll-ups'for reporting (i.e., CAFR reporting, FERC reporting and GASB 34 reporting). 3. All system updates online and interactive. 4. Supports multiple fiscal years and multiple years of history. 5. Supports user-defined sub-ledgers. 6. Supports cash basis, accrual basis, and/or year-end accrual basis. 7. Supports reporting on a GAAP and budget basis. 8. Interfaces completely to Procurement, Inventory, Payroll, Human Resources Management, Accounts Payable, ACcounts Receivable, Fixed Assets and Project AccoUnting modules. 9. Supports Unlimited number of funds. 10. Supports all basic transactions (i.e., Journal entries, Automated disbursements, Cash receipts, etc.). All editing at time of data entry. Automatic reversal of journal entries. 11. Automatically posts the cash or Due To's and Due From's associated with transactions.. 12. "Work flow" function for routing and approval processes. 13. "Drill Down" function throughout all modules. 14. "Query by Example" reporting option. 15. Recurring Journal Entry function. 16. Automatic calculation andP0sting of accrued payroll. 17. InterdePartment charge-back (cost allocation) option. 18. Provides a variety of online inquiry options and tables - online general ledger, budget status and detail, project status and detail, balance sheet, income statement, etc. 19. Supports prior year encumbrance roll-forward. 20. Relational database. 21. Ad-hoc reporting function which supports financial and statistical modeling and reporting. 22. Standard fund accounting reports and budget reports: a. Trial balance b. Income Statement c. Income & Expense report d. General Ledger e. Balance Sheet f. Budget v. Actual Expenditure g. Budget v. Actual Revenue h. FUnd Summaries i. Cash Flow 23. User-defined roll-up reporting. 24. Supports extract of online' information to Excel spreadsheet. 25. Ability to tailor menus to individual users. 26. Ability to customize reports and tables. Exhibit C - Page 1 of 2 27. CBT training modules. 28. Ability to change tables into charts or graphs. 29. Complete on-line documentation - including definition of error messages and possible resolutions. 30. Supports scanning capability. 31. Supports encumbrance process. Accounts Payable/Check Management: 1. Ability to prim checks at any location. 2. Ability to void checks. 3. Duplicate invoice checking. 4. Three-way match with budget check at any prescribed level. 5. Multiple bank accounts supported. 6. Payment scheduling.. 7. Ability to support scanning of invoices. 8. 1099 Reporting. 9. Vendor discounts and freight charges SupPorted~ · 10. Supports multiple vendor addresses. 11. Supports user-defined vendor history. 12. Purges vendors on a user-defined basis. 13. Provides vendor analysis reporting. 14. User-defined payment cycles. 15. Supports separate check option and multiple invoices per check. 16. Fully integrated with General Ledger, Fixed Assets, Procurement and Inventory. 17. Drill down option usable from General ledger to Accounts Payable module. 18. Online payee history. 19. Extensive on-line inquiry providing vendor and payment information from various views. 20. Standard reports to include: a. Check Register b. Aged invoices report c. Outstanding checks report d. 1099 Report e. Vendor reports f. Encumbrance listing Accounts Receivable: 1. Information may be requested in detail, summary, aging or billing format in customer name, department, division or customer ID order. 2. User defined aging periods. 3. Fully integrated with the General Ledger. Exhibit C - Page 2 of 2 4. Ability to print invoices at user's location. 5. User controls billing periods and amount of on-line history maintained. 6. Cash Receipts automatically updates the Accounts Receivable files. 7. Receipts may be printed on-line. g. Antomatieally assigns invoice numbers. 9. Ability lo produce Recurring Invoices. 10. Ability to print invoice summaries and statement of charges for a customer account. 11. Ability to create user-defined payment plans. 12. Third party billing allowing duplicate bills to be sent to several entities. 13. Drill down function from GL to ArR. 14. Standard reports: a. Statement of Charges b. Detail Listing of Invoices by Name c. Aged Invoices d. Detail Listing of Invoices by Account number e. Billing history Budget Preparation: 1. Supports budgeting on an annual, quarterly, monthly or multi-year basis. 2. Interfaces with the General Ledger. 3. Interfaces with the Payroll/HRMS function to facilitate "What IF?" scenario calculations. 4. Budget changes may be logged and reported. 5. "Date Stamp" function for all budget transactions. 6. Up to ten named versions of the budget for each year. 7. Allocation controls at user-defined levels. 8. Budget checks at user-defined levels. 9. Budgets adjusted by plus or minus amount, plus or minus percentage or override values. 10. Supports budgeting, expending, encumbering and controlling at different levels. 11. Salary forecasting/projection capability. 12. Supports global budget changes. 13. Download/Upload capability to PC's. 14. Budget preparation screens which show user selected budget/actual history. 15. Standard reports for budget preparation and budget monitoring. Purchasing: 1. Supports remote entry of purchase requisitions. 2. "Workflow" option for approval online by management and routing to several areas 3. Ability to track items.through the receiving cycle. 4. Supports the printing of Purchase orders at user location. Exhibit C - Page 3 of 3 5. Automatic interface to the General ledger, Accounts Payable and Fixed Asset systems. 6. Funds are encumbered automatically upon entry of a Purchase Order. 7. Accommodates quantity discounts and freight charges. 8. Multiple vendor addresses are supported. 9. Interfaces with Commodity and Vendor files. 10. Descriptive information may be entered for any item. 11. Supports standard reports and online inquiry for: a. Outstanding encumbrances/PO's b. Change order log c. Approval reports d. Receiving reports e. Purchase request information (summary and detail) f. Purchase order information (summary and detail) g. General ledger reports with summary encumbrances by account 12. Encumbrance activity included in General Ledger inquiry. 13. Budget verification upon entry of purchase order request with option to lock-out if funds not available. 14. Supports partial or full un-encumbrance or adjustment. 15. Unlimited amount of general ledger account numbers for a single PO. 16. On-line history can be maintained for any period desired by the user. Fixed Assets: 1. Monitors and reports on all capitalized and non-capitalized fixed assets. 2. Performs depreciation calculations and makes all required entries to the general ledger. 3. Flexible and interactive retrieval of information frOm the Fixed Asset database. 4. System maintains a chronology of the asset's location by employee, room, building or lot. 5. Asset information extraction for reporting or inquiry by any of the following criteria: Asset ID's, location, acquisition dates, deletion dates, book value, market value, purchase price, depreciation code, PO number, maintenance dates, project codes, warranty dates and installation dates. 6. Depreciation calculations include Straight line, Sum of the Years Digits, 150% and 200% Declining Balance. 7. Supports partial year depreciation. 8. Audit trail of all entries posted to the General Ledger. Stores Inventory: 1. Supports the three major functions of receiving, inventory control and order processing. Exhibit C - Page 4 of 4 2. Automatic interface to the Purchasing, Accounts Payable, and General Ledger modules. 3. Supports FIFO, LIFO and Average Cost inventory costing methods, with the option to implement automatically as assets are received and distributed. 4. Supports the calculation of Safety Stock and Reorder points based on multiple criteria. 5. Allows for multiple types of Pricing calculations using various system generated variables such as carrying cost, warehouse overhead, ordering cost, or any of the inventory costing methods. 6. Unlimited amount of free form text available regarding any product held in inventory. 7. Maintains all events in the life of a product. 8. Automatically calculates and updates Last Order date, Last Order Quantity, Last Unit Price, etc. 9. Supports multiple warehouses. 10. Supports last and next physical counts and cycle counts by Class per warehouse. 11. Optional, user-defined postings to the General Ledger for both receiving and demand functions. 12. Extensive online inquiry and reporting for product, vendor, customer, inventory, warehouse and transaction information. 13. Generates Pick Tickets for items ordered as they will be found in the warehouse. Human Resource Information System: 1. Employment/Recruitment - Takes individual from point of application to the interview through rejection or employment without duplicate data entry. 2. Identifies demographic information concerning the employee, family and other personal data. 3. Position Control/Budgeting - identifies past, present and future positions with departments, budgets, FTE and actual earnings. Fully integrated to the Payroll and the General Ledger. 4. Evaluations/Career Development - Records all past and future evaluations, results, management development objectives, plans and progress. 5. Tracks any number of user defined types of leave with start and end dates, accruals, reasons and approvals. 6. Maintains up to the minute deduction and benefit information with status, YTD withholdings and all tax requirements. 7. Maintains all OSHA required information. 8. Maintains a history on all employee training, dates, locations, certifications and licenses. 9. On-line interactive inquiry and reporting ability which allows for selection of information from the data base based upon user specified values. 10. Maintains all retirees, benefit levels, vesting, retirement and early retirement dates. 11. History logging such.that infoimation may be reported "as of" specific dates. 12. Employment Separation - identifies separated employees, dates, reasons, checkout procedures, and eligibility for benefits. Exhibit C - Page 5 of 5 Payroll System: 1. Supports complex payroll environments, including multiple work areas, multiple deductions, reductions and benefit plans. 2. Supports automatic deposits, special tax deferral programs, complex retirement and benefit plans, and special needs such as car allotments and savings bond programs. 3. Direct integration to the General Ledger, Job/Project Ledger, Position Control and Human Resources Information system 4. Complies with FLSA regulations. 5. Supports daily, weekly and pay period time card entry while deriving overtime hours and rates based on rules defined by the user. 6. Exception time entry only required. 7. Prints Checks on demand to a designated workstation Printer. 8. Supports multiple checking accounts and automatic bank tape reconciliation. 9. Automatic labor distribution to General Ledger and Job Ledger. 10. Processes and records non-payroll information such as COBRA. 11. Supports mid-period hiring/terminating payroll process. 12. Supports magnetic media reporting to state and federal agencies. 13. Supports multiple versions of user defined salary and rate table. 14. Supports multiple general ledger distributions per paycheck. 15. Unlimited history based on user defined levels. 16. Supports garnishment direct deposits. 17. Tracks vacation and sick time totals, sick pool accumulations, total time lost by employee, FMLA, Workers Compensation, long term disability and leave of absence. 18. Supports inquiry and reporting ability for user defined information. 19. Provides the following standard reports: a. Payroll Check register b. Payroll deduction register c. Payroll earning register (labor distribution) d. EEOC reports e. Quarterly 941's f. Annual W-2's g. Organization chart h. Specialized state and local reports i. Employee reports showing all payments, deductions, and contributions for an upcoming pay period. j. Supervisor's reports showing all hours. Position Control: 1. Ability to create and model budgets based on job and position assignments. 2. Ability to create line item budgets in the General Ledger and/or Project ledger. Exhibit C - Page 6 of 6 3. Fully integrated with the Human Resource system, Payroll and General and Project ledgers. Changes made to salary and benefit tables automatically "roll" through the system. Salaries, benefits and overtime are maintained on an FTE basis. Supports salary saving calculations. Salary "step" increases are automatically maintained. Benefits can be defined as a percentage of salary or a straight dollar amount. Different benefits can be defined for regular and OVertime pay. 9. Allow salary budgets to be adjusted up or down by a fixed percentage. 10. Current and future years may be accessed simultaneously. 11. Unfilled positions may be budgeted. 12. Salary and FTE limits may be set at the job and/or position level. 13. Supports "What if" scenarios. 14. The following reports are provided: a. Benefits by Job b. Position Number by Account c. Position Changes between years d. Position number by department e. Salary Planning Worksheet f. Salary Budget by Positions g. Salaries and FTE by Account h. Salary Projection i. Salary-to-Actual 5. 6. 7. 8. Exhibit C - Page 7 of 7 27471 Almendra Mission Vie. jo, CA. 92691 Phone: 949-587- 1485 Fax: 949-587- 0989 Explanation of OnTrack Implementation Methodology And the corresponding Milestone Definitions Purpose: The purpose of this document is to provide a comprehensive description for each step of OnTrack, the implementation methodology used by Access Technologies, Inc. and recommended by J.D. Edwards World Solutions Company. In addition, this document discusses each of the tasks that must be accomplished within the five (5) Ontrack steps. For each phase of the implementation these steps and tasks will be duplicated, many times simultaneously. Completion of a step, task or set of tasks will ultimately be used to determine whether a milestone is complete and the ability to move forward to the next step. As described in the Implementation Strategy Document (lSD) the five (5) major steps, and associated tasks, of a successful J.D. Edwards implementation are; 1. DEFINE The "Define" stage of an OnTrack Implementation is represented by two (2) tasks, each task representing a critical element within the step. Effectively the step is best described by the term "setting of expectations", as the expectations of the client will drive the remainder of the steps and the success of the implementation. There three tasks to be completed within the "define" step; Project Strategy Workshop The first task within the Define step is to perform the Project Strategy Workshop (PSW). In this one to two day session the initial expectations described in the Initial Scope and Review session are reviewed, expanded upon, agree to and put into print via the Implementation Strategy Document (lSD). This becomes ground zero for the implementation and all other activities are driven upon the information contained within. Changes to the any part thereof are reflected in Change Orders, although these may not translate into dollar or hours variances but simply a change in the scope of the project. The milestone is complete once the Implementation Strategy Document (lSD) has been reviewed and approved by the Executive Steering Committee. Develop a Detailed Project Plan This second task is to development a project plan using Microsoft Project Management. The plan will define each of the OnTrack steps, along with their respective tasks, including an anticipated start and stop date, resources and the estimated number of hours projected to complete the step and/or task. Where appropriate the task will be Page 1 of 8 further broken down into detailed "Action Items" that must be completed to consider the task complete. This plan will be reviewed with the Project Manager (Client Project Manager) for acceptance 'and finally presented to the Steering Committee for final approval and initiation. The milestone is complete once the Project Plan has been reviewed by the Team Leader(s), Project Manager(s) and approved by the Executive Steering Committee. Schedule Training Classes The final task involves scheduling the client's employees for their respective training classes. The name of each class and your suggested trainee was discussed during the Project Strategy Workshop, this task is simply the logical extension of this discussion. To accomplish this task a spreadsheet will be created that will list the trainee names and class names and the training dates will be incorporated into the spreadsheet as arrangement are made. Unfortunately this is a moving target, and therefore the milestone will be represented by the initial agreement of the training timeline. As changes occur there will be no additional charges incurred. The milestone is complete once the initial training schedule has been reviewed and approved by the Project Manager(s). 2. TRAINING This step has only one real task, to train the employees of the client. Training classes may either be classified as Scheduled or Custom, the difference being tt~e employees taking the class at a JDE training center during a predefined time frame. Whereas a custom class is just that, customized specifically for the client and only their employees participate in the training. Dependent upon the project time frame and number of phases within the implementation this step could last anywhere from two months to over a year. The training schedule as developed during the Define step will dictate how quickly the training will occur. There is no milestone associated with this step of the implementation. MODEL The "Model" step of OnTrack incorporates all of the components from learning about the client to the acceptance of the software. In prior years this step was referred to as "Parallel Processing" in which the data being entered into the legacy system is also entered into the new system, and the results are compared against each other for cohesiveness. Today the "Model" step is best described as a "display of the wares", as the full feature/functionality of the software is put on display for the client to review, critic and determine its compatibility. The "Model" step has ten (10) tasks that must be completed prior to its completion; Composer / Interview Questions Task one involves interviewing the key participants of the implementation. For our purposes these interviews wilt fall into the following broad categories equal to the applications purchased by the client. This can either mean sitting with the client and executing Composer and its components, or interviewing the respective participants about their needs, desires and expectations. If Composer is used the initial set up of the systems will occur' during the sessions and a consultant is only needed to review the results, If the option is taken to use Interview Ouestions these sessions generally tal<e one or two days per application followed by two d.ays to review the results and complete the documentation. Page 2 of $ The milestone is completed once the interview questions are fully documented and agreed upon by the Team Leader, Project Manager and the Executive Steering Committee. Business Process Workshops (Requirements Analysis) The second task provides time for the consultant(s) to get a better understanding of the client. Effectively the more the consultant's know about you the better it will be for the implementation. Information that is accumulated will then be used to refine the software to better meet the needs of the client. This means learning about your current processes, how you would like the processes to change in the future and understanding what the expectations of the software are. Generally this task involves further discussions with the key client participants or the members of the project team, reviewing the Statement of Work (SOW), if available, or reviewing the completed Request for Proposal (RFP). The milestone is completed once the ex/sting business processes are reviewed, the Statement of Work or Request for Proposal has been reviewed and any new business processes have been documented and review by the Team Leader, Project Manager and approved by the Executive Steering Committee. System Definition and Review The third task involves setting up the back office operations (constants) for the respective applications. This will either be accomplished using "Composer" or manually setting up the constants, based upon the results on the interview questions. As each constant is developed the consultant will either assist in the entry of the information, or actually enter the data. Once the constant is set up the results will be reviewed with the appropriate personnel from the client. Generally this task does not include the following back office operations; Automatic Accounting Instructions (AAI's), as these cannot be defined until after the chart-of-accounts has been created. User Defined Codes (UDC's), as these evolve throughout the implementation process. Activity Rules, as these evolve throughout the implementation process. Work Flow, which is defined throughout the Conference Room Pilot. The milestone is complete once the initial set up of the constants has been finalized, reviewed and agreed upon by the Team Leader(s), Project Manager(s) and approved by the Executive Steering Committee. Script Preparation and Approval The fourth and one of the more critical tasks in the "Model" step is the preparation of the Conference Room Pilot scripts. A script is a document that identifies the various tasks that are performed by the client on a daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly or annually basis. For even/possible task or process the client must prepare a script, no matter how small or insignificant. There are many ways to identify what should be translated into a script and generally the client will need to use even/available method, as no one method will provide all of the answers. The most commonly used methods are; Statement of Work - identify the processes or tasks that the client deems mandatory and/or necessary and prepare a script for each item. Request for Proposal (RFP) -. identify the processes or tasks that the client deems mandatory and/or necessary and prepare a script for each item. Page 3 of 8 Job Responsibilities -based upon the job descriptions found within Human Resources, list each area of responsibility or task that the employee must be able to perform. > Current Software Documentation - Run through your existing menus and identify the tasks that currently are preformed. Generally you will be doing the same thing, but maybe in a different manor. > End User Documentation - have your current employees document their job, being very specific. The various tasks will generally equate to a script. Ultimately each of these scripts will be tested during the Conference Room Pilot. If, by chance a task is over looked the effects could be significant once the software is brought live, as changes might have to be made after set up and conversion is complete. Scripts are generally developed in line with the applications being implemented, so a complete book of scripts, including a high level summary, will be created for each of the following applications; Address Book Accounts Receivable Accounts Payable Payroll Human Resources Benefits Administration General Ledger Budgeting ' Fixed Assets Work Orders Job Cost Accounting Inventory Management Procurement (with or without Inventory) Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) A primary example of a script is the entering of an invoice for Accounts Payable. A complete set of scripts for this process would include the receipt, approval process, coding process, entry into the system, review of the invoices entered and finally the posting for the subsidiary ledgers. In addition, parallel data, transactions that are to be entered, tested and verified, must be identified and prepared for processing during this task. This data must correspond to the scripts that are also being prepared, as having data that does not enable the user to accurately test the script doesn't justify the overall.requirement. The milestone is complete once the scripts and corresponding data, based upon phase requirements, has been finalized and reviewed by the Team Leader(s), A TI Consultant(s) and approved by the Executive Steering Committee. Conference Room Pilot / Acceptance The fifth task of the "Model" step is by far the most critical, the Conference Room Pilot. All of the energy spent thus far is accumulated and put into play here. The CRP replaces the old "Parallel Process" from years past, although the results remain the same. During the Conference Room Pilot (CRP) each script is tested, sometimes by multiple users, until all facets of the process, task or software have been completed - this representing a modular test of the software. The results of each test are documented upon the original script and combined to execute a fully integrated test of the software. As defined in the next task, any issues resulting from the testing is documented and the results may determine whether changes should occur to the software, business processes are to be changed or the client will simply accept the results "as is", The milestone is complete once the Conference Room Pilot reviews have been completed (Solutioh Assurance Step) and the results have reviewed and approved by the Executive Steering Committee. Page 4 of 8 Document Issues The sixth task actually begins during task two, Business Process Workshops, and continues to work in parallel with tasks three, four and five. Here the client*will document, using a standard form, any issue that it encounters. These may involve the software, their department, a process, who is responsible or how the client completes a task or set of tasks. As with many other things an issue works in conjunction with a script, as issues generally precipitate a sci'ipt. In any implementation there are always issues. As with scripts, issues are generally categorized by application or functional group. To accommodate this, we will be creating a booklet of the issues with a corresponding issue summary Icg and will be available to all the implementation participants. The milestone is complete once the Conference Room Pilot reviews have been completed (Solution Assurance Step) and the results have reviewed and approved by the Executive Steering Committee~ Identify / Scope / Construct Software Modifications The seventh task within the "Model" step is to identify any potential modifications to the software, then proceed based upon the previously agreed upon modification policy. As with the sixth task, this task begins during the fifth task, the Conference Room Pilot. During the CRP if an issue is identified and it can't be resolved with the standard software and request for modification will be presented to the respective Team Leader. The Team Leader will be responsible for doing their due diligence, which includes: scoping out the project and justify its need. All of this must be completed prior to presentation to the Executive Steering Committee. If, and only if the Executive Steering Committee approves the modification will the approval be given to develop the program or change an existing program. The milestone is complete once the individual modi£1cations are completed, tested and approved by the person initiating the request, the Team Leader and the Project Manager. NOTE that each moditTcation request will be handled independent/y, as the scope of the project will determine its duration. CNC Technology Conference Room Pilot The eighth task within this step is to pilot of hardware and certain technical process of the OneWorld software. The preliminary tuning is done so that the system functions at its absolute peak. This will involve having a CNC specialist assist during the testing of certain application functions so that the day-to-day performance of the software isn't hindered by the volume of transactions being processed, the number of attachments or the number of times the intemet is being accessed. Some of the tasks to be performed here are; Periodic CRP status / planning meetings Evaluate data replication strategies Evaluate remote/' local execution of UBE's and BSFN's Implement and Test OneWorld Security Evaluate requirements for transaction processing and implement Evaluate and tune the Enterprise and Deployment server performance Implement and test Object version control procedures Evaluate Object tiered deployment and develop standard procedures Develop, Document and test OW-CNC system administration procedures CRP Review and Production Planning Meeting Page 5 of 8 The milestone is complete once the CNC consultant completes his/her assessment of the hardware, makes their corrections and submits the results to the Information Systems department for review and approval Develop Documentation Manuals The ninth task is to develop new documentation for the client. Once again the development of new documentation should have begun early in the implementation as processes are identified and tasks are being clarified. This activity encompasses two unique types of documentation; Business Processes - this involves documenting how transactions flow through the system, its workflow. At its best flow charts are created These process .were identified throughout the implementation and fine-tuned during the Conference Room Pilot. Program Guides - here the client must document how their programs function, as it applies specifically to the client. With OneWorld the user may create different views of the material, which requires entry of data differently than other JDE clients - this · must be identified and documented. The milestone is complete once all of the documentation has been completed and the results have reviewed by the Team Leader(s), the Project Manager(s) and approved by the Executive Steering Commiltee. Develop Conversion Plan, Construction, Test and Acceptance Programs The tenth and final task within the "Model" step is preparation for the conversion of your historical data. This is accomplished by completing the following action items; Determine what, if any, data is to be converted. Within J.D. Edwards there are a significant number of files carrying master file information and the corresponding historical data. Each of the files, or groups of files, must be identified and the client must decide whether the data is to be converted and then the method of conversion, either programmatically or manually. If the data is to be converted automatically (via a program) a specification must be created to determine exactly what is to occur, when it is to occur and how it is to occur. Once complete the specification is then approved by the respective leader of the application group and the Team Leader. Once the specification is approved the program will be assigned to a programmer, either an internal resources or an approved external resource. This person will construct the program and execute a modular test of its functions. After the program is constructed its will be passed on to someone within the responsible application group to complete the integrated testing and final acceptance. The milestone is complete once the conversion program is fully tested, in an integrated environment, and the results have reviewed and approved by the Team Leader. 4. Configure The "Configure" step of OnTrack provide time whereby all remaining elements pertaining to the implementation of the software can be accomplished and the client is ready to cut-over and begin processing their transactions on the JDE OneWorld software. The "Configure" step has five tasks that must be completed prior to its completion; Issue Resolution The first task within the "Configure" step is to resolve any outstanding issues from the "Model" step of the implementation. Throughout the previous steps the client has been Page 6 of 8 documenting any issues related the its processes Or the software. Hopefully the majority of these had been resolved during the Conference Room Pilot, but there may have been some that simply couldn't be resolved during that period - these must be resolved now. Resolution of these issues may involve additional testing of the software, or a change in the way that transactions are processed through the system, but either way the issue is clarified and resolved to the satisfaction of the Executive Steering Committee. The milestone is complete once all of the issues that were outstanding from the previous On Track steps have been resolved and the results have reviewed and approved by the Executive Steering Committee. End User Training The second task in the "Configure" step is to train all of the client's remaining end users. Training requirements will be based upon the Phase and applications being implemented. Generally this is done using an internal trainer, either the Team Leader or someone designated by the Team Leader as the person, or persons, who will fulfill this task. Assistance by ATI should be limited here to simply answering questions, not the actual training of the users. The milestone is complete once all of the remaining users of the software, by Phase and application, have received their a/lotted training and the results of said training has been reviewed by the Team Leader and approved by the Executive Steering Committee. Process Testing The third task in the "Configure" step is to continue testing the software, but in a more integrated fashion and processing more transactions, ie - volume 'testing. This task allows the client's employees to get a better understanding of the software, both its high and iow points. This also allows the client to get comfortable with new processes or changes that to their processes that were necessary to work around something that the software could not perform. The milestone is complete once all of the users have had the opportunity to "play' with the software for an agreed upon period of time and all questions and concerns have been taken care of. The individual Team Leaders will be responsible for reporting to the Executive Steering Committee on the status of this testing and the committee will approve its completion. CNC production Planning, Configuration and Setup The fourth step in the "Configure" step is to complete the tuning / setup of the hardware and software. The most critical part of this step is the deployment of the programs and files to the respective desktops or laptops, The tasks to be accomplished during this step are; Production Plan Review Production Plan Status Meetings Continued Performance Tuning Integration Testing Stress testing of object deployment strategies and procedures Stress testing of server processes and queue designs Testing of various procedures (workstation installation, adding users, security) Final Preparation of production sites Support during Production Plan execution and for one week following roll-out. Page 7 of 8 The milestone is complete once the hardware and software has been deployed, tuned and its ready to begin processing in a live environment and the Project Manager reviews and approves results. Readiness Assessments The final task in the "Configure" step is the Readiness Assessments, which is one of the final tasks within the JDE Solution Assurance. Here an independent consultant from either JDE or ATI will review your systems and determine whether the client is actually ready to go live on the software. The outcome of the assessment is a standard JDE document that is reviewed by the JDE Client Manager and the ATI Project Manager and forwarded directly to the client's Project Manager for review, In addition, there will also be a Readiness Assessment from the technical perspective, done by someone from DSI. There is no milestone for this task, included in the JDE Solutions Assurance. Go-Live The "Go-Live" step represents the last step in the OnTrack Implementation process. Here the client begins using the software in a live envirenment, replacing their legacy software with the OneWorld software' solution. Post Implementation Support The first and only task in the "Go-Live" step is to support the client during the initial weeks of their going live on the OneWorld software. Support during go-live will vary, based upon the applications being implemented, but generally the client should be prepared to assume full ownership of the software after receiving an average of ten hours support from Access Technologies, Inc., per application. Finally the ATI Project Manager will perform a Post Implementation Review session, lasting one day to determine the status of the implementation and identify things that could be changed for future implementation support. The milestone is complete once the client has successfully gone live on the software and the post implementation review session has occurred and the results reviewed and approved by the Executive Steering Corem/tree. Page 8 of 8 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AoendBNo. Aoondaltem_ ' , April 4, 2000 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Tom Shaw 349-7100 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services-'"~ SUBJECT: An Ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds for Emergency Purchase of g4/0 Stranded Aluminum 15kv Primary Electric Cable in accordance with provisions of State Law exempting such purchases from requirements of competitive bidding; and providing an effective date (Purchase Order 04337 to Temple, Inc., in the mount of $86,625). PURCHASE ORDER INFORMATION: This purchase order is for 49,500 feet of Okonite #162-23-3081 - #4/0 Stranded Aluminum 15ky Primary URD Cable with 220-mil EPR insulation with concentric neutral electric distribution cable. This is the most commonly used wire in our underground electric distribution system. Council awarded an annual contract for this wire in March of 2000. The quoted lead-time was 8 weeks. We have been notified by the awarded supplier that production has slipped to 28 weeks. Due to the critical need to continue new construction projects as well as maintain an inventory stock for maintenance of the system this acquisition has been declared an emergency and therefor exempt from the bid process. Our current inventory level is well below our safety stock minimum for repair of power outages should failures occur. Telephone quotations were solicited and Temple, Inc. was the lowest price with an acceptable delivery schedule (1.75 per ft/3 week's delivery). The annual bid supplier quoted a price of $1.31 per ft. We will continue to order from the contract supplier and adjust order quantities to compensation for the increased lead-time. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend Purchase Order 04337 to Temple, Inc., be approved in the amount of $86,625 for Option #2 on the attached quotation. PRINICPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS: Temple, Inc. Corinth, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT: Delivery is scheduled for the second week in April 2000. FISCAL INFORMATION: This electric distribution cable will be funded from Warehouse Working Capital account (710- 0430-0582-8701) and recharged to the appropriated account/work order as the material is used. Agenda Information Sheet April 4, 2000 Page 2 Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Purchase Order 04337 to Temple, Inc. Attachment 2: Quotation from Temple, Inc. 1366.AGElqDA ADDENDUM o o 0 o o o o o I.~ ""~ o o o o o 0 E.i rn 0 o o o o o o %0%0 %0%0 0 0 March 22, 2000 ATTACHMENT ~2 To: Denise Ilarpool City of Denton-Purchasing From: Chuck Altman Temple, Inc. Sub)ect: g4/0 Primary cable Regarding your current requirement for 46,800' of subject cable, we have a couple of dLfferent options available for you to choose firom. We are offering Okonite Catalog. #162-23-3081- ~4/0 stranded aluminum 15ky primmy URD c'able with 220mil EPR insulation with concenlric neutral of 11x~14 copper filled strand with overall Okolene jacket. Option 1 The following non-returnable reels are available in two separate stocking locations, for immediate shipment: Richmond Stock- 90" REEL: 1X?370' ?2" REELS: 1X3300', 2X3255', 2X3246', 2X3237', 1X3234', lX3208', lX3205' 66" REELS: 1X2835', 1X2160', 1X1624', 1X1443' 5g" REEL: 1X2500' Santa Maria Stock- 78" REELS: 1X4610', iX4575', 1X4320' 72" REELS: 1X4792', 1X3775', 1X3720'. 1X3596' 66" REELS: 4X2300', 1X2678', 1X2240' Option 2 There is a production run which is scheduled to be available for shipment in 3 weeks or less. We can enter an order for 1 gx2600' reels against this production nm, but please keep in mind that there is a 5% q~_,_~ntity tolerance on lengths~ so thc actual reels that ship may conlain up to 2750' per reel. Price on either option would be $1.75/fl. Plea,se let mc know which of these options will satisfy your requirements. Stock material cannot be beld unless an order is placed, but we do have the 3-week production slot on hold through March ~001 Ego0 Quail Ru~, Suite Co~in~, TX 762.08 040 870-7200 Fax 940 270-7E50 w~w.ul;ili$$','",~um ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS. FOR EMERGENCY PURCHASE OF #4/0 STANDED ALUMINUM 15KV PRIMARY ELECTRIC CABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (PURCHASE ORDER 04337 TO TEMPLE, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $86,625). WHEREAS, state law and ordinance require that certain contracts requiring an expenditure or payment by the City in an amount exceeding $15,000 be by competitive bids, except in the case of public calamity where it becomes necessary to act at once to appropriate money to relieve the necessity of the citizens of the city, or in case of unforeseen damage to public property, machinery or equipment; and, WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended to the City Council that it is necessary to purchase goods or services due to the emergency conditions outlined in the on file in the office of the Purchasing Agent, incorporated herein by reference being in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 252 of the Texas Local Government Code; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That the City Council hereby determines that there is a public calamity that makes it necessary to act at once to appropriate money to relieve the necessity of the citizens of the city, or to provide for unforeseen damage to public property, machinery or equipment, and by reason thereof, the following emergency purchases of materials, equipment, supplies or services, as described in the "Purchase Orders" referenced herein and on file the office of the Purchasing Agent, are hereby approved: PURCHASE ORDER VENDOR AMOUNT 04337 Temple, Inc. $ 86,625 SECTION II. That because of such emergency, the City Manager or designated employee is hereby authorized to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services as described in the attached Purchase Orders and to make payment therefore in the amounts therein stated, such emergency purchases being in accordance with the provisions of state law exempting such purchases by the City from the requirements of competitive bids. SECTION III. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2000. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 04337 EMERGENCY PURCHASE ORDER.ORDIANCE AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AgendaNo._ ~01~~'''', Agenda Itern lq oat. ¢/00 .' AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: April 4, 2000 Purchasing Questions conceming this acquisition may be directed to Sharon Mays 349-8487 ACM: Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT: An Ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas authorizing the expenditure of funds for the payments by the City of Denton for Electrical Energy Transmission Fees to those listed cities and utilities providing energy transmission services to the City of Denton; and providing an effective date (Purchase Orders 04394 to City of Garland, 04395 to City Public Service San Antonio, 04396 to TXU Elec.-Transmission Div., 04397 to Reliant Energy HL&P, 04398 to Central Power & Light Co., in the total amount of $1,375,698.50). BID INFORMATION: The five purchase orders reflect the estimated cost of transmission of electrical energy from the generation source to the Denton Municipal Electric Distribution System for the year 2000. The purchase orders are for payment of a fee imposed by the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) for planned transmission services of energy delivered to the City of Denton. The Public Utility Regulatory Act of 1995 (PUPA 95) required the development of a new, statewide mechanism for electric transmission service in Texas. PUPA 95 also placed municipal utilities under the jurisdiction of PUCT for matters related to transmission. As a result, the Denton Municipal Electric Utility has been ordered by the PUCT to pay various other electric utilities in the State specific amounts. The subject purchase orders provide the City of Denton the authority required by the City Charter to make those payments. These purchase orders will encumber funds estimated as costs for services through September 30, 2000. No funds will actually be spent until invoices are received, reviewed, and approved. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend approval of Purchase Order 04394-City of Garland in the amount of $25,436.00, Purchase Order 04395 - City of Public Services San Antonio in the amount of $58,935.00, Purchase Order 04396 to TXU Elec.-Transmission Div. in the amount of $736,890.00, and Purchase Order 04397 - Reliant Energy HL&P in the amount of $403,680.00, Purchase Order 04398 - Central Power 8,: Light Co. in the amount of $150,757.50 and total amount of $1,375,698.50. Agenda Information Sheet April 4, 2000 Page 2 Reliant Energy HL&P Houston, TX PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS: City of Garland City Public Service San Antonio Garland, TX San Antonio, TX Central Power & Light Co. Tulsa, OK FISCAL INFORMATION: TXU Elec.-Transmission Div. Dallas, TX Funds to meet these regulatory fee obligations were budgeted in a 1999-00 budget account (610-132-1032-5650-8587). The rate remains unchanged from 1997-98 figures. Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Purchase Order 04394 - City of Garland $ 25,436.00 Purchase Order 04395 - City of Public Service San Antonio $ 58,935.00 Purchase Order 04396 - TXU Elec.-Transmission Div. $ 736,890.00 Purchase Order 04397 - Reliant Energy HL&P $ 403,680.00 Purchase Order 04398 - Central Power & Light Co. $150,757.50 1364 AGENDA Attachment 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o o 0 0 d o o I O~ ff.,,. Z 0 o o o (D ~D o o o 0 H .1 0 O3 0 0 o o o o o o o o o o M o ~0 (:D ,~ I ff.- 0 0 0 o c~ o o o 0 o o o o o o o ',D · 0 o o o o o o 0 (D LO 0 o ,-4 o ~D 0 o o ~o o 0 ~ 0 ~O o ~0 o o o ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE PAYMENTS BY THE CITY OF DENTON FOR ELECTRICAL ENERGY TRANSMISSION FEES TO THOSE LISTED CITIES AND UTILITIES PROVIDING ENERGY TRANSMISSION SERVICES TO THE CITY OF DENTON; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (PURCHASE ORDERS 04394 TO CITY OF GARLAND, 04395 TO CITY PUBLIC SERVICE SAN ANTONIO, 04396 TO TXU ELEC. TRANSMISSION DIV., 04397 TO RELIANT ENERGY HL&P, 04398 TO CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO., IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $1,375,698.50). WHEREAS, in order to comply with the legislative requirements contained in the Public Utility Regulatory Act of 1995, for the payment for energy transmission services fees, the City of Denton is required to pay such fees imposed by the Public Utilities Commission of Texas to three listed utilities set forth in Exhibit "A": and WHEREAS, the City Manager has reviewed and recommended that the City Council approve and authorize the payment of such fees; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTONHEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That the expenditure of funds in the amount of $1,375,691.50 to be paid to the Listed Utilities in the specified amount shown on Exhibit "A", which is attached to and made a part of this ordinance for all purposes is here authorized. SECTION II. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2000, ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY JACK MILLER, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: FEE ORDINANCE PC 04394,04395,04396,04397,04398 EXHIBIT "A" Purchase Order 04394 - City of Garland Purchase Order 04395 - City of Public Service San Antonio Purchase Order 04396 - TXU Elec.-Transmission Div. Purchase Order 04397 - Reliam Energy HL&P Purchase Order 04398 - Central Power & Light Co. TOTAL $ 25,436.00 $ 58,935.00 $ 736,890.00 $ 403,680.00 $ 150,757.50' $1,375,698.50 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda [late. / .. AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: pAa;:ls:n?::creation Department Dave Hill, Assistant City Manager~y SUBJECT: A resolution allowing LULAC to be the sole participant allowed to sell alcoholic beverages at the Cinco de Mayo Celebration on May 6, 2000, upon the conditions of obtaining booth, obtaining license and permit, providing general liability insurance, and agreeing to indemnify the city for any liability; authorizing City Manager to execute agreement for the conditions; and providing for an effective date. BACKGROUND: The Cinco de Mayo Committee, made up of community volunteers and City staff voted for the third consecutive year to support the sale of alcohol at the event, allowing LULAC to be the sole proprietor of this product. LULAC will be responsible for rental of the booth space, obtaining the temporary license, and securing the temporary' permit. All proceeds from the sale will support the LULAC scholarship fund. The annual Cinco de Mayo Celebration event is a Hispanic cultural festival, co-sponsored by the City of Denton, Parks and Recreation Department. It is held in Civic Center Park and includes a parade, local vendors, children's activities, entertainment and an evening dance. The free daytime event rtms from 10:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. A dance is held in the Civic Center from 8:00 p.m. - 1:00 a.m., where an admission price is charged. The event continues to experience growth each year in community participation through local vendors and entertainment. Last year's event hosted around 5,000 participants with 80 vendors and two entertainment stages. This would be the third year that alcohol will be sold at this event. This year Ben E. Keith and Miller Beer of Denton are the major community sponsors. Throughout the history of this event, LULAC has always played a role in the coordination of the event, serving on the organizing committee and soliciting volunteers. They have always used this event to serve as a fundraiser for their scholarship program. OPTIONS: Council options include the approval or denial of the ordinance and agreement as submitted. Council may also opt to modify the agreement to include additional or modified requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of thc ordinance and agreement as submitted, which is consistent with agreements with other co-sponsored events, such as the Denton Arts & Jazz Festival. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT: The Cinco de Mayo Celebration is May 6, 2000, from 10:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. A dance is held in the Civic Center from 8:00 p.m. - 1:00 a.m. The sale of alcohol will be limited to the daytime event. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW: At their February 24, 2000, meeting the Parks and Recreation Board unanimously recommended approval of this item. FISCAL INFORMATION This action has no impact on the City's General Fund budget. All costs and revenue from this action will be solely the responsibility of LULAC. BID INFORMATION: Not applicable EXHIBITS: a. Resolution b. Contract c. Request Letter d. Excepts from Parks Board Minutes of February RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Ed Hodney, Director~ Parks and Recre~Sn Department Prepared by: pK~l~oerni ni~ ~~nmt ent F:\shared\dept\prks\j anefiLU LAC 2000.doc EXHIBIT RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ALLOWING LULAC TO BE THE SOLE PARTICIPANT ALLOWED TO SELL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AT THE CINCO DE MAYO CELEBRATION ON MAY 6, 2000, UPON THE CONDITIONS OF OBTAINING BOOTH, OBTAINING LICENSE AND PERMIT, PROVIDING GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE, AND AGREEING TO INDEMNIFY THE CITY FOR ANY LIABILITY; AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT FOR THE CONDITIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Denton ("City") is the owner of the Civic Center Park and through the Park and Recreations Department co-sponsors a Cinco De Mayo Celebration at the Civic Center Park; WHEREAS, the consumption of alcoholic beverages is allowed in the Civic Center Park pursuant to City of Denton Code, §22-32 (b); WHEREAS, LULAC has been a major participant in this event and has used this event as a fund raiser for its scholarship program; and WHEREAS, LULAC has requested that they be sole participant allowed to sell alcoholic beverages at this year's Cinco De Mayo Celebration on May 6, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Board has recommended that LULAC be the sole participant allowed to sell alcoholic beverages at the Cinco De Mayo Celebration; and WHEREAS, the City agrees with the *recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Board; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1. That LULAC shall be the sole participant allowed to sell alcoholic beverages at the Cinco De Mayo Celebration on May 6, 2000 at the Civic Center Park upon the following conditions: o That they shall be responsible for rental of any booth space necessary; That they be responsible to obtain the temporary license and permit for selling alcoholic beverages approved by appropriate state agency; That they provide the security necessary for the sale of alcoholic beverages; That they provide general comprehensive liability insurance from a responsible carrier, with the City as an additional insured, in the amount of $500,000.00. o Agrees to indemnify the City of Denton against any liability incident to the selling of alcoholic beverages at the Cinco De Mayo Celebration. SECTION 2. That the City Manager is authorized to execute the agreement attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein as if copied word for word, setting out the conditions set forth above without further action by the City Council. SECTION 3. That this resolution shall become effective immediately.upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2000. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY F:Xshared\dept~LGL\Our Doeuments\Resolutions\00\Cinco De Mayo alcohol sell.doc 4 STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DENTON This Agreement, made this __ EXHIBIT CIVIC CENTER AGREEMENT FOR THE CINCO DE MAYO CELEBRATION day of ., 2000, by and between the City of Denton, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY" and LULAC a non profit corporation. WlTNESSETH, that in consideration of the covenants and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 GENERAL The City grants to LULAC the exclusive privilege to sell alcoholic beverages, subject to the exceptions and conditions hereinafter set forth, for the Cinco De Mayo celebration on May 6, 2000 to be held at the Civic Center Park. Attached hereto is a copy of the resolution passed by the City Council of Denton, Texas authorizing this privilege and is attached as Exhibit "A" and is incorporated herein as if copied word for word. This privilege does not extend beyond the date of the Cinco De Mayo celebration set for the year 2000. ARTICLE 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES LULAC in order to exercise the privilege to sell alcoholic beverages must perform the following: LULAC shall be solely responsible for the rental and payment for any booth space necessary for the sale of alcoholic beverages at the Cinco De Mayo Celebration. LULAC shall be solely responsible to obtain any temporary license and permit necessary for the selling of alcoholic beverages at the Cinco De Mayo Celebration. LULAC shall be solely responsible for the obtaining and paying for any security necessary for their sale of alcoholic beverages at the Cinco De Mayo Celebration. LULAC's failure to do any of the above and to show proper proof of compliance shall waive their right to exercise the privilege of selling alcoholic beverages at the Cinco De Mayo Celebration. ARTICLE 3 LOCAL RULES AND REGULATION LULAC agrees to abide by all municipal, county, state and federal laws, ordinances, rules and regulations and specifically, without limitation, the Denton Civic Center Rules and Regulations, to obtain all necessary and proper licenses, permits and authorizations, and to comply with the requirements of any duly authorized person acting in connection therewith. LULAC shall pay all taxes, if any, of every nature and description arising out of or in any manner connected with the sale of alcoholic beverages. LULAC will exercise reasonable care and due diligence in their sale of alcoholic beverages at the Cinco De Mayo Celebration. ARTICLE 4 INDEMNITY AGREEMENT LULAC SHALL indemnify and save and hold harmless the CITY and its officers, agents, and employees from and against any and all liability, claims, demands, losses, and expenses, including but not limited to, court costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred by the CITY, and including, without limitation, damages for bodily and personal injury, death and property damage, resulting from the negligent acts or omissions of LULAC or it officers, shareholders, agents, or employees in the execution, operation, or performance ofthig Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create a liability to any person who is not a party to this Agreement, and nothing herein shall waive any of the parties' defenses, both at law or equity, to any claim, cause of action, or litigation filed by anyone not a party to this Agreement, including the defense of governmental !mmunity, which defenses are hereby expressly reserved. ARTICLE 5 INSURANCE During the performance of the Agreement, LULAC shall maintain the following insurance with an insurance company licensed to do business in the State of Texas by the State Insurance Commission or any successor agency that has a rating with Best Rate Carders of at least an A- or above: Comprehensive General Liability Insurance with bodily injury limits of not less than $500,000 for each occurrence and not less than $500,000 in the aggregate, and with property damage limits of not less that $100,000 for each occurrence and not less than $100,000 in the aggregate. Bo LULAC shall furnish insurance certificates or insurance policies at the CITY'S request to evidence such coverages. The insurance policies shall name the CITY as an additional insured on all such policies, and shall contain a provision that such insurance shall not be canceled or modified without written notice to the CITY and LULAC. In such event, Cinco De Mayo Celebration Agreement - Page 2 LULAC shall, prior to the effective date of the change or cancellation, serve substitute policies furnishing the same coverage. ARTICLE 6 NOTICES All notices, communications, and reports required or permitted under this Agreement shall be personally delivered or mailed to the respective parties by depositing same in the United States mail to the address shown below, certified mail, return receipt requested,, unless otherwise specified herein. Mailed notices shall be deemed communicated as of three (3) days' mailing: To LULAC: To CITY: LULAC: CITY OF DENTON: Michael W. Jez, City Manager 215 E. McKiuney Denton, Texas 76201 All notices shall be deemed effective upon receipt by the party to whom such notice is given, or within three (3) days' mailing. ARTICLE 7 ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement, consisting of five (5) pages and exhibits, constitutes the complete and final expression of the agreement of the parties, and is intended as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of their agreements, and supersedes all prior contemporaneous offers, promises, representations, negotiations, discussions, communications, and agreements which may have been made in connection with the subject matter hereof. ARTICLE 8 SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement is found or deemed by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, it shall be considered severable from the remainder of this Agreement and shall not cause the remainder to be invalid or unenforceable. In such event, the parties shall reform this Agreement to replace such stricken provision with a valid and enforceable provision which comes as close as possible to expressing the intention of the stricken provision. ARTICLE 9 DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED In performing the services required hereunder, LULAC shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry, age, or physical handicap. Cinco De Mayo Celebration Agreement - Page 3 ARTICLE 10 PERSONNEL Ao LULAC represents that it has or will secure, at its own expense, all personnel required to perform all the services required under this Agreement. Such personnel shall not be employees or officers of, or have any contractual relations with the CITY. ARTICLE 11 ASSIGNABILITY LULAC shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in this Agreement (whether by assignment, novation, or otherwise) without the prior written consent of the CITY. ARTICLE 12 MODIFICATION No waiver or modification of this Agreement or of any covenant, condition, or limitation herein contained shall be valid unless in writing and duly executed by the party to be charged therewith, and no evidence of any waiver or modification shall be offered or received in evidence in any proceeding arising between the parties hereto out Of or affecting this Agreement, or the rights or obligations of the parties hereunder, and unless such waiver or modification is in writing and duly executed; and the parties further agree that the provisions of this section will not be waived unless as set forth herein. ARTICLE 13 MISCELLANEOUS Ao The following exhibits are attached to and made a part of this Agreement: (list exhibits) Exhibit "A" Resolution No. Bo Venue of any suit or cause of action under this Agreement shall lie exclusively in Denton County, Texas. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas. The captions of this Agreement are for informational purposes only, and shall not in any way affect the substantive terms or conditions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS HEREOF, the City of Denton, Texas has caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized City Manager, and LULAC has executed this Agreement through its duly authorized undersigned officer on this the day of ,2000. Cinco De Mayo Celebration Agreement - Page 4 8 CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS MICHAEL W. JEZ, CITY MANAGER ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: LULAC: BY: Name Title WITNESS: BY: F:~shared\dept~LGL\Our Documents\Contracts\OO\Cinco De Mayo Contract.doc Cinco De Mayo Celebration Agreement - Page 5 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: April 4, 2000 ~ Parks and Recreation Dave Hill, Assistant City Manage SUBJECT: Consider an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, authorizing the City Manager to submit an application under the National School Lunch Act to obtain funding for the 2000 Summer Food Service Program; if such funding is granted, the City Manager is authorized to execute the Summer Food Service Program agreement with the Texas Department of Human Services and execute a contract with the Denton Independent School District and all additional documents and agreements, as required; authorizing the expenditure of funds to administer the program; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND: This free lunch program is designed to service children in areas of low-income populations during the summer months when traditional school lunch programs are not being served. This program is sponsored and funded by the United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. This Summer Food Service Program is a continuation of the free lunch program that is offered during the school year. The Texas Department of Human Services has made an effort through outreach to increase the number of cities participating in the program. Cold sack lunches will be prepared by the Denton Independent School District and served at the following locations: 1) MLK Recreation Center, 2) Phoenix Park, 3) Denia Park, 4) Civic Center Park, 5) Owsley Neighborhood, 6) TWU Clubhouse Program, 7) Village East Apartments, 8) Fred Moore Learning Center, 9) Rivera Elementary Summer School, 10)Woodrow Wilson Elementary Enrichment Program, 11) Razor Elementary Summer School. The total estimated cost for this program is approximately $49,979, which is reimbursed by the Texas Department of Human Services. The Parks and Recreation Department first offered the Summer Food Service Program in 1992 at Denia Park, Phoenix Park, Fred Moore Park, Civic Center Park, and two summer school locations. At these six locations, a total of 14,776 lunches were served to children 1 through 18 years of age. The Summer Food Service Program expanded to eight locations during the summer of 1993. The additional locations were the TWU Clubhouse Program and the Owsley Neighborhood. The total number of lunches served throughout the summer was 14,748. In 1994 the Village East Apar[ments were idemified as a low-income area and beemne a Summer Food Program Site. Through the summer 15,094 lunches were served at the nine sites. In 1995, the nine summer food sites served 15,585 lunches at a cost of $32,712. A slight decrease occurred in 1996 because the two summer school sites were enrolled sites with lower attendance. In 1996 the nine summer food sites served 13,511 lunches at a cost of $30,111. In 1997 the Boys and Girls Club requested to be part of the summer food program. The addition of tenth summer food site increased the munber served to 17,609 lunches at a cost of $38,342. In 1998 the ten summer food sites served 17,843 lunches at a cost of $38,535. In 1999, the ten summer food sites served 15,970 lunches at a cost of $3~,969.10. OPTIONS: Approval of the contracts with the United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service and Denton Independent School District in its entirety. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the 2000 Summer Food Grant. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT: Summer lunches will be served from May 30, 2000, to August 4, 2000. No lunches will be served on Tuesday, July 4, 2000, in observance of the Independence Day Holiday. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW: The Denton Independent School District recommended approval to contract the preparation of cold sack lunches for this program when the issue was presented to their board on February 22, 2000. The program is scheduled for implementation on May 30, 2000. FISCAL INFORMATION: The Texas Department of Human Services will reimburse all costs associated with the program, which administers this grant. BID INFORMATION: Not applicable. EXHIBITS: A: Ordinance B: Food Site Location Map C: Certificate of Authority Prepared by: Respectfully submitted: Ed Hodn~, Director/ Parks and Recre~<fn Department XHIBIT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION UNDER THE NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT TO OBTAIN FUNDING FOR THE 2000 SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM; IF SUCH FUNDING IS GRANTED, THE CITY MANAGER IS AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE THE SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES AND EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH THE DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT AND ALL ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS AND AGREEMENTS, AS REQUIRED; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas will submit an application for fimding under the National School Lunch Act, to the Texas Department of Human Services for the purpose of making meals available to eligible children at the City's Summer Action Site programs; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the grant, if received, the City will contract with the Denton Independent School District to provide the meals at the various sites; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, an application for funding under the National School Lunch Act, and if funded, the Summer Food Service Program Agreement with the Texas Department of Human Services, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, along with any other documents and certificates necessary to obtain such funding. · SECTION 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a contract with the Denton Independent School District, substantially in the form of the contract which is attached to and made a part of this ordinance for all purposes, to provide meals for eligible individuals at the various sites, and such other documents and certifications as are necessary to carry out the 2000 Summer Food Service Program, if such program is funded per the terms set forth in Section I above, and to handle all fiscal and administrative matters relating to the application and the program. SECTION 3. The expenditure of funds necessary to administer the 2000 Summer Food Service Program is hereby authorized. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of _,2000. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY By: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY State of Texas County of Denton AGREEMENT TO FURNISH FOOD SERVICE CITY OF DENTON and DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FOOD SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the Denton Independent School District and the City of Denton both of whom are local governmental entities authorized to enter into interlocal agreements under Chapter 791 of the Texas Government Code. (Vernon 1994) Whereas, the interlocal agreement contemplates the performance of function or services that each party to this contract is authorized to perform individually. Whereas, that the City of Denton is making payment under this agreement which it is funding from payments from current revenue; whereas, the payments provided by the City of Denton are in an amount that fairly compensates the Denton Independent School District for the services that it is performing. Witnesseth: I. Provision of Meals Denton Independent School District agrees to supply unitized meals inclusive of milk and juice to the City of Denton Parks and Recreation Department, at the MLK Recreation Center, Phoenix Park, Denia Park, Civic Center, Owsley Neighborhood, North Lakes Recreation Center, TWU Playhouse Program, Village East Apartments, Fred Moore Learning Center, McMath Middle School, Rivera Elementary Summer School, Newton Razor Elementary Summer School, Woodrow Wilson Elementary Summer Enrichment Program and with and for the rates herein listed: Breakfast ...... $ 0.00 each ' Lunches ....... $ 1.65 each Snacks ......... $ 0.00 each Supper ......... $ 0.00 each II. Menu Records It is further agreed that the Denton Independent School District pursuant to the provisions of the Summer Food Service Program Regulations, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A" and is part of this agreement, will assume that said meals meet the minimum requirements as to nutritive value and content as outlined in the U.S.D.A.'s sponsor Meal Preparation Handbook, and will maintain full and accurate recordings of such, including the following: 1. Menu Records, including amoUnt of food prepared. 2. Meals, including daily number of meals delivered by type. III. Retention of Records These records must be reported to the institution promptly at the end of each week. Denton Independent School District agrees also to retain records required under the preceding clause for a period of three years and 90 days after the end of the contract period. If audits, claims or litigation have not been resolved, all records must retain beyond the required time period until all issues are resolved in accordance with the Summer Food Service Program Agreement between The City of Denton and The Texas Department of Human Services. IV. Compliance With Immigration Laws The Denton Independent School District agrees to comply with the requirements of the Immigration Reform Control Act of 1986 regarding employment verification and retention of verification forms for any individuals hired after November 6, 1986 who will perform labor or services under this contract. V. Audit The Denton Independent School District agrees to allow for purposes of audit, examination, excerpt, and transcription: the USDA, the Comptroller of the United States, D.S. and any of their authorized representatives to have access to any of the contractor's books, documents, papers, and records that are pertinent to the contract. VI. Energy Efficiency The Denton Independent School District agrees to comply with the required mandatory standards and policies conceming energy efficiency contained in the Texas Energy Conservation Plan issued in compliance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (P.L. 94-163). VII. Remedies For Breach of Contract The Denton Independent School District agrees that except for small purchase contracts, it will comply with and enforce provisions that allow for administrative, contractual, or legal remedies if contractors violate or breach contract terms, and any appropriate sanctions and penalties. VIII. Compliance With Labor Regulations The Denton Independent School District agrees to be in compliance with Section 103 of the contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 USC 327-330) as supplemented by the Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR, Part 5). Under this Act, contractors must compute the wages of mechanics and laborers on the basis of standard workday of eight hours and a standard workweek of 40 hours. Work that exceeds the standards must be compensated at least 1 ½ times the basic pay rate for overtime hours worked. These requirements do not apply to the purchase of supplies or materials ordinarily available on the open market or contracts for transportation. IX. Equal Employment Opporttmitv The Denton Independent School District agrees to comply with Executive Order 11246 entitled "Equal Employment Oppommity" as amended by Executive Order 11375 and as supplemented in Department of Labor regulations (41CFR, Part 60). X. Compliance With Laws The Denton Independent School District agrees to comply with all other applicable laws, including without limitation, any additional applicable Federal Laws or regulations contained in the Summer Food Program Agreement between the City of Denton and the Texas Department of Human Services. XI. Remedy For Breach If the Denton Independent School District fails to provide services in accordance with the provisions of this contract, the City of Denton may, upon written notice of default to the contractor, immediately terminate the whole or part of this contract. XII. Consideration The City of Denton agrees to pay Denton Independent School District for all meals ordered on daily basis at the rate agreed upon in this contract. XIII. Term The agreement shall be effective as of May 30, 2000 and shall have the same term as the Summer Food Program Agreement between the City of Denton and the Texas Department of Human Services. It may be terminated by notice in writing given by any party hereto to the other parties at least 30 days prior to the date of termination. XIV. Venue This agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas. Any litigation filed with regard to this contract shall be tried in a court of competent jurisdiction setting in Denton County, Texas. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the dates indicted below: Agreed to this date Sponsor Official DISD. Tire: City Manager Agreed to this date Title School Board President The location of the food preparation site will be: Rivera Elementary School 701 Newton Denton, Texas 76205 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES SPECIAL NUTRITION PROGRAMS AGREEMENT STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF TRAVIS § The Texas Depa~huent of Human Services, hereinafter referred to as TDHS, City of Denton, Texas, A Texas Municipal Corporation at 215 E. McKinney, Denton, Texas 76201 hereinafter referred to as the. Contractor, do hereby make and enter into thi.~ contract, as required by the National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrilion Act, as amended, and the following program n~,~ulations: the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), 7 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 210; the Special Milk Program (SMP), 7 CFR Pan 21:5; the School Breakfast Program (SBP), 7 CFR Part 220; the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), 7 CFR Pan 225; and the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) 7 CFR Pan 226. This agreement specifies the fights and respoasibilitice of TDHS and the Contractor pursuant to the Contractor's participation in one or more of the above named programs as stipulated herein. By signing this agreement, both panies are bound by its terms and conditions from its be~nning effective date until terminated in accordance with this agreement. MUTUAL AGREEMENTS · The Parties mutually agree: " A. fit, he Contractor fails to provide services in accordance with the provisions of this contract, TDHS may, upon written notice of defanlt to the Contractor, immediately terminate the whole or any pan of this contract, including refusal to pay claims for reimbursement, and such termln~tlon shall not be an exclusive remedy but shall be in addition to any other fights and remedies provided by law or under this contract Bo If federal or state laws or other requirements are amended or judicially interpreted so that the continued f~lflllment of this contract, on the part of either pan'y, is substantially unreasonable or impossible, or if the parties are unable to agree upon any amendment which would therefore be needed to enable the substantial continuation of the services contemplated by this contract then, the parties shall be discharged from any further obligations created under the terms of this contract, except for the equitable settlement of the respective accrued interest or obligations, including audit findings, incurred up to the date of termination. C. This contract may be canceled by mutual consent. However, if such mutual consent cannot be al~ined, then and in that event, either party to thi? contract may consider it to be canceled without cause by giving thirty (30) days notice in writing to the other party and this contract shah thereupon be canceled upon the expiration of such thirty (30) day period. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prohibit immediate cancellation pursuant to above paragraphs A and/or B. CONTRACTOR PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT mo The C. ona-actor will comply with the applicable regulations for its d~zignated program, as w, ll as 7 CFR Parts 245 and 250, aa amended, ~h~ Uniform Fcdmd Assistance Regulation (7 CFI~ Pan 301~, as am~l~l), Audits Of State, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations (7 CFR 3052, as amended)and stato policies and procedur~ as issued and amendea__ by TDHS. The Contractor further agrees to perform as described in its application (including its Poli~y statement and supporting doo,ments, and approved amendments to the application) for participation in the designated program. l0 Bo II. CONTRACTOR PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT (Continued) The Contractor accepts final administrative and financial responsibility for food service operations in each school, summer feeding site, and child and/or adult care facility, hereinafter referred to as a site, operated or sponsored by thc Contractor. The responsibility includes any audit exceptions or payment deficiency in the program covered by this contract, and all subcontracts hereunder,, which are found after monitoring or auditing by TDHS or USDA and will be responsible for the collections and payback of any amount paid in excess of the proper ¢]alm amount. The Contractor submits for TDHS aPproval 0nly those applications for sites which have delegated the authority for the administration of food service operations to the Contractor or which have executed subagrecments with the Contractor for the ~dminintration of food services operations. D. Contractors participating in thc NSLP agree 1. that the official si~i-g the Claim for Reimbursement will be responsible for reviewing and analyzing meal counts to ensure accuracy and compliance with federal regulations 2. to enter into an agreement'to rcceiv~donated,/oeds as, required-by federalregulations, and 3. to price lunch as a unit . E. Contractors participating in the CACFP provide or accept responsibility for the provision of ergan/zed' non'residential child day care and will immediately report to'Thc Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (TDPRS) Licensing or Child Protective Services staff, any suspected violations of TDPRS Licensing standards or suspected abuse of children in sponsored centers or day homes. HI. RECORD KEEPING A. The Contractor will k~p tqnancial and supporting documents, s~tistical.r, ecords, and any other re~,rds p?,rtinent to. the.,, san'ices for which a claim was submitted in the manner and detail presmbed by TDHS.. The recoras aha aocuments be kept for a minimum of 3 years and 90 days aider the termination of the federal fiscal year for thc relevant program. If any litigation, claim, or audit involving these reCOrds begins before .~.ch..p..c~.'od.cxp' .u~., the Con,.U~c. ,tor,.will keep thc, , records and doolments for not less than 3 years and 90 days and until all litigation, ¢~a~mn or aum~ Iu~tHn~s ~ resOIV¢CL The case is considered resolved when there is a final order issued in litigation, or a written agreement is entered into b~twecn TDHS and th~ Contractor. The Contractor will keep records of non-expendable property acquired under the contract for 3 years and 90 days afl;er final disposition of the property. B. The Contractor and its subcontractors will allow TDHS and USDA officials and other appropriate officials d~t~,,,ined by TDHS to inspect facilities and records and to audit, exnmlne, and copy records at any reasonable time. This includes access to all records of costs paid, even in part, by TDHS. IV. CIVIL RIGHTS POLICY COMPLIANCE A. The Contractor agrees to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352) and all requirements imposed by the regulations of the Depa~uaent of Agriculture (7 CFR Part 15), Dcpattumat of Jnstice (28 CFR Parts 42 and 50) and 1NS directives or regulations issued pursuant to that act and the regulations. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-112), the Amcricann with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336), Title IX of the Education Am~/ments of 1972 (7 CFR. Part 1Sa), the Age Diser/mlnation Act of 1975 (Public Law 94- 135), and all amendments to each, and all requirements imposed by thc regulations issued pursuant to these acts. In addition the contractoragrces to comply with Title 40, Chapter 73, of the Texas Admini_ntrative Code. The~e pwvide in part that no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, national ori~n~ sex, age, disability, political beliefs, or religion be excluded from participation in, or denied any aid, care, service or other benefits provided by federal and/or state funding, or otherwise Dc subjcct~l to discrimination. Thc contrac, wr also agrees to comply with Health and Safety Code Section 85.113 (relzting to workplace and confidentiality guidelines regarding AIDS and Hrv). Thc contractor hereby gives assurance that it will immediately tal~e any measures necessary to effectuate thin agreement. Bo Do IV. CIVIL RIGHTS POLICY COMPLIANcE (Continued) This assurance is given in consideration of and for the purpose of obtaining any and all federal financial assistance, grants and loans of federal funds, reimbursable expenditures, grant or donation of federal property and interest in property, the detail of federal personnel, the sale and lease of~ and the permission to use, federal property or interest in such property or the furnishing of services without consideration or at a nominal consideration, or at a consideration which is reduced for the'purpose, of assisting., the recipient,, or in reco~ition_ of the. public interest, to be. serVed by such sale, lease or furnishing · . ~ ~m ~, gemenc, or omer contract wmcn nas as one or its purposes thc provision of cash assistance for thc purchase of food, and cash assistance for pm-chase or rental of food service equipment Or any other financial assistance extended in reliancc on the rcpresentation and agreements mede in this assurance. Thc Contractor agrees to COmpile data, maintain records, and submit reports as required, to permit effective enforcement ,.nn com. the abo,, tr there v,olauons of Uds w, t ~.,na, v.~,a-ana ~a liave u~ nght to.seelc jumcial enforcement of this.assurance. This assurance is bindina on the Contractor, its successors, transferees, and assignees as long as it receives assistance or retain~ possession of any - assistance from the department. The person whosc signaturc appcars on this contract is authorized to sign this assurance on thc behalf of the Contractor. A religious or Charitable organization is eligible to be a contractor on the same basis as any other private organization. The contractor retains its independence f~om Stoic and local governments, including the contractor's control over the definition, develupment,'practice, and expression of its charitable or religious beliefs. Except as provided by federal law, TDHS shah not interpret this contract to require a charitable or religious organization to alter its form of internal governance or remove religious art, icons, scripture, or other symbols. Furthermore, if a religions or charitable organization segregates the government funds provided under the conffact, then only the financial assistance provided by these funds will be subject to audit. However, neither TDHS's selection ora charitable or faith-based conu~actor of serVices nor the expenditure of funds under this contract is an endorsement of thc ~ontractor's charitable or religious character, practices, or expression. The purpose of this conlract is the provision of services; no State expenditui'es have as their objec.tiv¢ the fund!n§ of sectarian worship, instructions, or pr0selytization. id?.r of ??. nnder .con ct,h U reasonably apple assisted individu s the touowmg. '~euner ! ttl~ s selecuon o~ a charitable or faith-based provider of services nor the expenditure of funds under this contract is an endorsement of thc provider's charitable or religions character, practices, or expression. No provider of services maY discriminate agaln~t you on the basis of religion, a religious belief, or your refusal to participate oa ~giou~. prac.ti?. ,lf~you o,b.j,.ect to.a partienl.ar, provider because of its religious character, you may request aasitmment a amcren~ prowocr, uyou oelieve that your fights have been violated, please discuss the enmplaint with your provider or notify your local TDHS Special Nutrition Programs office. ~Sec.tion 10.4 of..Th. ? P ,~?s.on. al Responsibili~ and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. 42 U.S.C. § 604a, sets z~rth certain additional rights and responsibilities for charitable and faith-based providers of SerVices, certain edditional rights of assisted individuals, and certain additional responsibilities of TDHS to these provid¢~ and assisted individuals. Thi.~ contract is subject to those edditional rights'and r~ponsibilities. TDHS CLAIMS PAYMENT TDHS will, subject to the f.,eder~l~ appr°pri, ation and availability to TDHS of sufficient funds for the applicable prell'am, ma~e program payment to the contractor m accordance with the terms o£this agreement. No reimbursement shall be made for performance under this agreement occurring prior to (a) the be~nnlng effective date of this agreement or (b) a later date established by TDHS based on the date of receipt of a fully executed copy of this agreement. In accordance with Section 403.055(h) of'the Govexnment Code, the contractor agrees that any payments due to the ~nU-,u;tor under thia ~ntract will be f~st applied to any debt and/or back taxes the conlxactor owes the State of Texas. Payments will be so applied until'such debts and back taxes are paid in full. This clanse does not apply ff federal law requires payment to be made to the contractor for goods and services, provided in support of any of the USDA child and adult nutrition programs, and may not apply ff federal law conditions the receipt of the money for these goods or services to the state on the basis of payment being mede to the comxactor. 12 IMMIGRATION __..~_~ __. ,_,__ . . ... . auon rorms wr any maiwauais hired afler Novcmber 6, 1986, whowill pm~orm ~my moor or services tmaer rms conu'acL · CERTIFICATION declared ineliolhi~' -_-~a,~,~.~ _._,.e.~m_ ~er~t nor ~ts,.p .rmc. l. pa~. ~.,presently de. barred, suspended, proposed for debarment, =----, ,,, ,~,~,~.~uy..=xc~ .~ro.. m.pame~p, am.~...m m~c?n..l~. ~ any federal department or agency or b the State ofTexas. By making th~ certification thc conuacmr agrces m thc fouowin. . _g terms: · . .. Y 1. The above certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was based when this contract wa~ onto/ed into. If it is later determined that the contractor knowingly rendered an erroneOus certification, in addition to other remedies available to tho federal government, thc Dcpea tment of Health and Human Services, United State Department o£ A i mr? o.r o..tber .dep ?t or ency, or the or It,,m,, pur e av labie rome/lies, mclumng suspension ana/or debarment. 2. The contractor shall prOvide immediate written notice to the person to which this certification is submitted if at any time the contractor loams that th~ certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstauccs. 3. The words "covered contract," "debarred,' suspended," "ineligible," "participant," "person," "principal," "proposal," and voluntarily excluded," as used in this certification have meanings based upon materials in the Definitions and Coverage sections of federal rul.es implementing ExecutiYe Order 12~49. Usugc is defined in the attachment. 4, Thc contractor agrees by submitting this certification that, should the proposed covered contract be entered into, it shah not 'knowingly enter into any subcontract with a person who is debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily , um.u~ a~a~_~:t~p..~a~nt oI ,~,gnculturc or other federal dep/uiment or agency, and/or the Texas'Department of 5. Tho contractor further agrees by submitting this ce/tification that it will include TDHS Form 2046 titled "Certification ,P~, gording. _Dc?ann..ent' S .usl~. io..n, I,n.,.e~gi..bility, and Voluntal3~ Exclusion for Covered Contracts" without modification, in au coverca suocon ..u?~ ana m au suuc~tation for all covered subcontracts. · 6. A contractor may rely upon a certification of a subcontractor that it is not debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered contract' unless it knows that tho certification is erroneous. A contractor must, at a minJmt~m, obtain c, ertificates from its covered subcontractor upon each subcontractor's initiation and upon each renewal. 7. Nothing contained in all the foregoing shsH be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith tho cetfificatiun required by this certification document. The knowledge and information of a contractor is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinaO, course of business dealings. ~.Except for. ~co,ntrac.~ a~. th.o.,rized under para.graph 4 of theso terms, if a contracWr in a covered contract knowingly enters inut~s.~_v__e~_ ~s_u_t~_.~n_tr,~~.unm~ a p?on wh.o? ~USl?,en.d. ec~. ~b .ar~. '.ineligible, or voluntarily excluded fi'om pmicipation - u~;uo~, m aamuon to ot~r rememes avauame to me xeaera gove.mment' i:~partm~nt of Health and Human $~rvic~a, Unit~l Stat~ Departmcnt of Agriculture, or other fed~i-al deparlmmt or age. ney, as applicable, and/or th~ Texas Department of Human Services rosy pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment. ~3 CERTIFICATION (Continued) ~u~u~ was piacea wne~ m~ moa was m Or eateredmto.$ubm~s]o~l offl~s ~~ ~ a p~ for m~z ~ ~g ~ ~s m~ i~ by m 1352, rifle 31, U.S. ~. ~ m ~) f~ ~ ~e ~ ~e ~n~ ~, m ~e ~t of~ or h~ ~owl~ ~d ~li~ ~: ~ f~ app~6a~ ~ ~ve ~ p~d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ of ~ ~i~ ~ ~ ~n for attu · aa ~ovcrco suoreclplents snau cctmy aha disclose __accordingly. C. The contractor c~fifies thit if it is a corporation, it is either a for-profit corporation that is not delinquent in its fi'anchise tax paymcnts to the 5*_~*_e of Texas, or is a non-profit corporation or is otherwise not subject to pnyment of franchise taxes -. to tbe S*_~_te of Texas. D. The contractor certifies that_ all information submitted pursuant to this agreement is true and correc*___ Tbe comractor understands that the deliberate minrepresentatiun or w~thholding ofinformntlon is a violation of thi_~ contract and tony result in prosecution under applicable state and federal E. Under Section 231.006, Family Code, the vendor or applicant certifies that the individual or business catity named in this contract, bid, or application is not ineligible to _rece__-ive the specified grant, loan, or payment and acknowledges that thi~ contract may be t~nnlnntt,n:l ~ payment may be withheld ff thi_~ certification is inaccurate. 14 EFFECTIVE DATE AND SIGNATURES The parties hereto in their capacities stated, stax their signatures and bind themselves for the faitJ~ful performance or'the terms o£ this coatrac~ pursuant to participation in the £otlowing program or progr,m~: N~o~al School Lunch Progrsm School Breakfast Program City of Denton Name of Conlra~t~ (Please print Child and Achdt Care Food Program SUmm~ Food Sgrvi(~ Program Signatu~ of chain~n ofth~ board ofdi~ctots or oth~' official who hn, been authofiz~l to sig~ contracts on behalf of the contracting org~ni~.s~on. _ Michael W. Jez Name of O~cial Si~ing (Please print or type) City Manager Title of Official (Pleas~ pri~ or t~) TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES Effective f~om until terminated. '.TDHS Rcprcecntativc Approved for Form by OGC: Rcvis~ Decgmb~, 1999 15 76201 76207 I : EXHIB Woodrow Wilson Elem. School Razor Elem. School TWU, Mary Hufford Hall Civic Center Park Village East Apts. Owsley Park Phoenix Park Rivem Elem. School] Fred Moore Learning Center Denia Park * ~Minchin ./ 16 I-Anlgl I SPECIAL NUTRmON PROGRAM CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY This Is to'certify thst the following PerSOn(s): Michael W. Jez IT~ City Manamer X JT~ X .dNign~ed -~ In Authorized Relx~en~lve ~ C±~¥ o~ Den~o~ 321E. McKinney Denton~ Texas 76201 11to mpmsentoth~o) deoign~ed ,hove. end myself, om 8uthoflzod on belulf of the cofltructlng orgt. nlntJon to nuke w~;~fl ~gmemeflto with tho Teyms Depmtmoflt of Hum Sorvic# to opomto · food program, to Mgn documents or report? about the egroemeflt, end to pmoeflt elMnm for relmlxJriemenk wlmn 8pp~, to the delmrtm~nt. Michael W. Jez City Manager X DEI=i=O A~FUZED P, EPRE~ENTATIVES: A oontm~tlng org~nlzalion nmy not Imve mom than throe (3) At~Aeflzod ~ bt the flmM(o) of the IndMdum(o) to be removo= es Aumortzo~ Repre~mumnm(o) oetow. FOR DHS I_~_~_ ONLY ]7 L.U.L.A.C. Denton Council #4366 EXHIBIT February 10, 2000 Ed Hodney Director of Parks and Recreation 321 E. McKinney Denton, Texas 76202 Dear Mr. Hodney, This letter is to request that LULAC be placed on the City Council Agenda to request from city council a variance to serve and sell beer during the Cinco de Mayo Celebration on May 6, 2000 at Civic Center Park. Proceeds from the beer sales will go towards LULAC's scholarship fund. I have contacted Agent Henry from TABC and Sergeant Burns from Denton Police to inform and begin the process to obtain a temporary license to sell beer. Mi Casita restaurant will be sponsoring our temporay permit. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. This year's Cinco de Mayo celebration promises to be the biggest and most successful. LULAC is proud to be a participant and is very appreciative of the opportunity to use the event as a scholarship fundraising event. Should you have any questions please don't hesitate to call (565-4715 or 382-7200). Sincerely, Vicente Ramos, Ph.D. President 10 Denton Parks and Recreation Advisory Board February 24, 2000 MLK Recreation Center DRAFT XHIBIT Members present: Don Edwards, Dalton Gregory, Teresa Andress, Brenda Phillips, Brandon Barnes, and Gwendolyn Carter. Members absent: Dale Yeatts (excused absence) Staff present: Janet Simpson, Janie McLeod, Emerson Vorel, Ken Washington, Elizabeth Kloiber, Amanda Green, Nellie Caddell, Kathy Schaeffer, and Kristie Peters. Others guest present: Charlie Scott, Clay Reynolds, Rich Slivocka, Laura Gentry, and Jane Malone. Chairman Don Edwards called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. New staff members were introduced: Ken Washington, is the supervisor at the MLK Center; Elizabeth Kloiber will coordinate Special Events and Summer Camps; and Nellie Caddell will be coordinating the After School Action Site and Summer Camps for Children's Programs. Emerson Vorel is the manager of Parks Operations. Don Edwards welcomed and introduced new board member Teresa Andress. Ms. Andress is the principal at Sam Houston Elementary School. The minutes from the January 27, 2000 meeting were approved by a motion made by Brenda Phillips and seconded by Dalton Gregory. ACTION ITEMS Consider a Request from LULAC to sell Alcoholic Beverages at Cinco de Mayo Celebration. Janet Simpson said that this is the third year that alcoholic beverages will be sold in the Civic Center Park at the Cinco de Mayo Celebration. She added that Ben E. Keith is a major sponsor and is on sight to supervise the sale of alcohol. No accident/incidents have occurred in previous years. Brenda Phillips inquired about security at the event. Janet explained that additional patrol is present. Don Edwards reminded that Board that alcohol is allowed in Civic Center Park. Brandon Barnes moved that the request be approved and Dalton Gregory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Review and Approve the Joe Sit#es Park Master Plan. Janet reminded the Board that $75,000 had been approved in the 1996 bond program and that Joe Skiles, Milam and Phoenix parks were scheduled next for renovations. Janet said that the picnic tables and benches, a drinking fountain and a gazebo/pavilion would be added. New playground areas would be constructed to comply with federal guidelines for safety. She added that the improvements should begin in the Spring or Summer. Dalton Gregory asked if there would be any financial assistance like the Nette Shultz neighborhood provided. Janet said that the neighborhood had two separate AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda No ..... 00-~/~-- ~ Agendaltem ,, ,~ AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: April 4, 2000 Engineering & Transportation David Hill, Assistant City Manager-Development Service SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND STATE OF TEXAS, ACTING THROUGH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO PROVIDE FOR ADVANCED FUNDING FOR CERTAIN COLOR TEXTURIZED CONCRETE CURBS FOR THE 1-35 PROJECT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BACKGROUND: The bridges on IH 35E at the Union Pacific Railroad and for US 377(Fort Worth Drive) are being replaced by TXDOT this year. One component of the bridge replacement is the option to use the colored and textured concrete for the median pavement to add to the color or aesthetics of the design. Staff would recommend approval of the colored textured median pavement because the color and texture makes the project pleasing to the public while providing the needed infrastructure improvements. That concept is a basic focal point of the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Approval FISCAL INFORMATION The cost of the improvements will be funded by an existing bond account for the IH 35E/US 377 Bridge ($24,357) and $1,203 from Miscellaneous Funds. Respectfully submitted: J~l~irecto~ Engineering & Transportation -1- Memo To: From: Date: Re: David Hill, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Jerry Clark, Director of Engineering & Transportation 3/21/00 TXDOT Agreement for participation in funding of construction of color- texturized concrete curbs under IH35E overpass of Highway 377 The Texas Department of Transportation provides an opportunity on each project that they construct for adding aesthetic features. The City of Denton has participated in a number of these such as Teasley Lane @ 135 and U.S. 380 @ Loop 288. TXDOT constructed will be constructing the Texas U-turn lanes at U.S. 377 and 135E with the bridge projects. The two bddge projects for the Union Pacific Railroad and U.S. 377 will be starting construction sometime this summer. The standard design for TXDOT is to use concrete pavement for the medians. This agreement allows the City of Denton to upgrade that pavement to a colored texture pavement. We have most of the funds budgeted for this location. That $24,357 can be applied directly to this agreement. We will have to add $1,203 from miscellaneous funding. Staff recommends that City Council approve this agreement. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDiNANCE AUTHORIZiNG THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND STATE OF TEXAS, ACTiNG THROUGH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO PROVIDE FOR ADVANCED FUNDiNG FOR CERTAIN COLOR TEXTURIZED CONCRETE CURBS FOR THE 1-35 PROJECT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute an agreement between the City of Denton, Texas and the State of Texas, acting through the Texas Department of Transportation, to provide for advanced funding for certain color texturized concrete curbs for the 1-35 Project, under the terms and conditions contained within this Agreement, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2000. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: // THE STATE OF TEXAS THE COUNTY OF TRAVIS County: Denton Highway: IH 35 E CS J: 0195-03-047, etc. · Project Number: BR 98 (453) ADVANCE FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR STANDARD HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS THIS AGREEMENT IS MADE BY AND BETWEEN the State of Texas, acting through the Texas Department of Transportation, hereinafter called the STATE,.and the City of Denton , acting by and through its duly authorized officers, hereinafter called the OUTSIDE ENTITY. WITNESSETH· WHEREAS, Transportation Code Chapter 201 et.seq, and Transportation Code Chapter 221 authorize the STATE to lay out, construct, maintain, and operate a system of streets, roads, and highways that comprise the State Highway System; and, WHEREAS, Commission Minute Order Number 107615 authorizes the STATE to undertake and complete a highway improvement generally described as The construction of the widenin~ of a Freeway facility and replace bridges and approaches; and, WHEREAS, the OUTSIDE ENTITY has requested that the STATE allow the OUTSIDE ENTITY to participate in said improvement by funding that portion of the improvement described as The construction of Color-Texturized Concrete Curbs as shown in Exhibit A , hereinafter called the "PROJECT"; and, WHEREAS, on the __ day of 2000 ., the passed Resolution No. , attached hereto and identified as Exhibit B, authorizing the OUTSIDE ENTITY's participation in the development and construction of the PROJECT; and, WHEREAS, the STATE has determined that such participation is in the best interest of the citizens of the State; AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual convenants and agreements of the parties hereto, to be by them respectively kept and performed as hereinafter set forth, the STATE and the OUTSIDE ENTITY do agree as follows. Page 1 of 4 Article 1. Time Period Covered This agreement becomes effective when signed by the last party whose signing makes the agreement fully executed, and the STATE and the OUTSIDE ENTITY will consider it to be in full force and effect until the PROJECT described herein has been completed and accepted by all parties or unless terminated, as hereinafter provided. Article 2. Project Funding The STATE will authorize the performance of only those PROJECT items of work which the OUTSIDE ENTITY has requested and has agreed to pay for as described in Payment Provision and Work Responsibilities, Attachment A, which is attached to and made a part of this contract. In addition to identifying those items of work paid for by payments to the STATE, Attachment A, Payment Provision and Work Responsibilities, also specifies those PROJECT items of work that are the responsibility of the OUTSIDE ENTITY and will be carried out and completed by the OUTSIDE ENTITY, at no cost to the STATE. Article 3. Termination This agreement may be terminated in the following manner: · by mutual written agreement and consent of both parties · by either party upon the failure of the other party to fulfill the obligations set forth herein · by the STATE if it determines that the performance of the PROJECT is not in the best interests of the STATE. If the contract is terminated in accordance with the above provisions, the OUTSIDE ENTITY will be responsible for the payment of PROJECT costs incurred by the STATE on behalf of the OUTSIDE ENTITY up to the time of termination. Article 4. Right of Access If the OUTSIDE ENTITY is the owner of any part of the PROJECT site, the OUTSIDE ENTITY shall permit the STATE or its authorized representative access to the site to perform any activities required to execute the work. The OUTS[DE ENTITY will provide for all necessary right-of-way and utility adjustments needed for performance of the work on sites not owned or to be acquired by the STATE. Article 5. Responsibilities of the Parties The OUTSIDE ENTITY acknowledges that while it is not an agent, servant, nor employee of the STATE. it is responsible for its own acts and deeds and for those of its agents or employees during the performance of the work on the PROJECT. Page 2 of 4 Article 6. Sole Agreement In the event the terms of the agreement are in conflict with the provisions of any other existing agreements between the local OUTSIDE ENTITY and the. STATE, the latest agreement shall take precedence over the other agreements in matters related to the PROJECT. Article 7. Successors and Assigns The STATE and the OUTSIDE ENTITY each binds itself, its successors, executors, assigns, and administrators to the other party to this agreement and to the successors, executors, assigns, and administrators of such other party in respect to all covenants of this agreement. Article 8. Amendments By mutual written consent of the parties, this contract may be amended prior to the expiration of this contract. Article 9. Interest The STATE will not pay interest on funds provided by the OUTSIDE ENTITY. Funds provided by the OUTSIDE ENTITY will be deposited into, and retained in, the STATE Treasury. Article 10. Inspection and Conduct of Work Unless otherwise specifically stated in Attachment A, Payment Provision and Work Responsibilities, to this contract, the STATE will supervise and inspect all work performed hereunder and provide such engineering inspection and testing services as may be required to ensure that the construction is accomplished in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. All correspondence and instructions to the contractor performing the work will be the sole responsibility of the STATE. Unless otherwise specifically stated in Attachment A to this contract, all work will be performed in accordance with the "Standard Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets, and Bridges" adopted by the STATE and incorporated herein by reference, or special specifications approved by the STATE. Article 11. Increased Costs In the event it is determined that the funding provided by the OUTSIDE ENTITY will be insufficient to cover the STATE's cost for performance of the OUTSIDE ENT1TY's requested work, the OUTSIDE ENTITY will pay to the STATE the additional funding necessary to cover the anticipated additional cost. The STATE shall send the OUTSIDE ENTITY a written notification stating the amount of additional funding needed and stating the reasons for the needed additional funds. The OUTSIDE ENTITY shall pay the funds to the STATE within 30 days of the written notification, unless otherwise agreed to by all parties to this agreement. If the OUTSIDE ENTITY cannot pay the additional funds, this contract shall be mutually terminated in accord with Article 3 - Termination. If this is a fixed price agreement as specified in Attachment A, Payment Provision and Work Responsibilities, this provision shall only apply in the event changed site conditions are discovered or as mutually agreed upon by the STATE and the OUTSIDE ENTITY. Page 3 of 4 Article 12. Signatory Warranty The signatories to this agreement warrant that each has the authority to enter into this agreement on behalf of the entity they represent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE STATE AND THE OUTSIDE ENTITY have executed duplicate counterparts to effectuate this agreement. THE STATE OF TEXAS Certified as being executed for the purpose and effect of activating and/or carrying out the orders, established policies, or work programs heretofore approved and authorized by the Texas Transportation Commission. By Date Jay R. Nelson, PE, District Engineer THE OUTSIDE ENTITY Name of the OUTSIDE ENTITY City of Denton By Date Jerry Clark. PE, Director of Engineering an Transportation ATTEST: By D~e For the purpose of this agreement, the addresses of record for each party shall be: THE OUTSIDE ENTITY: Jerry Clark, PE Director of Engineering and Transportation The City of Denton City Hall West 221 N. Elm Denton, TX 76201 THE STATE OF TEXAS Claud P. Elsom Ill, PE Area Engineer Denton County 2624 West Prairie Denton, TX 76201 Page 4 of 4 County: Highway: CS J: Project Number: Denton 1/-I 35 E 0195-03-047, etc. BR 98 (453) Attachment A Payment Provision and Work Responsibilities 1. Description of the Cost of the Items of Work The State shall be responsible for widening the existing Freeway facility and replace the bridges and approaches. The City of Denton shall be responsible for the additional costs incurred for miscellaneous curb construction; i.e. color-texturized concrete curb construction. These costs are itemized in Attachment B, which is made a part of this Agreement. 2. Schedule of Payment Upon final execution of this agreement by the STATE, the OUTSIDE ENTITY shall present a check or warrant made payable to the "Texas Department of Transportation" in the amount of S ~ which includes the cost construction engineering and contingencies. in the event the funding provided by the OUTSIDE ENTITY 'is insufficient to cover the OUTSIDE ENTITY's portion of the PROJECT construction cost'as established hereinabove, the OUTSIDE ENTITY will within thirty (30) days from receipt of the STATE's written notification provide the additional construction funding to fully cover that portion of the OUTSIDE ENTITY's construction participation. 3. Actual Cost Agreement The OUTSIDE ENTITY shall be responsible for the costs associated with right-of-way acquisition. utility adjustments, preliminary engineering and plan preparation, and construction. Upon completion and acceptance of the services established herein, the STATE will prepare a final audit of all costs for which it has incurred. Upon completion of the audit, any remaining funds due the OUTSIDE ENTITY will be promptly returned. Page 1 of 1 X On State System On Principal Arterial Street System (Pass) Off State System County: City: CS J: Project Number: Limits: ATTACHMENT "B" Estimated Cost Breakdown 100% City Funded Estimated quantity Unit Price Construction Cost = 639.00 m3 = $ 40.00/m3 = $ 25,560.00 Denton Denton 0195-03-048 BR 98 (453) At Overpass of US 377 Page I of 1 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET April 4, 2000 Fiscal and Municipal Services Kathy DuBose, Assistant City Manager Fiscal and Municipal Services Agenda No .... Aoenda Item SUBJECT Consider approval of an Ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas amending Ordinance 99-298 providing for thc schedule of miscellaneous fees, deposits, billings and procedures for administrative services to City customers and taxpayers contained in Ordinance No. 98-265, to increase insufficient fund check handling charge; providing for a repealer; providing for a severability clause; and providing for an effective date. BACKGROUND The standard amount charged for handling insufficient checks by retail businesses and financial institutions is $25.00 per returned check. This charge is based on the additional collection and processing activities required by staff for each insufficient check transaction. The City receives and handles approximately 400 insufficient checks per year. The amount of time and effort required by City staffin processing these checks is costly. RECOMMENDATION In order to recover more of the costs associated with these efforts, staffrecommends that thc fee be increased to the industry standard of $25.00. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council~ Boards, Commissions) The $15.00 insufficient check fee was established in 1993 (ordinance #93-164). FISCAL INFORMATION The increase in this charge will help offset the costs incurred for processing insufficient check items (approximately $4,000 annually). Respgctfully submitted: ~ tgl~ia~a 0rtiz Director of Fiscal Operations S:\Our Documents\Ordinances\00~Insufficeint Fund handling charge.doe ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AMENDING ORDINANCE 99-298 PROVIDING FOR THE SCHEDULE OF MISCELLANEOUS FEES, DEPOSITS, BILLINGS AND PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES TO CITY CUSTOMERS AND TAXPAYERS CONTAINED IN ORDINANCE NO. 98-265, TO INCREASE INSUFFICIENT FUND CHECK HANDLING CHARGE; PROVIDING FOR A REPEALER; PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the fee for handling checks for insufficient funds have not been increased in several years and the standard fee generally is $25.00; and WHEREAS, the city council finds that the recommended increase is warranted; NOW THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That Ordinance No. 99-298 is hereby amended as to the Insufficient Fund Check Handling Charge on page 4 of the schedule of fees and charges for general utility services as generally provided for in Chapter 26 of the Code of Ordinances; and for services to other City of Denton customers and taxpayers, to read as follows: INSUFFICIENT FUND CHECK HANDLING CHARGE · APPLICATION Applicable when a customer's or taxpayer's check for payment of fees, fines, court costs, taxes, utilities, or other charges has been dishonored by the maker's bank and returned to the City of Denton unpaid. FEE Per Check $25.00 SECTION 2. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in force when the provisions of this ordinance became effective which are inconsistent, or in conflict with the terms or provisions contained in this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of any such conflict. SECTION 3. That if any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or word in this ordinance, or application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance, and the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, hereby declares it would have enacted such remaining portions despite any such invalidity. SECTION 4. That a copy of this ordinance shall be attached to Ordinance 99-298 showing the amendment herein approved. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall become effective, charged, and applied to all services occurring on and after May 1, 2000; and a copy of said fees and charges shall be maintained on file in the office of the City Secretary. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2000. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY By: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY Page 2 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AgendaNo,. Aoenda item AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: April 4, 2000 Fiscal and Municipal Services Kathy DuBose, Assistant City Manager, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT Consider approval of a resolution relating to the issuance of obligations by North Texas Higher Education Authority, Inc.; approving the issuance of such obligations and the use of the proceeds of such obligations. BACKGROUND North Texas Higher Education Authority, Inc. (NTHEA) is required by law to obtain approval from its sponsoring cities for issuances of debt to finance its student loan secondary market program activities. The Authority last came to you for approval of its $40.815 million issuance of tax-exempted bonds in April 1998. Those funds have been utilized by NTHEA. The Authority seeks the City's approval for the issuance of student loan revenue bonds in the amount of $155,000,000 made up of $67,580,000 in refunding bonds to refund bonds maturing under the Authority's series 1993 and 1991 bond issues. The remainder of the $155,000,000 will be made up of additional bonds to be issued by the Authority over the next two to three years. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions) NTHEA, Inc. has approved the issuance of student loan tax-exempt bonds at a teleconference meeting on March 27, 2000. FISCAL INFORMATION $155 million of Student Loan Revenue Bonds. Respectfully submitted: Assistant Director of Management and Budget MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor and Council City of Denton North Texas Higher Education Authority, Inc. March 29, 2000 Request for Approval for Issuance of Tax-Exempt Student Loan Revenue Bonds in the Amount of $155,000,000 As you know, the North Texas Higher Education Authority, Inc. (NTHEA) is required by law to obtain approval from its sponsoring cities for issuances of debt to finance its student loan secondary market program activities. The Authority last came to you for approval of its $40.815 million issuance of tax-exempt bonds in April 1998. Those funds have been utilized by NTHEA, together with recycled principal from existing bond issues over the past 24 months to acquire student loans from its participating lenders; and therefore, the Authority is in need of additional financing. The Student Loan Revenue Bonds in the amount of $155,000,000 consist of Series 2000, which is made up of $67,580,000 in refunding bonds to refund bonds maturing under the Authority's Series' 1993 and 1991 bond issues. By refunding these maturing bonds, NTHEA can preserve favorable tax treatment and yield computation for the loans acquired with the refunded proceeds. It is for this issuance in student loan revenue bonds and the possible issuance of additional bonds over the next two years that the Authority seeks the City's approval. The remainder of the $155,000,000 will be made up of additional bonds to be issued by the Authority over the next two to three years. It is anticipated that the Authority may receive allocations of the State volume cap in the fall of 2000 Cities.app and 2002, each in the amount of $35,000,000. These amounts, together with other refunding of future maturities of its existing bonds make up the requested amount. Proceeds of the bonds will be used to purchase student or parent loans which are guaranteed under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended; refunding outstanding obligations of the Authority, and setting aside an amount the Authority deems necessary for a reserve and for operating costs and paying the cost of issuing such obligations in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas, including Chapter 53, Texas Education Code and Section 144 of the Internal Revenue Code. Adoption of this resolution by the City Council will not obligate the City of Denton to pay the principal and interest on the bonds, notes or obligations proposed to be issued by the Authority. Payment of the principal and interest on the bonds, notes or obligations is the sole responsibility of the Authority. The attached summary will provide you with details of the Authority's historical financing activities. Also, you may be interested to know that to date, NTHEA has acquired approximately 306,000 loans aggregating $980 million, of which approximately 127,500 loans aggregating $481.5 million is currently outstanding. The Authority's default rate of 5.17% is half the national average of 11%. As always, the City's support is gratefully acknowledged. NTHEA is proud to be in the sponsorship of a council who believes strongly in its stated purpose of providing students access to financial assistance for higher education. Should you have any questions or require further information, please contact: Kathryn Bryan, Assistant Secretary North Texas Higher Education Authority, Inc. 1250 East Copeland Road, Suite 200 Arlington, TX 76011-4921 (817) 265-9158 Cities.app Thank you again for your interest and support of the program. Enclosure -2- Cities.app NORTH TEXAS HIGHER EDUCATION AUTHORITY, INC. FINANCING ACTIVITIES 1979-March 1, 2000 Tax-Exempt Financings: Date Type Amount Purpose Current Outstanding Balance Credit Provider 1979 Series A 1980 Series B 1982 Series A 1982 Series B 1983 Series A&B 1985 Series A 1987 Series 1987 1990 Series 1990 1991 Series 1991A-F $10,000,000 6,000,000 11,845,000 25,000,000 50,000,000 23,100,000 98,000,000 50,000,000 153,500,000 1991 Series 1991G 90,000,000 1993 Series 1993 A-D 140,000,000 1996 Series 1996 A-D 1998 Series 1998 Total Tax Exempt Financings 43,000,000 40,815,000 $700,445,000 New Loan Purchases New Loan Purchases Refund Series A&B New Loan Purchases New Loan Purchases Refund 1982B Refinance Loans Held Under Line of Credit Refinance Loans Held Under Line of Credit Refinance West Texas Debt and Provide for New Loan Purchases Refinance West Texas Debt Refinance 1991 G Provide for New Loan Purchases New Loan Purchases New Loan Purchases/Refund Portion of 1993 B 87,750,000 41,000,000 99,500,000 125,730,000 43,000,000 40,815,000 $437,795,000 None None AMBAC AMBAC AMBAC AMBAC Fuji Bank Sallie Mae AMBAC/ Sallie Mae Mitsubishi Sallie Mae AMBAC Bank of America Taxable Financings: Date Type Amount Purpose Current Outstanding Balance Credit Provider 1986 Line of Credit $ 90,000,000 1989 Line of Credk 100,000,000 1990 Line of Credit 50,000,000 1995 Four-year 25,000,000 Advance 1996 Line of Credit 50,000,000 Total Taxable Financings $ 315,000,000 New Loan Pumhases and to Refinance Loans Held Under Series 1983A and 1983B New Loan Purchases Interim Financing of Loans for 1990 Bonds New Loan Purchases New Loan Purchases 50,000,000 50,000,000 $100,000,000 Fuji Bank Sallie Mae Bank One Sallie Mae Bank of America FINAN98.DOC \\CH-LGL\VOLl\shared\dept\LGL\Our DocumentsXResolutions\00\North Texas Higher Education.doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF OBLIGATIONS BY NORTH TEXAS HIGHER EDUCATION AUTHORITY, INC.; APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH OBLIGATIONS AND THE USE OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH OBLIGATIONS; AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the North Texas Higher Education Authority, Inc. (the "Authority") was established as a non-profit corporation, pursuant to the Texas Non-Profit Corpo[ation Act, for the purpose of furthering educational opportunities of students by providing funds for the acquisition of student loans; and WHEREAS, the Authority has Proceeded in the development of a plan of finance and has issued student loan revenue bonds for the aforesaid purposes; and additional funds are needed to continue the program, and it is now appropriate for this governing body to approve the issuance of additional bonds for such purpose; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(0 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("Code") a public heating was conducted on I~larch 27 ., 2000 following reasonable public notice, with respect to the issuance of student loan revenue bonds by the Authority (the "New Tax-Exempt Bonds"); and WHEREAS, certified minutes of the proceedings from said hearing have been submitted to the City of Denton ("City"); and WHEREAS, in order to satisfy requirements of the Code and the Texas Education Code, it is necessary for the City, following the holding of a public hearing, to approve the issuance of the New Tax-Exempt Bonds; NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1: That the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, hereby grants its approval to the North Texas Higher Education Authority, Inc. to issue and deliver student loan revenue bonds, notes or other obligations, in one or more series in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $155,000,000, for the purposes of obtaining funds to purchase student or parent loan notes which are guaranteed under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended; refunding outstanding obligations of the Authority; and setting aside the amount the Authority determines is necessary for a reserve and for operating costs and paying the cost of issuing such obligations in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas, including Chapter 53, Texas Education Code, and if applicable, Chapter 1207, Texas Government Code, and Section 144 of the Code. SECTION 2: Further, the Mayor and City Secretary of the City of Denton, Texas are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Approval Certificate, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A", and to deliver certified copies of this resolution and the Approval Certificate to the Authority. SECTION 3: The City of Denton, Texas requests that the Authority exercise the powers enumerated and provided for in Section 53.47, Texas Education Code, as amended, and that such non-profit corporation shall, in this connection, exercise such powers for and on behalf of the City of Denton, Texas and the State of Texas, as contemplated by Section 53.47(c), Texas Education Code, as amended. SECTION 4: The City of Denton, Texas does not agree to assume any responsibility in connection with the administration of the Authority's student loan program. Sole responsibility for the administration of the Authority's student loan program is assumed by the Authority. SECTION 5: Further, it is recognized by the City of Denton, Texas that the instruments which authorize the issuance of bonds, notes, or obligations by the Authority. will specifically state that the City of Denton, Texas is not obligated to pay the principal of or interest on the bonds, notes, or obligations proposed to be issued by the Authority. Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an indication by the City of Denton, Texas that it will pay or provide for the payment of any obligations of the said Authority whether theretofore or hereafter incurred; and in this connection, attention is called to the Constitution of the State of Texas, wherein it is provided that a city may incur no indebtedness without having made provisions for its payment, and the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas hereby specifically refuses to set aside any present or future funds, assets or money for the payment of any indebtedness or obligation of the Authority. SECTION 6: It is hereby officially found and determined that the meeting at which this resolution is passed is open to the public, as required by law, and that public notice of the time, place and purpose of said meeting was posted, as required by law. SECTION 7: That this resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2000. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY JACK MILLER, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY ~XIilBI T A APPROVAL CERTIFICATE I, 1ack Miller, am tho duly elected Mayor ofth~ City of Dc~ton, Tcoms, Texas (~h¢ "C'r~Y'~, and as such am the applicablc ;Ic~tod representative of tho City pur~mnt tO § 147(f)(2)(B) of thc Int~rnnl l~wenu~ Code of 1986, as amcnflcd. A public homing was conducw, d regarding thc issuance of bonds "Boa&'9 by tho North Texas Higher Ed-caion Authority, Inc. (the' "Authoriiy") 'and the utili~zzion of substantially all the proccods of such Bonds for tho purposes of(l) pur~.h~sing student 10an notes, (2) rcfunding outstanding obligations ortho Authority, (9) s=ti;%o aside certain funds for tho payment and security of the Bonds, and (4) paying certain oxpcasez in connccfion with issuance of the Bonds, as provided and limited by the Internal l~venuo Code of 1986, as amcnded, and tho Texas Education Code, as amended. Student loan notes are heros executed by studcnts (or parcnts of stud~,s) who are residents of tho State of Texas or who ' have bc~u admitted to an "accredited institution" in tho l~ti!_n of Texas (as dcfincd in lhe Texas Eduction Code). A copy of tho report of such heari~ is ~ hereto as Schcclulo 1. As tile applicable elecrm rcpr~emafiv¢ of tho City, I I~reby spcciflcaily approve thc Bouds described above and thc uso of the procccds of such Bonds for tho purposes stated above. SIGNED AND SEALED th~ ~, day of ,2000. Mayor, City of DenWn, Texas (SEAL) ATIIiST: City Scorotary, City of DcnWn, Texas citydellrcs, wpd I CERTIFICATE OF SECRF. TARY THE STATE OF TEXAs COUNTY OF DENTON CITY OF DENTON I, ~h~ undersigned. Secretary of thc City of Denton, Texas do hereby certify the following: I. "On thc _ day o£ = , 2000, tim City Coun~ ofth¢ City of Denton, T~as convened in regular session a~ its regular meeting place in CRv Hal J, with ibc duly c0nstitut~ members o£the City Cotmcil being ~ follows: Jack Millor Rent Beasley Carl Young Nell Durcan~ Mike Cochnm Sandy KdsWf~rson Mark Burrougi~ Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Council Mcunber, District 1 Council Member, D/strict 2 Council Member, Di~rict 3 Council Member, District 4 Council l~nbcr, At Large and all Council Members wow present at said meeting, ~eept tho following:, · Among other bus/ness considcr~xi at said n~¢ting, tho attached resolution, entitled: A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY.COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON RELATING TO ISSUANCE OF OBLIGATIONS BY THE NORTH TEXAS HIGHER EDUCATION AUTHORITY, INC.; APPROVING TI {E, ISSUANCE OF SUCH OBLIGATIONS AND THE USE OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH OBLIGATIONS; AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH vms introduced and submitted to the Council for approval and passage. After pres~tafion and due consideration oF tho resolution, and upon a motion by , se~conded by , the resolnfion was duly passed and adopted by the City Council, to bo inunediatcly, by tho following vote: vount "For" ~ verdi "A~ainst" ~ abstained all as stat~ ia the ofliciul Mhmtes of thc City Council forths meeting held on tho aforesaid date." 2. The a"~ched resolution is a tru~ a~d corwc~ copy of the orig/nal resolution on file in the ofllclal records oFtho City oFDenton, Texas. Tho duly quali~cd and acfin{~ mcrnb~rs o/'thc City Council oi' City of Denton, Texas, on the dale of the aforesaid Counci! mcct/ng are tlwse persons above ,~mmcd; and . according to th~ records of my office, ¢~.¢h meanber of the City Council was given advance notice of the time, ~ity&u~e~.wl~t I pla~ and purposo of the meeting, and th.~_~ said mooting and doliboiallon of tho aforcsaid public business was open to the public, and writt~ notice o£ said mooting, including thc subject of thc tmOJed re, solution, was postcd and givo~ in advance thcmof, in compliance with tho provisions of Chapter 551, Tcxas Oovcmmont · i~ WITNESS TIIHREOF, I imw hermmto signod my namo officially and affixcd tho seal of said City, ~s tho_., day of ,2000. City of Donton, Toxas (Seal) citydcnr~q.wl~d 2 MRR-31-O0 FRI 01:22 PH HESC F~× NO, 817 792 7879 P, 02 MINUTES OF THE I1EARING OF NORTH TEXAS HIGHER EDUCATION AUTHORITY, INC. The public hearing for file purpose of hearing from interested members of the p~bli¢ concerning the proposed issuance of obligations by North Texas Higher Education Authority, Inc. (the "Bonds") a~d thc utilization of substantially all the proceeds of the Bonds by the North Texas Higher Education Authority, Inc. for the purposes of (1) purchasing student loan notes, (2) refunding outstanding obligatio,~s of thc Authority, (3) setting aside certain funds for the payment and security of the Bonds, and (4) paying certain expenses in connection with issuance of the Bonds, as provided and limited by the Intcn~al Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Texas Eduoatlon Code, as amended, was opened at 10:00 o'clock a.m. on March 27, 2000. The undersigned requested all persons who desired to speak either for or against the iss~:arlce of the obligations to so indicate by raising their hands. The following persons present at the hearing so indicated: None Following such comments, the undersigned then announced that the hearing was closed. Title: Assistant Secretary denres.doc AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda No. __0 0 Agenda Item_ ,-~_s'- Date ~'-- ~- o 0 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: April4,2000 Planning Department ~ David Hi11,349-8314 SUBJECT - Z-99-083:(1508 NElm) Hold a public hearing and consider the rezoning of approximately 0.24 acres, commonly known as 1504, 1506 and 1508 N. Elm, from an Office (O) zoning district to a Planned Development (PD) zoning district. The Detailed plan proposal is to allow office and multifamily uses on the property. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0) with conditions. BACKGROUND The applicant has requested to rezone this property to have the ability to utilize the existing structures for residential or office uses. The subject property is located in an Office (O) zoning district created in 1969 by Ordinance 69-01. Prior to that time, the three structures on the site were used for single-family houses. Recently, the eastern most unit was utilized for an office and thereby lost its non-conforming use (the residential use). The owners of the property would like the ability to utilize the site for both residential and office use. The surrounding neighborhood is a mixture of single- family residential, offices, single-family houses that have been converted to offices and multi-family residential. A Planned Development (PD) is the only zoning classification that will allow for both office and residential uses on the same property. The proposed development is consistent with the 1999 - 2020 Comprehensive Plan (see Attachment 1 - Comprehensive Plan Analysis section). Thirteen (13) property owners were notified of the zoning request. There have been a total of five (5) responses, 3 in favor, 1 neutral and 1 opposed. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology ofZ-99-083, commonly known as 1508 N. Elm: January 26, 2000 - P&Z Date. March 7, 2000 - Waiver from the residential interim regulations granted by City Council. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE No new development is proposed. FISCAL INFORMATION No new development is proposed and the re-zoning of this property will have no effect on the assessed value of the city, county, and school district. P&Z SUGGESTED RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0) of this zoning request with the following conditions: 1. The permitted land uses are restricted to those described in the list attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, and allow land uses permitted with a Specific Use Permit in an Office (O) zoning district. 2. For the purposes of this ordinance Exhibit B shall constitute the Detailed Plan. 3. Any new lighting on the property should be designed and maintained so as not to shine on or otherwise disturb, surrounding residential property or to shine and project upward to prevent the diffusion into the night sky. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Approve with conditions. 3. Deny. 4. Postpone consideration. 5. Table item. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning and Zoning Commission Report, January 26, 2000, Z-99-083. 2. Planning and Zoning Commission minutes from January 26, 2000. 3. Draft Ordinance. Respectfully submitted: Assistant Director of Planning and Development Prepared by: '"Lar~ l~ichhart '~ Assistant Planning Director LANNING AND ZON SSI,ON STAFF REPORT Sub|ect: 1504 - 1508 N. Elm .Staff: Larry Reichhart, Development Review Manager Case Number: Z-99-083 Agenda Date: January 26, 2000 Hold a public hearing to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding the rezoning of approximately 0.24 acres, commonly known as 1504, 1506 and 1508 N. Elm, from a Office (O) zoning district to a Planned Development (PD) zoning district. The proposal is to allow office and residential uses on the property. Location: Size: LOCATION MAP 1504-1508 N. Elm Approximately 0.24 acres Rlename Applicant: City of Denton Owner: John Hoeffier 215 E. Mckinney Denton, TX 76201 Planned development zoning districts (PD) are intended to provide forthe development of land as an integral unit for single or mixed use in accordance with a plan that may vary from the established regulations of other zoning districts forsimilarland uses. They are also meant to encourage flexible. and creative planning to ensure the compatibility of land uses, to allow for the adjustment of changing demands to meet the current needs of the community, and to provide for a development that is superior to what could be accomplished in other zoning districts by meeting one or more of the following purposes: (1) Provides for the design of lots or building; increased recreation, common or open space for private or public use; berms, greenbelts, trees, shrubs or other landscaping features; parking areas, street design or access; or other development plans, amenities or features that would be of special benefit to the property users.or:c, ommunity; (2) Protects or preserves topographical featu'res, such as trees, creeks, ponds, floodplains, slopes or hills; or (3) Protects or preserves existing historical buildings, structures, features or places. There are three (3) types of plans that maY be used in'th'e Planned development process; conCepl plan, development plan and detailed plan. CONCEPT PLAN - This plan is intended to be the first step in the PD process for larger or long term developments. It establishes the most general guidelines, identifying the land use types, approximate thoroughfare locations within the boundaries of the district. DEVELOPMENT PLAN - This plan is intended to be used most often as a second step in the PD process. It includes the same information that is provided on the concept plan, plus details as to the specific}and Uses and their boundaries. DETAILED PLAN - This plan is the final step in the process and is required prior to any development. For smaller tracts or where final development plans are otherwise known prior to rezoning, the detailed plan may be used to establish the district and be the only required plan in the planned development process. It will contain information specific to the Site. All detailed plans should be in substantial compliance with landscape, sign, subdivision and other regulations of the Code of Ordinances. When concessions from these regulations are requested by a developer, there needs to be corresponding benefits that merit deviation from those regulations. Filename ' ' The subject property was placed in Office (O) zoning district and land use classificatiOn in 1969 by Ordinance 69-01 (see Enclosure 3). Prior to that time, the three structures on the site were used as single-family houses. Recently, the renter of the eastern most unit asked the owners of the propertY'if she could use the unit for her office. NOt knowing that the'existing non-conforming use (the residential use) woUld no longer be allOwed after the Unit was utilized aS an office for more than six months, the owners of the property agreed. The owners of the property would like the ability to utilize the site for both residential and office use. The surrounding neighborhood is a mixture of single-family residential, offices, single-family houses that have been converted to offices and multi-family residential. A Planned Development (PD) is the only zoning classification that will allow for both office and residential uses on the same property. 1999-2020 Comprehensive Plan Analysis The Comprehensive Plan identifies this property to be within the "Downtown University Core District. (see Enclosure 2). This area is intended to haye a mix of educabonal, residential, retail, office, service, government, cultural and entertainment development. It is a place where residents can live, work, learn and play in the same neighborhood. Staff finds the request to be cOnsiStent with the Comprehensive Plan. I. Transportation A. Trip generation The property is currently zoned Office (O). Assuming 40% lot coverage the potential total trips generated would be approximately 63 trips per day. Utilizing the three structures as offices (assuming 1,000 sfper structure) would generate up to 45 trips per day. As single-family the three units would generate approximately 29 tdps per day. Table 1. Proposed Land Use Trip Generation Land Use : Average Trip Maximum Buildout Total Daily Trip Generation Generation Single-Family 9.55 trips/day/unit x 3 homes 28.7 (Detached) Office 15 trips/da~ll000 sf x 3,000 s~uare feet 45 Note: Proposed Average Trip Generations provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991. B. Access Existing access is on N. Elm. Filename Utilities This site has access to existing water and sanitary sewer lines (see Enclosure 4): Drainage and Topography No new development is proposed at this time. New development will be ~required to design and constrUct a ;drainage system to city standards. A preliminary drainage study will be required' with the submission of a preliminary plat. The study must include calCulations of the 100-year storm for all drainage areas on this property and any area that drains towards this property. The developer must indicate the method by which the run-off will be carried across the property or stored on the property. Signs As per the sign ordinance. Off-Street Parking New development must provide parking according to the ?gulations of Chapter 35 (35-301) of the Code of Ordinances. - '"'" 6. Landscaping New development will have to comply with the new Landscape Code, which requires fifteen (15) trees per acre and twenty (20) percent of all surfaces to remain pervious (plantable area). Open Space and Recreational Areas New residential development will be required to participate in the development of public recreational areas. Through the Park Dedication Ordinance (98-039), this development will contribute to park land dedication and park development fees. Dedication requirements are required during the platting process. Park development fees are required prior to the issuance of building permits. ge Lighting Any new non-residentia! lighting on the property should be designed and maintained so as not to shine on or otherwise disturb, surrounding residential property or to shine and Project upward to prevent the diffusion into the night sky. Environmental Quality impacts No negative environmental impacts have been identified. Filename · January '14, '1~)69 - The subject property was placed in the Office (O) zoning district and land use classification by Ordinance 69-01. The subject property is platted. Notice of the zoning request was published in the Denton Record-Chronicle on Sunday January 16, 2000. Thirteen (13) property owners within two hundred feet were mailed legal notices and eighty-two (82) residents within five hundred feet were sent courtesy notices informing them of the request (see Enclosure 5). As of this writing, there have been no responses. The use of the existing structures for both office and residential' uses is consistent with the 1999 - 2020 Comprehensive Plan and with the existing Surrounding land uses. As only the uses of the existing structures are changing and no new construction is proposed at this time, the existing site conditions as identified in Enclosure 1 shall constitute the Detailed Plan. As with any Planned Development, any future alterations to'the site or structures would require a new detailed plan and a new series of public hearings, therefore: Staff recommends approval of Z-99-083 with the following conditions: 1. The documentation of the existing development on the property shall constitute'a Detailed Plan. 2. Uses shall be limited to those of the Office (O) zoning district plus Multi-family dwelling -1 (MF- 1) zoning district. 3. Any new non-residential lighting on the property should be designed and maintained so as not to shine on or ,otherwise disturb, surrounding residential property or to shine and project upward to prevent the diffusion into the night sky. I move to recommend approval of Z-99-083 with the following conditions: 1. The documentation of the existing development on the property shall constitute a Detailed Plan. 2. Uses shall be limited to those of the Office (O) zoning district plus Multi-family dwelling -1 (MF-1) zoning district. 3. Any new non-residential lighting on the property should be designed and maintained ~o as not to shine on or otherwise disturb, surrounding residential property or to shine and project upward to prevent the diffusion into the night sky. Rlenarne 1. Recommend approval as submitted. 2. Recommend approval with conditions. 3. Recommend denial. 4. Postpone consideration. 5. Table item. 1. Land Use Map 2. Existing Site Conditions (Photos) 3. Zoning Map 4. Utility Map 5. Notification Map 6. Draft Ordinance Filename EnClosure ".-99-083 (1504- 1508 N. Elm) NORTH Downtown University Corn LAND USE MAP Agenda Date: January 26 2000 Scale: None Z-99-083 (17)b8 NOrth EIm)_PHOTOS Photo 1. A view of the subject property from the northwest. Photo 2. The property as seen from the southwest. Photo 3. The property as seen from the southeast. Photo 4. The property as seen from the northeast. Photo 5. The property as seen from North Elm Street. Photo 6. The property as seen from the rear. ENCLOSURE 3 ' ' Z-99-083 (1504- 1508 N. Elm) NORTH :ZONING MAP Agenda Date: January 26, 2000 Scale: None 11 .i ~ . ~ENcLOSURE4 Z-99-083 (1504- 1508 N. Elm) NORT~ UTILITY MAP Hydrants .... Water Line (W. L.) .... Sewer Line (S. L.) Agenda Date: January 26, 2000 Scale: None ENCLOURE5 - Z-99-083 (1504- 1508 N. Elm) NORTH 200'-500' NOTICE MAP Agenda Date: January 26, 2000 Scale: None ORDINANCE NO. ~ENC. LOSURE~6 -' AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FORA CHANGE FROM OFFICE (O) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR 0.24 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 1508 N. ELM; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z-99-083) WHEREAS, the City of Denton, on behalf of John Hoeffier, has applied for a change in zoning for 0.24 acres of land from Office (O) zoning district classification and use designation to · Planned Development (PD) zoning district classification and use designation; and WHEREAS, on January 26, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the requested change in zoning; and WHEREAS, the City Council f'mds that the change in zoning will be in compliance with the 1999 - 2020 Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That the zoning district classification and use designation of the 0~24 acre property described in the legal description attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A is changed from Office (O) zoning di.~ict classification and use designation to Planned Development (PD) zoning district classification and use designation under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, subject to the following conditions: That permitted land uses be restricted to those described in the list attached hereto and . incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit B, and allow land uses permitted with a Specific Use. Permit in an Office (O) zoning district. That for the purposes of this ordinance Exhibit C shall constitute the Detailed Plan. SECTION II. That the City's official zoning map is amended to show the change in zoning district classification. · SECTION III. That any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION IV. That this ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. 14. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __. day of ' ,2000. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY By: ATTACHMENT 2 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 26, 2000 Page 3 of 3 located at the southwest corner of Ryan Road and Teasley Lane. (Z-99-096, Ryan Rd./Teasley Ln., Larry Reichhart) Motion by Elizabeth Gourdie and seconded by Salty Rishel to deny. '*DisCussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 66). " Motion fails 3-4. Susan Apple, Rudy Moreno, Perry McNeill and Carl Williams. Motion by Perry McNeill and seconded by Carl Williams to recommend approval with conditions to City Council. "" Motion fails 2-5. Susan Apple, Elizabeth Gourdie, Rudy Moreno, Perry McNeill and Jim Engelbrecht opposed. Motion by Susan Apple and seconded by Perry McNeill to continue. ~Motion carries 7-0 IIIII I I -' I11111111 I i iiiiir III ......... 11'1 9. Hold a public to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding the rezoning of approximately 0.24 acres, commonly known as 1504, 1506 and 1508 N. Elm, from an Office (O) zoning district to a Planned Development (PD) zoning district. The proposal is to allow office and residential uses on the property. (Z-99-083, 1504-1508 N. Elm, Larry Reichhart) Motion by Susan Apple and seconded by Salty Rishel to recommend apProval with conditions to City Council. · · Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 144). Motion carries 7-0. 10. Hold a public hearing to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding the Detailed Plan encompassing approximately 1,361 acres within a Planned Development (PD-173) zone district. The property, is generally located at the northeast corner of Robson Ranch Road (formerly Crawford Rd.) and Florence Road. A residential development with open space/g01f course and an office site is proposed. (Z-99-102, Robson Ranch, Larry Reichhart) Motion by Perry McNei!l and seconded by Susan Apple to recommend approval with conditions to City Council. ' *Discussion of item is included in CoUrt RePorter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 156). Motion carries 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING - ANNEXATION AND ZONING 11. Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council regarding: The proposed annexation of approximately 18 acres located on the north side of Spencer Road between Woodrow Lane and Loop 288 (A-98, DME Spencer Road Power Plant, Mark Donaldson); and _1 16. CondenseItTM 1 2 3 4 5 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 141 MR. ENGELBRECHT: So do you want to make it two meetings from now? Is that the -- MS. APPLE: I think based on Larry's recommendation that it would be impossible to do it in two. Just to get the and going to week and I know ! have ; I have to go to next week 't be able to this one. SO it might be at ~ even have with staff working just say just t I think that's an important oncems are an MS. APPLE: with the developer, too, the -- I think certainly ' important part of Let continue this : next meeting a just continue it ~ Continue it ~ We · ENGELBRECHT: Yes, 1Vlr. McNeill. if we ; are not MR. MCNEILL: when you said thc second meeting, that's actually a month from now. MIL ENGELBRECHT: Right. That's right. Page 143 I meeting. February 23rd is the two meetings. 2 MR. MCNEILL: February 23rd. 3 MS. APPLE: Let'S continue it to February 23rd 4 to give all parties plenty of time. 5 MR. ENGELBRECHT: All right. There's a motion continue to February 23rd. Is there MR. RISHEL: I would like to second 8 ~-~xIGELBRECHT: okay. ' 9 rd also like t° 10 ~f us 11 about what is 12 possible, as 13 is going to be. 14 handed forth to us that we, 15 have the moratorium in page 142 MR. MCNEILL: SO it's not two Weeks. MR. REICHHART: February 23rd, I think. Fou want to make 16 "commercial." 17 18 second to 19 Discussion? 20 MIL l 21 22 the MS., TWO meetings. now? Right. that the motion? MS. APPLE: meeting and I time. But if MR well, miracles can again and then MIL i Exactly. fact are concerned as much as proposal much of the detail And if we still ' to work with the word ~ne to the next hat that's not enough , in ust -- ~PLE: Oh, I don't know. I'm to move ~ to the firs : which tLqlc "- WC ~ do tllat~ c.~n w~ not7 MR. SNYDER: I think you ought to continue it to a date certain. MS. APPLE: Beg, ause We'Ve done that. MR. pPlC~glHART: February 9th is the next s hearing until The fact that Mr. Rishel, Rishel raises the commercial, the fact that here is not 23 in; ff tho moratorium; is that correct? 24 MIL SNYDER: well, I think'he was pointing to 25 some other language on there, as well. · It would be better if all reference to commercial is taken off of this because thc detailed plan just deals with -- MR. REICHHART: I think if we had space that said future t paws okay. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 think that we may have on this of direction cetera. comments? MS. t certainly 1 all the c the open ;fine. eight or 25 other comments? I staff members' comments g to continue this, then I mt areas of concern that we all parties have some sense property owner, et there any other I'd into account , everyone; and the neighborhood, let those be included in what you're going out. We'll move onto Agenda Item No. 9, hold a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JAP"" "" 26, 2000 17. Page 141 - Page 1, CondonsoItTM 1 2 3 4 5 allow office and residential uses on the property. At 6 this time, I'll open the public hearing and ask Mr. 7 Rdchhart to provide us with a staff report. Sir. 8 Briefly, please. 9 MR. REICHHART: Thank you. In front of US I 10 have the zoning map of the subject site. It is on the 11 east side of Elm Street just south of College. Some of 12 you may recall that it*s a property that has three small 13 cottages on it at present and it is in the Office zoning 14 district. And tonight this is a little bit unique from 15 other things that we've seen before because we are 16 strictly talking the use of tho property. I want to make 17 sure everybody realizes there are no proposed changes to 18 this sit~. 19 The three existing cottages are in an Office 20 zoning district. Had been in there since 1969 and.the 21 structures have been used for residential purposes prior 22 to that. Within the last two years, the farthest 23 eastern-most cottage had been -- was rented out and the 24 25 Page 145 public hearing and consider making a recommendation to th{ City Council regarding the rezening of approximately 0.24 acres commonly known as 1504, 1506, and 1508 North Elm from Office to Planned Development. The proposal is to Page 147 I MR. ENOELBREcHT: HOW many were mailed out'/ 2 'MR. REICHHART: 13 property owners were 3 notified and, as I said, we have tho five responses. 4 Staff is recommending approval of Z-99'083. Wc have thn~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 5 conditions. The documentation of th, existing development 6 on the property shall constitute a detailed plan. And 7 that's really the pho~ographic evidence of the site. 8 Nothlng's being changed. They can't do anything to the 9 sl/e if we approve it as an existing condition. No 10 slgnagc or anything. Usage shall be lknlted to those in 11 the Office zoning district, plus Multi-Family dwelling, 12 Mr-I zoning district. And then any new non-residentia! 13 fighting on thc property should be designed and maintained 14 so as not to shlne on or otherwise disturb surrounding 15 residential property or to sMne and project upward to 16 prevent the diffusion of the night sky. Any questions? 17 ~ ENOEt. Bm~CHT: commissioners? I have two 18 questions, Mr. Reichhart. One is, Condition No. 3, any 19 particular reason why that says "any new non-residentiar'? 20 Why not just any new lighting'/ Any particular reason why 21 that? 22 M~ REICHHART: TO back up a little bit, 23 typically, we don't restrict residential lighting in a person renting the property asked the owners if they could convert that to an office. And they thought that would be Page 146 fine because it's in an Office zoning district. Didn't realize that once it was converted and used as an office for more than six months, it lost its non-conforming, pre-existing, non-conforming status for residential. As long as it was being used for residential, even though it was zoned Office, you could keep using it for residential uses. So when it was converted to an office and then they wanted to go back and now that user left, they wanted to rent it out again, it was -- they found out that they couldn't. The only use for that is as an office. So they're asking for a eD, a Planned Development in order to use both office hnd residential use on the property. There's a copy of the land use map and it's in the yellowish area. I want to make sure -- it's downtown University core district which identified a wide range of uses, mixed uses. So this is very consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, a lot of the mixed 24 residential subdivision. And that's why it says that. 25 It's a standard boilerplate. But because tMs is Page 148 1 mixed-use and it's a zoning request, I think we can just 2 say any new lighting. 3 M~ I~OELBR~CHT: I don't really understand 4 why don't wc restrict it in residential areas. We do from 5 our stxect fights. We do apply that standard to our 6 street lighting in the residential areas. So why would we 7 allow -- you know, I don't understand why we would want to 8 allow a guy to put up a light pole in his backyard that 9 could shine anywhere. So, to me, it just -- I don't 10 understand why the standard doesn't apply to everybody. 11 Anyway. My other question has to do with the 12 issuoofthoappllcant. The City is tho appllcant? 13 M~ ~,Eten~a~T: ~ha City is tho petitioner, 14 correct. 15 MR. ENOELBRECHT: why is that? 16 MR. REICHHART: At tl~ request of council. 17 M~ ENOELBRECHT: okay. uses on the same side. You're familiar with the area. There's Office, there's Multi-Family, there's Single-Family in that general area. I believe we have five letters that we have received. Three are in favor, one is neutral, one is opposed. MR. ENOELBRECHT: The, sc ail within 200 feet? MR. REICHHART: All within the 200 feet. 18 MIL SNYDF, R: I'm sort~. I was reading this 19 next item. ~0 MR. ENGELBRECHT: The question was why is tho 21 City thc applicant in this particular case? That was the 22 question. 23 MR. REICHHART: And I think one of tbe ideas 24 as we go forward with the Comprehensive Plan and that this 25 area has been identified as a mlxed-use area and that PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION l ..... -~.Y 26, 2000 18. Page 145 - Page 148 CondenseltTM Page 149 I residential, I think, has been -- just giving it that 2 Office zoning, that it has lacked that residential flavor 3 is what we really need in the downtown core. And I think 4 that recognition has been made and until we get that new 5 zoning in place, the City has taken the lead on this. 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 " Page 151. [ would approve this so that we may continue residential MR. ENGELBRECHT: commissioners, any questions? Mr. McNeill. MR. MCNEILL: If they allow this person who's MR. ENGELBRECHT: All right. So, in essence, wc have heard from the applicant. That was the other reason I asked that question. MR. mSHEL'. I don't think so .... MS. APPLE: NO. MR. RISHEL: There'S an owner involved. MR. ENGELBRECHT: That may bc but the applicant is the -- the petitioner we've heard from. So at this time, I do have a card from one individual who wishes to speak in support. Mr. Ho~ffier. MR. HOEFFLER: My name is John Heeffier. I 6 rented the third building to open an office there and she 7 rents it or ho rents it for six months, does that mean 8 ' then you can't rent it as a residence after that? 9 MIL HOEFFLER: That's what happened in the 10 past, yes. 11 MR. MCNEILL: well, what happens -- 12 MR. REICHHART: It was non-compliant. 13 MR. ENGELBRECHT: NO, no, that would happen 14 without this. 15 MR. HOEFFLER: There's a non-conforming use. 16 In 1969 when thc City came to City-wide rezone things, live at 3602 Fritz l_zne in Corinth. And my partner and I purchased these properties some years ago and they were in pretty poor condition at that time. We renovated them to be used as residential rental. All thn~ units are one-bedroom, one-bath. They have kitchens and bathrooms and, of course, set up as residential and that was our intent and is our intent to continue that use. We were unaware when we had a tenant that requested she wanted to rent the third house and asked if 17 these were able to continue as residcntial usc as a 18 non-conforming use. 19 MIL MCNEILL: Because they were already in . 20 usc? 21 MR. HOEFFLER: They were already in use and as 22 long as the use is continuous. But when that use stops, 23 then you lose the option to continue that use. And City 24 staff can't look at it and say, well, it really makes 25 sense to leave that residential. They,re bound by your Page 150 1 she could use it as an office. And, sure, we didn't see a 2 problem with that. We were concerned about potential 3 traffic. There was none. It was her and one other 4 person. They had no deliveries to the business, had no 5 signage, but she did apply for a certificate of occupancy 6 and she operated a business there. And we didn't think 7 there was any problem with that because it was zoned 8 Office, as well. We didn't realize the ramifications of 9 it at the time we rented to her that it would not be 10 allowed to remm to a residential use afterwards. 11 And so the reason for this request is to just 12 ' allow this to bc used as -- to be continued as residential 13 use. We have no intention of developing as Offiea or 14 anything else. We intend to maintain homes as they arc 15 there and feel that they're a good alternative to 16 apartment dwelling and have a lot of people that want to 17 live there. 18 Also, at one point, I'm not sure what the 19 current map shows but at one point, this property -- which 20 this is College Street. This property is just to the 21 south of Collage Street and it is in the central business 22 district which, as we've seen downtown usage, it seems 23 that residential, mixed uses are being encouraged. And, I 24 don't know, we just feel that thc residential use there is 2S a positive thing and would like to -- would hope that you I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 1 ordinances to enforce the fact that it has to be Office now. MR. MCNEILL: SO, in essence, this allows for multiple use. It could either be office or resident. Okay. Thank you. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Ally other questions, Commissioners? Thank you, sir. MR. HOEFFLER: Thank you. MR. ENGELBRECHT: IS there anyone else present who would like to speak in favor of this petition? Anyone present to speak in favor of the petition? In that case, is there anyone present to speak in opposition to this petition? Anyone present to SPeak in opposition? .Seeing no opposition, the rebuttal period is waived. The public hearing is closed. Mr. Reiehhat% any final staff remarks? MR. P. EICHHA~T: Thestaff recommends approval with the revised conditions, the residential lighting. MIL ESOELEP, F~ch~r: Mr. Williams. MIL WILLIAMS: I have a question. Am we going to have to do -- and I have to call it what it is and I understand the necessity of this. Are we going to have to continue to do spot zoning with this or is there any way that we can do blanket zoning? MR. REICHHART: I think that will come when lA. TAlly 26, 2000 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 19. Page 149 - Page 152 Cond ns~ItTM I Page 153 1 thc code rewrite is done. I think there will be a blanket 2 possibly throughout the whole City in conjunction with thc 3 Comprehensive Plan. So you're going to see another one of 4 these, exact same thing right around the comer in two $ weeks. So I think until that time, yes, we're going to 6 have to keep doing it piecemeal, but I think there will be 7 an overlay district or something in this area that would '8 allow even more tlian just office and residential. It 9 might Use a little commercial under Certain square 10 footage. So it's coming, I believe. I 1 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. 12 MR. ENGELBRECHT: which, I might interject, we 13 did downtown on the square, I believe, some time back 14 which allowed the apartments and the residential upstairs. 15 And it just probably needs to be extended to a larger 16 area. Mr. Rinhel. 17 MR. RISHEL: I just want to make sure we apply 18 the same consistent hand with the City as the petitioner 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 as we would with any other petition. There's three structures on here; is that correct? MR. REICHHART: Correct. MR. RISHEL: And the three structures sit on .24 acres? MR. REICHHART: con'e~t. Page 155 I their own water and making sure that it sheds in the right 2 direction? 3 MR~ REICHHART: Sure. 4 MR. RISHEL: Thank you, sir. 5 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Are there any other 6 comments? All right. Is there a motion? 7 MS. APPLE: I'm ready to move. 8 MR. E~G~-L~.~CHT: MS. Apple. 9 MS. APPLE: I move to recommend approval of 10 Z-99-083 with the following conditions: Number one, the 11 documentation of the existing development on the property 12 shall constitute a detailed plan. Number two, uses shail 13 be limited to thos~ bf the Office zoning district plus 14 Multi-Family dwelling 1 zoning district. And, three, any 15 new non-residential lighting on the property should be 16 designed and maintained so as not to shine on or otherwise 17 disturb surrounding residential property or to shine and 18 project upward to prevent the diffusion into the night 19 sky, 20 And I want to change -- I want to just make a 21 little -- actually, I want to change No. 3 to, any new 22 lighting on the property should be designed and maintained 23 so as not to shine on or otherwise disturb surrounding 24 residential property or to shine and project upward to MR. RISHEL:' So what is the density that makes 25 Page 154 per va;re and how does that compare with the other things 1 that we have? 2 · MIC REICHHART: 12 units to the acre. 3 MR. RISHEL: 12 units which is consistent with 4 the Denton Plan and the Denton Development Plan? 5 MR. REICHHART: I think within the urban or 6 that downtown core district, it would be under what would 7 8 be allowed, quite honestly. It would be one of our higher 8 9 densities. 9 10 MR. RISHEL: And the traffic count on this 10 11 street is? Has there been a traffic study done here, sir? 11 12' MR. REICHHART: This would not require a . 12 13 traffio study. · · · 13 14 MR. PaSHEL'. And is there park dedication or 14 15 money in lieu of park dedication involved? 15 16 MR. REICHHART: There is no development' 16 17 proposed, so no. 17 18 M~ RISHEL: I see. And it is under a certain 18 19 criteria, amount of acres -- 19 90 MIL REICHHART: Correct. 20 21 MR. RISHEL: -- that represents -: drainage is 121 22 acceptable for us in this particular situation? 122 23 MR. REICHHART: AS there is no development, 23 24 yes. 24 25 MIL RISHEL: Okay. And they're retaining 25 prevent the diffusion into the night sky. .. Page 156 MR. RISHEL: second. MIL ENOELBRECHT: It's b~n moved and seconded to approvo with three conditions. Discussion? Vote, please. Motion carries seven to zero. Thank you. Item No. ~ 1,361 acres within TI~ proper~ Robson Ranch Road, and Florence Road. with open space, goff coUrse, and an office site At this time, ask Mr. Reichhart to provide us with the ~ We am looking at the far southwest portion of What we're looking a¢l'~ and a sales you didn't havc in [ctailed plans that we now havc for I believe is located right in this area of tho proposed ,LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION "'~ kRY 26, 2000 20. Page 153 - Page 156 ORDINANCE NO. ATTACHMENT 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE FROM OFFICE (O) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 182 (PD-182) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR 0.24 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED 'AT 1508 N. ELM; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z-99-083) WHEREAS, John Hoeffier, has applied for a change in zoning for 0.24 acres of land from Office (O) zoning district classification and use designation to Planned Development (PD) zoning district c!assificafio~ and~use designation~ and?'~-~~ :'~ ............ ~.E~AS,.p..n..~anp.arz26, .2000,.3h¢, P!a!)ning and Zoning Commission recommended app~'v~iofflae ~eqUer-~ect;cha~g~ih zOnih~?~:~~ ~:.-:~ ~ ~--: WHERE~s, the City Council finds that the change in zoning will be consistent with the 1999 - 2020 Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OE THE CITY. OF.DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The zoning district classification and use designation of the 0.24 acre property described as Lot 23 Northside Addition, commonly known as 1504, 1506 and 1508 North Elm is changed from Office (O) zoning district classification and use designation to Planned Development 182 (PD-182) zoning district classification and use designation under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, subject to the following conditions: !. The permittedqand-usesare restricted to'those described'in the list attaChed' hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, and allow land uses permitted with a Specific Use Permit in an Office (O) zoning district. 2. The for the purpOSes of this ordinance Exhibit B shall constitute the Detailed Plan. 3. /uay new lighting on the property should be designed and maintained so as not to shine on or Otherwise disturb, Surrounding residential Property or to shine and project upward to prevent the diffusion into the night sky. SECTION 2. The City's official zoning map is amended to show the change in zoning district classification. SECTION 3. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its pasgage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. 21. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2000. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: ~~ 22. ,,MF-I,, Multi Family Dwelling District-I, PERMITTED USES= Primary Residential Uses One Family Dwelling Detached One Family Dwelling Attached Two Family .Dwelling Multip%e Fam%ly Dw_e~ing or Apartment EXHIBIT A 23. "O" Off~ce Distr~ot PERMITTED USES= Primary Residential Uses One Family Dwellin~ Restricted Community unit Development Dormitory, Boarding or Rooming House Hotel or Motel Educational~ Institutional & Special Uses Art Gallery or Museum Church or Rectory College or University or Private School Community Center (Public) Day Nursery or Kindergarten School Group Homes Halfway House Hospital (General Acute Care) Hospital (Chronic.Care) Institutions of Religious or Philanthropic Nature Public Library Monastery or Convent Nursing Home or Residence Home for Aged Occasional Sales Park, Playground or Public Community Center School, Private Primary or Secondary School, Public or Denominational School, Business or Trade Utility~ Accessory and Incidental Uses Accessory Building Community Center (Private) Electrical Substation Electrical Transmission Line Temporary Field or Construction Office (Subject to Approval Control by Building Inspector) Fire Station or similar Public Safety Building Gas Transmission Line and Metering Station Home Occupation Off-Street Parking Incidental to Main Use Off Street Remote Parking Sewage Pumping Station Private. Swimming Pool Telephone, Business Office Telephone Line & Exchange switching or Relay Station Water Reservoir, Water Pumping Station or Well Recreational and Entertainment Uses Country Club (Private) with Golf Course Public Golf Course Public Park or Playground Public Play field or Stadium Swim or Tennis Club Transportation Related Uses Railroad Track or Right-of-Way 24. and ~'0" Office District ¢continued) Retail and Service Type Uses Offices, Professional and Administrative Studio for Photographer, Musician, Artist or Health Agricultural Type Uses Animal Clinic or Hospital (No outside runs or pens) Farm or Ranch PERMITTED USES WITH APPROVED SPECIFIC USE PERMIT: Educational~ Institutional & Special Use~ Cemetery or Mausoleum Fraternity, Sorority, Lodge or Civic Club Home for Care of Alcoholic, Narcotic or Psychiatric Patients Utility. Accessory and Incidental Use~ Public Building, Shop, yard of Local, State or Federal Government Radio and/or Television Microwave Tower Water Treatment Plant Transportation Related Uses Airport Landing Field or Heliport Commercial Parking Lot or Structure Retail and Service Type Uses Cafeteria Mortuary or Funeral Parlor Restaurant Commercial Type Uses Scientific or Research Laboratories YARD REOUIREMENTS: Front Yard: Minimum 25 feet.. Side Yard: No side yard is specified for non-residential use except where a non-residential use abuts upon a district boundary line dividing such districts from a residential district or when the side yard is adjacent to the street, in which event a ten (10) foot side yard shall be provided. Rear Yard= No rear y~ar is specified for non-r¢oidentiul use except where retail, commercial or industrial uses back upon a common district line, whether separated by an alley or not, dividing the district from any of the residential districts, listed, a minimum of ten (10) feet shall be provided. 25. "O't Office District ~contlnued) HEIGHT REGULATIONS= Any legal limit, e~cept as follows: In the districts where the height of buildings is restricted to two (2) or three (3) stories, cooling towers, roof gables, chimneys and vent stacks may extend for additional height not to exceed forty- five(45) feet above the average grade line of the building. Water stand pipes and tanks, church steeples, domes and spires, and school buildings and institutional buildings may be erected to exceed three (3) stories in height in residential areas restricted to two (2) or three (3) stories in height, provided that one additional foot shall be added to the width and depth of side and rear yards for each foot that such structures exceed three (3) stories in height. SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS= 1. Parking (Based on use. 2. Signs 3. Lighting 4. Landscaping 5. Screening and Fencing See Article 34-115.) 26. Exhibit B Z-99-083 (1508 North Elm) PHOTOS '27' i Exhibit B Z-99-083 (1508 North Elm) PHOTOS ~.99,(3~3 l~hotos 28. Exhibit B Z-99-083 (1508 North Elm) PHOTOS 29. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda No. ~ Agenda Item Date,, y- AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: April 4, 2000 Planning Department L~ David Hill, 349-83 SUBJECT - Z-99-084:(1513 N. Locust) Hold a public heating to consider rezoning approximately 0.19 acres, commonly known as 1513 N. Locust, from an Office (O) zoning district to a Planned Development (PD) zoning district. The Detailed plan proposal is to allow office and residential uses on the property. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0) with conditions. BACKGROUND The applicant has requested to rezone this property to have the ability to utilize the existing structure for residential or office uses. The subject property was placed in Office (O) zoning district and land use classification in 1969 by Ordinance 69-01. Prior to that time, the structure was used as a single-family house. The property has recently been utilized as an office. Dr. Donovitz purchased the property recently and wants to utilize it for his single-family residence. A Planned Development (PD) is the only zoning classification that will allow for both office and residential uses on the same property. The proposed development is consistent with the 1999 - 2020 Comprehensive Plan (see Attachment 1 - Comprehensive Plan Analysis section). Seventeen (17) property owners were notified of the zoning request. One (1) response has been received in favor of the rezoning. (See Attachment 1). PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology of Z-99-084, commonly known as 1513 N. Locust: March 7, 2000 - Waiver from the residential interim regulations granted by City Council. March 8, 2000 - P&Z Date. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE No new development is proposed. FISCAL INFORMATION No new development is proposed and the re-zoning of this property will have no effect on the assessed value of the city, county, and school district. P&Z SUGGESTED RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0) of this zoning request with the following conditions: 1. The documentation of the existing development on the property shall constitute a Detailed Plan. 2. Uses shall be limited to those of the Office (O) zoning district plus One-family dwelling (SF-7) zoning district. 3. Any new lighting on the property should be designed and maintained so as not to shine on or otherwise disturb, surrounding residential property or to shine and project upward to prevent the diffusion into the night sky. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Approve with conditions. 3. Deny. 4. Postpone consideration. 5. Table item. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning and Zoning Commission Report, March 8, 2000, Z-99-084. 2. Planning and Zoning Commission minutes from March 8, 2000. 3. Draft Ordinance. R~pectfully submitted: _ Douglas S.IPowell, AICP Assistant Director of Planning and Development Prepared by: Assistant Planning Director ¸it ATTACHMENT 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda No. ~ O- O ~ Agenda Item ~ ~ , Date ,5-,P- oo Subject: 1513 N. Locust Staff: Larry Reichhart Case Number: Z-99-084 Agenda Date: March 8, 2000 Hold a public hearing to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding the rezoning of approximately 0.19 acres, commonly known as 1513 N. Locust, from a Office (O) zoning district to a Planned Development (PD) zoning district. The Detailed Plan proposal is to allow office and residential uses on the property Location: Size: LOCATION MAP 1513 N. Locust (See Enclosure1) Approximately 0.19 acres FiJename o Applicant/Owner: James A. Donovitz, M.D. 1513 N. Locust Denton, TX 76201 Planned development zoning districts (PD) are intended to provide forthe development of land as an integral unit for single or mixed use in accordance with a plan that may vary from the established regulations of other zoning districts forsimilarland uses. They are also meant to encourage flexible and creative planning to ensure the compatibility of land uses, to allow for the adjustment of changing demands to meet the current needs of the community, and to provide for a development that is superior to what could be accomplished in other zoning districts by meeting one or more of the following purposes: (1) Provides for the design of lots or building; increased recreation, common or open space for private or public use; berms, greenbelts, trees, shrubs or other landscaping features; parking areas, street design or access; or other development plans, amenities or features that would be of special benefit to the property users or community; (2) Protects or preserves topographical features, such as trees, creeks, ponds, floodplains, slopes or hills; or (3) Protects or preserves existing historical buildings, structures, features or places. There are three (3) types of plans that may be used in the planned development process; concept plan, development plan and detailed plan. CONCEPT PLAN - This plan is intended to be the first step in the PD process for larger or long term developments. It establishes the most general guidelines, identifying the land use types, approximate thoroughfare locations within the boundaries of the district. DEVELOPMENT PLAN - This plan is intended to be used most often as a second step in the PD process. It includes the same information that is provided on the concept plan, plus details as to the specific land uses and their boundaries. DETAILED PLAN - This plan is the final step in the process and is required prior to any development. For smaller tracts or where final development plans are otherwise known prior to rezoning, the detailed plan may be used to establish the district and be the only required plan in the planned development process. It will contain information specific to the site. All detailed plans should be in substantial compliance with landscape, sign, subdivision and other regulations of the Code of Ordinances. When concessions from these regulations are requested by a developer, there needs to be corresponding benefits that merit deviation from those regulations. Filename o The subject property was placed in Office (O) zoning district and land use classification in 1969 by Ordinance 69-01 (see Enclosure 4), Prior to that time, the structure was used as a single-family house. The property has recently been utilized as an office. Dr. Donovitz purchased the property recently and wants to utilize it for his single-family residence. A Planned Development (PD) is the only zoning classification that will allow for both office and residential uses on the same property. 1999 -2020 Comprehensive Plan Analysis The Comprehensive Plan identifies this property to be within the "Downtown University Core District. (see Enclosure 2). This area is intended to have a mix of educational, residential, retail, office, service, government, cultural and entertainment development. It is a place where residents can live, work, learn and play in the same neighborhood. Staff finds the request to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Transportation A. Trip generation As a single-family residencs, approximately 30 less trips per day would be generatted. B. Access Existing access is on College Street. = Utilities This site is currently being served with all necessary utilities. Drainage and Topography No new development is proposed at this time. New development will be required to design and construct a drainage system to city standards. A preliminary drainage study will be required with the submission of a preliminary plat. The study must include calculations of the 100-year storm for all drainage areas on this property and any area that drains towards this property. The developer must indicate the method by which the run-off will be carried across the property or stored on the property. Signs As per the sign ordinance. FJJenar~le 5. Off-Street Parking New development must provide parking according to the regulations of Chapter 35 (35-301) of the Code of Ordinances. Landscaping New development will have to comply with the new Landscape Code, which requires fifteen (15) trees per acre and twenty (20) percent of all surfaces to remain pervious (plantable area). 7, Open Space and Recreational Areas New residential development will be required to participate in the development of public recreational areas. Through the Park Dedication Ordinance (98-039), this development will contribute to park land dedication and park development fees. Dedication requirements are required during the platting process. Park development fees are required prior to the issuance of building permits. 8. Lighting Any new lighting on the property should be designed and maintained so as not to shine on or otherwise disturb, surrounding residential property or to shine and project upward to prevent the diffusion into the night sky. 9. Environmental Quality impacts No negative environmental impacts have been identified. January 14, 1969 - The subject property was placed in the Office (O) zoning district and land use cllassification by Ordinance 69-01. The subject property is platted. Notice of the zoning request was published in the Denton Record-Chronicle on Sunday January 16, 2000. Seventeen (17)property owners within two hundred feet were mailed legal notices and sixty- eight (68) residents within five hundred feet were sent courtesy notices informing them of the request (,see Enclosure 5). As of this writing, there has been one positive responses. Filename The use of the existing structure for both office and residential uses is consistent with the 1999 - 2020 Comprehensive Plan and with the existing surrounding land uses. As only the uses of the existing structure is changing and no new construction is proposed at this time, the existing site conditions as identified in Enclosure 1 shall constitute the Detailed Plan. Future, any future alterations to the site or structure would require a zoning plan and/or a project plan and a new series of public hearings, therefore: Staff recommends approval of Z-99-084 with the following conditions: 1. The documentation of the existing development on the property shall constitute a Detailed Plan. 2. Uses shall be limited to those of the Office (O) zoning district plus One-family dwelling (SF-7) zoning district. 3. Any new lighting on the property should be designed and maintained so as not to shine on or otherwise disturb, surrounding residential property or to shine and project upward to prevent the diffusion into the night sky. I move to recommend approval of Z-99-084 with the following conditions: 1. The documentation of the existing development on the property shall constitute a Detailed Plan. 4. Uses shall be limited to those of the Office (O) zoning district plus One-family dwelling (SF-7) zoning district. 2. Any new lighting on the property should be designed and maintained so as not to shine on or otherwise disturb, surrounding residential property or to shine and project upward to prevent the diffusion into the night sky. 1. Recommend approval as submitted. 2. Recommend approval with conditions. 3. Recommend denial. 4. Postpone consideration. 5. Table item. 1. Vicinity Map 2. Land Use Map 3. Existing Site Conditions (Photos) - to be handed out at the P& Z meeting 4. Zoning Map 5. Notification Map Filename ENCLOSURE 1 Z-99-084 (1513 Locust Street) NORTH COLLEGE TWU LOCATION MAP Scale: None ENCLOSURE 2 Z-99-084 (1513 Locust Street) NORTH LAND USE MAP Scale: None ENCLOSURE 4 Z-99-084 (1513 Locust Street) NORTH TWU MF-2 ZONING MAP Scale: None 10. ENCLOSURE 5 Z-99-084 (1513 N. Locust) NORTH Limit of 200' Notification Limit of 500' Notification 200'-500' NOTICE MAP Scale: None 11. ATTACHMENT 2 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 8, 2000 Page 2 of 3 PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING Continue a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to city Council regarding a Detailed Plan for a Planned Development (PD-93) encompassing approximately 13.7 acres. The detailed plan proposal is for a 159 unit multi-family residential development and 4.3 acres of commercial development. The property is located at the southwest corner of Ryan Road and Teasley Lane. (Z-99-096, Ryan Rd./Teasley Lane, Larry Reichhart) Motion by Perry McNeill and seconded by Rudy Moreno to recommend approval to City Council with conditions. *Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached t(~ this set of minutes (Page 3). Motion carries 4-3. Elizabeth Gourdie, Saitv Rishel and Jim pposed. Hold a public hearing to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding the rezoning of approximately 0.27 acres, commonly known as 1513 N. Locust, from an Office (O) zoning district to a Planned Development (PD) zoning district. The proposal is to allow office and residential uses on the property. (Z-99-084, 1513 N. Locust, Larry Reichhart) Motion by Perry McNeill and seconded by Salty Rishel to recommend approval to City Council with conditions. *Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 157). Motion carries 7-0. a public hearing and consider recommending approval to City Council a Detailed Plan for approximately 162 acres in the Planned Development 120 (PD-120) zoning district. The property is generally located between North Elm St (US 77) and Loop 288 roughly 1500 feet west of North Locust (FM 2164) and is legally described as 162.5 acres in the Thomas Toby Survey, Abstract No. 1288 and the B.B.B. & C.R.R. Survey, Abstract No. 186, in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. (Z-99-101, Northpointe, Thomas B. Gray) Motion by Salty Rishel and seconded by Perry McNeill to recommend approval to City Council with conditions. *Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 56). Motion carries 7-0. o Hold a public hearing to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding the rezoning of approximately 8.3 acres, commonly known as RNW Addition from a Planned Development (PD-16) zoning district to Conditioned Office (O) and Neighborhood Service (NS) zoning districts. The property is located at the southwest corner of Teasley Lane and Teasley Lane. (Z-00-003, RNW Addition, Larry Reichhart) Motion by Elizabeth Gourdie and seconded by Perry McNeill to continue to March 22nd meeting. *Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 78). Motion carries 7-0. 12. CondcnsoItTM 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 157 and Zoning Commission meeting and move onto Agenda Item No. 6, which is to hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding re'zoning of approximately 0.27 acres commonly known as 1513 North Locust from an Office zoning district to a Planned Development zoning district. The proposal is to allow office and residential uses on the property. At this time~ I'll open the public hearing and ask Mr. Reichhart to provide us with the staff report. Ma. RmCHHART: very quickly, we're looking at a slt~ that tl~ southwest comer of College and Locust. It's an existing -- there's the location. This is some photos of the slructare that we're looking at. It's vea3t similar to a project we recently heard right over here on Elm Street whore the intended VD is just to allow residential use of this building. It was originally constructed as a single-family residence. The property was rezoned to Office. Here's the zoning map. And the applicant has purchased this property and would like to use it for his residence. So the proposal is to go with the VD that did get a waiver last night or relief from the interim regulations so they can go under the existing conditions. We am proposing a VD. ^s with the last application, I think it was misrepresented that the Elm Page 159 I MR. MCNEILL: Tharlk you. 2 MR. REICHHART: Because they're not altering 3 the site. 4 MR. MCNEILL: Right. Thank you. 5 MR. ENGELBRECHT: MS. Apple. 6 MS. APPLE: JUSt to get this in my mind 7 because I didn't see it in the backup, but this actually 8 was a bed and breakfast, was Godfrey's Inn, if I'm not 9 mistaken. Okay. So it's actually been used for business 10 prior to that. 11 MR. REICHHART: oh, it has been used for a 12 business prior to that, yes. 13 MS. APPLE: And prior to that, it was a 14 designer's home, as well as her interior design business. 15 MR. REICHHART: Right. Correct. I mean, it's 16 been used for multiple -- I mean, single-family but as 17 soon as the single-family portion of it was no longer 18 being used, it lost that non-conforming status. 19 MS. APPLE: SO this is not really an unusual 20 use because it really has had kind of an ongoing history 21 of that. 22 MR. REICHHART: Correct. 23 MS. APPLE: IS there adequate parking? 24 MR. REICHHART: For single-family, yes, there 25 is. Page 158 I Street application was City-initiated. It isn't. Neither 2 is this ease but it is -- the City Council has waived the 3 fees and has encouraged the applicants to pursue this 4 remedy. The recommendation is to rezone to a PP. We are 5 only changing the use. We're going to use the 6 documentation similar as the other project to document the 7 existing conditions on the site. The only thing that's 8 changing is the use. With any PD or any future projects, 9 if the site's going to be altered, they'll have to come 10 forward with revised plan and get approval to do that. 11 The uses would be limited to those in the 12 Office and sP-7 zoning districts: And then any new 13 lighting on the property should be designed and maintained 14 so as not to shine on or otherwise disturb surrounding 15 residential property or shine and project upward to 16 prevent the diffusion into the night sky. With that, I 17 can answer any questions. This is consistent with the 18 Comprehensive Plan. 19 MR. ENGELBRECHT: commissioners, any 20 questions? Mr. MeNeill. 21 MR. MCNEILL: JUst a clarification question. 22 If this passes, then that means that if someone else 23 bought that and wanted to reopen it as an office, they 24 could and not have to come back to us. 25 MR. REICHHART: They could. Correct. Page 160 1 MS. APPLE: For doctor's officesl that was my 2 only concern. 3 MR. REICHHART: I believe there are. There is 4 adequate parking. 5 MS. APPLE: okay. Thank you. 6 MR. ENGELBILECHT: I did want to make clear the 7 notice and the purpose indicated in the backup says, it's 8 being rezoned for office, for Planned Developed which 9 would allow office and residential, correct? 10 MR. REICHHART: Correct. 11 MR. ENGELBRECHT: YOU had kept talking about 12 the residential side of it. 13 MR. REICHHART: okay. It will allow both. 14 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Right. Okay. All right. 15 Is the petitioner or petitioner's representative present? 16 MR. REICHHART: They are not. 17 MR. ENGELBRECHT: They are not. Is there 18 anyone present who would like to speak in favor of this 19 petition? Anyone present to speak in favor of the 20 petition? In that ease, is there anyone present to speak 21 in opposition to the potition? Anyone presont to speak in 22 opposition to the petition? Seeing no opposition, the 23 rebuttal period is waived and the public heating is 24 closed. Any final remarks, Mr. Reiehhart? 25 MR. REICHHART: Staff recommends approval. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13. 8,2000 Page 157 - Page 160 CondcnseltTM Pag© 16f 1 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Cornl~ssioners, any 2 questions, comments, or a motion? 3 MR. MCNEILL: Motion. 4 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Yes, sir, Mr. McNeilL 5 MR. MCNEILL: I move to recommend approval of 6 Z-99-084 with the following conditions: The documentation 7 of the existing development on the property shall 8 constitute a detailed plan; uses shall be limitexl to those 9 of the Office zoning district plus One-Family dwelling, 10 sF-7 zoning district; any new lighting on the property 11 should be designed and maintained so as not to shine on or 12 otherwise disturb surrounding residential property or to 13 shine and project upward to prevent the diffusion into the 14 night sky. 15 MR. ENGELBRECHT: IS there a second? 16 MR. RISHEL: second. 17 MR. ENGELBRECHT: It's Ix~n moved and seconded 18 to recommend approval with conditions as outlined by 19 staff?. Any discussion? 20 MR. RISHEL: Did you want to include 21 environmental quality impacts at all? I'll put that forth 22 as a friendly motion. There's a No. 9 in there. 23 MR. MCNEILL: Oh, 9. 24 MR. RISHEL: That no negative environmental 25 impacts -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 162 MR. MCNEILL: Have been identified. But that wasn't one of the -- so how would we make that -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 i1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 163 MR. REICHHART: NO. MR. RISHEL: NO. Okay. A tattoo is considered retail or business? MR. REICHHART: Commercial. MR. RISHEL: Thank you. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Seeing no other request for comment, if you would vote, please. Motion carries unanimously. we with you-all ample opportunit3 '11 have him back at future meetings 10, future Agenda items. L talked about Mr. Fregonese. Anyone have Ms. Gourdie. MS. GOURDIE: on our attendance s to -- as to meeting is : need to time appropriate f creates any permits us to leave. ; to get up and leave the meeting, of information barrier if we don't sit MR. ENGELBRECHT: That was just a part of the staff background. MR. RISHEL: Just a question. MR. MCNEILL: yeah. MR. ENGELBRECHT: okay. Any other discussion? MR. MOP, ENO: Question. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Yes, Mr. Moreno. MR. MORENO: could this be used as a bed and breakfast as it was in the past under this PD? MR. ENGELBRECHT: I don't believe a bed and brealffast is allowed in an Office district. MR, MOP.ENO: okay. MR. RISHEL: Could it be used as a tattoo parlor? MR. MORENO: Never mind. MR. RISHEL: We were talking that would be a good location right by TWU. I don't think there is one over there. We have enough over at my area. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Hey, we've got one down by Rayzor Elementary. Any other -- Mr. McNeill, did you -- MR. MCNEILL: NO. MR. RISHEL: Mine's a legitimate question. Could it be used as a tattoo parlor? Page 164 1 here and listen through the whole thing. 2 ENGELBRECHT: Yes, I believe~ for 3 that 4 5 6 7 8 on there, then I 9 what is the 10 Zoning 11 we're 12 MR. 13 14 it's a fairly 15 a 16 reports that we 17 18 19 MR 20 I'm going 21 22 23 Yes, please. I wonde~ :ould be if real long. information clarified as to Planning and to get up and leave while ic hearing. at your next meeting, ~ scheduled [ the staff light Agenda, t that s back, that we that do have a So that we don't people back with exactly the same comments all over again, hopefully. I don't know. That's my desire. 24 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH g, 2000 Page 161 - Page 164 3.4. ORDINANCE NO. ATTACHMENT 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE FROM OFFICE (O) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 183 (PD-183) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR 0.19 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 1513 N. LOCUST; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z-99-084) WHEREAS, James A. Donovitz, has applied for a change in zoning for 0.19 acres of land from Office (O) zoning district classification and use designation to Planned Development 183 (PD- 183) zoning district classification and use designation; and _ ...... ~EREAS,_.on March 8, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the requested change in zoning; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change in zoning will be consistent with the 1999 - 2020 Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The zoning district classification and use designation of the 0.19 acre property described as Lot 12A, Block 1 Northside Addition, commonly known as 1513 North Locust Street, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A is changed from Office (O) zoning district classification and use designation to Planned Development 183 (PD-183) zoning district classification and use designation under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, subject to the following conditions: 1. The permitted land uses are restricted to those described in the list attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit B, and allow land uses permitted with a Specific Use Permit in an One-family dwelling (SF-7) zoning district. 2. For the purposes of this ordinance Exhibit C shall constitute the Detailed Plan. SECTION 2. The City's official zoning map is amended to show the change in zoning district classification. SECTION 3. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION IV. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PAGE 1 15. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2000. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTX', CI'I¥ ATTORNEY /,/-'"./' BY: //,/. / ~,) PAGE 2 16. 25' B-B (40' R.O.W.) N 89'56'00"E 116.70' EXHIBIT A 20.1' 46.5' OT 11/ 1.3' BRICK ET. WALL---~ & FENCE BRICK GARAGE LOT 12A ON CONC. 44.6' 50.4' x?-' BL OCK 1 S 89'56'00"W 80.70' .flu · S 89'56'00"W ,, .x, N 00'05'50"W 2. ASPHALT LOT 11A ©. PARKING Lot 12A, BLOCK 1, NORTH$1DE ADDITION, an Addition to the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, according fo the Plat recorded in Cabinet B, Page 575, Plat Records, Denton County, Texas. (Commonly known as 1515 NORTH LOCUST STREET) The plat hereon Is a true end accurate representation of the property as determined by survey made on the ground, the lines and dimensions of said property as being Indicated on the Plat. The size, location and type of buildings and Improvements are as ehown, all Improvements being within the boundaries of the property except as ehown, set back from the property lines is as shown, _~nd distance from the nearest street or road is as shown on the Plat. There are no visible en~,~~vlslble protrusions or apparent easements, except as shown on the Pl~t..N. I further certify that no portion of subject property ~ the FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP for Denton County and Incorporated Areas, Map Number 48121C0360,~ -~. ~~~--~-~ --~O~o~O~L ~ '~' ~"~ Dated March 30. 1998 (Subject property ,1.. '. Zone _ PURCHASER: JAMES ALAN DONO~TZ 4238 t-35~RTH lANDMARK. FAX {¢40) ~87-¢784 SURVEYORS, INC. ~W~ 8Y: 81H SC~k[: f'=20' Da*r' 09 17. One Family Dwelling Detached 18. "O" Off~ce District PERMITTED USES= Primary Residential Uses One Family Dwellin~ Restricted Community Unit Development Dormitory, Boarding or Rooming House Hotel or Motel EdUcational~ Institutional & SPecial Uses Art Gallery or Museum Church or Rectory College or University or Private School Community Center (Public) Day Nursery or Kindergarten School Group Homes Halfway House Hospital (General Acute Care) Hospital (Chronic.Care) Institutions of Religious or Philanthropic Nature Public Library Monastery or Convent Nursing Home or Residence Home for Aged Occasional Sales Park, Playground or Public Community Center School, Private Primary or Secondary School, Public or Denominational School, Business or Trade Utillty~ Accessory and Incidental uses Accessory Building Community Center (Private) Electrical Substation Electrical Transmission Line Temporary Field or Construction Office (Subject to Approval and Control by Building Inspector) Fire Station or similar Public Safety Building Gas Transmission Line and Metering Station Home Occupation Off-Street Parking Incidental to Main Use Off Street Remote Parking Sewage Pumping Station Private swimming Pool Telephone, Business office Telephone Line & Exchange Switching or Relay Station Water Reservoir, Water Pumping Station or Well' Recreational and Entertainment Uses Country Club (Private) with Golf Course Public Golf Course Public Park or Playground Public Play field or Stadium Swim or Tennis Club Transportation Related Uses Railroad Track or Right-of-Way 19. !'0" Office District (continued) Retail and Service Type Uses Offices, Professional and Administrative Studio for Photographer, Musician, Artist or Health Agricultural Type Uses Animal Clinic or Hospital (No outside runs or pens) Farm or Ranch PERMITTED USES WITH APPROVED SPECIFIC USE PERMIT: Educational. Institutional & Special Usem Cemetery or Mausoleum Fraternity, Sorority, Lodge or Civic Club Home for Care of Alcoholic, Narcotic or Psychiatric Patients Utility. Accessory and Incidental Uses Public Building, Shop, yard of Local, State or Federal Government Radio and/or Television Microwave Tower Water Treatment Plant Transportation Related Uses Airport Landing Field or Heliport Commercial Parking Lot or Structure Retail and Service Type Use~ Cafeteria Mortuary or Funeral Parlor Restaurant Commercial Type Uses Scientific or Research Laboratories YARD REOUIREMENT~ Front .Yard: Minimum 25 feet.. Side Yard: No side yard is specified for non-residential use except where a non-residential use abuts upon a district boundary line dividing such districts from a residential district or when the side yard is adjacent to the street, in which event a ten (10) foot side yard shall be provided. Rear Yard: No rear year i~ specified for non-residential use except where retail, commercial or industrial uses back upon a common district line, whether separated by an alley or not, dividing the district from any of the residential districts, listed, a minimum of ten (10) feet shall be provided. 20. Office District ¢continued~ ~EIGHT REGULi~TIONS: Any legal limit, e~cept as follows: In the districts where the height of buildings is restricted to two (2) or three (3) stories, cooling towers, roof gables, chimneys and vent stacks may extend for additional height not to exceed forty- five (45) feet abovethe average grade line of the building. Water. stand pipes and tanks, church steeples, domes and spires, and school buildings and institutional buildings may be erected to exceed three (3) stories in height in residential areas restricted to two (2) or three (3) stories in height, provided that one additional foot shall be added to the width and depth of side and rear yards for each foot that such structures exceed three (3) stories in height. ~UPPLEMENT~L REgULaTIONS: 1. Parking (Based on use. 2. Signs 3. Lighting 4. Landscaping 5. Screening and Fencing See Article 34-115.) EXHIBIT C 1513 N. Locust (March 8, 2000) 1513 N. Locust (March 8, 2000) lof2 22. 1513 N. Locust (March 8, 2000) 1513 N. Locust (March 8, 2000) 23. AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET April 4, 2000 Planning Department David Hill, 349-8314 Agenda No, ~ Agenda Item Date "/" SUBJECT - Z-99-096: (Ryan/Teasley) Hold a public hearing regarding the Detailed Plan for Planned Development (PD-93) encompassing approximately 10 acres. The property is generally located on the southwest comer of Ryan Road and Teasley Lane. A 159 unit multi-family residential development is proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (4-3) with conditions. BACKGROUND The applicant has requested approval of a Detailed Plan for Planned Development 93 (PD-93) to develop a 159 unit apartment complex. The subject property is located in a Planned Development (PD-93) zoning district created on April 2, 1985 by Ordinances No. 85-68. (See Attachment 1) The proposed land use is somewhat consistent with the intent of "Neighborhood Center" with townhouse style units mound the perimeter of the multi-family portion of the site and the proposed commercial area within walking distance to the residential areas. It is not, however, an inwardly oriented design that could make the development consistant with the Comprehensive Plan. Forty-four (44) property owners were notified of the zoning request. Forty-two (42) responses have been received; two (2) were neutral and forty (40) were opposed to the request representing 30.9% opposition (see Attachment 3). A super majority vote is required to approve this request. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology ofZ-99-096, commonly known as Ryan/Teasley (PD-93): Application Date - December 3, 1999 P&Z Dates - Januaryl2, January 26, February 23 and March 8, 2000 Neighborhood Meetings - January 10, January 19, and February 16,2000 Relief from the residential interim regulations was granted on February 15, 2000. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The property needs to be platted prior to any development. 1. FISCAL INFORMATION Development of this property will increase the assessed value of the city, county, and school district. It will require no short-term public improvements that are the responsibility of the city. P&Z SUGGESTED RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (4-3) of this zoning request with the following condition: 1. Lighting on the property shall be designed and maintained so as not to shine on or otherwise disturb, surrounding residential property or to shine and project upward to prevent the diffusion into the night sky. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Approve with conditions. 3. Deny. 4. Postpone consideration. 5. Table item. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning and Zoning Commission Report, March 8, 2000, Z-99-096. 2. Planning and Zoning Commission minutes from January 12 & 26, 2000, February 23, 2000 and March 8, 2000. 3. Opposition calculations. 4. Draft Ordinance. Respectfully submitted: DoUglas S. ~owell, AICP Assistant Director of Planning and Development Prepared by: Assistant Planning Director ATTACHMENT 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM Agenda NO. - Agenda Item Date Sub|ect: Ryan Rd / Teasley Case Number: 7-99-096 Staff: Larry Reichhart Agenda Date: February 23, 2000 Continue a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council concerning the detailed plan for a Planned Development (PD-93) encompassing approximately 10 acres. The detailed plan proposal is for a 159 unit multi-family residential development. The February 23, 2000 public hearing was continued to Mamh 8, 2000 as requested by the applicant. The plan has been revised to address some of the outstanding issues (see Enclosure 1). The revisions include; · Expanded open space / recreation area (including a pool and multi-purpose game room) · A note has been added to the plan stating that there shall be no patio windows or balconies at the second floor level of the ends or rear of buildings adjacent to the single-family development. · A note has been added to the stating that boats or RV storage shall not be permitted in the parking lots adjacent to the single-family properties. · An 8 foot high wood fence adjacent to a single-family residential properties. The outstanding issues (raised at the last neighborhood meeting) that need to be considered by the Commission include; · Elevated noise levels from apartments. · Car lights shinning through fence. · One story height limit adjacent to single family properties · Increased bufferyard · Lower density · Durability of the screen wall/fence. Planned development zoning districts (PD) are intended to provide for the development of land as an integral unit for single or mixed use in accordance with a plan that may vary from the established regulations of other zoning districts for similar land uses. They are also meant to encourage flexible and creative planning to ensure the compatibility of land uses, to allow for the adjustment of changing demands to meet the current needs of the community, and to provide for a development that is superior to what could be accomplished in other zoning districts by meeting one or more of the fo/lowing purposes: (1) Provides for the design of lots or building; increased recreation, common or open space for private or public use; berms, greenbelts, trees, shrubs or other landscaping features; parking areas, street design or access; or other development plans, amenities or features that would be of special benefit to the property users or community; (2) Protects or preserves topographical features, such as trees, creeks, ponds, floodplains, slopes or hills; or (3) Protects or preserves existing historical buildings, structures, features or places. The approved Concept Plan did not address the above requirements. Staff believes that the Detailed plan should therefore address these issues. Section 35-155 of the city code contains the following provision: "The commission or the city council may impose conditions concerning the location, use, arrangement, construction or development of the district in order to ensure the appropriate use of the district and to protect surrounding properties. (Ord. No. 91-016, § I, 2-5-91)." Staff interprets this section to apply to a PD Concept Plan, Development Plan, or Detailed Plan as appropriate, and in correlation to required information related to the corresponding plan. As such, Concept Plan conditions would be related to information contained in Section 35-174, and Detailed Plan conditions would be related to Section 35-176 information. Since this project is a proposed PD Detailed Plan, staff believe that conditions related to building orientation, location, use, arrangement, construction or development of the district in order to ensure the appropriate use of the district and to protect surrounding properties may be imposed by the Commission. Although the minimum technical requirements for a Detailed Plan are addressed on the plans, the site design does not provide the creativity to ensure the compatibility of land uses nor does it meet the needs of the community or provide for a development that is superior to what could be accomplished in other zoning districts. Based on the above analysis, staff can not recommend approval of the proposed Detailed Plan. However, if the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval, the following conditions or items should be addressed; 1. Lighting on the property shall be designed and maintained so as not to shine on or otherwise disturb, surrounding residential property or to shine and project upward to prevent the diffusion into the night sky. 2. Additional conditions could address, but are not limited to, setbacks, buffering, screening, building orientation, height and material 1. Recommend approval as submitted. 2. Recommend approval with conditions. 3. Recommend denial. 4. Postpone consideration. 5. Table item. 1. Detailed Plan 2. P&Z Staff Reports ENCLOSURE 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Agenda l~em_ ~i~ ~- STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM at0_ Subject: Ryan Rd / Teasley Case Number: Z-99-096 Staff: Lar~ Reichha~ Agenda Date: Janua~ 12, 2000 Continue a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council concerning the detailed plan for a Planned Development (PD-93) encompassing approximately 10 acres. The detailed plan proposal is for a 159 unit multi-family residential development. The Janua~ 26, 2000 public hearing was continued to Februa~ 23, 2000 to provide time for the applicant to hold an additional neighborhood meeting to t~ to resolve outstanding issues. On Tuesday, Februa~ 15t~, City Council granted the applicant relief from the interim residential ordinance, thereby allowing this application to proceed under the requirements of a Planned Development. The neighborhood meeting was held on Wednesday Febma~ 16~. Approximately 13 neighbom, city staff and the applicants aEended the meeting (See Enclosure 1). The applicant reviewed the modifications they had made to the plan including: · Throe and four plexes and limiting the building height adjacent to the single-family pmpe~ies to 1% stories with · No second sto~ windows adjacent to the single-family pmpe~ies · 15 foot setback to single-family pmpe~ies (zoning allows 10'). · Expansion of club house pool and play area (Not required per concept plan) · 75% Mason~ (brick and stone). · 6/12 roof pitch (consistent with single-family rooflines). · An 8' solid wood fence adjacent to single-family. The neighbors expressed concern or raised questions relating to the following: · Traffic · No patio windows on the sides of the buildings adjacent to the single-family pmpe~ies (Applicant thought they would be able to accommodate this request). · No boats or RV storage in the parking lots adjacent to the single-family prope~ies. (Applicant thought they would be able to accommodate this request). · Elevated noise levels from apa~ments. · Car lights shinning through fence. · 1 sto~ height limit adjacent to single family propeKies · Increased bufferyard · Lower density · Durability of the screen wall/fence. Z~99-~, P~Z Report 9. Consensus could not be reached on what changes could be made to the plans to address the neighbors concerns (with the exception of not building multi-family at 17 units per acre). Although the applicant expressed a willingness to work with neighborhood representatives to resolve site issues, it appears that the formation of a representative group may not be possible. The issues and concerns appear to be so varied that each neighbor has a different opinion on the issues associated with this project. For example, if the perimeter buildings are reduced in height will it be acceptable to increase the height of the interior buildings - some said yes, some said no. The applicant has request an additional two-week continuance to try to work with the adjacent neighbors to address unresolved issues. (See Enclosure 2) Staff recommends continuance to the March 8, 2000 meeting. I move to continue Z-99-096 to March 8, 2000. 1. Recommend approval as submitted. 2. Recommend approval with conditions. 3. Recommend denial. 4. Postpone consideration. 5. Table item. 1. Neighborhood meeting sign-in sheet. 2. Applicant request or continuance. 3. January 26, 2000 P&Z Report. .to. I I Feb-18-O0 10:52A P.O2 ENCLOSURE 2 February ! 7, 2000 Larry Reichhart City of Denton 215 East McKinney Denton, Texas RE: SW corner of Ryan Road and Teasley Lane PD 996 Denton, Texas Dear Mr, Reichhart: Please accept this letter as our request that P&Z postpone the detailed development plan request scheduled tbr February 23 to March 8th so we may continue our work with the neighborhood. Golden Triangle Joint Venture 13. ,~- ~ ENCLOSURE 3 ---% PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Subject: Ryan Rd / Teasley Staff: Larry Reichhart, Dev. Review Manager Case Number: Z-99-096 Agenda Date: January 26, 2000 Continue a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council concerning the detailed plan for a Planned Development (PD-93) encompassing approximately 13.7 acres. The detailed plan proposal is for a 159 unit multi-family residential development and 4.3 acres of commercial development. Due to the commercial moratorium, the applicant has removed the 4.3 acres of commercial development from this proposal. Location: Size: LOCATION MAP The property ig located at the southwest corner of Teasley and Ryan Road. 9.5+ acres 14. Applicant: Dale and Craig Irwin 525 S. Carroll Blvd. Denton, TX 76201 Owner: Golden Triangle Joint Venture 2112 W. Spring Creek, #200 Piano, TX 75023 Planned development zoning districts (PD) are intended to provide for the development of land as an integral unit for single or mixed use in accordance with a plan that may vary from the established regulations of other zoning districts forsimilarland uses. They are also meant to encourage flexible and creative planning to ensure the compatibility of land uses, to allow for the adjustment of changing demands to meet the current needs of the community, and to provide for a development that is superior to what could be accomplished in other zoning districts by meeting one or more of the following purposes: (1) Provides for the design of lots or building; increased recreation, common or open space for private or public use; berms, greenbeits, trees, shrubs or other landscaping features; parking areas, street design or access; or other development plans, amenities or features that would be of special benefit to the property users or community; (2) Protects or preserves topographical features, such as trees, creeks, ponds, floodplains, slopes or hills; or (3) Protects or preserves existing historical buildings, structures, features or places. There are three (3) types of plans that may be used in the planned development process; concept plan, development plan and detailed plan. CONCEPT PLAN - This plan is intended to be the first step in the PD process for larger or long term developments. It establishes the most general guidelines, identifying the land use types, approximate thoroughfare locations within the boundaries of the district. DEVELOPMENT PLAN - This plan is intended to be used most often as a second step in the PD process. It includes the same information that is provided on the concept plan, plus details as to the specific land uses and their boundaries. DETAILED PLAN - This plan is the final step in the process and is required prior to any development. For smaller tracts or where final development plans are otherwise known prior to rezoning, the detailed plan may be used to establish the district and be the only required plan in the planned development process. It will contain information specific to the site. All detailed plans should be in substantial compliance with landscape, sign, subdivision and other regulations of the Code of Ordinances. When concessions from these regulations are requested by a developer, there needs to be corresponding benefits that merit deviation from those regulations. 15. The developer is requesting approval of a detailed plan for this 13.7_+ acre site (See enclosure1). This site is a portion of an original 31_+ acre site that was approved as PD-93 on April 2, 1985, which included 17 acres of single-family development, 10 acres of multi-family development and 4 acres of general retail. (See enclosure 2) This proposal is for 159 multi-family units (with a total of 250-350 bedrooms) on 9.4+ acres equaling 17 units per acre and 6 commercial pad sites on 4.4+ acres. The Concept Plan approval allowed for 17 units per acre accounting for 159 units on the proposed 9.4 acres. Other restrictions of the Concept Plan (Ordinances No. 85-68) that effect this proposal include; 1. Multi-family housing which abuts single-family housing should not exceed two-stow construction height. (the applicant has limited the multi-family units adjacent to the single-family housing to 1% stories (max. 35') with no 2nd story windows facing the single.family properties.) 2. Parking lot lights should be positioned away from residential buildings. (a note to this effect and/or lighting details should be included on the plans) 3. Screening shall be provided to protect multi-family housing from commercial retail activities and also buffer single family housing from multi-family developments. (The proposed screening should be indicated on the General Landscape Plan) Sec. 35-1.76. Detailed plan information The detailed plan shall contain the following information: (1) Acreage. The acreage in the plan as shown by a survey, certified by a registered surveyor. (2) Land uses. Permitted uses, specified in detail as determined by the department, and the acreage for each use. (3) Off-site information. Adjacent or surrounding land uses, zoning, streets, drainage facilities and other existing or proposed off-site improvements, as specified by the department, sufficient to demonstrate the relationship and compatibility of the district to the surrounding properties, uses, and facilities. (4) Traffic and transportation. The location and size of all streets, alleys, parking lots and parking spaces, loading areas or other areas to be used for vehicular traffic; the proposed access and connection to existing or proposed streets adjacent to the district; and the traffic generated by the proposed use. (5) Buildings. The location, maximum height, and minimum setbacks for all buildings, and if nonresidentialf the maximum total floor area. (6) Residential development. The number, location, and dimensions of all the lots, the minimum setbacksf the number of dwelling units, and number of units per acre (7) Water and drainage. The location of all creeks, ponds, lakes, floodplains or other water retention or major drainage facilities and improvements. (8) Utilities. The location and route of all major sewer, water, or electrical lines and facilities necessary to serve the district. (9) Trees and landscaping. The location of all protected trees and a landscapin9 plan as required by the city's landscape ordinance. 16. (10) Open space. The approximate location and size of §reenbe[t, open, common, or recreation areas, the proposed use of such areas, and whether they are to be used for public or private use. (11) Screening. The location, type, and size of all fences, berms, or screening features proposed between different land uses or adjacent properties. (12) Signs. Location, type, and size of all signs regulated by the city's sign ordinance (13) Sidewalks and bike paths. Sidewalks or other improved ways for pedestrian or bicycle use. (Ord. No. 91-016, § I, 2-5-91) Section 35-155 of the city code contains the following provision: "The commission or the city council may impose conditions concerning the location, use, arrangement, construction or development of the district in order to ensure the appropriate use of the district and to protect surrounding properties. (Ord. No. 91-016, § I, 2-5-91)." Staff interprets this section to apply to a PD Concept Plan, Development Plan, or Detailed Plan as appropriate, and in correlation to required information related to the corresponding plan. As such, Concept Plan conditions would be related to information contained in Section 35-174, and Detailed Plan conditions would be related to Section 35-176 information. Since this project is a proposed PD Detailed Plan, staff has provided an evaluation based on minimum information required as per Section 35-176, and has also checked for consistency with the previously approved Concept Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this property to be within a "Neighborhood Center" area (See enclosure 5). The adopted Growth Management Strategy states that these areas are to be developed in an inwardly oriented manner with a focus upon the centers of the neighborhoods. The center would contain uses necessary to support the surrounding neighborhood including retail uses such as convenience grocery, barbers, or small professional offices, higher density residential uses such as townhomes, park uses including central neighborhood "greens" and institutional uses such as fire stations, schools, libraries and transit nodes. The proposed land use is somewhat consistent with the intent of "Neighborhood Center" with townhouse style units around the perimeter of the multi-family portion of the site and the proposed commercial area within walking distance to the residential areas. It is not, however, inwardly oriented and the site design and density is potentially inconsistent with the plan. Transportation A. Trip generation A traffic impact analysis (TIA) identifying impacts and required mitigation will be required prior to platting. B. Access Access will be from both Ryan Road and Teasly Lane and will be shared between the multi- family and commercial developments. C. Pedestrian Linkages Sidewalks along all public streets are required. 2. Utilities This site has access to existing water and sanitary sewer lines (see Enclosure 6): 3. Drainage and Topography New development will be required to design and construct a drainage system to city standards. A preliminary drainage study will be required with the submission of a preliminary plat. The study must include calculations of the 100-year storm for all drainage areas on this property and any area that drains towards this property. The developer must indicate the method by which the run-off will be carried across the property or stored on the property. 4. Signs As per the sign ordinance. The location of the proposed monument signage is indicated on both sides of both entries. 5. Off-Street Parking Parking will be provided per code requirements. Landscaping This property will have to comply with the new Landscape Code, which requires fifteen (15) trees per acre and twenty (20) percent of all surfaces to remain pervious (plantable area). Open Space This residential development will be required to participate in the development of public recreational areas. Through the Park Dedication Ordinance (98-039) this development will contribute to park dedication and park development fees. Park Land Dedication or fees in lieu is required at the time of platting and Park Development Fees will be required at the time building permits are issued. 18. 8. Lighting Lighting on the property should be designed and maintained so as not to shine on or otherwise disturb, surrounding residential property or to shine and project upward to prevent the diffusion into the night sky. 9. Environmental Quality impacts No negative environmental impacts have been identified. April 4, 1985 -A Planned Development (PD-93) Concept Plan, for the subject property, was approved by Ordinance No. 85-68 allowing for single-family, multi-family and commercial development. The site plan for the single-family portion of the development was also approved by Ordinance No. 85-68. September 19, 1996 - An Amended Detailed Plan for the single-family development is approved by the Director of Planning and Development. The subject property is not platted and would need to be platted prior to any development. Notice of the zoning request was published in the Denton Record-Chronicle on Sunday May 2, 1999. Forty-four (44) property owners were notified and ninety-nine (99) courtesy notices were mailed. As of this writing, there has been Forty-one (41) responses, thirty-nine opposed (equalling over 20% opposition)and two (2) neutral to the request. (See enclosure 8) Neighborhood meetings were held on January 10th and January 19th. Issues raised at the meetings included: · Property Values decreasing due to the presence of Multi-family · Security · Increased traffic · Dumpster location · Privacy (windows looking into adjacent back yards) · Closeness of the buildings to the property line · What constitutes adequate buffering (brick wall, evergreen hedges, wood fences) The applicant responses included: · Moving the buildings from 10 foot to 15 foot from the property line. · Limit the adjacent buildings to 1 ¼ stories (35' max.) adjacent to the single-family houses with no 2na story windows facing the single family properties. · Proposed a evergreen hedge · Willing to relocate dumpsters · Willing to rearrange open space. 19. The applicant has stated his willingness to revise the Detailed Plan but has not received a clear indication from the neighbors as to what revisions should be undertaken. No consensus was arrived at regarding issues such as, the minimum distance the buildings should be from the property line, what type of fencing and landscaping should be utilized as a buffer, the maximum height of the buildings, what type of building materials should be on the back of the buildings. Although the minimum requirements of a Detailed Plan are present, a number of outstanding issues still exist. Staff recommends that the commission takes input from the applicant and the neighbors and then gives the applicant direction as to what revisions should be pursued. Staff recommends continuing Z-99-096 to February 9, 2000 to allow the applicant time to address the issues related to the Detailed Plan. I move to continue Z-99-096 to February 9, 2000. 1. Recommend approval as submitted. 2. Recommend approval with conditions. 3. Recommend denial. 4. Postpone consideration. 5. Table item. 1. Detailed Plans. 2. PD-86 Concept Plan and Ordinance. 3. Vicinity Map. 4. Zoning Map. 5. Land Use Map 6. Utility Map. 7. Denton Modility Plan Map 8. 200' Property Owner Notification Map and responses. 20. ENCLOSURE 22. 23. 24. ENCLOSURE 2 / NO. AN ORDINANCE 'AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINA/~CE NO. 69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 30.3595 ACRES OF LAND SITUATED IN THE ELI PICKETT SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1018, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS AND SITUATED AT THE SOUTHWESTERN CORNER OF RYAN ROAD AND TEASLEY LANE INTERSECTION; TO PROVIDE FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT "PD" DISTRICT ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR SAID PROPERTY; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That a Planned Development "PD" District Zoning Classification and Use designation is hereby established for all of the property described below under the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Denton Texas: ' All that certain tract or parcel of land situated in the Ell'pickett Survey, Abstract No. 1018, Denton County, Texas, being part of a (called) 117.5 acre tract in a deed from Gover C. Stuart to J. T. Stuart on the 21st day of January, 1930, as recorded in VolUme 225, Page 528, Deed Records of said County, and being all of a (called) 31.027 acre tract described in a Deed from B. Thomas McElroy to Mrs. Marsha Stuart Savage and Robert Mark Stewart on the 24th day of December, 1975, recorded in VolUme 769, Page 557, Deed Records of said County, and being more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at a steel pin on the north line of said 117.5 acre tract and of said Pickett Survey about the middle of Kyan Road at the north- east corner of a 26.171 acre tract out of said 117.5 acre tract at a point 1035.84 feet east of the northwest corner of said tract and of said Survey; THENCE north 89°42'49'' east with the north line of said 117.5 acre tract and said Survey in Ryan Road a distance of 1013.11 feet to a corner on the west right of way of Farm to Market Road 2181; THENCE south 33°49'45'' east with said right of way a distance of 85.28 feet to the beginning of a curve; THENCE southerly with said right of way around a curve to the rtRht, having a central angle of 32°24' and 00", a chord of south 17°37v45'' east, a distance of 774.09 feet, a radius of 1387.3 feet and an arc length of 784.50 feet to a right of way post at the end of said curve; THENCE south 01°25'45'' east with said right of way 294.$ feet to a steel pin at the northeast corner of a 58.103 acre tract off the south end of said 117.5 acre tract; THENCE south 89°53' west, a distance of 1299.88 feet to a steel pin at the southeast corner of said 28.171 acre tract; THENCE north 00007'44'' west, 1100.$7 feet to. the place of beginning and containing in all 31.0154 acres of land, there being 0.6559 acre within Ryan Road, leaving a net of 30.3595 acres of land. SECTION II. That in approving this planned development district ordinance, the City Council hereby aPproves the final site plan, attached here~o~ for the area designed for SF-6 use. Prior to the development of the areas designated as multtfamtly (MF) district and general retail (GR) 'on the site plan attached hereto, a final comprehensive site plan shall be required to be submitted and approved' as part of this ordinance in accordance with Article 11, Appendix B-Zoning, of the Code of' Ordinances. Z-1702/PAGE 25. - ~ ..~ SECTION III. That the development of the property shall be in substantial compliance with all comprehensive site plans approved herein or hereafter, and attached hereto and made a part herein for all purposes. SECTION IV. That prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the use of any building within the planned development district, the following conditions shall be met: 1. Multi-family housing which abuts single family housing should not exceed two-story construction height. 2. Parking lot lights should be positioned away from residential buildings. 3. Screening shall be provided to protect multi-family housing from commercial retail activities and also to buffer single family housing from multi-family developments. 4. The platting and building requirements of Appendix A and B of the Code of Ordinances for single family housing (SF-7), including front, side and rear setbacks, and maximum lot coverage, shall be applicable to the proposed single family development (SF-6). 5. All other engineering, planning, and building requirements not controlled by these conditions must conform to the Zoning and Land Development Regulations and other plans and ordinances of the City of Denton. SECTION V. That the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, hereby finds that such zoning is in accordance with a comprehensive plan for the purpose of promoting the general welfare of the City of Denton, Texas, and with reasonable consideration, among other things for the character of the district and for its peculiar suitability or particular uses, and with a view to conserving the value of the buildings, protecting humah lives, and encouraging the most appropriate uses of land for the maximum benefit to the City of Denton, Texas, and its citizens. SECTION VI. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect {mmediately after its passage and approval, the required public hearings having heretofore been held by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, after giving due notice PASSED AND APPROVED this the y of , 1985. ~I~ARD-O~STEWA~T, MAYOR y · CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ATTEST: CHARLOTTE ALLEN~ CITT-SECRETAKY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: DEBRAADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ~ Z-1702/PACE 26. Z-1702/PAGE 27. ENCLOSURE 3 Z-99-096 (Ryan Rd. / Teasley Ln., PD-93) NORTH VICINITY MAP 28. Agenda Date: January 12, 2000 Scale: None ENCLOSURE 4 ~ Z-99-096 (Ryan Rd. / Teasley Ln., PD-93) NORTH A A A ZONING MAP 29. Agenda Date: January 12, 2000 Scale: None ENCLOSURE 5 Z-99-096 (Ryan Rd. / Teasley Ln., PD-93) NORTH LAND USE MAP Texas Local Government Code 219.005 "A comprehensive plan shall not constitute zoning regulations or establish zoning district boundaries' 30. Adopted Ord No 99-439 December 7, 1999 Agenda Date: January 12, 2000 Scale: None ENCLOSURE 6 Z-99-096 (Ryan Rd. / Teasley Ln., PD-93) NORTH ROBINSON UTILITY MAP Hydrants Water Line (W. L.) Sewer Line (S. L.) Elec. Lines 31. Agenda Date: January 12, 2000 Scale: None ENCLOSURE 7 Z-99-096 (Ryan Rd. / Teasley Ln., PD-93) NORTH DENTON MOBILITY PLAN MAP Freeways Primary Major Arterials ~ / Secondary Major Arterials /".. / Collectors 32. Agenda Date: January 12, 2000 Scale: None ENCLOSURE 8 Z-99-096 (Ryan Rd. @ Teasley) NORTH 500' Notification Limits ROBINSON 200'-500' NOTICE MAP 33. Agenda Date: January 12, 2000 Scale: None Z-99- ,96 (Ryan Rd./Teasley) - Opp tion Number Street Name Comment 3009 Overlake Dr. Glenn Ibelieve that our neighborhood will lose property value due to apartments being built. The apartments will seem 3904 Overlake Dr. Huff overbearing on our homes. Ido not feel the zoning in this area is consistent. We have upscale single-family housing, mobile home lots and now fou would like to bring in multi-family units. Property values will decrease and the value of our neighborhood will 3908 Overlake Dr. Patrick decrease. 3909 Overlake Dr. Glenn 3912 Overlake Dr. Bergman 3913 Overlake Dr. Haddlock 3917 Overlake Dr. Harper am very opposed! This will make my property value 3920 Overlake Dr. Williams lower. 3925 Overlake Dr. Domes 3932 Ovedake Dr. OIdham 3936 Overlake Dr. Muller 3937 Overlake Dr. Carter 3941 Overlake Dr. Noto 3945 Overlake Dr. Boso I was led to believe that the area would be Doctors Offices. 3952 Overlake Dr. Young This I feel will hurt property values and quality of life. 3953 Overlake Dr. Deramo 3956 Qverlake Dr. Goggin 3957 Overlake Dr. DuBois 3961 Overlake Dr. Clark 2220 Wildwood Lane LeBrun I will be at every meeting to fight this 2305 Wildwood Lane Tandif 2308 Wildwood Lane Richter Neither I nor my wife have any interest of having a multi- family dwelling in our backyard. We moved to a residential location to get away from all aspects of apartment life. We also moved to a Residential location as an investment in our future, and this proposed plan will severely devalue the 2309 Wildwood Lane George land and housing in the immediate area. Teasley Lane is already too crowded - many accidents at Ryan, Windowed and Robinson. Property value would go 2312 Wildwood Lane Steward down. 2313 Wildwood Lane Wright Having multi-family housing on this property will lower the 2316 Wildwood Lane Moore property value on the homes in this neighborhood. 2317 Wildwood Lane Cartwright We already are adjacent to two Mobil home parks which have a high density population. We do not want the additional density or additional traffic flow. Additional traffic flow to an existing heavy flow will cause problems for our neighborhood children. We want a quite and safe home for 2321 Wildwood Lane Garner our kids. 2325 Wildwood Lane Tinsman Opposed, no apt. only houses. 2400 Wildwood Lane Watson 2401 Wildwood Lane Johnson 34. · - Opp it on Z-99-,,96 (Ryan Rd./Teasley) ' do not want to see apartments on this property, I think this would be detrimental to my property value, and would ,create an even more dangerous traffic situation than 2404 Wildwood Lane Thomas already exists. 2405 Wildwood Lane Grisson Multi-family (apts) will depreciate property value, increase traffic in an already congested area. We also have safety concerns if apts. Should be built - over population in small 2408 Wildwood Lane Deeb area. 2409 Wildwood Lane Brown 2417 Wildwood Lane Franklin 2420 Wildwood Lane Smith 2421 Wildwood Lane Brown/Raper We request rezoning of the property to single famii~,. NEUTRAL Although neutral in opinion, would prefer the property for 3928 Overlake Dr. Mandviwalla single-family residential. I am willing to keep an open mind until I see the plans. A 2300 Wildwood Lane Ressler big complex or highrise will get a definite no though. 35. ~.~an"lZ~Z000 lZ:O4pm From-WINS?EAD~H~EST ~ T-053 P.OOZ/OOZ F-g?3 ~/INSTEAD SECHREST & ]ViII,lICK January 12, 2000 FAX 9401382-7923 $400 Rannaa~ance D~. T~ 7~70 Ed Snyder, Esq. Assistant City AttOrney City of l~nTon 215 East McKinney Denton, TX 76201 Re: PD 966 Dear Ed: As we discussed yesterday, our client has submiffed a detailed development plan application scheduled for P&Z consideration r3_is evetfing. A neighborhood meeting was held on Monday regarding this matter. Several of the residents expressed a !imi!~d concern due To sIa~s delay ia scheduling and givh~g notice of the meeting. Our cliem is willing to request a gosq~onement tonighL but I have a concern regarding the impact of the Interim Residemial De'velopmem Regulations being considered this evening. While our client's application is exempted from the current moratorium, ix would apparently ~ be exempted from the new interim regulations. Please a~cept this letter as on: request that the P&Z postpone the detailed development plan request and amend The imerim regulations To exempx this application. This agr~men~ to postpone does not waive our legal fights to object to, and protest, the carrem moratorium and the interim regulations. Please let me know how the City intends to proceed in this matter. Sincerely, Arthur J. Anderson ~ Doug Powell (via fax 904/349-7707) Alyson Archer (via fax 972_/599-9988) , .ODMAt~w2 DOCSxD.,~L L.q.~,_ 1 L3254230x I 179 72g-3 HOuSTOI~ MEXICO Cl'rlf 36. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 12, 2000 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT 2 (Page 175). Motion carries 7-0. 12. Hold a public hearing and consider recommending approval to City Council the rezoning of approximately two acres of land from an Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Commercial (C) zoning district. The prOPertY is legally described as a 2.05 acre tract in the F; Baston Survey, Abstract No. 43, in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. It is loCated approximately 550 feet north and 1000 feet east of the intersection of West University Drive (US 380) AND 1-35. The proposal is to develop a gas station. (Z-99-094, Racetrac, Thomas B. Gray) Motion by Elizabeth Gourdie and seconded by Salty Rishel to recommend approval with conditions to the City Council. *Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 187). Motion carries ,-,,. - PUBLIC HEARING- INTERIM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 14. Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, establishing interim standards for applying policies of the adopted comprehensive plan to requests for zoning amendments and certain specified residential development applications pending adoption of a revised development code; providing for administration of such standards; providing for exemptions; providing for severability; providing an effective date; and providing a savings clause. *DiscUssion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this Set of minutes (Page 224). 15. Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, establishing interim standards for applying policies of the adopted comprehensive plan to requests for zoning amendments and certain specified nonresidential development applications pending adoption of a revised development code; providing for administration of such standards; prOviding for exemptions; providing for severability; providing an effective date; and providing a savings clause. *Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 224.). 37. F CondenseItTM Page 33 Page 35. and we did 1 request tonight is to continue again until January 26th. 1 3 4 5 driveway i 6 project. 7 and they hope tt 8 9 belieVe, 9 .. 10 MR. 10 11 MR. 11 12 Reichhart? Let me -- 12 13 I will see if 13 14 address the issue. Is there ~ 14 15 to address this particular, 15 16 who would 16 17 There ~ 17 18 motion to continue? 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 MR. 23 24 to continue 24 25 25. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 34 Then Agenda Item 13 is to held a public heating 1 consider making a recommendation to City Council 2 regarding a detailed plan for a Planned Development 3 .District 093 encompassing approximately 13.7 acres. The 4 detailed plan proposal is for a 159-unit multi-family 5 residential development and 4.3 acres of commercial 6 development. The property is located at the southwest 7 comer of Ryan Road and Teasley Lane. At this time, I 8 will open the public hearing and ask Mr. Reichhart to 9 provide us with the information that he has from the l0 petitioner, I believe. 11 · . · MR. REICHHART: And, again, we're looking at 12 the parecl On the southwest comer of Ryan Road and 13 Teasley. This is part of ?D-93. At a neighborhood 14 meeting this week, we had a meeting Monday night, and I 15 think by the end of that meeting some people were feeling 16 a little rushed in the neighborhood, quite honestly, and I17 think the developer picked up on that and just wanted 18 everybody the opportunity to understand what was being 19 proposed out here. 20 Another neighborhood meeting has been 21 scheduled for a week from tonight, Wednesday night, where 22 the applicant will be willing to talk to the neighbors 23 again. So he thought it would be best to meet again with 24 the _neighbors before proceeding. And that's basically the25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 2000 2 .MR. ENGELBRECHT: commissioners, any questions 3 for Mr. Reichhart at this time? Ms. Gourdie. 4 MS. GOURDIE: Actually, I do just have one 5 question for the future. Are they filling in this pond? 6 I guess it looks like they are. 7 MR. REICHHART: Tho detailed plan shows they 8 ' are filling in the detention -- the pond. MS. GOURDIE: SO there's no floodway? MR. KEICHHART: NO. MS. COUP. DIE: It's just a pond that was built for the cows that once roamed there? ' MR REIcHHART: I believe so, farm pond or something like that. MS. GOURDIE: Thank you. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Mr. Rishel. MR. RISHEL: There's a number of letters from citizens that may want to speak. Was there a percentage generated on the number of people that were opposed to this? MR. REICHHART: AS of 5:00 o'olock tonight, it's 20.4 percent. MR. RISHEL: Thank you. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Ally other questions at this time? Okay. :In that case, is there anyone premnt who Page 36 would like to speak in favor of this petition at this time? Anyone present who would like to speak in favor of this petition at this time? In that case, is there anyone present who would like to speak in opposition to this petition at this time? Yes, sir, if you would come down and give us your name and address for the record. MR. GARNER: Hi. My name is Richard Garner. I live at 2321 Wildwood. And I just wanted to briefly say that I am opposed to this zoning change. I feel that the population density in this area is probably excessive as it is. We have manufactured home parks adjacent to both :sides of our property in question here, Again, I think it's the density factor that we really don't want to have in our backyards, associating that with higher traffic flows, things of that nature. And I just wanted to vocally oppose this change. MR. ENGEI.,BRECHT: commissioners, are there any questions of the speaker? Mr. Rishel. MR. RISHEL: Yes. Mr. Garner, on the map, where do you live in relationship to the map that's on the board there? MR. aAm,mR: Vm within the 200-foot area on Wildwood which is a single street and I'm on the side that is directly adjacent to the property. Page 33 - Page 36 38. Condens~ItTM .' ~ Idommao: yes. I wond~ if or som~b~y wo~d c0n~ says it's sin~f~ly. ~s is on pa~ 6 as of Page 37 I MR. RISHEL: And all that area that is south ' 2 of the site and west of the site is all single-family 3 residential; is that correct? 4 MR. GARNER: YeS, Sir~ it is. $ MR. RISHEL: And everything that's on the east 6 of the site and north of the site is either -- is 7 dominantly a small strip center of commercial property and 8 the rest of it is mobile homes; is that correct? 9 MR. eArn, mR: .correct. There's one strip 10 eenter in this area right here. I'm not even sure if 11 they're -- I don't even know what they do there. 12 MR. RISHEL: Yes, sir. 13 MR. GARNER: There doesn't seem to be too much 14 activity. 15 MR. RISHEL: Mr. Garner, one of the things we 16 try to do as we look and develop communities is to try to 17 create a buffer between zoning that might not be as 18 acceptable to residential as we can possibly do and so 19 we're trying to create some sort of a buffer between the 20 mobile home parks and your neighborhood. What sort of 21 uses do you see that would be acceptable for you in that 22 area besides apartments? 23 MR. GARNER: I'Ve talked to several residents 24 in that area and I think there's a general agreement. 25 It's my understanding that it's zoned Restricted Lot 24 page 38 I Co/mneroial presently. That's my understanding. 2 MR. RISHEL: And are you wanting the things 3 that could go into Light Commercial? 4 MR. GARNER: Yeah, such as maybe an office 5 building, a professional building, schools, public 6 building, something of that nature. Basically, what we're 7 trying to avoid is the hustle and bustle of a seven-day, 8 24-hour development in our baekyards. We were told by the 9 developer this would be a single-story development, 10 obviously, for privacy issues. I think an apartment 11 complex would certainly destroy that privacy. Most 12 apartments that I've ever seen are two levels or more. So 13 that's another concern.: But wc were -~ from some of the 14 people I've talked to and I can't represent all of them 15 but maybe like an office building or some scenario like 16 that. 17 MR. RISttEL: AS you look at the office 18 building that's immediately to the east of that site on 19 Robinson Road, what percentage of that strip center would 20 you say is occupied at this time? 21 MIL eARNER: I'd make a wild guess and say 22 maybe ten percent. 23 MR. PJSHEL: That's what I was thinking. Okay. Thank you very much. 1 2 4 Septembea' of '96. 5 ~ OO~^[~SON: xho subj~t si~ is ~n 6 ~ w~ch ~s ~n acm of m~fi-f~ly us~ and fo~ 7 ae~ of ~al mmil us~ or offic~ - I'm so~, 8 co~cial ~. 9 ~ ~IcH~T: ~ Si~ in qu~fion, I've 10 ~t~ it ~ ~e orango. ~e mffiti-f~ly poffion 11 is ~. ~ ~ s~oun~ng ~S, ~s whale p~c~l was 12 o~na~y p~ Of or is p~ of P~3. At ~ ~e of 13 ' ~ conc~t plan approval, we had genial ~il, 14 mffi~-f~ly at 17 uniB ~ ac~ and ~en slngl~fa~ly. 15 ~d at ~ sm~ ~ ~ or~nanc~ was approve, ~o 16 demll~ p~n for ~ singl~f~ly was approve. ~e 17 singl~f~ly is cons~c~ at ~s t~e. 18 ~ ~GELB~C~: ~ ~ any 0~ 19 qu~tions, ~ssion~s? ~a~ you, ~. Gms. 20 App~ia~ you co,nc. 21 ~o~ ~ha~ you, 22 ~ ~OELB~: Is th~ anyone o~e p~ent 23 who wo~d ~e ~ sp~k in opposition to ~s petition? 24 ~yen~ ~lse p~ent to s~k in opposition to ~e 25 ~tion? ~ d~t..~ssion~s, ~ ~ .[ I questions for staff at this time? 2 MS. GOURDIE: Yes, please. 3 MR. ENGELBRECHT: MS. Gourdie. 4 MS. ootnmi~.: Thank you. I would, when this 5 comes forward, I would like to know, w6 know Ryan Road is 6 an impossible road, we know Teasley is fast and then slow 7 through that area. I would just llke to have intensity 8 trips based on stuff that's already platted, not current 9 intensity but what's going to happen in that area which we 10 know a lot of homes am coming on-llne. And how feasible 11 it is to have such a -- I mean, 350 bedroom units, that's 12 pretly intense usage, I think, of the nine acres of land. 13 And tl~n the commercial development, which I'm seeing up 14 the street is moro intense then was told at the meetings, 15 just out of the roality check. So I'djust like to know 16 what would happen in this area if this really went in, if 17 you could do that for us -- me. Thank you. 15 MK ENGELBRECHT: Did you want to make a 19 comment, Mr. Relchhart? 20 MR. REICHHART: I world just recommend that we 21 pass that Oil tO tlao applicant to provide that information 22 and we'll review it. We're not going to do a traffic 23 impact analysis. 24 Ids. c,o~I~: ,nil right. Thank you. 25 MIL ENGELBRECHT: MI'. Moretlo. [25 MIL ENOELBREC~: commissioners, any other ._~ PLANNING AND ZONINO COMMISSION JANUARY 12,2000 39 i,~ :-:2~ '~-~ CondenscIt TM Page 41 I questions? I have a question. I do not see in the 2 multi-family any sort of recreational anything for the 3 apartment complex residents. I don't see a swimming pool. 4 I don't see a public joint building, nothing. $ MR. REICHHART: If you look in -- I know it's 6 this area of the detailed plan. 7 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Right. 8 ' MR. REICHHART: There was an area identified 9 as either leasing and recreation and as potential uses. I 10 think it was swimming pool, tennis club, and something 11 else. 12 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Right. Okay. Basically, 13 they're suggesting that they would offer that space for 14 lease to someone. 15 MR. REICHHART: I think that would be the 16 leasing offices, you know, like an apartment where 17 someone's them renting out the -- and we can let the 18 applicant speak on that but I think that's -- 19 MR. ENGELBRECHT: okay. Whenever they come 20 forward, we can. 21 MR. REICHHART: we'll pass that on to them 22 that that's a concern. 23 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Ail right. Would you 24 briefly describe thc buffer between thc single-family 25 residential and the multi-family? . Page 42 I MR. REICHHART: That was one of the major 2 concerns or topics brought up at the neighborhood meeting 3 and that's one of thc things that the applicant is going 4 to speak on at the neighborhood meeting to pursue 5 diffemat alternatives, from what they told me. What is 6 proposed right now, there's a ten-foot setback between the 7 property line and the building line of the proposed 8 buildings. And it seemed like at the end of the meeting 9 that there would be a landscaping hedge, evergreen, live 10 cvcrgreen hedge to backup to the fences that are currently 11 there. And that seemed the direction that everybody was 12 going in, talking a brick wall, an additional wooden 13 fence. A lot of different alternatives were 14 investigated. But there's ten foot between thc property 15 line and the building. 16 MR. ENGELBRECHT: A question, haven't wc 17 typically in the past required the more dense development 18 to provide the solid screen such as the brick wall, thc 19 fence, or the whatever? 20 MR. REICHHART: We have done that. 21 MR. EIaGELBRECHT: And another question I have 22 is in regard to thc screening between thc multi-family and 23 the commercial use, retail use. As I understand that, 24 that is a vegetative screen? 25 MR. REICHHART: Right. Page 43 I MR. ENGELBRECHT: Is that what that is? 2 MR. REICHHART: That's what they're proposing. 3 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Okay. I'm not asking you to 4 provide this now, but I would like some discussion by 5 staff when this comes back with regard to the issue of 6 security and safety where we have a commercial like this. 7 abutting multi-family and there's no, in essence, there's 8 the ability for continuous pass-through pedestrian traffic 9 all along the area. Is that a good idea from a security 10 perspective? If not or it doesn't matter or whatever. 11 But I would like some discussion on that. Any other -- 12 okay, Mr. Moreno. 13 MR. MORENO: I'm sorry, but I'm still confused 14 on this property's history. It's now PD-93 that included 15 single-family development, muiti-family development, and 16 general retail.. And the single-family portion has been 17 built-out. Is that what I heard? 18 MR. REICHHART: Correct. 19 MR. MORENO: And now thc applicant is seeking 20 multi-family and commercial. 21 MR. REICHHART: And commercial, the remaining 22 vacant parcels. 23 .MR. MORENO: And tell me again the distinction 24 between what they have now and what they want. It sounds 25 · almost the same. · · Page 44 1 MR. P,E[C_..HHART: it is, but it's the detailed 2 plan portion of a PD. okay? .It's the final st~ in the 3 zoning process for the Planned I~velopment, which is 4 basically the sit~ plan approval is what tho Planned 5 Development -- the use of what they're proposing is 6 consistent with the concept plan. 7 ~ MO~O:. okay. So th~'ve alr~dy got tl~ 8 multi-family and the comm~xeial in place. Is that what 9 I'm hearing? 10 M~ P,~Cm~.RX: ?ho concept plan identifies 11 those as the two additional, the r~malulng uses, correct. 12 MR. MORENO: okay. Thank you. 13 ~ ENOELBRECHT: lvlr. McNeill. 14 ~ MCl, IEILI~ That was really my question. 15 From what I read here, they're not asking for anything 16 that hasn't already been -- they're just continuing in the 17 normal process to have approved what was already approved 18 in tl~ concept plan. 19 ~ REICHHART: corlx~t. 20 MR. MC-~emL: SO they're not asking for 21 anything other than what's normal? 22 ~ REICHHART: correct. 23 M~ MCNEILL: Thank you. 24 MR. ENOELBRECHT: Any other questions, 25 Commissioners, comments or a motion to continue? PLANNING AND ZONVING COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 2000 40. Page 41 - Page 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 CondenscltTM Page 45 MI~ RISHEL: ! mabe tbe motion wc continue Z-99-096 to our January 26th reg,;Inr meeting of p&7.: MS. APPLE: second, MR. ENOELBRECHT: It'S been moved and seconded to continue to ~anua.,~ 26th. Discussion? Vot~, please. Motion carries unanimously. regarding the c District. ask MS. R.AGLAND: Engelbrecht and I am the small area a proposal for the District. If and Chairman My name is Dedra Ragland. You have before you Zoning Overhy ~ Street t City Council. area and Tho plan contains for area-wide improvements in thc Fry Street area. have a copy of the plan and those recommendations. want to point out, there wove two basic recommendations Page 46 City corPoration. $250,000.00 being t In conjunction property owners are to create a F~ 'etd would allow them services that j thec is address location that r some of the ~ight now, there is ; 2000-2001 CIP package. ,roposal, area the City District. This with additional funds for beyond what the City include 3istfict which district would that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 '9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 district 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 Page 47 And as I mentioned, you do have Overlay t Ordinance so I don't want to s ; into that, but I would like maybe, most debated within the off-street The L notice, originally ~ I that we Council, it was some ureas. I would like number c eliminate the there ~ whole lot have in place. recommendation may have acent and surrounding h that them were a was a recommendation to the merchants felt and expansion ate all know to have a little more then, third, parking, don't is controlled by land c property owners really don't own the property in which are located on. As I mentioned, Council . ask staff to come up with some alternative scenarios to the parking parking they were looking maybe consistent. who owners. So they Pag,, We looked at three different scenarios. Tho average ratio i spaces ~ :516 would allow tho merchants, If we reduce the ~ one to 1,000, spaces and 150 recommends eliminafinl :which would be 100 serVe a number of purposes, and it also addresses ; parking, 23 24 There's also an ordinance to prohibit open 25 gl~q~ coritainers within this district. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 2000 we've not I any ~roposed Fry Street district. a couple of notices within tbe 200-foot notification which only represents about 2.31 percent opposition. We have identified four options for tbe Commission to review. We are recommending Option 1 which Page 45 - Page 48 41. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 26, 2000 Page 2 of 3 :pproval of the Final Plat of the Preserve at Pecan Creek Section A, Phase II ing 24.861 acres. (FP-99-125, The Preserve, Section A, Phase II) ~reval of t,he Final Plat of the Preserve at Pecan Creek Section G, acres. (FP-99-078, The Preserve, Section G, Phase I) r approval of the Final Plat of the'Preserve at Pecan Creek Section 3hase II being ~15 acres. (FP-99-127, The Preserve, Section G, Phase II) o Consider I. The 25.361 The property is correct a of an Amending Plat of the Final Plat of Windsor Ridge site is generally located south of Windsor and ea.~ Planned Development (PD-86) zoning district. Put (AP-00-003, Windsor Ridge, Larry Reichhar Motion by Susan Apple ff-4c, d and e. *Discussion of item is (Page 2). Motion carries 7-0. by Perry McNeill to approve Court Reporter's ates, Phase ,stmeadow. of the plat is to PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING 6. Continue a public hearing and amend Section 1(5, 8 and 13' amendment to the ordinance maintaining trees greater than 2 inch~ southern property line that bufferyard, tree and screening requirem~ be removed. (Z-99-071,244( Motion by Salty Rishel and seconded by I to City Council. *Discussion of item is included in Cou (Page 8). Motion carries 6-1. Elizabeth Gol enda excluding ~is set of minutes removal to City Council to The applicant has requested an 15 foot bufferyard, relief from erecting an 8' tall fence along the O(c) zoning district. The utting the residential zoning district will not Larry Reichhart) recommend approval with conditions o this set of minutes Continue a public heari~ Id consider making a recomr regarding a Detailed !Y 10 acres Streets north of Pal= .'The property is located zoning district. A .S.D. education facility is proposed. Thomas B. ~dation to City Council ' Mulkey and Audra 3ment 9 (PD-9) PD-9 Detailed Plan, Motion by Salty to City (Page, ;I and seconded by Perry McNeill to recommend apl is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes Continue a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding a Detailed Plan for a Planned Development (PD-93) encompassing approximately 13.7 acres. The detailed plan proposal is for a 159 unit multi-family residential development and 4.3 acres of commemial development. The property is 42. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 26, 2000 Page 3 of 3 located at the southwest comer of Ryan Road and Teasley Lane. (Z-99-096, Ryan Rd./Teasley Ln., Larry Reichhart) Motion by Elizabeth Gourdie and seconded by Salty Rishel to deny. *DisCussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of'minutes (Page 66). " Motion fails 3-4. Susan Apple, Rudy Moreno, Perry McNeill and Carl Williams. Motion by Perry McNeill and seconded by Carl Williams to recommend approval with conditions to City Council. Motion fails 2-5. Susan Apple, Elizabeth Gourdie, Rudy Moreno, Perry McNeill and Jim Engelbrecht opposed. Motion by Susan Apple and seconded by Perry McNeill to continue. Motion carries 7-0. public to con ).24 acres, commonly known as 1504, 1506 and 1508 N. Elm, from an zoning district to a Planned Development (PD) zoning district. The proposal is to all and residential uses on the property. (Z-99-083, 1504-15(; Elm, Larry Reichh~ City Council. *Discussion of item is i~ (Page 144). Motion carries 7-0. and seconded bY Salty Rishel to recommend [ With conditions to d in Court Reporter's transcript to this set of minutes 10. Hold a public hearing to Detailed Plan encompassing apl (PD-173) zone district. The proper~ Ranch Road (formerly Crawford Rd. open space/golf course and an Reichhart) a City Council regarding the acres within a Planned Development located at the northeast comer of Robson :lorence Road. A residential development with ;)osed. (Z-99-102, Robson Ranch, Larry Motion by Perry McNeill and to City CounCil. *Discussion of item is ir (Page 156). Motion carries 7-0. Susan in cOUrt Reporter's transcript approval with conditions ~d to this set of minutes PUBLIC 11. Hold a rega~ - ANNEXATION AND ZONING and consider making a recommendation to the ncil proposed annexation of approximately 18 acres located on the north side of Spencer Road between Woodrow Lane and Loop 288 (A-98, DME Spencer Road Power Plant, Mark Donaldson); and 43. Condens~ItTM Page 65 Page 67 I see our school board do better planning when they pick I intersection of Teasley and Ryan Road. The application is 2 school sites. 2 for a 159-unit multi-family residential development MR. ENGELBRECHT: Ally other comment? I 3 comprising'of 9.4, plus or minus, acres. The staff has ; like to say I will be voting in 4 recommended or asked that this item be held to your next I recognize that this a courtesy 5 meeting. The reasons for that are three-fold. One, there 6 I do want to commend for t5 is a pending action or possible action by City Council to- 7 the City, working and 7 look at initiating a rezoning of this property because, 8 :with , take into account all the 8 through the moratorium ordinance, it was deemed that this 9 : of the major ones. I ~ we're 9 development is inconsistent with the general plan. Two, 10 going ; Audm is 10 we're not quite sure of what the effects of the interim I turned 11 regulations not yet approved would have on this ordinance. 12 basically, is wha will go up to 12 And thirdly, we'd like to understand or research better 13 Mingo Road And I think 13 what kind of conditions that we could recommend be placed 14 that will disburse tha~ : the school 14 on this property so that it would be in conformance with 5 district has done a good whoever designed this, in 15 the general plan. 6 terms of managing the [ and staff traffic and 16 Because of those reasons, we -- staff has 17 tho parent traffic by t . on two sides, will 17 asked that this item be held over to your next meeting. I 18. I believe. 18 don't know if, Ed, you ~vant to say anything further? 19 And -- I know ~ were some 19 MR. SN'YDER: NO, that's fine. 20 concerns retention ponds, f there is 20 Mm POWELL: we'll answer any questions you 21 ~ose, that I ~ distriot 21 might have. I'd be happy to go through the staff report 22 will ' to ensure Mr. 22 in Mr. Reichhart's absence or answer any questions you t want to make a comment? 23 might have. MR. RISHEL: I just wantp.~d to coho your 24 MR. MCNEILL: Yeah, I'd like to hear the staff I think We'Ve seen an ongoing 25 report. Page. 68 1 ~ and I M~ ~o~.cBv~carr: okay. Commissioners, yeah. 2 And i 2 Okay. Let's go ahead and hear the staff report. I, also, 3 be addressed make sure ~ that in an 3 I'll just interject now, I just received a number of cards 4 expeditious manner, history that 4 from individuals who wish to speak on th/s Agenda item. 5 we've seen with DISD a this forth as a 5 Mil. POWELL: AS I mentioned, this application 6 motion. 6 is for a detailed phn for multi-family. In your backilp, 7 MiL All 7 thc~ is a site plan or a plan, a detailed plan, that docs 8 seven to zero. And as I'd 8 show tho location of parcels. You'll also unto that tt~ 9 we will be taking 9 commercial area located along Tcasloy is also indicated on (Break taken.) 10 the phn in your packet. Tho commercial portion is caught MR. ENGELBRECHT: At this time, we will 11 under the non-residential moratorium and we do have a our public heatings this evening. We'll move 12 revised phn that the applicant has submitted that takes . t3' onto Agenda Item No. 8 which is to continue a public 13 away or takes off that commercial. So that cannot be part 14 hearing and consider making a recommendation to City 14 of your discussion or consideration tonight. 15 Council regarding a detailed plan for Planned Development 15 Tho conditions on tho concept plan, which is 16 93 encompassing approximately 13.7 acres. The detailed 16 Ordinance 8568 was at the multi-family that abuts a 17 plan proposal is for a 159-unit multi-family residential 17 single-family to the w~st and to the south should not 18 development and 4.3 acres of commercial development. The 18 exceed two-story construction height. The applicant has 19 property is located at the southwest corner of Ryan Road 19 limited tl~ multi-family units adjacent to the 20 and Tcadey Lane. This is a continuance of a previous 20 single-family housing to one-and-a-half stories or a 21 publlchearing. I belleve wc're going to have staff 21 maximumof35fco~vfithno~ocond~torywindowsfaclnStl~ 22 report at this time. 22 slngle-fatnlly properties. Parking lot lights should be 23 ' MR. POWELL: MI'. Chairman, Commissioners, 23 positioned away from residential buildings. A note to 24 wc ha~tc included in your packet a staff report for this 24 this effect has been and should he included on the plans. 25 application. As shown on thc map, it is located at the 25 Screening shall he provided to protect ~ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 9-6, 20011 Page 65 - Page 68 44. Cond_e. nsoltTM Page 69 Page 71 multi-family housing from commercial retail activities and I ~a~ ~owELL: xhis is for a detailed plan which 2 also buffers singlc-family housing from multi-familY 2 is tho seeond part of tbo Phnned Dotclopment process 3 developments. The proposed screening should bo indicated 3 wlg~ such iioms can bo reviewed by you and tho City 4 on the general landscapoplan. And tho~_~gh I wasn't at the 4 Council. 5 neighborhood meetings, it's my understanding that tho 5 Ms. APPLE: Thanks. 6 issue of buffering this development from the existing 6 ~n~ ~OELBR~CaT: gr. McNdll. 7 houses adjacent to it was one of, I guess, the most 7 M~ Me,mu ~his is not another step, this 8 concern to the adjoining property owners. We do have a 8 is tho final st~p in tho approval precis, is it not? ' 9 number -- I have received a number of letters of 9 MI~ eOW~LU ?hat ii correct, th~ s~Cond and 10 opposition to this request. Currently, those total over 10 final. 1 the 20 percent for the adjoining property owners within 11 M~ MC-'m~ICL: YeS. So, actually, it's tl~ 12 200 feet. 12 third step. There's conc~t, development, and then th~ 13 Staff finds that the detailed plan does have 13 final detailed plan. And so this is not a zoning change. 4 all the elements required to complete an application, make 14 This is simply providing tho additional information 5 a complete application. But there's a m~mber of issues 15 required uncl~r our ordinances for tho dev¢lopex to go ' 6 that still exist including the buffeting and tho design 16 forward with his plan. 17 charaeteristics of this project that would mako it 17 ivacs~'vDme vll answer that question. The 8 compatible with tho existing single-family residences that 18 Phnned Dovol0pment process under our ordinances, although 19 surround it and to make sure that it is in compliance with 19 there are three steps, tho applicant can go from tho first 20 tho general plan. 20 stop to tho third step and that's what's bo~n dono lm~. 21 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Yes, we do appear to have at 21 Each of those steps is treated as a separate zoning case 22 least one question. Ms. Apple. 22 with ti~ required notices going out and public hearings 23 MS. APPLE: Just for a point of clarification 23 and tho protest rule. That is one of tho issueS, that is 24 and I guess informational purposes, it's my understanding 24 one of tho reasons why we're requeSting a postponement to 25 that this is part of the planne, d Development. The 25 give us an opportunity to como back and give you advice at Page · page 70 . ' I development was for so many acres of single-family, so 1 the next meeting as to precisel~ what's your latitude in 2 many acres of multi-family, and so many acres of retail or 2 discretion with regard to placing those conditions on this 3 commercial. So this is really not a change. It's just 3 detailed plan should you choose to. That's one of the 4 utilizing the plan that was in place. In other words, 4 reasons why we're asking for it to be postponed. But, 5 'this isn't something new that's coming about building 5 yes, this is a Planned Development.' This is the second 6 these apartments. It's part of the Planned Development. 6 step that they've taken. And if this is approved, this 7 And if one, I guess, had looked at the overall 7 would be the final step in the process. 8 development, they would have seen the area designated for 8 MR. MCNBILL: MI right. I guess one of the 9 the single-family residences, the area for the 9 questions I'd have then, I mean, this is -- seems like 10 /nulti-family, and the area for the commercial. Am I 10 this is the second or third time that this is, since I've 11 co~t? 11 been on the Commission, that this has come forward. And 12 MIL POWELL: Yes. And, in fact, in your 12 why would it just occur this week that we needed to delay 13 backup on pago l4 them is, I believe, a copy of the 13 it?i What oCCurred this Week to say, well, gee, we ought 14 detailed plan that shows the single-family development 14 not to proceed? We've got additional requirements here. 15 adjacent to this site that does so. The multi-family and 15 I guess I don't understand why we would want to delay 16 the commercial doesn't have the details for that and 16 this. 17 that's why this parcel or this application is coming back 17 Ma. SNYDBm well, last night the City Council 18 tonight. So this was part of the larger parcel at one 18 had a meeting and at that meeting, this was one of two 19 time. 19 projects that they looked at. 20 MS. APPLE: I guess I just wanted to get that 20 MR. MCNEILL: Behind dosed doors, as I 21 out because I'm seeing the neighbors' concerns and, though 21 recall. 22 I sympathize certainly with those, I guess my dilemma 22 MR. SNYDER: NO, it Was not. It was a work 23 would bo the fact that this was already in place and it's 23 session. 24 just this part of it that's coming before us now so that 24 Mil. MCNEILL: It Was a work session? Okay. 25 it can go forward. 25 MR. POWELL: But I do believe that this is the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 200n Page 69 - Page 72 45. Condonsoltr~ Page 73 I first time that an application for this site has come to 2 you since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the new 3 Comprehensive Plan. 4 MR. MCIqEILL: But this was in process, so does 5 it fall under the new ordinance? 6 MR. POWELL: well, that's one of the reasons, ? again, that we.would like to postpone it. The ordinance 8 is drafted and, of course, we're going to discuss that 9 later this' evening. We're not sure exactly what the 10 effect of the applicability section, which could change -- 11 MR. MCNEILL: well, I'm not a lawyer, but 12 isn't there a term here, paste facto, you can't pass 13 something ahead of me when I've got something going here. 14 it seems to me we've got a problem if we attempt to do 15 that. What you're telling me is we may pass an ordinance 16 someday and it may affect this plan so we should not look 17 at this. Is that what wa're saying? 18 MR. SNYDER: what we're saying is we want the 19 additional time to look at all these factors before you 20 proceed on this case. That's our recommendation. You 21 don't have to follow it. 22 MR. MCNEILL: okay. Oh, I understand that. 23 Yeah, I understand that. Yeah. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Ms. Gourdie. 25 MS. GOURDIE: Thank yOU. ThO few tlme.~ that Page 74 1 wa'va seen this was because of the interim ordinance 2 moratorium; is that correct? It hasn't como before that 3 because we had the moratorium on residential and then we 4 had the commercial, so that's why we've seen it three or 5 four times is because of all the interim happenings; is 6 that correct? 7 MR. POWELL: Maybe Mr. Donaldson can speak to 8 that. I'm not sure. 9 MR. DONALDSON: This is the fLrst zoning 10 application that wa'va had for the multi-family portion of 12 MS. COUP, DIE: But wa'va had this'in our packet 13 before. 14 MR. DONALDSON: We had a preliminary -- we 15 approved the preliminary plat. 16 MR. RISHEL: This is a continuation of the 17 second. 18 MIL DONALDSON: Yes, yes. 19 MS. COURDIE: Okay. 20 MR. POWELL: Yes. This item has basil on a 21 previous Agenda. This is a continuance from that. 22 MS. COURDIE: It looked familiar. And my 23 24 Page 75 I proposed use of land and whether -- anyways. Where's thc 2 open space that it's nearby? I mean, I'm very familiar 3 with this area and I don't know of a park being within -- 4 is this what it's saying or is it mostly saying what's on 5 the property? 6 MR. POWELL: That's within the development. 7 MS. COuP, Dm: okay. Is this property subject 8 to'the Park Dedication Ordinance? 9 MR. POWELL: Y¢8, ma'am. 10 MS. COURDIE: And so -- I guess I didn't read 11 in here, did they dedicate land or are they putting money 12 towards the park land? 13 MR. DONALDSON: In order to calculate out to 14 tho five-acre minimum that we would require for actual 15 land dedication, you need about 500 multi-family units. 16 So they would, more than likely, pay the fee in lieu of at 17 the time of platting. 18 MS. COUP, DIE: And that will be listed in here 19 if this is -- I guess it just wasn't listed in here so it 20 seemed to me that it wasn't included. 21 MR. DONALDSON: NO, we do that at the platting 22 process. 23 MS. COUP, DIE: At the platting process? Okay. 24 Thank you. 25 MR. ENGELBRECHT: MI'. Williams. . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 76 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I got kind of confused here, so I need to ask a question of our attorney. You mentioned something about the City Council looked at this last night in a work session. MR. SNYDER: NO, it was a special-called -- it was a work session, but there was a special-called item on this propcniy and another property. MR. WILLIAMS: okay. I'm getting confused because it seems we don't need a Planning and Zoning if the City Council is going to look at them first. Just let them go ahead and look at them all, and I can go home. MR. SNYDER: NO, nO. Th~ purpose of tl~ . sPecial-called meeting was -- let me back up a little bit. MR. WILLL~MS: okay. MR. SNYDER: AS a part of the proposed interim non-residential regulations, one of the processes was for the Planning staff to look at pending applications to see which pending applications would not be consistent with the new Comprehensive Plan. As a part of that, there were two eases, two applications that were reviewed, that were determined to be inconsistent. This happened to b~ one of second question is on page 4 under number 10, open space, 23 MR. MCNEILL: Determined to be inconsistent? it's got check marks to the approximate location and size 24 MR. SNYDER: Inconsistent. And as a result of 25 of ~__~__l~elt, open, co~:~r.~,'~a, or recreatlnn areas. The 25 that, it was on last night's Agenda to review. The PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2000 46. Page 73 - Page 7~ 1 2 4 6 ? lO 11 12 14 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 CondcnseltTM Page 77 Council did not take any action. They decided to postpone 1 it until next week, February 1st, at wMch time -- 2 MR. WILLD, MS: SO why are we wasting our time 3 with it? 4 MR. POWELL: If I may, tho action would be to 5 direct staff to look at rezoning the property which would 6 go through the process and you would be part of that 7 process. The activity was not to rezone thc'proPerty but 8 to whether or not staff should be directed to pUrSu~ that. 9 Me,. SmmER: TO bring it back to P&Z. It 10 would be brought back to Planning and Zoning Commission 11 Now, that may or may not ever happen. The point is that's 12 one of the three reasons why we're saying to postpone 13 this. If you can just wait and see what Council's going 14 to do next week and we're only asking this be postponed to 15 your next meeting. Tbe other issue had to do with making 16 sure that you get the best possible advice before you act 17 on this as to what kind of conditions you can place on 18 this detailed plan. 19 MR. ~rILLIAIVIS: I hear what you're saying, but 20 I'm not understanding what you're saying. What do you 21 mean about -- I think you need to be a little bit more 22 speeit~ic. 23 MR. SNYDER: I'm sorry. I can't be any more 24 specific than that. 25 · :Page 78 1 MR. WILLIA/VIS: okay. Like I'm saying, I'm 1 2 trying to learn a process. Are we reviewing things after 2 3 the City Council or before the City Council? I guess 3 4 that's my bottom-line question. Because if we are 4 5 reviewing them after the City C~unefl, why are we here? I 5 6 guess that's my concern. 6 7 Mm SmrOEm well, we're just making a 7 8 recommendation. You know, if you want to proceed tonight 8 9 with this and consider this plan, that's your prerogative. 9 10 MIL ENGELBRECHT: Mr. Rishel. 10 11 MR. RISHEL: Legal staff question, was it 11 12 determined that it was inconsistent or was it just thought 12 13 that it might be inconsistent? Was there a determination 13 14 made when they -- 14 15 MIL SNYDER: I can't -- I'd have to defer to 15 16 Planning staff on that. It's my understanding that there 16 17 was a -- that's the reason why that case, this proPerty is 17 18 being reviewed. 18 19 MR. msmm: Can you answer that? 19 20 MR. POWELL: There was a determination that 20 21 this application, this development proposal could bo 21 22 potentially conflicting with the -- or inconsistent with 22 23 thc Comp Plan. 23 24 MIL RISHEL: okay. Thank you. 24 25 MIL ENGELBRECHT: Mr. McNcill. 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 9-00° · .' Page 79 [ MIL MCNEILL: I have a legal question then. [ What happens then to this concern or direction or effort [ that the city Council has if P&Z were to approve this [ tonight? What happens when it gets to the Council? Is that binding, unbinding, makes no difference to them? Ar we wasting our time even voting on it? MR. smrgEm well, this detailed plan, the same rules apply that always apply. You would make a reCOmmendation. It will go on to Council. And then Council will make the final decision on this detailed plan. MR- MCNEILL: okay. Now, let me ask it in the negative then. If we were to turn this down, then it would take a super-majority by the Council to approve it? MIL SNYDER: correct. MIL ENGELBRECHT: It would take that anyway because the 20 Percent rule is in effect. MR- SNYDER: Yesh, that's correct. MIL MCNEILL: okay. SO either way, it's going ~ to take a super-majority for this to be -- the detailed plan to be approved? MR- SN'YDER: Correct. MIL MCNEILL: Thank you. MR- ENGELBRECHT: Are there any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Powell. Is petitioner or Page petitioner's representative present? I might say, I recognize the staff request, but it seemed to mc to be appropfiat~ that wc continua through tho proCess because tha petitioner is hero and, as well, wc have some individuals who would llke to speak to thc case. MS. mw~: My name is Dale Irwin. I office at 525 South Carroll in Denton. We are -- the h~,ria Realty Group is a prospective buyer or wa're attempting to purchas~ tho property. We do not own it. Tha own~s of the property are hero tonight. But I think it's already been stated that this is a part of a 31-acre tract that was zoned a Planned Devcl0Pment in 1985, I believe. The first phaS~ of that Planned DeveloPment which was, I behove, 17 acres has l~en already been built-out. Tha propo'ty was sold by tho selkzs to Choice Homes and that property was built-out and them am approximately 95 homes or somewhere in tho 90s that am already in existence tbe~. And this is, I guess, the second phase of tho Planned Development that was done at that time. What we're doing at this point is presenting a sim plan that we are U-ying to do our very b~st to work wire tho neighbors and try to come up with something that is workable, you know, for them and ~vexybody concerned. We held two neighborhood meetings within tha last probably two w~ks or maybe three weeks. We wore one 47. Page 77 - Page 80 CondonsoItTM Page 81 1 of the reasons that it was pulled or asked for a 2 continuance because the first neighborhood meeting we 3 attended, the neighbors felt that they received their 4 notices, I believe, late and they felt like that they 5 needed more time to look into it and, you know, for us to 6 do it again and we did. We requested a enntinuance and 7. had a second neighborhood meeting. There was a -- at the 8 meetings, there wasa considerable amount of 9 misunderstanding, I think, with regard -: that the 10 neighbors felt. And I think that one of the main issues 11 was that they were looking at this as if this was a zoning 12 change and that it was apartments and that they didn't 13 want apartments to be next door to them. And I think one 14 of the issues that it was new to them, you know, and that 15 they were maybe told by their -- so several of them said 16 that they were told by the representatives from Choice 17 Homes that this development would be large homes in the 18 future and that, you know, it would not be -- well, it 19 would be large homes. And I think that they were also 20 told that the mobile home park that's across the street 21 would go away someday in the future. And those are 22 things, obviously, that we have no control over and so 23 forth. 24 So back to the site plan. In view of what's 25 been said, I'll make this brief because I don't guess Page 82 1 there's a whole lot of reason to spend a whole lot of 2 point in talking about it. But we have Ryan Road here, 3 Teasley Lane here. We came up with this concept thinking 4 that we would be met with open arms or at least favorable 5 reaction from the neighbors because if apartments are 6 going to go in there, what would you like to have next to 7 you. And so we put a perimeter around here that is 8 one-story units or one-and-a-half story units. In other 9 words, they're limited. The zoning limits them to 10 two-stories around the perimeter, but we cut it down and 11 said, well, we would like to propose, like, a tt~ce-unit 12 apartment and four-units, small concentrations of units, 13 ' one-story with a maximum of one-and-a-half. Now, what is 14 a one-and-a-half story? You know, the second floor would 15 probably consist of a bedroom and a bath, perhaps, if you 16 chose to do that. But that dcesn't mean that tbey all 17 will be one-and-a-half stories. 18 Along the same line we proposed that the 19 windows in the seennd story or the half-story, ! guess you 20 could call it, would be -- there would be no windows so 21 that they wouldn't be looking -- you know, the issue of 22 looking in my baekyard would not be there. So we have 23 that in our presentation to start with. 24 The remaining buildings in the interior part, 25 and keep '~ mind that this presentation -- this is in the Page 83 1 Planned Development, as you all know perhaps better than 2 I, that these are the building sites that we're 3 illustrating. Those am the maximum building site. The 4 building, once it gets designed and we get beyond this 5 step and, you know, the City Council passes this, well, 6 then we get into the actual site design -- I mean, Planned' 7 Development and design and so forth. But these are the 8 maximum building sites as are these around the perimeter. 9 But the interior buildings, we're proposing that they be 10 no more than two stories and we can make it work doing 11 that, also. 12 The entrances, and I'll briefly touch on this, 13 we worked with, I'think, the Engineering Department and 14 tried to make them work in line with what they suggested. 15 And the Ryan Road entrance here lines up across from the 16 entrance across the street here. The entrance here going 17 into the apartments off Teasley Lane lines up with the 18 mobile home park entrance on Teasley Lane, which is, I 19 think, a good traffic design we're told and that works for 20 us. And then our entrance into the commercial right here 21 thatts stated fight there. 22 Recreational center will be -- let me get my 23 bearings straight -- fight here. And, again, that's just 24 a block and where a building would go and probably the 25 building would be up here, which would be our leasing Page 84 I office, you know, where you'd probably have your office 2 and so forth. The recreational area, the swimming pool, 3 so forth would be in this general area. Truthfully, when 4 we get down to it, probably this row of parking would 5 eliminate right -- am I'm pointing that out right there, 6 and maybe even this building, because I think we can make 7 it work without that and then that would all be 8 recreational area across there, if I'm making sense. But 9 at this point, I think that there's not any point really 10 in getting into that. 11 Elevations that we are proposing, this just 12 gives you a style. But some of the requirements'that 13 we're putting 6n it would boa pitched roof with, I 14 believe, an eight by 12, 8/12 pitch, which is, I think, in 15 line with what the houses in the neighborhood are. We're 16 proposing a 75 percent masonry or brick construction. We 17 use brick mostly in our developments that we have done in 18 the past. And, of course, this little elevation here was 19 designed primarily for that perimeter that I was referring 20 to. And as you can see, a one-story plan here and a 21 story-and-a-half here, not a lot of difference between a 22 story-and-a-half and a one as far as the height of the 23 building. 24 But the important point that I think is of 25 concern and of interest to the neighbors that there are PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2000 48. Page 81 - Page 84 Page 85 I not any windows facing into the backs of their properties. 2 And this is just a typical front elevation that we use. 3 As far as the buffer, and I'll speed through 4 this as quickly as I can, we heard a variety df different 5 words of advice and request from the neighbors. And I 6 th;nk some of the neighbors wanted -- well, ftrst of all, 7 there's already a fence there that the original developer, 8. which was' Choice Homes, put up. And each resident has a 9 six-foot, i think it's a Six-foot backyard fence that 10 they're responsible for maintaining, and just like you 11 would be if you had a fence in your backyard. 12 We're proposing to put a living hedge. That 13 met with a lot of the neighbor's approval. Some of them 14 wanted another wood fence. So, you know, I don't know 15 that there's an answer as faras making something that 16 would fit everybody's need, but we personally like a 17 living hedge or something that is green and looks good and 18 so forth and there would be. That would be the second 19 buffer, which would be a hedge and then the existing fence 20 that's already there. 21 Then between the commercial property and the 22 apartment site, we would propose the same thing, another 23 living hedge. We would propose on the commercial site, 24 and it shows there a couple of entries, entranceways so 25 that you could go from, you know, the pedestrians or Con&ns~It m , .' Page 87.[ setback. And on tho back, we re talking about, a 15-foot[ setbackinstead of 20 foot on the front. [ I Will point out that another way of [ Page 86 1 people that live there could travel from the apartment 2 site to the retail, whatever develops there in thc future. 3 So it wouldn't be a buffer or a fence to keep people out 4 but to make a path to where they could get from point A to 5 point B, if I'm making sense. 6 Some of the concerns of the neighbors that 7 came out of the two neighborhood meetings that we had and 8 I'll hasten to say that all of the neighbors that attended 9 the meeting were very courteous. I think their concems 10 were, number one, that they probably don't want apartments 11 in the area, and I think there's a misunderstanding that, 12 you know, we're trying to zone the property. The property 13 was zoned prior to their ~ing there, you know, prier to . 14 the homes being built there. So I eertalnly understand 15 their feelings there and so forth. They were concerned 16 about the windows looking into the back of their deal and 17 I think we addressed that by having, you know, one-story 18 buildings around the perimeter versus the two-story. And 19 then, number two, agreeing to design the plans so that 20 they would not have windows there, pealed. 21 Another concern by one or two of the people 22 was that the buildings where the ten-foot setback, which 23 is required, were a little close to the fence and to their 24 property. So with the design that we enme up with, we 25 moved it forward as far as we enulch which is a 15-foot 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 !3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 developing this, and we came up with this plan thinking that this would probably be better for the neighbors by having, you know, a townhome or a four-plex or a tri-plex or something next door to you and with the restrictions that we've akeady mentioned. So that, again -- but anotherway of doing this and coming up with more. green space in a way that still would be within the confines of the way it was originally zoned would be to build the buildings around the perimeter of tho lot two-story, which is the way in which it was approved, and then build in the interi°r two and three-story buildings, which would, obviously, put the same number of units on the project and give more open space. So it's kind of a six of one and a half-dom of the other. Which do you rather have? We thought we were doing a good deed by coming up with the plan that we've outlined and we do think it is a good plan. I will end my discussion right now, and I will hasten to say, also, that the person that was supposed to make this presentation tonight was my son, Craig. And about 30 minutes before 5:00 he said, Dad, I've got to leave. Maria's having a baby. I've got to take her to the hospital. Will you do thiS'.9 So if this wasn't too .. well planned, well, that's the reason. I'm blaming him. And I'll be happy to answer any questions if you would care to ask any. And the owner of the property is here 'that may want to say something, also. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Okay. Commissioners, any questions? There deesn't appear to be any. MR. IRWIN: okay. Thank you, sir. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Thank you. Did the owner wish to make a statement? Okay. Actually, I'll do it this way. Is there anyone present who would like to speak in support of this application? If you would give us your name and business' address, please. MR. ANDERSON': SUre. Thank you. Art Anderson, 5400 Renaissance Tower in Dallas representing the owner. Mr. Williams, Mr. Snyder can't tell you what he's asking you to do, but I think I know what he's asking You to do. The Council met for about an hour-and-a-half in Executive SeSsion last night. Certain members were trying to figure out a way to legally take away our client's right to build apartments on this property. When they came out, they couldn't think of a legal way to do that, so they just postponed making a decision. And the reason that staff's asking you, on behalf of those Council members, to 49. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 200f Page 85 - Page 88 CondcnseltTM Page 89 I postpone taking any action tonight is because if you 2 approve this request, which meets aH th~ City's 3 rcqalrements and slaff recommended approval when this case 4 became the p&z two weeks ago, then that puts a little kink 5 into their plans and they can't figure out what to do at 6 that point. So that's why they are asking you to delay 7 a~tlng On this application thi~ evening. 8 Ia my 16 years of pracfice~ I don't think I've 9 seen a' situation wbe~ ~e developer and the nelghborhcod 10 were encouraged to go meet together to delay taking action 11 on a site plan. And the concessions, these are incredible 12 concessions that have been made by Mr. Irwin. 13 Particularly, putting one-story as part of an apartment 14 project next to the single-family houses, and while that 15 delay is going on and there's the encouragement to cntcr 16 into n~otiatlons to initiate a down-zoning. I think 17 that's the most extreme bad faith -- I'm sorry, Ms. 18 Gourdie, it is. I mean, I'm not sure how many P&Z 19 hearings you've had, but it's a true statement. 20 MS. ooulml~ Mr. Anderson, address tbe 21 situation, not me. 22 ~ ~,~OELBn.~cHT: I would appreciate it if 23 you'd address th~ group as a whole, sir. 24 ~ A~DP. aSON: I apologize. Of the thr~ 25 reasons, we would request that the delay not be granted. Page 90 I We would ask that the P&Z either vote up or down. Staff 2 has said that it meets all of their requL-~ments in the 3 report that was provided to you two weeks ago. This is 4 even more concessions than what are legally required as 5 part of the detailed development plan approval. 6 The issue of the Comp Plan is really 7 irrelevant. There's an analysis in your staff report. 8 Staff doesn't say that it is inconsistent with the 9 Comprehensive Plan. With respect to conditions, the staff 10 suggested conditions be put on the approval with their I 1 last report. And I think with the additional conditions 12 with regards to the notes and what's shown, that that 13 basically is just a red herring. 14 There is sufficient information before you 15 that you can go ahead and vote and take action tonight. 16 This item was supposed to be on the December Agenda. It 17 was postponed at staff's request. At the last meeting of 18 the P&Z, we mutually agreed to try to get a postponement 19 to address the neighborhood concerns. And this site plan 20 that's before you does that very thing that was requested 21 of us. 22 I understand from reading the ordinance that 23 there is a requirement that this be a public heating. Mr. 24 Snyder and I are in clear disagreement that this is a :25 zoning ch,se. If you're going to have zoning in a city and Page 91 I you're going to have people rely on zoning, not just 2 property owners but the city and the neighbors, you've got 3 to know what you have. And this property was zoned in 4 1985, and it was zoned for multi-family, single-family, 5 and commercial. The single-family portion was developed. 6 A concept plan was approved by the City 7 showing the development of the multi-family at 17 dwelling 8 units an acre. Tho~'sl~enaslgnonthatproperty 9 advertising that it's going to be for multi-family use · 10 that's been on there since the folks that are here in the 11 audience bought their houses. There is no shock that this 12 was going to be a multi-family site. 13 A preliminary plat was approved approximately 14 six months ago. The property is under contract. Any 15 further delay will damage the property owner. There's no 16 reason to delay this, specifically for the reason of delay 17 in order that certain memhers of the Councll can try to 18 figure out a way to inltlate a down-zonlng at thls point 19 intime. Mr. McNeill, you'recorrcct. Iflreadthe 20 staff report correctly, it says the detailed plan is the 21 final step in the process. 22 The development fights for this d~vcloper were 23 established when this property was zoned. They were 24 established w~n the concept plan was approved showing the 25 development with the density that is shown exactly on this 'Page 92 detailed plan today. And I acknowledge and recognize that the site plan is the appropriate process to tweak where buildings are supposed to go, how parking is supposed to be laid out, et cetera. But that's not the issue. The issue that there are folks -- is the right to develop multi-family itself. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Time's Bp. MR. ANDERSON: And as the correspondence I've akeady sent to the Council is that we're going to take the necessary lengths to ensure that we can do that. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Thank you. Are there questions, Commissioners? I have MR, ANDERSON: Yes, sir. MIL ENGELBRECHT: YOU indicated that you represent tho owner. MR. ANDERSON: 1 do. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Was it the same owner that owned the single-family portion that was sold off recently and built by Choice Homes? MR. ANDERSON: I don't -- is that true, Allison? Yes. MIL ENGELBRECHT: I just wanted to make sure I understood that it was the owner who chose to -- Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone present who would like to speak in favor of this petition? Anyone.else present to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2000 50. Page 89 - Page 92 Condcnselt TM · '. :', Page 951 without soiling YOur shoes. And I m going to try to be a ] good manager here Just real briefly. I I'feel like this whole thing, this whole _..~. Page 93 I speak in favor of the petition? 2 In that ease, I do have some individuals, some 3 cards from individuals who indicated they would like to 4 speak in opposition. Richard Garner. And, please, I'll 5 ask all of you to give us your name and address for the 6 record. 7 MR. GA~N~; chairman and Commissioners, my 8 name is Richard Garner. I livo at 2321 Wildwood Lane. I 9 was here two weeks ago speaking in opposition to, at the I0 time what I thought was a rezoning issue. And I've 11 noticed even some of the Commissioners have asked is this 12 a rezoning or not. 13 And just for record, it has been a confusing 14 process. Since that time, I have learned that this is a . 15 Planned Development and what I am opposed to is 16 specifically this detailed plan, just for the record. The 17 reasons that I am opposed for it, primarily, I believe the 18 population density is too high. I don't think that this 19 ten-acre tract can support this type of population 20 density. 21 Two weeks ago I had pointed out that there are 22 mobile home parks on two adjacent property lines of this 23 tract: I don't know how many are out there. I would 24 assume hundreds. I really don't know. The original tract 25 that's ~_mde. r this drawing shows a few mobile homes, but I Page 94: 1 think if you drovc by there, you'd see that it is 2 intensely developed. I think that's not quite so clear. 3 I'm also concerned about traffic flows, obviously, as well 4 as the safety of children in our neighborhood with 5 increased traffic, the oonstruction issues, those type of 6 things. 7 Another concern I do have is the privacy 8 issue. And this is why I think some statements are 9 probably not, in my opinion, correctly made by the last 10 person in that concessions have been made. It's my 11 understanding, originally, there was a ten to 15-foot 12 buffer zone, which I think is absurd, personally. That's 13 from my fence to their building is ten feet. I think it 14 should be more in lines of 50 feet, maybel00. Idon't 15 know. But I think ten to 15 feet is a little too close 16 to, you know, our property for an apartment structure. I 17 don't see much difference between a one-and-a-half story 18 and a two-story building. They're saying this is a one or 19 one-and-a-half story. If you look at the elevations, it's 20 a 30-foot high structure. And, again, that's 15 feet from 21 the back of my property, so I think it's just 22 inappropriate, myself. 23 There's some other issues and I'll tread as 24 lightly as I can. I once saw a poster one time that said 25 a good m~nagcr is somebody who can step on your feet 1 2 3 4 process has not been straight-forward with, particularly, 5 the property owners. Some of the owners assess a lot of 6 blame to Choice Homes for not fulty disclosing what this 7 property was intended for. My wife and I, we did our . 8 research before we bought the property. 9 " Wo were somewhat misled by some staff members 10 in the Planning and Zoning office, some employees. We I l were inquiring what is this property zoned for, what are 12 the uses that could be put on here. Our impression after 13 talking to them, aad this was about 18 months ago, pure 14 and simple, our impression that there's no way there could 15 be apartments built on this tract. And so we went forward 16 with our purchase decision and bought a home there. 17 When the City sends out the oertified letters, 18 you know, the notices to the peOple in the 200-foot radius 19 or what have you, if you'll go back and look at those, in 20 capital letters italicized, it does say this is a rezoning 21 issue, which we now know it's not. But I think maybe the 22 City should relook at the notices that they're sending out 23 to residents so that these issues are a little bit more 24 clear. That's just my two cents. And there were some 25 statements made in the town meetings that -- Page ~. 1 MR. ENGELBRECHT: YOU~e got about 20 seconds. 2 MR. GARNER: okay. Misleading statements, it 3 wouldn't do any good to show up here. They can put 4 apartments here if they want to. The last meeting was 5 canceled. Don't show up. I think we do have a right to 6 come here and oppose a detailed plan such as this. And 7 that's all I'll say. 8 MR. ENGELBRECHT: There is at least one 9 question. Mr. Moreno. 10 MIL MORENO: Yes, sir, Mr. Garner. Did 11 somebody at the Planning Department tell you that this was 12 something other than a Planned Development or a 13 multi-family? Is that what I heard you say? 14 MR. OA~.N£R: It Was explained that it was a 15 PD, which I didn't understand what that meant at the time. 16 We asked for clarification. We were told, well, there's 17 several options of land uses that this comer could be 18 ased for and they went down the list. They said, well, it 19 could be an office building. It could be a MeDenald's. 20 It could be so forth and so on. The individual said, 21 well, it could be apartments. The individual hesitat~l 22 andsaid, well, I don't really think that would reallY 23 work because, again, population density. Something abou~ 24 17 units per acre, there was not enough land to ailocate 25 proper parking facilities. So we were kind of under the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 200(' Page 93 - Page 9~ Condens~Itm Page 97 I impression, well, this would never happen. 2 MR. MORL~NO: l~ut yOU did, indeed, bear that it 3 could be apartments? 4 MIL GARNER: Yes, s~r. Yes, sir, we sure did. 5 MR. MORENO: All right, sir. Thank you. 6 MR. GARNER: YeS. 7 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Any other questions, 8 Commissioners? Thank you. I also have a card from 9 Jennifer Huff. 10 MS. mIFF: My name is Jennifer Huff. I live 11 at 3904 Overlakc Drive. Well, I just want to point out I 12 agree with what my neighbor has said. I do not believe 13 that this plan is appropriate for this particular area. 14 As residents, we are concerned about several 15 factors. One of thorn is damage to our own private 16 property, our fences. There is no buffer besides some 17 hedges that are protecting our fences. I don't believe 18 that's sufficient enough to protect our fences from the 19 residents of the apartment complex from damaging them. 20 Again, they spoke about the privacy. I 21 believe it's an invasion of privacy even if it's a 22 two-story and the windows are not facing our homes, the 23 patios and the windows from the two-stories in there a 24 little bit further can see still right into our yards. I 25 don't believe that a six-foot fence is sufficient enough i Page 98 1 at this point in time. 2 I am 5'6" and even with the fences, thc fences 3 go down a little bit on our landscapes, and so if you 4 stand back at our doors, you can see over those fences 5 very clearly. So people can actually look into our 6 windows and into our backyards and I believe that's an 7 invasion of privacy. 8 It's going to be a disruption to our everyday 9 life on this plan, if you don't mind me using this, right 10 here. There's parking that is parallel and perpendicular 11 up to our backyards. Parallel all along here. And 12 there's actually perpendicular right in this comer up 13 here and that is going to allow headlights shining right 14 into the backyards through the spaces in the fences into 15 the bedroom windows of my neighbors. 16 Again, I just want to comment on the traffic. 17 The area is already highly trafficked. It'svery 18 congested. And I know that they're proposing a light up 19 here at Ryan and Teasley. But you have to also consider 20 that them is an entrance going into our neighborhood here 21 and then you have two additional entrances going out on to 22 Teasley. And it's getting very dangerous over there. 23 In conclusion, I kind of want to say that this 24 development is an invasion of our neighborhood. We're 25 losing our privacy, safety, as far as having to deal with Page 99 I all these issues and I think that's not appropriate for 2 this ar~.. 3 MR. ENGELBRECHT: commissioners, any 4 questions? Thank you. I also have a card from John 5 Hceffler who indicated he might want to speak. 6 MR, HOEFFLER: My name is John Hoeffier. I 7 live at 3602 Fritz Lane in Corinth. And I'm here for .8 another item, but I am concerned about development in 9 Denton, I'v~ lived in Denton for over 20 ye~s and I've 10 seen the City go through a lot of changes, I've seen the 11 population increase and this used to be a small community, 12 a small town. Anytime I see a multi-family development, I 13 have trouble unde~tanding why the density has to be 14 maximized. 15 And I understand from the developer's point of 16 view why it needs to be, but I don't understand from the 17 community's point of view why we need to maximize the 18 density. I do appreciate the developer's willingness to 19 make concessions as far as the heights of the buildings, 20 the overall design. I guess I'm curious if the elevation 21 that was shown, if that would be incorporated as part of 22 this site plan or if that was just a possible elevation, a 23 possible type of elevation. I was curious about that. 24 As far as the site plan approval process, 25 whether or not that is a zoning issue, it appears to me Page 100 1 that if site plan approval is part of your zoning process, 2 that it is very much a part of zoning. It has a place 3 here and this is where the Zoning Commission has an 4 opportunity to moro closely examine a Pr}. m this case, 5 one that was passed in 1985; is that correct? Thc City's 6 changed since 1985 and I guess one of the questions I had 7 has been answered as far as the density. I was curious if 8 the density had been set forth in that PD. 9 And, certainly, the developer has the right to 10 develop this property to that density. He doesn't 11 necessarily have the duty to develop it to that high a 12 density. He could have a lot more green space and move 13 buildings farther from the perimeter, do several othe? 14 things if he were willing to lower the density. 15 I'm curious how this density at 17 units per 16 acre compares to your existing zoning for multi-family. 17 You have several different levels of multi-family zoning. 18 ~I'mjust curious where that falls in there as far as 19 density. I would imagiue also that in your current zoning 20 ordinances that in your multi-family requirements that 21 setbacks and buffers where multi-family occurs adjacent to 22 residential areas are probably greater than what was set 23 forth in this ?D. idon'tknowthatbutI'mjustcudoas 24 about that. Thank you. 25 MR. ~O~L~CHT: I think there's a question. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2000 Page 97 - Page 100 52. 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Conden~ItTM Page 101 Mr. M?Neill. Mm MCNEILL: YOU said you live in Corinth? MR. HOBFFLER: Yes. MR. MCNEILL: And what do you do down there? What is your occupation? Page 103 I might havc madc previously or .. that I didn't have and I 2 just wanted to find that out. 3 MI~ TUBBS: yeah, I $igQed in both times I was 4 them. 5 MR. RISHEL: Thank you. MR. HOEFFLER: rm in tho construction business. MR. MCN£ILL: okay. Thank you.' MR. ~OELBP,.ECHT: I want to preface my 6 MR. TI/BBS: Thank you. 7 Ma. maG~.LBRECHT: Any other questions7 I just 8 h/rye a comment, Mr. Tubbs. I believe that light will go 9 in at Teaslcy and Ryan h-regardless of this development. statement by saying I know I have a number of cards of individuals who are expressing opposition but do not wish to speak and I will review those momentarily. But, first, is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition to this petition? Anyone else present who would like to speak in opposition to the petition? Yes, sir. MR. TUBBS: Sorry, I'm not a very good speaker, sir. My name is Steve Tubbs. I live at 3912 Parkhaven Drive. One of our main concerns is they're suggesting toput a stop light fight here at Ryan and Teasley. That will allow people to cut through our area for a shortcut. We've got kids out there riding bikes and roller skating and now you can just cut right through here opposed to going to the light. We're going to have 158 additional units, approximately 318 ears. That's a lot 10 And your comment about the cut-through I think is very 11 perceptive. 12 As a neighborhood, I would suggest you watch 13 that very closely and work with the engineering staff and 14 you may akeady have cut-through traffic because there's a 15 stop sign now that holds traffio up. And if you're having 16 problems with that, please bring that to engineerkng 17 immediately. 18 MR. TUBBS: okay. We've already had an 19 accident out here and they used it for, like, two hours. 20 MR. ENGELBRECHT: I rex~gll[zo that that can be 21 a problem and there are ways that you can work to, at 22 least, discourage that cut-through traffio and so your 23 neighborhood needs to stay with engineering on that issue. 24 Thank you. 25 Is there anyone else present who would like to · Page 102 1 more traffic and it's already bad right there: 2 I think, you know, just having our wood fence 3 between their property and ours isa't a very good idea. 4 If you're a kid and you kick a ball up against a wooden 5 fence, you can break it. We'll be liable for that. And 6 that's about all I have. 7 MR. ENGELBRECHT: I think therot$ a question. 8 Mr. Rishel. 9 ~ lUSHEL: Mr. Tubbs, is it? MIL TUBBS: YeS, Sir. MR. RISHEL: We have a whole list of people that have attended some Of the meetings, I suppose, or made ~omments regarding.this for or against or negative or neutral, and I don't see your name on here. Have you had a chance to fill out any sort of request form? page 1. 1 speak in opposition to this petition? Anyone clsc present 2 to speak in opposition to thc petition? 3 In that case, let mc review thc cards that I 4 have. i have a card from, Ibelleve, it'sKevinSarber, 5 3916 parkhaven. It just indicates opposition. Mark 6 Holiman, also on parkhaven indicates opposition. William 7 Karl, 3937 Parkhaven in opposition. Some comments, single 8 trailer courts north of us, why eksng~ single-family 9 residents to different zoning. I think we've eoverext that 10 issue. Lorraine Karl, same address in opposition. Doreeu 11 Sl~-phard, 3956 p~khaven, would like to sm area rezoned 12 for singl~-family. Th~ density in the area is too high. 13 The~ ave already eno;,gh multi-family dwellings in Denton. 14 And Raymond Shepherd, samc address, tl~ density in the 15 aren is too high. Tl~ u-affie is too high already and it MR. TUBBS: I've been to both meetings. MR. RISHEL: Have you? MR. TUBBS: Yes, sir. MIL RISHEL: Havo you mado any -- MIL TUBBS: I brought up questions to Larry. MR. RISHEL: Okay. I was just cmious that I didn't -- what street are you on? MR. TUBBS: 3912 parkhaven. MIL mSHE[: okay. I didn't know whether there had been an oversight on some comroent~ that you 16 will drivc down our property values..apartments would 17 drivodown thcupkccp ofour arca. Allrlght. Therchas 18 been opposition and thoro is an opportunity for rebuttal 19 if thc petition wishes to do so or petitioner's 20 representative. Okay. Tho indication is they do not care 21 to make any remarks in rcbuUal. Therefore, tho public 22 hearing is closed. Is Mr. Rcichhart on now? 23 ~ REICHHART: I gtl~S SO. Good evening. 24 Ma. ~O£LBRECRT: C, ood evening. I believe you 25 woo Igro for and heard most of tho remarks by ~ - Page 101 - Page 10,1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2000 53. Cond~ns~ItTM Page 105 I MR. REICH.HART: I've heard most of the remarks 2 from the neighbors at the neighborhood meetings. And some 3 of the neighbors that were at the neighborhood meeting 4 aren't on the list that you might be referring to. Those 5 are the 200-foot opposition. 6 MR. RISHEL: Thank you. 7 MR. REICHHART: And then we just summarized 8 those. I think to summarize a couple of the issues. One 9 with regards to the analysis with the Comprehensive Plan 10 and we summarized on page 4 of the report in that the 11 proposed use is somewhat consistent with the intent of the 12 neighborhood center but there are some differences. This 13 is a not an inward-oriented site and the density is 14 potentially inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 15 I would also reiterate our request to continue 16 this. And that's rcally -- there's two reasons now. The 17 in:st reason, and I want to go back to one of the 18 statements by the applicant's attorney regarding our 19 original staff report. And you have to remember that that 20 was written before the neighborhood meeting, before we'd 21 gotten a lot of letters of opposition from the neighbors. 22 And it's really written based on the technical merits of a 23 plan as we rate any detailed plan. Right now, we don't 24 have the tools to be able to say, staff, anyway, to be 25 able to say the building orientation should be changed, Page 106 I the architecture should be this. Those are issues that 2 are raised by the neighbors and the Commission. So the 3 first staff report, the technical merits of the plan were 4 addressed. After the neighborhood meeting, even the 5 applicant realized the opposition and the concerns of the 6 neighbors and requested the continuance. 7 Based on our second neighborhood meeting is 8 why -- and this staff report was written approximately a 9 week ago after that neighborhood meeting that there still 10 is a umber of concerns by the neighbors. What type of 11 fence? Howhigh? Isitbfiek? Do we do stone? Dowedo 12 living hedge? What type Of living hedge? !s ten foot 13 enough'setback? Well, the applicant can go to 15but some 14 people think 20. Is this area going to be redesigned? If 15 so, how is that redesign going to take effect? 16 So the reason for our request for a 17 continuance this time is to be able to give the applicant 18 some direction, to be able to address those concerns and 19 come back with a site plan. So maybe we can move this 20 building. We'll lose this parking. We'll get the green 21 space hem. What are we going to approve if that's the 22 direction we're going to go? 23 Now, all of that took place prior to the City . 24 Council action which still is another reason to possibly 25 continue this, as our recommendation. $O it isn't just a Page 107 1 blanket, just continue for the sake of continuing. There 2 are reasons to do that. You can give the applicant 3 direction on what to do with the site plan. Building 4 elevations, location of buildings, landscaping, what type 5 of screening, what type of buffer, and those issues. And 6 also to be able to gather as much information as we can ' 7 and find out what direction City Council is going to take. 8 So with that, we are recommending to continue. 9 .. MIL ENGELBRECHT: It appears that we do have 10 some questions. Ms. Apple. 11 MS. APPLE: I'd like Mr. Hoeffler's question 12 addressed in regard -- were you present when he spoke? 13 MR. REICHHART: I might not have been. 14 MS. APPLE: Okay. Let me address this to Mr. 15 Donaldson then just beeause he heard the question about 16 the average density for the multi-family. This one would 17 10c 17 units per acm. Could you address his question, 18 please? 19 MP~ DONALDSON: Yes, ma'am. City-wide, the 20 average density of our multi-family housing if you exclude 21 mobile home parks, which are technically multi-family, is 22 between 20 and 25 units per acre. He also asked about our 23 typical zoning districts and what they would allow. We 24 currently have three multi-family zone districts, MF-1, 25 MF-2, and MFR. MF-2 iS used predominantly around thc page 108 I university areas and allows densities greater than 50 2 units to the acre. The MF-1 is our most common multi- 3 family zone district and it -- the density depends on the 4 bedroom mix. But if you had all two-bedroom units, you 5 could achieve a 35 unit per acre density. 6 Thc MFR, tho R stands for restricted, so it's 7 our least dense multi-family district and allows about 17 8 units per acre. So this zone district is comparablc to 9 our least dense multi-family zone district. 10 And we do have a minimum setback for 11 multi-family adjacent to single-family of ten feet up to a 12 two-story building. !fit exceeds two stories, then it 13 has to increase the setback one foot for every two feet of 14 height. So this proposal is comparable to our setbacks in 15 our straight zoning districts. 16 MS. APPLE: Thank you. 17 MIL ENGELERECHT: MS. Gourdie. 18 MS. GOURDIE: Thank you. 19 MS. APPLE: Did that answer your question? 20 MS. GOURDIE: I'm sorry. Did you need to ask 21 something? 22 MS. APPLE: oh, no. I was just asking if that 23 answered his question. 24 MS. GOURDIE: okay. Pardon me. I didn't mean 25 to interrupt. Was it 1998 that the Denton Development ?LANN1NG AND ZONING'COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 200n Page 105 - Page 108 54. I Plan was approved and put forward, the old one? 2 MR. DONALDSON: 1988. 3 MS. GOURDIE: okay. So this whole thing 4 actually came before that was done, correct? 5 MR. DONALDSON: 198S. 6 MS. GOURDIE: Ii)SS. So this really wasn't 7 consistent with any plans, s9 to speak? It really didn't 8 follow -- it was out there on its own? · 9 MR. REICHHART: Any rezoning has to be -- I 10 mean, at the time in ,85, it had to be -- I'm talking 11 without the knowledge, but if it was approved, it was 12 consistent with something in '85. 13 MS. GOURDIE: It was nothing. 14 MR. ENGELBRECHT~ NO, no, Thoro was a plan, 15 Them was a previous plan. There was a previous Land Use 16 Plan. 17 MS. G-OUR.DIE: Okay. And so -- 18 MR. ENGELBRECHT: It would have met the 19 requirement, I can tell you. 20 MS. COUP, DIE: For 1988 or 19857 21 MR. ENGELBRECHT: '85. 22 MS. COUP, DIE: okay. So when 1988 came along, 23 I know you don't have the stuff here and I'm sorry that 24 I'm throwing this at you. 25 MR. REICHHART: Mark does. Page 110 I MS. COUP, DIE: Oh, cool. Would this have been 2 -- because right now it's telling us this is somewhat 3 inconsistent and we hear from developers and applicants 4 continuously that this is based on a previous concept plan 5 and a previous detailed plan and we're supposed to take 6 that information and base it on this new information and 7 say it's a better deal or it's a worse deal. They always 8 uso that as the baseline for us. So I'm just wondering, 9 would that be consistent -- would that be considered 10 consistent or would it have bom somewhat consistent in 11 19887 12 MR. DONALDSON: If We were to'have used the 13 .'88 Plan for analysis, this would be in an area called" 14 classified as low intensity. And even in the '88 Plan 15 they contemplated multi-family development within Iow 16 intensity land use districts and allowed, along an 17 arterial road, which both Ryen Road and Teasley are up to 18 150 units in a single project as long as it was spaced a 19 half-mile away from another multi-family project. 20 MS. COURDIE: okay. And considering that 21 WO'VO -- 22 MR. DONALDSON: And they've asked for 159 23 units. 24 MS. C, OURDm: So they're over that limit. And 25 being that they're within 150 feet of mannfaq-h-!red housing Condensoltm Page 109 · Page 111 I which is considered multi-family -- well, you just said 2 it. - 3 MI~ DONALDSON: I don't know that I would -- 4 MS. COURDIE: And I knOW that we 5 inconsistently followed that rule during the past two 6 years that I've been on this thing. We consistently do 7 within the half-milo. Anyway, that's a whole another 8 story. All rightl So we're kind of not sure about where : 9 this would hay0 fit, aCCOrding to Mr. Anderson's argument, 10 we're not really sure if it was really totally consistent 11 with 1988's plan either. 12 MR. REICHHART: Based on tho criteria, I think 13 we would have said it was consistent. 14 MS. COUP. DiE: SO it Was over because he said 15 159 versus 150. 16 MR. REICHHART: Nino units. 17 MS. COUP. DIE: okay. Nine units is nine units. 18 MR. REICHHART: well, it's over but I think -- 19 but those are guidelines, and all through that plan are 20 guidelines. 21 MS. COURDIE: But, see, this is the problem 22 with this verbiage because you say it's guidelines now but 23 when they bring their argument, it's the gospel. So 24 they're saying this is what it was and we're doing fall a 25 favor by making it less. So I'm confused by the words we ' .Page 1 1 usc. We'r~ using guidcllncs when wo want it to say one 2 thing and we're saying that we're malting it a bettor deal · 3 because this is what thc concept plan was and we're making 4 it better because this is what it would have been if we'd 5 let y'all do it, which is gospel versus guidelines. So 6 I'm just saying that there's some terminology hem that 7 could bo misconstrued. 8 My next question is if this project goes in, 9 does there have to bo a left-hand turn lane installed on 10 both Teasley and Ryan? 11 Mi~ REICitF.~RT: yeah. TI~ traffic impact 12 analysis which will be required at tho tlmo of platting 13 would indicate what type of improvements would n&d tO be 14 done on both Teaslcy and Ryan. 15 MS. C-OURDIm I guess -- okay, that's a big if 16 because we know this intersection is hellacious, again 17' .that word, to get in and out of. 18 Okay. My next question is being that tboy've 19 withdrawn tho commercial side of this, how will -- will 20 the only access into the apartments bo off of Ryan Road or 21 will that one entry number five -- 22 M~. REICHHART: ThOy'll still have th~ shal~ 23 access off of Teasley. They can build like that portion 24 of it. 25 MS. GOURDIE: okay. So they'll have one Page 109 - Page 112 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 200n 55. CondenseItTM 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 Page 113 entrance on Teasley and one on Ryan? 1 MIL REICHHART: Pdght. 2 MS. GOURDIE: okay. And then Mr. Engelbrecht 3 had spoken about the light going up fairly soon. 4 MR. ENGELBRECHT: well, I think it's a 5 foregone conclusion there will be a light at that 6 intersection. 7 MS. GOURDIE: wasn't'them one approved, Mr, 8 9' Salmon? - 9 MR. SALMON: The State warrantegl one. 10 MS. GOURDIE: The State warranted one. Okay. 11 So we really don't know if this traffic is going to be 12 alleviated. 13 MR. SALMON: I think it's going to happen very 14 soon. 15 MS. GOURDIE: okay. Thank you. 16 MIL ENGELBRECHT: Mr. Williams. 17 MIL WILLIAMS: NOW, I understand on page 4 in 18 your bold letters what somewhat inconsistent means. You 19 still haven't defined to me what potentially -- density is 20 potentialiy inconsistent with plan. I don't know what 21 that means because that's very, very confusing. 22 MR. REICHHART: Because, quite honestly, I 23 don't think the density issue has been solidified yet so24 it's still a moving target, quite honestly. 25 Page 114 1 MIL WILLIAMS: I still don't understand what 1 2 you're saying. 2 3 MR. DONALDSON: The Comprehensive Plan that 3 4 was adopted doesn't establish any density guidelines 4 5 within specific land use districts. It merely states a 5 6 target of 12 to 14 units per acre average over thc entire 6 7 City. So it's hard to determine whether any one project 7 8 is consistent with that until we get our Development Code 8 9 adopted.. 9 10 MIL REICHHART: Because the verbiage in the 10 11 Comprehensive Plan says moderate density, small apartment 11 12 buildings and townhomes. . 12 13 MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. 13 14 MR. REICItHART: And until we get that 14 15 information, we can't make a -- 15 16 MR. WILLIAMS: Did you write this, Larry? Did 16 17 you write this7 17 18 MIL REICHHART: Yes. 18 19 MIL WILLIAMS: okay. Why did you even mention 19 20 it then? 20 21 MIL REICHHART: It*s -- one of the things that 21 22 we're looking at is trying to analyze the plans based on 22 23 the Comprehensive Plan. Quite honestly, for the next six 23 24 to eight months until we get the Development Code 24 25 rewfitt~ too, there's still a few areas that are going to 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 9.6, 200~' 56. Page 115 be left up for a bit of interpretation. And I think one of thc things, we don't have all the answers as staff, but I think that one of responsibilities is try to point out some of the issues and saying if it is somewhat inconsistent based on the density, it's something to look at a littlc bit closer. And I think, quite honestly, if we're talking about density and if you look at the Interim DevelOpment RegUlations, there's some numbers tossed about in there that haven't been adopted yet so we can't use those yet either. So, I mcan, we're just trying to analyze this plan based on the Comprehensive Plan as best we can with what we have right now. MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. For people who use Webster's definition of words and think words are powerful, could you say that we don't have any answers yet rather than -- because to me when you say potentially, to me it's saying that tomorrow this may be a density problem because that's what potential means. MR. REICHHART: And if tomorrow we adopted a guideline that said eight units an acre is all we're going to accept on this, then this could potentially be. At 17 units per acre, it would be construed as different. MR. WILLIAMS: okay. The point I'm making, Larry, is we're dealing with this tonight and not Page 116 tomorrow. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Any other comments? Mr. Moreno. MR. MORENO: YeS, sir, Larry. You have suggested a continuance because of some outstanding issues such as minimum distances from the property lines, fencing and landscaping and the bufferyards, maximum height of building and building materials. Those are some of the issues that were talked about. MR. REICHHART: Some of the issues that were raised at the neighborhood meetings. Correct. MIL MORENO: And yet there have been two meetings with the neighborhood by the applicant, as I ' understand your backup materials. MR. REICHHART: COrrect. MIL MOP, ENO: And in response to those two meetings, the applicant said that he will move his buildings 15 feet from the property line, that the maximum height on the one-and-a-half story building would be 35 feet, but he's proposed an evergreen hedge, and he's making some rearrangements on his open space. MR. REICHHART: Correct. MIL MORENO: SO the only thing that I think is missing is the building materials. MR. m~ICHHART: Except that the neighbors also Page 113 - Page 116 CondonsoItr~ Page 119 MIL MOIU~O: okay. i do have one -- I think, one other question. This site plan shows two entrances on Teasley Lafie. I think I heard somebody say there's cue. Page 117 1 said - I mean, you'll have a group of neighbors when they 2 say we can move it back 15 -- you're moving it back 15, 3 that's great. Then someone else will stand up and said I 4 don't think that's enough. I think you should be 20 or 25 5 feet. Okay, I think -- we're going to propose a living 6 hedl~ against your fence, weil, that's nice, but now if 7 something happens -- someone on your property damages the 8 fence, it's our responsibility to ~palr it, not yours. 9 We want an eight-foot brick wall. Someone else wo~lld say 10 I want an eight-foot wood fence. 11 M~ MORF_IqO: But these issues have been 12 brought up and the applicant has come back with a proposal 13 is my point. 14 Mit REICHHART: Correct. And my point is that 15 thia'o is no consensus from the neighborhood as to which 16 one of those can be agreed upon and that's why I think we 17 have to give the applicant direction. And if you're 18 comfortable with making a recommendatioo for approval with 19 15 conditions that this, this, and this and this pod will 20 be redesigned without seeing that, that's fine. But I 21 think those things should he identified on a plan, bro]_~ght 22 back to this Commission, and then approved. 23 M~ MORENO: Isn't this tho sit~ plan that tho 24 applicant has asked us to vote up or down? 25 MIL REICHHART: Yes, and those b~-'ild;ng~ are · Page 118 1 ten foot from the property line and there is no living 2 hedge along that wall or along the wails and the buildings 3 haven't been reoriented to get mom green space. These 4 are things he's willing to do, which is great. If that's 5 what we want to seel then we should direct the -- in my 6 opinion, direct the applicant, yes, move the buildings to 7 15 foot, put your one-and-a-half stories along the 8 parameter. 9 MR. MORENO: SO we could vote in concept or in 10 general on this site plan with the conditions that he has I 1 proposed, as well as others we may come up with. Is that 12' what I'm hearing? 13 MIL REICHHART: I would believe you could 14 always vote on a plan with conditiens and maybe that has a 15 better -- 16 MR. SNYDER: well, I just want to say what I 17 think ~ said was you can do it that way but what he's 18 recommending is that you give direction to the applicant 19 and make him do it -- if there's a number of these things 20 that you want changed, make him do it and bring it back 21 and then vote on it. 22 MIL MOREl/O: Bring it back, okay. 23 MR. SNYDER: That's what Larry would 24 recommend. Isn't that right? 25 MR. REICHHART: Correct. Thank you. 1 2 3 4 MR. REICHItART: We cannot act on the 5 commercial portion of this development. That has to be 6 removed from any approval and any future plans because os 7. the moratorium, which would eliminate this other entrance. $ MIL MoRENo: okay. 9 MR. SNYDER: Let'S be clear. This document 10 that's sitting up here, is that the detailed plan? l I MR. REICHHART: Yes. 12 MR. SNYDER: That's in thc packet? 13 MR. REICHHART: Yes. 14 MR. SI, ri'DER: NO. Did you say there's 15 commercial on this? 16 MR. REICHHART: oh, there's commercial on 17 this. This is the direction the applicant was going prior 18 to the moratorium. We would have to, in any approval we 19 would have to exclude the commercial portion of this 20 development. 21 MR. SNYDER: I just want to make sure that the 22 detailed plan is not the same one. 23 MR. REICHHART: Oh, I'm sorry. 24 MIL MCNEILL: what's there is not what's in 25 the backup? . page 15 1 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Right. 2 MIL MCNEILI~ This iS what the applicant is 3 submitting for approval? 4 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Right. 5 MR. SNYDER: My point is this can't be because 6 it has commercial on it. 7 MR. MCNEILL: NO, it doesn't. It says fumm 8 commercial development. 9 MR. ENGELBRECHT: what's on there now is 10 what's in our packet. 11 MIL REICHHART: The applicant originally 12 submitted this plan. Okay. This is way back when they 13 first started talking about doing this. They weren't 14 going to do the commercial. Then they thought, well, why 15 not. Let's do the commercial fight now. They came back 16 with this plan. And what we're saying to them is, no, you 17 have to go back to this plan. These two plans are very 18 similar. They're both showing the ten-foot building 19 setbacks, the landscaping and such. It's just that when 20 we get done, if there is a plan that goes forward, it's 21 going to have thc future development identified like this, 22 a big open space, no approval. 23 MR. ENGELBRECHT: I1Tcgardlcss of which plan 24 we have here, what percent do we have in opposition? 125 MR. REICHHART: 25.6. Page 117 - Page 120 ~LANNING AND ZOH1NG COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2000 57. CondcnseltTM Page 121 I MR. ENGELBRECHT: 25.6. The 20 percent rule 2 is in effect. There has to be a super-majority at the 3 Council level to approve this? 4 MR. REICHHART: Correct. 5 MR. ENGELBRECHT: I have a couple of other 6 questions. One has to do with, there was discussion here 7 about this is a PD. There's talk about the density there 8 and we're using straight zoning criteria as Sort of a . 9 guide, if you will. 10 MR. REICHHART: Correct. 11 MR. ENGELBRECHT: But there is no reason in 12 the world to do that, is there? A ?v is a eD. If we want 13 to make it 4,000 units to the acre or three units to the 14 acre, we have the right to do that because it is Planned 15 Development. If they didn't want that, they should have 16 come in for straight zoning. Am I incorrect in my 17 statement there? 18 MR. REICHHART: well, maybe an attorney could 19 address this a little better. I'll take a shot at it if 20 you want me to, Ed. 21 MR. ENGELBRECHT: We do this all the time and 22 it kind of bothers me. 23 MR. REICHHART: We do this all the time when a 24 new concept comes in. 25 MR. ENGEI_BRECHT: Well, a PD isn't a new · Page 122 I concept. I mean, all the time under the old '88 Plan, 2 this new plan, we'll tall about eD's and then we'll turn 3 to the straight zoning in order to get some sense of what 4 we ought to put there. But isn't it, in fact, reality 5 that the purpose for the I'D is to be different, to design 6 based on the piece of land, what's around it, all sorts of 7 other criteria. It gives you a much greater flexibility 8 in one sense and then on the other side, there is a great 9 deal more specifics because we're requiring the detailed I0 plan.. 11 MR. REICHHART: One.answer to that is a lot of 12 detailed Plans, when' they are approved, will grab portions 13 of a'stralght zoning case, especially land use. 14 MR. ENGELBRF_A2HT: Right. I understand that we 15 -- but we don't have to. 16 MR. REICHHART: And we put it in the 17 ordinance. We don't have to. I think when we first 18 approve a concept plan, we don't have to. 19 MR. SN'YDER: Lot me respond to that question. 20 Ma. POWELL: If I could, I think you'll find 21 in your backup on page 2, the very f;~st, part of the 22 staff report where it talks about Planned Development and 23 zoning procedures. It talks about the intent of I'D 24 districts. And I'll read part of it if you'd like. It 25 ~d~ the ~D districts aIB intended to provide for the Page 123· I development of land as an integral unit for single or 2 mixed-use in accordance with the plan that may vary from 3 the established regulations of other zoning districts for 4 similar land uses. They're also meant to encourage 5 flexible and creative planning to ensure compatibility of 6 land uses, to allow for the adjustment of changing demands 7 to meet the current needs of the community, and to provide 8 for a development that is superior to that could be 9 aeenmplisbed in any other zoning districts by any one or 10 more of the following purposes, and there are three 11 listed. And I think that's what you were getting at, sk. 12 MR. ENGELBRECHT: okay. Thank you. Mr. 13 McNeill, you havea question? 14 MR. MCNEILL: well, I guess just a comment. 15 It seems to me that we start off here in 1985 and we 16 approved a concept and they developed, the same owner if I 17 understand correctly what was asked here, the same owner 18 developed part of this I'D and now he's corning back here, 19 admittedly it's 15 years later, but he's coming back 20 saying I'm ready to do the rest of it. Is that correct? 21 MR. REICHHART: The same owner sold the 22 residential portion and let someone else develop it, but 23 it was their property. 24 MR. MCNEILL: It was still part of the 25 original I'D7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 page 124 MR. REICHHART: correct. MR. MCNEILL: And what was developed fit in with that original I'D. That portion of it was single-family? MR. REICHHART: That's correct. Ma. MO, m~LL: I appreciate the foils that live in the single-family houses there that, you know, you don't like things changing around you when you do one thing. But the fact is this has been approved for 15 years, has been known for 15 years of what this potential usage of the rest of this land was. Is that correct? MR. REICHHART: Yes. MR. MCNE1LL: Thank you. MR. ENOELBRECHT: Ally other comments, Commissioners? I would like to say that -- two points. One, while there are certain rights that go with zoning, property that is not developed with zoning after a number of years, I think any city and every city has to question and go back and look at, is it proper for what we have in our environment today. Secondly, this is a really unique one because it was the owner who went and developed the single-family first and now faces a greater than 20 percent rule. So, yeah, it's kind of an interesting case. Commissioners, you have any -- oh, Ms. Gourdie, you have a comment? Page 121 - Page 124 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2000 58. I MS. GOURDIE: A motion. 2 MR. ElqGELBRECHT: Yes, please. 3 MS. GOURDIE: All fight. I move to deny 4 Z-99-096. 5 MR. RISHEL: second. 6 MS. GOURDIE: And I'd like to make a statement 7 why. I believe Mr. Anderson is correct, up or down, and 8 I'm going to give the reasons why i,m voting down. This 9 'is a beautiful piece of land. You have a natural cattle 10 pond which you could have easily designed around and 11 created some open space. Many times we've taken 12 commercial property and zoned it differently and, again, 13 as Mr. Engelbrecht said, this is a VD, fall can do it. 14 YoU can make it work with the land and the land is 15 dictating something extraordinary there but y'all are 16 choosing to take the land and to change it into something 17 it's not. 18 So I believe that this is a totally -- it has 19 no open space. It's not -- and we do that to every 20 property that's come here. We've always asked where's tho 21 open space in multi-family" Where are these people going 22 to go to? Whom is the nearest park? Where is 23 everything? None of this is here so this is not any 24 different than anything else that we've done. It's poorly 25 designed. Page 126 I The traffic has not been determined yet~ And 2 we know that once that platting figure comes up, it 3 doesn't really matter anymore because it's just a mess up 4 there. I have a real hard time when people say there's a 5 fight to develop land. And it's a choice. You bought the 6 land and you chose to do something with it. And when you 7 choose to do it, that's on your own. But we're in a 8 representative form of government. It's called democracy. 9 Not this capitalism rules democracy that I keep seeing in 10 front of me that if you have the money, you can do what 11 you want with it. And 100 years or so ago, we had people 12 buying people and doing what they wanted with them and. 13 that wasn't right either. We abolished that because it 14 waswrong. Andyoudon't'haveanyrighttodevelopthis 15 land just because you bought it. 16 The density is too quick and I believe 17 three-story apartment buildings is just too much on this 18 property. And I have to say it is somewhat inconsistent 19 with the way we*ye designed neighborhood centers to be in 20 our current plan. It would have been inconsistent, 21 somewhat inconsistent in the 1988 Plan. It may have been 22 okay for the 1981, but it's showing that it's been 23 inconsistent and this property has changed. It's not the 24 way it was meant to be back ln 1985. So those are the 25 reasons why I'm choosing to recommend denial. CondenseltTM .. page 125 Page 127[ I MR. ENGELBRECHT: commissioners, I know there 2 are a number of you'that have indicated request to 3 respond. But at this time, I'm going to ask that we . 4 retire to Executive Session. 5 MR. SNYI)ER: Let me state this. I'm asking on 6 this item that we go into Executive Session, consultation' 7 between attorney and his client under Section 551.071 of 8 the Governing'hr Code, to receive advice from your attorney 9 concerning threatened litigation. I0 For purposes of the record, I just want to 11 point out that -- and Mr. Anderson did send a letter to 12 the City, I guess it was the day before yesterday, where 13 he stated our client will vigorously oppose any 14 dowa-zoning attempt or rejection of the detailed plan. 15 They have authorized this law finn to relentlessly pursue 16 all remedies against thc City and any City officials to 17 the extent required to protect their property rights and 18 will spend the necessary time, effort, and money to do 19 so. As your attorney I feel it incumbent upon me to take 20 you into Executive Session to discuss what those potential 21 remedies he's talking about are about in dosed session. 22 MR. EIqGELBRECHT: At this time, we'll adjourn 23 to closed session. 24 (Commissioners convened into Executive 25 Session.) · ' Page 12 1 (Commissioners reconvened into their Regular 2 Session.) 3 MR. ENGELBRECHT: okay. Ladies and gentlemen, 4 we have concluded our Executive Session. And given the 5 amount of time since we took our last break, we are now 6 going to take a ten-minute break. 7 (Break taken.) 8 MR. ENGELBRECHT: okay. We will re, convene tho 9 meeting. We have a motion on the table with a second to 10 deny. We do have a number of individuals, number of 11 Commissioners who would like to address this issue. Mr. 12 More'no. 13 MR. MOP, ENO: Yes, sir, Mrl .Chairman. I'm 14 going to bo voting against the motion to deny and it's not 15 because I necessarily approve of the detailed plan that's 16 before us. But I'm going to concede to Mr. Reichhart that 17 there are some unresolved issues that need to be addressed 18 in this particular site plan. The fact that it's 19 technically incorrect with regards to the applicant's 20 responses makes it difficult for me to vote either yes or 21 no on this particular sit~ plan. 22 I will agree with the Chairman that this 23 particular vD may be too old and out of character with the 24 conditions in the community now, particularly in regards 25 to neighborhood compatibility. However, this plan has Page 125 - Page 128 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2000 59. Condens~ItTM Page 129 1 been in effect for -- or essentially in effect since 1985 2 and it's going to be very difficult for me to oppose the 3 plan. I've said before, ! think a deal is a deal. And 4 there may bo somc details that can hc worked out, 5 particularly with regard to building materials which is a 6 concern of this Commission and this Commissioner. I guess 7 that's all I want to say.. I just wanted to say that 8 ' bo vot!ng against the motion. 9 MR. ENGELBRECHT: MS. ApPle~ 10 MS. APPLE: I will also be voting against tho 11 motion. I think this is not a bad use for a comer that 12 is adjacent to mobile home parks on both sides. That 13 would have been my concern when purchasing the property, 14 not the future use of some vacant land. Just a personal 15 opinion. 16 My preference would have been to continue the 17 item to iron out some of the things because I think that 18 the developer has made a lot of concessions; going to tho 19 one-and-a-half stories, adding an additional five feet 20 buffer, putting up the hedge against the fence for a 21 buffer, not putting windows to the back. And I'm, you 22 know, I've seen this gentleman's developments in some 23 other areas and they're very fmc quality. I don't have 24 any doubt that they wouldn't bo of a good quality. And 25 I'm just uncomfortable with the unanswered questions. Page 130 1 I think there's still -- I think he's come 2 some, and I think there's some mom things that the 3 neighbors want. And I think if they could, you know, just 4 meet somewhere in the middle. Maybe he could come down on 5 tho density some and, you know, add a larger buffer 6 possibly. Maybe take care of some of their concerns about 7 the privacy issues. I llke the fact that he went to tho 8 triplexes on tho perimeter as opposed to multi-unit 9 buildings. I thought that was a hugo concession because 10 those will look like -- thera are some beautiful triplexes 11 on Country Club Road that look like largo gorgeous homes. 12 Most people don't even know that.they am duplexes and 13 triplexes. So that would have been -- my preference would 14 have been to continue it to give tho doveioper and tho 15 neighbors ~ to como to a middio ground somewhere. But 16 I don't think this is an inappropriate use for this 17 particular comer. 18 Ma. L~tO~RECH'r: Mr. Williams. 19 ~ WmUAMS: vll also bo voting against 20 this motion in that I'm from the old school. If I start 21 off playing football in the first quarter, I would like to 22 still bo playing football in tho fourth quarter rather 23 than a combination of football, basketball, bockey, and 24 something else. And I'm very, very concerned and I'm 25 trying to use my words vecy, very carefully, that as a 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 131 member of this Commission, I may bo'pulled into something that - that's not what I'm about. I'm about being fair to everyone because I've been treated unfairly. And I'm tho guy that I have to look at in tho momlngs when I shave. And, also, I'm the guy that has to answer to his higher power when that day comes. And based upon my own othlcs, I will have to vote against this motion. MP~ ENOBLBRECffr: Mr. Rishel. MR. RISHEL: JUSt as a point of interest to my fellow Commissioners, and I think probably I was the one that tho last time v~ had this before us, made tbe original proposal to approve this. And since that time, we have a moratorium that's been placed upon us on commercial-type things. As I look at the plan that had been put forth before us today, I think it would be an error for us to approve something that in the basic detail of the general notes and tho general notes commercial site to approve anything that has tho words "commercial site" in it whatsoever. So I'm really reluctant to deal with any piece of property that mentions and it has the word "commercial" in ~ numerous times, as put forth as something that we might approve. I don't think we can do that as a Board, as a deliberating body for our State with tho current moratorium in place. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 132 I'm very sensitive to the fact that we have a 20 percent rule that is going to bo significant, that the neighbors have so graciously articulated to themselves this evening. I'm very much concerned of the fact that when wc looked at this originally, it was indicated to us that it was consistent with tho Denton Plan and it was consistent with the Denton Comprehensive Plan. And now as we have moro light shed upon this, it appears with thc density factors that we have, that it is no longer consistent with that. And I will bo voting in favor of denying this. MR. ENOELBRECHT: Mr. McNeill. MIL MCIqEILL: W0ll, I ~0Uld say ditto to Mr. Williams and Ms. Apple and Mr. Moreno and I'd add that I think that tho fact that commercial may bo on the drawing, there's a moratorium on commercial, thero's not a moratorium on tbe word "commercial" and wo know that there's going to be commercial districts ovcntually in the City. So I don't havo a problem with that. I think that, reiterating what Mr. Moreno said, that a deal was made, a deal has gono forward and everybody was cognizant of what was going on them or should have been. And so I win be voting against the motion. MP~ Eso~oaEcrrr: well, I guess it's down to me. I, first off, want to say that this is a detailed PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2005~ 60. Page 129 - Page 132 Cond~nseItTM Page 133 I plan for a Harmed Development. And these were the rules 2 in 1985, aswell. If something is out of place, youcan 3 deny it. It does serve, I think, everyone well if you 4 address those issues that you find fault with. I'm going 5 to be voting to deny. 6 In other words, I will be voting with the 7 motion based on the following issues. First off, there 8 Was the issue of the fence. And I know in a Couple of 9 other cases not that long past, we have required, because 10 it came in before, that the multi-family property put up 11 the fence and maintain the fence and a buffer of 12 vegetation, as well. It seems to be the appropriate way 13 to do that. I always think it has been. I have real 14 euncem about the head-in parking adjacent to the 15 single-family. I think that's a real problem with folks 16 coming and going and headlights, et cetera. That's got to 17 be done differently. 18 I also have real oencems about the recreation 19 area, supposedly recreation area. There are no specifics. 20 There should be specifics. This is a detailed plan. We 21 should know what those are and where they're going to be. 22 We certainly required that in others. I see no reason why 23 it shouldn't be here for this one. 24 I have concern about the open space. I 25 recognize there was a trade-off here trying to reduce the. Page 134! I size and density along the single-family and et cetera. 2 But we have a facility with very little open space. 3 Additionally, I recognize the commercial is not a part of 4 this but it is part of the concept plan. The buffer, I 5 have questions and concerns about the buffer between the 6 multi-family and the commercial. Supposedly, a living 7 hedge that, in essence, will allow foils to pass through 8 anywhere and pedestrian traffic to exist all along that 9 area and I don't think that's what -- the way we ought to I0 build multi-family, between that and commercial I think 11 there ought to be something in there that would deny 12 pedestrian traffic except in specific locations for 13 safety. And I believe that concludes our comments. If 14 you would, vote, please. The motion fails three to four. 15 (Commissioners Apple, Moreno, McNeill, 16 Williams voting in opposition.) 17 MR. MCNEILL: I'd like to make a motion. 18 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Yes, Mr. McNcill. 19 MR. MCNEILL: I would like to make a motion to 20 approve -- to recommend approval to City Council of 21 A-99-096 with the -- and I'm not clear whether these have 22 really been put on the drawing that we have or not, but 23 the changes that are indicated on page 6. Are those on 24 the drawing? 25 MR. REICHHART: NO~ sir. MR. MCNEILL: okay. " Page 135I MR. REICHHART; Some might be but they're a 1 2 3 little cloudy. 4 MR. MCNEILL: okay. So wc would, with thc 5 changes that tho buildings will be moved from ten to 15 6 foot from the property line; would limit tho adjacent 7 buildings to one-and-a-half stories adjacent to 8 singlerfamily housing; with no second-story windows facing 9 the single-family properties; would propose an evergreen. 10 hedge; they would relocate dnmpsters; and they would 11 rearrange the open space. 12 MR. WILLIAMS: I second the motion. 13 MR. ENGELBRECHT: It's been moved and seconded 14 to approve the request with the changes as outlined by 15 staff on page 6 of the backup. 16 MR. WILLIAMS: I have a friendly amendment. 17 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Mr. Williams. 18 MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to add another 19 condition, that it's an eight-foot brick wall buffer 20 between the homes, the residential and the apartments. 21 MR. MCNEILL: I accept that. 22 MR. ENGELBRECHT: SO we would add, in essence, 23 we're adding one condition of an eight-foot brick wall. 24 All right. Okay. Discussion? Ms. Apple. 25 MS. APPLE: well, I can't in good conscience · . . Page 13 I vote for,that either. My wish would be for a continuance 2 to move the developer closer to the neighborhood and maybe 3 come up with some more concessions. So I'll be voting 4 against this motion, also. 5 MR. ENGELBRECHT: MS. Gourdio. 6 MS. COUP. DIE: I cannot vot~ for this either, 7 mainly because I realize -- I don't think we really 8 understand the magnitude of this piece of paper. I know 9 from a previous thing, a lot of things were left off this 10 piece of paper we weren't aware of and it got through and 11 what you're seeing being developed is exactly what's on 12 this piece of paper, because it got through the system. 13 Mr. Irwin said that the pitch Would be 8/12. 14 On here it reads, number 5, roof pitcbes shall be a 15 minimum of 6/12. It needs to state 8/12. There's so much 16 subjective stuff in here. Under residential site, general 17 notes number 10, loading areas in the commercial site 18 shall be permitted in accordance with the zoning ordinance 19 requirement. I have a question. Why are we discussing 20 commemial site requirements in a residential site area? 21 This is poorly written. It wasn't edited. I don't 22 believe that there's enough conditions on the site. 23 I agree with Mr. Engelbrecht that there needs 24 to be something done to help alleviate pass-through I 25 traffic between the multi-family and the commercial which Page 133 - Page 136 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 20{ 61. CondcnseItTM 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 137 I would be a solid wall with certain entrances to allow 2 people pass-through privileges. 3 It's just -- it's a bad thing and I think it 4 comes from us not really understanding the magnitude of 5 this piece of paper. It also has commercial on it. And 6 what this is is -- this is what y'all are approving is 7 this document. If you don't change this document, this is 8 wha{'s going to go through. So this motion needs, to say 9 no commercial development on this. This motion needs to state whatever it is you want to do. Otherwise, this piece of paper is what's going to go through. And I think that would be sorry because I'm now starting to see how important this piece of paper is and we need to look at it and really make a serious recommendation and put down o~ biases towards people that we work with or know as friends and start zoning the land, not our friends. MIL ENGELBRECHT: Mr. Moreno. MIL MORENO: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, like Ms. Apple, I will also be voting against this particular motion. I can't help but feel that there is still some room for compromise in the areas of density, open spaces, and, as I said before, building materials. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Mr. Williams. MIL WILLIAMS: I have to take issue with Ms. Gourclie because I think we can all disagree and still not · 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 Page 138 be disagreeable. And I will not have anyone insult my integrity. I have no money. I have no power. I have no prestige. I don't have any -- the only thing I have is my integrity and when somebody starts telling me I'm voting for my friends, I take that as a personal insult and I will not tolerate it. MS. Cd)UR.DIE: well, I apologize but I never mentioned your name, sir. MR. ENGELBRECHT: I, too, will be voting against the motion, basically for the same reasons I stated before. Okay. If you would, vote, please. Motion Page 139 I MR. PaSHEU second. 2 .,'rm. ENOELBR.eCm': ~O yOU want ~ continue ~s 3 ~ ~ ncxt'm~ting? 4 ~ ~ICH~T: In ord~ ~ ~ve a 5 nd~borh~ m~ting and - if I may j~p in -- and ~e 6 ~ ~visions, I don't ~ ~o w~ is ad~ for 7 stuff ~ ~ able ~ ~vi~ a p~n ~t c~n~ and b~ng 8 some~ng hastily ~ you. ~d I don't ~ow ~at ~t 9 wO~d ~ve ~ app~cant ~eto -- if it's ~ have a 10 nd~borh~ m~ting, I don't ~ow how much compro~se is 11 going ~ be made ~ as oppos~ to ~ng ~tion 12 from ~ ~sslon and may~ ~ng ~at ~ ~ 13 nei~borh~. ~d ~hat do yen ~ about ~s, is ~ 14 any mo~ r~m -- b~ause it was -- I m~n, ~ ~ so 15 many ~ff~nt opinions of wMt should haps, ~ven ~e 16 fact ~at if mffiti-f~ly is b~lt on ~at si~. I m~n, 17 ~om on~sto~ ~o~d ~e pme~ ~ six, 12-f~t brick 18 wafts ~, I m~n, a~ so~ of -- 19 MS. ~PL~ ~d I sti~ ~ ~s is workable 20 and I ha~ ~at it will ~ ~ additional t~ ~a~o I 21 ~ow ~at's of a conc~. But I ~ it's ~ ~n 22 just pi~Mng it. I would say ~o m~ngs, continue in 23 ~o m~ngs. 24 M~ ~OELB~CHT: ~al stuff woMd ~ ~ 25 ~ a co~en~ il you don't ~nd. fails two to five. ' 13 ' (Commissioners Apple, Gourdie, Moreno, McNcill 14 and Engelbreeht voted in opposition.) 15 MIL ENGELBRECHT: commissioners, would you 16 like to try for a third option? Ms. Applc. 17 MS. APPLE: I'd like to move for a continuance 18 in order to give the developer time to maybe hold another 19 neighborhood meeting and try to come a little bit closer 2o to some understanding. I think that they've come a long 21 way. I think that the neighbors, you know, in working 22 with them may be understanding some things a little bit 23 more about the process and maybe some of the things that 24 can and cannot be done. And I would like to give them 25 that opportunity. Long motion. Page 140 1 ~q. SmtDV. Ve Z think, if the purpose is to 2 continue, to look at what conditions should be placed on 3 tho detailed plan, other than just say meet with the 4 homeowners and t~y to work out a compromise. I agree with 5 Larry, we probably need to give a little more direction 6 than that. I think you already kind of have mentioned 7 some things but, you know, the point I'm trying to make is 8 the decision ultimately has to bo yours and it probably 9 won't bo produetlve just to have a neighborhood meeting 10 with sort of an open-ended Agenda. 11 MS. APPLE: BUt I think it's important to have 12 the neighbors involved because I think to just have tho 13 ' develOPer meet with the staff and to exclude tho 14 neighborhood is not what I want to accomplish. 15 MR. REICHRART: ?he goal of thc -- I don't 16 want to speak for thc developer, but if I was developing 17 this propen'y at this point, my goal would be try to get 18 some of the neighbors to rescind their opposition to get 19 below 20 percent opposition and that may take another 20 meeting to sit down and say this is the final. This is 21 what we can do. Is this something you can live with? 22 MS. APPLE: well, I think there aw some 23 issues that have come out that probably need to bc 24 ' addressed again with the neighbors and exactly what you : 25 said is, it m/iht take away some of thc opposition. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 200C 62. Page 137 - Page 140 Condens~ItTM Page 141 1 MIL ENGELBRECHT: SO do you want to make it 2 two meetings from now? Is that the --. 3 MS. APPLE: I think based on Larry's 4 recommendation that it would be impossible to do it in 5 two. 6 MIL REICHHART: JUst to get the notices out 7 and schedule a room ian't going to be until next week and 8 I know I have some neighborhood meetings I have to go to 9 next week and won't be able to attend this one. So it 10 might be at the end of next week that we even have 11 scheduled a meeting. 12 MS. APPLE: And, certainly, with staff working 13 with the developer, too. I don't mean to just say just 14 the neighborhood meeting. But I think that's an important 15 -- I think certainly the neighborhood concerns are an 16 important part of what would ultimately occur. 17 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Let me ask staff, if we 18 continue this to the next meeting and then parties are not 19 ready, we could just continue it again? 20 MR. REICHHART: Continue it again, correct. 21 We could. 22 MIL ENGELBRECHT: YeS, ]fin'. MoNeilL 23 MR. MCNEILL: When you said ,,.~e second 24 meeting, that's actually a month fromhow. 25 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Right. That's right. Page 142 I MR. MCNEILL: SO it's not two weeks. 2 MR. REICHHART: February 23rd, I think. 3 MIL eaSHEL: Regular-scheduled meetings. 4 MS. APPLE: TWO meetings. 5 MIL MCN£mL: which is basically a month from 6 now? ~" 7 MIL ENGELBRECHT: ~ight. Do you want to make 8 that the motion? 9 MS. APPLE: well, my initial one to the next 10 meeting and I understand from staff that that's not enough 11 time. But if you would like -- 12 MIL ENGELBRECHT: I have no -- 13 MR. REICHHARTi AS ~e Chairman pointed out -- 14 well, miracles can happen. 15 MS. APPLE: l just hate to bring everybody in 16 again and then you go through it. I'd rather just -- 17 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Exactly. So I'm not sure. 18 What is the motion? 19 MS. APPLE: Oh, I don't know. I'm going to 20 move to enntinue to the f'h-st available meeting at which 21 time -- we can do that, can we not? ¢: 22 MIL SNYDER: I think you ol~t to continue it 23 to a date certain. 24 MS. APPLE: Because We*Ve done that. 25 MIL REICHHART: February 9th is tho next meeting. February 23rd is the two meetings. Page 143 [ ' MIL MCNEILL: February 23rd. I :. MS. APPLE: Let's continue it to February 23rd 1 2 3 4 to give all parties plenty of time. 5 MR. ENGELBRECHT: All fight. There's a motion 6 to continue to February 23rd. Is there a second? 7 MR. RISHEL: I would like to second that. 8 MIL ENGELBRECHT: Okay. 9 MR. RISHEL: I'd also like to stress the fact l0 that I think several of us on the Commission are concerned I 1 about what is put forth on the plan as being as much as 12 possible, as accurate as possible, with what the proposal 13 is going to be. So I'd like to see as muoh ofthe detail 14 handed forth to us that we can work with. And if we still 15 have the moratorium in place, to try to work with the word 16 "commercial." 17 MIL ENGELBRECHT: .We have a motion and a 18 second to continue this hearing until February 23rd. 19 Discussion? Mr. McNelll. 20 MIL MCNEILL: The fact that Mr. Rishel, 21 Commissioner Rishel raises the commercial, the fact that 22 the word "future commercial development" is on here is not 23 in violation of the moratorium; is that correct? 24 ~: MIL SNYDER: well, I think he was pointing to 25 some other lang~age on there, as well. · It would be better Page i4~ I if all reference to corrmaercial is taken off of this 2 because the detailed plan just deals with -- 3 MIL REICHHART: I think if we had a wide open 4 space that said future commercial development is fine. 5 That part's okay. 6 : MR. RISHEL: It says "commercial" eight or 7 nine different times on there. 8 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Are ther~ other comments? I 9 do think, Mr. Reichhart and other staff members' comments 10 are appropriate. If we're going to continue this, then I 11 think that we should point out areas of concern that we 12 may have on this plan so that all parties have some sense 13 of direction; neighbors, the developer, property owner, et 14 cetera. And having said that, are there any other 15 comments? Ms. Apple. 16 MS. APPLE: JUSt that for the record I'd 17 certainly like for everyone concerned to take into account 18 all the concerns that were addressed tonight by everyone; 19 the Commission, the neighborhood, everyone involved, and 20 let those be included in what you're going to try to work 21 out. 22 MIL ENGELBRECHT: Any other comments? If not 23 -- there doesn't appear to be. Vote, please. Motion 24 carries unanimously. Thank you. 25' -- ..... I PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 20Off 63. Page 141 - Page 144 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 23, 2000 Page 2 of 3 Motion by Salty Rishel and seconded by Perry McNeill to approve consent agenda. *Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 1). Motion carries 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING §. Continue a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding a Detailed Plan for a Planned Development (PD-93) encompassing approximately 13.7 acres. The detailed plan proposal is for a 159 unit multi-family residential development and 4.3 acres of commercial development. The property is located at the southwest corner of Ryan Road and Teasley Lane. (Z-99-096, Ryan Rd./Teasley Ln., Larry Reichhart) Motion by Salty Rishel and seconded by Susan Apple to continue to next regular meeting. *Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 3). Motion carries 7-0. OTHER ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION 6. Consider adoption of a resolution regarding an amendment to the Planning and Zoning Commission Rules and Procedures. .. Motion by Susan Apple and seconded by Salty Rishel to approve amendment to the resolution. *Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 5). Motion carries 7-0. WORK SESSION NOTE: A Work Session is used to explore matters of interest to one or more Planning and Zoning Commissioners for the purposes of giving staff direction into whether or not such matters should be placed on a future regular or special meeting of the Commission for citizen input, Commission deliberation and formal City action. At a Work Session, the Commission generally receivesinformal and preliminary reports and information from City Staff, officials, membem of City committees, and the individual or organization proposing Commission · action, if invited by Commission to participate in the session. Participation by individuals and members of organizations invited to speak ceases when the Chair announces the session is being closed to public input. Although Work Sessions are public meetings, and citizens have a legal right to attend, they are not public hearings, so citizens are not allowed to participate in the session unless invited to do so by the Chair. Any citizen may supply to the Commission, prior to the beginning of the session, a written report regarding the citizen's opinion on the matter being explored. Should the Commission direct the matter be placed on a regular meeting agenda, the staff will generally prepare a final report defining the proposed action, which will be made available to all citizens prior to the regular meeting at which c'rtizen input is sought. The purpose of this procedure is to allow citizens attending the regular i CoNden.~_.lt TM Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. i3 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 PROCEEDINGS MR. ~OELBRI~n'T: Good evening, ladies and At this time, rd like to eall to order tho of tho Planning Texas, for tl the 23rd, first item. on thc Agenda ! is to consider ~f tho minutes 16th. Commissioners, deletions, ¢ a motion? MS. APPLE: MR. RISHEL: MIL ENGELBRECHT: [ and sesonded , moment to to approve. bring our system up for ~ is off. All right. Vote, please. We'll move Tho following items, a staff and ~ ~ bo s~ctly o: basis Approval authoriz~ item in accordance Denton ~ ~ of Ordinances. Planning information and has had an opportunity lo raise questions regarding these items to consideration. Commissioners, is there a request to pull any !t~m: col~ments, or a motion? MIL RISHEL: I make tho motion we approve the to approve. voteo please. Wo'll move had the rules up. review them oven though x There we go. Okay. Thank in ~ audience, our procedures th~ overhead to your left. First, tbo staff will read the then make a star petitioner will be ~ranted 15 the p~titloner, speakers in bo granted a opposition. Give minutes. second. It's I:gen tho motion? ;unanimously. We , case. t who are , is on S~c0nd, and that, the minutes to speak. ask for speakers apposition, tho petitioner will bo speak in rebuttal. At that time, and staff will present its · Page 2 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. 10 11 minute, I'll just read it off of this. Actually, .to eider that up so that those in tho audience n~w information not may ask questions and adjourn to aslq it's that the audience: ~ from booing or stamping of feet or We do have one item on the Agenda for public this evening. This is Item No. :5. It's a 17 continuation of a public heating. Consider making a 18 recommendation to City Council regarding a detailed plan 19 for planned Deveiopment 93 encompassing approximately 13.7 20 acres. The detailed plan proposal is for a 159-unit 21 multi-family residential development and 4.3 acres of 22 commercial development. The property is located at the 23 southwest comer of Ryan Road and Teasloy Lane. Since 24 this is a continuation, Mr. Powell, do you have -- I think 25 you have some information for us regarding this case. Pag(i 1 MIL I'OWP. U.: I do, sk. If you'll look on 2 page 5 of your staff report, Enclosure 2, we did receive a 3 letter from tho applicant requesting this item bo held to 4 March 8th so that they can work with tho neighborhoods on 5 tho design of tho project. 6 ~m. ENGELBRECHT: commissioners, any questions 7 for staff7 Before we ask for a vote on the continuance, I 8 thop~ht we might see if there's anyone in the audience who 9 is hero and would like to address this particular issue. 10 Is there anyone present who would like to address this 11 particular case, either pro or con? If you would, sir, 12 please give us your name and business address for the 13 record. 14 tva~ AI~CHm~: Yes. I'm D.L. Archer, the owner, 15 Alyson Archer's father. Honorable members of the p&Z, we 16 request a two-week continuance in order that we can 17 continue to work with tbo homeowners and refine our 18 detailed site plan. 19 M~ ~OELnP,.P~-i-rr: M1 right. Commissioners, 20 any questions? Thank you. Appreciate it. 21 ~ .~RCHm You're welcome. 22 MIL I~IOELBRECHT: IS thero anyone else present 23 who would like to address this particular case, either in 24 support or in opposition? It would appear not. In that 25 case, Commissioners, any questions, comments, or a motion? 25 and ff someone could -' ]nag0 ~ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 23, :100n $ 5. Condou~ltTM Page 5 Page 7 1 ~ RIStlEL: Motion. I sessio]~. Participation by individuals and members of 2 ER. i~NO~.LOg~rr: Mr. Risl~l. 2 orga~ons invited to speak ceases when the Chair 3 ~ RISHEL: I move to continue Z.99-096 to 3 annou'~kthe session is being closed to public hearing. 4 tl~ next regular me,ting. 4 Althoug,~k sessions arc public mceti~g.s a~l~itizeas 5 MS.~PL~: second. 5 have a legit to attend, they are not p~..c 6 ~ ~oEun~zrrr: ~t's becn moved and seconded 6 healings, so~'ns are not allowed to.~]j~ticipate in . 11 is 11 Should the ~n d. ir~t the _m_a~ be 12 amen~m~Phnn ~dZonlngCom~ andlnga 12 plac~lonaregular mee~ag~da, thestaff will .lo . 13 g~ f'~, defining the proposed g' o 1824 t06:?00~..~ ~ 18 v~with°~.~vingtOatt~ad 20 20 ..... ~~t, we'll move toX~da Item s 24 y~U had a le~r at your chair this evening wtt" rc~j~k~ 25 _ ~ 25 tl t. Mx. Pow¢ll. ~ · page.6: ~ Page8 I ~ E~aELB~CHT: ~a~y questions? If ~t, if 1 ~ ~R. POWI~LL: Ivir. Chair, Commissioners, what we 2 them at. questions, would there be a motion~ 2 put I~ ~ rr packet was a redline version of the draft tha~ 3 ~PLt~: I move to approve the P~tion. 3 contai, ~ ~ !me changes but also contained cornmcn~om 5 Mr. McNei ~ ~: in attendance last Wedncsda~a meeting ~ to approve ~i[o)ution r¢~arding c~e i, o~ ~les. ~ AMy discu~io.~,o~, pl~. ,g . ~. ~ diseuss ~is doc, ~(and the ~mpact i~ w~a have. 8 Mg. iUSHI~[,mst like tel out that that 8 result of that meetit~% ,/ ~0 ~. ~ow~l~at i,t~. ~ y~.. . ~0 ~. ~ow~: O~[et is ~.~t. I am so~y. ~ X.do--~o~e ~ move ~l~tem ~o. 7 u~Wo.~k ~ ,~m~rs. W~att~ ~. f/~a~we?nclud?[rom Ses~flcj[~ for those who ~ !n 13 Mr. Hill outlines that there~ major issues th.at . 13 attend~ or l~~s. ion~.the no,~ with regard 14 were dealt with~ w~ ~c t~g~l with as a result of '~4 toth~w°r~r~l~-Wo~'~'onisu~to_explore ~ thos~m~tings. commercial d~v~omewh .,~ailar to residential 18 s~f ~mmiss'mt~kc. itizcn.input' 19 some imporr~z (n~cr~n~x~. ~ C..~n~be~tion. amd fo~n~ty,~tion. 20 could ~ to bo s,ba~ [~a 21 ,~ At awork session, th~ Comn~ ,n generally 21 23 from City staff, officials, members of Ci jl~ommittces, 23 be bui~ ~ere. So it was no longer a linear process tha 24 and the individual organizations proposing Commission 24 you see on the bottom of the f~rst page of the staff 25 action, if invited by Comml~.~ion to participate in the 25 report, but there's a dual-track process. ?LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 23, 66. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 8, 2000 PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING 5. Continue a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding a Detailed Plan for a Planned Development (PD-93) encompassing approximately 13.7 acres. The detailed plan proposal is for a 159 unit multi-family residential development and 4.3 acres of commercial development, The property is located at the southwest corner of Ryan Road and Teasley Lane. (Z-99-096, Ryan Rd./Teasley Lane, Larry Reichhart) Motion by Perry McNeill and seconded by Rudy Moreno to recommend approval to City Council with conditions. *Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached t(~ this set of minutes (Page 3). Motion carries 4-3. Elizabeth Gourdie, Salty Rishel and Jim Engelbrecht opposed. rezoning of approximately 0.27 acres, commonly known as 1513 N. Locust, from an Office (O) zoning district to a Planned Development (PD) zoning district. The proposal is to allow office and residential uses on the property. (Z-99-084, 1513 N. Locust, Larry Reichhart) Motion by Perry McNeill and seconded by Salty Rishel to recommend approval to City Council with conditions. *Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 157). Motion carries 7-0. Hold a public hearing and consider recommending approval to City Council a Detailed Plan for approximately 162 acres in the Planned Development 120 (PD-120) zoning district. The property is generally located between North Elm St (US 77) and Loop 288 roughly 1500 feet west of North Locust (FM 2164) and is legally described as 162.5 acres in the Thomas Toby Survey, Abstract No. 1288 and the B.B.B. & C.R.R. Survey, Abstract No. 186, in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. (Z-99-101, Northpointe, Thomas B. Gray) Motion by Salty Rishel and seconded by Perry McNeill to recommend approval to City Council with conditions. *Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 56). Motion carries 7-0. Hold a public hearing to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding the rezoning of approximately 8.3 acres, commonly known as RNW Addition from a Planned Development (PD-16) zoning district to Conditioned Office (O) and Neighborhood Service (NS) zoning districts. The property is located at the southwest corner of Teasley Lane and Teasley Lane. (Z-00-003, RNW Addition, Larry Reichhart) Motion by Elizabeth Gourdie and seconded by Perry McNeill to continue to March 22nd meeting. *Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 78). Motion carries 7-0. 67. CondenseltTM l 2 3 4 $ 7 8' 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 PROCEEDINGS MR. ENGELBRECHT: Good evening, ladies and At this time, I'd like to call to order the. of the Planning and Zoning ( ~ City of I Texas for this 2000. First iten consider approval Commissioners, any MS. APPLE: Mit. MCNEILL: MR. ENOELBRECHT: It'S to approve. Vote, please. We'll move on to following item~, thereof will be strictly c recommendation. the staff to City of Denton Commission ] an not, and seconded six to zero. The of the Consent each item )f Ordinance. raise questions regarding these And we have three items this ' · pull an item? any comment or a motion? MR. IUSttEL: Make the motion we approve the Consent A~enda. has had page 2 MS. APPLE: second. MR. ENGELBRECHT: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. Any discussion? Vote, carries six to zero. move on then to the this evening. I would 1 7 briefly review 8 in attendance. :'s on 9 First, I'll 10 we'll ask the s ll and make a 12 the overhead, the petitioner' 13 speak to the petition. 14 support of the petition will 15 minutes with a 16 Following individuals i~ 17 opposition an 18 minutes with five 19 opposition, 20 petitioner will be 21 rebuttal. At 22 the staff will 23 A 24 individual 25 its report, that, No. 3 on granted 15 minutes to speakers in a maximum of 30 for each speaker. ! speakers in to speak for a ;for each speaker. come into play ten minutes to I'll dose the public hearing ' final remarks. The five-minuto time limit for : modified by consent of the advance of the meeting. We Page 3 I would, each speaker to concern ~ o~rself with 2 presenfi~nna, tion not ~revious speakers. 3 Con ssioner m fa. nyo. e and all on the 4 staff at any time ~~to closed session as .~,' The £~rst heating this evening is public 9 Agenda Item No. 5 and it's to continue a public hearing 10 and consider making a recommendation to the City Council 11 regarding a detailed plan for Planned Development 93, 12 encompassing approximately 13.7 acres. The detailed plan 13 proposal is for a 159-unit multiffamily residential 14 development and 4.3 acres of commercial development. The 15 property is located at the southwest comer of Ryan Road 16 and Teasley Lane. And since this is a continuation, I 17 won't need to open the public hearing. I would ask Mr. 18 Reichhart for additional staff comments at this time. 19 MR. REICHHART: Thank you. As you mentioned, 20 this project has been before us on a couple of other 21 occasions. We are looking at a site that is located at 22 the southwest comer of Teasley and Ryan Road. It's an 23 existing PD. This was continued from our February 23rd 24 P & Z hearing. And I think the best thing to do is just 25 smmnarize where the plan is at this point and we can take Page 4 1 it from there. But the plan has been revised. You've 2 been given copies of the updated plan. 3 And some of the items that have been addressed 4 on the new plans include an expanded open space, the 5 recreation area near the pool, that area right there. A 6 note has been added to the site plan stated that there 7 shall be no patio windows or balconies at the second floor 8 level or the ends or rear of buildings adjacent to 9 single-family development. This was a result of the last 10 neighborhood meeting. People worried that if there were 11 windows on the sides of the building, they could still get 12 views into the backyards. So there won't be any balcony 13 windows or anything like'that on any buildings adjacent to 14 the residential. A note has been added to the plan 15 stating that boats and Rv storage shall not be permitted 16 in the parking lots adjacent to single-family. Again, 17 that was a result of the neighborhood meeting. And the 18 applicant is proposing an eight-foot high wood fence 19 adjacent to single-family residential properties. 20 There are still a number of issues that 21 haven't been resolved and there hasn't really been any 22 clear direction, if you will, from any of the neighborhood meetings I've attended. I've attended all of them. There 24 are still a number of directions that the adjacent 25 neighbors are going regarding fencing and different AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 200" Page 1 - Page 4 68. CondcnscltTM Page 5 1 things, but they're just still out there and we're just 2 noting them, that potential for elevated noise levels from 3 the apartments, car lights shining through the fence. 4 It's been asked for a one-story height limit adjacent to 5 single-family properties. The original plan, if you 6 recall, had two stories and the applicant dropped that to 7 one-and-a-half stories; basically, one story facing the 8 single-family so there would be no windows directly 9 looking into the adjacent properties. 10 Increased bufferyard, the original proposal 11 indicated a ten-foot setback between the buildings and the 12 property lines adjacent to the single-family. That's been 13 increased to 15-foot by the applicant and the neighbors 14 are still waffling at what the correct distance should be 15 greater than that or at that level. Lower density has 16 been brought up by the neighborhood. And then the 17 durability of the screen or the wall fence, whether it 18 should be brick or -- and, again, a living hedge has been 19 discussed in the past, too. 20 Our analysis of this project, being a Planned 21 Development, there is verbiage in our Code that states 22 that Planned Development zoning districts are intended to 23 provide for the development of land as an integral unit 24 for single or mixed-uses in accordance with a plan that 25 may vary from established regulations or other zoning Page 1 districts for similar land uses. They're also meant to 2 encourage flexible and creative planning to ensure the 3 compatibility of land uses to allow for the adjustment of 4 changing the bands to meet the current needs of the 5 community and to provide for a development that is 6 superior to what could be accomplished in other zoning 7 districts by meeting one or more of the following 8 purposes. 9 And the one that's really identified and is 10 highlighted in page 2 of the staff report, that it says, 11 provides for the design of lots or buildings, increased 12 recreation, common or open space for private or public 13 use, berms, grcenbelts, trees, shrubs, or other 14 landscaping features, parking areas, street design or 15 access, or other development plans, amenities, or features 16 that could be of a special benefit to the property users 17 of a community. The original concept plan did not address 18 those requirements, specifically. And staff believes that 19 the detailed plan should, therefore, address these issues. 20 Further, Section 35155 of the Code contains 2l the followlng provision that the Commission or the City 22 Council may impose conditions concerning the location use 23 arrangement, construction, or development of the district 24 in order to ensure the appropriate use of the district and 25 to protect surrounding properties. Page 7 I And we interpret that to mean that, as 2 appropriate and in correlation to required information, 3 that this plan does contain the minimum required 4 information that we require. The detailed plan conditions 5 should relate to that section of the Code. And since this 6 project is a proposed PD detailed plan, we believe that 7 the conditions related to building orientation, loeatian 8 use, arrangement, construction, or development of the 9 district in order to ensure the appropriate use of the 10 district and to protect surrounding properties may be 11 imposed by the Commission. And we've talked about that 12 on a detailed plan before, what can the Commission do 13 regarding detailed plans and we believe there is quite a 14 bit of wiggle room, if you will, what we can do. 15 And, finally, as I said, this plan does meet 16 the minimum requirements for a detailed plan but it does 17 not provide for the creativity to ensure the compatibility 18 of land uses, nor does it meet the needs of the community 19 or provide for a development that is superior to what 20 could be accomplished in other zoning districts. 21 Bottom line, staff is not making a 22 recommendation. We're not going to recommend approval, 23 nor are we recommending denial. We strongly believe that, 24 although the uses may be appropriate for this area, that 25 still there are site issues that need to be addressed or Page 8 1 that could be addressed by this Commission prior to us 2 going forward. And, again, some of those are standard 3 lighting conditions. But additional conditions could 4 address setbacks, the buffering, screening, building 5 elevations and orientation, and the height and material of 6 those buildings. 7 It may be a departure from what we've 8 normally done. We usually always make a recommendation. 9 But we have -- typically, in the past we have recommended 10 approval if minimum requirements are met. And we believe, 11 upon reviewing the requirements and what a Planned 12 Development is really supposed to do, that the design of 13 this plan is not a superior design. It is one that could 14 be found in any multi-family zoning district. And I'll 15 open up for questions. 16 Ma.E~oe~BimCh'X: okay. Mr. McNeill. 17 Ma. MCNEILL: I have sevcxal questions. In 18 previous backup information when this was before us, the 19 statement was made, all detailed plans should be in 20 substantial compliance with variance ordinances. Is it in 21 substantial complianc~ with th~ ordinances? 22 MR. REICHHART: Right. Yes. 23 Ma. MO'~ILL: okay, first question. And the 24 second question, and it says, the site design does not 25 provide the creativity. How did you measure that PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 2000 Page 5 - Page 8 69. Condcns~ItTM Page 9 I creativity? 2 MR. REICHHART: Maybe one of the measures 3 could be the amount of concern or oppositions that the 4 neighbors still have in that there may be other design 5 solutions that could be investigated to alleviate some of 6 these problems. One of the things that the Comprehensive 7 Plan, I think, is promoting is the new urbanism type of 8 approach where you can actually combine some of the uses. 9 The future development, if they chose to bring that 10 on-line now, the commercial and -- have one-story ground 11 floor commercial/retail uses and then maybe a second story 12 or third story, loft apartments. Loft apartments could be 13 facing inward towards the multi-family section where you 14 get access only from the retail from the other side. So 15 you have a multi-purpose building, using that as a buffer 16 between the two buildings, potentially rotating the 17 adjacent buildings to the single-family 90 degrees and 18 creating some additional green space or courtyards between 19 those. 20 MR. MCNEILL: SO that would be more creative 21 than what they've done now, if they turned -- if they did 22 those things. 23 MR. ENGELBRECHT: I think Mr. Powell would 24 like to make a comment about this, too. 25 MR. POWELL: Yes, if I may. I do think that Page 10 1 staff is always in a difficult position. We don't want to 2 design the project for the applicant. But as Mr. 3 Reichhart said, if the look through the Comp Plan, it 4 gives examples, design examples of things that we're 5 looking towards. And, in fact, we've brought a sheet 6 tonight that shows some of those. It is a tricky question 7 to answer what would make it more unique and, in our 8 opinion, what has been presented doesn't have that 9 uniqueness and the design leads to, I wouldn't say 10 incompatibility, but causes some incompatibility with the 11 surrounding uses, single-family uses. 12 MR. MCNEILL: And then the second part of that 13 statement says, provide for development that is superior 14 to what could be accomplished in other zoning districts. 15 I'm not sure I understand what that means. 16 MR. REICHHART: I think the intent of a 17 Planned Development was -- I mean, for one example, a 18 recent development that we had was 215 First Street. It 19 was where there was that existing block building on the 20 back part of the property that's lost its non-conforming 21 status, but it's -- our Code does not allow for two uses, 22 two incompatible uses and commercial and residential is 23 deemed incompatible on the same property. The only way Page 11 I norm in order to provide a superior design. I mean, a 2 straight multi-family or any development has specific 3 setback requirements, whether it's a rigid 15-foot, 4 45-foot front, rigid building lines, property lines, and 5 all that. Where a Planned Development allows you to say, 6 well, I get a superior design if I go to a five-foot site 7 setback. That allows me to save this tree, increase my 8 building height. I get more density than what the Code 9 normally would allow. I mean, it allows you to take a 10 site that is -- that could be more -- it allows you the 11 ability to think outside the typical zoning requirements 12 of, you know, 15-foot site setbacks. 13 MR. MCNEILL: And staff feels that this 14 doesn't do that, I guess is what that statement is saying 15 here. 16 MR. REICHHART: I think a fair statement is 17 that it could probably be done better. 18 MR. MCNEILL: okay. Thank you. 19 MR. ENGELBRECHT: MS. Gourdie. 20 MS. Cd)URDIE: Thank you. I just have a 21 question for clarification. When the applicants, who 22 aren't the owners but they're the ones processing this for 23 them, they knew this was a Planned Development when the 24 came forward; is that correct? 25 MR. REICHHART: Correct. Page 12 1 MS. Cff)URDIE: SO they're not -- there's no 2 secrecy hero. Them was nothing that was held behind and 3 they knew exactly what they were up against and they 4 not following through on it. I.just want to make sure 5 that I'm reading this right, that they knew it was a 6 Planned Development and they understand what a Planned 7 Development means. And that the City Council and the 8 Planning and Zoning Commission has tho authority because 9 of the Planned Development zoning to ask of this, 10 specifications to be changed and have details done to it. 11 Okay. I just wanted to make sure I knew that, understood 12 that correctly. Thank you. 13 ' M~. ENOELBRECHT: MS. Apple. 14 MS. APt'CE: tarry, could you tell me if this 15 was zoned Multi-Family, as you w~ talking about with all 16 those requirements it would have had, how many units would 17 they have been allowed to have in a Multi-Family zoning? 18 MR. REICHHART: I don't know if I can answer 19 that because it depends on when it was zoned Multi-Family. 20 If it were zoned Multi-Family today, it would be less than 21 what it would have been ten years ago. 22 MS. Ape[e: Just a rough guesstimate of what 23 it would be now. 24 you can do that is with a Planned Development. And the 24 M~ REICHHART: I mean, something like -- 25 planned Development allows for the -- something out of the 25 another thing that this Board has seen was the Fairfield PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 2000 Page 9 - Page 12 70. Cond~ns~ItTM Page 13 1 student housing and that had upwards to 24 units per acre. 2 This is at 17. So I don't think the density is as much an 3 issue, quite honestly. I think 17 units per acre, I mean, 4 is something that could have easily obtained that zoning 5 density. 6 MS. APPLE: But my question is, if it were 7 zoned Multi-Family, what could it allow? 8 MR. REICHHART: 'Up tO or a range? 9 MS. APPLE: Yes. 10 MR. REICHHART: Oh, I think, say, if it was 11 zoned within the -- I think the highest I've seen is like 12 in the 24s, something like that. 13 MS. APPLE: And this currently would be? 14 MR. REICHHART: 17 units per acre. 15 MS. APrLE: okay. Another question I had 16 regarding some of the things that the neighborhoods had 17 asked about -- 18 MR. REICHHART: One thing about the 19 neighborhoods I don't know if I mentioned, we're still at 20 31 percent opposition. 21 MR. ENGELBRECHT: I was going to ask you that 22 when you got finished here. 23 MS. APPLE: Okay. One question, just I know 24 the boat or RV storage, et cetera, do you know if their 25 neighborhood deed restrictions also have limits on their Page 14 1 ability to store boats and Rvs? Was there any discussion 2 of what their deed restrictions are? 3 MR. REICHHART: There was not. The only 4 discussions on the boats and Rvs was between the potential 5 builder and manager of the -- the Irwins on the apartment 6 complex. And, typically, what they do is -- they didn't 7 think it would be a problem. It hasn't been a problem on 8 any of their other apartment complexes that they manage. 9 And they typically give parking passes and you're allowed 10 maybe two passes. But, you know, the neighbors were 11 concerned that -- and it's possible that you'd get one big 12 RV parked against the back of your -- 13 MS. APPLE: I guess what I'm trying to 14 ascertain is if they're trying to keep this project 15 consistent with their neighborhood standards; i.e., the -- 16 MR. REICHHART: NO. I don't think they have 17 that standard and that was a condition that was 18 voluntarily added by the applicant. 19 MS. AP?LE: By the developer? 20 MR. REICHHART: Yes. 21 MS. APPLE: okay. Then a couple of their 22 concerns, the car lights shining through the fence -- 23 MR. REICHHART: That concern is, depending on 24 the type of fence you have, if it's a wood fence, 25 evel~mally the slats or whatever may shrink up a little PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH Page 15 1 bit. And as cars are pulling directly intO these parking 2 spots, the headlights could shine, then shine through into 3 the backyard. And that's why the applicant provided a 4 solid wooden as opposed to like board-on-board or 5 something like that. It's a solid fence. 6 MS. APPLE: Because I was thinking about that 7 and I thought this is at the corner of two of the really 8 busiest streets, and it seems like there would actually be 9 less light from cars turning off of Teasley onto Ryan than 10 with a fence and only 159 units, then now it's just open 11 to every single car that is turning on that road. 12 MR. REICHHART: well, if anybody was turning 13 southbound, I guess, on Teasley and mined onto Ryan, you 14 could get -- 15 MS. APPLE: It seems like that might actually 16 help. 17 MR. REICHHART: -- the sweep of headlights 18 across the back of the existing fences now, but I don't 19 believe that would happen with this, with the buildings 20 and the landscaping out there. 21 MS. APPLE: seemed like that might actually 22 abate a little bit of that. And then they have agreed to 23 increase the bufferyard from -- 24 MR. REICHHART Ten to 15. 25 MS. APPLE: -- ten to 15 feet and raise the Page 16 1 fence to eight feet. 2 MR. REICHHART: Eight foot. Their last 3 proposal was six. 4 MS. APPLE: Thank you. 5 MR. REICHHART: Thc other thing, I did mention 6 that typically we go with a wood fence, it would be 7 probably metal posts or steel. 8 MS. APPLE: That's standard pretty much. 9 Thanks. 10 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Mr. Moreno. 11 MR. MORENO: Yes, Mr. Reichhart, tell me again 12 why we're looking at this illustration. 13 MR. REICHHART: These illustrations illustrate 14 some of the -- this would illustrate the potential to have 15 ground floor, retail, and second and/or third floor 16 apartment lofts. This type of arrangement with the 17 parking in between then provides additional open space 18 .opportunities, if we turn those. Have a parking area, you 19 could have the retail and the apartments on the flip sides 20 of these, if you will. It's examples that, I believe, 21 came out of the Comprehensive Plan as to different -- one 22 of the options would be to pull some of the retail right 23 up to the property line and make it more of a urban 24 streetscape setting to get more pedestrian linkages. 25 MR. MORENO: And has the applicant seen these 8, 2000 Page 13 - Page 16 71. CondenseltTM Page 17 I illustrations? 2 MR. REICHHART: NO. 3 MR. MORENO: NO. Okay. A couple of other 4 questions on the neighborhood opposition. You've 5 indicated that there is no consensus on a number of 6 issues, would you give me those issues again? 7 MR. REICHHART: I think the major issues are 8 going to be the fence or the buffer between the adjacent 9 property. What should the material be? ShOuld it be 10 wood? And it's gone anywhere from eight-foot high -- 11 because there's an elevation change between the existing 12 residential, baekyards are going to be a little bit higher 13 in elevation than the apartment complex. So they're 14 elevated up over a fence and, you know, there's even been 15 talk of going to a ten or 12-foot fence there. And 16 anything from wood to a chain-link fence with a living 17 hedge was discussed and then solid masonry or brick or a 18 combination of brick and wood, and I think the applicant 19 did some, and I'll let them speak on that, initial cost 20 estimates to go to brick. But that was a major one. 21 The amount of space between the residential 22 properties and where the first building would be, I've 93 heard anywhere from 20 to 30-foot up to 50-foot those 24 buildings should be pushed back away from the property 25 lines. One-story construction along the residential Page 18 1 perimeter instead of -- the concept plans allow for two 2 stories adjacent to the residential. The applicant's gone 3 to one-and-a-half and the neighbors are saying to be more 4 compatible, we want one. And one of the things if you go 5 to one around the perimeter and you keep the same 6 densities, you've got to push it up somewhere else and 7 you'll probably have more three-story units on the 8 interior. And some people say, well, that doesn't bother 9 me and other neighbors say, that would bother me to have 10 more three-story. 11 MR. MORENO: Is it your sense that if some of 12 these conditions were agreed to by the applicant that the 13 opposition would drop below the 20 percent? 14 MR. REICHHART: well, getting down -- probably 15 the consensus of almost all the opposition is we don't 16 want multi-family on this parcel. I mean, that to me -- I 17 mean, that's my opinion of what I've heard. But the 18 majority of it is we don't want multi-family or we don't 19 want it at this density. 20 MR. MORENO: That's what I wanted to know. 21 Thanks. 22 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Mr. RisheL 23 MR. RISHEL: This has been postponed or 24 continued a couple of different times. As we had looked 25 at initially the first time this was brought before us, Page 19 1 one of thc difficulties was that there was opposition to 2 the project and that was maybe 21 or 22 percent. And then 3 this last time it was postponed or not brought on our 4 Agenda, one of thc two, I forget which, and the opposition 5 was 28 or something percent. Every time this has come 6 back to us, has tho opposition gotten bigger within thc 7 neighborhoods from what you've seen with the neighborhood 8 meetings that you've had? 9 Ma. ~,elctma~?: I think what we get at the 10 neighborhood meetings are the same folks every time and it 11 isn't the majority of the adjacent property owners. And I 12 think, quite honestly, that this has brought the 13 neighborhood together to some extent where you have a 14 couple of people that are very adamant about or have some 15 very strong feelings about this and have gotten out to the 16 neighborhood. And at the first flush, you know, you get 17 the people that look at their application and send it in. ' 18 And then I think, quite honestly, there was a campaign to 19 get more and more people involved to submit their letters 20 in. 21 t~m. RISHEL: And the last time that it was 22 brought before us, the feeling I got, there was going to 23 be another neighborhood meeting to try to convince some of 24 the people that the developer was trying to work with 25 their ideas. Has there been a neighborhood meeting since Page 20 1 then? 2 MR. REICHHART: NO. 3 MR. RISHEL: Okay. Thank you. 4 MR. REICHHART: I think at the last 5 neighborhood meeting that I attended, and that was prior 6 to the last continuance, that the applicant, and Iql let 7 the applicant speak on that, but the applicant had 8 indicated they didn't know what direction to go in to try 9 to get the opposition, to try to -- because it literally 10 is a moving target out there of what can be done. And I 11 don't know what their final decision was about having 12 other neighborhood meetings or what to do about that. 13 MR. RISHEL: Okay. Thank you. 14 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Yes, IV'ir. Powell, did you 15 want to make a comment? 16 MR. POWELL: Yes. The question that came up 17 on page 26 and 27 in the backup, there's a list of 18 individuals who have submitted letters of opposition and I 19 guess my assumption is that those are all within the 200 20 feet? 21 MR. REICHHART: correct. 22 MR. POWELL: okay. 23 MR.REICHHART: There is -- the properties 24 adjacent to this site that are in the yellow are the ones 25 that we've received opposition from, so you can see, and Page 17 - Page 20 ?LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 200ti 72. Condens~ItTM 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 21 berets the line that marks the 200-foot limit, and there are very few property owners that have submitted opposition or letters. MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't understand what you said. MR. MCNEILL: Yeah, what does that mean? MR. REICHHART: That's the 200-foot buffer around this property. Okay? These lots right hem Page 23 1 require screening, it didn't say what, between all three 2 uses. Between the retail and the multi-family, there had 3 to be screening. Between the multi-family and the 4 single-family, there had to be adequate buffering. It's 5 adequate buffeting, it doesn't say what adequate buffering 6 is. And I think that the City Council with the 7 Comprehensive Plan has gone through a new rebirth, if you 8 will, that that's not necessarily true anymore. You can represent the adjacent single-family subdivision, and that continues on for another block or so back to the west. The yellow highlighted properties indicate that we've received letters from those individuals. So there are one, two -- 19 properties that didn't submit a letter. They don't have to submit a letter. It's not a requirement. But that is a high majority of a neighborhood, of adjacent neighborhood that would submit letters and they're all in opposition. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Mr. Reichhart, would you put the detailed plan back up there again? Now, what we have on this detailed plan, as I understand it, is all the multi-family footprints. MR. REICHHART: Right. MR. ENGELBRECHT: And did we not, one of the earlier ones, show some footprints in the commercial? MR. REICHHART: We did. And that was before Page 22 1 the moratorium for the commercial, the nonresidential 2 moratorium when into effect, which, in essence, would have 3 -- if they wanted to continue with that, they would have 4 had to seek relief from the moratorium. So instead of 5 that, they just pulled that from the application. They 6 reduced their request to just the multi-family. This 7 portion, the 4.3 acres would then come back at a later 8 date for approval, detail plan approval. 9 MR. ENGELBRECHT: In terms of this comer, it I0 would seem to me that there is some value in having a 11 coordinated whole to this entire comer, the commercial 12 and the multi-family, in terms of its design and its -- 13 I'll think of the word I'm looking for in a moment -- in 14 terms of the building locations and orientations, 15 architectural design, et cetera. It just seems to me, and 16 I thought that's where we were sort of heading. 17 MR. REICHHART: The concept in the 18 Comprehensive Plan of a neighborhood center would 19 integrate all of those components and you might start at a 20 core with retail and multi-family or higher density and 21 radiate out to lesser densities, and it would be designed 22 as a whole. And, in theory, I do agree with that, that we 23 can coordinate all these together. You have something 24 that flows a lot better. And I mean, I still have to 25 point out that, in the ori~nal concept plan, it did 9 integrate these -- 10 MR. ENGELBRECHT: That's just what I was going 11 to ask. 12 MR. REICHHART: -- and you can really make it 13 even better by integrating them. You make it a really 14 active livable area if you have a little bit of everything 15 going on. 16 MR. ENGELBRECHT: And that would, could 17 eliminate the need for any buffering between that 18 multi-family residential or commercial because it would 19 sort of all be considered as a whole. 20 MR. REICHHART: It could be considered as a 21 whole and/or it still could be segregated in that the 22 retail faces out this way. Multi-family faces out towards 23 the multi-family. And now the structure itself is the 24 buffer. 25 MR. ENGELBRECHT: okay. All right. Is there Page 24 1 any particular reason why the commercial, as we have it 2 labeled, could not include some multi-family or some sort 3 of residential in it, as a third story, second story, as 4 we're doing downtown? Would there be any reason from a 5 planning perspective that that couldn't be done? And I 6 say that and my other thought is, would that increase the 7 density and is there really any problem with that if we 8 have -- are having some increase in density if we have a 9 design that incorporates the entire unit. 10 MR. REICHHART: I think we'd have to modify 11 the concept plan and the detailed plan could do that. But 12 I think the designation identified in the original concept 13 plan was for General Retail and if I recall that 14 multi-family is not a permitted use. 15 MR. ENGEI~RECHT: But, again, this is a PD and 16 that's why we're -- 17 Mm REICHHART: A PD allows you to do that. 18 MIL ENGELBKECHT: That's the idea of 19 creativity. 20 MR. REICHHART: correct. 21 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Okay. All right. Thank 22 you. Thank you. Any other questions, Commissioners? 23 Okay. Thank you, Mr. Reichhart. Is the petitioner or 24 petitioner's representative present? 25 MS. ARCHER: Good evening. I'm Alyson Archer PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 2000 Page 21 - Page 24 73. CondenseltTM Page 25 1 from 2112 West Springcreek Parkway, Piano, Texas. 2 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Thank you. 3 MS. ARCHER: I'll try and answer any questions 4 here tonight that were not covered by Larry. I guess I'll 5 start where I have many times before with you and give you 6 a brief history in ease anybody has forgotten where we 7 were in this process. The property was originally zoned 8 in '85. The singie-family Was developed in '96. We came 9 forward last summer and started this process and so we've 10 gone through a number of DRC meetings, a number of 11 homeowners meetings. 12 And just for elarifieation, up until this 13 point, up until an hour or two ago, we had been aware that 14 we kind of had staff recommendation under the concept that 15 we met the development detailed plan requirements and had 16 not seen any of these other ideas or been told that our 17 plan lacked the creativity that they may be looking for 18 now. 19 I understand that there may be a difference in 20 philosophy now but I just want to point out that we made a 21 list of ten items that we've made concessions on this plan 22 from what our PD concept plan required. And I think it's 23 a creative plan. I think that instead of doing -- as you 24 know, the boundary under the current PD allowed for 25 two-story abutting the singie-family, that we did, a Page 26 I concept that was kind of a townhouse three-plex type 2 facility and separated those. They looked more like 3 singie-family buildings abutting the single family. So 4 that we didn't just put traditional two-story multi-family 5 next to that. We've done it with a pitched roof and 75 6 percent masonry requirements. 7 I think you've all seen in your packets the 8 elevation plan, but I just want to take a minute to do 9 that again and say that I don't think that this is a plan l0 that just looks like your standard two-story apartment 11 complex that's been plopped up next to somebody else. So 12 if there's some specific questions on that, I'd love to 13 address them for you, but I think that the plan that's 14 been put together worked hard on some creative issues. 15 MR. ENGELBRECHT: would you just turn that 16 around a little bit more and maybe they can pick it up on 17 the overhead? Thank you. 18 MS. ARCHER: I don't mean to hit or miss but 19 I'm just going to hit some high points. Relative to the 20 homeowners, I feel like that the majority of the 21 opposition letters came in prior to a detailed concept 22 plan even being delivered to them or them having an 23 opportunity to look at it. So I think from this concept 24 of what were those homeowners kind of looking for and 25 where were we in that process, I think we've kind of Page 27 1 stated -- I think the majority of them are opposing it 2 because they don't like the use. 3 I've said in several meetings before that the 4 zoning was in place five years before their homes were 5 built and there's a large sign on tbe propea-ty that says 6 aparmaent zoning that they drive by every day. So the 7 idea that they were uninformed or unaware of it is a 8 misunderstanding in that regard.. I understand their 9 COncerns and I think we've tried very hard to address a I0 lot of those by limiting the height, removing the 11 buildings -- the windows, removing the balconies, and 12 adding the buffers that they've requested. But I don't 13 think that another hundred homeowners' meetings would ever 14 get any change from this group. We asked for them to 15 appoint two or three people that would like to, you know, 16 meet with us a number of times to taT and resolve this and 17 they didn't even want to appoint a couple of people. 18 The last meeting, only I think we had 12 19 people that appeared. So each meeting we have we get a 20 lower turnout as it goes through that process. We need to 21 try and move forward. I ask for your approval tonight. 22 We have worked this process for a long time and feel like 23 that we've done an appropriate plan and would like to move : 24 forward with it. 25 MR. ENGELBRECHT: commissioners, do you have Page 28 1 questions? Msl Gourdie. 2 MS. C, OUROIE: Thank you. Ms. Archer, how far 3 is it from Building No. 1 to the pool? 4 MS. A~CHm~ It's tbe farthest building away 5 from the pool. 6 MS. c, otmom: okay. And is there a reason why 7 you -- in the concept of what you're developing here, you 8 would prefer to not have your reereatlon area in the 9 middle of the complex to serve everyone's needs within a 10 reasonable walking distance versus Buildings 1, 2 and 16 I1 and 17 and 5 and 8 kind of have to ge a little farther or 12 maybe get in their car and drive over? 13 ' MS. ARCHER: I think that the concept came 14 through planning and understanding what's been working for 15 the majority of multi-family complexes. And by having the 16 center at the front with the green space and the pool, it 17 apparently is the best choice for the management of that 18 complex. ! understand that there may be some concerns 19 relative to that but I guess you could flip-flop it and 20 they might prefer to be -- you know, I think it depends on 21 who's living the and which building th~r would 22 particularly pick to llve in. They do have that 23 opportunity when they're leasing to decide whether they 24 want to be close or far away from the building. And if 25 that was a concern, that one might be suitable for someone PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 8,2000 74. Page 25 - Page 28 CondensoItTM Page 29 1 else. 2 MS. GOURDIE: Thank you. 3 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Ally other questions? Would 4 you review where you stand with the buffer and the -- as I 5 see the detailed plan, there's a 15-foot setback between 6 the single-family and your units. There's a wood fence 7 buffer. Are there plantings in there in that 15 feet, as 8 well? 9 MS. ARCHER: what we did after the last 10 meeting was to, again, there wasn't one person who 11 everybody agreed on one thing, so we actually said, okay, 12 we'll do the eight-foot fence, two feet higher than the 13 requirement is. We do it so that it was board on board so 14 that you didn't have any light issues. And then on top of 15 that we threw the landscape in front of that building in 16 all of those parking areas so that when they couldn't 17 decide between whether they wanted the landscape buffer or 18 they wanted another fence, we gave both. 19 MR. ENGELBRECHT: I Was thinking about that 20 from the perspective of the residents more than the -- of 21 this complex. Because if the fence is there, that goes 22 away and I just wondered. So that's basically landscaped 23 with plantings in that 15-foot buffer? 24 MS. ARCHER: It has both, yes, sir. 25 MR. ENGELBRECHT: okay. All right. Mr. Page 30 1 Williams. 2 MR. WILLIAMS: I have a two-part question and 3 I'll ask the easiest part first. Did your company have 4 anything to do with the building of the homes? 5 MS. ARCHER: The single-family homes. My 6 father and I purchased this property as a whole. It was 7 31 acres. We sold the 17 acres to Choice Homes who built 8 the single-family. So we originally had the entire -~ we 9 owned the single-family land, also, but we sold that land 10 for the single-family development. But the zoning was in 11 place many, many years before we made that original sale. 12 So we knew that we had our zoning in place and our I'D in 13 place for that. 14 MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. But why would you build 15 homes first? 16 MS. ARCHER: well, there was not a market for 17 the multi-family for a long time and we've owned the 18 property for a long time and we didn't see any reason why 19 that would be a problem. I mean, we had the zoning in 20 place. 21 MR. WILLIAMS: YOU live in Piano, right? 22 MS. ARCHER: Actually, I live in -- my office 23 is in Piano, yes. 24 MR. WILLIAMS: okay. In other words -- okay. 25 You don't know Denton folks. Next thing, could you list Page 31 1 the ten concessions that you made? I've slept since the 2 last meeting. 3 MS. ARCHER: Yes, sir. The building height, 4 we were allowed two stories along the single-family and 5 three stories not abutting the single-family, anything not 6 abutting the single-family. We've reduced that to 7 one-and-a-half stories, which I find confusing so maybe I · 8 can show that a little bit better here. It's 9 one-and-a-half stories abutting the single-family and two 10 stories in the middle. The one-and-a-half stories just 11 allows for some loft windows at the front of the building 12 facing inward away from the single-family. So it's really 13 a one-story with some windows at the front. 14 Item No. 2 is that the I'D required lighting to 15 be positioned away from the residential. And that point, 16 we agreed to and included that in our plan. The setbacks 17 required a ten-foot setback. We gave a 15-foot setback. 18 The building materials, there were no masonry 19 requirements. We've outlined in our notes a 75 percent 20 masonry requirement, a combination of brick and stone 21 which is shown. The screening, the PD was unclear. It 22 just said there would be screening. As I understand it, 23 the City's standard requirement would be six-foot or a 24 landscape buffer was what staff had given us. We're doing 25 an eight-foot fence and the landscape buffer. Page 32 I The recreation facilities, there are no 2 recreation facilities required, as I understand it, by 3 City standards, although we do have to give the donation 4 to the park funds. We've included a club, pool house, and 5 play yard and recreation play area. The roof pitches, 6 minimum is 3/12. We've made the roof pitches on these 7 6/12 so they look like single-family homes instead of more 8 standard flat-roof apartments. The building layout, there 9 was no minimum requirement. We did the layout which 10 included the three and four-plexes so that they would 11 again be more conducive to single-family townhouse looks 12 than a large two-story apartment building. 13 The two other restrictions that we added that 14 there weren't any requirements for that the homeowners 15 asked for was the no RV or boat parking and no 16 second-story balconies adjacent to the single-family or on 17 the side of the buildings that abutted the single-family. 18 So those are the ten items. 19 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. 20 MS. ARCHER: Thank you. 21 MR, ENGELBRECHT: MS. GoLlr~o. 22 MS. GOURDIE: I had one more question for you 23 I didn't get to. I was wondering where is the -- is there 24 a laundry facility located in this apartment complex or 25 will the units be having the washer and dryer hookups? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 2000 75. Page 29 - Page 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CondcnscltTM Page 33 MS. ARCHER: Individually. MS. O3Ul~Om: Individually. Thank you. So will the units be having the washer and dryer in the units already provided there when they move in or are they going to be required to bring the washer and dryer? MS. ARCHER: Yes, that's what I understand. MS. GOURDIE: SO they'll be in the units. MS. ARCHER: I'm sure that they can lease them, MS. GOURDIE: well, I guess that's where I'm trying to understand is if they cannot lease them and if they're not provided for, then where do they go to do theh: laundry? MS. ARCHER'. Tbey~ll be in the units. MS. GOURDIE: Okay. Thank you. And I ask that question because mat~y people put their laundry facilities next to the management offices. Thank you. MIL ENGELBRECHT: I had asked staff earlier about the issue of designing this comer as a coordinated whole. And I have a concem that we're going to wind up with a two-part -- again, another chopped up comer when we could integrate this as one whole piece in this area. I wonder if you have any thoughts in terms of design and planning for that commercial area to incorporate and be a part of this entire development? Page 35 and I'm not representing the neighborhood, but it's my 2 impression that the opposition is still there primarily -- 3 I'm not se sure that it's about multi-family issues or 4 commercial issues as much as just the intrusion of our 5 privacy and safety concerns of kids and those type of 6 things. ? I did go to the last neighborhood meeting we · 8 had and I asked sPeCifically on the ten points, there's a 9 list of ten different items, had three specific concerns. 10 Number one was the building height on the perimeter. And 11 I'd like to see clarification -- moved away from one-story 12 versus one-and-a-half versus two-stories. It's still a Page 34 1 MS. ARCHER: I guess my best answer is that 2 we'll have to come back through a detailed plan with P & Z 3 and Council again on that and we'd have your full feedback 4 again and staff's input at that point. We had planned to 5 do that, got caught in this nine-month problem of 6 transitions and so we removed it according to the request 7 that we had and we would not be able to go back and add it 8 in now. 9 We need to move forward with our multi-family 10 plan at this point. But we're open to those suggestions 11 when we come forward and, hopefully, we'll get those from 12 staff as we come forward with a detailed plan. 13 MR. ENGELBRECHT: All right. Thank you. I 14 think that concludes the questions. Thank you very much. 15 MS. ARCHER: Thank you. 16 MR. ENGELBRECHT: IS there anyone present who 17 would like to speak in favor of this petition? Anyone 18 present to speak in favor of the petition? In that case, 19 is there anyone present to speak in opposition to the 20 petition? Anyone present to speak in opposition to the 21 petition? If you would please give us your name and 22 address for the record. 23 MR. GARNER: Yes, sir. Richard Garner, 2321 24 Wildwood Lane. I've been here before. Just wanted to 25 clarify for the Commission on the ,e!ghhorhood opposition, 13 35-foot structure, is my understanding, which no matter 14 how you call it it's 35-feet tall. I was told that 15 there's probably not compromise for that. 16 I asked about the buffer from ten to 15 feet, 17 I don't think is too much of a concession considering the 18 height of their building. I was also advised that there 19 was no concessions on that either, that that's the way 20 it's going to be. And then I think some of the issues on 21 the buffer fencing is -- I think the general consensus is 22 wood versus a solid structure. And my concern 23 specifically was a solid structure. It'd doesn't have to 24 be Acme brick or whatever. It could be cinder block or 25 whatever. But mainly for the reason of durability, Page 36 1 something that's going to last for 20 years, safety 2 issues, you know, just something that's solid as opposed 3 to a wood fence butted up to my wood fence. And I guess 4 my concern there is, well, what about maintenance. You 5 know, the first couple of years it's going to look great. 6 Ten years, 15 years, 20 years from now, who's going to 7 maintain this? Are they going to maintain it? Is there a 8 comment to that? So I was recommending maybe a solid 9 sWacmre to eliminate that concern. And I was told, 10 well, that's cost-prohibitive. 11 So there have been some points specifically 12 addressed at the last meeting. The plan basically is the 13' same exact plan that I've seen the last three -- two or 14 three meetings that I've attended. And I haven't seen any 15 changes whatsoever. So I'm still opposed for it, 16 obviously. 17 To clarify some other things, too, that I just 18 heard, I don't think there's a campaign in the 19 neighborhood. Nobody certainly knooked on my door and 20 said, hey, you know, get out theee and come to meetings 21 and rally the troops. I think a lot of these decisions 22 are self-made, certainly on my behaff. I've looked at 23 this on my own and looked at the merits and made my own 24 decisions. 25 I think maybe one of the problems you have is PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 2000 Page 33 - Page 36 76. 1 2 3 4 5 7 10 11 12 13 ]4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CondensoltTM Page 37 in the neighborhood thex~ am a lot of stay-at-home moms. They know each other. I'm not exactly in the loop of these people but ~ know each other and they talk and when somcthing offcnds them, they get togetlxx. And I think that's only natural. But I c~tainly don't beliovc there's a campaign to let's get the owners. I don't think the intentions are there. I've been in sales for 20 years and your first impression is the most important impression. I missed thc very first neighborhood meeting but the gist I'm getting from most of tho neighbors is, well, we're the owners. Page 39 1 have to tell what they know and I think that -- and I want 2 to know am I heating this, because this is being taped 3 live. 4 MR. GARNER: Yes, sir. 5 MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. 6 MR. GARNER: And it's my understanding, and 7 I'm not a real estate expert but, yes, I know there are 8 disclosure laws. But it's my understanding maybe that 9 only applies to me as a homeowner and I'm trying to resale 10 my home. If somebody were to ask me, what's back there, 11 would have to say, yes, I know what's there. And maybe We're going to put this here regardless of what you think. Too bad. I think maybe had thare been some negotiation or some give and take at the very first meeting, you wouldn't have such a large opposition. I think they kind of shot themselves in tho foot. MR. ENOELBRECHT: okay. Thank you. I helievo them is a question. Mr. MeNeilL MP,. MCNEILL: when you moved in there or when the majority of the neighbors moved in thom, were they aware that this was zoned Multi-Family? Ma. eARNER: 'that's a tricky question. I would have to say no. Thorn's been reference made to a sign on this comer which I have yet to over see. That reference was made at the last P & Z IP-et3-.tinE whero WO Camo Page 38 1 up and I think their attorney had said there's been a sign 2 there for all these years and we didn't think to address 3 that issue at the meeting, but a lot of the neighbors have 4 said we've never seen a billboard that says "future home 5 of apartments," period. 6 I think Choice Homes grossly misrepresented 7 the land use of that property. Myself and a lot of the 8 other homeowners asked specifically what was going to be 9 in that comer. The biggest eoneem was multi-family 10 because most people who bought homes there are starter 11 homes, they just moved from an apartment, they don't want 12 to invest $100,000.00 and live next to an apartment again. i3 And I know for a fact that the Choice Homes sales 14 representatives absolutely said there's no way that 15 apartments could go there. And I know that's not our 16 problem or anybody else's problem in this room, but they 17 were grossly misrepresented, in my opinion. lg MR. MCNEILL: Thank you. 19 MR. GARNER: Yes, sir, 20 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Mr. Williams. 21 MR. WILLIAMS: Am I hearing you ~aying that 22 the real estate agents broke the Real Estate Commission's 23 -- could lose their licenses for misrepresenting -- 24 because I think from my memory of the Real Estate 25 Col~mi~alon regulations, that if a hnmex)wner aRkR; they 12 there's some loopholes if it's a new home, maybe they're 13 exempt from that disclosure. I really don't know but I 14 can tell you that that was not disclosed properly. 15 MR. WILLIAMS: The only thing I want to say, I 16 know what a real estate agent, to maintain his license in 17 the State of Texas, has to do. 18 MR. GARNER: Yes, s~r, I think a new home 19 salesperson is not licensed in all cases. That's just my 20 understanding. 21 MR. ENGELBRECHT: okay. Ms. Apple. 22 MS. APPLE: My recollection is that at the 23 last meeting, and I thought it was you, but it must not 24 have been obviously, that someone actually said from this 25 neighborhood, and I can go back to my minutes, that they Page 40 1 actually went done to the City and asked and that they 2 were told that this was zoned for apartments. And I had 3 thought it was you. 4 MR. GARNER: In the very first meeting, yes. 5 We don't take the word of a salesperson. We called 6 Planning and Zoning to fred out exactly what is this zoned 7 for and, in all honesty, it was very confusing and it was 8 -- you know, I'm just a layman and it was a little hard to 9 get to the bottom line what is this property zoned for. 10 And being that it is split for multi-residentiai and 11 commercial, you know, you hear both of those terms. I 12 know a statement was made, well, the odds of an apartment 13 going there are relatively slim in reference to the Denton 14 Plan, in reference to I think there's some requirement of 15 "X" amount of parking spaces versus "X" amount of square 16 footage, "X" amount of -- you know, those type of issues. 17 So, I mcan, we did get to the bottom line but 18 it took a lot of work. And then I also stated that on the 19 notices that are sent out to the 200-foot property owners, 20 you really had to read that very carefully to understand 21 that thia wa8 not a zoning issue. And the reason I say 22 that is because of the wording that was in bold, 23 italicized letters, you know, you're being notified of a 24 zoning change. I can't remember the exact words and I 25 think maybe that might help the residents in the future if Page 37 - Page 40 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 200e 77. Condenselt m Page 41 I that was looked at. 2 MS. APPLE: Thank you. 3 MR. ENGELBRECHT: I think that concludes the 4 questions. Thank you. 5 MR. GARNER: Thank you, sir. 6 MR. ENGELBRECHT: IS them anyone else present 7 who would like to speak in opposition to this petition? 8 Anyone else present to speak in opposition? If there's no 9 additional opposition, petitioner does have an opportunity 10 for rebuttal. Any comments, Ms. Archer? 11 MS. ARCHER: Only if there were any questions 12 that were raised there. 13 MR. ENGELBRECHT: MS. Gourdie. 14 MS. GOURDIE: I do have a question for you. 15 Is the sign you're speaking of the one with the arrow on 16 it that's fight in front of the pond? 17 MS. ARCHER: Archer, uh-huh. 18 MS. GOURDIE: okay. It says Archer Real 19 Estate for sale. 20 MS. ARCHER: And underneath of it, it says 21 multi-family and retail. 22 MS. GOURDIE: okay. I just wanted to make 23 sure that's the one you were talking about. Thank you. 24 MS. ARCHER: Thank you. 25 MR. ENGELBRECHT: The public hearing is Page 43 1 neighbors got from Choice Homes led them to believe that 2 this was going to be single-family way back when when they Page 44 3 bought their -- at the first neighborhood meeting, almost 4 everybody said, oh, yeah, I was told the same thing and 5 that they were thinking of buying it and puffing homes up 6 or something. So there was some original -- 7 MR. WILLIAMS: Misrepresentation. 8 MR. P~tCHBARX: I don't know if it was 9 misrepresentation or like it was the sales mp that 10 thought that they were going to end up buying it and ke~p 11 going or whatever. But for the majority of the folks that 12 lived around that community wer~ told a different story, 13 anyway, of what might happen. But I just wanted to 14 reiterate some of those points. If there's any other 15 questions -- 16 MR. ENGELBRECHT: I think ~ are some 17 questions. Ms. Oourdie. 18 MS. GOURDIE: Thank you. I'd like you to 19 clarify for Mr. Garner about tho 35-feet height of tho 20 building. Is he correct in saying that all the buildings 21 are goiag to be the same height even though one is 22 one-story and the other ones on the inside am two 23 stories? 24 MR. REICHHART: Ithink the fact that the 25 clevatians of the building am such that in the mar, this 1 is the rear elevation, that this portion of the building 2 is one-story. Okay? In the front, they can go up to two 3 stories and a two-story elevation, I believe, can go up to 4 35 foot. So at the top of the building, what you would be 5 looking at, although it would be a one-story, it's all -- 6 it's the roof going up. So the actual height of the 7 building could go up to 35 feet. But the rear portion, 8 them would be no windows on the side. There would be no 9 second -- you wouldn't see a second-story window or 10 anything like that. That's the intent of the -- 11 MS. GOURDIE: Okay. Well, I guess what I've 12 heard now is, although you've been present at all the 13 meetings and I could be misinterpreting what I've heard, 14 but I was under the impression they wanted a one-story 15 building including the roof line so that they didn't have 16 an overpowering presence above their homes. And even 17 though it's all roof line, it still gives the illusion of 18 a two-story building for them to be looking at. And from 19 what I've heard for the past few times is, what I thought 20 their image was, that they were trying to convey was we 21 want a one-story buildin~ that's at a one-story elevat{on 22 and then on the inset go up higher. And I -- obviously, 23 that's not what happened and I guess that's why there's 24 part of a misconfusion as to what's really happening. 25 MR. REICHHART: I think it's a fair statement Page 42 1 closed. Mr. Reiehhart, do you have any final comments? 2 MIL REICHHART: Just a few. I'm the one who 3 used the word "campaign" and I guess maybe "word of mouth" 4 would have been better and I apologize for that. And I 5 think it is true that they're a close neighborhood and 6 people just start talking and that type of thing. 7 Tho comment that, you know, there was a 8 suggestion that if you did these three things, move the 9 buildings back, keep i~ one story, do something with the 10 fence -- there were a couple of other comments. People 11 would stand up at the neighborhood meetings and say, make 12 everything one-story. And it was directly asked to some 13 neighbors, if I did that would you move your opposition. 14 No answer. I mean, the applicant was caught, you know, 15 what can I do to remove the opposition and that's why -- 16 and I'm just bringing that up because it was said that if 17 these three things were done -- I mean, you might get one 18 person to remove their opposition but, by doing that, you 19 might get more opposition. I mean, that's the moving 20 target that's out thick. Thoro is no clear definitive 21 answer from any of the neighbors if I did A, B, and C, 22 would you remove your opposition. And no one would commit 23 to that. 24 I think it was probably unanimous almost to a 25 person that Choice Homes, the information that tho Page 41 - Page 44 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 2000 78. Cond~nseltTM Page 45 I that, you know, a number of adjacent property owners said, 2 I would rather see a one-story adjacent to this property 3 or adjacent to my property. 4 MS. GOURDIE: Thank you, Mr. Reichhart. 5 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Sgging there are no other 6 questions, I'm going to follow on -- if you'd leave that 7 up there. It's my understanding that there would be 8 plantings in that 15-yard buffer which Would, in essence, 9 be between that, what we're looking at right there in the 10 single-family? 11 MR. REICHHART: correct. 12 MR. ENGELBRECHT: NOW, would that include 13 trees? 14 MR. REICUHART: It very well could. I'd have 15 to rclook at the Landscape Plan but I believe they show 16 trees in that buffer, also, and I believe they really 17 increased the buffer between the parking lot and the fence 18 for it to increase the headlight screening. But it docs 19 include trees. 20 MR. ENGELBRECHT: The word "creativity" came 21 up a little earlier and it seems to me that it would -- 22 why this applicant didn't put the trees in there like they 23 did on the front elevations, which alone would suggest 24 that you have something breaking the mass. It sort of, to 25 me, drives at that issue of creativity. These issues are Page 46 1 raised and with a pencil, with a simple pencil, you could 2 have at least displayed something that would have taken 3 away from that whole mass very easily. It wasn't done 4 which sort of makes me question what sort of creativity 5 was here. When this plan was initially presented, there 6 wasn't any siding requixcrnents. There was only through 7 tooth and nail that there was some masonry required. And 8 I'm trying to recall what the initial discussion was on 9 the buffer, on the fence, if there was any. Was it a 10 six-foot wood or was there even a proposal on the initial 11 PD? Do you recall? 12 MR. REICHHART: I think the applicant -- at 13 the first neighborhood meeting anyway, the question came 14 up is do you want dual fences back to back. I think maybe 15 the initial PD was going to use the existing fences that 16 were there. 17 MR. ENGELBRECHT: That's kind of what I 18 thought. They were going to use the existing fence on the 19 single-family side. Now, if that's creativity, I'm sorry, 20 I just don't see it. When we know -- I don't know a 21 developer or planner yet who, when you start talking about 22 building multi-family next to existing single-family, 23 you're not going to expect trouble. I mean, i, aMB is going 24 to -- not in my baekyard is going to jump up immediately. 25 And it's just something you expect and, therefore, you Page 47 1 design with that in mind. It would appear that this 2 design didn't. At best, it's come along and attempted to 3 address a piece at a time. 4 There was the question asked by Ms. Gourdie 5 with regard to the pool and the rest of the amenities. As 6 I recall, that wasn't even a part of this complex when it 7 came in. That was a separate design. It was what was 8 ealled an independent private recreation area. And when 9 we raised questions about it, all of a sudden, a line got 10 changed and it became the office and the recreation area 11 for this facility. I don't see how that's creativity and 12 how that really looks at the reality of what to expect 13 when you build next to single-family. And if you have any 14 comments with regard to mine, I'd appreciated any 15 feedback. 16 MR. REICHHART: l'm jotting a few things down. 17 MR. ENGELBRECHT: MI'. McNeill. 18 MR. MCNEILL: It seems to me that one of the 19 original concerns that the neighbors expressed when we had 20 the public hearing a month or so ago, whenever we had one 21 of those, that they didn't want windows there where people 22 would be looking into their backyard. And so I think 23 that's why this was addressed that way. And in terms of 24 if I'm doing this drawing and that's the concern, I'm not 25 going to clutter that up with trees so I can't tell what Page 48 I that building looks like. 2 MR. ENGELBRECHT: A reasonable argument. 3 MR. MCNEILL: SO I think, you know, and I 4 don't know whether either side is creative or not with 5 trees or without trees. 6 MR. REICHHART: Just to go along with that, 7 too, that the elevation was intended to show the reduced 8 height in the back. And when that's what you're showing, 9 you didn't want to -- and the same extent, we could 10 probably show a fence back here. You don't even see that 11 bottom. So, I mean, it was there to show the neighbors. 12 MR. ENGELBRECHT: That's a good question. 13 Good feedback. That's why I was asking. Mr. Moreno. 14 MR. MORENO: Yes, sir. Thank you. I guess 15 I'm trying to come to grips with the 31 percent opposition 16 and I'm just trying to see if there's any way to come to 17 some kind of compromise. I'm going to ask staff about a 18 completely different part of town, but I think it's a 19 similar situation on North Locust, directly, I think 20 directly across from Evers Park, there is a subdivision, 21 and forgiv~ mc, I don't r~nembcr the name, and an 22 apartment complex that are right next door to each other. 23 And those were both built, I think, four or five years 24 ago. And I'm just wondering how is it that that 25 subdivision and that apartment complex can coexist and PLANNING AND ZOblIN(} COMMISSION MARCH 8, 2000 Page 45 - Page 48 79. CondenseltTM Page 49 1 this one can't, because I believe those apartments are two 2 stories tall. I don't recall what the bufferyard is but I 3 don't think it could be more than ten feet or ten or 15 4 feet. And yet I'm not aware, but, perhaps, staff is, of 5 safety and privacy issues that have become apparent since 6 that subdivision and that apartment complex were built. 7 Do we know of any safety or privacy issues with that 8. neighborhood? MR. REICHHART: I personalty don't know of any. And the other contention, I don't know the history of that, per se, if it was built together at the same time, multi-family was there first. MR. MORENO: I think they were built within a year of each other but, truthfully, I don't recall which came first. I think the homes. MR. MCNEILL: The homes were first. MR. MOP, ENO: SO I just kind of wanted to make a point that apartments, multi-family and single-family homes can coexist. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Any other questions.'? It would appear not. Thank you, sir. Commissioners, do you have any other questions for staff, any comments, or a motion? MR. MCNEILL: I'll make a motion. MR. ENG~I.BRECHT: Mr. McNeill. 9 10 11 12 13 14 t5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 51 1 in a timely manner has kind of thrown this into a 2 different light. 3 I am a httle bit disappointed that the 4 developers have not found the enthusiasm to go back to the 5 neighbors and try to work with them tbe be~t ~ possibly 6 could to win them over to their side and have them look at 7 what they're trying to do here as a project that is a 8 logical thing and.I think maybe tbe best tiring for this 9 type of corner and traffic situation and lots of things we 10 have going on here. So I'm a little bit concerned with 11 that. 12 I still have 31 percent opposition and I'm 13 very sensitive to the,citizens that we have, even though 14 they don't appear to be as organized a neighborhood group 15 as we sometimes see that come before us. And I caution 16 our Planning and Zoning people and our City Council people 17 both to think of themselves if this was at Brash Ch:ok or 18 if this was at Southridge or if this was at Northiake, how 19 they would look at it if it was sitting in their 20 neighborhood and 31 p~cent of their population and they 21 had all of their neighbors turn out with them because 22 they're a very organized different sets of groups there. 23 This does not seem to be a cohesive group, although they 24 have registered with our City and our planners the fact 25 that they are opposed to it at this point in time. I see Page 50 1 MR. MCNEILL: I recommend approval as it's 1 2 submitted on the plan with the conditions as outlined here 2 3 on the plan in t~,ns of the buffer, in terms of the fence, 3 4 in that they would do lighting so that it's not to shine 4 5 up or otherwise disturb the surrounding residential 5 6 property or to shine and project upward to prevent the 6 7 diffusion in the night sky. 7 $ MR. MORENO: second. 8 9 MR. ENGELBRECHT: It's been moved and seconded 9 10 to recommend approval with conditions as outlined in the 10 11 staff recommendation. Are there -- discussion? Mr. 11 12 Rishel. 12 13 MR. RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 13 14 appreciate the logic that Mr. McNeill and Mr. Moreno have 14 15 tried to bring to the argument. I certainly think that 15 16 it,s logical to think that if I was developing a piece of 16 17 property, that it would be nice to have a residential area 17 18 blocked or buffered in some way from major streets and 18 19 other things by commercial and multi-family. That's a 19 20 logical explanation and a logical pattern to follow in the 20 21 development process. I think that there has been a 21 22 sit~ation hero where we maybe put the cart before the 22 23 horse. The process of developing the lots in very 23 24 extensive multi-family and not having something that we 24 25 knew was in place that was going to be able to come forth 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH Page 52 a lack of effort by the developer to try to put forth a plan that is really creative, that can work with the neighbors, and that they can find a way to compromise and get something that's going to be quality for our community. MR. ENGELBRECHT: MS. Goardie. Ms. aoulmm: xhank you. I will not be voting in favor of this motion. As I stated last time, I believe this is a Planned Development. Tbey purchased this property as a Planned Development. If they were unclear what a Planned Doveiopmend meant -- which I find an impossible thing to have happen with tbe reputation of tbe applicant. They're very well aware of how things work in this town. And so I find that this lacks what a Planned Development was designed for and it's moro as a -- it's almost being treated as a straight zoning ease and keeping everyone segregated and dismissing itself from what the intent of Planned Development, which is to bring everything together and make it work as a community within itself, and this isn't happening. I also think thv ~raffic is stlU a concern. I also believe that th~ro is some misinterpretation as to what the neighborhoods had requested and what was being done. And I just find that with the way Denton has changed in the past four or five years, we have a whole 8,2000 80. Page 49 - Page 52 1 2 3 4 7 $ 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 lg 19 20 21 22 24 25 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Condeas~ItTM Page 53! new philosophy, we've spent more time working each and every process out. To compare to something that was built five, six, eight, ten, 20 years ago is not being realistic as to what's really been going on in Denton and the growth. You have to think about it, we were in a recession at that time and things weren't going as well as they seemed, so everyone let anything they could get in to get in because it was a financial prospect. And things are changing. We're prosperous. We're building to do things that are right for the City. And this is not what's right for Denton at this moment in time. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Any other discussion? Mr. Williams. MR. WILLIAMS: This is the hardest vote that I've ever had to make. I see a developer who set himself up for a headache. I see homeowners who do not listen to the principal "buyers beware." And I see City staff who say, well, they should have been more creative, but I 18 didn't show them how to be creative. 19 So -- and I will be voting for this, but this 20. is tough. It's really tough because I've been in a 21 position where I've been down in the audience with my 22 grievance and felt like I wasn't being heard. 23 However, since information is out there, and 24 when we invest in homes, we need to go an extra mile. An¢ 25 Page 54 also don't have any empathy for the developer who knew if 1 you build homes first and decide you want to build 2 apartments, you're going to have all heck break loose. So 3 -- but based upon how long it's been zoned that way, I'll 4 have to go with history on this. 5 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Any other comments? I just 6 want to say that I will be voting against the motion as I 7 think my questions to Mr. Reichhart indicated a little 8 earlier. The single-family residential was there. This 9 plan did not appear to me to have addressed what would 10 have obviously been some of their concerns coming in. A 11 few have been made along the way. The fact that there 12 wasn't even a buffer proposed of any kind initially, I'm 13 astounded. And that was only added because the residents 14 asked that. And, basically, everything else was only 15 asked for because the residents asked for it. I just 16 don't see that -- there wasn't any planning for the 17 immediate consideration for that immediate single-family 18 residential. So what sort of consideration would there 19 have been for the City? I just don't think it went into 20 it and I'm not going to vote at all for this plan. Any 21 other discussion? Vote, please. Ms. Apple, I'm sorry. 22 MS. APPLE: That's okay. 23 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Motion CarrieS, four to 24 three. 25 Page 55 before 7 I (Commissioners Oourdie, Rishel and Engelbrecht 2 voted against.) 3 ~:ill 4 5 taken .) 6 okay. Ladies 7 e meeting. Let me ask How 8 many of you ~ for Case No. 8? How many 9 ar~ 6? No. 7? All: AndIask 10 that because, request that 11 we might consld~r n ~ up on the Agenda since 12 we 13 MR. WILLIAMS: 14 MR. MCNEILL: 15 MR. n moved and seconded 16 to move -- make 8 Any discussion? Yes, 17 Ms. Apple. MS. APPLE: since them am a f~ 7, 6. to have to wait for 8's. To mc -- MR. RISHEL: TO mc, that Wollld Shoot 6 up to 7 -- or 6 up to 8. MR. ENGELBRECHT: IS there a friendly -- am you putting that in the form of a friendly amendment? i'll accept that as a friendly amendment. I'll second the friendly. 7, 8, 6. Is now? All fight. Any other Motion passes unanimously. All right, we'll ~ Agenda Item No. 7 then which is to hold and consider recommending approval to, plan for approximately 162 acres 120. The property is Street, us 77, ~t of North Locust, and is 1{ Thomas Toby . C.R.R. Survey, Abstract No. a the City Texas. kMr. with the detailed plan Page 56 : the North Pointe development, h is grab the detailed plan right here, 162.5 acres containing 454 residential units and ten acres of open space. There Page 53 - Pago 56 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 2000 81. ATTACHMENT 3 Z-99-096 (Ryan Rd./Teasley Ln, PD-93) NORTH Property in Opposition, (Typical) SITE LIMIT OF 200' NOTICE 200 FOOT OPPOSITION MAP (As of March 30, 2000) 200' Legal Notices sent via Certified Mail: 44 500' Courtesy Notices sent via 1st Class Mail: 99 Number of responses to 200' Legal Notice · In Opposition: 40 · In Favor:0 · Neutral:2 Percent of land within 200' in opposition: 30.9 % 82-. Scale: None AREA CALCULATIONS FOR Z-99-096(Ryan Rd./Teasley Ln.) Calculated By: LCR A. TOTAL AREA (Site and 200' Notice Area): B. AREA OF SITE ONLY C. AREA WITHIN 200' NOTICE AREA (A - B) Date Calculated: 2/1/00 1,221,111.0 SF 596,248.5 SF 624,862.5 SF PROPERTIES IN OPPOSITION (See Attached Table) PERCENT OF NOTICE AREA IN OPPOSITION (1/C) 193106.3 SF 30.9 % 83. Z-99-096 200' Opposition Areas AREA SITE_ADD PROP_OWNER ADDR_L5 ZIP_CODE 3246.7 3904 OVERLAKE DR HUFF, CHRISTOPHER M DENTON, TX 76205-3421 3034.3 3908 OVERLAKE DR PATRICK, DEBRA J DENTON, TX 76205-3421 6001.3 3909 OVERLAKE DR GLENN, JERRY D DENTON, TX 76205-3422 3035.8 3912 OVERLAKE DR BERGMAN, JANE T DENTON, TX 76205-3421 6030.4 3913 OVERLAKE DR HADDOCK, ROBERT S DENTON, TX 76205-3422 3079.6 3916 OVERLAKE DR MELUGIN, MONTE L DENTON, TX 76205-3421 6123.7 3917 OVERLAKE DR HARPER, LINDY J DENTON, TX 76205-3422 3072.5 3920 OVERLAKE DR WILLIAMS, HEATHER L DENTON, TX 76205-3421 6120.8 3921 OVERLAKE DR UTTER, JOHN D DENTON, TX 7~6205-3422 6062.8 3925 OVERLAKE DR DOMES, DAVID A DENTON, TX 76205-3422 3000.4 3932 OVERLAKE DR OLDHAM, WESLEY T DENTON, TX 76205-3421 2979.3 3936 OVERLAKE DR MULLEN, BRANDON T DENTON, TX 76205-3421 6050.0 3937 OVERLAKE DR CARTER, MISTI D DENTON, TX 76205-3422 6037.4 3941 OVERLAKE DR NOTO, MARTIN J DENTON, TX 76205-3422 5944.4 3945 OVERLAKE DR BOSO, ROBERT D DENTON, TX 76205-3422 3009.1 3952 OVERLAKE DR YOUNG, DONALD R DENTON, TX 76205-3421 6104.6 3953 OVERLAKE DR DERAMO 3100.4 3956 OVERLAKE DR GOGGIN 6523.0 3957 OVERLAKE DR DUBOIS, DANA L DENTON, TX 76205-3422 6898.1 3961 OVERLAKE DR CLARK, FRED M JR DENTON, TX 76205-3422 912.1 2220 WILDWOOD LN LEBRUN, TRACY DENTON, TX 76205-3418 6206.6 2301 WILDWOOD LN SALAS, PAUL JR DENTON, TX 76205-3416 6286.1 2305 WILDWOOD LN TARDIF, RONALD M DENTON, TX 76205-3416 2777.7 2308 WILDWOOD LN RICHTER, STEVEN D DENTON, TX 76205-3419 6261.3 2309 WILDWOOD LN GEORGE, MATTHEW S DENTON, TX 76205-3416 2800.6 2312 WILDWOOD LN STEWARD, PEGGY L DENTON, TX 76205-3419 6193.3 2313 WILDWOOD LN WRIGHT, JEFFREY M DENTON, TX 76205-3416 2768.5 2316 WILDWOOD LN MOORE, JASON M DENTON, TX 76205-3419 6261.7 2317 WILDWOOD LN CARTWRIGHT 6226.1 2321 WILDWOOD LN GARNER 6275.7 2325 WILDWOOD LN TINSMAN 2801.5 2400 WILDWOOD LN WATSON 6728.4 2401 WILDWOOD LN JOHNSON, DEEDED & DEIDER R DENTON, TX 76205-3417 2829.0 2404 WILDWOOD LN THOMAS, LESLIE J DENTON, TX 76205-3420 6211.2 2405 WILDWOOD LN GRISSON 2781.8 2408 WILDWOOD LN DEEB, BEVERLY DENTON, TX 7620~5-3420 6193.5 2409 WILDWOOD LN BROWN 6202.4 2417 WILDWOOD LN FRANKLIN 3954.2 2420 WILDWOOD LN SMITH, WAYNE L II & DEANN M DENTON, TX 76205-0000 6980,3 2421 WILDWOOD LN BROWN/PAPER 193106.3 TOTAL 84. ORDINANCE NO. ATTACHMENT 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 85-68, TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPROVAL OF A DETAILED PLAN CONTAINING 9.3972 ACRES WITHIN THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 93 (PD-93) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION LOCATED SOUTH OF RYAN ROAD AND WEST OF TEASLEY LANE, PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (Z-99-096). WHEREAS, on April 2, 1985, by Ordinance No. 85-68 the City Council approved a concept plan for Planned Development 93 (PD-93) Zoning District encompassing 30.3595 acres of landed, as more particularly described therein; and WHEREAS, Dale and Craig Irwin, on behalf of Golden Triangle Joint Venture, has applied for a Detailed Plan for Planned Development 93 (PD-93) containing 9.3972 acres of land; and WHEREAS, on March 8, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the requested change in zoning; and WHEREAS, the City Council £mds that the detailed plan will be consistent with the concept plan, and satisfies the requirements of Sections 35-136 and 35-155 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That Ordinance No. 85-68 approving Planned Development District No. 93 is amended by approving the Detailed Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A" for 9.3972 acres, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, subject to the following condition: Lighting onthe property shall be designed and maintained so as not to shine on or otherwise disturb, surrounding residential property or to shine and project upward to prevent the diffusion into the night sky. SECTION 2. That a copy of this ordinance shall be attached to Ordinance No. 85-68, showing the amendment herein approved. SECTION 3. All provisions of Ordinance No. 85-68 in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and all other provisions of Ordinance No. 85-68, not in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance, shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. That any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date ofit~ passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PAGE 85. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2000. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: '~~~'~ PAGE 86. EXHIBIT A I tl~II ,:I~t~----~-'- ,,_ii 't '.~ ,t, AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET April 4th, 2000 Planning & Development Deplartment Dave Hill, 349-8314 ~~ Agenda No. Agenda Item Oat, SUBJECT Consider and take action on a request for relief from the Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance No. 2000-046, filed by Terra Baine, Inc. for 47.3 acres of the Lakeview Ranch located on the south side of McKinney Street (FM 426), approximately 3,000 feet east of the intersection with Trinity Road. BACKGROUND An application for request for relief from the Residential Interim Regulations has been received. (see Attachment 1). Background information regarding the current stares of this case is provided in Attachment 2. Ordinance 2000-046, known as the Residential Interim Regulations, was adopted by City Council on February 1st, 2000. This ordinance contains standards with which residential development projects must comply until the Code Rewrite project is completed and permanent standards are adopted. Ordinances 2000-046 also contains a separate section that allows applicants to request relief from the interim regulations, including evaluation criteria to be used by Council: Section F. Relief Procedures 1. The applicant may petition the City Council for relief from these interim development regulations by requesting such relief in writing. 2. The City Council shall not relieve the applicant from the requirements of this ordinance, unless the applicant first presents credible evidence from which the City Council can reasonably conclude that the imposition of the residential density limitations or other development standards deprives the applicant of a vested property right or deprives the applicant of the economically viable use of his land. 3. In deciding whether to grant relief to the applicant, the City Council shall take into consideration the following: (a) whether granting relief from the residential density limitations or other development standards contained in these interim development regulations, in the absence of permanent revisions to the City's Land Development Code that implement the provisions of the comprehensive plan jeopardizes the City's best interests in preventing such effects; (b) the suitability of the proposed residential uses in light of land uses allowed in the zoning districts on property adjacent to the proposed site; (c) the impact of the proposed residential use on the transportation and other public facilities systems affected by the development; (d) the measures proposed to be taken by the applicant to prevent negative impacts of the proposed use on the neighborhood; (e) the likelihood that sufficient relief will be provided to the applicant following adoption of the City's Development Code; (f) the total expenditures made in connection with the proposed residential development in reliance on prior regulations, including the costs of installing infrastructure to serve the project; (g) any fees reasonably paid in connection with the proposed use; (h) any representations made by the City concerning the project and reasonably relied upon to the detriment of the applicant The City Council may take the following actions: (a) deny the relief request; (b) grant the relief request; or (c) grant the relief request subject to conditions consistent with the criteria set forth in this section. 5. Any relief granted by the City Council shall be the minimum deviation from ordinance requirements necessary to prevent deprivation of a vested property right. OPTIONS Council may either: 1. Deny the request for relief, or 2. Grant the request for relief, or 3. Grant the request for relief, subject to conditions consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in the ordinance (and referenced above). RECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends that the decision of whether or not to grant the requests for relief should be based on the merits of each individual application. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE If relief is granted for the petitioner, processing of the Zoning Application can proceed. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW One petition was reviewed on February 15, 2000: Golden Triangle Joint Venture (Z-99-096) - approved FISCAL INFORMATION The petitions are being processed and brought to Council using existing staff resources. Several of the petitions claim financial harm, an issue that may be evaluated by Council. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from petitioner 2. Background information Director of Planning and Development WAIVER REQUEST STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT 2 Subject: Lakeview Ranch - PD Staff: Larry Reichhart Case Number: Z-99-046 BACKGROUND: Request: Location: Zoning: Acreage: Platting: Comp Plan Consistency: Additional Information: Relief from the Residential Interim Regulations (Ordinance No. 2000-046) to continue to process a Planned Development (PD) zoning request. South of McKinney Street approximately 3,000 feet east of Trinity Road. (see Z-99-046, Lakeview Ranch - PD March 7, 2000 City Council staff report) Agricultural (A) (see Z-99-046, Lakeview Ranch - PD March 7, 2000 City Council staff report) 47.3 acres The property is not platted. The subject site is located in the Neighborhood Centers district. New neighborhoods may develop in conventional patterns in this district. Staff finds the use consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-1) with conditions. City Council has reviewed this project at its November 16, 1999 and February 1, 2000, March 7, 2000 meetings and it is currently scheduled for the April 4, 2000 meeting. CONCLUSION: If the relief request is granted the applicant will be able to continue the PD zoning review process by proceeding to City Council and then proceed with preliminary and final plats prior to development. If the relief request is not granted the application will be required to submit a zoning plan and a project plan as well as preliminary and final plats prior to development. AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET April 4, 2000 Planning Department David Hill, 349-8314"-y ~' Agenda No. Agenda Item-~/. ~f/0 Date_ SUBJECT - Z-99-046 (Lakeview Ranch) Continue a public hearing and consider rezoning a 47.3 acre tract from an Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Planned Development (PD) zoning district. The property is legally described as Tract 11 out of the W. Durham Survey (Abstract 330) and is located on the south side of McKinney Street (F.M. 426), approximately 3,000 feet east of the intersection with Trinity Road. The proposal is to develop a single-family subdivision with a minimum 5,500 square foot lot size. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-1) with conditions. BACKGROUND On March 7, 1999 (See Attachment 2) City Council continued this application to allow the applicant and staff time to resolve the outstanding transportation and school related issues. The applicant has met with both City and Denton Independent School District staff and has come to an agreement with regards to the transportation issues (See Attachment 1) and it is our understanding that progress has been made regarding a school site but a letter of understanding has not been agreed upon. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology of Z-99-046, commonly known as Lakeview Ranch: Application Date - June 2, 1999 P&Z Date - October 20, 1999 City Council Public Hearing - Nov. 16, 1999, Jan. 4, 2000, Feb. 1, 2000 & March 7, 2000 Relief from the Residential Moratorium granted. - January 11, 2000 Interim Residential Regulations (Ord. No. 00-046) adopted - February 1, 2000 RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-1, Carl Williams opposed) of this zoning request with the following conditions (see Attachment 2): 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, adequate transportation infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) approved by the Transportation and Enl~ineerln~ Department; 2. That a commitment for improvements to the Lakeview Boulevard bridge over Cooper Creek is approved by the Transportation and Engineering Department; 3. That the amendment to the Roadway Component of the Denton Mobility Plan (DMP) that proposes a new corridor south of Mills Road for Lakeview Boulevard to the west of the existing Trinity Road is resolved; and 4. That a minimum of 3.5 acres of the property described herein is reserved as private open space, which is easily accessible to all residents of the neighborhood. Condition number 2 has been addressed through the agreement identified in Attachment 1. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Approve with conditions. 3. Deny. 4. Postpone consideration. 5. Table item. ATTACHMENTS 1. Engineering and Transportation Depart~ent Memo 2. City Council Staff Report, March 7, 2000, Z-99-072. Respectfully submitted: Director of Planning and Development Prepared by: Assistant Director of Planning and Development Attachment 1 Engineering & TransportatiOn City Hall West · 221 N. Elm · Denton, Texas 76201 (940) 349-8358 · (940) 349-8376 ° Metro 434-2529 Memo From: Date: Re: Jerry Clark, Director of Engineering & Transportation~ David Salmon, Engineering Administrator~ 03/31/00 Resolution of Lakeview Ranch Traffic Issues Attached is the final list of required traffic improvements for Lakeview Ranch. As you are aware, The original list of required improvements consisted of various percentages of about 20 separate improvements. As a matter of practicality, we added up the percentages of individual improvements to come up with a number of '~/hole" improvements. In this case, the number was seven improvements. We then selected the seven most cdtical improvements identified by the Traffic Impact Analysis and required that those improvements be made 100% rather that pieces of 20 different improvements. When presented the list of required improvements including the bridge over Cooper Creek, Terra-Bain, the developer of the property indicated that they could not support the sUbject improvements .based on the proposed development scheme. We also agreed that some of the improvements the developer objected to most were a result of significantly increasing the amount of traffic on Trinity and Mills Roads. We agreed, that the improvements associated with those roads would not be warranted if the development was not connected to those roads. The developer agreed not to connect to those roads depending on the route for Lakeview Blvd. It should be noted that the developer has agreed to make provisions to connect those roads later once the roads have been upgraded sufficiently to handle the additional traffic. We also agreed that TxDOT might construct the improvements associated with McKinney Street when they widen it so those improvements may already be in place by the · Page 1 "Dedicated to Quality Service' www'cit3'°fdent°n'c°m 3. time that Lakeview Ranch needs to have them which has been included in the improvement list. Also attached, is the odginal list of improvements with their percentages and supporting documentation of how the final list was compiled. Please let me know if you need any additional clarification on how this final list was arrived at. · Page 2 Table 1 Traffic Design.Generated Roadway Improvements Alignment I Alignment 2 By End of Stage... Trinity Road Interior Development Route (No access t° Mil~ Road) ~'o access to Mflb and Trinity) Build 2 I~es of~eview ~om US 380 to Build 2 lanes of Lakeview from US 380 to Cooer S~ge [ Cooper C~ Bridge (DO~E) CreekBrtdge (DONE) (3¥0 or Cul do sac Trini~ no~ of Cooper Bridge Cu[ de s~ Trinity no~h of Cooper Bridge (~NE) 50 platted Iota) (DONg) , ~. ........... ..-.:a ........... ': = ~ Sage 2 Signalize US 380 at Lakeview Signalize LIS 380 ~ L~evlow (10Wa or (23% is d~loper's ~pousibili/y) (25~ i$ develop~'s responsibili~) : Let ~mduefion con.ct for 2 l~es of permanent Build 2 lanes ofL~view ~ M~Ki~¢y iaetuding a Stage 3 Cooper Creek Bridge : 2-~c sou~bo~d approach at McKiuney Route tt~c~ via US 380 for aoRhenl development (~% or Build R~idential Road through development (as ~d McKinnc~ for southe~ development 437 plated lots) development proceeds) Let constm~ion ~nU~ for 2 l~es otpemt~ent Assume Mc~nuey will be under con~ion Build 2 lanes of pe~atlent Cooper Creek Bridge T~OT? KebuiM Tria[~' from Cooper C~ek Bridge to Construct tempor~ connecti'on between Tdni~ McKinney (rural standards) and Mills Widen SB approach to 2-1~$ on Trini~ at Provide ROW for thtore connections Stage 4 McKinney md Mills ~o (44% or Provide ]eff-~rn l<e$ 757 p]atted lots) Build 2 lanes ofpet~anent Cooper Creek Br[~e (~DOT)I Build 2qr~es of Lakeview south of M~Kint~e~ Complete Residential Road to McKinney, include devetopm~t proceeds, include a 2-1role ~o~h~und ~ 24uno approach at MeKitmey approach on ~nk~iew at MoKinney. Provide Left-turn l~e on Trinity at Residential Stage ~ Provide Le~-tum t~es on McKinncy at TfiniW (64% or 1,097 (TxDO~ ' pla~ed lots) Provide 2-lane approach on Rcsidential Road at Stye 6 Provide ~-tum I~ea on McKinney at (84% or Residential Road (T~OT) ~ ~ ' Provide escrow money t~r future eonnecllo~s ~m Stage 7 · Trinity ad Mills to ([00% or Alt improvements complete~ All improvemeg~ ~mpleted 1~17 pla~ed lots) i IfTxDOT does not complete the improvement by the time rioted, thc developer will be held responsible for his portion of the improvement cost and development will have to stop until road improvements are in place, Innovative TramPortation Solutions, [nc: 5. Traffic Impact Study - Addendum Lake~iew Ranch - Denton, Texas March 28, 2000 FIGURE 2 Alternative 1: 24-Hour, Site-Generated Trip Distribution Lakeview Boulevard Alignment Following Existing Trinity Road (no Access to Mills Road) US 380 90 < Blagg · 90 Mayhill 2,505~l 1 Loop 288 ~./ Mills McKinney 2,320 N NOt to Scale ' 2,650 j Lakeview 1,600'N~\ Residential / Road 2,520 1,340 1,176 ~ ~_11,176 To IH 35 Innovative Transl)ortation Solutions, Inc. March 30, 2000 FIGURE 3 Alternative 2: 24-Hour, Site-Generated Trip Distribution Lakeview Boulevard Alignment Through the Proposed Development (No access to Mills Road and Trinity Road) Loop 288 2,1.00~ 90 < Blagg Mayhitl Mills Proposed j[ Connection McKinney '2,365 t N Not to Scale Lakeview 2,210~ 3,815 2,210 Innovative Transportation Solutions, Inc. e Hap 30 O0 O2:37p ITS, Inc. Traffic Impact Study ..dddendum £akevlew Ranch - Denton. Tw:as March 30. 2000 p.3 -. ATTACHMENT 2 Agenda No. AGENI~-INFO~TiO~-~HEET Agenda Item March 7, 2000 ~Oate- $~' Planning Department ~ David Hill, 349-8314 SUBJECT , Z-99_046 (Lakeview Ranch) Continue a public hearing and consider rezoning a 47.3 acre tract from an Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Planned Development (PD) zoning district. The property is legally described as Tract 11 out of the W. Durham Survey (Abstract 330) and is located on the south side of McKinney Street (F.M. 426), approximately 3,000 feet east of the intersection with Trinity Road. The proposal is to develop a single-family subdivision with a minimum 5,500 square foot lot size. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-1) with conditions. AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCMIACM: BACKGROUND On November 16, 1999, Z-99-046 was continued to the January 4, 2000 City Council public hearing to allow the applicant time to address transportation related issues. Due to the residential moratorium, the case could not proceed on January 4, 2000. Relief l~om the moritorium was granted on January 11, 2000. The residential interim regulations were adopted on February 1, 2000 thereby preventing this application being processed any further. The applicant has applied for relief from the interim regulations, if approved this application may continue.· . The proposed concept plan for a maximum of 280 single-family lots with a minimum 10t size of 5,500 square feet is the first step in the planned development process (see Attachment 1). A detailed plan would have to be approved prior to any development. The subject land area is located immediately south of 685 acres of contiguous land under common ownership, which is planned to be a residential community (see Attachment 2 - Enclosure 2 - area represented by the Lakeview Ranch subdivision and Z-99-072). Lakeview Boulevard may be extended south from its current location through this property and ultimately to 1-35 E through the Preserve development (see Attachment 2 - Enclosure 4). ~, The subject property was rezoned in April of 1997 to an Agricultural (A) zoning district by Ordinance 97-107 (see Attachment 2 - Enclosure 2). It was rezoned in September of 1990 to Planned Development 126 (PD 126) zoning district by Ordinance 90-125. The property was · annexed and.classified as an Agricultural (A) zoning district in 1988' ~ . - ~ .The proposed develOpment is ConSistent with all of 'the ·'PoliCies· of the i988 Denton Development Plan (DDP) as applicable and all of the 1998 Denton Plan (DP) Policies, except for the extension of new public water and wastewater lines (see Attachment 1 - Enclosure 7, Comprehensive Plan Analysis section). )> The subject site is located in the Neighborhood Centers district as identified in the Denton Comprehensive Plan. New neighborhoods may develop in conventional Patterns in this district. Staff finds the use consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. )> Five (5) property owners were notified of the zoning·request. One (1) response has been received. It in favor of the request (see Attachment 3). PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology of Z-99-046, commonly known as LakevieTM Ranch: Application Date - June 2, 1999 P&Z Date - October 20, 1999 City Council Public Hearing - November 16, 1999, January 4, 2000, February 1, 2000 Relief from the Residential Moratorium granted., January 11, 2000 Interim Residential Regulations (Ord. N°. 00-046) adopted· - February 1, 2000 " ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The next step in the development process will be to submit an application for a detailed plan, which must be approved by City Council. The subject property is not platted and will need to be platted prior to any development. FISCAL INFORMATION Development of this property will increase the assessed value of the city, county, and school district. It will require no short-term public improvements that are the responsibility of the city. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission rec0mmends~approval (~-1, Carl Williams opposed) of this zoning request with the following conditions (see Attachment 4)~ 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, adequate transportation infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) approved by the Transportation and Engineering Department; 2. That a commitment for improvements to the Lakeview Boulevard bridge over Cooper Creek is approved by the Transportation and Engineering Department; 3. That the amendment to the Roadway Component of the Denton Mobility Plan (DMP) that proposes a new corridor south of Mills Road for Lakeview Boulevard to the west of the existing Trinity Road is resolved; and 4. That a minimum of 3.5 acres of the property described herein is reserved as private open · 'space, which is easilyaecessible to all residents of the neighborhood. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Approve with conditions. 3. Deny. 4. Postpone consideration. 5. Table item. ATTACHMENTS 1. Concept Plan. · 2. Planning and Zoning Commission StaffReport, October 20, 1999, Z-99-046. 3. Property Owner Response (1). 4. Planning and Zoning Commission minutes from October 20, 1999. 5. Draft Ordinance. · 'ResPectfu!ly submitted: Director of Planning and Development Prepared by: ~L~/Reichhart Assistant Director of Plarming and Development 10. ATTACHMENT I V:.T.'J:;: D~eter Schwat~ P.O. Box 941 ~b~g, PA ~5601 Dovolopen. I! . TenaBa~-~ Inc. ": .'-700 Lakevlow Blv& Donio~ TX 76207 972.4105000 ! ~ · , /PO ~ ~l ' /~%~ ~ ~6~ .... * I ".Kl Lakev ew Ranch ATTACHMENT 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIQN STAFF REPORT Subject: Lakeview Ranch (PD proposal) Staff: Wayne Reedl Planner, II . '. ' ~ ~':' ' ' ..: ' '-' ' :' "i.'." ' "" ' Case Number: Z-99-046, · . ~ · .. Agenda Date: -October 20; 1'999 Continue a public hearing and consider making 'a recommendation to the City Council concemlng the rezoning of approximately 48 acres from an Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Planned Development zoning district using a concept plan that provides for a maximum of 280 single-family residences with a minimum 5?500 square foot lot size. .LOCATION .tV[AP · south :s~d e.of:F~NL .~'28 (McKinne. y:Street) approximately .~,09O.feet ~gast oT~it~. ~teme~on w'[th Tfin~y Road. .Location: 12. '-47.3 acres Z-99-0~6 PZ Sta~ Report; 10-.20-99,doc Applicant: Paul Spain OWner: Dieter Schwartz Terra Bain, Inc. NR & RJ Properties° L.P. · 2807 Brookshire Drivel : . . . i"~ P.O. BdX 941 "' · ' ' ' ' '.i",~": ..SoUthlake, TX: 76092.~ '... '" .i' .' .. ·-" Greensburg; pA .15601 · .- .:P'D NED DE~_E:EOR.M._.E_NT~ONING!~RR~_G.-.EDU ES ~ ,.~,;~.. ,~.~..~,:. ;~....,,....,.~. ....... ,.~, , Planned development zoning districts (PD) are intended to provide forthe development of land as an integral unit for. single or mixed use in accordance with a plan that may vary from the established regulations of other zoning districts for similar land uses. They are also meant to encourage flexible and creative planning to ensure the compatibility of land uses, to allow for the adjustment of changing demands to meet the current needs of the community, and to provide for a development that is supedor to what could be accomplished in other zoning districts by meeting one or more of the following purposes: (1) Provides for the design of lots or building; increased recrea{i~)n, common or open space for private or public use; berms, greenbelts, trees, shrubs or other landscaping features; parking areas, street de.sign or access; or other development plans, amenities or features that would be of spe. cial ~enefit.to t.he property, users or community; : . , :(2) Protects o~-' preser~S'toP0graphical fea. tUres,i ~uch as trees, :creek'~ ponds, floodplains, ' ~lopes Or hills; or (3) Protects or preserves existing historical buildings, structures, features or places... " There are three (3) types of plans that may be used in the planned development process; concept plan, development plan and detailed p/an. D. ON OE~T~ ~,~f[~'ts-~ah~Jn~*r~a to :~e ~h~!fir. st .~p~,[i~ :~h~b'~BD proces..s:, fdf~l~f~e~ long · ~' " -~<~ ~: ';' ' ,~ '-' .~ ~>~.~.-~.~i'~z~ ~ ~w: ...~'~.~.~ DEVELOPMENT P~N - Th~ ~n is Intended to be used most often as a se~nd step In ~e PD pm~ss, it includes the same info~afion that is prodded on ~e ~n~pt plan, plus dermis . .... astothe.sp~cificlandu~es.and.the~r bRg~daries~ . - .' ..'. ~ ~'. -.': .. :..' .'.'..:....- .: · ... · '...'.:. D~A]L~?~N, ~]~' pla,. IS t~e :fi~al 'step ~ln th~ 'Prb~s~:and .'i~'.~eq~r~d ~Pri°r ,t6 :~any ~: ' .. " .... devel~m~nt. ~b(smA]ler tra~t~ Or'Where final develOpment plans are ~the~se'known'Prior to rezoning,.~e.de~iled plan maybe used to-~s~blish ~e ~ist~ and ~ ~e only ~md plan in the planned development process. It ~11 contain idfom~afion spe~c ~ the site~ · Ail.detailed plans should be'in substantial compliance'with landscape,' sign,'subdMsion-and other regulations of the Code of Ordinances. When concessions from these regulations are'requested by · a developer;.there~needs'to;be.correspondin~ :beheSts .that.merit deviation';from.those re,qu]at~ons. '[.he proposed concept plan provides the rn~n~mum in'formation requ]rec~ by-the l~hapter.35-of Code of.Ordinances ~[zoning ordinance). ~, Z-99-~6 PZ Staff Report 13. i~e subject property is located immediately south of 685 acres of contiguous land owned by Mr. ;hwartz, which is planned to be a residential community (see Enclosure 2 - area represented by the a~.v~ anch subdivision and Z 99 072) The proposed development of the Subject-47.3 abm tract ..... ewR . -. -. ;. ..... , . . . .. . ... f land is' for small lots'with a minimum lot s~ze of 5;500 square feet' (see Enclosure !1 - Parcel E). ;The ;quest for a Planned DeveloPment (PD) zoning district will require the approval of a detailed (site) '.an before any development occurs. Lakeview Boulevard will be extended south from its current ,cation through this property and ultimately to 1-35 E through the Preserve development, unless the !ignment is changed (see Enclosure 4). he surrounding land is undeveloped and is mostly outside of the city limits (see Enclosure 2). 988 Denton Deyelopment Plan Analysis ' 'he 1988 Denton Development Plan (DDP) shows this area to b'~ within a Low Intensity Area. 'hese areas are intended to be 'developed .primarily for single family residential development. leighborhoods are to be se~v]ced by a network of small commercial/retail centers spaced at about '~ mile intervals with direct access tO a collector, type street or larger thoroughfare. Vehicular trip :e'--"ation due to ~deVeloPment within LOW Intensity Areas .is restricted to 60. trips pei: day pe.r acre in. ,r~ to balance land Use'with road capacity. When connecting this request t° the applicatit's' other :oning application (Z-99-072), staff finds the proposed rezoning to be consistent with both the )olicies and trip intensity standards of the ~1988 DDP (see Enclosure 6). 1998 Denton Plan Policies Analysis -he 4998 Denton Plan (DP) is to be used in conjunction with the 1988 Denton Development Plan in ~valuating consistency of proposed development with the long range vision for the city. When :onnecting this request to. the applicant's other zoning application (Z-99-072), staff.finds the ~roposed rezonlng to be consistent with the policies of the t998 DP (see £nclosure 7). l'he draft Lam Use Plan identifies Mis property lp.be within an ."N~ighborhpod .Center".~ea,-'- adopted GroWth 'Management st~ategY'stare§ .that these areas are.to be'flevelbped:.in an in..wardly 3fiented rnann'er with a'focus upOn the ceriter,s of.the n~g'hborhoods[:-l'he Cent~r'wou'ld c~nt~n use~ ,3ecessary ~b support'the surrounding ne~g~borhooc~ in'ciuding retail .uses ,such .as.convenience 3rocery,'barbers;:or small"professional ~ffices;~higher density Te~idenfial .uses such as .-townhomes, pafl~ uses fi~ciud~ng ~e~] neighbofltood ~gmens" and h~i~ufional uses ~uch ~ 3~-e.stations, sch~3ols, libraries-and -bans'~ =~odes. The ]3roposed-land 'use 'is '~onsistent-~vith ,'the intent of "Ne~gh~orhoo'd 'Center" 'areas. . · Staff Report 14. 'Transportation A. Trip generation The proposed development would generate appr0xim~tely2,674 trips per day if built.out with 280 .' hOrn'es (an average of 5.92 lots Peracre).' T.h!s is .! 64..tnPs fe~er trips or..siX Percent.' (6%) less than '. 'allowed'trip generati°i:i ih 'a'LoW Intensity Table 'i. Proposed Residential Trip Generation Land Use Average Trip Average Acres Estimated Total Trip ' Generation dulacre Lots Generation Single-Family 5.5 (SF-5.5) 9.55 trips/day 5.9 du/acre47.3 280 2,674 Allowed Trip Generation60 trips/acre/day 47.3 2,838 Difference 6% below * Calculations provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991.,, B. Road Capacity McKinney Street is identified as a .primary major arterial road by the 1998 Denton Mobility Plan (see Enclosure 4!..The fut.ure extension of Lakeview Boulevard south of..McKinney Street is. · identified as a .Primary major arterial :road....TherefOre,- both of thesb'roadS are:designed to. :"'ultimately be six (6) lane strebts withoUt'parkingl providing six (6) lanes'Of throtigh traffiC. As such:, their designed traffic capacities will allow for tolerable traffic flow of up to 27,900 trips per day: McKinney Street is currently constructed with two (2) lanes undivided without parkihg. Lakeview is not construbted south of McKinney Street: Trinity Road (a.k.a. Lakeview Boulevard) north of McKinney Street is currently constructed with two (2) lanes undivided without parking. The most recent traffic count on McKinney Street in the proximity of the subject property was conducted at Grissom Road, the entrance to the Royal Oaks Wheel Estates Manufactured Home Park, which Is approximately 4,000 feet west of the site. it recorded 2,907 trips (per-.day). This is a dramatic reduction in tdps on McKinney S[~-eet ~',-om.ex'~sfing .[,~c volume.Am"her west ~t Ryan High School (11,544), Mayhill Road (12,609) and Loop 288 (12,554). These.traffic counts illustrate that ex]sting traffic'on McKinney Street is reduced on the eastern edge:o{town:~iAt.the ~9x]sting ' intersection 'ofT.n.'nity :ROad. and MbK~nn~Y .Street;the. mo :s.t,recent traffic count* on 7trinity* ROad . reCOrded 409 :trips (per'daY). 'These roa~Is will havb adequate capacity to handle'the calculated trips (see'Table 1) that :could be generated.by lhe propose(] r. es~denti~l.deve3opment.. :l'he.proposed. development.will contribute ~o ~rnproving ~he J'nob~lity.of. the.~nfire'C ommunY~y..~he ~l§mate ~xtens]on df Laker]aw Bou~levard from l:lniversit7 Drive '(HwT.'380)--to 1-35'E 'w~ll pro~.,id e an ~temative -florth-to-south~rout~ ~:or the eastern po'~on'of the;C'..~3J;of'Denton;.-.re~ie~/'J.qg:~a~fic.on · .Loop ;288..'.T. he $)roposed develoPmen!-north-.~:.the-~ub]ect~rope .r~ .(see.Z:~9:DT..2 ~taTf,.report) v/ill provide for the rlorthem.fla~f of.fli.'is.proposed arterial; .a p~r'don oT I ~keview' Bdulevard was' constructed with the public ]mprovements'~-ssor-;mted w]th'l :~:eg]ew~ r~ch,'PAase ]. ',Ultimately, this' arterial will connect with.l-35 E. through th~..-Prccerve development as gro .w~.. occurs..The latter development is currently moving ahead with the platting of the firsf~ phase of its mastel~ plan, II . 15. ' ' including over 4,00{) feet of LakevieW Boulevard. The actual (~onstruction of that portion of the road is undetermined and even more uncertain is the ultimate ~riaction to McKinney Street. The P ,orrelation between new development and road capacity is that as development in this part of town occurs, additional infrastructure will be constructed to handle the vehicular trips generated so that the overall mobility (level of service) within the community is maintained. 'C. Access .. :' · ...'.:-.-.'. ~.....-. :. ....~.. ~'.. :*. : '-". . .'. .- .. i' . . . '.. No single-famil~/residential lot is peimitted to haVe direct aCCess onto a primary major arterial. The proposed subdivision would take access onto McKinney Street and the future Lakeview Boulevard. Both of these roads are identified as primary major arterials and will mn through this.tract in a north-to-south direction, potentially reducing the overall density of this parcel (see Enclosure 4). Local (neighborhood) streets would have to be constructed to provide internal circulation within each subdivision. D. Pedestrian Linkages Sidewalks along all public streets are required. 2. Utilities 'this development will have to extend water and sanitary sewer lines· 3. Drainage and Topoilraphy New development will be required to. design, and construct a drainage system tol city standards. ~ ~p~eli .mlnary drainage study will be required with th'e submission ora preli~ini~ry plat..Thestudy · nust include calculations of the 100-year stoi;m for all drairiage areas on this property and any area that drains towards this property. The developei' must indicate the method by which the run'- off will be carried across the property or stored on the property. 4. Signs As per the sign ordinance or as established by a detailed plan· 5. Off-Street Parking. New development muSt provide parking according'to the regulations ol~ Chapter.'35 [35-'301) of the · Code of Ordinances. Every single-family residence is required.to provide two (2) 0ff~street parking spaces.,· -.. ...... · .'. - .:. : · ' .' · . ~ .'..:i: , · '..." . . "':.:':., · ..'.. :' · B. Landscaping' This development will 'have'to comply.~ith Ihe .newl. andscape"Code,' Y)hlch r. eqa]r~s 'fifteen (15) trees;per acre and 'twenty (20) percerit of.~ll surfaces to xemaln .peri,lolls (plantable .area). · .7... Open Space ~an d Recreational Areas , · -This '.~esidential .development-~11. be;required.,io :49arlicipate ..-in,ihe,.,development ._ol'..~ublic recreational areas. ".-fhro. ugh the ~ark.Dedication 'Ordinance .'(98-D39), ;this .development will "contribute..to ..park:~and .~edlc, iation .;and :park .tievelopmerit ;~ees. ;D~dication :requirements :are · equired during/i've.platting process.. Park development fccs are required prior lo .the issuance of building permits. Z-99-046 PZ Staff Eep~ 10-20-99.doc 16. il 15, 1997 -The subject property was rezoned to an Agricultural (A) zoning district and land use ~sification by Ordinance 97-107 which amended the zoning ordinance and map for the City of ~ton (see Enclosure 2). 3tem'b~'' 4, 1990' ~-'~he'~Subject property wa~" reZOned..f~om AgricUltural (A) Zohing 'district to' nned development 126 (PD 126) zoning district and land use classification by Ordinance 90-125 ch amended the zoning ordinance and map for the City of Denton. 18 - The subject property was annexed and classified as an Agricultural (A) zoning distr~ct. subject property is not platted and will need to be platted prior to any development. ~.ice of the zoning request was published in the Denton Record-Chronicle on October 3, 1999. Five pr~e~ ownem were notified of the request on October 2, 1999 (see Enclosure 5). As of this :ing, there have been no responses. .. ~ff recommends approval of Z-99-046. The'property is located along McKinney Street, a primary ]or arterial, and the future alignment of Lakeview Boulevard, a secondary major arterial north df' Kinney Street and a primary major arterial south of McKinney Street. Linking this request to the )licant's other application (Z-99-072), it provides a variety of residential lot sizes and housing types. ~ consistent with the policies and trip intensity standards of the 1988 Denton Development Plan, · 1998 Denton Plan Policies, the 1999 Growth management Plan and Strategy, and the draft Land ~ Plan. part of 732 acres under'common ownership, which is planned for residential development, this )]ect will havea si[Inificant impact on. the mobility of this area of town. It wpuid be.fakto attach., a -~ditiOn t0 'thi~ zoning reqbest a reqmremeht that links:the. d~Vei0.pment °f.this ProPerty*t0 SPecifiC Oli~ *impr~veJfients ihat ~W]ll.'prOVide .~d~qd~te' t~rotectk)n:'a~ainst 'detrimental :effeCts::that...E.:may' ~erwise.have .on 1he mobility.of thls~.area.of.town. y'Counb~l 'has attached conditions .to previous planned development zon]n,g requests involving ;3dential developments with lot sizes less than'the ~n3mum allowed b.y strai, g~t s~n. gieCfam~zon~ng ;tdcts, such as Si.~.gle-farhil. y 7 (SF-7) and so forth. '3'he .~ollowing list includes ~ome.o[.the most ~ent.andlor common .ones: .. · -v' Masonry · -./' .-Street Trees -/ Garage Orientation · " Pocket Parks ~)-IN6 PZ Staff Report lO-20-S9.dec However, these cond~bons have been brought out at the detailed (site) plan stage of developme m'her than the concept plan, The request before the Cornm/ss/on is for approval cfa concept plan. ~tailed (site) plan provides the Commission and the City Council an opportunity to attach design related criteria to a development based upon a specific site design of a land use that is permitted by a concept plan, This procedure provides both the developer and the City more flexibility in the final step in the development process b~cause conditions are then .related to a Particular. site plan rather'. than a gehe'ral cbncept. -A concePt'pla~ is inter~ded ;[(~ est~blisl~i the m6st'geneml guidelin(~s for'a' prop°s~d 'developmenL I move to recommend approval of Z-99-046 finding that: 1. It is consistent with the 1988 Denton Development Plan; 2. It is consistent with the 1998 Denton Plan Policies, 1999 Growth Management Plan and Strategy and the draft Land Use Plan; and 3. It contributes to a diversity of housing types and lot sizes.within the community. And subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, adequate transportation infrastructure shall be construc!ed in accordance with a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) approved by the Transportation · .an'd'Engmeering Department; _. Thai'the'a~hendment tb the ROadway C0mponer;'t of the DentOn MObility Plan (DMP! thai proposes a new corridor south of Mills Road for Lakeview Boulevard to the west of the ex~sting Trinity Road is resolved. 1. Recommend approval as submitted. 2. Recommend approval with conditions. 3, Recommend denial. 4, Postpone consideration. :." ":;' :'' "'":" .':i'". - ..: . ,. ................... :~,~,.~.,,~-~-'~-~.~,'~.~.~~~~ ..... ,~. ~..:~ ~.~ -..~~.,..'f~..~-_-~:'. ". 1. Concept Plan. 2. Vicinity Map. 3. Zoning Map. 4. Denton Mobility Plan Map. 5. 200'-500' Notification Map, 6, 1988 Denton Development Plan (DDP) Policies. 1998 Denton Plan (DP) Policies (2 pages). d. Draft Ordinance Z-99°046 PZ Staff Repo~ :~0-2d-99.doc 18. ENCLOSURE It 20. ~9-046 (Lakeview Ranch) ENCLOSURE 2 NORTH ]enda Date: October 20, 1999 21. 'Scale: Non~ ENCLOSURE 3. . ~ k ~)46 (Lakeview Ranch) NORTH ZONING' MAP ;nda Date= October 20, 1999 Scale: 'None i-~9-072 (LAKEVIEW RANCH) ~NCLOSURE 4 NORTH genda Date: October20, 1999 Scale: None 23. (LAKEVIEW RANCH) ENCL6SURE 5 NORTH jenda Date: October 20, 1999 Scale: None 24. ENCLOSURE 6 he 1988 Denton Development Plan (DDP) shows this area to be within a Low Intensity Area. 'hese areas are intended to be developed primarily for single family residential development. leighborhoods are to be se~iced by a network of small commercial/retail centers spaced at about mile intervals With' direct access to a Colle~tor type-street °?.large[ .thorOughfare. .Vehi~ular trip eneration due [o de~elbpment'Withtn LoW Idtensity Areas'is restricted to'60'trips per day' Per acre in rder to balance land use with mad capacity. Staff finds the proposed development to be onsistent with both the policies and trip intensity standards of the 1988 DDP. he following is a summary of the 1988 Denton Development Plan policies applicable to thi~ project: Denton Development Plan Policy Analysis Summary Low Intensity Area Development Rating vs. Policy Significantly Somewhat POLICY COMMENTS [ncons~ent ]nconsistent Consistent [ntent. These areas represent pdma~y ... ~ouslng areas within the Qty. X [ntenslty. To be conslstent with the Nlowed Zntensity = 60 trips/acre Plan, a development should not exceed Its Nlocated Intensity -- 2,838 trips/site allocated Intensity. X .j~ng Iow density resldenlJal a~eas. X Traffic Deslgn. Access should be provided to ensure that multi-family or non-residential uses have access to collectors or larger arterlals with no direct access through residential streets. X Open Space. Sufficient green space,. recreational fadliMes and diversity .of parks are provided. X Public Participation. Input Into A neighborhood meeting was held by the plannlng by nelghborhood asaod.ations and developer wtth surrounding residents and coundls Is encouraged. - property owners. X Land Use Diversity. Non-residential and el/A- the proposal is for stngle-farnily multi-family development Is encouraged to land use. single-family hou~lhg may be compatible land use, not ir~duding manUfactured ~th developments in the Iow Intensity housing. areas subject to condiOons. Strip Commercial Any form of NJA- the proposal Is for single-family continuous stdp commerdal is strongly land use. discouraged In/or near Iow Intensity areas. :-99-0-16 PZ. Sta~f Reporl: 25. The 1998 Denton Plan (DP) is to be used in conjunction with the 1988 Denton Development Plan in evaluating the consistency of proposed development with the long range vision for the city, Staff finds the proposed·development to be.consistent with the poli es of the ~998 D.,P The tal~le' below Pi~0vides a ~Urr{~'~ry of'.~Eei.1998 Dent0h plan -C! .... ' .', ' .. policies applica'61e.to th~s proj6.cti. Denton Plan Policy Analysis Summary Development Rating vs. Policy CATEGORY POL1;CY Inconsistent ;.~,~.~!!~b[,...e~'i~ Consistent Transportation. Compliments Denton's Long-Range Thoroughfare Ran. Promotes A¢¢e~ Hanagement Practices Optimizes operations for emergency service providers and other public service providers. . ~,~%1~-~,~ X Promotes publlc transportation system. ' ~ ~'~:" " x Contributes to the Denton Trails network, " Stormwater Drainage. Pr~t~rf~.t00-year lloodplain areas in accordance with Denton's watershed management plans. · Contrlbuteg. to regional detention fadl!ties. : PrOvides for natural ri~)arlan envlr.6'nment along floodplain. · ·, ff~3{~._~-~. · · ;~.~ .. Upgrades exl~ng substandard drainage systems as Infill '~ ..,:~'~.. ., and redevelopment occur, Water and Develops and maintains property and pdvata - '~.~' .-~.~.~ Wastewater, infrastructure. ~~ X. Creates opportunlb/for oversiz1ng watar and wa~ewater ;:'~--*~-' ' lines to meet future development demands, ~~ X Provides review, of proposed water and wastewater I '~-'~.~ infrastructure to ensure public safety and heal~. I'~~ X Promotes Infill Improvements over new line extensions. X I ;,~~ Electric, PrOvides underground electric service for new r~dential I .,'~~ and nonresidential development, i ~ .~~ X Solid Waste. Promotes effldent a~em to ell development; for solid :.' ' ";'..' :~." ' ' ': wastesarvl(:edellvery..:'':' ~' ~' :'/'. "'-",' .~: ".' ': ~'~...?~: :~-/: .. '~X' · Parks.. and Recreatton~. Locet~s Parks and ~U0n faciliiies In36c0rdance with' ', .:'.. - ...'[~~" ' .- · the Parks and Recreation'Sb-ateglc Plan. -L:~,~'~..~, ' "X. Enhances Parks and recreation opportur~ties'for r~dent~' i~~ .3( Preserves floodplain for Parks and open space to aid In floodplain conservation elforts. Allows comblnlng of parks wlth other publlc radliUes to ' · ReslSenttal development.should dedicate land er.fees In ' ~:. ~, lieu oT land for nelst, bo~ood parks. ~-,w~ o,,,, .= ,',~ ~rar~ty. Remotes presentation or aatoral resources. · Zntegrates er~rersrentat ~ with ~onomic '-.'~' Z.99-~6 PZ StaffRepo~ 10-20-~9.doc 2 6. :~98 Denton Plan Policies Analysis (continued) Denton Plan Policy Analysis Summary . · DeveloPment.Rating vs. Policy.. ,..-...'... :.... . . , . . ,0~- · CATEGORY POLICY inconstant Applicable Consistent ~elghborhoods. Provides access to public and community fadliUes for ,~.~,.~..~'~'-~L~~-'~-~'5- - I , .:-_-~. ~. ~;, residential neighborhoods. Encourages a mLxture of land uses that I~ne~it residents. :.~'~..'~' ~! X Protects and preserves exlsUng neighborhoods. '~?.~¢;~,~-~--~.~',~..i X Promotes bi.de and p~an t~mc wi~In a.d between nelghborhoods to reduce vehicular trips. ~' ~L~,,.~g' X -lousing. Provides a range of housing types that appeal to ~ffering economic and Individual life-styles. ~,['~.~',-~,-5-~-~ .~-~ Offers a variety of single-family lot sizes, building sizes, and price ranges. ~.~ X Preserves ex~sting housing, Induding affordable housing. [ncreases lnfill housing opportunities. .' .:conom~c C~fltrtbutes to a strong and diversified local economy by. 31versification. Increasing employment and expanding the tax bose. 3ovemment. Encourages Intergovernmental coordination to provHe , · - ' ii~.~[~ · " ~cost-effectivepublcservlce&" · · . " b~n Design. Addresses communitY ~ppearahce In'a comprehensive , ' ' ~ ~: '. manner. Diversifies arcflRectural appearance of built environment. Nelghborhood Infill development should be compaUble with ex~sflng land uses and bulldings. Protects and preserves Denton's architectural, cultural and historical resources. Enhances the appearance along major entranceways. Promotes the preservation or trees and landscaplng. Public Involvement. Provides an opportunity for public opinion during the pl'annlng process. 1-99-046 PZ Staff Repc~ 10-20-99.doc 27. ENCLOSURE ' 8 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PP, OVIDING FOP, A CHANGE FP, OM AN AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSltq[CATION AND USE DESIGNATION ' TO PLANNED DEVBLOPNIBNT.~:...(PD. ) ZONING DISTRICT CLASsIFICATiONAND: · :. 'uSE D~SIGNATION POP, ~7.3 'ACP,~S OF' 'LAND' LOCATED'ON. TI~ sOUTH sIDE OF mcKne ¥ ST ET W.M. 426), APPkOmM TEL¥'%000 rEST E^ST or INTERSECTION WITH TRINITY ROAD; PROVIDING FOP` TI-~. APPROVAL OF A CONCEPT PLA.!~ BOP. 47.3 ACRES; PP.OVIDmG FOR A PENALTY IN TI-~ MAXIMU~ AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOP. VIOLATIONS TI~P~OF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN or, 7.3 aores onana eom di. o, c sm'c%tion use gio atin':' Planned Development ~g~ classification and use des~gnahon; and ~pproval of tho requestex~'hfinge tn zomng; and .' ~HEREASo the City Council finds that the change in zoning will be in compliance with the 1988 Denton Development Plan,'the 1998 Denton Plan Policies, and the 1999 Growth Management Strategies and Plan; NOW, THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: .SBCTION 1. That the zoning district classification and use designation of the 47.3 icrc property described in the legal description at~ached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A is changed eom an Agricultural (A) zoning district classification and use designation to Plahned Development. (PD ) zoning district classification and use designation with the approval of the concept plan attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference under the comprehensive zo, b~ ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, subject to .the followin.~cbnditions: ' 1. Prior-- to the issuance of any building permits, adequate transportatio '~u~ruLre'~kk' shall · .' ,,'....be:cons .t.m.. c.tekl in ScCo'rdsace. wi.th a. Traffic.lrap~ct:AjnalyaiS-(T~;bkl, a~!. b.y.~.~ :.:..:: ;".' '. - 2. ;fhat t~ amendment to the Rbadway Component o~'the Den. . e n~n~bX~ "~[ty'?lan (DMP . ) · th~ existing Trinity Road is resolved. · ~EC'FtON 2. '-.~at th&'Ci.ty~.s '6fficlal:zou~ng ~p is ~xnen'de~ to.show.tl;e change in zoning a[~ict c]~_sification. · .~ECTfON.3..'.That any ;person violating any/0revision ~)f *~.~ :or~/nsuce ~b,l]~ ,,pon conviction, be *]-cd a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a'p,o~l~t~, of~xls ordinance violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense:. 28. SECTION 4. That this ordinance shall become effectii, o~fo,.u-teen (14) days fxom tho date of its passage, and tho CitY Secretary is hereby directed to cause tho caption ofthis ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, a dally newspaper published in the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (103 days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVJ3D this tho" day of ,1999. ATTEST: %%~% ~BNNIFBK WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY 2IACK lV~.LER, MAYOR BY: · · · : APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTOP. NEY BY: ] 29- " EXHIBIT A Z-99-046 oo Field Notes for 47~3 ACRE TRACT south of McKinney Street (F.M. 426) · that Certain 47.300 a~'e tract or Parcel df land sitUated.in .the V~ilia~n' Dar'nam SurVeyo'Abstract.' ...' ..N.u.m. ber 33_0,'D.e.nt_o~'Cou. n~; T_e.X~S_, sald'..tra.c.t b. eing. all o.f a ~ll~ 'Tm'ct ll"conveyed to · ~ICNnney uemon ~'roperty, L.~'.; a I exas Iknkeo i3armersnip, Dy oeed recorded In Volume 3128, page 0996 of the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas, said 47.300 acre tract being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a found ½' Iron Rod at the occupied southwest comer of the herein descibed tract, said comer being South 86o55'27" East 7.0 feet from a Corps of Engineers monument marked p- 250-W; THENCE North 3°58' 25" East with the occupied West line of said McKinne¥ Denton Tract and generally with a fence a distance of 2,340.84 feet to a found ~" iron md for the occupied northwest comer of the herein described tract on a circular curve concave to the Southwest and having a radius of 610.61 feet and a tangent bearing of South 55° 26' 27" East;, · THENCE run along the arc of said circular curve through a central angi6 'of 8° 19' 16" for a distance of 88.68 feet to a found ~' Iron Rod; THENCE South 46° 46' 12" East in the south line of McKinney Street (Old M(~l~inney'Road) as described by deed in Volume S, page 366 Deed Records, a distance of 955.59 feet to a found ~" ' .l~onRod;." ~ i - .: '.,' ."... :,' ' '. '~ .~. ' THENCE South 47° 27' 12" East with said McKinney Street a distance of 315,62 feet to a found ~" Iron Rod; THENCE South 1° 58' 17" West with the east line of sald McKinney Denton tract and generally with a fence a distance of 1,472.35 feet to a Corps of Engineers monument marked P-250-C-W for the southeast corner of the herein described tract; THENCE North 86°55' 27" West with the south line of satd McKinney Denton tract and generally with a fence a distance of 1,111.07 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing In all 47.300 30. No zc ATTACHMENT 3 Z-99-046 :: .. The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will hold a public hearing on WednesdaY,, October 13, 1999, to consider rezoning a 47.5 acre site located on the south side of McKinney Street (F.M. 426), appmximatety 3,000 feet east of the intersection with Trinity Road from an Agricultural (A) zoning .djstdct. to.a planned-DeVelopment (Pb) z0nlngdistric[ (s.~e:mapi'on' backside)i' 'The Property Is legally described as ~Tract' il out of the W. Durham Survey (Abstract 330), In th'e City .of Denton, Denton County, Texas. The pOrpose of the zoning change is to develop a single;family subdivision with a mlnlmum 5,500 square foot lot size. The public hearing will start at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall located Et 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas. Because you own properly within two hundred (200) feet of the subject properly, the Planning and Zoning Commission would like to hear how you feel about this zoning change request and invites you fo at~end the public hearing. Please, In order for your opinlon to be taken into account, return this form with your comments prior to the date of the public hearing. (This in no way prohibits you from affending and participating in lhe public hearing.) You may fax it to the number located at the bottom, mall it to the address below, or drop it off in:person: Planning and Development Department 221 N. Elm ST Denton, Texas 76201 Attn: Wayne Reed, Planner !1 · Please circle one: of Neutral to request Opposed to request Comments: ~ .... Pr,nted Name: _///~ ~/~~ Mailing Address. ~, ~K ~/ ' ~,_ , .- ,- ..~ /~ _ . ~ I LAN ~,NG & DEVE~OP~dENT Oil, State Zip:: ~~rJ~ ,~, 'Telephone Number: ,7~¢ Phys1~l Address of Pmpe~ withtn 200 feet: /~ -CI~ OF DENTON, TE~S ClW HALL WEST · E' 31. ~S 76201 · g40.~g.s350 · (F)g40.~9.7107 Z. gg.046 200' NoEce. doc The zonlng process, Includes.two PUblic headngs designed, to ,provide opportunities for citizen Involvement and comment, Prior to the public hearings, landowners.within' two hundred, (200) feet Of, .. ~he subject property are notified 0~' the zoning request by way of this notice. The first public hb.adn~ is held before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The 'Commission. is informed of the percent .of responses in support and in opposition. Second, the zoning petit'ion is forwarded to the City Council for" final action providing the Commission recommends approval. Should the Commission recommend denial, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the City Council. If owners of more than twenty (20) percent of the land area within two hundred (200)feet of the site submit written opposition, then six out of seven votes of the City Council are required to .approve the zoning change. These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposition. ATTACHMENT 4 MINUTES '-'..:. P ./-:A .NNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. October 20, t999 Special Call meeting of the Plan .ning and Zoning Com:m..iSsl.on of the City of D~nton, Texas W~s' · held on Wednesday, OCtober 20, 199% and began..at 5.30 p.m. in the City' Council Chambers at .: city Hal1,' 2t5 iS.'McKtnney'. . * :. ' '.. . .-. . . Commissioners Present: Jim Engelbrecht, Elizabeth Gourdie, Salty Rishel, Susan Apple, Rudy Moreno, Perry McNeill, and Carl Williams. . Staff Present: Mark Donaldson, Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Bucek, Assistant City Attorney; Larry Relchhart, Development Review Manager; Wayne Reed, Planner II; Jerr~ Clark, Director of Englneering and Transportation. 1. Continue a public hearing to consider making a recommendation to City Council concerning the rezoning of approximately 410 acres from Agricultural (A) zoning classification to a variety of zonlng classifications, Including Single-family 7 (SF-7) on 133± acres, Single-family 10 (SF 10) on 85± acres, and Single-fafnily 13 (SF-13) on 192+ acres. The property is located in east Denton, stretching from near Highway 380 to McKinney Street, near Trinity Road. (Z-99-072, Lakeview Ranch, Wayne Reed) Motion by Susan App!e and seconded by Salty Rishel to recommend approval with conditions te City Council.'. .. ' '.' :. '~. · ..' ' :*'.: ". i:'i ' :.;:: - : ., ' ~ i · ~.. . .' .. · · tScuS~10n' el. item is InclUded in C°ur~ RePorters transcript attached to'thls's~t of minutes iPage 1)." ... .Motion carries 7-0. ' 2. Continue a public hearing to consider making a recommendation to City Cou concerning the rezonlng of approximately 48 acres of land from Agricultural (A) zoning classification to a Planned Development (PD) zoning classification allowing the development of 280 slngle-famil¥ residences. The property is located in eas! Denton, south . approxim.ately 3,000 feet east of its Intersection wIth Trinity of McKinney Street, "Road. d.) -. (Z-99-04~6, Lakevlew Ranch, Wayne Ree Motion by Susan Apple and seconded by Perry .M, cNelll to.recommend approv,l with co di!i .o,S to City Council. · n ·. ' : '' is;" "';'" · Di~o"ssIon of Item ir~cl,de~ir~ C6Urt RepOrter s t'~an~br,Pt, attached tO this'~,': · (Page t). ' .Motion c~rries 6-1. Carl William~ o~posed. 32. 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 15 19 20 21 22 23 124 PI~OCBI~DINOS ~ ~,~g~u~vx~rr: oecd ovc~hg, ~v=yone. At ~s ~e I'd ~o ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ial · ' ~ ~ Of ~ pl~nn~n~ ~ ~~SSiOn for ~ Ci~ of ~n, T~s for ~ W~y, ~ 's~e ~1o~ and ~ a~ p~ 6~ ~k~ ~elo~m~'' · M across across S~I in one case. So ~ can ~ ~ and ~ ~ s~[~ i~o~ and d~clo~'s ~o~ ct c~ and ~ we s~ply ~vo ~o ~ vo~. ~y obregon? Okay. ~ ~ ~at cas~ I~ 1 is ~ congnu~ a pubic ~n~ and co~ld~ m~g a ~ ~cll con~ ~ ~S o~ a~pro~ly 410 sc~ from ~I cl~slfi~gon s~lo on 85 ac~, ~nd Singl~N~mlI~ l~ on 192 ac~. ~ pro~ ts I~ in ~t ~n s~ng from ~ Hi~y 380 ~ Mc~nn~ ~s gm~ I'~ o~n ~ public ~ng. ~uda I~ No. 2 is ~ continue a pubic ~clt conc~i~S ~ ~niO~ ' ' Page 2 I acres of land from thc Agrlcultu~ classification to a 2 Plannexi D~velopmcnt zoning classification allowing the 3 development of 280 single-family residences. The 4 property is located in cast Denton south of McKinney 5 Strut approximately 3,000 feet cast of its intcrscctlon ~vith Trinity Road. At this flr~e, I'll Ol~a the public 7 he, alas for that Agenda itc~ es well. And I will Mr. Reed to provide .u§ w~th the staff report. 9 M~ RE~: Thank you, ChaL-man Engelbrccht, 10 .. and good cv ing, Com ssion .. I'll simply 12' pubho prccc~lipgs, th~ public ~.6afings. prongs, is 13 that all right s{nc~ it's just bne hcarlng tonight? 14 MR. ENGEI~RECHT: yeah. 16 MIL o .LeP, crrr: oh, t's review 17 o- you. Ifo ottom ew opr for 18 pubic h~ngs. ~c C~ ~ o~ ~ public h~g. ~o~ ~d ~ke a ~~on. Follo~ng ~ rupee t~t's n~ ~ on ~e orchid, ~. ~tion~ ~11 ~ ~ ~ ~lnu~ to ~-to ~ l~tltlou. And following that, p~rzons in favor of the ~tltlon will each I~ ~ntcd ~n oppor0?Ity to ~ Following that, persons in opposition to th~ petition w~1' 2 opposition, tl~cn n-,~'ocr s~x wJ'll come hie phy ~nd thc .~ss!on I0 m~o~sslon. W~wo~dask~chs~ 11 conc~ ~ or ~ ~ p~cnfing ~ info~on 12 ' not ~v~ by p~o~ s~. 13 ~sslon~ may at ~y ~ ask qu~ons of anyone 14 and call on ~ s~ff at ~y ~v and may adjo~ ~ 15 clos~s~slonasaHo~by~w. ~a~you,~.R~. 18 ~u~t~fomm. ~appHcantls~u~fing, on~ 19 one ~and, on ~ sou~ sldv of Mc~nn~ on a 47-ac~ 20 ~ot for a~maH lot d~'clopmcat of 5,500 squ~ f~t 21 ~n~. For ~t p~c~ ~u~L s~ffscat out a 22 pubH~ 23 ~tlng and as of ~y ~'w ~dv~ no ~pons~ for 25 ~ l~}ro~ Page ' I the s;uth of Unlvcrslty Drive, staff sent Out a total ;t" 2 lit notices to propc~%' ov4~ers and as of thls tlme 3 re~lved no direct responses es far es thc forms that 4 we've mailed out. I havc given to thc Commlsslon, $ however, a letter typed up by a property owner in the 6 area indicating thdr support for the request. So 7 public notlc~ vras dually noted. A courtesy notk~ had 8 gone out pmvlously but I don't have the numbers in 9 front of me. But that ws sent out odglnally for this I0. request.. ............ :.. : .. ~ planned D6wlopment, which in 1997 was r~zoncd back to A 'icul 'al. Back in Scptember of1990 thls catkc 14 property was 2cacti including what is now Iakeview Ranch 15 the on~-acro suMivldoa that is already out them and is not part of the request tonlghh wes zoned Planned 17 Development 126 for a mixture of resldentiallot slzes. 18 8o now wo*m ironically back hero tonight to look at a 19 . request to rc~zoao it from Ag to a mix 0f.rcdcL-nthl lot 20 slzes. 21 I would like to stat~ that one of the most 22 important parts about thls zoning request involves its 2~ impact on traffic or tr~-~ortation infrastructure. And 24 I would llko to ~ if the ~,~isslon. has ~ay concem~ 33. traffic, that mayl~ vv~ look at that f'ust as lcn'y Pago 5 ': : :onoems that they have before I add im~hln$ or ~w ~s ~~on. ~ ~6E~: okay. We would ~o to ~ a ~¢9o~ oa wh~ we ~d ~ ~d to ~.i~ or.~.r~ ~d ~ob~o....'. :- . ....:~...:.'. · ~¢~ Ci~k ~ a t~o ~h~ulo toni~t. I w~t to ~ we ~vo ~o~ t~o ~ you have qu~tions to have ~t ~ion. ~ ~GE~C~: O~t. Okay. M~ ~: Mom~ of ~o ~sslon: b~i~ly, we've ~ wor~ng ~ ~o dovolo~r. ~o~tion ism~ ~ not ~mpl¢~l~ solv~ ~t I thln~ ~'~ m~ng pr~ low,ds ~o~. We've mfiow~ ~o ~o s~d~, have done si~ifi~t ~is, ~d I ~nk we're worse out probably or ~w work~ out 90 ~r~t of~om i~. ~at'S not ~mpl¢~l~ ~nr~ yot ~d ~at's why tho con~tions m in ~o~ bao~p. ~o ~a~or issue invniv~ ~o l~tion of where ~o ~nd~ ~ is going to ~ ~d ~at not ~ ~mplotol~ do~n~; I ~n g0 into de~il ' ir yo~ ~t'or ]u~ ~1[ you ~at ~at's still uP I maj~rhy or tl~ issues. ~ ~t r~lato to'~,p~iflo 2' improvcm~t~ nt specLqo lata's~tlons and wo arc moving 3 rapidly tow~d~:~solv~g tho l~ccatag~s or ~aymeat 4 towards, of'tl~ d~clo, fm' towards t~o$o 5 Ob?iously, lft.~StatocomcalaonMctiinnt~yStrcct, wMch 6 some of¥ou have b~m on tl~ bond commhtce~ and hnprovca . "? t~tFu-st, ttznt~ton, t~votod~any, or~c~so .... 9 streets and wo~d ¢itbo' ~vo to bo done by tl~s d~v¢l~p~- 10 oradovolopo't~td~vclopsboron:t~n. Do~st~atbolp 11 you any2 12 ~,m.~o£u3R~cm-: Are ti~ro qumtions? Yes, 13 Mx. Witllams. 14 ~vm. wmtu,.xts: I was in la-la land wt~a you 15 mentionecl wl~o wo~d pay for t~ million dothr brldgo. 16 Could you n~pest t~at, pkas~? 17 ~ ct~auc: 'fl~ actual crosslng oF Pecan 18 Cr~k is probably going ~o bo a City ~z~nditur~. 19 That's t~ one at t~ sou~ end l~twoen Case 46 and Tl~o 20 Pn:s~rvo and ~a'X will bo a m~tFmitllon dollar brklge 21 by ll~llmo it's all done but t~at's cssentla! to m~¢ 22 t~ connection. 23 l~m, wmLu,,x~s: okay. ~s t~at ctu~ntly in 24 t~o Engin~rlng budg~L Publi6 Works budget? .. '. :~5.'": ' ~tmcc'~g: itwillaetdatlypr°bablyendUP , Pag%~ I ih a drainago budget. Thc bridge~ haw been m~ved to 2 drainage. MR. WILLIAMS: Currently. it's not a current 4 bud$¢tedit~atoday? . MR. CLAP, r,: It'S not budgeted. So tho ' 6 actual connection from ~ 46 to The Pre, rye is 7 scwral years off. 8o this north/south artcrlal is 8 probably several years off wklch means re°st of thc 9 trsffic will come down eRhcr to McY, inney or they'll go 10 . no~ up to ag0 or t~¢¥'Ii feed in.ca Mills and Blagg. la ~R. ~dEt~REc~r:'~r..Williams, docA that 14 answer your qu~tlon? 15 MR. WILLIAMS: It left rne a little bit more 16 confused. 17 MIL EROELBRECFrr: All right. 'We'll go on 18 and then we ean come b~ck. Ms. Oourdie. 19 MS. OOURDL~: ?hat's what ! ,was woodedng if ahow us a Yi.sual as to what you ~ t~klng 20. you could ' ' ' 21 about. It is conrushg when you say moving it to the 22 west v~s wl~eco it's probosed. 23 ~ ~ ~ ~ould have ~A this in the 24 flt~ Vlace. I spolog~. This is-- the current 2 34. ~aro Plen calls for it to clthcr come hero or oa · ' Page 6 the a'm. Tho developer wish~ to move it outside of his development and that would move it to a route to the west of Trinity or down Trinity Road· And fight now staff is re~ommendlug that it bo moved to Trinity Road bocaus~ that is where the cars will go immediately anyway. We're not sm~ that that other rout~o where we will get no immediat~ right-.or-way, helps us an.d so we fe¢l that the~so c~n bo worked out but they haven't been as of yet. The lower end is contingent on the Upl~r ead..Obvlously, your zoning Cas~. 4~, !. thlnk i.S th~ the bric e. wo ld ha e with that most western route and that is a shorter brlclgo ~d will actually save on tho cost. The City will probably bo tho one that cms up building that unlcc, s some other hugo dev¢lop,-vat comes into thls and cha~g~ tho whole make-up of it. Yea're probably looklng at a xnulti-rn~llion dollar brldge to get a~oss Pecan CYeek there. So this move o¥¢r will save and that "t hapl~n either at Trinity or if it's ~oved farther I th~,1~ there's one o~¢r issue. One of tho pos~tlve b~aefit$ ~f ~4.nity is used is it would bo upgraded tmmedit{tcly, les k~nd or a seal-coat road. We would upg~ acl~ it to City standards..! tMnk that's the .......... Trinity. Whoso optlous mv~ro put in ia ]Ekx~ma. b~.ot' 1991{ so iryou look at your ol.d'Zhorovghraro Plauo I mean, tho existing MobI~.'ty PI.au, as B's callexl, it shows it coming rl~t hcrc thro~_~h thc development. Thc devclopcr ~s intcrestcd in moving it out et' that I ~.s ~C qne ,~. t¥..e~, is!t goe.s through an '"' 2 mdivldual's property and that gcutlcman we do not know .[ - a irh. e v 6 Id' V ri ht-br-way. 4 MR-MCi, rP_n~ West, not,asr?" ' . i 5 MS. GOURDIE: I'm sorry'. We.st, correct. 6 r, eetlon. Whey'vealre, ady built t~ two lanes up hero 6 Aud. becausothat'sprlvatepropertyrightnowsIbcliev¢ . 7 and' if ahy moro lan~ am bt{ilt up hCro~ the City will~. 7 'allofuswcroverYconccm~lthatthis,,,av .... ~.£._ · . ·: ' · .. · ' ' · :" ' · . I" ~ :.. .; . · . .,,., ~,~v~;l [~'cOIlle ' $ .conStructth0$o.'.: ': '..- '.,. *' ~ ." · : ' $ ' publlqright-of-wayanc~thlsismvhytheTrlnityRoad~s '~ ' Thls scctipno they want to have moro of a 9 chosea i~ the altec~atlv¢ Mobility Plah obj~ciiv¢. Okay. 10 resldcntlal character. Whey'ye proposeA to movc it ov~ l I hero. I think we're rlght now tending to think this is 12 thc better solution s'mc~ thec~'s no right-of-way linexl 13 up hcrc and no dcvclopers contributing now and no 14 proposeA developments in those areas. So we're thinking 1 ~ that thls is the best route for thc thoroughfare. "lllls 1 ~ is thc bridge that I was talking about right hero. 17 We're also as one OF the conditions asking.that bel'oro ' 18 thls development proceeds on, that thls bridge be l!~ addressed. This bridge is a critical llnk to,~akc sum 20 that traffic can come between hero and hero without just 21 completely loading up the. se two ntral roads. So they ~2 have a significant amouut oF traffic coming hero and 23 they'll have a significant amount of traffic coming 24.. here. We feel this is, as far as the thoroughfare, that , 5. ' thls Will be the best solution.- . : .' i i ' .' i ' '. ~ ~U~EU 'zhoso two rea& a~ what' and ~ ~ Y~, ~s is M;ll~ and ~at's Ms.~Z~ I~s I'm ~1~ ~a~c · ~'~ ~ a~dy adj~t o~ MobiH~ P~n at a p~ious m~ng in wMch wc ~ ~mg ~ c~u~ it ~ ~ ~d~c mu~'~at you'~ proposing wMch is THni~ ~? ~o ~ had a big m~gng a~out ~ ~'~ ~o? I0 So I'm -- so that's all fight now, so wc'ro still on thc I 1 old Mobility Plan bccau~ it's.been lying ,in walt. 12 Okay. That's what l needeA to know. Thls is why it was 13 we' contusing to me. 14 MIL CLARK: I'm glad you brought that up. 15 That's a v¢~ good point. 16 MS. GOURDIE: Thank you. 17 MR. CLAI~.. Appreeiat¢ it. 18 MR. ENOELBRECHT: Mr. Rishel. Ii) . MR. P, ISHEI~ Doe~ the propecty adjoin or 20 touch Tl~ Pre, rye property to the south7 21 MR. CLAI~: It comes rlght to the creek and 22 thea obviously on the other sld¢ that is The Preserve. 23 So right hero, they're opposite sides of the creek of 24 P¢cau Creek. ' · . Corps of Engln¢cr had. ~ lusn£u so tt~ don't physl.cally a~ut7 ~s~u okay. ~ you. ~Mc bit mo~ a~out ~s Mob~ Phn ~t has somc~ug ~ do ~& ~s pro~ ~ausc I'm ~ng ~ Fred out - ~a~c what I ~d ~s ~ MoMHw - ~ 14 15 16 17 18 20 l PLAI~ININO AND ZONING basically. 14 },m. ctmu~ 'that's a good polnL MS. OOb'RUlE: okay. So peadingr~.91utlon 16 og tMs zoo{ag case~ tho r¢coumacndat{ou wasn't put 17 forward 10o:auso we're vraltlng on wlmt's happculng lin'o, 18 Ol~ wow. 19 t~L MCz~.ttt: What was tl~r¢commtndatlon? 20 l~ts. aotmo~. ~hat ~: swlt~h tl:o Mob{llty 21 Plan, ~vMch oddlnally sl~o~l tl~ .ou~loop wMch v~cnt ; 22 along tlao la~ ~ to tho otlaer do~:l lh~c wlalch is 23 Trlnlt7 l~il~f l~causc it was suppo.~gly ~conomtcally 24 mor~ fcaslblo. Tl~ pro'b~,'m wlth tl~ ~ rou~., wMch 25 OCTOBER 20, 1999 trausyomtlo~ for t~ a~xt- I,~ wmtt~xm: ! ~d.s~d w~t a MobiH~ Phu is. ~ l~OWit I'mjust~ng~ ~d ~ lt. I apol~ if ~t ~ not v~ - ~WIL~: m O~ wor~, I dqn't ~nt ~ ~ ~ ~ 2:00 o'cl~k. ~ ~ ~. ~you ~nt ~ c~ ~ in la: proposed that thls would probably I~ tho better snd ~1~ dov¢loizr was not in ~,~-~ _~t ~th that 35. have some improvements to it. Mi.'COURDIE: But thls is outside of thc property o~'s, of the d~vclopment'$ p..roperty~ ~ CLARK: It's outsid~ tho preperty owner but if thcy run 1,000 trips a clay, then we want to m~c sure that Wc'vc lookexl at that carefully. MS. c, oURDI£: And is t tn our abzlity to have ~he~ .fix the road. bp to';-k ." ': ' ' ' ' h~vo io have a h~ing br w~ may baize to have a hcarlng. We haven't cont'a'm~ that y~t. ~ ~s ism~ is ~lv~ ~ wc'~ do it. But ~o ~t of Mob~ PI~ ~es it official whe~ ~c rou~ is ~ppo~ to go. If it*s on Tfini~, ~ ~s ~ go do~ toj~ ~e a r~id~tlal s~t and ~me map. ~~Ms: okay. Now, I'wh~d~at ~s ~ion ~ade ~ ~&~t ~d it's si~g ~mewh~ ~m~la~. b~ ~: ~hey made a r~dation to Z~ ~A~S: okay. It left here and w~t to ~ ~i1. b~ c~: R h~'t gone to Ci~ Council · yet. It h~*t ~ put on an ~da but yo~~. - ' .'- ~gatten s~ until' l?s el~er not p~u~.or 9 .' MIL ct. Min. To'the amount that they Sen'orate 10 thc impact, yes, it is. 11 M&GOURDIE: Okay. Thankyou. 12 MIL CLAret:' And they have to bring it to a 13 mlnhnum standard where it's saf'c. 14 MS. fiOURDIE: 'Ihank you. 15 lVIIL ERGEt.~gECHT-. other questions? 16 MIL MCNEILL: 'Wherl Was that re, solution seat 17 forward to thc Couno'fl? Thatwasjustafterlgoton 18 thc Commission, wasn't it? Wasn't that thc last two or 19 thr~ months that that,,was herc? And wc had this same 20 dis~usslon ,ibout shall it como right straight down or ' 21 shall it go vest and that was thc resolution wc passed 22 forward. Okay. Thank you. 23 MIL CLARK: It was in lat~ AUgust, early 24 Sept~raber., ; .. · · ' . . 25. ' · Mr,.rsoarS~cwr: ffwe recommend -~ let's'.. ..... : P~'ge 14 City Council adopts it'or adopts sometlaJng different. MR. WILUAMS: okay. Before I can vot~ on this, I'm go'rog to need to read that amendment because I'm voting in thc dark if I don't read that. l~m. CL~,~'. okay. I'll get that for you. I'll go do~ and ran a copy of it and get that for you. · l~tR. Vtrt,UAMS: qkay. Thank you. MIL EIqGEL~I~Cl-rr: Ms~ Gourclle. MS, OOURDIE: Are tho roads Blagg and Mills able - I ~ovo down thom whoo I wea! through thls t~es~ p~oplc -- I mean, I guess what I'm. trjn'ng to ask is build-out th~e versus time for tho roads, arc wc just going to b~ putting undue stre~ on the, so rural roads for the, s~ folks that live thoro or what are Wc really going to b~ doing here'/ ' l~m. CLA~: They ~o very rural and that's one et' tho fhlngs that wo'~ negotiating. I tN-k it's ~ills is the one that is proposed to carry 1,000 trips ~ay. The impact on this one is _mlnlmal. But thls one is proposed to carry 1,000 trips a gay and one of thc thlngs tI~% W. O*r~ -- and that's one of the things that's- ' ~ot resolwxl y~t is that wo'm not so sure ii' going to nm 1~000 trips a gay on it that it shouldn*t ra~,e 16 ~sume for a moment that t~e Trinity Road, si'nee that was our recommendation let's assume that's thc route that's going to Ix; taken, what will be thc rcqukgment of this developer with regard to that stretch from McKinney to the now Lakvlew Boulevard? MI~ CC~'uc: 'that's also one of the firings that still hasn't been settlext, what impact that -- they haven't agreed on the impact and what they are willing to improve yet. Do you want me to tell you what we're Il '.... · ?. m. ..... ~2'. ~ !'m no~ a ~ ~o~ble ~ ~g to mbve 13 any oF ~at ~o d6~'~og li~le roads ~d ~ 14 over to'May~l. ~at's why ~s whole pl~ w~ put IS t~e~er,.~evlew Boflev~fl ~d ~e d~i~ w~ to --~e I~ p~o~ w~ to ~ ~at ~fio from ~s ~ ~o~ 17 ~erc. 18 Mm C~ Wo'm ~~ng ~o I~ ~ 19 ~provM from h~ to he~ ~d ~at ~s ~d~e ~ 20 ~ ~o I~ o[it. , for ~p~g-- on yo~ ~ap wh~ is U~iv~, 380 24 t~em. Oh~, 3 6. ~ ~O~ ~, ~h~ you ~y .. I Pag6.1? ! hat)roved, are you fal_klng curb, ~uttcr, two-lmae ' ~d~ ~ ~ Y~, ~o-i~c ~ s~. 4 ~ ~o~: ~l ~t. Y~ 6 M~ ~s~ ~ you ~ ~bout ~ r~. . v'. do''from Unlvc i s Is. t whaiYou · ." ": ' ' 9 M~ C~ Y~, ~o 1~ f~om h~ to I0 11 M~ ~S~ ~d you ~d 12 ~ ~at to fo~ 1~ wg*d n~ to do ~at on 13 ~ a Ci~. Do w8 o~ ~8 d~t-of-~y on 14 M~ C~ Y~. ~cm*s 80 f~t ~ d~t-oFway. ~ M~ mS~ ~h~ you. 17 M~GE~C~ Okay. O~er qu~tions? 18 We~, I ~ ~at angers my qu~tlons ~ ~d to 19 ~8 no,gm H~ from Mc~nngy ~p. B~i~ly, what ~20 n~ is a ~n~tion ~at un~l ~at road is rep~ ~d ~ ~atbfi~eisbu~t, no~ngg~an~bere. ~at's~o ~yI~it. ~ c~ ~hat's g~erally what we're ~4 ':. ~~ng ~o~ ~o~ ~n~tinns ~at Plann~g'is put · ...'.Coddensoltm ., '1 th;n~e we're golng to be all right with thls if wc get, since tt z..coa.~a-ucted here, ifwc gct thls bndgc In 3 placo.aad ~t~ct.~ho t~vo I .anes .d..o~..to igxe beca.ase a lotI · ' .. Page 18 MR okay. l ow oing south, now we've got ~ o~cr li~ of ~s ~g. Now, ~t ~ exit is it now d~t ~cre or is it mov~ over ~m~a~ly across T~iW Road? M~ C~: If ~s is mov~ ~d ~ey r~ly haw no ~paot ~ ~s ~m~ a r~id~tifl s~t. ~s ~m~ a ~id~tifl s~t and ~s ~11 r~ly ~e someb~y el~'~ l~e. ~s one ~1 ~ -- wh~ ~ pro~i~ d~v~1op, ~ w~'H get ~ ~tlon. 5 sort of traffic will feed down. Some ~ might come up 6. and use this. . · Va -'CL '<i . lot or theh' t nc, but th ' 9 it will ~ome in here and come to Mayhil! ~d c~me to 10 288. A certain percentage of it is golng to come up 11 hem and use 380. 12 M.~ l~,tOEt. BP. ECh'-r: l~xaetly. But we're losing 13 that link that they would have built two lanes fight 14 there? 15 ~P.. Ct.A~: yeah. This link which would 16 have been on there is not going to be provided for here. I? So, yeah, we are losing that. 18 Mi~ mSH~t~ ~Ut it's a lot less bridge to 19 cross. l0 l~a: cram<.' Yeah, we are saving some money Il with the bridge. Thls b.ridge is going to be between 500 ~2 and 800 feet shorter. 23 MP.- ~'tOBLBP. E¢itT~ Okay. All fight. 24".: ~a~.-Ct.nm~:-So that's going t~ red. uee Our' 25 .'co.~{s. There are two bridges this way but they're still shorter than the one that comes across'here. MiL EN~ELBRECHT= And The Preserve will build up -- .. MIL CLARK: I know now, I apologize, I need to mentlon before, the real advantage which they've bronEht up all ~ong on this is a thorono~hrare over in this area, over in thls area, is really serving -- which it's serving this area, it's better to have it in the ralddle than it is clear over on one side~ I0 ¥ou had a zoning case come in I ~hink for a raobile home 10 .... Ida.~lqo£t~l~CHT: Yeah, and the bridge is · 12 ~ ~A~S~N. Y~, ~at s go~e a~y. 12 ~ c~ ~at s ~e major ~efit we gain I~ ~ ~~: But ~at's ~e probl~ 13 and I ~ ~e ~e~t of ~at ho~y ~ ou~cl~ 14 with moving it over to Trinity Road is is that all of a 15 sudden that llnk right there now becomes a piece in Iff Walting, i.f you will. If we had taken the eastem ' 17 route, then thls developer would have been required to ;18 construct that Hnk of Lakevlew Boulevard? '19 MIL CLARK: Right. M~. ERG~i.BP~CHT: Could I get that other one hack ul) there? All of a sudden you switched mal)s on me :2~ ,~ow. Thankyou. · "2~ ~a.~ l~aslealIy, we would have got it .. '24. dowa to l~ere Tout tTaey don~t gencrat~ tTae need for tt,ls 125 brldgebut we would have had it fromhere. The th]ng is I. 14 the loss We have here and also the gain we have from the 15 shorter bridge here. So there are some real positive 16 things in that. I apolOgize for not mentioning that. 17 MiL ~G~.LBI~CHT: Okay. lxlow, Thc Pre,serve 18 will bring it up to where? 19 ~ CLA~,X.. ~he Preserve is going to bring 20 it up to right hero. 21 MIL ENOELBRECHT: All right. 22 M~ ClXI~K.. ~aat's Pecan Creek. This is 24. MR. RISHEL~ ~outh ortho cre~ 25 m. ct.~ Yeah. That will stop on the 37. P~o 21 soh~ side. " M~ ~ Y~. ~t ll~lc 1i~, ~ot ~'bd~e, but ~c ~ ~f r~d for' ' '~o'l~d?' · ' ~- : - ...... .. - Mm C~ A q~ ~lllon, jmt a ~s. ~ ~aEn~C~: ~hat's W do it. ~at's not to a~u~ ~c · . I saythat, from l,~126 down W'~g back in1997. A 2 portion oF.~.~ ?i~ r~xuained and ~t ~ ~c no~ 3 po~ion ~d ~'~ for non-~i~t~ ~. And ~lm 4 ~o~crpo~ion~kcpt. But~po~ioh'to~no~ 5 ~spro~fornon-~id~. I~ 6 ~ may ~.~mc Mulfi-F~y, ~ wcll. 9 Mm ~2~: ~d it'~ ~po~t ~at I point 10 ~at out ~u~ ~ ~n~m o~ ~c pro~ o~er up' 11 ~crc ~ys ~at ~6y have ~n~m ~ ~c ~u~t for MR. CLARK: 1,re, not to acquire right-of-way. ~ E~O~.LBP. SC~rr: Assuming wc have ~c H~t-of-way? ~ c~ ~t. ~ ~s~ Is ~ ~y lev~ in ~ C~ If ~e d~velo~r gaw ~ a fi~t-of-~y you ~uld probably ~t ~at ~ a l~vc~c. ~ is no S~ hvolv~t on ~at. ~c ~ ~at thc S~tc is ~l~{ug about worMng is wor~g ~ ~c d6~lo~r ~o~ a bd~ pr~ to ~ ~ get ~s bfl~c in pla~ ~ ~ S~tc would 1~ to ~ ~s In to hclp. ~cy'rc aw~ of ~o ~ng~tlon here ~d ~s would ac~ally hc!p ~omo along - when 2~8 is 'ng built rollcwa 1[~1~ ~ffiC, t~: . ). ' ...' : [ :'.. 'Page 22 MR. L~o~.celu~ct-rr: Are t~cy going to assist us wlth that larger bridge at thls point? MR. CLARK: '7/C have no offers yct. MR. I~rGEL~lU~Ch'T'. Okay· You don't have any? Okay. All right. lyre. ct.~x: zMs is an cxlstlng bridge so the p.rograrn they have we .uld put some money into it. Thoro is no bridge MP,. 2NO~-L~crrr: okay. Any other qucstlons? Thank you. And you're going to get thc -- Mit VaLHAMS: 'thank you. MR. B'NO£LBP. ECh'T{ Mr. Rcexl. l~iR. tU~n: rll start off by correcting myself earlier. I did for~et that wc have received throe responses from propeity owners. Two of them are in favor. They did not va'itc Imythlng but they arc in favor. We did receive one in opposition and it is from - uroperty owner ~Mch is adjacent to the 072 re, quest. .q if wc get the doc,-,~mt c~mera back, the prope~y Owner owns property up hcr~. And, basically, le~ mc show thc zoning map also demonstrates that that padlcular · prolmty located-up here is in mai6. ~had mcntloncd carllcr that tI~{s property ws down-zoned, if I could 12 one-family dwelling, SF-?,bclng adjacent to thclr 13 property, which has a Planned Development zoning 14 designation..And often the Comm{sslon is sensitive when there's diff?rmt rcddcatial zoning. In this case, 16 it's Multi-Family, C-cneral Rct~il, Commercial abutting 17 what would b~ ss-? for thls r~luest. And I'm going to 18 pass thls around. 19 And I thank ~crry Clark for going ovcr 20 transportatlofi.so eloquently. That is~ of course, one 21 ofthemajorissoesofthlszonlngrcquest. 'l'he other is 22 its compatibility with surrounding zoning and its consistency wlth our Comprehcnslvc Plan. Concemlng 24 those issues, !'11 address that we f'md at staff level · 25: tha.t..ffic r.cqu~t is ~.nsiStant~ :'And ffyou io~k at tlie. 1000 · ·Page 24 I request for the property on the south side.of McKinney for 2 5,500 square foot lots and balance that with the remaining 3 property, some 410 acres where they're going'for a mlx of 4 $F-7, SF.10, and ~F-I~,W6 Fred that in total thls request 5 offers a mix o[ lot sir. cs and, there[om, provides 6 something that is oonslstcnt with our Comprehensive Plan, 7 as well as the 1998 Growth Man~cmcat Plan and land us~ 8 draft Land Uso Plan. 9 As far as its compatibility, well, thcm's 10 not much out thoro fight now cxc~pt for some sluglc- . . 11 · family residences on.larger, acr~g, oe Im.d a lot of.;..E'r..s. ..... . Ii ! And, of c°u~", w'e d0~*i c0ntroi·~e'V}~l~rty'~dJ~cent 13 to thc rextue~st.whi~h is already in tl~ ~l. sowgdo . 14 find thls conslstcnt'and compatlble in so far as it can 15 b~wlthcxistinglanduses. And I'll point out that the 16 developer is also -- the applicant in thls ~ is also 17 the geYelop~r o~ thg Lakeview R~nch property which is 18 thc one-acre subdivision wlth 155 lots that's already 19 out thcrc. So I think hc can best address how is this 20 compatlblc with one-acm lots. I'll b~ happy to answer 21 any questlons. 22 MR. l~rO~Le.~ch~r: qucstious, Commlsdoncrs? 23 It appears no.t at this time. Thank you. Is the ~4 l~tlti0~e.r or l~tltioner'z r~pr~.~tztlw pre,~at? lfyou 2S ~ us your n~mc and business address for the 38. 'P~'~ 91 - Paoe ~4 record. ~ SPAre:. ~y name is Paul Spain. Business ~ddress is 700 ][akevlew Boulevard. We're the only ones out there° baslcally. If I could start out by tol l;,$ 4 you about our £~t phase. The entire project is 735 ac . The f' t phase which we developing out LakevieW Ranch hero that y0~ .s~ !s !57. lots on 273'. '. 7 .~cr~. ':A. huge'f'trst pha~, all lots Ope to five acres. · '.'" g' in ~. In that p~.ojc~t wc have stared o.n ~e mhenity center and we've started on the cntryway off of 380, we've paved 1,000 to 1,200 feet of cntryway off of ~80 to get 11 the address on 380 and get the look. 12 Tho amenity center, sales center is under constmetinn now. As you sc~, it has very much o~ a ranch 14 feel. 'l'hat's under construction about 2,000 square feet. 15 That wilt hous~ a pool ia the back for the community, 1 community rooms, Idtcben, restrooms, and also a sales office while there is ~les going on out there. We also have plans for the first phase, horse trails. We've met with Ed several thaes and since we back up to the Corps, we'd like to turn the dbt blko trails into horse trails and have a little better. We do have some of the lots deed restricted so that they can have horses. Som~ of them ~re large enough too where. you coul~go out th~ Back of yOUr lOt.directly onto.'the. · · . · " ?age 26 Co s lan ri; e and int obo . n would ~ r~lly ~utifui. ~ I ~uld w~ ~o~ ~e proj~t sea of ph~ by ph~ ~ it's a~y l~e. I'm not ~e, who ~ ~ le~r in opposition from? ~ ~GE~C~: ~. B~d. ~ sP~: He's o~ neither to ~ no~. ~. Bdl~d ac~lly ~ew up d~t in hem. · ' ~s.~u~ ~: Spain, ~ ypu. ~at's touchier. ~ s~: ~ of ~ ofi~ Bm ~ck most p~ is flat.o~er ~ it hM ~mo m~ ~. ~. Bu~d ~so o~s over h~ to ~ ~ Hc ~twly ~ ~ to giw ~ ae fl~t-d-~y. b~t ~ road ~d put in a ~ 1~ ~d ho ~ow~ m to do ~ l~p~g, put up a f~ to ~y ~provo · e ~ He's ~ ~ve. ~ pro~ adjo~nlnE ~l~. ~ ~ a few ~ do~ h~ h ~s ~m~ ~d ~mo over h~m ~oug ~ ~k For ~ most p~ it's pm~ fiat ~d ~do o~. Ag~, it ~ o~.. h~ ~at Bl~ R~d wo~d ~ e~a~ on~ .App~ h pu~ h. ~s pl~ we ~ ~ ~clav6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25' OCTOBER 1999 ! O.f ~oeer property over h6ro. Again, it does have tl~' it h~ pro~y ~t ~ dm p~ of ~o od~u~ B~ .[ ~d ~ pa~o ho~ ~d five ~d ei~f unit ~r ~ , :.'hd~ m~tt-f~l~ o~ on~ s~e and int~s~ q~ five ~ alit on ~e o~ side. However, ~nly if~'e ~sf~ ~ w~t we're proposing ~d develop~g now, ~e ~ ~nt~ue doing ~. Again, ~s is a ~n~. Wi~ ~e ~n~g ~ound us, w6 f~l l~e ~at's a g~ l~d ~. T~ct B is ~ ~ct p~eHng A.SpoR~ up in ~s ~. It g~ ~ong ~e cr~k, originally plann~ for one ~k to go do~ ~e ~d~e ~d b~i~lly ~t ~s, w~ch it may, in fact, do. on ~at ~me 84 ~ 8F-10. ~o~er p~ or,at ~ct is a 15 acm p~l do~ ham wMch ~d is a~uHy a~ctive. T~9~ No. C is probably the preRi~ it's j~t under 200 a~. It's pre~ h~vily ~s is over on ~s slde. ~e er~k mnn~g along no~ slde. It have v~o~ o~ers on ~e w~t* mobile · home p~, ~ctors, old ~e~, and ~ ~e o~ic. f~ here ~ it.~gsoyertO'~ ~}. ~ Page 1 part up, it adjoins the corps and is a solid, lot ~f woods ' 2 and it's just gorgeous. There's quite a bit of 3 topography. Again, that was one of our original reasons 4 for wanting the zoning moved over. In ~M.s area, we have 5 come up with a plan for it. We have planned two lots per 6 acre on this property because.of the topography. XVe feel 7 like the lo~s have to be larger to ~ave the trees wher~ 8 the lots are platted. We roll out of that into parcel D 9- which is pret0j fiat and has a }rater tank.. We have a plan 10 there to give to tha.scbool system, a school alto for an 13 'glve a park two and a half n'cit to it, so th~ school 14 will be 15 acres. 15 'fo the north o~ that-- although parcel D we 16 are requestlng 7,000 ~uar~ foot lots between the ~chcol, 17 the park and then what Ed would like to do with the rest 18 of ~M~ rlght here is have a community-wide park and that 19 ~nay lx~ in fact a part of the loond electlon whlch ,,ye really 20 supported. ~1 If you cross McKinney you run into the other ~2 piec~ down here which we haven't explored as much. It's 23 pretty overgrown, but we did learn from Weldon it used 24 1~ a r, otorcy¢16 track and theyput the tires at the edge Pa~e 25 - ~Pa~e 28 hero l~y t]~ thousands. It tumM out ~I ~ mlng co~ ~ ~ ~s on ~back ~u~ sldc. So ~ 2,3 unl~ ~ ac~ no con.cia1, no a~c~ ho~hg, felt a~ut it e~ ~ ~t on~ ~ ~ no~ I Parcel C whlch is just tm&r 20~ acres in the sort of 2 centerof~prol~ty. Parcd D is $1P-crcs will have 3 tho zeho~l ~it~'north sldc o~ Mc~ey. And then p~rcel 4 BwMch is our I'D. ' ' 5 MS. CK)UBDIE: Than~ you. 6 MR. ENG£t,BRECHT:. Mr. Moreno. ?. · M~ M0..?~o: ¥.es, sir, Mr. Svaln. I4ave you 'S seen thi~letteror'£.ax fromMr. Billiard?.. '.Mike, is !t'. 9 appropfiat~ to share this letter with Mr. Spain? 10 Mr. Spain, I'm not sure what he's asking for here. 11 having difficulty understanding his suggestion.' ! would 12 llke for you to kind of interpret that for us if you can 13 or if you have a better understanding than I have. 14 give you a moment and be quiet. 15 MR. SPAre: I think he's asking for a 700 feet sectlon. ~ second one was for ~ center sectlon of tl~ prol~n'y..And th~ third was for th~ southern section. Mark atte~d~xl all me~tlngs. Wc had anywber~ from 20, 25 people at tl~ vm'ious m~tlngs to ~ what thdr thoughts and concerns ~/;,~ And I don't bellevc wcl~d any opposition to any of tkm. Wc met with t~ ndghborheod end I ~ v~ Imve thdr suppor~ Wc ~r~ mlsslng some of 16 buffer of one acre lots -: isn't that right what it says? 17 MR. MORBNO: 'fhat's what I think it says. 18 What's your re. etlon to that? Ii) MR. SPAIN: It'S normally the other way 20 around. "' 21 MR. ENGELBRECHT: DO yOU have any other 22 questions? MR. MO~O: 1% I just wanted to see if you -were re~ding it the s~e Way I was.. · · ~R.-sv&4~.. m iS c°%e~ne~ tha~ as people Page 30 Page ! houses here that ~rc in the middlc of thc prolect. And 2 lye's. Wilkersou and her husband llvc up hem in the comer. 3 We've tried to work with thc neighborhood on all the 4 different issues that como up as wc develop in the ~rea 5 and hope that we have their support. We'd certainly be 6 open for any other questions. 7 MR. ENGEt, BP,.EC~.: commissioners. Ms. 8 (~ou~dic. ' 9 MS. c, ou-~m: Mr. Spain, I guess I'm a little 0 perplexed, could you just cl .m~, ~gain~ for me one more 't e, the h. r or.the V om y, ghci ?.ov ';.: · ~' 'ph .a~ 1.; y9u Sal~l 'th.~t'ihey v~ould ~ s'~'s wMeh w0ukl be · 3 . s~uttlng the I'~ to'the n6rtl~ o~ th~ pro~r~y which'would 4 be followed by atract fight underneath it, correct. I ;$ believe that is the** what was the zonin$ on that? :.6 ~ sP~: Five to eight units ~ acre patio £? homes. 18 1~ I~ONALt)SON: ~hat's a rcmmant 6~'PD 126. 19 MR. IUSm~U someone els~ owns that? 21 - Ms.C, OOP-~m: I guess is that part of what · 22 we're discussing tonight? What exactly are we discUSSing 23 tonight? 24 l~. sP./~., we are discussing pared A which 25 is to our north and east. Parccl B, $S on o~ west. move into our single farnily, they won't find his industrial or multi-family as compatible ~s neighbors. MR. MORENO: But going to thc larger lots, would make it worse, I would think. MR. sPAr~: 'that would be my perspective. MR. MOi~-~O: okay. Thanks. MR. ~I,I~ELBRECHT: Mr. M¢lqe'fll. MIL MCN'BILL: In response to Commissioner Oourdie's question. Wlmt we're consi&ring tonight shows ~o . 7 the first item on ~e Agend~ i? Casa.d6... That!s jusl a n .$mal!.p~ee~downatthebotto ;. ~ :: :. i~' "-" ' :MR.S?An4: l~oUsem¢. That is nghtl They " 13 do ha. ye 4~ ~irst... " 14 MR. MCNBILL: 'l'hat's the'onty thing we are 15 considering fight now. 16 MR.S?AIN: It is contusing. ! apologize for 17 that. Because of the riffle,oat I,D versus sLmlght zonlng 18 we had to separate that. 19 I~R. MC~Lt~ ~et me follow-up o/~ that then. 20 In your dmwlng there, let me ~ee- show me where 46 is. 21 That's tMs plece fight there. 22 ~ 81,AI~: It'sju~ north o~the creek. 2~ ~ l~c~uu ldght. And the blue is the lake 24 out here to the right? II~$1,AIIq: Yes. Okay. 25 40. tt~ -'or potcn~al ace. ds t~ ~ Corps l~rol~ay. ~ s~: w~t ~ ~ about ~ agar, ~ ~Vc ~ ~d - o~ Jn~or ~c r~ for a hck of a ~ wor~ m~nd~s up ~ ~ and renews ~ r~d. But H~t in ~o~h ~ it com~ ~ ~ ~ so sch~l world ~ on ~s side and ~s wo~d ~ a ~t l~afion for s~c~ field, ~onal 1 2 3 7 8. a tml.y unklu~ .~rea. Wc'r~ up ~c4o sort or~ a ~ p~ of ~..To ~ct ~lc h~ wc'~ g~mg ~w [~ ~c'~m~g ~. ~d we've got ~c ~, wMch ~plc love, ~d c~'~ o~ wMch ~cy ~c, ~d have a ~ ~ wMch ~vc a l[~l~ f~cr to go to. And ~at's what things. Ho was also tlgnldng wlth our eacoura~¢~acnt that it would thou glvc them accczs ta~o tlc corps, into ~c lakc, wtffch wc'w bccn ovcr in Crrapc¥in~ and ~outhlakv and tl~'vo mado h'cmc~dous use oF corps progcrty for a dollar a year. They havo ltrcat bike halls and all sorts of otl~ m~. Wojust tho,~'nt that would 1~ a gr~t addition for ll~ City of Denton to get to t~ lakc. $o w~ supported that and ~couragvd i~; that wv would -~ lh?~_~ht .. 9. ~ 1~. £L~P~c~r: Mr. McNeilI. lO MIL MClqEILL~ I robot to rotation ~t I 11 ~ to ~ you for ~c ~ion' to go to ~ 12 ~forc4:001~tw~k. I~youforvolun~dngto 13 move to ~s eyeing. 14 M~ 8P~: My pl~e. 15 ~ ~OSLB~: O~er q~tions? I've got 16 ~ve~. · ' -. ' ' ' Page 34 1 MR. Et~GELnP,.EC~rr: Mr. Williams. 2 MR. ~?ILLIAMS: ~ust to k~p ~c happy, wh~ you 3 an cx~plc, ~y f~tb~ ficl& ~d not s~r fields. 4 But, ~iously, ~ qu~tion ~at I w~ wanin~ to ~k you 5 is, b~i~lly, yo~ pMlosopHy in r~ to ~iti~ ~nd 6 in yo~ SF-5.~ ~. You made a vc~ g~cral s~t. 7 I wo~djust ~ to ~ow yo~ p~lo~phy about ~ 8 ~i~ ~ ~o~.~allcr lo~. ~ Mm 8~: P~plc ~ ~1~ 1o~ may not 10 ~t to m~n~n a l~c lot, but ~y st~l ~nt o~ U :. ~a~ ~i~ ~Uni~. :~cY ~d to,~i, it la ~ :.. . ' · ~' ""'" '~'"'" '' 'not" 1~ ( m ~ch ~cy ~ go to ~d vmt and ~joy, ~he~ '. ha~ng to mow on ~ek o~ b~is. So wc~avc put ~at 17 likg to better understand what you and the Parks 18 Department are ialldng about, a number of acres or your 19 property or ~'unplyjust a small access area to get into 20 thc Corps....a~a? 21 MIL SPAIN: What Fxl has shown an interest in 22 is including, wMch I think is part of thc bond elcctlon 23 for the parks, was to acquire some 20 to 30 acres here, 24 baslcally, the rema'mder o[the east si& et tho road up to · down thom which allows us to develop a smaller lot ~nd put in Ol~a spaces throughout th~ community where thc resldcnts can us~. And with Pecan Cr~k on the south, that's a great public area. They would be able to go up Pecan Crock and tie into thc lake. It has great potcntlal for rccrcatlonal walking, jogging. Wc tho?g~_t this was a great area for that. Plus it allows us a wide variety of products and lot sizes. We'll be offering anyw.here from 5500 to fiw-acm lots which gives us.a real marketing But out_ pMlosophy on the dcvelopm~t is w~ laav~ to, in order to b~ su.cccsfful, offer th~ home buyer p~ge~ ° 2 MIL £~ost~P,~c~r: Okay. An~ ~at would ~ ~I 3 ~ way do~ and abut ~at little p~k ~at's sho~ on ~e 4 map now7 5 M~ SP~: Co~ect. 6 M~ ~GE~C~: Okay. 7 M~ SP~: so you would ~ti~ly have, 8 if you wcm ~mg into ~c proj~t from ~c ~u~ you 9 would have ~ cl~ sch~l on ~c fi~t ~d th~ a I0 30 to somc~ng a~ p~k ~at ~uld expand into ~e 11 ~s'~t~Mnalit.'-': "" . ":~j :.:.':...'. '~' '~:. ' .." .~ t0 you about p~ch~g ~at ~d pn~.~d all 14 that sort of thing ead you're aware of all ~at? 15 MR. SPAIN: Y~. 16 MR. Et~OELBi~C_,~: Okay. You did not raentlon 17 in your report anything about work you'll be do'rog or 18 plan to do, ~d I know you're still in negotiations, but 19 that's ray blg conccm~ th~ road. 'W~'v¢ got to get th~ 20 folks across here aud·what are we going to do about Trinity Road ~ad the bri~e? Not the bri~e to the 22 soUth, Imean, th,t'sours. But th~ briclge to the north. I wc~t out there and &ow through it and I know whe~ 24 you'r~ talking abe.ut across the creek there. 25 ~a~. SPA~: 'the only problem wlth tho bridge qua~dollars. Thatlstl~o~yprob1~m Thatbur~t~ ~ do'rog low dcuslty Is'~rezno. cost ~ lot Is ~on ~d a 9~ ~ng for ~t ~at Page'S7 l~ous~o w~ch means that's Iaalr ~e lots bearing all ~ 4 or ~d!~ it ~t ~ mom a~bu~ble'~ ~o g~e~ 6 ~ ~GE~C~: O~y. ~ apes to ~. 8 , ~nyefio p~) ~ho woUld'~'to s~ in faVor or ~ ~tifion? Anyone p~t to ~ in favor o~ ~ bf~ZuCOEt, aP. EcI-n': okay. So, baskaUy, just - ~t's aU ~ng now. Wc don't -you'm u~otlatlng ~ ~ or ~sc~s{ng ~ ~ but ~'c don't ~vo any F~ plan. ~o~y ~s a r~ p~ at ~s polnL ~t a~out T~iF ~ sP~: w~ j~t met ~ ~ a~out a ~ or so ago and ~ ~Id us a~out ~ ~ ~ o~ pmj~t and T~n{~ ~ han~c aU ~ ~[fic ~ ~ ~. ~ ~on ~{u8 ts b~auso if you l~k, ~s {s ~nlus~ do~ ~. I~ d~n'i go au~ and 'il ~ ~nc~bgds~ is ~;. Hobby c0m~ ~ ~l~s. " Page 38 they're going to thls ~:a. People going out go w~st and they go north. Anybody in our project will take our spine street and go north or they will take McI<i-,~oy or Mills .and go xvcst. Our people won't bc uslng Trinlty because it's parallel and it doesn't get them anywhere. We can toll you tho qulok~t ways in and out is west and north. So w..o hear that rezlucst and we arc analyzing now whether we're bottcr offputting t~¢ road back onto our project, which we don't want to do. ]But to put in two lacs down Trinity means we complotcly rcmovo all of Trinity in its . ct{rrcut locatloU~'iWo'd hay0 [b ~ctlUL,~ tho Hght-or-way.: :. malting ~ tho neighbors angry at'us'bexau~ it'ccdalniy' would. And that's a big cost for a road that our residents will not uso. Our traffic shows that our road, which we will 10c improving on our property, and have even offercd to do so. in a largcr state than needed, plus Trinity will bo adecluato to carry .tho traffic. ·. But, agaiu, that's, you know, that's our cl~soUSSlans ougo'mg with traffic. But those are our .tghts on it. That it's an awful expcuslvo th~,S to put ou lis to do. And, ~galu, all thc,sc costs make d¢v¢lop'mg low deaslty extremely hard {uccauso there's just not a lot or lots to average-it over. We are at half tho traltio projected for low dcuslty dovelopmcut and that's half tho 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11' 13 14 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 · 25 t~tition? In that ca.sc, is there anyone pre. sent -- oh. Come on down. If you would give us your t/amc and address for the rccord. MS. MCNA'IT: I'm Ms. Mol'fart and my property is adjoining tho development. And I would like -- what I would llkc since we're talldng about Trinity Road, s¢¢, they have abandonexl thc road south of our property, Trinity. And then they're tt~ng to abandon Blagg Road that goes right in front of our house. We would llkc for Blagg Road to stay open because ortho traffio from 380 eomcs down' on BI oagg Road and goes onto Lakcvicw. And that's what wc would like to do is have B1 oagg Road stay open, not abandonS, because wo either have to go up to Unlvcrsity to get out, or go down to Trinity, cast of our house togo north; And that's'tho way we'd. have to do jr. · Tlicy'i,o opeficd it up right now So'we can get through. 'But Pa~o.~O constmctlon is going on at Un~verslty in ~'nton. }.iR. ENG~.LBRECHT: ~0 you ~an go W~St on BI oagg Road? MS. MC~^Tr: YeS. Take BI ~agg and g?t on Lakoview. And that is tho only thing, onl~ obj~tion · at I haw is to k~p BI~ ~d op~. I m~, ~at's what wo would 1~¢. But all ~ o~¢r~ wo ~o in favor Mm ~OELB~C~: ~l fi~t. Have you ~ to ~c dcvclo~r about BI~ R~d? ... · . have you ~ to ~ · MS. M~A~: Y~, and ~¢y'vc ~o{ it o~ now for m. But it's -- I don't ~ow how long it's going to ~ o~. 'Wc w~t itj wc'd ~c for it to ~ ~ but jmt whaMvcr, it world ~ ~ much ~t for ~e ~fic ~at ~ g~ ~o~ ~erc. about how ~cy have that pl~-~ ~u~ h¢'H ~ l~g over ~at. lc~, do you want to ~mc do~ talk about ~at for ~s g~ lady? taro ~ pla~ ~o~ BI~ R~d ~d 42. 4 5 7 10 ~2 ~4 :6 ~7 ~8 :0 :I ~2 ~3 :4 1 2 3 4 7 8 ' .......... now I t~{nk theru's ~ ~u~ plat. ~ ~t ~t? 1 ~ ~A~SO~: Sho's ~t p~l d~t ' ~ you gong ~ do ~at ~m~ug plat? ' 2 ~em... "' ~ s~: v~. ~ '~'~s~u ~h~ yo~. ~ ~y'mgoing ~ do~o ~g 4 .M~BUC~ ~momf~YO~o~on · plat ~a~ ~lv~ ~o~ fo~ lo~ ~ ~at BI~ R~d 5 how ~s wor~. ~y publi~ r~d ~ o~y go away ~o% ~ s~y ~ ~a~ for awMlo. But ff ~cy put ~ fo~ 6 ~ ob~do~t pr~ ~d -- ~ ~g pla~-B~i~ly, it ~ a~y ~ ~mo 9 . ~at r~d. So ~m is ~ t~ for pubH~ ~ut at ~at lo~. ~t ~at ~lows Bl~ ~o do is s~y o~ ~lo 10 po~nL .. ~ ~Ut do~ or wh~ you mvlcw ~o~ ~d ~you don'~ 1~ ~ ~ucsK: ~nt it shut do~, ~ you m~ yo~ ~dation a~ 14 about? ~t~o. Butyou~llgct~omoml~a~it. No, you 15 M~NA~SON: lnordcrtoplatit~l. won*tg~t~ngplat. Would~cygct~con~a~ 16 Wc'w~n~abou~doin~~ngphtandput ~m~ back ~r ~at? Wo~d ~a~j~t ~ ~ ~n~ 17 an ~t on ~crcj~ to ~ow relatively info,al plat ~n~ 18 ~ acro~ ~o~ lo~. So~n~ ~ ~ativo road is M~ ~NA~SON: It wo~d ~ ~ ~g p~a~ ~9 in pla~, ~ ~cro ~ll ~ ~o~cr ~ng plat to ~n.. 20 x~uovo ~t. M~ C~ Well, I tu~ if you w~t BI~ 21 M~ BUC~K: so d~t now it isj~t a R~d to stay o~, you ~r ~ about it now. But w~ 22 pfiva~ d~t ~at MoNaR h~. ~e public d~t to u~ don't ~-- 23 Bl~ h~ ~dy ~ ~ away. · ... .MR.~OE~C~:Wo~dyouput~tmap: -. 24... :.. MK~O~CHT: Ms. McNa~,doY0u . .... back. up ~er6 ~o you ~uld-- . ".'. ". / '- '.'7 '.' ~' 2~ .' Unde~s~nd what ~ey'vejUit "' f Page.42 · · . Pa~e ~ ms.su ~h~ m~bUi~ map. 1 ~ ~iuuso~: ~s. McNaa's ~r d~ M~ ~O~: show ~s where ~e McNa~'s 2 ~ ~OE~CHT: Okay. ~eatonBl~R~d. Obvlo~ly,~eyhavo tohavoa 3 ~SP~: Wh~wehad~epubHch~ng ~y to Eot in ~d out so someOnE ~ll ~ done, but 4 for ~e ab~do~t of BI~ R~d, Ms. McNa~ ~d some what's ~ pl~? 5 of ~e o~cr home,ers ~e in ~d ~ I n~ a way to ~ C~ Th~ ~e ~o lo~, ~e fo~ lo~ 6 get out. It w~ my unders~n~ng from ~at m~ting ~at · at go acro~ ~s road: Two? Okay. ~cr~olo~ 7 I~&'tabandonBl~untillbuiltmyothcrr~d ~atgoa~o~roa~b~i~ly,~o~haveto ' 8 go~EtoTdui~wMchgave~a~yout. ~donea~y~tok~pBl~Roado~. ~youl~kat 9 ~m~nfmion~o~pl~s~dwhatwehavetodo · -.' . ~ · · , ~. , - . -: . · .'. .~ . - . · ... : ~-'. . . · . .:. .~. I~sd~t~. ~yo~*?~g0~:o~ · !1 ~n~mofu0~andw~.mpla~er~d, ~..: D~t it ~uu~t ~ in do~ hem? .. 13 have Bl~ R~d go to~ew ~tH ~ UO~ACUSON: Trinity ges north to 380 but it's ~ ab~dou~. ~ ~ I ~ w~t ~oy'ro ~ug about, ~ wo l~k at ~m map, is ~at ~ fo~ ~e Mud ofj~t IM~ to ~s r~ hem. ~'t icy go -- ~{s ~ ~ o~ hca, won't i~ ~ ~cy ~d ~mc in ~d ~o ~o~ ~e ~b~dslon to g~t out to h~? Wo~d ~ ~N~SON: wh~ P~I A is dcvcl~ ~ ~ ~ a ~nn~ r~d from ~e~cw ~ T~. ~ ~t ~ ~_pl~ ~ BI~ ~d ~ ~b~don~ 14 oontlmlcd into Trinity, which would then givo thc ' 15 rcddents in this ama dlrcct access to Trlnity west aud 16 south. So I l~lieve it's been addressed. 17 Mi~ I~VO£L~RECHT: So when you'r~ finlshexl, 18. they will still como onto what useA to be lB1 oagg Road? ii) ~ sl'au~: when it's finished there will I~ 20 road, Appaloosa'Way wMch will cut throush hem and tie 21 outoTrlnlty. It will b~ mom of a sc~-i-collcctor, I ii gucs~ {x~au,~ anybody in this area could us~ it to go to 23 Trinity toLakevlowBoulovard directly. 24 ~ UON~a,uso~: without So'rog on 380. 25 }~- ~o~.~P~: Yeah. My po'mt being' gght ,,ow they ev/ientl~ have a'klrlveway 6fi B!a~ mean, their driveway is light dow gnto'Bla~g Road. So vhen you'r~ finished, there vail still be'a piece of Bla~ Road, their pawment th~r~, and they'll come out on '-.Cond~ns~ItTM ! bydeed~?~boushtth¢~r~.~orltyoftheprol~-iy. They 2 alsol~ave.~'~asement up to the 537 contour line which is 3 g~erally k~c~d on all of our pla~ and crc · they've gonc out m thc ficld and located it. Wc cannot ' go down to Trinlty, and then up to Appaloosa and out. Okay. .... ~.sPAn!.::¥cah,. I ~nk ~c'ro very Much.... MR. l~,ro~.t~P, scn'r: so right now they're just coming in from thc we,st. There's an casement you're doing over on tho west side so they ~n get in somehow. MR. SPAIn: Thc easement is on these two lots. We are currently platting to try to gall those lots. Those lots ~ h~ugc. MR. E'?tO£LBRECHT: Mr. Williams, did you have any-- MR. WILl. lAMS: 1'~0, hO answered ma' question. MR. ENOEI..BP,~cl-rr: All right. Is there anyone else present to slxak in favor of tho petition? In that case, is there aaa'one pre,~nt to speak in opposition to the petition? Ye,% ma'am. Would you give us your name and address for thc re, cord, please. . MS. OIBBS: I'm Ce~ily Oibbs..aod ! live Vesentla' 0n South Fort Worth.D:ive. I work for.the. Page 46 Univexsity of North Texas in thc School of Communications on Environmental Fxlucatlon and Projects. Ma' concern is if this is going to backup to the Trinity River and thc floodplain, what is going to bo done to keep from those properties flooding in thc future? Wc already have a situation that thc City is involved wlth thc dcvcloper, and the Mayor of thc City of Denton involved wlth thc dcvcigpcr that bulk in ' ' ' ' tlao floodplain on thc othcr stde, the we, st sldc of Loop 288. And the peoplc are not happy with the apartment complex that is built thcrc bocaus~ :~lly'havlng a problem with this every tkni t't rains ' because thc dcvclopcr did not build thc property up high enough and the City $11owed him to build in thc floodplain. And that is my concern for that. How is that lacing addressed with thc dcvclopcr? MR. ENGELBRECHT: we'll ask -- wc will address that in a few moments. Thank you. Is thcr~ anyone else present who would likc to speak in pposltion to this petition? Auyonc dso present to speak in opposition? L3. that case since there vats opposition, tho petitioner has ~n opportunlty for ~cbuttal. ~ 87AI~: Wc note that as a concern and ~ot. opposltien. BoraUso wo'ro ~jo'mI~g the Corps, the Corps, do very much in that elevation linc'which is basically thc 100-year floodpla, in or hlghcr for tho lake. So wc arc 'restrlo.ted by that from th~ and .a.!l the.way u} C~lxr · me. as. So our engineers will haiadle ~ill of our on-s~t~ 10 drainage qult~ adequately. And, ~galn, that was one oF 11 thc reasons wc liked thc center part with the low 12 densities because we plan'to keep all thc creeks open. 13 thlnk we have to come before y'all for approval or that 14 but our plan is to keep -- there's three or four drainage 15 v.,ays through there that we plan to back lots onto, have parks onto, maintaln them. But we're not planning any 17 major reclamation in the project. 18 MR. h'NOELBP, ECHT: Mr. Rishcl. 19 MR. P, ISHEL~ In other words, you're not f'dling into llnything that was currently tho 100-year 21 floodplain? 22 MR. SPAIN: correct. 23 MR. mSHEL: 'rhank you. 24 . .. MR. ENOELBRECHT:. That boi!lg ~.~ural,;tho puhllc hc~ing is.c. losed. Mr. R~I, do y~n · · ' '. Page.4 I have any final staff remarks? 2 MR. REED: DO~ anyone clso have any 3 concerns about the comment or thc concera addres~zl by 4 thc lady and how, what -- her concern is abou. t existing 5 development on the west sid~ oF the Loop or what I'd say 6 is on the inside of the Loop and how this &vdopment 7 would actually occur? There's a big difference between 8 thom two. We today have regulations that olcarly 9 handle that type of'development dom to the floodplain. I0 '. The dev:elopment that she's talking about coourred back .. 13 Pd just like t6 polar out.that the zoning 14 ~ Z-99-046~ the 4?.3 aoro propcrt~ on tho south sldc 15 ofMcYdnnca'isa?D. Youwillsceadctailedplancomc 16 back for that so ifs at that time that youql approve 17 the exact slto design of the property. Aud as I 18 indicated in the staff rcpo~ recent cases for smaller 19 lots with PD zoning designation havo had s0mo conditions 20 but wo've done that at thc detailed plan stage because 21 it znakes sense to attach conditions sp¢cLfio to a sim 22 deslgn as opposed to a gen'eral c0nccpL So ! just 2~ w~nted to point out that you will so: a detailed plan 24 come forward for that plcco ofprol~rb,. · ~2~ ~ontrar~ to that on the remalning 410 acres, 44. 1~Aw~cu~s0and426,~f~or .b~U.m.'v.crsi~yan. d " '1 trau~po.~a.t}.onissues, tbeycau tpouranycoucr~te that Is for strail~at ~onl~g. ~ conditions 2 ~ ~d start building, out tlmt stat'Elms attacl~l a.d&csscs t~ ~a~ o~S~o~. Wof~l~t~u~tb. cqns~t . / ~ ~ con,dons ~c~. ~M~L~ I~d a qu~on on ~o~da~ons ~ ~at's tn o~ bac~p ma~al. I'm co~ ~at wc'vo~ot so ~ny ~P's and plans. ~t ~ ~ 1998 ~a~n Plan Po~ci~? ~ ~ ~n~n Plan Po~cl~ ~ a~c~ ~ ~ s~ff~o~ and ~'~ ~nclos~ & Enclos~ 6 ~s~ ~ po~cl~ w~cb ~ adop~ back ~M~LU O~y. ~n my s~ond qu~flon on yo~ cen,ken% n~ o~ and ~o, I'm ~n~ shout ~ 46 now, ff~s ts ~ohs ~ como back a~aln, ~a why about ~ buH~n~ ~m~ and ~ ~d~y componcn~ and 3 . Ma.'g~n: Actually, it says thdt tho 4 building I~,,,its cannot be issued. " ~ ~ ~icwam ~i~t, c~?ot bo isst~l. 6.. ]~R. p,~! Apl.at can be approved and roads '7 andotherpublicfaclH'ti~cagbeputin:i ..... 8 ~" l~uNlctqsmu'OkAy. Allrlght.'Idon, i 9 . h.avd ~ problem with that th. Jn.' Th .ar3k you.' _.. 10 lvfR. ENG£t3RECHT: YeS, Mr. Bueek 11 MR. BUCEX: I don't want you to los~ sight 12 of the fact that the Smlthtraot that you had here the 13 other day, they don't agree with what our opinion is. 14 Wo believe that on tho detailed plan we can make these 15 kind of changes. Their argument to you was that if you 16 didn't have it in the concept plan, you weren't going to 17 be able to changc it later. Rememberthelrattomcywas 18 here. So just to let you know, it's not an open aad 19 shut issue wlth us. And so certainly tho issues that 20 Mr. Spain.had mentioned about all the open spac~ that's going to be in the 5,500 square foot lots, that's an issue that you wait to the detailed plan and there's always some con~m co the legal staff if Mr. Spain sells .4 . so forth? What's tho logistics ofputting that on at this '. Po "tin, or%iti.g, ti, d na 'an c0 "'. back? ~ m~ED: Thls tight hero does not tlc the developer down to a condition which resLdcts bls exact 3 site design. These conditions address the overall 4 prolgrty sum. As he mentioned, this is part of a property which has -- excus~ me for hesltating -- some 6 ?00-plus acres. 'When we have a large development like ? th{s, the City has the ppportunity to look at it 8 comprehensively and address the conee .ms of adequate transportation facilities. Il0 'M. eNetU, Which Wi, S prlor to term li re '.the I, aZ .' Co~mlsslon. 'With '~e Preserve, which Was a PD, We 13. ~ch~lly aRachexl to the ~onlag an hnprovcd TIA whlch sald 14 that as each tract developed, certain transportation improwments would bo ma&. And, again, for large developments w~'re able to look at tho overall impact it has on our transportation facilities. Whereas, when we ~av¢ a small tract~ say, lO0.aor~ which has a front~e on oac road or maybe two roads for short distance, wc typicatly dou't got into that beeaus~ it's a straight-forward issu~ wMch is handiexl dudn~ · ~ MC~'Fa'LU What tho,~ two conditions are basically saying is uatil we r~olve the~ 24 out and the next &veloper,:will he take the Att Andersofi 25.'~. appr. okch onthe smith tract tha.t you doh't have a. ny ~a3;.' Page So you've got to be coraf'ortablo'wltk what you do on .t'h~ issue. MR, ENOELBRECHT: Thank you. Mr. Moren6. ' ' MR. l~fOlm'$o: Y~S. Mr. Reed, I didn't fully understand which development Ms. Gibbs'was spesking to that was having the flooding problems. MR. REED: I bdievo sho was referring to a property that's not oven adjacent to this property but is co the inside of Loop 288. I believ¢,lerry Clark kno~s the.apartment complex that she is referring--the . singing oaks :--. Spen ,c~,: 0aks:' Au~tkeY,~'immediatelY:. adj.aceut to the LgO.' p, arvn. 't.ihey, north orMcTdnn~y? · l~m. ~oEt~ .Ct-IT: .It's ac. ross from the pow6r vlant. LA'NNIN'~ A'kTr~ ~.(YhlTI~O 15 Ma. MOIU~O: That's a fairly new 16 development. 17 MR. REED: Okay. ! Was referring to -- 18 },iR. l~fORl~O: Aud I thought that's what she 19 was talldug about so I didn't tmdcrstau6 why tho ~0 standards wer~ dlfferentjust a year or two ago than ~1 what they are today. 22 MIL REED: l'm sorry. ! WaS referring to a 23 different apartment complex. ~4 ~ O. AP& wall, obviously we need Mr. .thg here because he's running the drahage but · . . . Page 53 .7 '.'.. · '~othwareoIhaven'trc~iv~l'ehy~llsoFw~a't'wo'm I tot cltycot cli. -nudthenforw atev rea ont tal~Inga~outo~thcdralnageonthls. Soifthe~'isa 2 deal falls ~.zovg~ and it novcr goea to City Council. The ~robl~-n, I'm not awa~ oFit.' But, ob~f~u~ly, Mr. 3 zan~ thin~ a//6vcloper can corec in and ask that the ~celfing and thc utilitles runs drainage now. 4 MobilltY Phn bo amended based on, !i~g in tMs caseo thc MR.l~n~n: ~hankyou. 5 zoMng case is going to come forth. Forwhatevcrrcason MR. ENGELBP, ECHT: ' Let rae inte~ect one item 6 if t~ developer dcesn,t want that to go tq Council at her~ I think right, n6w bec4. uso we don't get as much of. 7 that time, lwo never know if tho deyelOPment h~ died, M · tha~drainagomFormationeswousedtosmco:.. '.- -. .8 !t/'.ffil.'ams, o. rwhathashappenexl. But Wa tho cali orthe engmeenng ~s not directly dome that the way they us&l 9' developer if he wants to take forth bls sugg~ted to. ! would llke for you to go ahead and check on that, 10 amendment. Jerry, since Ma'. Hceltlng isn't her~. Find out if we do 11 ! think, and we can have if you want the have a problem out thero at $pencer Oaks because that is 12 dev¢loper to respond. Ithlnkthcdev¢loperwantsto. ancwdev¢lopment. That'$ not even two yeara old. 13 takcthcmuptogcther, I'm assuming, orliasanothcr ldP.. CLAI~: Okay. I'll brine you a report 14 plan. But we can't require tho devdoper to take that back. 15 amendment to the Mobility Plan up to Council if he MP..E'NOntaPmCHT: okay. Thankyou. 16 doesa'twantto. The only i$$ue botore us today is thc MIL MgNEILL~ 'that doesn't affect this 17 zoning and the Mobility Plan issue cOm~ up at the issue? 18 plaRing stage ultimately. Ultimately, when it's MR. ENO£L~RECHY: ~o, nO. But there 19 platted-- shouldn't bo a problem out thew. Okay. Ms. Oourdle. 20 MR- V~TLLIAMS: I'm reading what ! have here. Ma. COUP, DIE: Thank you. ! would like to 21 It says conditions and so I'm trying to get some know if thls is tho appropriate time or not and maybe 22 clarification on thls because, like ! said, ! like things you can help me, Wayne. In straight zoning is strictly 23 cut and dried, either aye or nay because all these -- tho ~r--?, blah, blah, blah, and concern wlth Mr. Bullard's 24 MR- ENOEt. BRECHT: C, ood luck hero. "oncemabout~epropertYb~ingupagalnstthg'i'v.Witha'. 25'' .MR-W~LL1AMa:-co~{ditions,~iidthi; ..... "' Peg6' 54 Page Light Industrial. ! know that in tho Unicom Lake 1 condition to me is ra~her weird ~ecause ! read tho property we had a buffer of, ! gu~$ it was 50 feet up to 2 }debility Plan and I understand what you're saying that 100 fe~t placed ~ a condition on tho proge~. Would this bo the appropriate time to bring something up like that to help divide tho Light Industrial from tho homes? MS. COURniE: Okay. Thank you. MR. ENO£LBP,~CHTr Mr, Willi~ans. M~ ~LUAMS: Yes. I like things clear-cut 3 the developer needs to take it up. But it says -? but 4 I'm still ldnd of confused. Maybe somebody can explain to '5 me who was h~ro and voted on this where it wduld be clear as mud. 7 MR. BUCEK: Let me take a shot at this 8 is.sue. I.thlnk what staff is trying to do bY those 9 conditions, I thlnk they're trying'to put the developer and I'm having some serious conCerns about the amendment to tho Mobility Plan because I don't !iko to bo ~v01ved :.. in en~.hln~ that Yin'n6t id control Of and the developer ' '' has no cent{el over'the i3enton'l~obqit~/Pl~n.: And I,m very concerned that it hasn't been sent to Coundl since them was a recommendation or it hasu't been mentioned it's gdug to Couucil. It's sitting someplace. And can somebody explain to me, am I somewhere out in Idt field of what's going on hero because it's been passed by this Commlsdon; howovcr, it's sitting somewhere'-: it's sitting somowhero. MR- ENG~t.BKECHT: W0 jUSt asked staff to · .,,dress that and .... ~ BUCSm Let mo bo sum you understand tho process. There are a lot of cases where someone,Mil come : in hero wlth Ag zo.t-$ and will ask you to mco-,~.ond sr. 10 ca notice that when you come in for your plat, you're 11.. not going to have a plat recommended for approval ff. 12 ,'.. tt iss ies ,;t'm0ivO&' Aa'd so thai's whg'mat's' ' 13 · in th~'o. Bdt what I'm raying to you is at any point 14 that the developer has tho zoning he d'~ires, and in 15 fids case the~ arc straight zonlng categories except 16 for the PD; once he has that zoning in place, bo h~ the 17 gght to come in with the plat. V/hen be comes in with 18 t~ plat, right now he's moving with the Mobility Plan 19 t~ way it looks today bexau.so thoro has ~ no 20 recommendation taken to Council. And so tho question is 21 v~aeco that read falls in his SF-7 or MS 8F-10 or 8F-la,. 22 ~'S taking a risk. And that's what those conditions arointending to do. But, Wayne, you :nay want to say 24 r, nm ~o that. I don't know. Is that correct? 2 MiL P, EED: y~. 46. - CondenseltTM ..... l~i~s: Okay..Bc~. usc probl~ ~ ~ I don't t~.~n's ~c~ ' is ~y for ~s devclopm~t ~d'I ~g a bl~ probl~. ~ ~I ~d cxpl~ ~t ~ ~n~tlons ·. yo~ ~n~m. I'~ m~c my cx~plc what ! I~ from ~c ve~ ~u~em ~d ofo~ ~unlW ~d ~ ~at it 10 ~ in ~o ~ d~i~a~ for ~cvicw Boul~v~d to 11 to,ch 1-35. And ~ wc held ~o~ f~t to ~o ~o~ ~ 12 ~d wc work~ clo~ly ~ ~at dcvclo~r to h~ ~at 13 h~ME ~ps ~em% pu~lng mo~ vcMcl~ on r~, ~at ~d~ua~ ~o~tlon fac~tl~ pla~ prior to ~o~ hom~ ~ing put in. ~at we% doM~ ~ ~s ~n~tion is ex~tly ~c ~o. Wc'~ ~ approv~ and a ~, or ~[fic ~pact an~ysls, o~tHn~ what ~o dcvelo~ ~1 ins~H prior to ~ ~ini i~[ ~at d~ ~at glve ~i~? It gv~ ~ ~me pi~ or,nd ~at wc'~ going W have ad~u~to facili~ · at ~cy ~em~. ' ' ' ' So wc'm ~n~ ~at ~erc's rclation~p ~ ~s l~d ~ end ~e pubic in~r~t of 8d~te ~o~on faciliti~. But ~n~y, ~c'rc ~n~ we're only ~oln~'to r~c of you a f8~ ~ of ~e dcvelopm~t or of ~e ~n~o~tion. ~e f~ ~e ~ what ~ey ~c ~n~tlon 3 OD 0~ ~ tO do ~n~on 2. Y~. ~at's ~c bi~c oycr ~d ~t's ~c ~k ~o ~c no~ Ok~. ~at im't p~t on ~, ~ ~c~? 'I m~put on tc o~r ~ ~: Thc ~on ~hy is ~s, it's ~ot ~n~o~ ~ ~t c~k cmssin2. And s~f would ~e to poMt out ~at e~ally ~at is ~ out for ~e ~ Ho. 72 s~ply to, ~n, put ~c ~yclo~r noti~ ~at ~at ~ p~ of ~s ~nsldemtlon ~o~tion ~pmv~. It ac~y ad~ ~o~p~of~o~ But I thln~ ~'~ cl~ it ~ a v~ ~po~t ~mp0n~t ~ ~ ~ ~lv~. ~ ~~: ~C~, ~ B CV~ a mom ~pi~ ~ ~you'm ~o~ to Sa no~t° ~S0 md zo o ~ that there's some in th~. OCTOBI R 20.47. ~h~ ~.d how ar~ the,~ folks gomf~ to ge~ out 2 '~oy'~ Ct~ gOMg ~ have ~ go 380 or ~ey% going 3 ~v~'~:Mc~inncy. And~'dpm~eygo~80~ [ 4 ~ ~ ~at's goMg ~ k~ ~'out ~ ~d 6 j~t ~ ~po~t for ~s pi~ ~ ~cy,m not work on ~at IfPs Is going to ~ ~ ~po~t dcvclopm~{ over hca. ~ Ci~ n~& to do'it's but wc n~ to m~c ~ wc'w g~t ~o~ o~cr pi~ and I don't ~dcrs~d why ~at ~mpon~t w~'t in ~s M~ ~BD: It would ~ fa~ to put it in ~at on~. 16 M~ ~OE~C~ Thc o~cr qu~tion I had 17 h~ to do ~ ~cro*s no m~tlon, m ~. Bu~k poln~d 18 out, ~crc's ~s l~ ofifyou spprovc a ~n~pt 19 plan, what r~m do w~ hav~ to maneuver at ~ 20 plan sch~ul~ ~cm is no m~tion I ~llew of o~ 21 8pa~ in ~ pD. I r~i~ ~at w~ haw a p~k ~cross 22 th~ s~t but ~at is ~t~a~ly ~cross a fo~-l~c 23 strut, road, M~way. And ~ ~cro consldcmtlon . ~!..~wn by s~ff t0. r~ukc ~at ~cre ~ some r~u~t 25. for Som~.o~ ~a~ ~ ~r% at l~t in n sabot'of · ' · Page 1 th~ pcr~e? And ~cy ~n ~r~d it Out however or ' 2 in som~ ~nncr. 3 M~ ~NA~SON: Wc would ~e to do ~at but 4 'w~ don't haw ~c t~ls ~t now in o~ cM~ to 5 r~uk~ it. 6 M~ ENGE~CHT: T~S iS a PD. 7 M~ ~NA~SON: It'S not a r~uk~ pi~ 8 infOmati0q in o~ ~c. 9 ~ ~O~C~: Okay, for ~at r~n it's 10 not. Il : . ".. M~NA~SO~: It's~oma~slahve ' . i2 .'f~cfio~an ~ a~s~t[v~ fH~cHonJ~ ."'.."' "'. 13 . ~2~c~: $~ay. I~at~,I · 14 ~ll ~ply ~ oF s~ from yo~ pro~i~nal 1~ ~r~tive, what would ~ ~ appropda~ podlon 17-f~t 1o~? 18 Mm ~D: Co~d I ~k ~mst for a IV cl~tlon? ~ you ~ for public ~ ~ or 20 pdva~ o~ ~a~? ~va~ ~lng, one, ~ ~ wMch 21 is m~ined by ~c Hom~er's A~lafion. 22 ~ ~0~: e~ I'm ~ng a~ut 23 Homewards A~a~on. I ~'t th~n~ing ot it ~ing 2~ fl~ ~ ~ ~ or ~g el~, but o~ don't havc the concept plan on thc I~D. Do 2ommTs~oncrs have that? MR. REED: ~berc's actually thc concept plan is Enclosure 1. i~R.'REED: And it ~1o~ show thc ~ntiro' propexty but tt calls out that parcel. And I did, because this is such a small print, include a see, cad pagc which blew up thc land uso table. Thls table fight here shows cvcrything that's rextuired for a concept plan as far as mlnLmttm are~ setbacks, and such. MR. BUCm;.. 'cbc only part of Bnclosurc 1 that really relates to this zoning ca.so is that part that's south of McKinney? MR. REED: Correct. And if you look on thc pagc 9, it's referred to as Parcel B. MR. BUCF. K: Okay. MR. MCN£1LL: Parcel P or l'Ht? MR. REEl): 'Ihcro is a formula in our park land dedication which calls out that, I believe -- MR. DONALDSON: It's roughly onc acm for .. each .140 hens:lng unlts to.meet our n¢ighbor~lo0d park ' 3 M1L'Ia~OEL~: And elght percent in this 4 case would bo? · 5 ),tR. DO~AL~SON: ~hree an'd a half acres, 6 sumct~In.g llkc that, . ? .... " ),fR..ENOELB .P~' '.CRT: So We c°uld§o somewhere,:. 'S ,-: for c. xamplc; ~y a rm~untun of thrcc.acres b¢ set aside for 9' olma ~ace? .. 10 ),is. oOUEDIm To accommodate for thc higher 11 density. 12 ),iR. ENO£t.BRECHT: Right. Another question, 13 lvIr. Reed, I notice in these wo always get this business 14 of you tmvc a recommended motion and it always has this 15 part about that it's consistent with thc Denton 16 ]~vclopmcnt Plan, it's consistent with thc Denton Plan 17 Policies. And, in fact, almost always you have at {scat 18 -- there's always one ch~ck mark that's marginally 19 consistent or cvcn once In a wMlc, an incousistcut. And 20 so ff thc mi}fica is made in that mauner and wc don,t a,~.cc 21 with all of these, we'd havc to vote against thc'motion, 22 wouldn't 23 MR. REED: YOU would change the motion. 24 ]vIR. ENOELBRECHT: Or WO could ask fei a .... Page 6,4 1 y~u do that? l%rsonally, I'd just as soon see thos~ out 2 of thcr~. It would rnakc the motion a lot shorter. 3 Mm REED: I'd bo happy to do that. 4 MR. ENOELBKECHT: And wo%e not always sure 5 . whether wo a,Wce with that fact that it's consi~tant or 6 not. Maybe other Cornrnlssloncrs disagree with mc. 7 MS. OOUEDm: We ~co. I-Icreo bero. l~ MR. E'N~ELBRECHT: And 9 them I don't- it just di~'t seem to bo necessary. ~0 you bellevo that th.crc,s not aproblcrn vgth pu.tting n .: "· :: )XR. REst): %%! gu~ th~·rason w¥I PUt~' ' necessaffiY hgr~ with any or all (ff it, is y0u have to 14 plan or zone consistent with the Comprchendve Plan 15 thero has to be a basls for your motion. That'sthc oalyrcasonIputitinthcro. 8o I'll be happy to takc 17 itout. 8o you take it out, you kind ofmake your own finding. · 19 ~a. Z~NOp. t~imcnT: ~o wc can -- staff believes 20 that wc could put three conditions on thc 21 on the other one and that we could request open spac~ without aproblem? 23 MR. BUCEK: Correct. 24 ~ ENOEU~I~Ch'T: ~'~ pro%aMy should it' 25 ' to so0 ol~n ~ace mad want to cosuro we have cfm 'Page 62 cdtcda. MR. E~OELBRECIrr: 80 basically that would be two acres in this particular case. MR. DONALDSON: A two-acre minimum. MR. ENGELBRECHT: My concern hero is, as Mr. Bucek pein.ted out, if we haw not asked for the spa~ up. front thea we could haw some difficulty in requiring it on the detailed plan if it was not stated on the land uso summary. MR. BUCEK: Right. Now, some of thc concept . plans you g¢: don't show Opm spar~ arid thoy'lljUS, t - - . · .:have ~n nStcnkk and thoY'll say a'certaln P~rc~.t~gc ,'~:. :' .: will bo' that. 'But you fiave gott& ~eme, and th~ prsblcm happened on thc Smlth tract, I think that they showed thc opcu ~acc. I'm not surc but I believe they did. So there's no question ouc~ you show it, it definitely becomes a question about can you do it on thc detailed plan change thc boundaries of that. So it maybe a plus to you that ifa not r~owu but'I ~h{,,k thc issue that% hetu ia that without any statcmCUt of concept in thc ~ccpt plan about any otma space requiredo the -,,attumuts that Mr. 8palu will do us no good wben ~on MR. nO _l~a.r)soN: Another criteria that you could uso is that for a raanufactured home park wc LA Tm O Am).zom o ,.. CondonsoltTM. Pag~ 65 lvlR. biC~va~.L: Iguess I have a que~ion now · ~at you've ~ ~z~ qu~ion. ~t is o~ au~od~ 3' to avc 4 Mm M~LD But ~at~s -- is ~at h~d ~d f~t or what's ~ ~le for ~at? 12 you~ on *~t ~ng, we have what we ~I 14 ~n~ons you ~ add to a ~i~t ~n~g ~. ~ero's ~o 15 ~d one of ~o~ is l~ing. Well, 16 on n PD you ~ow ~ of ~at out nnd you m como up ~ 17 . ~Y ~n~tions you mt. But, g~emHy, it nlways 18 of ~o Im~ping ~o is'~e way you woffid h~o 20 M~ ~GE~C~: BUt ~m Wbem ~d you get 22 · c n~r-- you're going to rc~d ~ ac~; is 23 spac~ at thi &tailed plan stage.- Ye.% ~V~.. Molqclti. ! or tho &tailed pBn -'- I mean part of tho.concept l~laP: 2 s° I doa't have to do anything but just stiok $,500 gluaro foot lots in thoro. And th;s just assures that -' '" 4 no matter who has tho land whine thcr~ has to be some 6 MR. REEl): ffyou,ro intcrcstc~ I do know 7 tho formula for tho park land &.dlcation. Ifyouwant 8 to oompar¢ why tho manufactured homo &vdopmcnt would 9 havo to supply -- or aa option for th,m in another part of their tract to sutist'y. Any numb/r of ways to satisfy.Pork land ZOmN eno acre per 140 homes. That's in tho Park Land Dedication Ordinance. ~ MCHEIL~ Arid that's really thc --. that's thc qu~tion I had. Does that park land dedication q~ply to thls prolgrty7 M~ DONA~ vsO,',r: ~t will tmless they address it othervAse. They have thc opportunity to make donations ofland and that maY, tn fact, be appropriate OCTOBER20. 1999 3 ~ , -- - 16 that would be two acres because there's 280 proposed 17 units hero. And then tho park land -- thc manufactured 18 housing condition puts us up to 3.8 so I don't know. I 19 threw out throe acr~, that'~ a wmprow, i~o in l~tween. 20 M~ MC~tLU ~ can live wlth tha. t. 21 · MR.RISHEL~ It may be amendcd to four. ' 22 ~ I~tO~'LI~REChvr: .Right. And I'm not ~aking 'th · 23 c motion anyway. Are there other questions? Mr. .MR. RI$I~L: Ijust wanted to make sure that Park Regulations. 10 MR. ~NOELBRECHT: Mark Indicated it was eno · .i Ma-m.cm~mu'~,utthisisngtmanufagtUi~t 'i:.'.':.'"lli ' -' ;mO pet l4016t~[ '. ,'.'..':.... (:' ' i',.).:: homes.~,, ~,~.;2.___.:..:.:~,..; :.:" :.;: ... ';.-" .:. ]12 .... . :,.~m. RErn, RsZSmtlmesi,hC'nur%~ .' · .,. ~,,,~a~.v~ua: ~nc censtg, actuary woma ,13 ofd~vcllin~ uhits t:--~ ~ o .......:. _ _ ~ -' * ' - - - ·.. I o ,,A~ ~.O pc~ons, invicta Dy 1,000, o~ ¥cry compara01c And then on tho other mdc In our 14 ou ct thc r ' · [ Y g ac es. That s tho exact formul~ Park Land Dextication Ordinance, thc formula is roughly 15 ~ l~NO~L~imc~rr: Roughly 140. And then · - rage a recommendation. MS- nO,~AU)SO~: Eight percent ot 48 would actually be ~.~ acres. MR. ~Om-~P. ECh"r: Right. And I was sort of splitting it. MR. MCNEILL: BUt Whore did you got tho eight l~rcent? ~ lr~ nsec: ~ight percent is aa open space requirement that we have in our Manufactured Homo 6 ~ I~tOBLBRECHT: To.expand on xny rcquc~t 7 li~e f~, I ~ a~ut ~s ~'w6'~ ..: ~ .~ ~ly, ~it's pr0}o~ ~ it'~ ~ t6 ~s, it d~n°t~Y°~. ~sis'~dm~m 10 mmufac~ho~ing,&5,5,500~mof~tlots. ~e 11 P~k In ~ of~t ~ is on ~o o~si& of. Mo~nney, ~fo~a~ly. It woffid ~ ~mt if &~o a~ ~ ~ ~s l~d from ~ but ~em M~ M~EIL~ YOU'~ ~ng about for ~e ~Ule pi~ at ~c boRo~ on 46. ~ ~c~: ~t. ~ &at o~cr one, ~t. And so to get to ~c p~k ~ fo~, wMch mc ~ mom d~g &~ ~y of ~ ~w got to cro~ what ~a~ly ~1 ~ a fom-l~c r~ wMch is not t~ g~. In ad~6on, I would ~v~ ~ule doubt ~at ~s &velour ~ ~ ~at ~em's o~ ~ag tn thom. And ~cm ~ probably mom th~n ~ ac~. But 24.. may ~R it tom0~ow. ~d ~ ncxt ~y com~ in, ~ 25: ~ ~e S~ ~cg and ~ys, boy, &at w~:not p~ dedication... '' ']' "?"'~ · ~.m. 1~. cl~rU l~cau~ I d. on't have a problem vnth that, Ijtist don't want us to arbitrarily saylng want a park hem. MR. IX)lqALDsoN: NO. " Mrs. Oibi~s got her qu~stion'~s~ered and ~s - Page 69 ':" 1 Mr:Donaldson. MS. omB$: ! do know this Feda~l government · llng tboy have to have Certain amount of green .space and ~at's why they put the ~nior citizen' 6,000.00 unlt on hold because they w~ted to include thc golf courses as ·. ' MR. mSltSU My question was did:We get your {~ucstion. Do you have another qu~stiSn? MR. ENOEI2REerrr: NO, nO. Let's not take that question up. MR. RlSrI£L: Okay. Thank you. MR. I~eeLBP, ECHT: Okay. Are there any other qucstious? MS. C-OU~IS: '! would like to just know on the straight zonlng, the 72, if anyone else would llke a condition that is what we've done before where Light Industrial PD's and so forth are baokcd up against 81nglo-Family homes. Since we as being an opportunity to put into the concept plan, would like to ~ ua put anayl~ a 20-foot landacapo buffer and than maybe, depanding on what the property is, up to a 100~foot buffer, which I guess includes part of the par.king lot between the homez and the PO itself.. · 2 M~:.'DoI,~N: ~ho question is wlacthcr you 3 want. to atta~h'i'cendit~on to ~ ~l~ . 4 ~clop~t ~t b~ ~ o~ ~ or ~ ~ 5 o~ ~nd ~ ~c]~, put con~dons on ~t ~t 9 : n~dy ~ Up ~ ~, you said ~ Rcall~ YOu I0 $aldLi~t~~dY°usald~fi'F~ly. 8o~ I 1 ~ning h ~dy h ph~. Ie~ nowj~t Co~ng U} 12 ~o~a~nc~tp~;is~tco~O Im~n,~ 13 dc~ll~ phn. ~d ~'~ ~ng a~out issu~ of 14 p~io~ ~nhg ~, wo ~t ~vo a probl~ wMch ~c 15 ~ldcn~ ~t not ~ pro~ ~a~ ~'vo a~dy got 16 ~ ~Mng h ph~. ~d ~y not ~$ily say, ~, it's 17 not pm of ~ coast phn? 18 ~nv~ wc~ I ~yo~ co~cn~ why 19 yo~ co~t ~ ~t is ~t It's ~n~ A~c~l 20 now wMch w$~d m~ you wo~d ~vc on~ac~ 1o~ and on 21 a oneac~ lot ~ wo~d ~ a b~ ~ yen and 23 ac~ and I can't z~ what ~c ac~ is H~t 24-: now,. ~ is $.0mC m~t for ~at. bu~ yo~ ~ow, ~out. 25 ~ay~g ~at'c0n~tp~nin'f/oator~; I dofik ~Ow if '. MR. ENGELBRECHT: YeS, Ms. Apple. MS. APPI~ That other is not in development yet tho~_,~, is it? So would we bo puttlng a condition on something that's not sot in stone yet? You know, i.f we put a buffer condition on them, what if the poaple -- },iR. E~O£LBP~Ch"r: Come back and replat. Well, it can bo -- in that stat~nant it can bo contliagant on the zoning. So if the zoning changed, I'm sure, could it not? Couldn't you put a condition on the SF-? buffering thc -- If tho rCStdcutlal devclo~ first; then w what tho ~&jacant land uso would. ?age,72 we've already put ~ b~ffer in the other cas~, Do you recall? ~ ~A~SON: I don't ~11. ~ BUCEK: ~d you're d~ wh~ ho comes in for Ms dca~ pl~ bo may ~e ~e S~ct ~t ~d ~ ho d~'t have W buffer. you nov~ ~ow w~t ~ hap~ dewing on who ~ dcwlo~ is. ~s. ~ Okay. ~ you. 10 MR. I~OEI.BRECHT: Traditlofially, we have i2 ;: Th~ problc~ ya world nm hero is if!yoU i~ui..that 13 condition on, tl~'~-o sr-7's. Ali these little' MR. l~uc~ %0 Bullard tract is zoneA what? Is it zon~ u? MR. DOI, rALDSOI¢: It's within thc old PD-12$ and it baa C'aneral Rct~l, Multi-Family, and Light Industrlal zeno districts in it. .. l,,m. ~UC,~: Right. And hc will ultimately - he has a concept plan. He'll haw to come back wlth '~tlcd plan whan he docs that part. And you c~. look ~t that on his end and the questlon is do yeti want to do it on -- }eR. I)OlCArBSON: ~ regdentlal slde or do you want to do it on tho industrlal sldo? 14 homeowners m-8 going to have these requirements to lS maLn~n a buffer yard which we've never really done. 16 ~rc'vc ncwr done that. As a matter of fact~ t'vc ~gued 17 against a couplc of thos~ where they tried to do it at 18 Windsor and Bennlc Brae. They wore going to put a fence 19 on tho residential ride as a buffer. 20 MS. OOI.~OIE: l just don't want to hear any 21 complaints out of :no one whan they start smelling 22 re~taur~tsrlghtinth¢'mba~kyard. I don't want to hcarlt. 24 ~ l~ro~.L~REcn-r: I~'. MoN~'tll. ze~.l~Ch-~p.~ Yeah. I guc,~w~at I'dlike · Con~Ic~s~][tm to say is We shouldn't put ~ buffer ~t on Multi-F~y, ~d ~ Li~t Ind~. ~at's ~onslb~i~ of ~ ~ ~vc ~ b~f~, not on ~c ~ms~u wc ~ ~ you.' . . :. :: .: ..'.' :'i .. For ~ ~mm~ioncrs to l~k vc~, v~ clo~ly at ~c ~c ~n~tlons ~d ~c Ci~. I ~ow wc ~ a ~-do ci~ but ~mc~ wc may not ~ ~dy. And I wo~d 1~ for ~ ~ l~k ve~, ve~ clo~ly at ~c inff~c~. ~y dap~ is o~y 17 so it's l~s th~ a y~ sln~ I'vc had to ~vc ~d ~c her R~ cvc~ momMg. And, b~i~ly, I ~ly don't ~ng up bond cl~on, ~ bond pack,c, I may ~ ~dy. But to~t I don'~ th~k - ~d it's not a ro~on on ~. Sp~n at all. Ij~t don't ~ we're ~dy for ~s. ~dy for tMs ~ning, chan~c in ~ning to~t. ~ ~G~: ~ ~t. Any · '. ,..MS.~: rm r~dytomovc.. ' . . · "Pag.c 74 MR. E~IOELSI~Cm': And ~ve would need to tak~ each case individually for tho motion, rccommcndatlons. MS. APPLE: DO you want mc to take it in thc order or thc Ag~da? MR. ENGELBRECHT: Please. MS. APPI~: I movc to rcconuu~nd approval of Z-99-072 subject to the following conditions: that prior to tho issuaues of,any building pcrmlts, ad~luat~ transportation infrastructure shall bo constructed in accordanc~ with ~ traffio impact analysis or TLA 2' .,'DcP. artm~nt; that A ~t'for ~9r°v~'to ~'.'.'J ~cw Boulov~ b~e over ~r ~k ts'~pp~0v~; 4 ~d, finally, ~at ~c ~t to ~c road~y ~mpon~t oF ~c ~ton Mobili~ PI~ ~at pro~o~ a new ~dor ~u~ o~ ~s R~d for ~cvlcw Bogeyed 7 to ~ w~t oFA~ c~tMg T~ R~d is ~Iv~. ~ M~ ~O~, okay. It'a ~movM ~d 0 ~nd~ to ~d approval ~ ~ ~n~flom ~ ou~n~ by s~f. ~y ~ion on ~c motion~ Y~, 2 ~. Appl~. ~. ~ I~t ~nt to ~y ~ r~o~ I High School is so congested, to xno thls wbuld 3 dlrcc.h[o~s mstc~d or everybody fu~nellng m one 4 direction. Solju~twantcdto~ldrc~Mscono~-o. .:.1 5 MIL I~2'tGELBRECHT~ .ArC th~TO Other COmm,,~lts? { 6. If you do, would you please ratsc your hand because I'm 7· ao g i y0u ~ lmm .~,~t~. ~s..- we ~ voting on 046- 10 Mm E~OELBREchrr: ?2, thc'lb'st Agenda item. I 1 MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. ! wasn't even 12 about that. 13 MR. E~ro~LSP~Ch'T: Okay. I've got my screen. 14 Any ether con~ent? I would llke to ~sk staffjust 1~ bridly, do we know thc- ~nd 2rcrry had to leave, do wc !~ know approx~,n~tcly what the schedule is for McKinncy for 17 3807 I know that it's moved up in the schedule but I 18 don't remember the dste. I just wanted to ad&ess that to 19 Mr. Williams. 20 I~,...yaLUA~s: NO. In other words, my 21 statement was inapproprlato. I'm talking about 46. 22 . MR. Ia'~-L~m!CHT: Okay. All ~ght. 23 MR. WILLIAMS: What I said was totally 24 inappropriatc. · : . '; -. O. c Oiy: n.' ti Any other '. , · ' ' '. Page "' I discu,~ion? In t~at case; votc, plcdsc. Motion carries" 2 unanlmously. All right. Now,.We move.opto, the second i ANNINO AND ZONING 3 Agenda item. Ms. Apple. : 4 MS. AI'PL~: I movc to rccommcM approval of 5 Z-99-046 ~bj~t ~ ~c fo~o~g ~n~fions: prior to 6 ~c is~ o~ ~y buil~ng ~ ad~m~ 7 ~o~tion i~c~ ~ ~ ~ns~c~ in 8 a~r~ ~& ~ ~tfio ~paot anal~is approv~ by 9 ~ T~o~tlon ~d En~flng ~t; ~o, that I0 th?.,a~..Cadmcatto thc road~w~y component, of thc Deaton ,11 '.: M0bmtyPlaa mat pro. pSs~s ~ ncv~ corridOr south or :. ::. ": ;~2.j Mills Ro~d for i.~Oviow B'ouleva~d t~ thc {Vest or'th~; ' 1~ exlst'?.g Trinity Road is resoly~ and, thre~, that a" 14 rdnlmum or three and a half acres bc set aslde for 15 prlvate o.t~a space duc to tho density. 16 MR. MCNBILL: ~:cond. 17 MiL RISEEU A fdendiy motion. 18 ~ E~OPtBRECrlT; Pardou, Mr. RlsheL ! lO didn'thearyou. 20 PR. IUSHEr~ .A fri~udiy am~uckueut that what 21 is two in tho other thing that reads that a cornrn{trncnt 22 ofhuprovom~uts to the Lakcvie~v Boulevard bridge over 23 C0ol~r Creek as approved. I'dlikcthatasafriendiy 24 moflou. . , ' { 5 ~. MR. ENOELBREC, HT; AS a fdcudiy am~admcut? { OCTOBF, R 20, 1999- Paue 73 - Pa~e 76 · ~ndensoltTM ?ago 2 ~ ~o~ls~cat-r: 1~. A~p]~ you ~ ~ 3 me,on. B~ic~,tt's ~- 7 ~.~ea~ ~U ac~t ~t fd~y ~ .~=t ... ~-.-............, ~': '.;: .'.... 9 · . . ' ~L~ ~s~ond~acc~t~t. ': ' 10 ~osce~: ~d~t ~yob I1 bo~. So ~ow w~ ~v~ a me,on and s~ond ~ fo~ 12 con~ons, ~ ~ o~ ~ p~io~ ~ and one for 13 3~ac~m]n~o~aspacc. ~y~sc~slonon~ 14 mo6on? ~ ~at cas~ vo~ p]~sc~ Me,on c~ six 15 ~ one. 17 ~ ~GELB~: ~d ~t conchd~ o~ 18 A~n~ for ~s cv~nS. 19 some ~sc~slon about o~ ~ and I'm ~s~ng you 20 ~* ~ sm ~t on o~ n~ - 21 ~ ~c~oN: ~ you ~nt ~ ~ b~ng ~t 22 back for ~ n~t 23 ~ M~IL~ Y~. · '.., .:~ ' ., . ':. '-':..'. ~ . ' ~ input? 2 ~ ~S: MsO, ~uld you put what ~c 3 ml~, eno w~k, gcaln~ o~ ma~al one w~k 4 m~tlngs. 5 ~ ~GELB~: W0 ~n ~ about ~at but ~ w~ won't get it ~s 7 ~ ~s: No. ~at I'm ~g is ~uld 8 it ~ on o~ Ag~da.~.ff w~% gong to ~ about it 10 ~ M~L~ It ~1 ~ p~ Of ~e ~. 11 . M~L~S: Y~p~of~ml~to~ · . 15 ~ ~L~S: I ~ly don't ~e, ~ I 1~ have a Hf~ ou~i& ofE~ning ~d ~Sng. 17 M~ ~GE~C~: ~. ~0~. 18 Ms. ~u~ I would ~ ~ to ~ow, ~d 19 ~ing ~at w~'vo got you ~ ~,~ Who's doa~ ~s zo ~rom ~d S~ h~ ~ on a y~ ~d ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~, ~d I~m not ~y ~ how ~s wor~. I'd ~e ~ ~ ~ow w~t ~e ~ ~ ~o~bl~ for, 2~ ~t ~e Ch~ d~ ~ w~ ~ ev~ up ~ p~ ~ b how 24 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I LANNINO AND ZONING ..' 3 would'be nco for than to also know what they're ~ 4 responsible to do and what they cafi't'do. 5 MR. l',[C~att~ It's not -- V/c~-Chalr, it's *' 6 not Co-Chair, .'8' .'.'. ... l~%M.?_n~. ¥cs..its.~tLmlydifl.crent. .. 10 Donaldson, did you get all that? Any other? MR. Wa~ ~A.XiS: Orientation for new commissioners becat~ I was very fortunate coming on figh' be[om the -- mad when a l~rson is coming on in November would be totally in th~ dark. l~m. ENoEtmmscH-r: we don't have anyone coming on at this t3~ but we will -- that's another item for that is bffcFmg for mwpersonnd. Okay. That's it? We're adjourned. ~ you. the whol~ system works because I really don't tMnl~ we really know-what goes on in your cb~lr. And I t~;nk it OCTOBER 20, 1~5~2Z ~- Pa~e, 77 - Page 7 ATTACHMENT 5 ORDINANCE NO. .AN ORDINAN. CE OF THE CITY:OF DA:IN'ONi TEXAS,-PP, oVH)ING FOR. A: cHANGE I~OM:- . A UCUL (^) ZOraNG Dis ucr CL SIFIcAUoN USE n I NAUON TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 179 (PD 179) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION A/qD USE DESIGNATION FOR 47.3 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MCKINNEY STREET (F.M. 426), APPROXIMATELY 3,000 FEET, EAST OF 'THE nvrERsEcrIoN T \UTY ROAD; PROVIDING FOX m PaOVAL oF. A CONCEPT PLAN FOP, 47.3 ACRES; PROVID]I%IG FOP, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PP,OV]DING FoP, A PENALTY IN TI~ MAXIMUM A1VIOUN~ OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOP` AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z~99-046) WHEREAS, Paul Spain, on behalf of Dieter Schwartz, has applied for a change in zoning for 47.3 acres of land from an Agricultural (A) zoning district classification and use designation to a Planned Development (PD) zoning district classification and u..sp designation; mad WHEREAS, on October 20, 1999, the Planning and Zonlng Commission recommended approval of the requested change in zoning; and · .'. WHEREAS; the'Ci CoUncil finds that the change i~i"zonmg will be ' "": ~'' ' ' ' consistent with the 1988 Dknton Development Plan, the 1998 Defiton Plan Policies, and the 1999 Gmwth Management Strategies and Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the zoning district classification and use designation of the 47.3 acre property described in the legal description attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A is ch. anged from an Agricultural (A) zoning district classification and use designation to Planned Development 179.(PD 179) zoning district classification and uso designation with the approval of the concept plan attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, subject to the following conditions: "... :: . ' ' . :. ''" ' ' · i ::' · ...:"': ' . .'.. '..' ' '/ '~i:.": '.. '- '-' ' ' , ~ . '1..Prior to the !ssuance of any bmldmg perrmts,.adequate.tranSPortation in~astructUr~ .... :....~.i~~ . ...,. shall be .constructed in accordance with a Traffic Impact Analysis {TIA) approved by the Transportation and Engineering Deparhnent. 2. That a commitment for improvements to the Lakeview Boulevard bridge over Cooper Creek is approved by the Transportation and Engineering Department; and 3. That the amendment to the Roadway Component of the Denton Mobility Plan (DMP) that proposes a flew corridor sOuth of Mil[q Road for Lakeview Boulevard to the west of the existing Tlqnlty Road is reso. lved. 4. That a mlnlmum of 3.$ acres of. the property described herein is reserved as private . J open space, which is easily accessible to all residents of the neighborhood. 53. SECTION 2. That the City's official zoning map is amended to show the change in zoning district classification. · * - · . .' · ' · . ' . . ~, ,t.- . ~..~m~. uzctLO, anCe snail U 'o c.on. vi. ct~o.n, b.]e fine~ a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a +;i'ovisio- ^""-: ..... ' p ~. vlolaten snail constitute a ~eparate and distinct offense r , u~uu, ormnance la ~. That if any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, ;verd, or provisions of this ordinance shall be adjudged invalid or held unconstitutional, the same shall not affe. c.t the vali.dity of this ordin.a.n, ce as a whole or.p. art or pro. visions hereof, other than the part so decided to. be,nvalid or unconstitutional, .an.d the City Council of the City of Danton, Texas hereby declares ~t would have enacted such remaining portions despite any such validity. SECTION' 5. That this ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passagg and the City SeCretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, a daily newspapg.r published in the City of'Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. ' PASSED AND APPROVED this the ~ayof ,1999. JACK 1Wff.LER, MAYOR' ATTEST: JENNIFBK WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY By: · AP?I~'0~D As'~O ~EG~.F6~i: :":' "" "'' HERBERT L. Pt~OUTY, CITY ATTORNEY //' 54. · Page 2 EXHIBIT A ~ Field NOtes for 47.3 ACRE TINCT south o~ Mc~(i'nne~ Ail that certain 47.300 acre tract or parcel of land situated in the W311iam Durham Surve"y, Abstract Number 330, Denton County, Texas, said tract being all of a called 'Tract i1" conveyed to McKinney Denton Property, L.P., a Texas limited partnership, by deed recorded In Volume 3128, page 0996 of the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas, said 47.300 acre 'more particulariydesci-il~ed a.s follows' ." · ' . · ... tract being · ' .'. .'.':. ;. * . * ':.'".'.-' ' i '*. ' ';:: ". .' *: * '-. ':' *:':.'i*'~. ': "'* '' Beginning at a found ~' Iron Rod ai the occupied s6t~thwest comer of the herein d&scibed tract, said comer being South 86o55'27· East 7,0 feet from a Corps of Engineers monument marked p- 2so-w; . THENCE North 3°58' 25" East with the occupied West line o[,s,aid McKinney Denton Tract and generally with a fence a distance of 2,340.84 feet to a found ~ iron rod for the occupied northwest corner qf the herein described tract on a circular curve concave to the Southwest and having a radius of 610.61 feet and a tangent bearing of South 55° 26' 27" East; THENCE mn along the arc of said circular curve through a cenb'al angle of 8o 19' 16" fora distance of 88.68 feet to a found ~" iron Rod; THENCE South 46° 46' 12" East in the south line of McKinney Street (Old McKinney Road) ~s described by deed in Volume S, page 366 Deed Records, ~i distance of 955.59 feet to a found Iron Rod; ' THENCE South 47° 27' 12" East with said McKinney Street a distance of 315.62 feet to a found ~' Iron Rod; the east li~e df ~ai~l McKinn~y' Denton tract a~d generally with a fence a distance of 1,472.35 feet to a Corps of Engineers monument marked P-250-C~W for the southeast co. mer of the herein described tract;, THENCE North 86o55' 27" West with the south line of said McKinney Denton tract and generally with a fence a distance of 1,111.07 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing in all 47.300 acres of land, more or less. 55. ~t :::T::.', Dfct~r Schwartz Box 94! Ore~nsburg,.pA 15601 Developer: T¢~ Bn;n. Inc. 700 Lakoviow Blvd. D~nton. TX 76207 /~t~ ~ 78~ I PO Pinta,. TX 7~ 200 ~- t~xis~g Zone Ty~. 85EFr99 Lakev ew Ranch Denton, Texas Agenda No. Agenda Item Date AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: April 4th, 2000 DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: Planning & Development ~partment Dave Hill, 349-8314 ~'~ SUBJECT Consider and take action on a request for relief from the Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance No. 2000-046, filed by Terra Baine, Inc. for 410 acres of the Lakeview Ranch located between University Drive (Hwy 380) and McKinney Street (F.M. 426) east of Mayhill Road. BACKGROUND An application for request for relief from the Residential Interim Regulations has been received. (see Attachment 1). Background information regarding the current status of this case is provided in Attachment 2. Ordinance 2000-046, known as the Residential Interim Regulations, was adopted by City Council on February 1st, 2000. This ordinance contains standards with which residential development projects must comply until the Code Rewrite project is completed and permanent standards are adopted. ordinances 2000-046 also contains a separate section that allows applicants to request relief from the interim regulations, including evaluation criteria to be used by Council: Section F. Relief Procedures 1. The applicant may petition the City Council for relief from these interim development regulations by requesting such relief in writing. 2. The City Council shall not relieve the applicant from the requirements of this ordinance, unless the applicant first presents credible evidence from which the City Council can reasonably conclude that the imposition of the residential density limitations or other development standards deprives the applicant of a vested property right or deprives the applicant of the economically viable use of his land. 3. In deciding whether to grant relief to the applicant, the City Council shall take into consideration the following: (a) whether granting relief from the residential density limitations or other development standards contained in these interim development regulations, in the absence of permanent revisions to the City's Land Development Code that implement the provisions of the comprehensive plan jeopardizes the City's best interests in preventing such effects; (b) the suitability of the proposed residential uses in light of land uses allowed in the zoning districts on property adjacent to the proposed site; (c) the impact of the proposed residential use on the transportation and other public facilities systems affected by the development; (d) the measures proposed to be taken by the applicant to prevent negative impacts of the proposed use on the neighborhood; (e) the likelihood that sufficient relief will be provided to the applicant following adoption of the City's Development Code; (f) the total expenditures made in connection with the proposed residential development in reliance on prior regulations, including the costs of installing infrastructure to serve the project; (g) any fees reasonably paid in connection with the proposed use; (h) any representations made by the City conceming the project and reasonably relied upon to the detriment of the applicant The City Council may take the following actions: (a) deny the relief request; (b) grant the relief request; or (c) grant the relief request subject to conditions consistent with the criteria set forth in this section. 5. Any relief granted by the City Council shall be the minimum deviation from ordinance requirements necessary to prevent deprivation of a vested property fight. OPTIONS Council may either: 1. Deny the request for relief, or 2. Grant the request for relief, or 3. Grant the request for relief, subject to conditions consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in the ordinance (and referenced above). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the decision of whether or not to grant the requests for relief should be based on the merits of each individual application. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE If relief is granted for the petitioner, processing of the Zoning Application can proceed. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW One petition was reviewed on February 15, 2000: Golden Triangle Joint Venture (Z-99-096) - approved FISCAL INFORMATION The petitions are being processed and brought to Council using existing staff resources. Several of the petitions claim financial harm, an issue that may be evaluated by Council. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from petitioner 2. Background information Respectfully submitted: tN , Director of Planning and Development WAIVER REQUEST STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT 2 Subject: Lakeview Ranch Staff: Larry Reichhart Case Number: Z-99-072 BACKGROUND: Request: Location: Zoning: Acreage: Platting: Comp Plan Consistency: Additional Information: Relief from the Residential Interim Regulations (Ordinance No. 2000-046) to continue to process a SF-7, SF-10 & SF- 13 zoning request. Between University Drive andMcKinney Street east of Mayhill Road. (see Z-99-072, Lakeview Ranch - March 7, 2000 City Council staff report) Agricultural (A) (see Z-99-072, Lakeview Ranch - March 7, 2000 City Council staff report) 410 acres The property is not platted. The subject site is located in the Neighborhood Centers district. New neighborhoods may develop in conventional patterns in this district. Staff finds the use consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0) with conditions. City Council has reviewed this project at its November 16, 1999 and February 1, 2000 meetings and it is currently scheduled for the March 7, 2000 meeting. CONCLUSION: If the relief request is granted the applicant will be able to continue the zoning review process by proceeding to City Council and then proceed with preliminary and final plats prior to development. If the relief request is not granted the application will be required to submit a zoning plan and a project plan as well as preliminary and final plats prior to development. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda No. 43 o - 0/,5" Agenda Item .3 / ' Date q,- ~.- c~ 0 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: April 4, 2000 Planning Department David Hill, 349-8314 .SUBJECT - Z-99-072 (Lakeview Ranch) Continue a public hearing and consider rezoning approximately 410 acres from an Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Single-family 7 (SF-7) zoning district on about 133 acres, Single-family 10 (SF-10) zoning district on about 85 acres, and Single-family 13 (SF-13) zoning district on about 192 acres. The property is legally described as Tracts 20, 23, 27A, 36, 40, 123, 124, 125, and 127 out of the M. F orrest Survey (Abstract 417) and Tract 10 out of the W. Durham Survey (Abstract 330) in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. It is located between University Drive (HWY 380) and McKinney Street (F.M. 426) east of Mayhill Road. The proposal is to develop a mix of single-family lots and housing types. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0) with conditions. BACKGROUND On March 7, 1999 (See Attachment 2) City Council continued this application to allow the applicant and staff time to resolve the outstanding transportation and school related issues. The applicant has met with both City and Denton Independent School District staff and has come to an agreement with regards to the transportation issues (See Attachment 1) and it is our understanding that progress has been made regarding a school site but a letter of understanding has not been agreed upon. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology of Z-99-046, commonly known as Lakeview Ranch: Application Date - June 2, 1999 P&Z Date - October 20, 1999 City Council Public Hearing - Nov. 16, 1999, Jan. 4, 2000, Feb. 1, 2000 & March 7, 2000 Relief from the Residential Moratorium granted. - January 11, 2000 Interim Residential Regulations (Ord. No. 00-046) adopted - February 1, 2000 RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0) of this zoning request with the following conditions (see Attachment 2): 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, adequate transportation infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) approved by the Transportation and Engineering Department; 2. That a commitment for improvements to the Lakeview Boulevard bridge over Cooper Creek is approved by the Transportation and Engineering Department; and 3. That the amendment to the Roadway Component of the Denton Mobility Plan (DMP) that proposes a new corridor south of Mills Road for Lakeview Boulevard to the west of the existing Trinity Road is resolved. Condition number 2 has been addressed through the agreement identified in Attachment 1. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Approve with conditions. 3. Deny. 4. Postpone consideration. 5. Table item. ATTACHMENTS 1. Engineering and Transportation Department Memo 2. City Council Staff Report, March 7, 2000, Z-99-072. Respectfully submitted: Director of Planning and Development Prepared by: Ldroj'Reichhart v Assistant Director of Planning and Development Attachment 1 City Hall West · 221 N. Elm · Denton, Texas 76201 Engineering & Transportation (940) 349-8358 · (940) 349-8376 · Metro 434-2529 Memo From: Date: Re: Jerry Clark, Director of Engineering & Transportation. David Salmon, Engineering Administrator~::::~ 03/31/00 Resolution of Lakeview Ranch Traffic Issues Attached is the final list of required traffic improvements for Lakeview Ranch. As you are aware, The onginal list of required improvements consisted of various percentages of about 20 separate improvements. As a matter of practicality, we added up the percentages of individual improvements to come up with a number of 'M/hole" improvements. In this case, the number was seven improvements. We then selected the seven most cdtical improvements identified by the Traffic Impact Analysis and required that those improvements be made 100% rather that pieces of 20 different improvements. When presented the list of required improvements including the bridge over Cooper Creek, Terra-Bain, the developer of the property indicated that they could not support the subject improvements based on the proposed development scheme. We also agreed that some of the improvements the developer objected to most were a result of significantly increasing the amount of traffic on Trinity and Mills Roads. We agreed, that the improvements associated with those roads would not be warranted if the development was not connected to those roads. The developer agreed not to connect to those reads depending on the route for Lakeview Blvd. It should be noted that the developer has agreed to make provisions to connect those roads later once the roads have been upgraded sufficiently to handle the additional traffic. We also agreed that TxDOT might construct the improvements associated with McKinney Street when they widen it so those improvements may already be in place by the · Page 1 "Dedicated to Ouality Service" www. c#l/ofdenton, com 3 · time that Lakeview Ranch needs to have them which has been included in the improvement list. Also attached, is the odginal list of improvements with their pementages and supporting documentation of how the final list was compiled. Please let me know if you need any additional clarification on how this final list was arrived at. · Page 2 Table 1 Traffic Design-Generated Roadway Improvements Alignment 1 I Alignment 2 Trinity Road Interior Development Route By End of Stage... (No access ~o Mills Road) (No access to Mills and Trinity} Build 2 lanes of Lakeview from US 380 to Build 2 ~aues of Lakeview fi'om LIS 380 to Cooper Stage I Cooper Creek Bridge (DONE) CreekBddge (DONE) (3% or Cul de sac Trinity north of Cooper Bridge Cu[ de sac Trinity north of Cooper Bridge (DONE) $0 nlatted lots) DONF. Stage 2 Signalize US 380 at Lakeview Signalize US 380 at Lakeview (10% or (25% is dewlopcr's responsibility) (25% is developer's responsibility) Lei construction colltract for 2 lanes of pennenent Build 2 lanes of Lakevlew to McKinney including a Stage 3 Cooper Creek Bridge 2-lane southbound approach at McKiuney Route 6'ucks via US 380 for northern development (25% or Build Residential Road through development (as and McKinney for southern development 43"/platted lots) development proceeds) Let construct[on coat,'act for 2 lanes of peru[anent Cooper Creek Brtdse ........ Assume McKinnoy will be under construction Build 2 lanes of permanent Cooper Crook Bridge TxDOT)~ Rebuild Trlaity from Conper Creek Bridge to Construct temporary connection between Trinity McKinney (rural standards) and Mills Widen SB approach'to 2-lanes on Trinity at Provide ROW for thmre connections from Trinity Stage 4 McKinney and Mills to Lak~view (44% or Provide leE-turn lanes on McKiuaey at Lakeview 757 platted lots) Build 2 lanes et'permanent Cooper Creek Bridge TxDOT)~ Build 1-lanes of Lakcview south of McKinney a~ Complete Residential Road to McKinney, [nclude development proceeds, include a 2-1~uie rtorthbound a 2~lane approach at McKinney approach on Lakovicw at McKim~ey. Provide Left-turn lane on Trln~ty at Residential Road Stage ~ Provide Left-turn lanes on McKinney at Trinity (64% or 1,097 (TxDOT} ~ platted lots) Provide 2qane approach on Residential Road at Stage 6 Provide Left-turn lanes on McKinney at (84'~/0 or Residential Road (TxDOT) ~ ~ Provide escrow money for tim, re connections from Stage 7 - Trinity and Mills to Lakevle'~ (100°/u or ~1l improvements completed 1~717 platted lots) Ail improvements completed ~ I f TxDOT does not complete the improvement by the time noted, the developer will be held responsible for his portion of the improvement cost and development will have to stop until road improvements are in place. Innovative Trar~.portation $o£utions, inc. 5. Traffic Impact Study - Addendum March 28, 2000 Lakeview Ranch - Denton, Texas FIGURE 2 Alternative 1: 24-Hour, Site-Generated Trip Distribution Following Existing Trinity Road (no Access to Mills Road) Lakevicw Boulevard Alignment 1 2,320 I N US 380 2,055 90 · Blagg 90 Mayhill 2,505 Loop 288 Mills 2,560& McKinney $2,650 NOt to Scale jLakeview -~~ ~1,515 1,6 0 0x'x~\ Residential x~/ Road 2,520 ~ 1,340 1,176 ~ ~~1,176 To IH 35 Innovative Transportation Solutions, Inc. 6. ./ March 30, 2000 FIGURE 3 Alternative 2: 24.HOur, Site-Generated Trip Distribution Lakevlew Boulevard Alignment Through the Proposed Development (No access to Mills Road and Trinity Road) Loop 288 2,t00~ 90 ~ Bhgg Mayhil/ Mitls Connection McKitmey N Not to Scale Lakcview 2,210~ 3,815 2,210 Innovative Transportation Solutions, Inc, 30 O00Z:3?p ITS, In=. Traffic Impact Study - .4 ddendum £akeview Ranch - Denton, T~:as .07E-484-4S45 March 30, 2000 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: ATTACHMENT 2 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda No. Agenda Item Date March 7, 2000 Planning Department ..~~ David Hill, 349}8314 SUBJECT - Z-99-072 (Lakeview Ranch) Continue a public hearing and consider rezoning approximately 410 acres from an Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Single-family 7 (SF-7) zoning district on about 133 acres, Single-family 10 (SF-10) zoning district on about 85 acres, and Single-family 13 (SF-13) zoning district on about 192 acres. The property is legally described as Tracts 20, 23, 27A, 36, 40, 123, 124, 125, and 127 out of the M. Forrest Survey (Abstract 417) and Tract 10 out of the W. Durham Survey (Abstract 330) in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. It is located between University Drive (HWY 380) and McKinney Street (F.M. 426) east of Mayhill Road. The proposal is to develop a mix of single-family lots and housing types. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0) with conditions. BACKGROUND On November 16, 1999, Z-99-046 was continued to the January 4, 2000 City Council public hearing to allow the applicant time to address transportation related issues. Due to the residential moratorium, the case could not proceed on January 4, 2000. Relief from the moritorium was granted on January 11, 2000. The residential interim regulations were adopted on February 1, 2000 thereby preventing this application being processed any further. The applicant has applied for relief from the interim regulationsl if approved this application may continue. The subject property is a portion of 732 acres of contiguous land under common owner.ship, including the 47.3 acres represented by Z-99-046. This area is planned to be a residential community. The first phase of the development is akeady under way. It is a 276 acre subdivision commoi~ly known as Lakeview Ranch with a minimum lot size of one (1) acre. There are 155 lots in this existing neighborhood. The remaining land is proposed to be rezoned to a variety of residential zoning districts as described above. The developer has constructed a portion of Lakeview Boulevard in conjunction with the first phase. It is currently a two (2) lane road, but Will ultimately be constructed as a four lane divided primary major arterial from Highway 380 to McKinney Street (see Attachment 2 - Enclosure 3). South of McKinney Street, this boulevard will be designed as a secondary major arterial as identified by the Denton Mobility Plan. This arterial is designed to extend south to 1-35 E through the Preserve development. ~> The subject property was rezoned in April of 1997 to an Agricultural (A) zoning district by Ordinance 9%107 (see Attachment 2 - Enclosure 2). It was rezoned in September of 1990 to Planned Development 126 (PD 126) zoning district by Ordinance 90-125. The property was annexed and classified as an Agricultural (A) zoning district in 1988. Z-99-072 {i'C 3/'d 8. The proposed development is consistent with all of the policies of the 1988 Denton Development Plan (DDP) as applicable and all of the 1998 Denton Plan (DP) Policies, except for the extension of new public water and wastewater lines (see Attachment 2 - Enclosure 2, Comprehensive Plan Analysis section). The subject site is located in the Neighborhood Centers distri.ct as identified in the Denton Comprehensive Plan. New neighborhoods may develop in conventional patterns in this district. Staff finds the use consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Thirteen (13) property owners were notified of the zoning request. Two (2) responses have been received. One is from Mr. Schwartz, the property owner of the land described in this zoning request. He is in favor of the request to rezone. The other' is from an adjacent property owner, who owns land along the northern boundary of Parcel A. He is opposed to the request (see Attachment 3). The opposition represents approximately ten pement (10%) of the land area within two hundred feet that is located within the limits of the City of Denton. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology ofZ~99-046, commonly known as Lakeview Ranch: Application Date - June 2, 1999 P&Z Date ~ October 20, 1999 City Council Public Hearing - November 16, 1999, January 4, 2000, February i, 2000 Relief from the Residential Moratorium granted. - January 11, 2000 Interim Residential Regulations (Ord. No. 00-046) adopted - February 1, 2000 ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The subject property is not platted and will need to be platted prior to any development. FISCAL INFORMATION Development of this property will increase the assessed value of the city, county, and school district. It will require no short-term public improvements that are the responsibility of the city. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0) of this zoning request with the following conditions (see Attachment 4): 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, adequate transportation infrastructure shall bc constructed in accordance with a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) approved by thc Transportation and Engineering Department; 2. That a commitment for improvements to the Lakeview Boulevard bridge over Cooper Creek is approved by the Transportation and Engineering Department; and Z.-99-072 ~ '(-? 3rd ,¥tqff Rt'port. doc That the amendment to the Roadway Component of the Denton Mobility Plan (DMP) that proposes a new corridor south of Mills Road for Lakeview Boulevard to the west of the existing Trinity Road is resolved. OPTIONS 1, Approve as submitted. 2: Approve with conditions. 3. Deny. 4. Postpone consideration. 5. Table item. ATTACHMENTS 1. Parcel Map. 2. Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report, October 20, 1999, Z-99-072. 3. Property Owner Responses (2). 4. Planning and Zoning Commission minutes from October 20, 1999. 5. Draft Ordinance. Respectfully submitted: Doug Director of Planning and Development Prepared by: ^ssismnt Director of Planning and Development Z-99-072 ('C 3~d :¥,.qlf Report. doc 10. )9-072 (Lakeview Ranch) ATTACHMENT 1 NORTH REQUESTED ZONING MAP PARCEL ZONING ACRES A SF-7 8131 B SFd 0 84.09 C SF-t 3 19t.72 D SF-7 50.84 · ,nda Date: November 16, 1999 Scale: None 'LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ' STAFF REPORT Agenda item Date ,/z~ ~ub]ect: Lakeview Ranch (Straight zoning proposal) ~taff: Wayne Reed, Planne[ll .. · ' Case Number: Z-99-072 Agenda Date: October 20, 1999 3ntinue a public headng and consider making a recommend'ation to the citY' Council concerning the ~zoning of approximately 410 acres from an Agricultural (A) zoning distdct to a variety of residential )ning districts, including Single-family 7 (SF-7) on 133_+ acres, Single-family 10 (SF-10) on 85_+ acres, Single-family 13 (SF-13) on 192_+ acres (see large map); The intent is to develop a variety of ngle-family lots and housing types. Location: ..hze: · ~'~J-OCAT~N-'~,AP .between :HWY.380 and F.M. 426 in the proximity.of'T~inity Road 410 acres Z-99-072 PZ StaE Report 12. ~pplicant: Paul Spain Terra Bain, Inc. 2807 Brookshir Drive · Southlake, TX 76092. ' Owner: Dieter Schwartz NR & RJ Properties, L.P. P.'O. Box 941 Greensburg, PA 15601' 'he subject j3roperty is a portion of 732 or so acres of contiguous land oWned by Mr. Schwartz, )cluding the 47.3 acres represented by Z-99-046. This area is planned to be a residential community. 'he first phase of the development is already under way. It is a 276 acre subdivision commonly nown as Lakeview Ranch with minimum lot sizes of one (1) acre (see large map - Phase 1). There r 155 lots in this existing neighborhood. The remaining land is proposed to be re zoned to a variety f re sldential zoning districts, including approximately 133 acres of Single-family 7 (SF-7), 85 acres f Single-family 10 (SF-10), and 192 acres of Single-family 13 (SF-13). The developer has oristructed a portion of Lakeview Boulevard, a four lane divided primary arterial, from Highway 380 own to the southern boundary of the Lakeview Ranch subdivision. This road is designed to extend ) F.M. 426 (McKinney street) and ultimately, to 1-35 E through the Preserve development. I 988 Denton Development Pian'Analysis h'e 1988 Denton Development Plan (DDP) show.s this area to' be within'~"L'ow Intensity Area. hese areas are intended to be developed primarily fo~ single family residential development. 'eighborhoods are to be serviced by a network of small commerciallretag centers spaced at about ; mile intervals with direct access to a collector type street or larger thoroughfare..Vehicular trip ener tion due to development within Low Intensity Areas is restricted to 60 trips per day per acre in rder to balance, land use with road capacity. Staff finds the proposed rezoning to be consistent ,lth both the policies and ~trip intensity standards of the '1988 DDP (see E. aclosur 5). · 998 Denton Plan Policies Analysis ,., '. he .1998 Denton Plan';(DP)is to' be used in.c°njunction with.the 1988DentOn Deve!opment.Plan in caluatirig consistency o[ proposed develoPment.with the long rat{ge.vlsi0n ,for, the city; Staff finds' ~e proposed rezoning to be consistent with the ~olicies of the ~1998 DP (see E~cloSUre 6); he drft'Land Use Plan 'ide~[ii~es -this property to be within an '"Neighborhood Center" area. The dopted .Growth Man .agement Strate_qy.states .that these .areas are .to be .devel .oped.in an.inwardly dented manner w'rth a focusupon 1he ~entem of.the ne]ghb~rhoocYs..=.The center~vould.contain uses ecossary:~to .support 'the-~u~fotmding :~eighbothood .fl~--lUding"~etat't ~Jses ~ ~.--as.~:omtenience roce .ry, barbers, or small proTess~onal ol?ices,.higl]er dens'~ty residential uses suc3] as'to,~m13omes, ark'uses including central neighborhood "greens"and inStitUtionaluses-such as'tire stations,'sc~hools, 3rafies 'and ~rans'rt 'nodes. 'The proposed 'land. use is 'consistent ~with the intent of Neighborhood Center" areas. 99-072 PZ Staff Report 10-20-99.dec 13. ~'ansportation A. Trip generation The proposed development would generate approximately 12,100 trips per day if built out with 1,267 homes· (an average of 3.09 lots p~r acre). This is !2,500 .fewe~ trips or flftyTone percent (51%) less than'allowed trip generation in a Low Intensity Area. Table 1. Proposed Resldential Trip Generation Land Use Average Trip Average Acres Estimated Total Trip Generation dulacre Lots Generation Single-Family 7 (SF-7) 9.55 trips/day 4.0 dulacre 133 532 5,081 Single-Family 10 (SF-10)9.55 trips/day 3.0 du/acre 85 255 2,435 Single-Family 13 (SF-13)9.55 trips/day ·2.5 dulacre 192 480 4,584 Allowed'Trip Generation 60 trips/acre/day 24,600 Difference 51% below * Calculations provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991. B. Road Capacity . iagg'Road an~l Mills Road are identified'aS coilec~°r streets, by the 1998 Denton Mobility Plan tsee. Enclosure 3). These streets'are designed ko be fou~' (4)lanes2ndi.v!de.d. witho,u! p,,arkin.~.,.. providing four (4) lanes of through traffic. As such, their designed ..tram .c .c..6.packy woula auow.fbr a tolerable traffic flow of up to 14,900 trips per day. Bot. h are cbrr'ently'°pe~ting as two (2)' lanes undivided without parking and are of substandard construction with approximately eighteen feet of pavement. The standard street design calls for eleven feet per lane. There are no'traffic counts for these roads. Lakeview Boulevard north of McKinney Street is identified as a secondary major arterial by the · 1998 Denton Mobilffy plan. This road is designed .to be a-four (4)lane undivided street .without parking, providing four (4) lanes of through traffic. As such, its designed traffic capacity allows for · a tolerable traffic flow of up.to 19,100.trips per day...The northern portion .of.Lakeview Boulevard 'is currently .constructed with two.(2)'lanes Without. parking. Trhere are. no:traffic counts.at this time - as it'is a new road. 'This .type of .road ii designed to carry hi~gh~toads .of traffic and will.have adequate Capacity to handle the calculated trips that could'be .generated .by the proposed .residential development. l_al~ev3ew l~oulevar~i W~l be extendecl sodth 't0'l~Ict~inney'Strcc! mom.or ~ss.a]ong ~e e~s~ng .Tfin~ Road rightS,way. This ~adis:cu. un~.~n~ed W~ ~o' (2) lan~ ~ndMded ~o~ ,~. ~e ~n oTT~-~ a~ ~Y~t,~e~~~:~ ' .~fi~'~oad .~ ~09 ~ps (p~ day)..'.L~ ~oulo~ ~1 ~andle the ~lculated {dps-(see ~able':l):{hat.~uld ~be-generated by :the,:pm~sed residential _~-99-072 PZ Staff Report 10~20-99.doc 14. The proposed development will cont/fbute to improving the ~obility of the entire community. The ultimate extension of Lakeview Boulevard from University Drive (Hwy. 380) to !-35 E will provide an alternative north-to-south mute for the eastern portion of the City of Denton, relieving traffic on Loop 288. The proposed development north of the subject property (see Z-99-072 staff report) - will provide for the northern half of this proposed a.rterial; a.portion of Lakeview Boulevard was constructed with the public. improvements associ.ated with Lakeview'Ran~h, Phase I. Ultimately, this arterial will'connect with 1-35 E through the Preserve development as growth' Occurs. The latter development is currently moving ahead with the platting of the first phase of its master plan, including over 4,000 feet of Lakeview Boulevard. The actual construction of that portion of the mad is undetermined and even more uncertain is the ultimate connection to McKinney Street. The correlation between development and road capacity is that as development in this part of town occurs, additional infrastructure will be constructed to handle the vehicular trips generated so that the overall'mobility (level of service) within the community is maintained. C. Access The proposed subdivisions would have access onto Lakeview Boulevard. No single-family · residential lot will be permitted direct access onto this primary major arterial. The subdivisions will -also be ~djacent to Blagg Road and Mills Road, which are classified as collectors, that will intersect Lakeview Boulevard. Depending on the configuration of the subdivisions, some neighborhoods may take access onto one of these two roads as opposed to Lakeview Boulevard. Local (neighborhood) streets will have to be constructed to provide internal cimulation within each subdivision. D. Pedestrian Linkages " " · ' · Sidewalks along all public streets are required. .. 2. Utilities This development will have to extend water and sanitary sewer lines. 3. Drainage and Topography New development will be required to design and construct a drainage system to city star, dards. A preliminary drainage Study will be required with the submission of a preliminary plat. The study ' mustinclude calculations of the 100-year storm'for all drainage.areas on this property and any area tha. t dra. in.s.towards this propertY. The developer must'indicate the method by whichthe run- . · offwill be carded across th~ property or stored on the property .... · - 4. Signs .As per.the sign ordinance. · ,5.' ~O~f-Street Parking · .l'~ew.devalopment must prov~de~par~mg ~r~-~)rd~g ~ ~eghl~tln~ b~h~pt~r~5'~01) o~ ~e ' 'Code. o~.Ordinances.: 'Eve~ ~ngl~fa~ly.residen~ is required to proVide.~o..(2) off-street pa~n~ spaces. Z-99-072 PZ Staff Report 10-20-99,doc 15.1 Landscaping ~'.-.. '~'his development'will have to comply with the new Landscape ~ode, which requires fifteen (15) ,ecs per acre and twenty (20) percent of all surfaces to remain pervious (plantabJe area). Open Space and Recreational Areas This residential 'de~/e!opmen. t wilI be r~quired {o participate' in the development 'of. public · recreational areas. Through the Park DediCation Ordinance (98-039), this development will contribute to park land dedication and park development fees. Dedication requirements are required during the platting process. Park development fees are required p..r. ior to the issuance of building permits. · - April 15, 1997 -The subject property was rezoned to an Agricultural (A) zoning district and land use classification by Ordinance 97-107 which amended the zoning ordinance and map for the City of Denton (see.Enclosure 2). September 4, '1990 - The subject property was rezoned from Agricultural (A) zoning district to Planned development 126 (PD 126) zoning district and land use classification by Ordinance 90-125 which amended the zoning ordinance and map'for the'City of Denton. 988 -The subject property was annex, ed and classified as. an'Agricultural (A) zoning district. ne' subject property is not platted and wile need to be platted priOr to enY doveloprn°nt. Notice of the zoning request was published in the Denton Record-Chronicle on October 3, 1999. Thirteen (13) property owners were notified of the request on October 2, 1999 (see Enclosure 4). As of this writing, there have been no. responses. :S{aff'recdm~nehd~'appr(~vai :0f Z"99,072, ':The prop&rtY 'iS'locate~'~i0ng a future'pri'mary 'major arterial and two collector streets. The variety of residential zoning districts is compatible.with existing land uses in.the area. '-The .property is suf~-ounded bythe City df Denton's exb a-territorial jurisdiction ,(ET J), maMng it impossible to stabilize or-predict land uses around the major'fty-of this site. · he ..request .is .~x)n.~ent :~]th ~e ;policies :-and '~4p ."~nten~ty .~iandards :~)f .:the .:i 988'_Denton .Development Plan, the '1998 Denton :P~an'Po]icies/~ 't 999 Growth manaDement Ptan'and S[~ atecjy,. ~nd the draft 1 and .Use Plan. ' . ~ .~velopmen~ o~ th~s s~ze w~! have a s~gnfficant impac~ on.the mob/'lity o~ this area o~ town. it would Z-99-072 PZ Staff Re _p?t 10-20-99,doc fair to attach a Condition to this zoning request a requirement that links the development of this operty to specific public improvements that will provide adequate protection against detrimental ,"ects that it may otherwise have on the mobility of this area of town. " 3ove to recommend approval of Z-99-072 finding that: 1. It is consistent with the 1988 Denton Development Plan; 2. It is consistent with the 1998 Denton Plan Policies, 1999 Growth Management Plan and Strategy and the draft Land Use Plan; 3. It provides for compatible land uses; and 4. It contributes to a diversity of housing types and lot sizes within the community. d subject to the following conditions: 1, Prior to the issuance of any building permits, adequate transportation infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) approved by the Transportation and Engineering Department; 2. That a commitment for improvements to the Lakeview Boulevard bridge over Cooper Creek is approved; and 3. That the amendment to the Roadway Component of the Denton Mobi itY P. lan (DMP) that proposes a.new corridor south of Mills Road for Lakeview Boulevard to the west of the existing Trinity Road is reSolved. ' ' ' .... 1. Recommend approval as submitted. 2. Recommend approval with conditions. 3. Recommend denia, l.. 4. Postpone consideration. 5. Table item. 1. Vicinity Map. 2. Zoning Map. 3. Denton Mobility Plan Map. 4. 200'-500' Notification Map. 5. 1988 Denton Development Plan (DDP) Policies. 6. 1998 Denton Plan (DP) Policies (2 pages). 7. Draft Ordinance ~-072 PZ ~.~ff Report ~0-20-99.doc 1'7o · -072 (Lakeview Ranch) ENCLOSURE I NOR. TH · "'vICINITY ;MAp ~,genda Date: October20, 1999 18. Scale: None '.-99-072 (Lakeview Ranch) ENCLOSURE 2 NORTH ZONING MAP .genda Date: October 20, 1999 Scale: None -072 ENCLOSURE 3 (LAKEVIEW RANCH) NOR. TH "DENTON "MOBILITY PLAN MAP /?k/'Freeways ,;?,/"Prima.nj-Major 'Arterials ,,,.',,/-Secondary M .ajor'Arteriats ..?'-..?~oltectors ~.gonda Date: .October.20, 1999' 20. Scale: None ',-99-072 (LAKEVIEW RANCH) ENCLOSURE 4 ., NORTH..( ! · 200-500 .FOOT NOTICE ~MAP.. genda Date: .October 20, 1999 Scale: None 21. ENCLOSURE 5 '" J8 Denton Development Plan Analysis The 1988 Denton Development Plan (DDP) shows this area to be within a Low Intensity Area. These areas are intended to be developed primarily for single family residential development. Neighborhoods are to be serviced by a network of small commercial/retail centers spaced at about. % mile intervals with direct access to a collector type street or larger thoroughfare. Vehicular trip generation due to development within Low Intensity Areas is restricted to 60 trips per day per acre in order to balance land use with road capacity. Staff finds the proposed development to be consistent with both the policies and trip intensity standards of the 1988 DDP. The following is a summary of the 1988 Denton Development Plan policies applicable to this project: Denton Development Plan Policy Analysis Summary Low :Intensity Area Development Rating vs. Policy SignificanUy Somewhat POL:ICY COMMENTS Inconsistent Inconsistent Consistent Intent. These areas represent primary housing areas withln the Qty. X Intensity. To be consistent with the glowed Intensity = 60 trips/acre Plan, a development should not exceed its ~llocated Intensity = 12,100 trips/site allocated intensity. X ~,'Plan Control. Strict property elopment cbntrol within 1,600 feet of existing Iow density restdenUal areas. X Traffic Deslgn..Access should be .. provided to ensure that mul§-family.or non-residenUal uses have access to collectors or larger arterials with no direct access through resldenUal streets. X Open Space. Suffident green space, recreaUonal fadliUes and diversity of perks are provided. X Public Pa'rflclpaflon. Input In.to ' planning by nelghborhood assodaUons and coundls is encouraged. X Land Use Diversity. Non-resldenUal and N/A - the proposal Is for single-family mulU-famlly development Is enCOuraged to land use. ' . a limited degree. ' .. Manufactured Houslng. Thls form of' N/A- the proposal is'for single-family ' · slngle-family housing may be compatible land use, not including manufactured with developments In the Iow Intensity housing. areas subject to condiUons. Strip Commercial. Any form of N./A - the proposal Is for single-family conUnuous strip commerdal Is strongly land use. discouraged In/or near Iow Intensity areas. Z-99-072 PZ Staff Report: 10-20-99.doc 23. The 1998 Denton Plan (DP) is to be used in conjunction with the'1988 Denton Development Plan'In evaluating the consistency of proposed development with the long range vision for the city. Staff finds the proposed development to be consistent with the policies of the 1998 DP. The tab!e below. Provides .a.sUmmary.of the 1998 Denton plan Policies applicable to this proje6t: Denton Plan Policy Analysis Summary ... Development Rating vs. Policy CATEGORY POLICY Inconsistent ~l.i~-~ consistent l'ransportat~on. Compliments Denton's Long-Range 'il~oroughfare Ran. '~'~,~ ~ X Promotes Access Hanagement Prances ~,.~.~ ~ . Optimizes operations for emergency sauce providers and other public se~ce providers, .~~ X Promotes public transportation system, ~:~..;~ X ConChes to the Denton Tra,s .e~o~ Storrnwater Drainage. Protects 100-year floodplain areas In accordance v~ .. ~ .... . Dentun'$ mter~aed management plans. coa~orms to local ~ubdMsion re§ulatlons. '~."' '~ con~butes to reglon~l detenl~on hdlitie~. .~~~-~ ~. ~' ' Provides for natural r~l~rI,n en~ronment ,long floodplaln. Ul~Jmdes e~l~ng mbs~ndard dmlnage ~tem~ ~s Infill ~ ..... ~ .... and redevelopment occur. :~" '~ ' . . Water and Develops and malntalns propon.'y and private Wastewater, Infrastructure, ' ~~ X ' Creates opportunity for oversi~ng water and wastewater lines to meet future development demands, ~ ......... X Provides review of Proposed water and w'astewa[e~ Infrastructure to ensure public safety and health, I:~ X Promotes Infill Improvements over new line exte~ons, X ~[tecfl-lc, ProVides. underground e~ctflc service for new residential and nonresidential development, i'~~ X Solid Waste. Promotes eftident access to all development for solid 'Par~ ami Recreation,'- -Locates pa .r~s and ree'eaaon fadlitJesln am0~'dar~ ¥,tb~ . ~~ ' · Preservesflood~ain fia~dplaincor~,rva,donfOr effor~r~s and open ~ce to aid l.n ~~~z~ · · 3cttleve mst-~ective dEn/ay ~ public s~ces. , [nv~ronmental O. tla]lty, Promotes pre~ervatiorl of rlatura~ r~jl'(~. Integral; environmeata! ~otecl~ ~th eomomic growth and ~ommunity development, )98 Denton Plan Policies Analysis (continued) -.-' Denton Plan Policy Analysis Summary Development Rating vs. Policy . ... . .. . . CATEGORY· POLICY ' ' Znconsistent 'A~opliceble. Consistent lelghborhoods, Provides a~e_~_ to public and community fadlities for residential neighborhoods. Encourages a mixture of land uses that benefit r~dents. ~~:.'i~.F,~.~....;¢~;.~ X Protects and preserves existing neighborhoods. ~;[~:[(I X Promotes bicycle and pedestrian traffic within and between neighborhoods to reduce vehlcular trips. ;.f*.~,~.~..~..~ X {ouslng. Provides a range of housing types tha~ appeal to differing .~~ X economic and Individual life-styles. Offers a variety o~ single-family lot sizes, building sizes, and price ranges. ~~ X Preserves existing housfng, Induding affordable housing. ~creases It, ll housing opportunities. -'conornlc Conbibutes to a s'orong and diversified lOCal economy by ~;:~.-.<~" .... --.~: ~. 3iverslflca'don. Increasing employment and expanding the tax bose. 3ovemrnent. Encourages Intergovernmental coordination to provide cost-effe ve .ublic L~ Deslgn. ' . . Addresses community appearance Ina comprehensive · manner. ~ ~X~ Diversifies architectural appearance of built environrnent. Neighborhood Infill development should be compatible , ~ . · with existing land uses and buildings, '~ Protects and preserves Denton's architectural, oJltura!.and hlstorlc~l resources. ':~,~-~.~.'~. ~ Enhances the appearance alor~J major entranceways. Promotes the preservation of trees and landscaping. ~~ X Public Znvolvement. Provides an opportunity for public opinion during the :=.' ~= ~. plan'nlng process. = ~~ .'X D99-072 PZ Staff Repurt 10-20-99,doc 25. ENCLOSUI~' ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PI{OVID]lNG FOP, A CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOP, 40..8.36 ACRES' OF: LAND TO SINGLE-FAM~,Y .7 (S.F-7) ZONING. DISTRICT. CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION .ON 132.55 'ACRES,..SINGLE-FANn'~.Y I0 (SF: 10) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION ON 84.05~ ACRES, AND SINGLE-FAlVlTLY 13 (SF-13).ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION ON 191.72 ^CRES LOCATED BETV~EN UNnmRSIT~ DKnm (HWY 38O) AND MCKINNEY STREet (Fro. 42o') IN T~ ~'P,oxtmm~ OF aauNrr~ ~,OAD; ?P,OV~DING FOP, A PENALTY IN T,,~I~ MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOP, VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND FRO,k~'f~ FO~ AN ~FFECTnm DATE. (Z-99-072) for 408.36 a~)o~l~nd fi.om an Agricultural (A) zoning district classification and use designation · to a Single-fafi~ly 7 (SF-7) zon{ng district classification and use designation on 132.$5 acres, Single- family 10 (SF-10) zoning district classification and use designation on 84.0.9~ acres, and Single- family 13 (SF-13) zoning district classification and use designation on 191.72 acres; and WHEREAS, on October 20, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the requested change in z. oning; and · WHEREAs, the city coUnCii finds that the changein zoning Will be in compliance with the 1988 Denton Development Plan, the 1998 Denton Plan Policies, and the 1999 Growth Management. Strategies and Plan; NOW, THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the zoning district classification and use designation of the 81.71 acre :property described in'lhe legal description attached here? and incorporated herein..?As, Exlfibit A is changed from an Agricultural (A) zoning district classification and use des~to a Singl~ y~,mily 7 (SF-7) ;zon~n.g di.~triet elass~cation ~nd use desi3natio.~n; ~t '~ z6~.g disulct classification dud uso ~les~g~at!on or the'61.29 aero property d~c~.,~cl .].~exXkh~egagTdescription ~itta. d. hed tieieto fi~d {~corporated herdmas Exhibi~ B is ch~/~ge~'"'k~J~cultu:ral (A) 'district clasSifiCation and use ~tesi' .gnatio{~'t6 a Sifigle-fan'iily 10 (SF~t~) ~ffmg 'dis~et elasslfic{tion · and use designation; that the zoning district.classification and us%"des~ation 'of the 22.80 aero propet!y flesen'bed in the legal description attached hereto.and incorporated herein.as Exhibit C is 'changed'from an :Agricultural(A) zon~n~ ,a~.~tdct' classification mad'use ~clesignation-to a ~ingle- ' :family 10 '(BF-10) zofi~ng.'a~triet das'~ifieation an~l use ~le~ignation; .that .the :zoning 'i:listdct -~ela.ssifieation.mxd a~.~e.-:de~m~non'o£:the:19%72 ~e.~propetty tle~ofibed -,n/~.;legal.~enption atta~l~ekl hereto .an~l ineorporate~ her~iu as :alit/let dlass'ffication anal-use ifes~on'to a Sin~le-¢amily.13 (SF-.13) zoning:district .classification and use designation; and that the zoning district classification and use designation ot' the 50.84.acre property described in the legal description attached he~et0and incorporated herein as Exhibit E is changed from an Agricultural(A) zoning district classification and use designation to a Single- fam{ly 7 (SF-7) zoning district classification and use designation under the c~mpre~h~nsive'zoning ordinance of the City o£Denton, Texas, subject to the following.e, onditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, adequate transportation inrrastruetur~ shall be constructed in accordance with a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) approved by the Transportation and Engineering Depa~h~ent. 2.. ' Th. at a eornmi .maent. for improvements !0 the Lake. view Boulevard bridge over Cooper .. Creek'ii approved; and . 3. That the amendment to~fl~adway Component of the Denton Mobility Plan (DMP) that proposes a ne~ c~'do'k~outh of Mills Road for Lakeview Boulevard to the west of the existing.T..a~i~o'~fl is r~olved. ~ ' SECTION.':~x '~ City's official zoning map is amended to show the change in zoning district classification'." SECTION 3. That any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be freed a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. · SECTION 4. That this ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cra/se the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Dentorg Texas, within ten (10)days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the ' day of ,1999. ATTEST: JElqlqIF_ER WALTRRg, CIT¥~_~.RETARY BY.' JACK MII.LER,~R APPROVRD AS TO.LEGAL FORM: -. :.I. tF2~BER-T~L,-PROUTY,'I~fY BY: 27. EXHIBIT A I ' g-99-072 Single Family (SF-7) POINT OF BEGINNING being a ~" Iron Rod Ssuth 87'~ 39' 53" East a distance of 1,762.98 feet to a ~' Iron Rod for comer;, THENCE South 02^ 29' 20" We~t along Trinity Road a distance of 2,306.03 feet [o a ~" Iron Rod for comer;,. :. . .. ' - : THENCE North 87^ 07' 53" West along Blagg Road a distance of 1,403.40 feet to a ~" Iron Rod for comer; THENCE North 55^ 48' 41" West a distance of 131.63 feet to a point for comer;, :THENCE North 40^ 29' 30" East a distance of 222.22 feet to a point for corner; THENCE North 25^ 51' 36" West a distance o1' 164.43 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 59^ 01' 32" West a distance of 40.87 feet to a point for comer;, THENCE North 11 ^ 41' 25" East a distance of 13.74 feet to a point for comer;, THENCE North 7'O~.4:)6' 21" East a distance of 54.81 feet to a point for comer;,. THENCE North 57^ 31' 14".East a distance of 88.39 feet to a point for corner; THENCE North 02^ 08'. 18" West a distance of 88.68 feet to a point for comer;, THENCE N°rfl~ 34^ 46' 24" West a disianc; ~f 133.12 feet to a paint 'for com.e~ THENCE North 09^ 48' 53" East a distance of 213.32 feet to a point for comer;, THENCE North 03^ 07t 11" East a distance of 349,74 feet to a point for comer;, THENCE North 20^ 19' 10" East a distance of 116.20 feet to a point for comer;, THENCE North 89^ 34' 54" West a distance of 280.71 feet to a point for comer;, -fHENCE Nu~i~ 00^.25' 08;' East a distance of 304.49 :feet.to a point for ];omer,-sald point'being on the south right-of-way line of Appaloosa Drive (a 60' right-ol=-way); TI-IENC~E North D5~.O'5' 40" ~Vest depa~ng said south r~ght-o'f-way line a distance o'f 60.00 feet to a point ~.h the north right-0f.~way line.of said -AppalOOsa Drive,-a cir~,Ula~; curve con,ye .to' the' Southeastand having.a radius. Of 630.00 feet and a tang6ht bearing of South ~4~.54' 20." W~t;' · THENCE run along the arc Ol~said r~ght-o~-wa¥'line thmu~lh a central angle oi=.04^,58' 57" fora · distance ot~ 54.79 feet to a point for'comer; 3T~ENCE.Nor'~ 130^.25,.08- l==st departing said aorth 3'~jht-of-~/ay]ine a distance'z)f.588~521eet to the POINT OF.BEGIt,JNING. Containi~ng 81.71 ~res. more or less. 28. EXHIBIT B Z-99-072 Single Family (SF-'I 0) POINT OF BEGINNING being In the south right-of-way line of Blagg Road (a 60' fight-of-way) South 87^ 13' 23" East along said right-of-way line a distance of 166.80 feet to a %' Iron Rod for comer;, · T~ENCE SOuth 02; 15' 04~'iWest departing -~aid rl§ht~0f-way:line a dista~ce of 880.43 feet to a =point .for co~ner, THENCE South 87^ 44' 57" East a distance of 40,00 feet to a point for comer; h'HENCE South 02/` 15' 04" West a distance ol~ 1,912,92 feet to a point for comer, said point being In the south right, of-way line of Draught Horse Drive (a 60' right-of-way); THENCE South 87/` 44' 57" East along said right-of-way line a distance of 40.00 feet to a point for comer;, THENCE South 02^ 15' 04" West departing said right-of-way line a distance of 841.69 feet to a point for comer;, THENCE North 87'~ 02'.12".West a distance of 102.72 feet to a %" Iron Rod for corner;, · THENCE North 87/` 28' 16" West a distance ol~ 683.76 feet to a point for corner; THENCE North 02/` 37' 02" East a distance of 3,636.80 feet to a %" Iron Rod at a fence comer post for comer, said point being In the south right-of-way line of the aforementioned Blagg Road; , HENCE South 87/` :13' 23" East along said right-of-way line a distahce of.516.45 feet to the POINT·OF BEGINNING. '.- Contatnlng 61.29 acres, more or less. 29. - EXHIBIT C Z-9'9;072 " ·: :j.: · Single Family (SF-10) POINT OF BEGINNING being a ~" Iron Rod South 87^ 02' 12" East a distance of 102.72 feet to a point for comer;, THENCE South 87^ 02' 11" East a distance ol~287.03. feet.to a point for comer;, THENCE South'20^ 21' 07" West a distance ~)f 52.88 feet to a p~int for comer; THENCE South 12^ 44' 38" East a distance of 194.93 feet to a point for corner;, THENCE South 15^ 05' 28" West a distance of 82.58 feet to a point for comer;, THENCE South 32^ 19' 01" East a distance of 68.94 feet to a point for comer;, THENCE South 77^ 34' 46" East a distance of 191.50 feet to a point for comer;, THENCE North 54^ 39' 49" East a distance of 497.70 feet to a point for comer, said point being oq the west right-of-way line of Lakeview Boulevard (a 60' right-of-way); THENCE North 82^ 35' 47" East departing said west right-of-way line a distance of 93.74 feet to a point for comer;, THENCE South 02^ 32' 12" West a distance of 583.61 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 87^ 09' 07" West a distance of 76.28 feet to a point for corner, said point being on the east .right-of-way line of the aforementioned Lakeview Boulevard; ' THENCE' South 29^ 57' 13" West al~)ng said right-of'Way line a distance of 333.44'feet to a point of curvature on a circular curve concave to the Southeast and having a radius of 480.00 feet and a tangent bearing of South 29^ 57' 13" West; THENCE mn along the arc of said right-of-way line through a central angle of 24^ 48' 06" for a distance of 207.78 feet.to a point for comer; THENCE North 86^ 44' 34" West along Mills Road departing said right-of-way line a distance of 85.76 feet to a ~" Iron Rod for comer;, THENCE North 86^ 44' 32" West continuing along Mills Road a distance of 731.55 feet to a ~- Iron Rod for comer;, THEN.CE North'01^ 33'30" East a.distance of .1,157.79 leer to the POINT OF.BEGINNING. 'Cont~'~n~ng ~2..80 acres, m6re dr less~ ' ' ' ' · 30o EXHIBIT C' Z-99-072 (ConL). 'NCE North 48^ 20' 23" East a distance of 258.99 feet to a Corps of Engineers Concrete ~,..,,~ument marked Q-294-W for comer;, THENCE South 02^ 27' 35" West a distance of 443.88 feet to a Corps of Engineers Concrete Monument marked Q-293-BW for comer;, · THENCE South 02^ 28'. 16" West a distance'of 9~49:52 feet to' a Corps of Engineers Concrete Monument marked Q-293-W for comer;, -' THENCE South 02/` 30' 01" West a distance of 1,339.23 feet to a %" Iron Rod for comer;, THENCE South 83/` 27' 47" East a distance of 352.07 feet to a %" Iron Rod for comer;, :THENCE South 02/` 27' 47" West a distance of 13026 feet to a %" Iron Rod for corner;, THENCE South 81 ^ 13' 33" West a distance of 86.24 feet to a point for corner; THENCE South 68/` 27' 45" West a distance of 111.15 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 55/` 08' 07" West a distance of 134.14 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 83/` 40' 48" West a distance of 78.18 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 63/` 27' 22" West a distance of ~149.69 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 25/` 57' 55" West a distance of 232.50 feet to a %" Iron Rod for comer;, ../NCE due West a dist~ince of 767.70 feet to a point for corneri THENCE North 03/` 12' 5.7" East a distance of 550.34 feet to a fence corner post for corner; THENCE North 64/` 35' 24" West a distance of 413.13 feet to a %" Iron Rod for comer;, THENCE North 01/` 59' 31" East a distance of 706.01 feet to a %" Iron Rod for corner;, THENCE North 02/` 40, 18" East a distance of 2,126.97 feet to a fence comer post [or comer;, 'i'HENCE North ~,/` 51' 02;.West a distance of 554.33 feet to a fence'comer post ;'ui comer;, THENCE North 05^ 48'02" West a distance of 10.33 feet to a fence comer post for comer;, -THENCE North 88/` 39' 36" West a distance.of.856.1~4 feet to a ~" Iron Rod for comer;..,' THENCE Nort]~ 02/` 51' 54" East alor~g Tr'mi~y Road a distance ~[527.49 feet to a ~" iron Rod for THENCE South 86/` 4 6' ~ 5" East a ~istance of 869.42.feet to a ~".Jron.Rod for comer;, THENCE North ~ 6/`.57'...38" East a'distance of :i45;4~ feet to a %" Iron Rdd hr :comer, THE~C-E North'82~ 26' -b'?." West a distance 0[707.37 ~eet to a*3&' Iroh Pod --_NCE Nor'ah 02/` 5J'.54" ~:~-~t a~_ong Tr'a'~y.Po~. d a distance o[ 560.38 l~eet to a %" Iron Rod for '~me~, 31. Z-.99-072 ' --(co'htr) THENCE North 02^ 51' 51" East continuing along Trinity Road a distance of 179,93 feet to a ~" iron Rod for comer;, THENCE North 02^ 51' 54" East continuing along and departing from Trinity Road a distance of 851.47 feet to lhe POINT OF BEGINNING. Cor{taln~ng 191.72 acres, more o~; les~.' - EXHIBIT D ' Z-99-072 ·.Single Family (SF-13) POINT OF BEGINNING being a %" Iron Rod South 86^ 44' 34" East along Mills Road a distance of 85.76 feet to a point for comer, said point being in the east right-of-way of Lakeview Boulevard (a 60' right-o.f-way); .. THENCE S~uth 86^ 44' 32" East C0ntint~ing al~ng l~ills Roa. d a distance of 124.50 feet to a'l~oint for calmer; THENCE North 43^ 16' 17" East along Trinity Road a distance of 97.99 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 46^ 43' 40" East a distance of 62.76 feet to a point for comer; :THENCE South 61^ 26' 46" East a distance of 184.15 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 46^ 08' 37" East a distance of 116.88 feet to a point for corner; THENCE South 78^ 31' 18" East a distance of 205.51 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 34^ 26' 15" East a distance of 1 t3.77 feet to a point for corner; 'ri--IENCE South'57^ 53' 03" East a distance of 124.36 feet to a point for corner;, THENCE South I~6^ 43'51" East a distance of 103.64 feet to a point for comer;, THENCE South 32^ 05' 28" East a distance of 151.09 feet to a point for corner; I'HENCE S;3uth 85^ 46' 40" East a distance Of 51.22 feet to a pointJor corner; .; THENCE North 45^ 18' 48" East a distance of 133.07 feet to a point for comer; ;['HENCE due East a distance of 60.95 feet to a point for comer; .THENCE South 53^ 41' 10" East a distance of 81.26 feet to a %" Iron Rod for corner;, THENCE South 03^ 13' 45" West a distance of 832.91 feet to a ½" Iron Rod for comer;, THENCE South 60^ 26' 45~ East a distance oW 546.69 feet to a Corp~ cT Engineers Concrete Monument marked Q-300-W for comer; THENCE South 37^ 06' 22" East a distance of 406.29 feet to a corps 0!Engineers C0nc. rete ;Monumerit mar"ked Q-299-W for. comer;, .. ;. . .. THENCE So~Jth 40'~,~4' 09~ East a distance of 551.29 feet to a Corps of Engineers Concrete 'Monument marked Q-298-W for comer;, · THENCE South -33^ 41' 46"-East a distance o[277.e0 feet-to a Corps of Engineers-Concrete · .Monument mari~ed.Q-297-W for c~.mer;, , "THENCE ~outh 25^.DS' 59".West a distanc6 of .152.09'feetto a Coq~. s Of E .n'.gineers'Cencrete '/vlonument mar~ed Q-295-'W.for.comer; FHENCE South 08^ 56' 29" West a distance of 296.82 feet to a Corps of Engineers Concrete Monument mar~ed Q-295-W for comer;, 33. ~ EXHIBIT Z-99-072 Field Notes for Parcel D - Single Family (SF-7) .(including School and Park sites) POINT OF BEGINNING due East a distance of 767.70 feet to a %" Iron Rod for corner;, THENCE South 63~ 27' 22" East a distance of 149;37 fe~t t° a poini; for corner;, .': THENCE North ~'6^ 02, 37" E~st a ~listance of 168.~6 feet toe point for cOrneT THENCE South 83^ 40' 47" East a distance of 122.65 feet to a point for corner; THENCE North 55^ 08' 07" East a distance of 150.52 feet to a point for corner; :THENCE North 68^ 27' 44" East a distance of 101.42 feet to a point for corner; THENCE North 81^ 13' 33" East a distance of 62.77 feet to a point for corner; THENCE South 87^ 32' 22" East a distance of 15.00 feet to a %" Iron Rod for comer;, THENCE South 02^ 27' 48" West a distance of 1,800.00 feet to a %" Iron Rod for corner; THENCE South 26^ 28"54" West a distance of 274.05 feet to a %" Iron Rod for comer; THENCE South 42^ 52' 48' West a distance of 220.14 feet to a ~" Iron Rod for corner, 'said point being on the north right-of-way line of McKinney Street (F;M. 426); THENCE North 47^ 27' 12" West al~ng said 'right-of-way line.a distance of 319.59 feet t~ Iron Rod for comer; THENCE North 46^ 46' 12" West along said right-of-way line a distance of 956.20 feet to a Iron Rod for a point of curvature on a Circular curve concave to the Southwest and having a radius of 710.61 feet to a point for corner and a tangent bearing of North 47^ 07' 12" West; THENCE mn along, the arc of said right-of-way line through a central angle of 16^ 29' 19" for a distance of 204.50 feet to a ~" Iron Rod for comer;, THENCE North 03^ 12.' 57"' East departing said right-of-way line a distance of 1,016.11 feet to the 'POINT OF BEGINNING. · Containing 50.84 acres, more or less. NOTICE O. ATTACHMENT 3 ~-'-. Z-99-072 -- .. , he Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will hold a public hearing on Wednesday/, October 13, 1999 to consider rezoning a 410 acre site located between University Drive (HWY 380) and McKtnney Street) F.M. 426 east of Mayhill Road from an Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Single- fatally. 7 (SF~7) zoning district on' 133 acres, Single-family 10 (SF-10) zoning district on 85 acres, and .' Single-family 13 (SF-t3)zoning district on 192 acres zoning di~tric, t (see map°n backside).. The property is legally described as Tracts 20,'23, 27A, 36, 40, 123, 124, 125, and 127 outof the M. Forr~st Survey (Abstract 417) and Tract 10 out of the W. Durham Survey (Abstract 330), in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. The purpose of the zoning change is to develgp a mix of single-family lots and housing types. The public hearing will start at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall located at 215 E. McKInney Street, Denton, Texas· Because you own property within two hundred (200) feet of the. subject property, the Planning and Zoning Commission would like to hear how you feel about this zoning change request and invites you to attend the public hearing. Please, in order for your opinion to be taken into account, return this form with your comments prior to the date of the public hearing. (This in no way prohibits you from attending and participating in the public hearing.) You may fax it to the number located at the bottom, mail it to the address below, or drop it off in-person: Planning and Developme, nt Department 221 N. Elm ST Denton, Texas 76201 At'tn: Wayne Reed, Planner II The zoning process includes two public hearings designed to proVide Opportunities for citizen "Wolyement and comment. Prior to the'publiC hearings; landownersWithin'two hundred (200) feet of le subjeCt property are notified of the zoning request by way 'of this notice. The first public hearing is held before the Planning.and Zoning Commission. · The Commission i.s, informed of the pement o[~,. responses in support and m opposibon. Secpnd, the zoning petitior~ is fo['~/a'~'ed to ~he City Council for final action providing the Commission recommends appro~/al. Should the Commission recommend denial, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the City Council. If owners of more than twenty (20) percent .of the land area within two hundred (200) feet of the site submit written opposition,, then six out of seven votes of th'e City Council are required to approve the zoning change. These forms are used to calculate fhe percentage of landowner opposition. Please circle one: ~of request') Neutral to request O PP os ed to req'u.u.~es._t 'hyslcal Address of Property within 200 feet: "~ff<~ .CITY OF DE. NTON, TEXAS Z-gg-072 200'NoEce. doc CITY HALL WEST · DENTON, TEXAS 76201 · 940.349.8350 - (F) 940.349.7707 35° - Z-99-072 i · :. The Pl~nlng and Zoning Gomm1~ton ofU~ C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ h~ on W~n~ay. S~eet, neut Tfimty ~aa. The pu~ D~ton, Te~s. Because you o.w.n property within two hund~d (ZOO) fe~ of the s~oJec~ property, the Planning da~ of ~o ~ ~ea~g. ~p~g e~ ~m;~ ~ ~ ~ not ~h~ y~ ~ p~ti~ ~ ~e pub~ h.n~, YOu ~y ~x~e ~fm ~ (940) ~07, mm3 ~ to ~he add~s be~w. or drop ~ ~ ~: PJen~n~ aM Development Depajt~ent 221 N. Elm ~n~ Tex~ 76201 A~: ~ Donald~ o ~l~ · Ion Is ~ ~ m~n s ~ a ' ~_~ _,_ _, .... :,~ · ~-~..o ~ ~ ~ ~O ~ ~ ~Or tidal a~, · o~em of more ~an ~ pe~t of ~e la~ ar~ ~in ~ hund~ f~t of the she subm~ ~si~n,'~n ~ ~ ~e ~ve~ vo~ ~ C~ ~u,~ are requk~ ~ apple ~e zo~ng mqu~ Thee ~r~ am u~ to ~l~ ~e ~men~ge ofpm~ ;n PJease CIm~ One: " In support of request Noul~'el to mq~ Op~ to r~uest Coming: SEE L~TER DATED 10-12-99 ATTAC~ C~I8~p: Addieon~ TX 75001 ~ OF DE~ON, TE~S CI~ HALL W~T DENTON, ~X ~20~ 36. li~ I AI~ COHST 11~ PAGE 02 VIA FAX (940) 349-7707 Planning and Develophtent l~partmont 221 bi. l,:lm S'o-cct Denton, Texas 76201 Attn: Mark I)onaldscm Zoning Casc Z-.99-072 Gentlemen: A~ a property owner adjacent to this 2onh'lg application, I have .~m~e conc~n'n with the r~u~ for One ramify l)wclling (gF-7) b&ng adja~nt to my propc~ tha~ h~ a Planned Devclopn~m zoning. Specifically the pi) ~ning on my pro~y p~tL~ mulfi-r~mily ~d light industrial u~s that would bc adja~nI to Ibc SF-7 .Zoning. The balance ortho applic~t's m'o~ny that is adjac~t to my i~ope~y is~ al~ it is my undcrstanding ~ll rem~n, a~icultural ~d platt~ for a minimum ofo~ a~c lots, As you are awarR, people will purchase homes or home sites and n~ver check to determine th~ zoning and ~i~ible land uses thru is ~t to them. The pmblom afi~s ~en the us~ ofmutti-f~ily or light indu~fi~ ~c implcm~ted. To all~iate thl~ potenti~ problem. would suggest t~ Planning ~d Zoning CommJ~ion requ~ ~he ~pli~nt to ~mtinue ~th the a~0ul~ural zo~ng for one a~'e lot n~num ~st of thc ¢x~tln~ platt~ ar¢~ ~ oflak~ew B~d. fi~r a min~um die.ce o!'700 f~t (or a r~nablc d]~ xhat is in keeping ~qth ~ood plannin~ pulicics and pracfic~) south of th&t north property line before c~m~enclng with thc SF-7 · Thank you for~ your consideration (ffthis r.equest.' Sinccrcl~, RalpbtBullard 37. PLANt..tlHG & DEVELO. ~ .. ATTACHMENT 4 MINUTES --- PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 20, '1999 A.3~nda Item Date_ Special Cell meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton, Texas was held on Wednesday, October 20, 1999, and began at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at ~City Hall, 215. E. McKinney. '. ' '. Commissioners Present: Jim Engelbrecht, Elizabeth Gourdie, Salty Rishel, Susan Apple, Rudy Moreno, Perry McNeill, and Carl Williams. Staff PreSent: Mark Donaldson, Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Bucek, Assistant City Attorney; Larry Reichhart, Development Review Manager; Wayne Reed, Planner II; Jerry Clark, Director of Engineering and Transportation. 1. Continue a public hearing to consider making a recommendation to City Council concemlng the rezonlng of approximately 410 acres from Agricultural (A) zoning classification to a variety of zoning classifications, including Single-family 7 (SF-7) on 133± acres, Single-family 10 (SF 10) on 85± acres, and Single-family 13 (SF-13) on 192+ acres. The property is located in east Denton, stretching from near Highway 380 to McKinney Street, near Trinity Road. (Z-99-072, Lakeview Ranch, Wayne Reed) Motion by Susan Apple and seconded by Salty Rishel to recommend approval with conditions to City Council. '~Discussl0n of item is included 'in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes : (Page 1). ' "' '" ' ' ' ' .. Motion carries 7-0. 2. Continue a public hearing to consider making a recommendation to City Council concerning the rezoning of approximately 48 acres of land from Agricultural (A) zoning classification to a Planned Development (PD) zoning classification allowing the development of 280 single-family residences. The property is located in east Denton, south of McKinney Street, approximately 3,000 feet east of its intersection with Trinity · Road. (Z-99-0.4.6, Lakeview Ranch, Wayne Reed) Motion by Susan Apple and seconded by Perry McNeill to recommend approval with conditions to City Council. iscuss~on of Item is Included in Court Reporter's transcript.attached to this set of minutes (page1). ' ' '.' .. . . . .~ - '· .. · ~ .' .Motion carries 6-1. Carl William§ opposed. 38. · Cea'dens,ItTM : 5 6 .? 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .[2, 24 25 PROCEEDINGS ~ ENOELBRECm': Good twining, eva'yens. At thls lhn~ IM llko to e, all to order t~ spcclal ealkxl ~ng o~ ~ PhOns ~d ~n~m~sslon for ~ Ci~ of ~n, T~as for ~s W~&y, ~ ~0~ 1999. W~ ~w ~o i~ on ~ ~& sm* d~lo~ and ~ a~ pm o~ sm~ ~jmt ~p~ ~ ~ across ~ ~4 across Mc~na~ s~t in on~ cas~. So ~ can ~ ~o~ of ~ at on~ ~8 ~d ~ ~ s~ff~o~ and d~clo~'s ~ et c¢~, and ~ ~ s~ply ~v~ ~o s~ vo~. ~y ob~on~ Okay. ~ ~t. ~ ~at cas~ I~ 1 is ~ con~nu8 a pubic ~ng and consld~ m~g a ~omm~&~0n Ci~ ~cil coning ~ ~ng of appro~ly 410 ac~ from ~cffi~l cl~sifi~on ~ a v~c~ et ~ng cl~sifi~ons ]nclu~ng s~ on 133 s~lo on 8S ac~, and 8ingl~F~ly 13 on 192 a~. ~ pro~ ~ l~a~ in ~t ~n~n s~ng from n~ Hi~y ~80 ~ Mc~nn~ 8~t n~ T~ Road. At ~s ~mg I'R o~ ~ pubic ~ng. ~ I~ No. 2 is ~ con~nu¢ a pubic ~ng ~ consld~ m~ng a ~o~aon ~ Ci~ .~cil conc~ing ~ ~ning of approx~a~ly 48 ; ' Page 2 acm of land from the Agricultural classification to a Planned I~velopment zoning classification allowing the devalopmeut of 250 slngle-familyreddeuce.s. The property is located in east Dtraton south of McKinney Street approximately 3,000 feet east of its intersection with Trinity Road. At this time, I'll olma the public hearing for that Agenda itcmb as well. And I will ask Mr. Reed to provlde .u~ wlth the staff repert. MR. REED: Thank you, Chairman Engelbrecht, and good evening, Commlssloncrs. I'll simply skip tho usual paper that we go over. Is that all fight? The public proceedi.ngs, the public he~arlngs proceedings, is that all right since it's just one hearing tonight? ' MR. ENGELBRECHT: Yeah. MR. IUSED: This was up here -- MR. ENGELBRECHT: oh, yeah. Let's review the -- thank you. I forgot to review the proced.ures for publlo he~4ngs. Tho Chair will opea tho publlo hearing. Following that, the staff will read its petition, give its report, m~d make a recomraendation. Following the staff report, that's number thr~ on the owrhead, the petitioner will lx~ grantexl ten r~inutas to speak to the petition. And following that, persons in favor of the petltlon will each b~ granted an opportunity to ~peak. Following that, pexsous in opposltlon to tM p~titlon will PLANNING AND ZONING 2 opposifio,a, thca numbex six will come rote phy aad tl~ 4 ~buttal. Followhag that, I will clos~ th~ public lz~dng. 5taffwillma~ee. auy final remarks. 6 Commission will discuss thc lX:tition and make their 7 r¢couuncadatlon. $. .j. Acoupk.oFno.TM. .An. ykl:cakermaYi~'' 9 ' allow~l additional *;-~- to sl~nk by a vot~ of thr~ . 10 members of th~ Commission. We would ask each sl~ak~r to 11 conca-n him or lx:r~lt with prc~eatlng n~,v Jnformatlon 12 not glvcm by pr~'adous slx~kcrs. And, finally, 13 Commlssloners may at any tlmc ask qu~tions of anyone 14 and call on fl~ staff at any tlme and may adjourn to 15 closcxl s~sion as allowed by law. Thank you, Mr. Recd. 16 Appr~|at~ that. 17 ~ ~ I suppos~ now I'll summarlz~ 18 rcquczt lx~fo~ us. 'l'tm applicant is requesting, on th~ 19 eno hand, on t~ south s~¢ of McKJnncy on a 47-ac~ tract for a small lot ~velopmeat of 5,500 squarv foot minimum. For that particular rcqu~t, staff sent out a public notice to flw property owners and as of tl~ 23 writing and as oftoday ~'ve r~ceiv~l no r~ponscz for that particular request. For t~ otter rexlue~t, wh/ch is 25 tim larger.proi~-ty on tl~ north s~do of McK/n.n. cy and to · · . Page ' 1 the south of University Drive, staff sent out a total o[;.. 2 13 notices to property owners and as of this ti~e 3' received no direct responses as far as the forms that 4 we've mailed out. I have given to the Commission, 5 however, a letter typed up by a property owner in the 6 area indicating their support for the request. So 7 public notice was d:,aUy noted. A courte~ notice had 8 gong out previously but I don't have the nmal~rs in 9 front of me. But that was sent out originally for this 10 request. 11 Both of these propertles were part of a . 12 P. lannedDevelopment, which in 1997 was rczoned back'to 13 Agricultural. Backin S~pt¢~nber of 1990 this entire 14 property was zoned including what is now Lakeview Ranch 15 the on~-acre subdivision that is already out ther~ and 16 is not part of the re4uest tonight, was zoned Planned 17 Development 126 for a mixture of residential lot sizes. 18 So now we're ironically back heoo tonight to look at a 19 request to rezone it from Ag to a mix of resldentlal lot 20 sizes. 21 I would like to state that one of the most 22 important parts about this zoning request involves its 23 impact on traffic or transportation infrastructure. And 24 I wonid like to ask if the Commisslon. has aay concerns ] 25 about traffic, that maybe we look at that Fa'st as Jerry OCTOBBR20, 1°' 39. p~o'l-P~o4 Page 3 any coneerns that they have before I od.d anything else 4 or ~ive staff's recommendation. $ ~ ~osLem~c~'r: okay. Wo would like to 6 hear a report on whom we stand with r~ard to the issues 7 of th~ rcad and the...briclge. S . MR. REI~D: The rease, n I bring thls up is. · 9' lerry Clark has a tirn~ schedule tonight. I want t6 make 10 sur~ we have enough thne if you have questions to have 11 that discussion. 12 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Great. Okay. 13 MR. CLARK.. Members of the Commisslon, 14 hasle, ally, we've been working with the developer. The 15 transportation issues are not completely solved yet but 16 I think we're making progress towards those. We've 17 reviewed the traffic study, have done significant 18 analysis, and I think we're working out probably or have 19 worked out 90 percent of those issues. That's not 20 completely'confirmed yet and that's why the conditions 21 are in your backup. 22 The major issue involves the location of 23 where the secondary arterial is going to be and that has 24 not been completely determined. I can go into detail 0n 25 that if you Want or just tell yeu that that's still up in · ' Page 6 the air. The developer wishes to move it outside of his development and that would move it to a route to the west of Trinity or down Trinity Road. And right now staff is recommending that it be moved to Trinity Road because that is where the cars will go immediately anyway, We're not sure that that other route, where we will get no immediate right-of-way, helps us and so we feel that these can be worked out but they haven't been as of yet. The lower end is contingent on the upper end. Obviously, your ~onlng Case 46, I thlnk is the number. And if the road is moved over to Trinity, it ."' majorlt~ of tho issuc~. Tb~ mt ~la~ ~ s~tfi~ l 3 replay ~ ~ol~g ~ 4 ~ds, of ~ ~clo~ ~ ~o~ ~rov~. 5 O~vlo~ly, if ~ S~ com~ 6 some o~you ~vo ~ on ~ bond co~ ~d ~prov~ 7. ~t f~ ~ ~ don't ~vc 8 ' ~prov~. BUt most 0f ~ o~ on~'~ on. Ci~ 9 s~ and wo~d ~ ~vc ~ ~ don~ by ~s d~clo~ 10 or a d~clo~ ~t d~clops ~fom ~n. ~ ~t ~Ip 11 you 12 ~ ~OELe~: ~ ~ qu~gons? Y~, 13 ~. W~. 14 ~ WILL~S: l ~s in h-la hnd w~n you i5 m~nfion~ who world pay for ~ ~on do~ bd~. 16 ~d you ~t ~ pl~so? 17 ~ c~ T~ ac~l cwsslng of P~an 18 C~k is probably going ~ ~ a Ci~ 19 ~t's ~ eno at ~ sou~ end 20 ~ and ~at ~U ~ a m~-~on do~ 21 by ~ ~c it's a~ done but ~t's ~scntlal 22 ~ conn~fion. 23 ~ WmL~S: okay. h ~at c~ntly in 24 ~ ~n~n~ng bu~cL ~bHc Works bud~t? 25. ~ c~: U ~ ac~y probably end up ' " Page 8 I in a ~in~e buret. ~ bd~cs have ~ mOVed to .,' 2 3 M~ ~LL~S: ~tiy, it's'not a c~t 4 bu~c~ i~ today? 5 M~ C~: It'S not bu~c~d. So thc ~ ac~ ~nneetion from ~ 46 to ~o Pr~o is 7 ~v~l y~s off. So ~s no~sou~ ~dal is 8 probably ~veml y~s off wMch m~ns most of 9 ~ffic ~I ~me do~ ei~ to Mc~nnoy or ~oy'll go 10 no~ up to 380 or ~cy'H f~ in on Mills ~d BI~. 11 Do you ~d~d ~o~ r~? ~o you ~p-to-da~ on ~ uso ~csam? bridge as what Would have b6%n' used with that most western rout~ and that is a shorter 14 brld~e and will actually save on the cost. The City 15 will prohably be the one that ends up building that 16 ~_ml~ss some other h~e development comes into this area 17 and changes the whole make-up of it. You're probably 18 looking at a multi-million dollar brid~e to get across 19 Pecan Creek them. So this move over will save and that 20 will hapl~n either at Trinity or if it's moved farther west. 22 ! think thorn's one other issue. One of th6 23 positive benefits if Trinity is used is it would be 24 tlpgradedlmmediately. It'sklndofaseal-coatrcad. We 25 would upgra~le it to City standards. I think that's the PLANNING AND ZONING 12 those roads? ' 13 MR. ENOELBRECHT: · Mr..Williams, doe~ that 14 answer your question? 15 MR. WILLIAMS: It left mc a little bit mom 16 confused. 17 MR. ENOEt~P. ECHT: All right. We'll go on 18 and then we can come back. Ms. Gourdie. 19 Ms. cOUP. nm: That's what I was wondering if :0 you could show us a visual as to what you're talking 21 about. It is confuslng when you say moving it to th¢ 22 west versus where it's proposed. 23 MR. c~tu~ I should have used this in thc 24 tug place. I apologia. This is -- the curr~t 25 Thorougl~ar¢ Plan calls for it to ¢{thcr come here or on OCTOBER20, 199~ 40. - . Page 5 - Page Trlnity. Thos~ options wc-m put in in D~xx~mb~r of 1998 so if you look at your ol.d Thorov?5~rar~. Plan, ! mcan, the cxistME Mobility Plan, .as it's called, it shows it ~oming right ha'~ throPEh thc development. The developer is interested in moving it out of that s~ctlon. They've already built the two lanes up hem and if any mom lan~ am built up hero, the City will construct those. ' ' - .' ' =tl.on; they t; 0ro of. resi&ntinl character. They've proposed to move it ovg hero. I think we're right now tending to think this is the bett~r solution slnce there's no right-of-way linexl up here and no develol~rs contributing now and no 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 2O 23 24 25 proposed developments in those me. as. So we're thinking that this is the best rout~ for the thoroughfare. This is the bridge that I was talklng about right hero. We'r~ dso ns one of the conditions asking that before ' this development proc~ds on, that thls bridge be addressed. This bridge is a critical link to make sure that traffic can como betw~-n hero and hero wlthout just complctely loading up these two rural roads. So thcy have a significant amount of traffic coming here and they'll have a significant amount of traffic coming here. We feel this is, as far as the thoroughfare, that .this will be the best solution.., · 1 4 6 7 8. 9 10 11 12 13 is the one to the east, is it goes tl~ough ~ '" do not ~ hc w~hld eve ~ M~L~ W~ not ~t? "' MS. ~IE: I'm ~. W~ ~t. ~d ~ ~t's p~va~ pro~ g~t now, I ~li~vc aH off ~ wc~ vc~ ~n~ ~t ~s may never ~om~ pubEc g~t-of-way ~d thi~ is wh_.. y ~ T~pi~ Rmdw cho~'~ ~c ~a~vc M0b~ PI~ obj~tivc. Okay. So I'm -- ~ ~t's nil g~t now, so wc'~ still on ~e old Mob~ PI~ ~ it'~ ~ l~ng in wait. Okay. ~at's what I n~ to ~ow. ~s i~ why it w~ v~ ~nf~ing ~ ' Pag¢10 MR. RISHE~ 'those two roads ar~, what, ' M/lla and Blass? MR. C[.,AR~ Y~, this is ]Mills and that's BlaSS. MS. c,o~ea~m I gu~s I'm p~rpl~x~ lx~auso didn't vm air, dy adjust our Mobility Plan at a previous me, ting in which wo wa'o gel.nS to change it to tho mlddlc rout~ that you'r~ proposing which is Trinity Mills? I l~liovc wc had a big m~tlng about that, didn't bm. ~O~,tOSON: wc had a brlcFmg. Tho Planning and Zoning Commission made a r~commca&tloa on that amcnclmcnt. That's ncv~ b~cn taken forward to Co. tmcil l~adiOg r~solution of this zonln$ case,, ' · basically. ~ ~ 'that's a good point. MS. OOURD~F; okay. So p~ndlng r~plutlon of thls zoning cas% th~ rccommcndatlon wasn't put forward because w~'~ waiting on what's hap~nlng t~. Oh, wow. ~ MCNEILL: W~t ~$ ~ l'~x~Onl.ul~adat~on? MS. ootn~o[~ ?hat wc switch th~ Mobility Plan, which originally show~l th~ out~r loop which went along the !~_~ tlm-e, to tlm oth~r dnU~l lin~ which is TrinRy l~ill, because it was suppos~ly ¢conomlcally mom f~s~l~ The problem with th~ third route,, which 14 MR. CLARK: I'm §lad you brought that up. 15 That's a very good point. 16 MS. 6OURDIE: 'fhaak you. 17 MR. CLARK: Approclat~ it. 18 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Mi'. Risbel. 19 , MR. RISHEL: DO~ tho prol~rty adjoin or 20 touch The Pro,~rve prol~rty to the south? 21 MR. CLARK: It comes right to the cro~k and 22 th~a obviously on the other side that is The Preserve. 23 So right hero, they're opposite sides of the cr~k of 24 Pecan Cre~k. 25 MR. DONALDSON: I believe between tbem is 1 Corps of Bngln~r. land. ... 2 ~ msfiiiL: s6 ~ don't physically abut? 3 MR. DONALDSON: 4 ~ mSHEU okay. Tl~n!< you. MI~ ENOELBRECHT: Mi'. Williams. 6 blR. WILLIAMS: YClth. I n~ to ~ a 7 little bit more about this Mobility. Plan that has 8 something to do with this prol~'ty lx~ause I'm trying to 9 find out -- Ixcause what I l~ard was the Mobility - tho 10 ~oommendation is based upon tl~ approval or disapproval 11 oF this zoning. And mayb~ I ~ that wrong. PLANNING AND ZONING 12 ~m. ct.n~ okay. Let mc stmi over on that. 13 On t~ Mobiflty Plan'it outlines, om'. goals ~'or . 14 transpo~ation for tim ncxt- 15 ~ WlLtt~,ls: I un&rsta~d what a Mobility 16 Plan is. 17 M~.~ tknowlt. I'm just h'ylng tO 18 l~ad into lt. Iapologlz~ifthatwasnotvcry- 19 MS. WR.U.~aS: In oiler words, I don't want 20 to ~ ~ till 12:00 o'clock. 21 ~ ~ sum. Ityou want to chang~ th~ 22 Mobility Plan, what it r~lulr~ is an am~ndin~nt. What tl~ 23 d~v¢loi~r had proposed with this am~dmcng wbm ~ came 24 in ~ proposal that th~s would probably im tho Imtt~r i25 solution ~md th6 &v¢lol~r was not in agr~x:m~nt with that OCTOBER 20, 1999 4 I. Page ' . Page 9,- Page 12 at the time and we ar~ negot!atin~ with them now. But the offiglal amendaient h~ not proceeded ~n. If we go with Trlnity, it was actually shown as an alternate and we'll check with legal and see if all we have to do is delete one of the two alternates. This was shown as one altemat~ and this was shown as another. This was shown as the primary and this wasi'the alternate. We'll see if _...Cond~ns~It Page 8 "al! we. have ~o dois delete t.hat off add wi re411, y dOn't. have to have a hearing br we may ha/to to have a hearing. We haven't confirmed that yet. Once this issue is resolved, then we'll do it. But the amendment of the Mobility Plan makes it official where the route is supposed to go. If it's on Trinity, then this will go down to just like a residential street and come off the map. MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. Now, I've heard that this Commission madc an amendment and it's sitting somewhere someplace. MR. CLARK.' They made a recommendatlen to the City Council. MR. WILLIAMS: okay. It left here and went. to City Council. MR. CLAI~'. It hasn't gone to City Council yet. It hasn't been put on an agenda but your rieommendation stands until i.t,s either not pursued or .. · ' .' Page 14 1 City Council adopts it or adopts something different. 2 l~tR. WILLLkMS: Okay. Before I can vote on 3 this, I'm going to need to read that amendment because I'm 4 voting in the dark if I don't read that. 5 MR. Ct3.1uc: okay. I'll get that for you. 6 I'll go dowa and run a copy of it and get that for you. 7 . Ma. WILLIAMS: okay. Thank you. 8 MR. ENG£1..BRECI-IT: MS. Gourdlc. 9 l~fs. OOURDIE: Arc thc roads Blagg and Mills I0 able -- I drove down thera when I went through thls 1 ! property and they am very rural, to say thc least. 12 Whom ar~ .w.c going.to s~n.d thc property while we: -: 13 the.se pcople -- I 'raean, I guess w.hat I'm trying to ask is 14 build-out time versus time for the roads, are we just 15 going to be putting undue stress on these rural roads 16 for these folks that live there or what are We really 17 gdmg to be doing here7 18 ~ CLARK: 'they are very nual and that's 19 one of the thb~oos that we're negotiating. I think it's 20 Mills is the one that is proposed to carry i,000 trips a 21 day. Th~ impact on thls one is minimal. But this one 22 is proposecl to carry 1,000 trips a day and one of ihe 23 things that we're -- and that's one of the thlnSs that's 24 not resolved yet is that we're not so sure if we're 25 go'rog to run 1,000 trips a day on it that it shouMn't 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23. 24 25 PLANNING AND ZONING '-' ~".:- .P. age have some improvements to it. MS. 6OURDIE: But this is outsld~ of the property o~o of the development's property? ~ CLARK: It's outside thc prSperty owner but if they nm 1,000 trips a day, then we want to make sur~ that we've looked at that carefully. MS. C_,OtmD~£:' And is it in our ability to have · them rix the'road, up to -- . ... .. Mp..cI--AI~: To'the amount that thcygen~rate the impact, yes, it is. MS. C_,OUI~.DIE: okay. Thank you. MR. Ct.A~: And they have to bring it t'o a minimum standard where it's safe. MS. 6OURDIE: 'thank you. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Other questions? MR. MCNEILL: When was that resolution sent forward to the Council? That was just after I got on the Conunlsslon, wasn't it? Wasn't that the last two or threa months that that was here? And we had this same discusslon about shall it come right straight down or shall it go west and that was the resolution we passed forward. Okay. Thank you. MIL CLARK: It was in late August, early September. MIL ENGELBRECHT: I[' we recommend -, let's : page 161 I assume for a moment that t~e Trinity Road~ since that 2 was our recomn3.endation let's assume that's the route 3 that's going to be taken, what will be the requirement 4 of this developer with regard to that stretch from 5 McKinney to the new Lnkvlew Boulevard? 6 ~ Ct. Amc: That's also one oftbe things that 7 still ham't ~ settled, what impact that -- they 8 haven't agreed on the impact and what they are willing 9 to improve yet. Do you Want me to tell you what we're 10 recommending7 11 MR. I~GELBRECHT: Yeah. I want to know 12 because I'm. not. at all ~omt'ortabld .with trying to mOVe 13 any of that traffic d0wfi'those little roads and then 14 over to'Mayhili. That'~ why this whole plan was put 15 together,.Lakeview Boulevard and the design was to --the 16 purpose was to carry that trafftc from this area through 17 there. 18 MIL CLARK: We're recommending two lanes be 19 improved from here to here and that this bridge be 20 installed, two lan~s of it. 21 lvIR. MCNEILL: On your map ther~ -- excuse me 22 for interrupting -- on yottr map where is University, 380 23 -- McKinney, where's McKinney?. That's McKinney right 24 th~. Okay. 25 ~ I~O£I.BI~ECHT: Serry, when you say OCTOBER 20, 1999 42. Page 13- Page 16 .. · Condens~itTM -; 1 3 5 7 9 I0 I1 12 13 14 17 18 19 20 2' 2. Pag~.17 improved, am you ~lking curb, gutter, two-lane curb and gutter? ~ C~u~,K: Yes, two-lane City standards. ~ m~oE~zec~rr: All right. Yes, Mx. Rishelo MIL RISHEL: AS yOU talked about the road that comes down from University southand i!'s ctu,egtly twolanes. Is that what.you said, Jcrry? · - '. M~. Ct.~tK'. Yes, two lanes f~om here to here. MP~ IusP,~L: And you said if we wanted to take that to four lanes, we'd need to do that on our own as a City. Do we own the right-of-way on that? MIL CLARK: Yes. There's g0 foot of right-of-way. MIL RISH£1.~ Thank you. MIL I~/GBLBRECHT: okay. Other questions? Well, I tMnk that answers my questions with regard to the northern link from McKinney up. Basically, what we need is a condition that until that road is repaired and that bridge is built, nothing goes anywhere. That's the way I see it. MIL Ct. ARK: That's generally what we're rccommcnding through thosc conditions that Planning is put in the rcport~ .. .: I think we'rogoing to be all fight with this ifweget, m 2 since it's. ,constr~cted ~e~, ~wc g.ct t~is bridge in m 3 place and ~get the two lanes down to ~ because a lot 1 4 of their traffic will um their resldcntlal street. This 5 sort of traffic will feed down. Some here might come up 6 and usc this. ? ~ l~rO£LSP.~ctrr: well, n.'ght. 8 · MIL ~'.. A. lot of ~heir.traffic, but th.en 9 it will COme in here and come to Mayhlll and come to I0 288. Acgrtalnpcrcentageofitlsguingtocomeup 11 here and usc 380. 12 MR. ~G£LBP. ECh'T: Exactly. But we're losing · ' ''.- ' Pagel8 · MIL ENGELBI~CHT: okay. Now goL,-'lg south, now we've got the other link of this thing. Now, right there except is it now right there or is it moved over hnmediately across Trinity Road? MIL Ct,Urn: if this is moved and they really have no impact then this becomes a rcsidentlal street. This becomes a residential street and this will really become somebody els~'~.issue. Thls one will bo -- when thcsc properties develop, then wc'li get tMs section. You had a zoning casc come in I think for a mobile home community, that gives you some opportunities there. 13 that link that they would have built two lanes right 14 there? 15 MR. CLARK: yeah. T~$ link which would 1 ~ have been on there is not going to be provided for here. 17 SO, yeah, we are losing that. 18 MIL mSH£L: But it's a lot less bridge to ' Mi~ DONAI-r~SON: Yeah, that's go.ne away. ~ ~GEh~PU~Cn~h But that's the probl~rn with moving it over to Trinity Road is iS that all of a sudden that link right them now becomes a plcc~ in waiting, if you will. If we had taken the eastern 19 gross. 20 MIL CLARK:' Yeah, we are saving some money 21 with the bridge. This bridge is going to be between 500 22 and 800 feet shorter. 23 MIL ENGELBKECHT: okay. All right. 24 ~ CLARK: So that's going to reduce our 25 costs. There are two bridges this way but they're still Page route, then this developer would have been required to construct that link of Lakeview Boulevard? MIL Cu~x~. ~Sght. MR. I~GBLB~U~CHT: Could I get that other one back up th~r~? All of a sudden you switched maps on me now. Thank you. Mm c~ ~asically, we would have got it down to here but they don't generate the need for this bridge but w~ would have had it from here. The t~-$ is I. I shorter than thc one that comes across here. 2 MIL ENGELB~CHT: And The Preserve will 3 build up -- 4 MR. Ct.~,~: I know now, I apologize, I need 5 to mention before, the real advantage which they've 6 bro-~ht up all along on this is a thorovgheare over in 7 this area, over in this area, is really serving -- which ~ it's serving this area, it's better to have it in the 9 middle than it is clear over on one side. 10 MIL ~.NO~BPU~CHT: yeah, and the bridge is 11 shorter. PLANNING AND ZONING 12 : MIL CLA~: That,s the major benefit we gain 13 '~d I thlnk'thc benefit Of that hopefully will outweigh' ' · 14 the loss we have here and also the galn we have from the 1~ shorter bridge here. So there are some real positive l~ things in that. I apologlze for not mentioning that. 17 M~. ENGELBR~CHT: Okay. Now, Thc Prescrvc 15 will bring it up to where? 19 MIL CLARK: The Preserve is going to bring 20 it up to right here. 21 MR. ENOELBRECh'T: All right. 22 MIL CLARK; That's Pecan Creek. This is l~ Pecan Cr~kright here. 24 MiL RISHEL~ South of the ~k. 25 MIL Ct. AmC'. ¥~da. That will stop on tl~ OCTOBER 20, 1999 43. P. age 17 ~- P~ge 20 .Cond~is~itTM · .. . . )' $ ? 1 2 3 4 5 Page 21 ~/~NGELnlW~2h~r: yeah. So we ~vo ~'fi~ Out a ~y to g~t ~o bfl~o in ~d g~t ~at'li~ do~ ~ or~ to ~ ~at ~ ~ ~y up. M~ ~: Y~. M~ ~GELB~: ~at*s ~ do it. ~at*s not to a~u~ ~o fl~t-of-~y? M~ C~: NO, not to a~u~o fl~t-of-way. fl~t-of-way? M~ C~: ~t. M~ C~: ff ~ dovelo~r gave ~ a fl~t-of-~y you ~uld probably ~unt ~at ~ a l~w~o. ~ is no Sm~ ~volv~t on ~at. ~ ~g ~at tho S~ is ~l~ng about wor~ng is wor~g get ~s b~o in pla~ ~ ~ State would l~e to ~ ~s in to h~lp. ~ey're aw~o of ~ ~ng~tion hero ~d ~s would ao~ally help somo along -- when 2~8 is 'Page 22 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Are they going to assist us with that larger bridge at this point? MR. CLARK: We have no offers yet. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Okay. You don't have any? Okay. All fight. MR. CLARK: Th/s is an existing bridge so the p.rqgr',un they have would put some money into it. Tl~ere is no bridge here., · MR. ENGELBRECHT: Okay. Any other questlens? Thank you. And you'r~ going to get the -- ER, CL~X: Copy for Mr. Williams.. .. MR. ~aEL~CHT.. Okay. Very good. ER. WILLIAMS: ;rhafik y6u.. ' MR. ENGELBRECHT: Mr. Reed. MR. REED: I'll start off by correcting myself earlier. I did forget that we have received thr~ responses from property owners. Two of them are in favor, They did not write anything but they are in favor, Wc did receive one in opposition and it is from a proF;rty owacr which is adjac~at to thc 072 request, And ff wc get thc document camera back, thc property owner owns property up ha'~. And, basically, let me show the zoning map also demonstrates that that particular proix'rty located up he~ is in Pn-no. lhad mentioned earlier that thk property was down-zoned, if I could 1 2 3 4 another portion was kept. But the portloh to the north 5 of this property is for non-residential uses. I think 6 there may be some Multi-Family, as well. 7 MR. DONALDSON: There's C-cneral Retail, $ Multi2Fanul'y, and Light Industrial.' - 9 MR. REED: Arid it's i~port~t ~h~t I point l0 that out because the concern of the prop~'y owner up' 11 there says that they have concern with the request for 12 one-family dwelling, SF-?, being adjacent to their 13 property, which has a Planned l~velopment zoning 14 designation. And often the Commission is sensitive when 15 there's different residential zoning. In this case, 16 it's Multi-Family, General Retail, Commercial abutting 17 what would be SF-? for this request. And I'm going to 18 pass this around. 19 And I thank Serry Clark for going over 20 transportation so eloquently. That is, of course, one 21 of the major issues of this zoning request. The other is 22 its compatibility with surrounding zoning and its 23 consistency with our Comprehensive Plan. Concerning 24 those issues, I'll address that we find at staff level 25. Ihat. the request is consistent. And if you look at the say that~ from PD-126down to Agbackin 1997. A ' [ portion of..fl3.e PD l'crna!n~d and that ~ the northern portion arid th~;t'was for non-resldenttal uses. And also [ , -' " : Page 24 I request for the l~rop~rty' on thc south si'de of McKinney for 2 5,500 square foot lots and balance that with the remaining 3 property, some 410 acres where they're going for a ralx of 4 SF-?, SFq0, and SF-I% we f'md that in total this request 5 offers a mix of lot sizes and, therefore, provides 6 something that is consistent with our Comprehensive Plan, 7 as well as the 1998 Growth Management Plan and laud use, 8 draft Land Use Plan. 9 As far as its compatibility, well, there's 10 not much out there fight now except for some single- 11 family residances on larger acreage and a lot of ETJ. 12 And, of course, we don't controJ .tho property.adjacent la to the request.which is already in tho ETS. ~o we do . 14 find this consistent and compatible in so far ss it can 15 be with existing land uses. And I'll point out that the 16 developer is also -- the applicant in this case is also 17 the developer of the Lakeview Ranch property which is 18 the one-acre subdivision with 155 lots that's already 19 out there. So I think he can best address how is this 20 compatible with one-acre lots. I'll be happ)~ to answer 21 any questions. 22 MIL ENGELBRECHT: Questions, Commissioners? 23 It appears not at this time. Thank you. Is the 24 petitioner or petitioner's rcpresentatlvo present7 If you 25 would give us your name and business addre~ for the 'LANNINO AND ZONING OCTOBER 20, 1999 44. pa-go 21 '. Page 24 , Con'd°nsoltTM ... Pagd.2.5 record. lv~ ~PAIN:. ld~ name is Paul ~pain. Busings ~ddress is ?0~ Lakevlew Boulevard. We~r~ the on1¥ it there, basically. If I could start out by telling you about our first phase. The entire project is 735 acres. The f~t phase which we are developing out at Lakeview Ranch hero that you .s9¢ is 157. lots on 273 acres. A huge first phase,' all lots ope to fivc acres . '. iri size. In th&t p~.oject wc havc started on the amenity canter and wc'vc started on thc ¢ntryway off of ag0, we've paved 1,000 to 1,200 feet of ¢ntryway off of 380 to get thc address on aS0 and get the look. Thc amenity center, sales center is under construction now. As you sec, it has wry much of a ranch feel. That's under construction about 2,000 square feet. That will house a pool in the back for the community, community rooms, kitchen, restrooms, and also a sales offic~ whilc thcre is sales going on out thcre. V/c also have plans for the f'u~t phase, horse trails. Wc'vc met with Ed sovcral times and since we back up to the Corps, wc'd likc to turn the dirt bikc trails into horse trails and havca littlc better. We do have some of the lots deed restricted so that they can havc horses. Some of tbera arc largc enough too whcre you could go out the back of your lot directly onto the. .- . Page 26 Co~s land and ride and tie into Lake Ray Roberts. It would be really beautiful. If I could walk thropgh the project sort of phase by phase beeause it's awfully large. I'm not sure, who was the letter in opposition from? MR. ENOELBRECHT: Mr. Bullard. MiL SPAn¢: He's our neighbor to thc ~orth. Mr. Bullard actually grew up.right in here. · · MS. C, OURDI£: ,M~. Spain, thank you. That's much better. MR. SPA_tN: Part of the original Bass track was north of our tract and it was a higher zoning of Retail, Mu. ltl-Family and Industrial. This land for the most part is fiat.other than it has same mesquite trees. Mr. Bullard also owns over hero to the west. He worked cooperatlvcly with us to glvc us thc right-of-way. Wc built thc road and put in a water line and he allowed us to do the landscaping, put up a fence to really improvc the area. He's been cooperative. The property adjoining that would bo parcel A is about 82 acres and is basically treeless. There are a few trees down here in this comer ~.ud some over hero along the cre~k. For the most part 'a pretty fiat and wide open. Again, it was our. · intention that Blagg Road would bo ¢limlnate~l Otle~ Appaloosa is put in. This place we eau the enclave becau.~ it's sort of a prlvatc little area. It bas corps 1 2 3 4 ? 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 of engineer property over hero. Again, it does have hlgher zo.ain,.g to the north or it. And to the south orit, it has probity'that was also part of the original Bass and has patio homes and five and eighi unit per acre t~sidential zoned hero. That's the re~son for the 7,000 square foot rcqucst hcrc as thc minimum site. Bceause of our neighbors, as they dcvclop, wc'rc looking at "industritd multi-family, on one side and intensity ~f five to clght on thc othcr'sldc.' However, certainly if.wc arc' successful with what wc'ro proposing and dcvcloplng now, wc will continue doing so. Again, this is amin. lrnum. With the zoning around us, we feel like that's a good land usc. Tract B is thc tract parallcllng A. Spotted trees up in this area. It goes along thc creek, originally planned for one creek to go down the middle and basleally reflect this, which it may, in fact, do. W~'vc rextuested on that some 84 acres SF-10. Another part of that tract is a 15 acre parcel down here which goes along the creek and is awfully attractive. Tract No. C is probably thc prcRicst, it's just under 200 acres. It's prctty heavily wooded, the corps is over on this side. The creek running along thc north side. It have various owners on thc west, mobilc homc parks, tractors, old cemeteries, and thcn thc organic farm here as it swings over to the cas!, But from this · ' .' Page I ~art up, it adjoins the corps and is a solid lot ~f woods 2 and it's just gorgeoq.s: Them'.s quite a bit of 3 topography. Again, that was one of our original reasons 4 for wanting the zoning moved over. In this area, wc have 5 come up with a plan for it. We have planned two lots per 6 acre on this property because of the topography. We feel 7 like the lots have to be larger to save the trees where 8 the lots are platted. We roll out et'that into parcel D 9 which is pretty flat and has a ~vater tank. We have a plan 10 there to give to the school system, a school site for an 11 elementary school, 12 and a half acres They've requested 12 that it have a park next t9 it so'we are also going t° 13 give a park two and a half ne~t to iL so th~ school site 14 will be 15'acres. 15 To the north of that -- although parcel D we 16 are requesting %000 square foot lots between the sebool, 17 the park and then what Ed would like to do with the rest 18 of this fight here is have a community-wide park and that 19 may be in fact a part of the bond election w .hleh we really 20 supported. 21 If yon eross MeKinney you run into the other 22 piece down here which we haven't explored as mack It's pretty overgrown, but we did learn from Weldon it used be a motorcycle track and they put the tires at the edge - I tthe tums. Wetho: ;t somebody was dumping tkes out ] PLANNING AND ZONING OCTOBER 20, 1 45. Page 25 - Page 28 Pag0 ~ I~¥ tho thousands. It tum~xl out that th~ ~ using tho~c for tlx~r motorcycle h-act.. But wc havcn't cxplo~l thts, altho,g'~ you can sc~ it's a lltt~ wooded. TI~ topography is fairly fiat. It would b~ a nlc~llttle co~unuulty with tlm corps on t~ back south sldc. So v~ plan haw that would allow an ama ~vlx~ you would ha¥c l~plc that didn't want a l~m lot, would allow something mom mMntaioablc~ again; dc~. rcstrlctc~ tightly : ' controllcd~ mor~ op~ spac~ i4'tl~ communi~. In fix: overall ?35 acrc~, overall density of 2.3 units per ac~ no commcrchl, no attacl~l housing, all slngl6 family attach~l zoning. As we did this plan, as wa came Up with it, th~ one thing ~ did is we had public l~-dnEs in th~ community to s~ what tl~ communlty felt about it all. Our flrst one was tl~ nortlx~ s~tlen. Th~ second one was for th~ center sccilon ofth~ property. And tl~ third was for th~ southern scctlon. Mark attended all mectlngs. We had anywlx~ from 20, 25 people at th~ various m~tlngs to ~ what th~h- tho,,..ohts and concerns w~r~. And I don't b~li~ve we had any opposition to any of th~n. We met with ~ha neighborhood and I think w~ have ~ support. We are missing some of tl~ ovmcrs in that neighborhood. Ms. McN~t has come again. She's one of our neighbors over ~ on this piece. ~ oth~r Mr. and'Mrs. Yaton sro one of th~ thr~ Page 30 houses here that arc in thc middle of the project. And Mrs. Wilkcrson and her husband llvc up hem in thc comer. Wc've tried to work with the neighborhood on all the different issues that corec up as wc dcvclop in thc area and hope that wc havc their support. We'd certainly b~ ol~a for any other questions. MR. ENGELBRECHT: .CommissionerS. Ms. o ;ae... MS. GOURDIE: Mr. Spain, I guess I'm a little perplexed~ could you just clarify, again, for rne one more time, the northern half o1' the property, fight above the 1.; yo.u .d.th.at they.Wouta which'would abutting the PD tO ~e north of the prol~rty which would b~ followed by a tract right underneath ih correct. I believe that is the -- what was the zoning on that? ' MR. SLAIN: Five to eight units per ~cm patio MR. DONALDSON: That's a remnant of PD 126. MI~ RISI-mL~ Someone els~ owns that? M~ t~GEL~aCHT: p. ight. MS. GOURDm: I guess is that part of what we're discussing tonight? What exactly am we discussing tonight? MR. STAIN: We arc discussing parcel A which is to our north-and cast. Pared B, ~ ou our west. · ... Parcel C which is lust under 20~ acres m the sort of ' center of .fl!,c propm'y. Parcel D is 51 acres will havc the school '~it/~"north side of McKinney.. ..And then parcel 1 2 3 4 6 $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 Ii 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 E which is ottr PD. MS. GOI. IRDI~.: Thank you. MR. ENGELBKECHT: Mr. Morcno. MR. MORENO: yes, sir, Mr. Spain. Have you seen this letter or fax from Mr. Bt~llard?. · i~Iik% is it aPPropriate to sham this letter wlth Mr. Spain? ' Mr. Spain, I'm not sum what he's asking for here. I'm having difficulty understanding his suggestion. I would like for you to kind of interpret that for us if y~u can or if you have a better understanding than I have. I'll give you a moment and be quiet. MR. SPAIN: ! think he's asking for a 700 fe~t buffer of one acm lots -- isn't that right what it says? MR. MORENO: That's what I think it says. What's your reaction to that? MR. SPAIN: It's normally the other way around. MR. HNGELBRECHT: DO you have any other questions? MR. MOP, ENO: No, I just wanted to s~ if you wcrc reading it thc same way I was. MR. s? .A~: He is concerned that as people 'page 32 I move into our single family, they won't find his _... 2 industrial or multi-family as compatlblc as neighbors. 3 MIL MOP, ENO: But going to thc larger lots, 4 would make it worse, I would think. 5 MR. SPAIN: That would be my perspective. 6 MR. MOREl/O: okay. Thanks. 7 MR. ENGE~BRECHT: Mr. McNcilI. 8 MIL MCNEILL: In response to Commissioner 9 Oourdic's question. What we're considering tonight shows 10 -- the first item on the Agenda is Caso 46. That'sjusta 11 small piece down at thc bottom. 12 .' '. . MR. SPAIN:' ExcUSe me.· That is right. 'They . 13 doha. ve46~'trst.- " .'" 14 MR. MCh'BILL~ That's the only tl'dng wc am 15 consldcfing right now. 16 MR. SPAIN: It is confusing. I apologlz~ for 17 that. Because of the different I'D versus straight zoning 18 we had to separate that. 19 MR. MCNEILL: I.~t mO follow-up on that thca. 20 In your drawing there, lct mc ~cc -- ~how mc whcm 46 is. 21 That's this piece fight therc. 22 Mm 8PAIN: It's just north of thc creek. 23 Mm MCI, mILL: Right. And thc bluo is thc lake 24 out here to the right? 25 MR. SPAIN: Yes. Okay. PLANNING AND ZONING OCTOBBR 20, 1999 46. P. ago 29.- Page 32 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25. Page 3.3 ~ MCI,,w_.ILU okay. But it will ~o coml~atiblc wkh tho ~t of your dtwolopmcat. ~'s not anlnMn$ · speeial about 46, is there? M~ sPAre: It's just on tho other side of' Trinity. ~ ms_~,, would ye.u,. ~vhile you're ta..lldng about that l~arccl and D above that; sh6w mc ~ access to 'tbo -'or potential access to 'tl~ Corps'l~roperty. ~a. spAm: what w: talked about with Ed isl again, wc have thc road - our interior theme road, for a lack of a better word, meanders up in hca~ and then follows tho road. But fight in through bor~ it comc~ tight through barco so school would bo on this side and then Ed because - again, tho topography is gnat on it. This would bo a great location for soccer fields, regional things. Ho was also thinldng with our encouragement that it would then give them access into thc corps, into thc lakc~ which wa'va bc~n over in Grapevine and Southlakc and they've made tranendous uso of corps propcrty for a dollar a year. They have great bike trails and all sorts of other uses. We just thought that would bo a great addition for thc City of Denton to get to tho lake. So wc supported tlmt and cncouragcd it, that wc would -- thought that would bo really good for thc community. .. 1 3 4 6 7 8 9 [0 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 18 19 20 ~4 · 25 · ' .. ' ' Page 34 1 ~ ENOELBRECHT: Mr. Williams. 1 2 MR. WILLIAMS: ~ust to keep mo happy, when you 2 3 an example, say football fields and not soccer fields. 3 4 But, seriously, tho question that I was wanting to ask you 4 5 is, basically, your philosopl~y in regards to amenities and 5 6 in your SF-S.S area. You made a very general'statement. 6 7 I would just like to know your philosophy about the 7 8 amenities with those.,spaal!er lots. 8 9 MR. SPAIn: People with smaller lots may not 9 10 want to maintain a large lot, but they still want open 10 11 space in their community. They tend to want it in areas 11 12 . inwhichtheycangotoandvisitandenjoy, wbereasnot 12 13' having to mow on their own basis. So we havc put that 14 down there which allows us to develop a smaller lot and 14 15 put in open spaces throughout the community wbero the 15 16 residents can use. And with Pecan Creek on the south, 16 17 that's a great public area. They would bo able to go up 17 Pecan Creek and tic into tho lake. It has great potential 18 for recreational walking, jogging. We thought this was a 19 gnat ar~a for that. Plus it allows ua a wiclo varlcty of 20 products and lot sizes. Wa'il bo offexing anywhere from 21 5,500 to five-aero lots which gives us a real marketing 22 advantage. 23 But our philosophy on the development is we 24 have to, in order to lac ~uccessful, offer the homo buyer 25 PLANNING AND ZONING OCTOBER 20, 1999 a truly unique 9rea. We're up'h~ sort or in a hidden are~ part o[town. :To get people her~, we're golng to have i8 ]~e'somgthing special. And we've got to save tho trees, which people love, and create'an open space which they llke, and hava a community in which they drive a little farther to go to. And that's what we're in the.proce~, oftrylngto do. - ~ MR. WILLIAMS: 'thank you.' . MR. I~o£L~P,F.CHT: 'Mr' MeNeiIL MR. MCNE~LL: I forgot to mention that I wanted to thank you for tho permission to go to bed before 4:00 last week. ,I thank you for volenteerlng to move to tiffs evening. MR. SPAIN: My pleasure. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Other questions? I've got several. The issu~ of the access to the Corps land, I'd llke to better understand what you and the Parks Department arc talking about, a number of acres of your property or slmply just a small access area to get into the Corps area? MR. SPAn, t: what Ed has shoTM an interest in is including, which I think is part of tho bond election for the parks, was to acquire some 20 to 30 acres here, basically the remainder of the east side of the road up to the trees, up to the water, the w~..ter tank, which wpuld be : Page this ar~. MR. ENO£LI~I~ECHT: Okay. And that would'}~ all thc way down and abut that little park that's shown on the map now'? MR. SPAIN: Correet. MR. m¢oEi~REc~rr: okayl MR. S?AI~: So you would essentially have, if you were driving into the project from the south, you would have an clamentary school on tho fight and then a 30 to something aero park that could expand into the Corps right behind it. MR. EieGEImP, ECh'X: All right, And they've talked to you about purchasLg, g tha( a~d prlces and all that sort of thing and you're aware of all that? MR. SPAIN: Yes. MR. ENGELBRECnT: okay. You did not mention in your report anything about work you'll 1~ doing or plan to do, and I know you're still in negotiations, but that's my big concern, the road. We've. got to get the folks across hero and what arc we going to do about Trinity Road and the bridge? Not the bridge to the south, I mean, that's ours.. But the bridge to the north. I went out there and drove through it and I know where you're talking about across the creek there. MIL SPAIN: TI~ only problem with tho bridge ~ Page 33 - Page 47. Page'37 quart~doll~s. That Is tho only pmbMm. 'l~atbm~len doing low d~si~ Is ~o. ~ cost ~ ~ 2, c~t ~ lot is up 50 ~t ~on ~d a q~ is a Io~ of doH~. ~ ~, and ~ ~ ~ng ~.~ ~ al~w .:. ~ng for ~t ~at ~ ~fin do. MR. ENOELBRECit'r: okay. $o, basically, we just - that's all talking now. Wc don't - you'~u negotiating with them or discussing with thom but we don't bavc any f'um plan. Nobody has a firm plan at this point. ~ sPA~: ~t. Ma. ~'~O~.LnR~C~r: That goos to tho brldg~. What about Trinity Road? Ma. SPAIN: we just mot with ~erry about a week or so ago and lac told us about t~ need to knprovo Trinity. Our traffic cnglnccxs tell us that Trirdty in its pr~cnt stat~, that our road, our theme road thron~h our project nnd Trinity will handle all t~ Iraffic in thc area. Tho r~ason bclng is because if you look, this is a peninsula down hero. It doesn't go anywhere and won't until thcconcrcto bridge !s in. Nobody comes hexu unless pagO 38 1 they're going to this area. People going out go w~st and 2 they go north. Anybody in our project will take our spine 3 street and go north or they will take McKinney or Mills 4 and go west. Our people won't b¢ using Trinity bceauso 5 it's parallel and it doesn't get them anywhere. We can 6 tell you the quickest ways in and out is wegt and north. 7 So w..e hear that request and we ar~ anaiy~{n$ now whether 8 we're b~tter off putting the road back onto our project, 9 which we don't want to do. But to put in two lan~s down !0 Trinity means we completely remove all of Trinity in its [ 1 curr~t location. We'd have to acquire tho right-of-way. '.to wld' it: .d !'m ,ot w%. up .to the or 13 making all the neighbors angry at' us because it certainly' 14 would. And that's a big cost for a road that our 15 residents will not use. Our traffic shows that our road, 16 which we will bc improving on our property, and have ever 17 offere<l to do so. in a larger state than necde. A, plus 18 Trinity will bo adequate to carry the traffic. 19 But, again, that's, you know, that's our Z0 di~u,~lons ongoing with trut-t]c. But those ux~ our 21 - thoughts on it. That it's an awful oxpeasivo thing to put 22 on us to do. And, aggm, all these costs make d¢i~¢loping : 23 '. low dcusity extremely hard because there's.just ,~ot a lot .24oflotstoavorageitowr. Wo aro at half tho traffic 125. projeote, d for Iow deuslty development and that's half the hodses, wtdch m~ans that s h o lots .~'. ' g ali tl~ [ 2 ~r~c~. So it's -- what wc'~ ~ng ~ do ~ ] 3 got ~ ~ ~y ~p~ ~c up ~ o~ ~ys [ 4 of ~n~ng it that m mo~ a~bu~ble'tb ~o 5 ~ ~ ~ j~ o~ proj~t. 6 ~ ~o~c~: okay. ~ ap~s ~ ~ ' 7 no o~er q~ons.. %~ you ve~ much. 'Is .8 - ~yono p~ ~ho wo~d ~'~ s~ in favor, of ~e 9 ~tition? Anyono p~t to s~ in favor of 10 ~tltion? In ~at ~, is ~¢~ anyon~ p~t -- oh. 11 ~m~ on do~. If you would giw us yo~ n~e and 12 ad~s for ~ ~rd. 13 MS. M~A~: I'm Ms. McNaR and my pro~ is 14 adjo~ing ~e d¢vdopment. And I would 1~ -- what I 15 woMd ~ sin~ w¢'ro ~ng about TfinlW Road, 16 ~¢y haw ab~don~ tho road sou~ of o~ pro~, 17 Tfini~. And ~ ~¢y'r¢ ~ng to ab~don BI~ Road 1S that g~s ~t in front of o~ hour. W~ would 1~ for 19 BI~ Road ~ sMy o~ ~u~ of ~e ~ffic from 380 20 ~m~ do~ on BI~ Road ~d g~ onto ~¢viow. And 21 ~at's what we would I~ to do is haw BI~ Road say 22 o~, not ab~donM, ~u~ we eider have to go up to ~3 Universi~ to get ou~ or go do~ to TfiniW, ~t of 24 ho~ to go no~. And ~at's tho way w~'d have to do it, 25 ~¢y'w op~ it up fi~t now so we ~ get ~o~. But 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PLANNING AND ZONING OCTOBER 20, 1999 Page 4' construction is going on at University in D~nton MR. ENGELBRECHT: 80 you can go west on Blagg Road? MS. MCNATF: Yes. Take B1 oagg and get on Lakeview. And that is tho only thing, only objection that I have is to keep Blagg Road open. I mcan, that's what w¢ would like. But all the other, we are in favor of all that. That's ail right with us. MR. ENGELBRECHT: All right. Have you talked to the developer about Blagg Road? MS. MCNATr: Talked with who? · MR. ENOI~LBP, ECnT: 'the developer, Mr. Spain, have you talked to Mm? . MS. MCNATr: YeS, and they've got it open now for us. But it's-- I don't know how long it's going to l~ open. We want it, we'd like for it to permanent, but just whatever, it would b~ so much l~tter l~st for thc traffio that all goes through thor~. MIL ENG£LBRECHT'~ Mr. Clark, tho City ~ngin~r is hem and we'll o.~k h;m to udd~ thal; about how they have that planned because he'll looking over that. ~Icrry, do you want to come down and talk about that for thls good lady? MR. O. ARK: Basically what -- thec~'s four lots that have been platted across Blagg Road and right 48. Page 37-- Page 40 I now I t~ink t~T~'8 an ~nl~rlding plat. Is that correct? 2 Am you going to do that amendiag pla~? '~ MR. SPAIN: Y~. ~ ~ zboy'r~ going to do thc 5 plat that dissolves those four lots so that Blagg Road 6 can stay in shap~ for awhile. But if they put the four 7 lots back through another amending plat or what~vcr it 8 tab. es, e~,entuslly Biagg Road wguld go aw~y. So if you . 9 -- an mending plat,.lfiasically, it does away with..some 10 lots. What that allows Blagg to do is stay open while 11 other roads Ol~'n up in the area. When other roads, other 12 transportation avenues open up in the area, then Blagg can 13 bo shut down or when you review those and if you don't 14 want it shut down, then you make your recommendation at 15 that ttrae. But you'll get two more looks at it. No, you 16 won't get the ar~ending plat. Would they get the one that 17 comes back after that? Would that just bo an amending 18 plat again? 19 MR. DONALDSON: It would bo an amending plat 20 again. 21 IviR. CLAI~X: Well, ! guess if you want Blagg 22 Road to stay otb'n, you better talk about it now. But we 23 don't see-- 24 MR. ~GEL~CltT: Would you put that map 25 back up there .so you could -- ': '" :Page42 I MR. PaSHEL: The mobility map. 2 MR. ~GE~ nPU~Ch"r: show Us where the McNatt's 3 are at on Bla~g Road. Obviously, they have to have a 4 way to get in and out so something will bo done, but 5 what's the plan? 6 I~ CLAI~: These are the lots, the four lots 7 that go across this road. TWO? Okay. There arc two lots 8 that go across thc road, ~nd,. basically, those will have to 9 bo done away with to keep Blagg Road open. If you look at 10 the Mobility Plan, Blagg's up here, that little section Il right there. It's right there. And you've got otbor 12 roads ia the area. I t~ak this connects in eVen~ally. 13 ' Doesn't it connect them in down here? : 14 MR. DONALDSON: Trinity goes north to 380 15 but it's been abandoned. 16 1~. CLARK: I gu~ what they're talking 17 about, as we look at their map, is that thes~ fol~s are 18 kind ofjust limlted to this road hcre. Om't they go -- 19 thls will be opened here, won't it, so they could come in 2O and go through the subdivision to get out to hem? Would tb~t bo tho'e, Mark? ~- DOnALDSOn: Whea Paroe! A is developed, there will be a connecting road from Lakeview to Trinity. 24 When that is in plac~ then Blagg could ~ abandoned. 25 ~ msm~ ~nd whm~ docs Ms. McNatt Uve? 3 . :~'I~Sm~L: ~hank you. 4 M~ BUCEK: ~t ~ ~f~ yo~ ~o~ on 5 how ~s wor~. ~y public road ~ o~y go away ~o~ 6 ~o ab~do~t pr~ ~d ~ ab~do~ would go to 7 ~uncH. ~d ~ b~ on ~e ab~don~ ~ ~ey s Wo~O.d0 me~ m~mng pla~ on~ me ~cU ab~dons 9 . '~at r~d. So ~eg is a t~ for pubic ~pUt at ~at 10 point. -- I 1 M~ ~SA~SON: That h~ ~ ab~doned ~2 a~dy. 13 M~ BUCEK: Oh, ~o p~ yoB'rc ~ng 14 about? 15 M~ ~NA~SON: ~ order to plat it ~1. 16 We've ~ ~ng about do~g ~ ~ng plat and put 17 ~ ~t nn ~egjUst to ~ow glatlvcly info,al 18 a~s a~o~ ~og lo~. So'on~ ~e al~atlve road is 19 in pla~, ~ ~em ~R ~ ~o~er m~ng plat to 20 ~ovc ~e ~t. 21 M~ Bu~: so fi~t now it isj~t a 22 p~vag ~t ~at MeNaR h~. %e public ~t to u~ 23 BI~ h~ ~dy ~ ~ away. 24 M~ ~GELB~CHT: b~. McNaR, do yoR 25 unders~nd what ~ey've j~t ~id to you? I don't, PLANNING AND ZONING OCTOBER 20, 1999 ! MR. DONALDSON: MS. McNatt's daw~hier doe~..,. :2 MR. EflGELB .RE~C, HT: Okay. 3 .... MR. SPAIN: When we had the publio hearing 4 for the abandonment of Blagg Road, Ms. MeNatt and some $ oF the other homeowners came in and said, I need a way tO 6 get out. It was my understanding from that meeting that 7 I couldn't abandon Blagg until I built my other road 8 going to Trinity which gave th~a a way out. There was 9 some confusion with our plans and what we have to do I0 now. So we removed the road. They, again, voiced their 11 eoncem of no aeoess and we replaced the road. We are · !2 r~platting two lots to give an easement, continue to. 13 'have Blagg Roa~l go to'Lakevlew until the n~w'road is 14 continued into Trinity, whleh would then give the 15 residents in this area direct access to Trinity west and 16 south. 8oIbelleveit'sbeenaddressed. 17 MR. ENGELBRECHT: ~O when you're finished, 18 they will still come onto what used to be B1 oagg Road? 19 M~. SVA~: when it's fmished th~re will bo 20 road, Appaloosa Way wlfi~h will ~ut through her~ and fie 21 onto Trinity. It will bo more of a seml-eolleetor, I 22 guess, because anybody in t~;e area oould use it to go to 23 Trinity to Lakeview Boulevard dixectly. 24 M~ DOSALDSO~: without going on 380. 25 ~&q. E~rOE~R~qT: Yeah. My point being ...; ' Cond~ns~Itr~ Page'45 right uow they evi .&ntl~ have a driveway 6ii Blagg Reid. I mean, thdr driveway is right down' onto'Bla~g Road. So when you're finished, there will still be'a piece of Blass Road, their pavement there, and they'll come out on that, go down to Trinity, and then up to Appaloosa and out. Okay. MR. SPAIN: yeah.. I th~nk .wc're very much concerned also a~oO.U.t getting them 6ut so we want to be ' ' MR. ~,to~.t~P~C~rr: so fight now they're just coming in from the west. There's an easement you're doing over on the west side so they can get in somehow. MR. SPAn, t: 'the easement is on these two lots. We are currently platting to try to sell those lots. Those lots are huge. MR. ~oEt~Kecm:: Mr. Williams, did yOU have any-- MR. VaUI~XiS: ~to, he answered my question. MR. l~O£t3REC~-rr: All right. Is there anyone else present to speak in favor of the petition? In that ease, is the~e anyone present to speak in opposition to the petition? Yes, ma'am. Would you give . us your name and ad&ess for the record, please. Ms. cross: I'm Cecily Gibbs and I llve presently on South Fort Worth Drive. I work for the P%46 I University of North Texas in the Sehcol of Communications 2 on Environmental Education and Projects. My concern is if 3 this is going to backup to the Trinity River and the 4 floodplain, what is going to be done to keep from those 5 properties flooding in the future? We already have a 6 situation that the City is involved with the developer, 7 and the Mayor of the City of Denton involved with the 8 devdoper that built in the floodplain on the other side, 9 thc west side of Loop 288. And thc people are not happy 10 with the apartment complex that is built there because 11 every thnc it rains~ they have water in their apartments · 12 and thgy ha~e. fits and 9Ve.rytMn.' g c.lse. And'they are.. : 13 really having a problem with this every tim~ it rains 14 because the developer did not build thc property up hlgh ~15 enough and thc City ailowed him to build in thc 16' floodplain. And that is my concem for that. Howisthat being addressed with the developer? MR. I~O~.t~RECHT: wc'll ask -- wc will address that in a few moments. Thank you. Is there anyone else present who would like to ~eak in opposition to this petition? Anyone else present to speak in opposltion? In that ~ sinc~ them was opposfiion, thc petitioner has an oppo~mRy for rebuttal. MiL SI'AIN: Wc note that as a conecm and not opposition. Bccausc wc'rc sdjoining thc Corps, thc Corps, 4 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 by deed, hiis bought the maj0nty of the property. The~. als0'hav~..an'easement up to the 537 contour line. which ,s generally iJef'~l on all of our plats and everything where they've gone out in the field and loeat3.d'it. We cannot do very much in that elevation line whleh is basically the 100-year floodplain or higher for the lake. So we are restricted by that from there.nad all tho.way up Cooper · C/'eek and also 9ur.south end wMch are dur main fleed areas. So our engineers will handle ,ill of om' on-site drainage quite adequately. And, again, that was onc of the reasons we liked the center part with the low densities because we plan to keep all the creeks open. I think we have to come before y'all for approval of that but our plan is to keep -- there's three or four drainage ways through there that we plan to back lots onto, have parks onto, maintain them. But we're not planning any major reclamation in the project. MR. E~tOEI~m~CHT: Mr. Rishel. MIL RISHED In Other words, you're not filling into anything that was currently the 100-year floodplain? MR. SPAIN: Correct. MR. RISHEL: Thank you. MR. £NGELBRECHT: That being the end of the rebuttal, tho public hearing is .closed. Mr. Reed, do you I have any final staff remarks? 2 MR. ]~.EED: Does anyone dso have any 3 concerns about the comment or the concern addressed by 4 the lady and how, what -- her concern is about existing $ development on the west side of the Loop or what I'd say 6 is on the inside of the Loop and how this development 7 would actually occur? There's a big difference between 8 those two. We today have regulations that clearly 9 handle that type of development close to the floodplain. 10 The development that she's talking about occurred back 11 when we. actually didn't have these stringent standards. 12 Okay.' · 1~ ' I'd just like to point out.that the zoning' 14 Case, Z-99-046, the 4?.$ acre property on th~ south 15 0f McKianey is a I'D. You will ~ a detailed plan come 16 back for that so it's at that time that you'll approve 17 the exact site design of the prol~rty. And as I 18 indicated in the staff report, recent cases for smaller I~ lots with ?n zoning designation have had some conditions 20 but we've done that at the detailed plan stage becaus~ PLANNING AND ZONING 21 it makes senso to attach conditions specific to a site 22 deslgn as opposed to a general conccpt. Soljust 23 wanted to point out that you will s~e a detailed plan 24 como forward for that plec~ of property. 25 . Contrary to that on thc remaL, fing 410 ~6xes OCTOBER 20, 1999 50- Paso 45 -Pago 48 ,..: Con'donsoltTM I b<Iwom us3 s0 and 426, is it, or .bc~v,~n U .m.'v .crsRy an.d Megi-n~, that is. for straight ~ning.. 'lb= conditi.ons t~at staffhas nttact~l a. dd~esses tt~ concern oftl~ concentration of traffic and tl~ adcquat= facilities to $ handle traffic generated by this dcvclopmcnL Wv think it's falr to attach t~ conditions that we've stated in 7 our stafftcport. Wc fecl that t~c ~quc~t is conslstcnt ),vith oar Co. mpr~xmslv* Plan. And v~ xa~o. mmcad app?ov~l 'Mt~ t~ condlt~ons attached. 11 ~. MC~LU lhad a que~tien on year 12 recommendations he~ maes in ou~ backup martial. I'm 13 confused that w've got so many ars and plans. What 14 h t~ 1998 D~nton Plan Polities? 15 M~ 'r~ Dcntoon Plan Policies arc 16 arched to t~ staff x~o~t and tb~'x~ Enclosur~ 6. 17 Eaclo~u~ 6 lists th~ policlc~ w~¢b ~ adopt~l back 18 in1998. It was fl~ last quaxt~ of '98. 19 ~.~c~_~ okay. The~ my second question 20 on yo~x conditions, numbe~ one and Mo, I'm ~alkln~ about 21 t~ 4~ now, If this is going to come back again; t~n why 22 ~rc ~ pu~og t~ccse restrictions on the~ at th~s time 23 about t~ bu~ldlng pennlt~ and t~ce roadway components and 24 so for~? What's t~e lo, sties Of pu~ns that on at ~s ~ point instead or walt~ng until thc detailed plan comes~ · ..' '.'.'.: Page50 I back? 2 MR. REED: This right hero does not tie the 3 developer down to a condition which restricts his exact 4 site design. These conditions address the overall 5 property sum. As he mentioned, this is part of a 6 property which has -- excus~ me for hesitating -- some 7 700-plus acres. When we. have a large development like 8 thi% th~ City has the ,opportunity to look at it 9 ' comprehensively and address the concerns of adequate 10 transportation facilities. 11 We actually did this for The Preserve, Mr. 12 McN~iII, which was pd0r to your term hero on the P&Z' 13 Cordmissioo. With The Preserve, which was a ~D, we . 14 actually attached to the zoning an improved m which said 15 that as each tract developed, certain transportation 16 improwments would b~ made. And, again, for large 17 developments we're nble to look at the overall impact it 18 has on our transportation facilities. Whereas, when we 19 havoa~nailtract, say, 100 acros which has a frontage on 20 one road or maybe two roads for short distances, we '~ typkaily don't get into that becau.~ R's a ~ straight-forward issue whlch is handled during' 123 ' subdivision. 24 MR. MCNEILL: what thos~ two conditions are ' 25 basically s~ying is until we resolve thes~ I . transport~.~on issues, they can't pour any concrete out 2 thcro and start building. a ":~,~:l~v.l~o: Actually, it says thdt the 4 building permits c~ot bo issued. ';' S MiL MCNEILL: R]ght~ c~mot bo issu.~d. 6 MR. REED: A plat can be approved and roads 7 and other public facilities can bo put in, 8 MR.MCNEILi~ okay.'Allrlght. I don't 9 haw a problem with that th. en.- Tha~. you. t0 Ma. ENOEt.BRECh'T: Yes, Mr. Bueek. 11 MIL BUCEK: I don't want you to 1o~ sight 12 of tho fact that tho Smith tract that you had hem the la other day, they don't agree with what our opinion is. 14 We believe that on the detailed plan we can make these 15 kind of changes. Their argument to you was that if you 16 didn't have it in the concept plan, you weren't going to 17 be ablo to chang¢ it later. Remember their attomey was 18 hem. So just to let you know, it's not an open and 19 shut issu~ with us. And so certainly the issues that 20 Mr. Spain had mentioned about all the open space that's 21 going to bo in the 5,500 square foot lots, that's an 22 issue that you wait to the detailed plan and there's 2~ always some con~m on the legal staff if Mr. Spain sells 24 out and the next developer, will he take the Art Anderson 25.. app[oach on the Smith tract that you don't have ~ny say. Page 1' So you've got to be comfortable'with what you do ~¢ th~ 2 issue. 3 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Thank you. Mr. Moreno. 4 MR. MORENO; Yes. Mr. Reed, I didn't fully $ understand which development Ms. Gibbs. was speaking io 6 that was having the flooding problems. 7 MR. REED: X believe she was referring to a 8 property that's not even adjacent to this property here 9 but is on the inside of Loop 288. ! believe Jerry Clark 10 knows the apartment complex that she is roferrlng --the 11 Singing Oaks -- Spencer Oaks. And they're immediately 12 ad~acent to the .Lgop, aren't.theY,.north of McKinney? 13. .MIL IENGELBREeHT: -It's ac. rosa from the Pow6r 14 plant. 15 MIL MORE'NO: 'that's a fairly new 16 development. 17 MR. REED: okay. I was roferrlng to -- 18 MR. MOP. E~O: And I thought that's what she 19 was talking about so I didn't understand why the 20 standards were different just a year or two ago than 21 what they am today. 22 MR. REED: I'm ~orry. I was r~fe~tlng to a 23 different apartment complex. 24 MR. CLARm Well, obviously we need Mr. 25 u'~lting hero becaus~ he's ~-ing the drainage but I'm~_.._ . Page 49 ' Pago 52 PLANNING AND ZONING OCTOBER 20, 1999 ~ 5~11 ~.__ Pag~ 53 not aware, I haven't re'ivcd'any ~iI$ of what We're talking ai~out on the drain~o on th!.'s.' So if th~'is a problem, I'm not aware of it. But, obviously, Mr. Heelting and the utilities runs drainage now. MR. l~pn: Thank you. ' ' MR. ENGEt2RECHT: Let me inte~eet one item he..m I think right.now beeaus~ we don't ge~ as much of .that d~nagb information as we used to since ' engineering is not dlrectly doing that the way they used '. to. I would like for you to go ahead and cheek on that, Jerry, since Mr. Hoelting isn't here. Find out if we do have a problem out there at Spencer Oaks because that is a new development. That's not even two years old. Ma. Ct2,RK: Okay. I'll bring you a report hack. MR. ENGEL~RECHT: Okay. Thank you. MR. MCNEILL: That doesn't affect this issue? MR. ENGELBRECHT: NO, no. But there shouldn't be a problem out there. Okay. Ms. Gourdie. MS. C, OlJ2~m: Thank you. I would like to know if this is the appropriate time or not and maybe you can help me, Wayne. In straight zoning is strictly thc SF-?, blah, blah, blah, and concern with Mr. Bullard's concern about the property being up against th.~ PD with a Page 54 Light Industrial. I know that in the Unicom Lake property we had a buffer of, I guess it was 50 feet up to 100 feet placed as a condition on the property. Would this be the appropriate time to bring something up like that to help divide the Light Industrial from the homes? MR. REED: YcS. IdS. C, OURI~IE.. okay.· Thank you. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Mr. Williams. MR. WILLIAMS: YeS. i like things dear-cut and I'm having some serious concerns about the amendment to the Mobility Plan because I don't like to be involved in anything that I'/n nbt' iri con.trol 9f.and the. developer · has no'cent{el over'the Denton Mobi.lity'Plan~ And I'm' very concerned that it hasn't been sent to Council since there was a rceoramendation or it hasn't been mentioned it's going to Council. It's sitting someplace. And can somebody explain to me, am I somewhere out in left field of what's going on here because it's been passed by this Commission; however, it's sitting somewherc -- it's sitting somewhere. MR. ~GEt~REcn'r: WCjUSt asked staffto address that and -~ - ' MR. BUCEK: Let me be sure you understand thc process. There are a lot of cases where someone will come .in here with Ag zo-~ng and will ask you to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 '8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 to the City Council..A. nd then for whatever reason ~a~ deal fidls..tJFo,.~a and at never goe~. to City Council. The I same tld.~; a ~veloper can come In and .ask that the Mobility Plan be amended based on, like' in this ease, the zoning casa is going to como forth. For whatever reason if the developer doesn't want that to go to Council at that time, we never know if thc development has died, Mr.' · Wil!i.'ams, or ·what has happened: But it's the call of thc · developer if he wants to take forth his sugg~ted I think, and wC can havc if you want thc developer to respond. I think the developer wan/s to tskc them up together, I'm assuming, or llas another plan. But wc can't requkc thc devcloper to take that amendment to the Mobility Plan up to Council if he doesn't want to. Thc only issue before us today is thc zoning and the Mobility Plan issue comes up at the platting stage ultimately. Ultimately, when it's platted -- IdR. WILLIAMS: rm reading what I havc here. It says conditions and so I'm trying to get some clarification on this because, llke I said, I like things cut and died, either aye or nay because all these -- MR. BNGBLBRECHT: Good luck here. IdR. WILLY, S: - conditions, and this - ·: Page 56 I condition to me is rn~er weird ~eause I read the 2 Mobility Plan and I understand what you're saying that 3 the developer needs to take it up. But it says -- but 4 I'm still kind of confused. Maybe somebody can explain to 5 me who was here and voted on this where it would be dear 6 as mud. 7 MR. BUCEK: Let me take a shot at this 8 isst~. I think what staff is trying to do by those 9 conditions, I think they're trying to put thc developer 10 on notice that when you come in for your plat, you're 11 not going to have a plat recommended for approval if 12 these issues aren,t resolved. And so that's why that's 13 - in there. But what I'm saying to you is at anypoint 14 that the developer has the zoning he desire, and in 15 this case these are straight zoning categories except 16 for the ?D, once he has that zonlng in place, he hks the 17 tight to come in with the plat. When he comes in wlth IS the plat, fight now ha's moving with the Mobility Plan 19 the way it looks today because there has ~ no 20 recommcudatlon taken to Council. And so the question is 21 where that road falls in his SF-7 or his SF-10 or SF-II, ~2 t~'s taking a risk. And that's what those conditions 23 are intending to do. But, Wayne, you may want to say ~4 more to that. I don't know. Is that correct? 25 MIL RF. ED: Y~. PLANNING AND ZONING OCTOBER 20, 1999 52. P.ago 53 - Page 56 1 3 MR. VaLUAMS: okay.. Because I'm having some problems -- because I don*t th!nk Dcnton's infrastructure is ready for this development and I ~ that's where Pm having a big problem. ~ · MR. REEo: commlssloner Williams, I think 6 then if I could explain that these conditions address 7 your coneem. I'.11 make my example what I learned from 8 Th9 Preserve. We as a conununlty also.ha'da conccm 9 about how'The Prentke 3vould impact transportation in. 10 the very southern end of our community and also that it 11 was in the area deslguated for l. zkevlew Boulevard to 12 touch 1-35. And so we held their feet to the irons also 13 and we worked closely wlth that developer to insure that 14 as building permits were issued, increasing households, I 5 increasing trips generated, putting moro vehicles on our 16 roads, that adequate transportation faoLlitlcs were put in 17 place prior to those homes being put in. 18 What we're doing with this condition is 19 exactly the same. We're saying before you can get any 20 building permits, a traffi0 impact analysis has to be 21 approved and a TIA, or traffic impact analysis, outlines 22 what the developer will install prior to these building 23 permits being issued. What does that give us as a 24 community? It gives us some piece of mind that we're 25 going to have adequate fac!lities to handle the traffic · :, Cond~nsoltTM .. , and how so s or' . / ~ ~vo ~"~O MC~nney. And we'd prcr~ mey go aS01 [ 5 k~ ~ off ~o l~p. And ~ ~ m% ~at j~t ~ ~po~t for ~s pi~ ~u~ ~ey'm not 7 going to go ~u~. We've got no bd~o ~d wg'm not going~t0 have cng for a w~, wMch we ~ly n~ to 9 ' work on ~at ifps is goMg ~ ~ ~ ~po~t whole l0 dcvclopm~i over h~. %¢ Ci~ n~ to do'it~a 11 but we n~ to m~o ~ we've gSt ~o~ o~cr pi~ 12 ~d I don't ~ders~d why ~at ~mpon~t W~'t 13 cng: ~ 14 M~ ~ED: It would ~ fa~ to put it in 15 ~at one. Mz ~GELB~C~: Th¢ o~gr question I had 17 h~ to do ~ ~cro's no m~tion, ~ ~. Bu~k poln~d 18 out, ~cm'$ ~s issue of if you approve a ~n~pt 19 pl~, what r~m do wc have to maneuver at 20 pl~ ~h~ulo~ %cra is no m~tion I ~llovo of 21 spa~ in ~o Pp. I r~i~ ~at we have a p~k acro~ 22 ~¢ s~t but ~at is ult~ly across a a~t, road, M~y. And w~ ~cro ~usldc~tion 24 given by s~ff to r~u~o ~at ~crc ~ some ~u~t for somo.o~ ~a~ in ~ero,. at l~t in a s~m~t of 23 24 25 , .' . pag~ 58 I that they generate. So we're saying that there's'a ' 2 relationship between this land use and tho public 3 interest of adequate transportation facilities. But 4 secondly, we're saying we're only going to require of you 5 a fair share of the development or of the transportation. 6 The fair share is what they generate. 7 MR. ENOELBRECHT: Other questions? Yes. 8 Tho Condition 3 on 072 ha~ to do with -- excuse me, 9 Condition 2. Yes. That's the bridge over Cooper Creek 10 and that's the creek to the north. Okay? 11 MR. REED: That is correct. 12' ~ · MR.ENGELBRECHT: Is thero any reason why 13 that isn't p~t"on 3,'~ Well? I mca~., put on the o~er 14 15 MR. REEl): Thc reason why is this, it's not 16 contiguous with that creek crossing. And.staff would 17 like to point out that actually that is called out for 18 the Ca~ No. 72 simply to, again, put the developer on 19 notlco that that is part of this consideration of 20 transportation improvements. It act,).-lly will bo 21 addres,wxt in tho TIA as part of the TlA. ButIthink we're clarifying it as a very important component that lm to be resolved. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Well, this is oven a mom dense picc~ than ff you're going to get north to 380 ~nd · Page 1 the percentage? And they can spread it out however or 2 in some manner. "" 3 MP~ ~ONALDSON: We would like to do that but 4 we don't have the tools right now in our cedes to 5 require it. 6 MR. ENGELBRECHT: This is a PD. 7 MR. DONALDSON: It's not a required piece of 8 information in our code. 9 tern. E~O~.LBP, ECHT: okay, for that reason it's 10 not. 11 MR. DONALDSON: It'S moro a legislative 12 functi0n, than an adminlstrativo function, . 13 .MR. ENGELB .RECHT: bkay. In that case, I -- 14 WIll simply ask of staff fromyour professional 15 perspective, what would be an appropriate portion of 16 open space in a eD with Single-Family of 5,500 square t7 foot lots? 18 MR. REED: could I ask first for a 19 clarification? Are you asking for public open space or 20 pdvat~ ol~'n space? Pdvat~ being, one, a~ area which 21 is maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 22 MR. ENOELBRECHT: Yeal~ I'm talking about 23 Homeowner's Association. I wasn't thinking ofit being 24 dedicated to the City or anything else, but open space 25 such that thorn's some in there. PLANNING AND ZONING OCTOBER 20, 1999 5 3. Page 57 - Page 60 P~61 MR. BUCF-X: Wayne; let mc be sum that I'm' clear to ~espond to that. Do wc havc a -~ on my copy I don't have the concept plan on the PP. Do the Cornm!~ioners have that? MR. REED: 'there's actually the concept plan is Enclosure I. M~ MO, mILI~: It's the same as this colored MR. REEl): And it ~Ices sh°w tho ~ntlre' property but it calls out that Parcel. And I did, because this is such a small print, include a second page which blew up the land use table. This table fight here shows everything that's requh~l for a concept plan as far as minimum area, setbacks, and such. MR. BUCEK: 'the only part of Enclosure 1 that really relates to this zoning case is that part that's south of McKinncy? MIL REEl): Correct. And if you look on the page 9, it's referred to as Parcel E. MR. BUCEK: Okay. MIL MCNBILIg Parcel P or PHI? MR. REEl): 'there is a formula in our park land dedication which calls out that, I believe -- MR. DONALDSON: It'S roughly one acre for each 140 housing units to meet our neighborhood park · '. '. Page 62 crlteda. MR. ~,~O~-LeRECH'r: SO basically that would be two acres in this particular case. MR. DONALDSON: A two-acre minimum. MR. ENGELBRECHT: My concern here is, as Mr. Bucek pointed out, if we have not asked for the ol~n spa~ up front th~n we could .have some difficulty in r~luhlng it on the detailed plan. if it was not stated on the land use summary. · MR. BUCk-K: Right. Now, some of the concept plans you get don't show open space and they'll just have aa asterisk aad they'll say a .certain percentS? . will be that.' But you J~ave go'tt~ ~ome, and thi problem happened on the Smith tract, I think that they showed the open s~ace. I'm not sum but I believe they did. So there's no question once you show it, it ddinltely becomes a question about can you do it on the detailed plan change thc boundaries of that. So it may be a plus to you that it's not shown but I think the issue that's here is that without any statement of concept in thc concept plan about any open space required, the statements that Mr. Spain will do us no good wh/u you get · to the detailed plan sta~c. Ma. DONALDSON: Another criteria that you · could use is that for a manufechsred .home park we I re4ulre that c~ght percent of the land be set aside as" ' 2 openspaqp...: . . . 3 . . MIt.'I~6£LBREa21~; And ei~t ~t m ~s 4 ~wo~d~? '" 6 ~me~iug ~ ~t. 7 ~ ~GE~C~: So We ~d g0 ~mcwh~, s for ~xmPle, ~y a ~m of ~ ~ ~.~ ~ide for ' 10 Ms. ~m: To ~a~ for ~e ~cr 12 M~ ~6E~C~: E~t. Ano~er qu~dtion, 13 ~. R~ I noti~ in ~ we always get t~s business 14 of you ~ve a ~d~ motion ~d it ~ways 15 p~ about ~at it's ~nsls~t ~ ~c ~ton 15 ~velopm~t PI~, it's ~nsis~t ~ ~e ~ton Plan 17 PoHci~. An~ in fac~ ~ost always you have at 18 -- ~e's ~ys one ch~k m~k ~at's m~inally 19 ~asi~t or ev~ on~ in a w~lc, an ~nsis~t. And 20 so F ~e moti~ is ma& h ~at m~n~ ~d 21 ~ ~ of ~o~, we'd have to vo~ ~dnst ~e motion, 22 woul~'t 23 m~ ~E~: You would chore ~e motion. 24 ~ ~GELB~C~: Or W~ ~uld ~k for a 25 fd~y ~t. But I ~ss my question is why 8 9 10 11 12: 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 LANNINO AND ZONING OCTOBER 20, 1999 : ·Page 6~ y~u do that? Person.ally, I'd just as soon see those out.,, of there. It would make the motion a lot shorter. MR. REED: I'd be happy to do that. MR. ENGELBRECHT: And we're not always sure whether we agree with that fact that it's consistent or not. Maybe other Commissioners disagree with me. MS. C~uV'DIE: wc a~ee. Here, here. MIL ENGELBRECHT: And in this case, all of them I don't -- it just dld0. 't seem to be necessary. So you believe that there's not a problem with putting -- ~n~ REEl): well, I guess the reason why I put it in there, and I definitely understand why you don't n~y ~grce with any or all of it~ Is you have to . plan or zone consistent with the Comprehensive Plan so there has to be a basis for your motion. That's the only reason I put it in there. So I'll be happy to take it out. So you take it out, you kind of make your own £mdin~. MR. EI,,'GELBRECHT: SO We can -- staff believes that we could put thr~ conditions on the ?v,~ well as on the other one and that we could request open space without a problem? MR. BUCI~K: Correct. · ~ EN~.L~K~Ch'T: We probably should if we expect to ~e open ~pace and want to en~ure we have open 5 4. .Page 61 - Page 64 5 6 ? $ 9 I0 11 12 13 14 I$ 16 17 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 6 ? 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O · Cond~nseltTM Page 65 spac6 at th~ d~tailed plan stage.- Yes, Mr. McNeill. lv~ 1,4(:N~.~I.: I guess I have a question now that you've raised that questinn. What is our authority to require blm to have ol~a space? MR. REED: TO prevent the overcrowding of population would b~ one. MIL MCNEILL~ IS that in an ordinance or in tho zoning rextulroment? : '. MR. REED: 'that's actually part of our Zoning Ordinance. MR. MCNEILL: BUt that's -- is that hard and fast or what's the rule for that? MR. BUCEK: I think the way it works is if you're on straight zoning, we have what we call conditions you can add to a straight zoning case. There's llke 15 and one of those is landscaping. Well, on a PI) you throw ~ll of that out and you can enme up with any conditions yon want. ]But, generally, it always includes those same 15 can bc in there and so it's part of tho landscaping issue is the way you would handle open space. MR. ENGELBRECHT: BUt then where did you get tho number -- you're going to recommend throe acres; is that what you're saying? MR. ENGELBRECHT: Tho three aQTes came from " . Page 66 a recommendation. MR. DONALDSON: Eight percent of 48 would actually be 3.8 acres. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Right. And I was sort of splitting it. MR. MCNEILL: But where did you get'the eight percent? MIL DONALDSON: Eight ~rcent is an open space requirement that we have in our Manufactured Home Park Regulations. MIL MCNEILL: But this is not manufactured homes. ; , ,. MR. DONALdsON: The density a~tufilly would b~ very comparable. And then on thc other side in our Park Land Dedication Ordinance, thc formula is roughly onc acm per 140 homes. That's in thc Park Land Dedication Ordinance. MIL MCNEILL: And that's really thc - that's thc qucstlon I had. Docs that park land dexlication apply to this property? MIL DONALDSON: It will unless they address it otherwise. They have thc opportunity to makc. donations of land and that may, in fact, b~ appropriate or an option for thom in another part of thelr tract to satisfy. Any up,~bcr of ways to satisfy park hud o.o 1. dedica.tion.. :2 MP~ MCiNrfllLL: Bocanso I don't have a problem 3 with tha~'I just don't want Ils to arbitrarily saying we 4 want a park hero. "' 5 M!~ DON~T.r~SON: NO. 6 MI~ ENGELBRECI-IT: To expand on my request a ? little furth~, I asked about this be~ansc we am 8' simply, ~ it's pr°Po.sod, as it's p. ro~ted'to us, {t does not rd. qt~im any op~ space. This is as dens~'as 10 manufactured housing, 5.5, 5,500 square foot lots. The 11 park in all of that area is on the other side of 12 McKinney, unfortunately, It would 1~ great if there was 13 access to the Corps land from l~ro but there isn't. 14 MR. MCNEILL: You'r~ talking about for the 15 little ple. c~ at the bottom, on 46. 16 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Right. On that other one, 17 right. And so to gct to the park these folks, whlcham 18 moro dens~ than any of thc, m, have got to cross what 19 ultlmatcly will bca four-lane road, which is not too 20 good. In addition, I would have little doubt that this 21 developer will see that there's op~ space in there. 22 Thoro will Ix; a clubhouse. Thoro will bc something. 23 · And there will probably moro than throe acres. But they 24. may sell it tomorrow. And the next guy comes in, ~s 25 with the Smith traqt, and says, hey, that was not part. PLANNING AND ZONING OCTOBER 20, 1999 Page ' · cept pl I of the detailed plan ~- I mcan part of thc con an_.,~ 2 so I don't have to do anything but just stick $,500 3 square foot lots in ~cro. And this just assures that 4 no matter who has thc land when, thoro has to be some 5 open space. 6 MR. REED: If you're interested, I do know ? thc formula for thc park land dedication. If you want 8 to compare why thc manufactured home dcvcinpment would 9 have to supply -- 10 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Mark indicated it was eno 11 acre p~r 140 lots. 12 MR. REED: It's 2.5 acres times thc numbcr .. 13 · of dwelling uhits times 2.8 person% divid .ed by.l,000, 14 you get thc acres. That's thc cxact formula. 15 MR. ENOELBRECI-1T: ROU~h!y 140. And then 16 that would lac two acres because thcrc's 280 proposed 17 units hero. And then thc park land -- thc manufactured 18 housing condition puts us up to 3.8 so I don't know. I 19 throw out throe acres, that's a compromise, in between. 20 MR. MCNE~LL: ] can liw with tha. t. 21 MR. RISHEL: It may bc amended to four. 22 MR. ENoELeRECttT: Right. And I'm not making 23 thc motion anyway. Are there other questions? Mr. Z4 Rishcl. 25 ~ ms~mt~ Ijnst wanted to make sure that P. ags 65- ?ago Page 159 Mrs. Oibi>s got her question answered and was -- MS. GIBBS: I do lalow'this Federai government ruling they have to hay0 c~taln arno .unt of green .space and that's why they put the serdor clt|zcn 6,000.00 unit on hold because they wanted to include the golf courses as MP,. IUSH£~- My quastlo.n was did we get your . other question answered. I didn't linew we fiait another question.' Do you have another questien? MR. ENOELEP, ECKr: NO, no. Let's not take that question up. MIL mS~t£u okay. Thank you. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Okay. Ar~ there any other questions? Ms. C, OUgnI~.: I would like to just know on the straight zoning, the 72, if anyone else would like a condition that is what we've done bofor~ where Light Indnstrlai PD'S and so forth are backed up against Single-Family homes. Since we have talked about landscape as being an opportunity to put into the concept plan, I would like to see us put maybe a 20-foot landscatm buffer and then maybe, depending on what the prot~rty is, up to a 100-foot buffer, which I guess includes part of the parking lot botw~x'n the homes and the I'D itseff. M$.APpLE: Ques.t!on. .. . · '. page 70 MIL ENGELBRECHT: YeS, Ms. Apple. MS. APPLE: That other is not in development yet though, is it? So would we bo putting a condition on something that's not set in stone yet? You know, if we put a buffer condition on them, what if the people -- MR. ]~NGELBRECHT: Come back and rcplat. Well,.it can bo -- in that sta .t~ment it can bo contihgent on the zoning. So if tho zoning changed, I'm sum, could it not? Couldn't you put a condition on thc SF-7 buffering tho -- MIL DONALDSOI¢.' well, t, o a timing issue. If. the residentlai develops fa'st; then we don't .kn6w what the adjacent land use Would. i~. MIL BUCEK: The Bullard tract is zoned what? Is it zoned MR. DONALDSON: It's within tho old PD-126 and it has General Retail, Multi-Family, and Light Industrial zone districts in it. MR. Buc2K: Right. And he will ultimately -- hc has a concept plan. He'll have to come back with a detailed plan when he does that part. And you can look at that on his end and the question is do you' want to do it on - ~ DOI~AUSSON: The residential side or do you want to do it on-the industrial side? 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 M .'Do. d$oo. l ~ ~: ~ qu~fion ~ w~ you want ~ a~h ~'~n~fion ~ ~ ~id~fial, ~eiop~t ~t b~ ~ o~ ~ or ~ ~ o~ bnd ~ ~el~, put con~fions on ~t ~t ,~t it's a~y ~ ~ ~ ~n~t Nih, ~'vo · : a~dy ~ up'~ ~g, yfu sald ~ Re. ii you sald L~t ~ ~d you said M~fi-F~Iy. 8o ~ ~nlng is ~dy h ph~. It's nowjust eo~ng up ~o~ ~ a ~nc~t phn; ls ~t eo~t7 I m~n, ~ de~iI~ p~. ~d ff ~'m ~ng about lssu~ of p~)o~ ~g m~, we ~t ~ve a probl~ w~eh ~e ~[den~ ~ not ~ pro~ ~a~e wo'vo a~dy got ~ ~ng ~ p~. ~d ~y not ~sily say, ~, it's not p~ of ~ coast ~ eu~ we~ I ~ yom eo~enh why yo~ co--mt ~ ~t is ~t it', ~n~ now w~eh wo~d m~ you wo~d ~vo on.acm lo~ and on 8 on.acm lot ~ woffid ~ a b~f~ ~ you and ~lm ~s ofw~t ~ ~d. ~n you Bo ~ ,ma~ momg mad I caa't nm~ what ~o ae~ ls H~t now, ~ is 8omo m~t for ~at bu~ you ~ow, wi~out hay~g~t eone~t phn in front of u*, I don't ~ow if ' Page 7 1 we've already put a buffer in the other cas~. Do you 2 xecall? 3 M.~ DONALDSON: I don't recall. 4 ~ BUCEK: Arid you're right, when he comes 5 in for his detailed plan he may take the Sraith tract 6 argument and argue he doesn't have to buffer. I mean, ? you never know what will happen depending on who the 8 developer is. 9 MS. CK)tmolE: okay. Thank you. 10 MIL ENGEI. BRECHI: Traditionally, we have I 1 requested the buffers on the commercial, industrial. 12 The problem you would mn hero is ifyou put that : 13 cOndition on, these'are sr-7's. 'All these little 14 homeowners are going to have these requhcments to 15 maintain a buffer yard which we've never really done. 16 We've never done that. As a matter of fact, I'veargued 17 against a couple of those where they tried to do it at 18 Windsor and Bonnlo Brae. They wero going to put a fenc¢ 19 on the resldentiai si& as a buffer. 20 MS. GOURDIE: I jUSt don't want to hear any 21 compla;nts out ofno one when they start smelling those 22 restaurants right in thdr backyard. I don't want'to 23 henr it. 24 MR. ENOEt.BREclrr: Mr. McN(fll. 25 M~ Mm Yeah. I guess what I'd llke CANNING AND ZONING OCTOBER 20, 1999 5 6. -- Pago 69 - Page 72 · Condensolt ; . · to say is w0 shouldn't put the buffer requh~ment on I Ryan High School is so congested, ~o .me this woul~ ~ ~ ~h~teddentialdevelopment. If the buffer is golng to 2 goodth~ng. Itwouldhavop~plooommgfromdlfferent directions ~d of everybody fimneling in one [ I bo requlr~ it should bo on thls 6moral Retail, Multi°Family, and the Light Industrial. That's the responsibility of them to have the buffer, not on the residential. MR. RISH~U We agrc~ with you. MR. F.~GELB~CHT:'Mr. Williams. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. I Would deflnltel~ like 8 9 10 for the Commlssioncrs to look very, very closely at thc 11 traffic conditions and the City. I know wc are a can-do 12 city but somcthncs we may not be ready. And I would 13 llkc for us to look very, very closely at the 14 infrastructure. My daughter is only 17 so it's been 15 less than a year since I've had to drive and take her to 16 Ryan every morning. And, baslcally, I really don't 17 think our infrastructure and with the -- looking at the 18 coming up bond election, the bond package, I think we 19 may be ready. But tonight, I don't think -- and it's 20 not a reflect[on on Mr. Spaln at all. Ijustdon't 21 think we're ready for this. Our streets and traffic is 22 ready for this zoning, change in zoning tonight. 23 ~ I~O~.t~P,~CHT: All right. Any other 24 comments? 25 . . MS. APPLE: l'm ready to move. Page 74 1 MR. EN?ELBRECHT: And we would need to take' ,~ 2 each case individually for the motion, reeommendationS~ 3 . MS. APPLE: Do yOU want me to take it in the 4 order of the Agenda? 5 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Plca.~. 6 MS. APPLE: I move to recommend approval of 7 Z-99-072 subject to the follgwing conditions: that 8 prior'to the issuance of .a. ny building permits, adequate 9 transportation infrastructure shall be constructed in 10 accordance with the traffic impact analysis or Tin 11 approved by the Transportation and En~neering 12. Department; that a commitment for '.unpr0vements to the IS Lakeyiow Boulevard bridge over .Cooper Creek isapp~oved; 14 and, finally, that the amendment to the roadway 15 component of the Denton Mobility Plan that proposes a 16 new corridor south of Mills ]Read for Lakeview Boulevard 17 to the west of tho existing Trinity Road is resolved. 18 ~ RISHEL: s~cond. ~. i~ · MR. ENOELBRECHT: okay. It's ~ moved and 20 seconded to recommend approval with ~e conditions as " outlined by staff. Any discussion on the motion? Yes, Ms. Apple. -' MS. AP~LS: ~just want to say in response to the comments that Commissioner Williams made, I ~ucss my f~t{,g On it is because, like McKinney Strut where 3 4 direction. So I just wanted to address his concern. ( 5 MR. ENOELERECHT: Ar~ theru other comments? 6 If you do, would you please raise your hand because I'm 7 showing a different screea hem now, if you have any other 8 comments. Yes, Mr..Williams.. 9 MR.'WIU.tAMS:' We are yoting.on 046~ right? 23 24 25 I0 MR. ENOELBRECHT: 72, the'f'trst Agenda item. 11 MiLWILUAMS: Okay. I wasn't even talking 12 ' about that. 13 MR. I~OEL~P. ECn'r: Okay. I've got my screen. 14 Any other comment? I would like to ask staff just 15 briefly, do we know the -- and Jerry had to leave, do we 16 know appro~lmately what the schedule is for MoKinney for 17 380? I know that it's moved up in the schedule but I 18 don't rem~nber the date. I just wanted to address that to 19 lvh'. Williams. 20 MR. W1LLIAIvlS: NO. In other words, my 21 statement was inappropriate. I'm talking about 46. 22 MR. ~,~a~.CB~,~CHT: okay. All right. 23 MR. VaLUAMS: what I said was totally 24 inappropriate. 25 MR. ~ELB~,ECaT: .All right, Any other ~ In that case~ vote, ple~. Motion carries 2 unanimously. All right. How, we move onto the second 3 _Agenda item. Ms. Apple. ~-- ~ MS. APPLE: I movc to rcco~m-c, end approval of Z-79-046 subject to thc following conditions; prior to the issuance of any building permits adequate 7 transportation infrastmetur~ shall be constructed in 8 accordance with the traffic impact analysis approved by 9 the Transportation and Engineering Department; two, that 10 the amendment to the roadway component of the Denton 11 Mobility Plan that proposes a new corridor south of 12 . Mills Road for Lake. vlew B0uleyard to.the west of the 13' existing Trinity Road is resolye~.; and, three, that'a" 14 mlnimum of thrc~ and a half acres bo set aside for 15 private open space due to the density. 16 MR. MCNEILL: Second. 17 MIL mSmiL: A friendly motion. 18 MR. ~NOELBRECHT: Pardon, Mr. Rishel. I 19 didn't hear you. 20 ~ l~att~.~: A fri~ndl~y am~ndmer~t t~at what 21 is two in the other thing that reads that a commitment 22 of improvements to the LakcvlewBoulevard bridge over 23 Cooper Greek as approved. I'd like that as a friendly 24 motion. 25 ~ ~rOEUS~crrr: ~ a fficudly ~m~dm~nt? Page 73 - Page ¥6 PLANNING AND ZONING OCTOBER 20, 1999 5 7. -- Cond6n ~oltTM I MI~ RISHEL~ 2 M~ ~o~Bm~rr: Ms. Apple, you nmd~ 3 ~o~on. Basi~y, it's ~ - 4 ~ ms.L- ~i~ it ~. ~ F~t cas~ ~ ~s case. 8 ~mcMmeat. : ' 9 ' · ~,~.MC~'~U~ ~s.~ondwillaccCPtth~t'.. 10 ~,m.~o~.B~v. crrr: Allfight. Thankyou I l bo~. So now ~ ~ve a motion and s~ond ~ fo~ 12 con,gens, ~ ~ of ~ pmvlo~ case and on~ for 13 33 ac~ mln~ o~n space. ~y ~scusslon ou 14 me,on? .~ ~at c~ vo~ pl~sc. Motion c~ six 1 ~ ~ one. 16 ~. W~ voting in opposi~on) 17 ~ 18 A~for~s~'~ing. Somo~voask~d~ ~ 19 somo ~scusslon a~ut o~ ~ ~nd I'm assent you wo~d :21 ~ ~oN: ~ you want us ~ b~ng ~t ;22 back for ~ '23 ~ M~ Y~. ~o~s~: ~t. ~yo~ Page 77 $ 7 8 '9 !~o 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~o ~4 25 * Page' 78 i I input? i 2 MR. WIL~S: Also, could you put what the 3 rules, one week, getting our material one week before 4 meetings. 5 I~. I~GELBRECHT: wc can talk about that but 6 we won't get it this time. l' 7 MR. WILLIAMS: NO. V~at I'm saying is could 8 it be on our Agcnda,i.tmus if we're going to talk about it 9 -- to discuss. 10 MR. MC~'EILL: It will be part of the rules. 11 MR. WILLIAMS: Ye.~h, part of thc l%lles to be 12 .. discussed. 13. MR. ~OS~CHT: iWe can talk about that~ I ' 14 can tell you the staff -- 15 MR. WU ! LAlvlS: I really don't care, beca~.~ I 16 have a Hfe outside o[ Planning and Z~.n.lng. 17 MR. HNG£LBRECHT~ Ms. Go~lrdie. 18 MS. GOU~DI~.: I would also like to know, mud 19 being that we've got you as Chairman who's done this 20 befor~ and Salty has ~ on'a year and has been appointeA ~1 as ~e Co-Chak, and I'm not re~ly sum how t~s works. 22 I'd like to also know what the Chair is respopslble for, 23 what thc Chair docs so we can everyone up to par as to how 24 the whole syst~n works bccaus~ I really don't tM~k we. 25 really know what goes on in your chair. And I think it PLANNING AND ZONING would be good t'or us to ,know ~hat happ~s And when .son~o. ne Ires to JUmp in to be Co-Chair, I t~nk it{ would:be u..ce for them to also know what they're responsible to do and what they can't'do. MR. MCNF. mL: ~t's not -- Vice-Chair, it's . not Co-Chair. MS. C, OU~D~ Thank you for correcting mc. .MR. M .O,~.~ Yes. It'.S ~nt~ly : MR.~,~o~m'r: Duallyfiot~d. Mr. Donaldson, did you get all that? ,~ny other? MR. Wrr_~.~A.MS: Orlcntation for new cornmissloners bccan~ I was very fortunate coming on right before the -- and when a p~rson is coming on in November would be totally in t~ dark. MR. ~'~GEL~.ECHT: We don't have anyone coming on at this fir~: but wc will -- that's another it~Ta for that is brief'rog for new l~rsonnd. Okay. That's it? We're adjourned. Thank you. OCTOBER 20, 199o Page 77 - Page 7 58 .v _ ATTACHMENT 5 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE FRoM AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION F°P` 408.36 ACRES OF LAND TO SINGLE-FAMILY 7 CONDITIONED (SF-7[C]) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION ON 132.55 ACRES, SINGLE- FAMII.Y 10 CONDITIONED (SF-10[C]) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION ON 84.09 ACRES, AND SINGLE-FAlVn~.Y 13 CONDITIONED (SF-13[C]) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION ON 191.72 ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN UNIVERSITY DRIVE (HWY 380) AND MCKINNEY STREET (F.M. 426) IN THE PROXIMITY OF TRINITY ROAD; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z-99-072) WHEREAS, Paul Spain, on behalf of Dieter Schwartz, has applied for a change in zoning for 408.36 acres of land fi:om an Agricultural (A) zoning district classification and use designation to a Single-family 7 (SF-7) zoning district classification and use designation on 132.55 acres, Single- family 10 (SF-10) zoning district classification and use designation on 84.09 acres, and Single- family 13 (SF-13) zoning district classification and uso designation on.191.72 acres; and WHEREAs, on October 20, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the requested change in zoning; and 'WHEREAS, the City CoUncil finds that the change in zoning will be consistent with the 1988 Denton Development Plan, the 1998 Denton Plan Policies, and the 1999 Growth Management Strategies and Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, ~ T..HE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the zoning district classification and use designation of the 81.71 acre property described in the legal description attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A is changed fi:om an Agricultural (A) zoning district classificatiOn and use designation to a Single- family 7 conditioned (SF~7[e]) zoning district claSsification and Use designation; that the zoning district classification and use designation offlae'61,29 acre property'described in the legal description attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B is changed fi:om an Agricultural (A) zoning district classification and use designation to a Single-family 10 conditioned (SF-10[e]) zoning district classification and use designation; that the zoning district claSsification and use designation of the 22.80 acre p. roperty described in the legal description attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C is changed fi:om an Agricultural (A) zoning district classification and use designation to a Single-family 10 conditioned (SF-10[e]) zoning district classification and use designation; that the zoning district elassifieatlon and use designation of the 191.72 acre property described in the legal description attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit D is changed from an Agricultural (A) zoning district elaSsifieition and use designation to a Single-family 13 conditioned (SF-13[e]) zoning district elassifie.ation and use designation; and that the zoning district 59, ' · classification and use designation of' the 50.84 acre property described in the legal description attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit E is ch~uged f~om an Agricultural (A) zoning dis~ct classification and use designation to a Single-family 7 conditioned (SF~7[c]) zoning district claSsificatiOn and use designation Under the Comprehensive zOning ordinance of the City of Denton~ Texas, subject to the following conditions: '" ' : ' 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, adequate transportation infi'astmcture shall be comtmcted in accordance with a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) approved by the Transportation and Engineering Department. 2. That a commitment for improvements to the Lakeview Boulevard bridge over Cooper Creek is approved by the Transpqr~ation and Engineering Department; and 3. That the amendment to the Roadway Component of the Denton Mobility Plan (DMP) that proposes a new corridor south of Mills Road for Lake. view Boulevard to the west of the existing Trinity Road is resolved. SECTION 2. That the City's official zoning map is amended to show the change in zoning district classification. SECTION 3. That any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviCtion, be freed a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct Offense. ' ' ' :' '. ' ,SECTION 4. That if any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or provisions of this. ordinance shall be adjudged invalid or held unconstitutional, the same shall not affect the validity of this ordinance as a whole or part or provisions hereof, other than the part so decided to be invalid or unconstitutional, and the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas hereby declares it would have enacted such remaining portion~ despite any such validity. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to eanse the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, a aa~ly newspaper published in the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED tiffs the . day Of ' JACK MU.LER, MAYOR 60. . - Page 2 ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECKETARY By: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY By: 61. - - Page EXHIBIT.A :: ... Z'J99'_-0'7 2 .. Single Family (SF-7) :: .. POINT OF BEGINNING being a ~" Iron Rod South 87'~ 39' 53" East a distance of 1,762.98 feet to a ~" Iron Rod for comer; THENCE South 02^ 29' 20" West along Trinity Road a distance of 2,306.03 feet to a ~" Iron Rod for comer;, · ... · . ... · THENCE*NoAh 87^ 07'53" west along Blagg Road a di~t'ance ~)f 1,403.40 feet to a ~, Iron Rod for comer;, THENCE North 55^ 48' 41" West a distance of 131.63 feet to a point for comer;, :THENCE North 40/` 29' 30" East a distance of 222.22 feet to a point for comer; THENCE NoAh 25/` 51' 36" West a distance of 164.43 feet to a point for comer;, THENCE NoAh 59^ 01' 32" West a distance of 40.87 feet to a point for comer; THENCE NoAh 11/` 41' 25" East a distance of 13.74 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 70^ 06' 21" East a distance of 54.81 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 57/` 31' 14" East a distance of 88.39 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 02A 08' 18" West a distance of 88.68 feet to a point for corner; THENCE North 34^ 46' 24" West a distance Of 133.12 feet to .a point for comer;,. THENCE North 09/` 48' 53; East a distance of 213.32 feet to a point for Comer;' THENCE North 03/` 07' 11" East a distance of 349.74 feet to a point for comer;, THENCE NoAh 20/` 19' 10" East a distance of 116.20 feet to a point for corner; THENCE North 89^ 34' 54, West a distance of 280.71 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 00/` 25"08" East a distance of 304.49 feet to a point for corner, said point being r~ ' · on the south ght-of-way line of Appaloosa Drive (a 60' right-of-way); THENCE North 05/` 05' 40" West departing said south right-of-way line a distance of 60.00 feet to a point qn the north right-of-way line of said Appaloosa Drive, a circular curve concave to the · Southeast and having a radius of 630.00 feet add a tangent bearing of South 84.^ 54' 20"'West; THENCE mn al~)ng the arc of said right-of-way line through a central angle of 04^ 58' 57" for a distance of 54.79 feet to a point for comer;, .THENCE North 00^ 25' 08" East departing said north right-of-way line a distance of 588.52 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 81.71. acres, more or less. EXHIBIT 'B - " Z-99-072 .. Single Family (SF-'IO) :: ~: POINT OF BEGINNING being In the south right-of-way line of Blagg Road (a 60' right-of-way) South 87^ 13' 23" East along said right-of-way line a distance of 166.80 feet to a %" Iron Rod for comer;, THENCE SoUth 02^ 15' 04" West ~epa'rt!ng said right-of-way:line a distance of 880.43 feet to a point for co~er; ' . THENCE South 87^ 44' 57" East a distance of 40.00 feet to a point for corner; .-THENCE South 02^ 15' 04" West a distance of 1,912.92 feet to a point for comer, said point being in the south right-of-wey line of Draught Horse Drive (a 60' right-of-way); THENCE South 87^ 44' 57" East aiong said right-of-way line a distance of 40.00 feet to a point fOr comer;, THENCE South 02^ 15' 04" West departing said right-of-way line a distance of 841.69 feet to a point for corner; THENCE North 87^ 02' 12" West a distance of 102.72 feet to a %" Iron Rod for corner; · THENCE North 87^ 28' 16" West a diStance of 683.76 feet to a point for corner; THENCE North 02^ 37' 02" East a distance of 3,636.80 feet to a %" Iron Rod at a fence corner post for corner, said point being In the south right-of-way line of the aforementio, ned Blagg Road; THENCE SoUth 87^ 13' 23" East along said right-of'Way line a distance of 516.45 feet to th~ POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 61.2~ acres, more or less. 63.- ~.xH~-~-~ c " ~.-99-072 '. Single Family (SF-'I 0).. POINT OF BEGINNING being a ~" Iron Rod South 87^ 02' t2" East a distance of 102.72 feet to a polnt for comer; THENCE South 87^ 02' 11" East a distance of 287.03 feet to a point for comer;, THENCE South 20^ 21' 07" West a distanc~ of 52.88.feet to a point for COrner;, : THENCE South 12^ 44' 38" East a distance of 194.93 feet to a point for corner; THENCE South 15^ 05' 28" West a distance of 82.58 feet to a point for comer; T.HENCE South 32^ 19' 01" East a distance of 68.94 feet to a point for comer;, THENCE South 77^ 34' 46" East a distance of 191,50 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 54^ 39' 49" East a distance of 497.70 feet to a point fo~; corner, said point being on the west right-of-way line of Lakeview Boulevard (a 60' right-of-way); THENCE North 82^ 35' 47" East departing said west right-of-way line a distance of 93.74 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 02^ 32' 12" West a distance of 583.61 feet to a point for corner; THENCE North 87^ 09' 07" West a distance of 76.28 feet to a point for corner, said point being on the east right-of-way line of the aforementioned Lakeview Boulevard; THENCE'South 29^ 57"13" West along said right-Of-way I!ne a distance Of 333.44 feet' to of curvature on a circular curve concave to the Southeast and having a radius of 480.00 feet and a tangent bearing of South 29^ 57' 13" West; THENCE run along the arc of said right-of-way line through a central angle of 24^ 48' 06" for a distance of 207.78 feet to a point for corner; THENCE North 86^ 44' 34" West along Mills Road departing said right-of-way line a distance of 85.76 feet to a ~" Iron Rod for comer; THENCE North 86^ 44' 32" West continuing along Mills Road a distance of 731.55 feet to a ~" Iron Rod for corner; THENCE North 01^ 33' 30" East a distance of 1,157.79 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 2~.80 acres, more or less, ' .' 64. -- EXHIBIT D~ Z-99-072 · .Single Family(SF-13) I :: OINT OF BEGINNING being a ~" Iron Rod South 86/'44' 34" E~ast along Mills Road a distance of 85,76 feet to a point for corner, sald point being in the east right?f-way of Lakeview Boulevard (a 60' right-of-way); THENCE South 86^ 44' 32~. East continuing along Mills ROad a distance of 124,50 feet t° a poin. t for comer;. . . THENCE North 43^ 16' 17" East along Trinity Road a distance of 97.99 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 46^ 43' 40" East a distance of 62.76 feet to a point for comer; :THENCE South 61'" 26' 46" East a distance of 184.15 feet to a point for corner; THENCE South 46^ 08' 37" East a distance of 116,88 feet to a point for corner; THENCE South 78^ 31' 18" East a distance of 205.51 feet to a point for corner; THENCE South 34^ 26' 15" East a distance of 113.77 feet to a point for corner; THENCE South 57/` 53' 03" East a distance of 124.36 feet to a polnt for comer; THENCE South 86^ 43'51" East a distance of 103.64 feet to a point for corner; THENCE South 32^ 05' 28" East a distance of 151.09 feet to a point for corner; -HENCE South 85^ 46' 40" East a distance of 51.22 f~et to a ~oint for corner; '" THENCE North 45^ 18' 48" East a distance of 133.07 feet to a point for corner; THENCE due East a distance of 60.95 feet to a point for corner; THENCE South 53^ 41' 10" East a distance of 81.26 feet to a %" Iron Rod for corner; THENCE South 03^ 13' 45" West a distance of 832.91 feet to a %" Iron Rod for corner; THENCE South 60^ 26; 45, East a distance of 546.69 feet to a Corp~ of Engineers Concrete Monument marked Q-~300-W for corner; THENCE South 37^ 06' 22" East a distance of 406.29 feet to a Corps of Engineers Concrete Monument marked Q-299-W for comer; THENCE South 40^ 44' 09" East'a distance of 551.29 feet to a COrps of'Engineers Concrete Monument marked Q-298-W for corner;, THENCE South 33^ 41' 48" East a distance of 277.90 feet to a Corps of Engineers Concrete Monument marked Q-297-W for comer;' THENCE South 25^ 05' 59" West a distance of 152,09 feet to a Corps of Engineers Concrete Monument marked Q-296-W for corner;, THENCE South 08^ 56' 29" West a distance of 296.82 feet to a Corps of Engineers Concrete 'onument marked Q-295-W for comer; 65. EXHIBIT D i .' Z-gR-072 (Con't) THENCE North 48/` 20' 23" East a distance' of 258.99 feet to a Corps ~f Engineer~ Concrete Monument marked Q-294-W for comer;, THENCE South 02/` 27' 35" West a distance of 443.88 feet to a Corps ol~ Engineers Concrete M6nument marked Q-293-BW for comer;, THENCE South 02/` 28' 16" West a distance of 949.52 feet to a Corps of Engineers Concrete Mon. ument marked Q-293-W for comer;, ~. ' · THENCE South 02/` 30' 01" West a distance of 1,339.23 feet to a %" Iron Rod for corner;, THENCE South 83/` 27' 47" East a distance of 352.07 feet to a %" Iron Rod for corner;, :THENCE South 02/` 27' 47" West a distance of 130.26 feet to a %" Iron Rod for comer; THENCE South 81/` 13' 33" West a distance of 86.24 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 68/` 27' 45" West a distance of 111.15 feet to a point ~or comer; THENCE South 55^ 08' 07" West a distance of 134.14 feet to a point for comer;, THENCE North 83/` 40' 48" West a distance of 78.18 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 63/` 27' 22" West a distance of 149.69 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 25/` 57' 55" West a distance of 232.50 feet to a %" Iron Rod for corner; THENCE due West a distance Of 767.70 feet to a point for corner;' · THENCE North 03^ 12' 57'~ East a distance of 550.34 feet to a fence comer pos't for corrler; THENCE North 64/` 35' 24" West a distance of 413.13 feet to a %" Iron Rod for comer; THENCE North 01/` 59' 31" East a distance of 706.01 feet to a ~" Iron Rod for corner; THENCE North 02^ 40' 18" East a distanc, e of 2,126.97 feet to a fence comer post for comer; THENCE North 84/` 51'.0.2" West a distance of 5,54.33 feet to a fence'comer post for comer; i'HENCE North 05/` 48' 02" West a distance of 10.33 feet to a fence corner post for corne~'; i'HENCE North 88^ 39' 36" West a distance of 856.14 feet to a %" Iron Rod for corner; tHENCE North 02^'51''54. East along Trinity Road a dietetics of 527~49 feet to a Y~" Iroh ROd for' ;cruet, FHENCE South 86^ 16' 15" East a distance of 669.42 feet to a %" Iron Rod for comer;, i'HENCE North 16/` 57' 38" East a distance of 146.41 feet to a %" Iron Rod for comer; I'hENCE North 82/` 26' 52" West a distance of 707.37 feet to a %" Iron Rod for corner; tHENCE Horth OZ^ 01' ~i4" East along Trinity Road a distance of 560.38 feet to a %" Iron Rod for :ome~ 66. EXHIBIT D Z-99-072 THENCE North 02^ 51' 51" East continuing along Trinity Road a distsnce of 179.93 feet to a %" Iron Rod for comer; " THENCE North 02^ 51' 54" East continuing along and departing from Trinity Road a distance of 851.47 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 191.72 acres, more or less..' 67, EXHIBIT F. ~.-99-072 : Field Notes for Parcel D - Single FaJ'nil¥ (SF-7) (including School and Park sites) P. OINT OF BEGINNING due East a distance of 767.70 feet to a %" Iron Rod for corner;, THENCE South 63^ 27' 22" East a distance of 149.37 feet to a point for comer;, THENCE North 2~^ 02' 37" East a distance of 168.76 feet to a point for comer;, THENCE South 83^ 40' 47" East a distance of 122.65 feet to a point for Comer; THENCE North 55^ 08' 07" East a distance of 150.52 feet to a point for corner; :THENCE North 68^ 27' 44" East a distance of 101.42 feet to a point for corner; THENCE North 81^ 13' 33" East a distance of 62.77 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 87^ 32' 22" East a distance of 15.00 feet to a %".lro~ Rod for comer;, THENCE South 02^ 27' 48" West a distance of 1,800.00 feet to a %" Iron Rod for corner; THENCE South 26^ 28' 54" West a distance of 274.05 feet to a %" Iron Rod for corner; -THENCE South 42^ 52' 48" West a distance of 220.14 feet to a %" Iron Rod for corner, said point being on the north right-of-way line of McKinney Street (F;M. 426); THENCE North 47^ 27' 12" West along said right-of-way line a distance of 319;59 feet tca Iron Ro'd for comer; ' .. THENCE North 46^ 46' 12" West along said right-of-way li~e a distance of 95~.20 feet to a Iron Rod for a point of curvature on a circular curve concave t(~ the Southwest ~nd having a radius of 710.61 feet to a point for corner and a tangent bearing of North 47^ 07' 12" West; THENCE run along the arc of said right-of-way line through a central angle of 16^ 29' 19" for a distance of 204.50 feet to a %" Iron Rod for corner; THENCE North 03^ 12' 57" East departing said right-of-way line a dis. tance of 1,016.11 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. · Containing 50.84 acres, more or less. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda No. ~o - &) ! t~' Agenda ~m~ AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: DCM: April 4, 2000 Planning Department David Hill, 349-8314 SUBJECT - DME Spencer Road Generation Plant (A-98) Consider adoption of an ordinance to voluntarily annex approximately 18 acres of land located on the north side of Spencer Road between Woodrow and Loop 288 in the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Denton, Texas, to approve a service plan for the annexed property, to provide a severability clause and to provide for an effective date. Second reading of ordinance. BACKGROUND Denton Municipal Electric, on behalf of the City of Denton, has voluntarily submitted a petition for annexation of its Spencer Road electric generation plant. The 18 acre property is located on the north side of Spencer Road, between Woodrow Lane and Loop 288. The purpose of the annexation is to assure that, in the event the facility is sold, the property is within the city boundary. The City has requested a Light Industrial (LI) zoning classification of the property in connection with this annexation. The zoning request will be considered under zoning case Z-00-001. Council has conducted two public hearings regarding this annexation. The first reading of the ordinance occurred on February 8, 2000. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the proposed annexation at its January 26, 1999 meeting. The annexation ordinance and service plan was published in its entirety in the Friday, February 25, 2000 Denton Record Chronicle. OPTIONS The Council may choose to approve or deny the annexation petition. PRIOR ACTION / REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions) · First public hearing was conducted January 11,2000. · Second public hearing was conducted January 18, 2000. · The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of thc proposed annexation at its January 26, 2000 meeting (7-0). · The first reading of the ordinance was conducted on February 8, 2000. FISCAL INFORMATION The annexation will bring into thc city a facility that has significant property value. An increase in the cost of public facilities and services may result from any significant redevelopment of the area. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map. 2. Site Map. 3. Annexation Schedule 4. Service Plan 5. Draf[ Ordinance Respectfully submitted: Director, Planning and Development Prepared by: B. G~ay f Planner I o ~,-98 ATTACHMENT 1 NORTH SITE LOCATION ~ MAP Agenda Date: January 11,2000 Scale: None e o o ~.00 ~o ,ZO'tlt .£UIGI ~ .,~0 N ~J .4-98. DME ~ip~tcer Plant, 1st PH. doc ATTACHMENT 3 PROPOSED ANNEXATION sCHEDULE A-98 DME Spencer Generafi'offPiant December 14, 1999 3%nuary 1, 2000. January 11, 2000 January 6, 2000 January 16; 2000 ~lanuary 18, 2000 lanuary 26, 2000 Febm .ar~. 8, 2000 February 25, 2000 April 4, 2000 City Council receives a preliminary .assessment, gives direction to staffand considers approval cfa schedule for public hear~n, gs reeardine the annexation;. : '.. '. "... '- -.. "' '-.." 6 ' Prel~rmnarYAnnexatiOn A~Sessinent prepared. 'i. '- Notice published in Denton Record-Chronicle for first public hearing. n ~lnnexationStudypreparedandavailabioforpublicreview. o ServieePlanpreparedandavaJlabloforpublicreviewj · City Council conducts first Public hearing. · Public notice'must bo no less than 10 days and no more than 20 days before public hearing. . Notice published in Denton.Record-Chronicle for second public hearing. Notice published in Denton Record-Chronicle for P & Z public hearing. City Council conducts second public hearing. · Public notice must be no less than 10 days and no more than 20 days before public hearing. Planning and Z°ning Commlss'ion holds a public.hearing and considers making a recommendation to the City Council regarding the prOPosed ?nexation and the proposed zoning. · Public notice must be no less than 10 days before public hearing. City Council by a four-fiflh~ vote institutes annexation proceedings. First reading of annexation o~dinance. SPECIAL CALL MEETING. · Aetlon must be more than 20 days atter the second public hearing but less than 40.days from the first public hearing. Publication of .~nnexation ordinance in Denton Record-Chronicle City cOuncil l~y a foUr'fiffh~~ v~te takes final' a~tion. ' S'~cond ~ading and' adoption of the annexation ordinance. City COuncil considers approval of z0n~ng reqUest. · Council action must be more than 30 days aRerpublicaiion of ordinance and less than 90 days after council ~n.~tituted annexation proceedings. 5. ATTACHMENT 4 ANNEXATION SERVICE PLAN (A-98) ANNEXATION SERVICE PLAN CASE NUMBER: AREA: LOCATION: A-98 (DME Spencer electric generation plant) 17.751 acres North of Spencer Road, between Woodrow Lane and Loop 288. Municipal services to the site described above shall be furnished by or on behalf of the City of Denton, Texas, at the following levels and in accordance with the following schedule: Police Protection 1. Police service, including patrolling, response to calls, and other routine functions, will be provided to the property within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the annexation using existing personnel and equipment. Be Fire Protection 1. Fire protection (within the limits of existing hydrants) and emergency medical services will be provided to the property within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the annexation using existing personnel and equipment. Solid Waste Collection Solid waste collection service will be provided to the property within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the annexation using existing personnel and equipment. Water/Wastewater Facilities Maintenance of water and wastewater facilities in the area to be annexed that are not within the service area of another water or wastewater utility will be begin within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the annexation using existing personnel and equipment. Roads and Streets Maintenance of roads and streets, including road and street lighting, in the area to be annexed will begin within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the annexation using existing personnel and equipment. Parks and Recreation Facilities 1. Maintenance of parks, playgrounds, swimming pools, and other recreational facilities in the area to be annexed will begin within sixty (60) days after the effective date of thc annexation using existing personnel and equipment. A-98.4?,q'/l~XA :I70N .3=ER FI(,2if P£AN.&~c 6. ANNEXATION SERVICE PLAN (A-98) However, there are no existing parks, playgrounds, swimming pools, and other recreational facilities in the area. Electric Facilities Electric utility service will be provided within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the annexation using existing personnel and equipment. Library Services 1. Library services will be provided within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the annexation using existing personnel and equipment. Code Enforcement, Building Inspections and Consumer Health Services 1. Code enforcement, building inspections and consumer health services will bc provided within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the annexation using existing personnel and equipment. Planning and Development Services 1. Planning and development services will be provided within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the annexation using existing personnel and equipment. The Planning and Development Department currently provides services this property by way of administration of Chapter 34 of the Code of Ordinances, concerning subdivision and land development regulations. Capital Improvements Program (ClP) The CIP of the city is prioritized according to the following guidelines: (1) Provision of Capital Improvements as compared to other areas will be based on characteristics of topography, land utilization, population density, magnitude of problems as related to comparable areas, established technical standards and professional studies. (2) The overall cost effectiveness of providing a specific facility or improvement. The annexed area will be considered for CIP improvements in the upcoming CIP plan. This property will be considered according to the established guidelines. o ATTACHMENT 5 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, VOLUNTARILY ANNEXING 17.751 ACRES OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, LOCATED NORTH OF SPENCER ROAD BETWEEN WOODROW LANE AND LOOP 288 IN SOUTHEAST DENTON IN THE COUNTY OF DENTON, TEXAS; APPROVING A SERVICE PLAN FOR THE ANNEXED PROPERTY; PROVDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (A-98) WHEREAS, the City of Denton wishes to extend its city limits line to annex 17.751 acres of land described herein; and WHEREAS, on January 26, 2000 the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the petition for annexation; and WHEREAS, public heatings were held in the Council Chambers on January 11, 2000 and January 18, 2000, (both days being on or after the 40th day but before the 20th day before the date of the institution of the proceedings) to allow all interested persons to state their views and present evidence beating upon this annexation; and WHEREAS, annexation proceedings were instituted for the property described herein by the introduction of this ordinance at a meeting of the City Council on February 8, 2000; and WHEREAS, this ordinance has been published in full one time in the official newspaper of the City of Denton on February 25, 2000, after annexation proceedings were instituted and 30 days prior to City Council taking final action, as required by City Charter; NOW, THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the tract of land described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is annexed to the City of Denton, Texas. SECTION 2. That the service plan attached as Exhibit "B", and incorporated by reference, which provides for the extension of municipal services to the annexed property, is approved as part of this ordinance. SECTION 3: Should any part of this ordinance be held illegal for any reason, the holding shall not affect the remaining portion of this ordinance and the City Council hereby declares it to be its purpose to annex to the City of Denton all the real property described in Exhibit "A" regardless of whether any other part of the described property is hereby effectively annexed to the City. If any part of the real property annexed is already included within the city limits of the City of Denton or within the limits of any other city, town or village, or is not within the City of Denton's jurisdiction to annex, the same is hereby excluded from the territory annexed as fully as if the excluded area were not expressly described in this ordinance. Page 1 of 2 SECTION 4: That this ordinance shall become effective immediately' upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2000. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT./~ PROUT~ITY ATTORNEY BY: ~~ Page 2 of 2 9. EXHIBIT A THENCE THENCE corner; THENCE N JB' 22, 2J' E, corner; THENCE N 88' OJ' 4J' corner; THENCE S 44' 06' 44' THENCE S 00' 55' 14" FY, corner; THENCE S 87' 46' 24' FY, THENCE S 02' 25' 18" E, corner; THENCE S 86' 24' 16' FY, THENCE S.02' $2' 00' E, THENCE N 87' 35' 34" FIELD NOTES 17.751 ACRES BEING o/I that Certain 'lot, tract or pa~'cel of land situated in the Mary Austin Survey Abstract Number 4, in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, being a port of Lot I, 8lock 2 of. Municipal Utility Addition, an addition to the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas according to -the plot thereof recorded in Cabinet G, Page 346, Plat Records, Denton County, Texas, and being more particularly described os follows: . COMMENCING Ot on iron rod found for corner in the north line of Spencer Road, o public roadway having a right-of-way of 60.0 feet, said point being the southwest corner of that certain tract of land conveyed by deed to N. Alex Bickley, Trustee recorded in Volume 987, Page 548, Deed Records, Denton County, Texas; THENCE N 88' $9' 46' W, 150.00 feet with said north line of said Spencer Rood to an iron rod set for PLACE OF 8EGINNG; THENCE N 88' $9' 46' FY, 299.83 feet with said north line of said Spencer Road to on iron rod set for corner; THENCE dong the arc of o curve to the right hav/n o central angle of $2' 15' 19; o radius of 520.0~? feet, o,n ar?length of 292.74 feet, whose chord bears N 72 32' 06 W, 288.89' feet with said north line of said Spencer Rood to on iron rod set for corner; THENCE N 52' 50' 00' FY, 281.92 feet with said north line of said Spencer Road to an' iron rod set for corner; THENCE N 52' 36' 00" FY, 111.50 feet with said north line of said Spencer Rood to an iron rod set for corner; THENCE N 20' 02' 44~ E, 92.00 feet to on iron rod set for corner; THENCE N 02' 25' 36' FY, 267.94 feet to an iron rod set for corner;. N 88' 09' 17" E, 48.91 feet to on iron rod set for corner; N 01' 50' 44' W, 206.45 feet to on iron rod set for 161.33 feet to on iron rod set for 749.08 feet to on iron rod set for 5~.08 feet to an iron rod set for corner; 562.85 feet to on iron rod set for 258.02 feet to a fence corner for corner; 114.07 feet to an iron rod set for 68.28 feet to an iron rod set for corner; I51.23 feet to o fence corner for corner; 294.01 feet to a fence corner for corner; THENCE S 09' 41' 28' FY, 180.28 feet'to the PLACE OF BEGINNING · - .i,~d cu;~t~;;~ing, 17.75; ccre~ o! .;~nd. 10. ANNEXATION SERVICE PLAN (A-98) ExI:rmIT B ANNEXATION SERVICE PLAN EXHIBIT CASE NUMBER: A-98 (DME Spencer electric generation plano AREA:' . .' ':' 17.751acres LOCATIONi' ' ' ' North of Spe~cer Road, between Woodrow Lane and'Lo~p 288. Municipal services to the site described above shall be furnished by or on' behalf of the City of Denton, Texas, at the following levels and in accordance ~vith the following schedule: A. Police Protection Police service, including patrol!Jng, response to calls, and other routine functions, will be pwvided to the property within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the annexation using existing personnel and equipment. B, Fire Protection Ce De Ee 1. Fire protection (within the ]imi.ts of existing hydrants) and emergency medical services will be provided to the property within sixty (60) days after the effective date o.fthe annexation using existing personnel and equipment. Solid Waste Collection 1. Solid waste co~llection service will be provided to the property withl, si×'ty (60) days after the effective date of the annexation using existing personnel and equipmenL · Water/Wastewater Facilities 1. Maintenance ofwater'and wastewater facilities in the area to be annexed that are not within the service area of another water or wastewater utility will be begin within sixty (60) days after tho effective date of the annexation using existing pe~'sonnol and equipment. Roads andStreets 1. Maintenance of roads and streets, including road and street lighting, in the area to be annexed will begin within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the annexation using existing personnel and equipment. Parks and Recreation Facilities 1. Maintenance of parks, playgrounds, swimming pools, and other recreational facilifioo in tho area to bc annexed will begin within sixty (60) days after thc effective date of the annexation using ex/sting personnel and equipment. B .J-98 .4N. VEX,4 FION ,~ER FI C£ PI.~V. doc 11. ANNEXATION SERVICE PLAN (A 98) However, there are no existing parks, playgrounds, swimming pools, and other recreational facilities in the area. Go ElectFie ~acilities Electric utility service will be prOvided .within sixty (6.0) daYS after the 'effective date' ~fthc annexation using existing personnel and equipment. ' H. Library Services 1. Library services will be provided within sixty (60) days after the effective date of tho annexation using existing personnel and equipment. Code Enforcement, Building Inspections and Consumer Health Services 1. Code enforcement, building inspections and consumer health services will be provided within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the annexation using existing personnel and equipment. Planning and Development Services 1. Planning and development.services will be provided within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the annexation using existing personnel and equipment. The Planning and Development Department currently provides services this property by way of administration of Chapter 34 of tho Code of O~dinances, concerning subdivision and land development regulations. K. Capital Improvements Program (ClP) The CIP of the city is prioritized according to the following guidelines: (1) Provision of CaPital Improvements as compared to other areas will be based on characteristics of topography, land utilization, population density, magnitude of problems as related to comparable areas, established technical standards and professional studies. (2) The overall cost effectiveness of providing a specific facility or'improvement. The annexed area will be considered for CIP improvements in the upcoming CIP plan. This property will be considered according to the established guidelines. ,4-98 .4,%:~'EX~ 770N SER ~/I CE 12. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET A~n,~a No. Agenda Item AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: April 4, 2000 Planning Department David Hill, 349-8314 SUBJECT - Z-00-001: (DME Spencer Generation Piano Hold a public heating and consider rezoning an approximately 18 acre site to a Light Industrial (LI) zoning district. The property is located on the north side of Spencer Road between Woodrow and Loop 288 in Southeast Denton. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-0) with conditions. BACKGROUND Denton Municipal Electric, on behalf of the City of Denton, has voluntarily submitted a petition for annexation of its Spencer Road electric generation plant. This annexation is being considered under annexation case A-98. The City has requested Light Industrial (LI) zoning designation. An electric generation plant is a use by right within the City's LI zoning designation. It is also a use by right within the Heavy Industrial (HI) and Planned Development (PD) zoning designations and allowed with a Specific Use Permit (SUP) within the Agicultural (A), Commercial (C) and Central Business (CB) zoning designations. The existing electric generation facility would become a legal non-conforming use in any zone district that does not allow it as a use by right. The property is located within an area designated as an "Employment Center" in the Land Use Plan adopted as a part of the 1999-2000 Denton Comprehensive Plan. Employment Centers are intended to provide locations for a variety of workplaces, including limited light manufacturing uses, research and development activities, corporate facilities, offices and institutions. Under current zoning regulations, an LI, HI, or PD zoning designation is required to allow light manufacturing uses. Three (3) property owners were notified of the zoning request. No responses have been received (see Attachment 3). PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology of Z-00-001, commonly known as DME Spencer Generation Plant: P&Z Date - February 9, 2000 ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE No information at this time. A proposed condition of the zoning would require the property to be platted prior to any sale. FISCAL INFORMATION The annexation will bring into thc city a facility that has significant property value. An increase in the cost of public facilities and services may result from any significant redevelopment of the area. P&Z RECOMMENDATION Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-0) of this zoning request with the following conditions: 1. Any new exterior lighting shall be shielded so as not to shine upward or directly illuminate adjoining property. 2. Any new development or redevelopment of the property that changes use or results in an expansion of buildings or other structures greater than 25% of the current area shall require approval of a site plan by City Council following a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The site plan must meet the minimum requirements in place for detailed plans within a planned development zone district or any equivalent requirements. 3. Prior to any sale, the property shall be platted, and public improvements made, in conformance with City of Denton subdivision and land development regulations. 4. Uses shall be limited to those included in Exhibit B. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Approve with conditions. 3. Deny. 4. Postpone consideration. 5. Table item. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning and Zoning Commission Report, February 9, 2000, Z-00-001. 2. Planning and Zoning Commission minutes from January 26, 2000 3. Planning and Zoning Commission minutes from February 9, 2000. 4. Draft Ordinance. Prepared by: Planner I Respectfully submitted: Douglas Director of Planning and Development ATTACHMENT 1 PLANNING and ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 'SUbject:. DME.Spencer power plant Case Number: Z-00-001' · Continued Public Hearing: Zoning RequeSt Staff: Mark Donaldson Agenda Date: February 9, 2000 Continue a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed zoning of approximately 18 acres located on the north side of Spencer Road between Woodrow Lane and Loop 288 to a Light Industrial (LI) zoning classification. LOCATION MAP The CitY of Denton has initiated a voluntary annexation and zoning application for the Denton Municipal Electric (DME) Spencer. Road electric generation plant. The 17.75 acre tract is located on the north side of Spencer Road between Woodrow Lane and Loop 288. The annexation process requires two:Public hearings at City CounCil and review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The first reading of the annexation ordinance is scheduled for February 8, 2000 at a Special Call meeting. The City Council is scheduled to consider the associated zoning on March 21, 2000. The purpose of the annexation is to assure that, in the event the facility is sold, the proper~y is within the City boundary. I The City has requested a Light Industrial (LI) zoning classification for the property. An electric generation plant is a use by right within the City's LI zoning classification. It is also a use by right within the Heavy Industrial (HI) and Planned Development (PD) zoning classifications and allowed with a Specific Use Permit (SUP) within the Agricultural (A), Commercial (C) and Central Business (CB) zoning claSsifications. The existing electric generation facility would become a legal, non- conforming use in. any zone district that does not allow it as a use byright. . 'The LI zoning classification allows institutional, utility, recreational, entertainment, 'transportation, auto-oriented, retail, office, agricultural, and other commercial uses, as well as light manufacturing uses, 'The applicant has offered no conditions or eliminations of uses allowed within the Light Industrial zoning classification. 1999 Denton Plan Analysis · .' ... · The. 1999 Denton Plan is to be used in evaluating th~ consistency of 'proPosed deVelopment with the long range vision for the city. Staff finds the proposed zoning for both areas to be generally consistent with the 1999 Denton Plan. The property is located within an area designated as an "Employment Center" in the Land Use Plan adopted as a part of the Denton Plan. Employment Centers are intended to provide locations for a variety of workplaces, including limited light manufacturing uses, research and development activities, corporate facilities, offiCes and institutions. Under current zoning regulations a LI, HI or PD zoning classification is required to allow manufacturing uses. t. Transportation A. Trip generation. The existing facility generates little Vehicular traffic. However, any new use allowed within a Light IndUstrial zoning classification cOuld prOduce significant traffic that Spencer ROad and its intersections with WoodrOw and Loop 288 can not currently accommodate. Significant improvements may be required to accommodate any changes in use. Access. , Access to the property is from Spencer Road with connections to Woodrow Lane and Loop 288. Spencer Road is classified as a collector road, Woodrow Lane a secondary arterial road and Loop 288 a primary arterial rOad on the Denton Mobility Plan. Co Pedestrian Linkages. Sidewalks along all public streets will be required with any new platting activity. Utilities These properties are prOceeding through the annexation prOcess and a service plan is being developed. The preliminary service plan has identified that this development will be prOvided with adequate utility services. Drainage and ToPograPhy ' "* Any new development will be required to design and construct a drainage system to city standards. A preliminary drainage study will be required with the submission of a preliminary plat, if required. The study must include calculations of the 100-year storm for all drainage areas on this prOperty and any area that drains towards this prOperty. The developer must indicate the method by which the run-off will be carried acrOss the property or stored on the property. Signs The city's sign ordinance will be enforced. 'LandsCaping ,. . . . Development will have to complY with the city's Landscape Code, which requires fifteen (15) trees per acre and twenty (20) percent of all surfaces to remain pervious (plantable area). Sm Open Space Development is required to dedicate land, or provide fees in lieu of land, for neighborhood parks. Environmental Quality impacts No negative environmental impacts have been identified. II The property is currently not within the city boundary and is proceeding with annexation. At the time of annexation the property will be placed in the proposed zoning district and land use classifications. The property is not plattedl The City'S subdivision regulations provide an exemption from platting requirements if the property has remained in the same configuration since 1960 and extensions of · streets or public improvements are not required to support any proposed development. In order to redevelop the property, platting may not be required. Notice of the zoning and annexation request was published in the Denton Record-Chronicle on Sunday, January 9, 2000. Three (3) property owners were notified of the request and two (2) additional courtesy notices were sent on January 7, 2000. As of this writing, there have been no responses. neighborhood meeting has not been scheduled. The Commission recommended approval, of the proposed annexation at its January 26, 2000, meeting. City Council is scheduled to consider the first reading of the anneXation ordinance at its February 8, 2000 meeting. The second reading is scheduled for March 21, 2000, at Which time the zoning will be considered as well. The proposed zoning is consistent with the current use, adjacent approved zoning within the City and is generally consistent with the 1999 Denton Plan. Staff recommends approval of Light Industrial (LI) zoning for the subject property, with the following conditions: Any new exterior lighting shall be shielded so as not to shine upward or directly illuminate adjoining property. Any new develoPment Or redeVelOPment of the prOperty that changes use or results .in an ' expansion of buildings or other structures greater than 25% of the current area shall require approval of a site plan by City Council following a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The site plan must meet the minimum requirements in place for detailed plans within a planned development zone district or any equivalent requirements. Prior to any sale, the property shall be platted, and public improvements made, in conformance with City of Denton subdivision and land development regulations. Uses shall be limited to those described in Exhibit B of the ordinance. ' '11 J~ .... JJ I move to recommend approval of Z-00-001, the proposed Light Industrial (LI) zoning classification for 17.75 acres located on Spencer Road between Woodrow Lane and Loop 288, with the conditions as recommended by staff. 1. Recommend approval as submitted. 2. Recommend approval with conditions. 3, Recommend denial. 4. Postpone consideration. 5. Table item. 1, Site Map 2. Zoning Map 3, Draft Ordinance .:. · . :..:. :. · .. IJ'~XO J. O~l'tO~O b'3.~O J. OhllOOD o0o. ENCLOSURE 2 · Zoning Map I I I I I' !' A I I t I ~ '1 c(~) I I I. '.1 '1 lUl ENCLOSURE 3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF .DENTON, TEXAS ZONING APPROX/MATELY '17.751 ACRES 'LOCATED NORTH OF .SPENCER ROAD BETWEEN WOODROW LANE AND LOOP 288 IN souTHEAST DENTON TO ESTABLISH A CONDITIONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI[C]) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND LAND USE DESIGNATION; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (Z-00-001). WHEREAS, this zoning was initiated by the City of Denton, the owner of the subject property; and WHEREAS, on February 9, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the herein described zoning of the subject property; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the herein described zoning is consistent with the 1999 Denton Comprehensive Plan and will provide for a sensible and compatible arrangement of land uses; NOW, THEREFORE, THE coUNcm or THE CITY OF DENToN HEREBy ORDAINSi SECTION 1. the approximate 17.751 acres of land more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the "Property") is hereby zoned and classified as Conditioned Light Industrial (Il[c]) zoning district classification and land use designation, subject to the following conditions: Any new exterior lighting shall be shielded so as not to shine upward or directly illuminate adjoining property. Any new development or redevelopment of the property that changes use or results in an expansion of buildings or other structures greater than 25% of the current area shall require approval of a site plan by City Council following a recommendation by the Planning: and Zoning 'Commission. The sire'plan must meet the minimum requirements 'in place 'for detailed Plans Within a planned development zone district or'any equivalent requirements. Prior to any sale, the property shall be platted, and public improvements made, in conformance with City of Denton subdivision and land development regulations. 4. Uses shall be limited to those included in Exhibit B. SECTION 2. Tho City's offioial map is amended to show thy Conditioned Light Industrial (ii[c]) zoning district classification and land use designation. .SECTION 3: Should any part of this ordinance be held illegal for any reason, such holding shall not affect the remaining portion of this ordinance. SECTION 4. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. .SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record Chronicle, official newspaper of the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ., 2000. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY JACK MILLER, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 11. Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A FIELD NOTES 17.751 ACRES BEING oll that Certain lot, tract or parcel of land situated in the Mary Austin Survey Abstract Number 4, in the City of Denton, Denton Coun~yo Texas, being o port of Lot 1, Block 2 of Municipal Utility Addition, on addition to the City of Denton, Denton County° Texas according to 7the Plat thereof recorded, in Coblnet G, Page 346,' Plot Re~ords, Denton CoUnty, TexaS, and . being ·more particularly described oS followS: . .. COMMENCING at on iron rod found for corner in the north line of Sfpencer Road, o public roadway having o right-of-way of 60.0 eet, said point being the southwest corner of that certain tract of land conveyed by deed to N. Alex Bickleyo Trustee recorded in Volume 987, Page 548, Deed Records, Denton County, Texas; THENCE N 88' $9' 46~ iF, 150.00 feet with said north line of said Spencer Road to on iron rod set for PLACE OF BEGINNG; THENCE N 88' $9' 46' Fi, 299.83 feet with said north line of sold Spencer Rood to on iron rod set for corner; THENCE along the arc of o curve to the right having o central angle of 32' 15° 19; o radius of 520.0~.0 feet, a,n arc length of 292.74 feet, whose chord bears N 72 32' 06 W, 288.89' feet with said north line of sold Spencer Rood to on iron rod set for corner; THENCE N 52' 50' 00' Fi, 28[92 feet with said north line of said Spencer Rood .to on iron rod set for corner; · THENCEN 52' 36, 00" ~Yo I11.50 feet with' Said north line 'of 'said Spencer Rood to' on iron rod set for corner; THENCE N 20' 02' 44" E, 92.00 feet to on iron rod set for corner; THENCE N 02' 23' 36" W, 267.94 feet to an iron rod set for corner; THENCE N 88' 09' 17" E, 48.91 feet to on iron rod set for corner; THENCE N 01' 50' 44" W, 206.45 feet to an iron rod set for corner; THENCE N 38' 22' 23" E° 16133 feet to an iron rod set for corner; THENCE N 88' 03' 43" E, 749.08 feet to on iron rod set for corner; · . ' · . " THENCE S 44' 06' ~4" E, 5J. 08 feet 'to' on iron rod '$et'~Or corner; THENCE S 00' 53' 14" Hi,' 562.85 feet to an iron rod set for corner; THENCE S 87' 46' 24" W, 258.02 feet to a fence corner for corner; THENCE S 02' 25' 18" E, I14.07 feet to on iron rod set for corner; THENCE S 86' 24' 16" W, 68.28 feet to on iron rod set for corner; THENCE S 02' 32' 00" E, 151.23 feet to o fence corner for corner; THENCE N 87' 35' 34" E, 294.01 feet to o fence corner for corner; THENCE S 09' 41' 28" W, 180.28 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING .$,~d c~.,;to;i~ing, 17.751 ccres 12. ~ERH~T~ED USE~ EXHIBIT B Primary Residential Use~ . One FamilY Dwelling Restricted Dormitory, Boarding or Rooming House Hotel or Motel · /; · . "...'..;.~Educat~o~l.- -InstltutionaT. & Special. ~Se~ .-" ..-'~. :. Art Gallery or Museum Cemetery or Mausoleum Church or Rectory College or University or Private School Community Center (Public) Day Camp Day Nursery or Kindergarten School Group Homes Halfway House Home for Care of Alcoholic, Narcotic or Psychiatric Patients Hospital (General Acute Care) Hospital (Chronic Care) Institutions of Religious or Philanthropic.Nature Public Library Monastery or Convent Nursing Home or Residence Home forAged Occasional Sales . Park, PlaygroundS'or Public Community.Oente~-' SohoOl~ 'PriVa~primary.'ior~Sebo~da~y School, .Public or Denominational School, Business or Trade Utility, Accessory and Incidental Uses Accessory Building Community Center (Private). Electrical Generating Plant Electrical Substation Electrical Transmission Line Temporary Field or Construction office (Subject ~o Approval and Control by Building Inspector) . .. . ...... din ' Fire Station ?r Similar l~/bllo ~afety B~i .g ... .. · Gas. ~ransmis~on -~ine ana Meter~n~ .St~tlgn'~ '~ [..~.~ "j' '..-' "~:. ~ '-"~. i" ~' i' ~ .. Off Street ParkinglIncidenta~.t0Main Use . · off Street Remote Parking Private Utility Shop or Storage Yard Public Building, Shop, Yard of Looal,'State,' or Federal Government Radio and/or Television Microwave Tower "' · Sewage Pumping Station Private swimming Pool Telephone~ Business Office '~' " '' Telephone Line and Exchange switching'or Relay'Station Water Reservoir, Water Pumping Station or Well Water Treatment Plant 13. lqeoreatfonal an~'~nte~tat~ment Uses Amusement, Commercial (Outdoor) Amusement, commercial (Indoor) Country club (Private) with Gblf Course Dance Hall 'or Night C1,~ Drag Strip or Commercial Racing commercial Golf CourSe· Public Park or Playground Public Play field or Stadium Roller or Ice Skating Rink Stable, Private Club Stable~ Commercial.. Rental Stable, Boarding Swim or Tennis Club · Theater, Drive-in Transportation Related Uses Airport Landing Field or Heliport Bus Station or Terminal Hauling or'Storage COmpany.. · .~. Motor Treig~t.'Terminal. ~.. Railroad Passenger Station Railroad Track or Right-of-Way Railroad Team Track Truck Parking Lot Commercial Parking Lot or Structure Automobile Service Uses t Auto Laundry Auto Painting and Body'Repair Auto Sales and Repair (In B~ilding) ... Gasoline Service Station . " · New f~r .Used'i Ca?. S~le~[ 'L6t ':(In '~Den) .. if:~!.-- T'.: ,:--.-.': Seat Cover and Muffler'Installation Shop. '. Tire Retreading or Capping. Used Auto Parts'Sales (In Building) Retall and Service T~vp_e Uses ....... Antique Shop.. Bakery ?r Confectionery Shop (Retail) "' Cafeteria · Cleaning and Pres~ing Small Shop and Pickup Custom Personal Service Sho~ Drapery, Needlework or Weavlhg ~hop'. Florist or Garden Shop Greenhouse or Plant Nursery(Retail).'3 14. !lLI,I Light I~dd~trial District (oont Retail and Service Type Uses Cdontinued% Handicraft Sh°p lousehold Appliance Service an~ Repair Laundry or Cleaning self Service Mimeograph, Stationery or Letter Shop . : . Mo_z~.~uary';0r F~. n. er. al. Parlor?.- .;. · .,..:..: : .-.,:...;. ;....: · . . : :..: .--'... ~ ':'-.. · - . Off.!ces,:.Pr..ofe~10na.t .and :Admlnxs.t. ra=xve .'...'~'.;' (:' ".". · ':.' .-...'. '.:...' ' ." 'Off' Premmse."Sale':'of':'B~r 'and/69'w~ne:' ' :" "· ."~" : '" ':' ": · on ~remise Sale of Beer and/or wine Licensed Private Club Pawn Shop Restaurant Retail Stores and Shops - 4,000 square feet or less. Retail Stores and Shops - Over 4,000 s.quare feet Studio for Photographer, Musician, Artlst or Health Secondhand Store, U.sed Furniture or Rummage Sale Tool or Trailer Rental Agricultural Type Uses Animal Pound (Private or Public) Animal Clinic or Hospital (no outside runs or pens) Animal Clinic, Hospital or Kennel (with outside runs or pens) Farm or Ranch Greenhouse or Plant Nursery ·." '- ]- ~m~" ~_~' - ' ~':' ' ~ ' '' '" " " Commercial TVDe-Use~C' '" ' Bakery (Wholesale) Building Material Sales cabinet and Upholstery Shop Cleaning and Dyeing Plant (Commercial) Cleaning Plant, Bags or Carpets (Specigl Equipment) .. Clothing Manufacture or Light Compounding or Fabrlca=~on Contractors Shop and storage Yard Engine and Motor Repairing Feed Store . Heavy MachinerY Sales and storage Job Printing or Newspaper Printing ~.....-';'.. ; ..... . ' Laundry.Plant-;~Commegcial). Mi~k~epot',-~'a~ry', ~:I~e"Cr~m;~£an="".:': '>'" !~."'~-" :'~'!..f ';'L'..'j' ....... .' ~Palnt ShoP. ~'' '' ... '. · - ' '. :' " Petroleum Products, Storage - Wholesale Plumbing Shop scientific or Research Laboratories Storage and Sales of Furniture or Appliances (Outside'a. Building) Storage or Sales Warehouse Trailer Rental or Sales Transfer, Storage and Baggage Terminal '.. Wholesale office, and Sample Room .$peolal Industrial Processes Mixing and..Sale of Concrete _~eneral Man,~.facturi~lg aRd Indust~iel Uses Light Manufacturing or Industrial uses ~hich m~t the perfo~ance st~n~rds presorlbe4 by Article 13, 18A, i through 7. ~TTTED U~ES ~ITH ~PRO~D .SPEOIFI~O USE Educational~ Institutional & Special Use~' Fraternity, Sorority, Lodge or civic Club Utility. Accessory and Incidental Uses Agricultural Type Uses ~ommercfal Type Uses nd, Gravel Or'Earth ~aie~ or:'St°ra~e' · * '" ' ' ' Natural Resource Storage end 'Extraction ExtrAction and Storage of Sand, Caleche, Stone, Clay or Gravel Petroleum or Gas Well · Special Industrial Processes Temporary Asphalt or Concrete Batching Plant Brick E!!n cr Tile Plnnt Floor/Area Ratio 2:1 Maximum ~ARD REQUIREMENTS: Front Yard: Side Yard: Minimum 25 feet .. No side yard is specified for'non-residential use except wher~ ~ non-residential use a~uts upon a district boundary line dividing such districts from a ~esidential district or when the side yard is ad3acent to the street, in which even~ a 'ten' (10) foot side yard shall be. provided. No rear year is specified for non-residential use except where retail, commercial or industrial uses back upon a co~mmon district line,' whether separated by an alley or not~ dividing the district from any of the residential.dis.tricts listed, a minimum of :i ~.'": '""" .... "' 'i ~ "'"!"'" '. ~''''''' To any legal height not prohibited by other laws or ordinances. In the districts where the height of buildings, is restricted to two (2) or three (3) stories, cooling towers, roof gables, chimneys and went stacks may extend for additional height not to exceed forty-fir9 (45) feet above the average grade line of the building. Water stand pipes and tanks, church steeples, domes and spires, and school buildings and institutional buildings may be erected'to exceed'three (3).stories in height in residential areas restricted to two (2) or three (3) stories in height, pr6vided that.one additional foot shall be added to the width and depth of side and rear yards for each foot that such structures exceed three (3) stories in height. · ': " ...... . .. ..,'. - ..... ..f :~ .... 1. Parking (BaSed On use. see Article '34-115.) 2. Signs 3. Lighting 4. Landscaping Screening & Fencing ATTACHMENT Planning and Zoning Comm~-s]on Mmutes January26,2000 Page 3 of 3 located at the southwest corner of Ryan Road and Teasley Lane. (Z-99-096, Ryan Rd.rreasley Ln., Larry Reichhart) Motion by Elizabeth Gourdie and seconded by Salty Rishel to deny. *Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's.transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 66). *' Motion fails 3-4. Susan Apple, Rudy Moreno, Perry McNeill and Carl Williams. Motion by Perry McNeill and seconded by Carl Williams to recommend approval with conditions to City Council. .'., Motion fails 2-5. Susan Apple, Elizabeth Gourdie, Rudy Moreno, Perry McNeill and Jim Engelbrecht opposed. Motion by Susan Apple and seconded by Perry McNeill to continue. Motion carries 7-0. Hold a public to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding the rezoning of approximately 0.24 acres, commonly known as 1504, 1506 and 1508 N. Elm, from an Office (O) zoning district to a Planned Development (PD) zoning district. The proposal is to allow office and residential uses on the property. (Z-99-083, 1504-1508 N. Elm, Larry Reichhart) Motion by Susan Apple and seconded by Salty Rishel t° recommend approval with conditions to City Council. · · Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 144). Motion carries 7-0. 10. Hold a public hearing to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding the Detailed Plan encompassing approximately 1,361 acres within a Planned Development (PD-173) zone district. The property is generally located at the northeast corner of Robson Ranch Road (formerly Crawford Rd.) and Florence Road. A residential development with open space/golf course and an office site is proposed. (Z-99-102, Robson Ranch, Larry Reichhart) Motion by Perry McNeill and seconded by Susan Apple to recommend approval with cOnditions to City CounCil. ' . · . · : · Discussion of item is inClUded in Court RePorter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 156). Motion carries 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING - ANNEXATION AND ZONING 11. Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council regarding: The proposed annexation of approximately 18 acres located on the north side of Spencer Road between Woodrow Lane and Loop 288 (A-98, DME Spencer Road Power Plant, Mark Donaldson); and 18. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 26, 2000 Page 4 of 3 Motion by Perry McNeill and seconded by Salty Rishel to recommend approval. *Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 169). Motion carries 7-0. . · b. The proposed zoning of apprOximately 18 acres lOcated on the north side of Spencer Road between Woodrow Lane and Loop 288 to a Light Industrial (LI) zoning classification. (Z-00-001, DME Spencer Road Power Plant, Mark Donaldson) Motion by Perry McNeill and seconded by Salty Rishel to continue. *Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 169). Motion carries 7-0. OTHER ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION 12. Consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, establishing interim standards for applying policies of the adopted comprehensive plan to requests for zoning amendments and certain specified residential development applications pending adoption of a revised development code; providing for administration of such standards; providing for exemptions; providing for severability; providing an effective date; and providing a savings clause. Motion by Salty Rishel and seconded by Elizabeth Gourdie to recommend apprOval with' amendments to City Council. *Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 182). Motion carries 4-3. Susan Apple, Perry McNeill and Carl Williams opposed. BRIEFING 13. Receive a briefing from staff regarding an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, establishing interim standards for applying policies of the adopted comprehensive plan to requests for zoning amendments and certain specified nonresidential development applications' pending adoption of a revised development code; providing for administration of such standards; providing for exemptions; providing for severability; providing an effective date; and providing a savings ~lause *Discussion of item is included in Court Rep0rter'S tranScriPt attached to this set of minutes (Page 262). DIRECTOR'S REPORT 14. Council Action. *Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 269). 15. Future Agenda Items. *Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 269). 19 M~ ENOELBRECWr: All right. At this time, I 20 will reconvcne tho meeting and we will move on to Al~nda 21 Item No. 11, which is a public hearing regarding 22 annexation and zoning. And it is to hold a public hearing 23 and consider making a recommendation to the City Council 24 regarding, A, the proposed annexation of approximately 18 25 acres located on the north side of Spencer Road between 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 " . Page 170 Woodrow Lane and Loop 288 and, B, is a proposed zoning of approximately 18 acres located on tbe north side of Spencer Road between Woedrow Lane and Loop 288 to a Light Industrial classification. We will hear both of these at once, I beilcvc, or do you want to take them separately, Mr. Donaldson? MR. DONALDSON: I think We can hold one public Condenseltm Page 171- I Industrial zoning in the immediate vicinity, so it seems 2 to be appropriate. 3 In the Comprehensive Plan, this area has been 4 identified as an employment district. The uses within the 5 Light Industrial zoning district are generally consistent 6 with what the language of the plan is regarding employment 7 districts. 8 i have suggested three conditions; that any 9 exterior.lighting shall be shielded so as not to shine l0 upward and directly illuminate adjoining property; that 11 ally new development or redevelopment of the property that 12 changes use or results in an expansion of buildings or 13 other structures greater than 25 percent of the current 14 area shall require approval of a site plan by City Coundl 15 following a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning 16 Commission, and that that site plan must meet the minimum 17 requirements in place for detailed plans within a Planned 18 Development zone district or any equivalent requirements; 19 and, three, that prior to any sale, the property shall be 20 platted and public improvements made in conformance with 21 City of Denton Subdivision and Land Development 22 Regulations. 23 Council has already conducted the two public 24 hearings required in the annexation process. The first 25 reading of the annexation ordinance is scheduled February Page 172 8th 'and this Council is scheduled to consider the associated zoning with the second reading of the ordinance on March 21st. Are there any questions? MR. MCNEILL: Yes. MIL ENGELBRECHT: MA'. MeNeill. MiL MCNEILL: If Council has already held the annexation hearings, why are we considering this? Why are beefing but I would like to have -- MP~ ENOELBRECHT: well, yes. I was just going to say them will bo definitely two separat~ votes. Wc have to vote on these separately. But we'll have one public h~'ing regarding both tho ahnexation and tho zoning. At this time, I will open tho public bearing and ask Mr. Donaldson to provide us with tho staff report. 8 we making a recommendation to them if they've already 9 obviously made the decision, if they've held two hearings 10 on the annexation? 11 MIL DONALDSON: Well, they haven't considered 12 the item at all. They've just conducted the public 'la hearings. ' 14 MR. MCNEILL: Tbey've just read it. Oh, I teac DONALOSON: 'thank you, Mr. Chair. I think most of you are familiar with the area that's being . considered. It's tho Denton Municipal Electric Power Phnt on Spencer Road located between Woodrow and Loop 288. The City of Denton is the applicant in this case and tho purpose is to annex tho property in anticipation of any potential sale to tho private ~cctor so that when sold it's within the City limits. And in doing that, th~ applicant, the City, has selected the Light Industrial zoning classification to be attached to it. I have highlighted on the map in the dark orange all of tho Light 15 see. 16 MiL DONALDSON: At which time there was no 17 input from the public. 18 MR. MCNEILL: okay. I have a second question. 19 In your drawing up there, to the right-hand side, the area 20 that's in the ETJ which is what we're talking about 21 annoxin$, there's a little sliver that runs to the north 22 thoro that you've covered over with orange. Is that not 23 to be annexed? 24 MR. DONALDSON: That's already in the City. 25 MR. MCNEILL: It's already in thc City. So PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2000 Page 169- Page 172 20. CondensoltTM Page 173 I this 18 acres includes thc power plant and the water 2 plant7 3 big. ~ONALDSON: I believe this building is the 4 water plant. That's already in the City. On the site -- 5 Ms- MOqEmL: On the drawing on page I 1, that 6 little sliver that runs up the top is not identified but 7 the water treatment plant is withi~ this 17.5 acres. 8 . ' Ms. DONALDSON: The label for the water 9 treatment plant is, I believe that label is associated 10 with this structure up here. 11 MR. MCNEILL: oh~ okay. 12 MR. DONALDSON: Iie you'il look on page 10 is 13 the actual site map and the water treatment building 14 doesn't show up on that. 15 MR. MCNEILL: Arid my third question, there was 16 some reason why this was not annexed before. Why was 17 that? 18 MR. DONALDSON: Boy, I don't know. 19 MR. MCNEILL: why would the City have its 20 power plant not on City land? 21 MR. DONALDSON: Can't tell you. 22 MR. SNYDER: It is City-owned land. 23 MIL DONALDSON: It's City land. It's just not 24 within the City boundaries. 25 Ma. MCI~mT.T., well, I mean; they Own the land Page 174 I but that's what I mean. 2 Ma. DONALDSON: I don't know. There may have 3 been some liability issues. I don't know. 4 MR. MCNEILL: Interesting. Interesting. 5 MR. DONALDSON: I just don't know. 6 MR. MCNEILL: SO that's one of the famous 7 donuts, isn't it? 8 MR. DONALDSON: yeah. This one fills in a 9 hole. 10 MR. MCNFALL: It's called the City donut. I1 MR. DONALDSON: Yep. 12 ' MR. MCNEILL: very interesting.' 13 MIL E~GELBREcHT: MI'. Rishel. 14 MIL RISHEL: IS thero anyone from'the -- are 15 you the only speaker from the City that's here to 16 represent thom? 17 MR. DONALDSON: Yes. 18 MR. RISHEL: O~y. The cooling towers that we 19 have out there, and I'm refereeing Item No. 7, talking 20 about environmental quality impact, as you look at the 21 cooling towers that am ~rc~t~l in tho power plant~ 22 there's a so~ace on those cooling towers that may bo in 23 question. Do you know what that surfaco is called that 24 covers the cooling towers? 25 I~ MCN~.n.L: Are yOU talkln~ about that Page 175· 1 whit~ -- 2 MR. RISHEL: Transight surface? 3 MR~ MCNEILL: That's the residual -- when the 4 water evaporates and that's the -- that's what, in lay 5 terms, that's what's left over when the water evaporates. 6 MR. RISHEL: Right. And what are those made 7 out of 7. 8 MiL MCNEILLi~ The tower itself Or the 9 material? · ' 10 MR. RIsHEL: NO, the surface that that runs 11 over. 12 MR. MCNEILL: Oh, I don't know. Most of them 13 are made out of w, ood. 14 MIL RISHEL: These appear to be a corrugated 15 surface which historically has been an asbestos-type 16 material. And I'm just curious ,as we state in our backup 17 and we talk about environmental impact things, and what it 18 says here is no negative environmental impacts have been 19 identified. And I don't know whether something needs to 20 be identified or not as something that we need as a part 21 of our community. But I would like to know what that 22 surface is and if it's anything we need to be concerned 23 about as a citizemy or in our community. 24 MR. DONALDSON: YOU can continue and I can 25 seek out that information. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ' . Page ;i MIL RISHEL: I'd appreciate it. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Are there other questions, Commissioners? I have a question regarding Condition No. 3, prior to sale public improvements are made in conformance with Subdivision and Land Development Regulations. What would those include? MR. DONALDSON: The most typical one is parameter paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and 24 feet of good asphalt. ~ E~GEt3P, F~HT: will there be any requirements for landscaping? Ms. DONALDSON: ff there were any development -- the landscaping is triggered'by development rather than the platting itself. So if there was any deVelopment that exceeded 25 percent expansion, that could trigger landseaplng. MIL ENGELBRECHT: Arid that was going to lead to my next question. Is there some particular reason we chose 25 percent? MR. DONALDSON: For that reason. It's a threshold that we've identified in other ordinances. In the l_andseaping Ordinance if a structure is expanded at less than 25 percent, it's exempt from the requirement tx upgrade the landscaping. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Given t~ sort of unique PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2000 21. Page 173 - Page 17( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CondenseItTM Page 177 character of the structures we have there, how are we to determine 25 percent? MR. DONALDSON: It would be a floor area and we can do that fairly easily. MR. ENGELBRECItT: okay. If it's floor area, yeah, that could be done. Is there any reason given this is the City, we do have residential On the other side, that we don't consider just fiat scratching that and requiring all these things With any development there? MR. DONALDSON: NO. 25 percent is an arbitrary number selected by this staff person. MR. ENGELBRECHT: I mean, I re.f,~ogniz~ that it's Light Industrial. MR. DONALDSON: We do have some multi-family right in this location and across the raikoad tracks in this location. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Right, fight. And the potential for some more, I believe. There's some open space that could require -- take on more at least multi-family probably. Okay. Any other questions, Commissioners? Okay. The City is the petitioner so I believe we've heard from the petitioner. Is there anyone present who would like to speak in favor of this petition With regard to the annexation or the zoning? Is there anyone present who would like to speak in favor of th~s Page 179 I them that could be stricken. 2 MR. ENGELBRECHT: A couple of things that come 3 to mind to me that had been -- they would fall under 4 special industrial processes, the last category, temporary 5 asphalt, a concrete hatching plant. That has been an item 6 that has caused a great consternation in the past. Brick ' 7 kiln or tile plant, dump or sanitary land fill ama, and I 8 believe that would require a special permit at any rate 9 but it would seem that we probably shouldn't be suggesting 10 something like that even with the special permit. 11 MR. DONALDSON: Yep. That's why I provided 12 you the list. 13 MR. PdSHEL: well, I like the thought that 14 you're on here, Mr. Chairman, because I think that, you' Page 178 petition? In that case, is there anyone present who would like to speak in opposition to the petition? Anyone present who would like to speak in opposition to the petition regarding the annexation or the zoning? Seeing no opposition, the rebuttal period is waived and the public hearing is closed. Mr. Donaldson, any other remarks? MR. DONALDSON: We do recommend approval of 15 know, if we sell that piece of property and we don't have 16 control of it any longer, then there's a lot of other 17 considerations that can be taken into effect. So I think 18 that limiting that is an excellent idea. 19 MR. ENGELBRECHT: And we have residential 20 right across the street. And if you move up the list a 21 little bit, you have livestock feeding plant, pens or 22 yards, and that's just totally inappropriate. 23 MR. RISHEL: It'S thOse chicken farms I'm 24 worried about. 25 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Yes. Mr. McNeill. the annexation as it fills in one of the holes in our City and we recommend approval of the zoning With the conditions that we have recommended or as amended by the Commission. '. MP,. ENOEI~REcI'rri I have one question. GiVen the -- and I should have asked this one before -- given the concern that there was with regard to some Light Industrial zoning in the not too distant past, was there any consideration of striking some items from the Light Industrial class category? MR. DONALDSON: Yes, but I didn't know where to start. And perhaps, starting With a power plant, that may be one of the most intensive uses within the Light Industrial allowed uses. MR. ENOELBRECHT: well, one that oomes to my mind -- ~ DONALDSON: There certainly are a bunch of Page 180 I MR. MCNEILL: could we not -- of course, we 2 have to annex it, but the sooner that we annex it, then in 3 terms of the Light Industrial, could we not approve it as 4 Light Industrial only as -- because the intent of this is 5 to have it in the City when it's sold as a power plant. 6 Could we not approve it currently as only an electrical 7 generating facility as Light Industrial and that's the 8 only use? 9 MR. RISHEL: It alSO has some water. 10 MR. ENOELBRECHT: And water treatment. 11 MR. MCNE1LL: And water treatment, okay, yeah. 12 And water treatment. 13 MR. RISHEL: It alSO has some fire training 14 apparatus and structures on it so it's educational. 15 IvlR. DONALDSON: Except that if you're selling 16 this property, you want to maintain as many rights as 17 possible because it does influence the price that you may 18 get. 19 MR. MCNEILL: They could come back, could they 20 not, and ask for a change? 21 MR. DONALDSON: A change of zoning, yeah. 22 MR. ENGELBRECHT: IS there any particular 23 reason we couldn't bring this back to the next meeting 24 With regard to the zoning? 25 MR. DONALDSON: NO. We actually have until PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANIIARY 26, 2000 Page 177 - Page 180 22. CondcnseItTM Page 18 I the March 2 Ist meeting to complete the zoning 2 recommendation. 3 MIL MCNEILL: But at that time you could come 4 hack, having heard the Commission, you could have struck 5 some of these onerous areas that we're concerned about 6 here. 7 MIL DONALDSON: Absolutely. ~ MIL ENGELBRECHT: particularly given'that fact 9 that we have residential across the street which seemed 10 appropriate that wc provide protection. Okay. Any other 11 questions, Commissioners7 If not -- 12 MR. MC'NEILL: Motion. 13 MIL ENGELBRECHT: Yes, sir, And that would be 14 with regard to A? Ii; MR. MCNEILL: Yes, sir. 16 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Okay. 17 MIL MCNEILL: I move to recommend approval of 18 A-98, the proposed annexation of 17.75 acres located on 19 Spencer Road between Woodrow Lane and Loop 288. 20 MIL RISHBL: Second. 21 MIL ENGELBRECHT: It's ~ move~l and seconded 22 to recommend approval of the annexation. Any discussion~ 23 It would appear not. Vote, please. Motion carries 24 tmanimously. And we have Item 1 lB with regard to 25 zoning. MR. MCNEILL: Motion. MIL ENGELBRECHT: Yes, sir. MR. MCNEILL: I move to continue Item Z-00:001 to the next scheduled meeting of the Denton P&Z Commission. MR. RISHEL: second. MR. ENGELBRECHT: It*S ~ moved and seconded to continue Item 1 lB to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Any discussion? It appears not. Vote, please. Motion carries unanimously. MIL DONALDSON: Thank you. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 We'll move on to other items for consideration. ~ to consider making a recommendation to Code; providing f uest for zoning development . of a revised Development severabillty; Mr. Powell is here to I believe. Sir. MR. POWELL: I am indeed, Mr. Ch~. a staff , you'll find in your packet a revised : and I will tell you that after I go through some . that are contained in that, I do have draft that has some slight modifications from 5 is tour packet based on discussion at t 6 work session of last night. And so 7 But if ~taff 8 ' repot% even items 9 10 Zoning Commission 11 has raised. 12 To go through those, i I'm looking at the 13 bottom of the first page of t we added 14 language around hero to ~ it is clear that 15 this is a text Number 16 two, 17 development. ; of that, 18 was revised. A, 19 : acres. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 23. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ~12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 a conveyance plat for ~ sale of C, is residential d~,'clopment that was approved on or after April 7th, 1998 and prior to the effective date of the ordinance, previously that there was · a requirement that they had to do project plans. And we'll discuss under Item 4 or Area 4, previously there two dates in the ordinance, a May 1st and April 7th. tode plan. 1998, prior to that date plan and a that, then you it was one of the if you've read t ~ere was also, portion c Prior to April 7th, 1998 you had to plan and a project plan. After May 1st, That interim date, t zoning plan, but you had is we decided that ~ so we picked :, if you will. ~pproval ,our approval after project plan. ts an interim ordinance, ', tried to make it less of the text changes, more that the We district, residential pproved or accepted for filing effective date o them is some kind of vested right, the lot layout, ff you 2000 Page 181 - Page 184 ATTACHMENT Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 9, 2000 Page 4 of 5 Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council concerning the rezoning from a SF-10 conditioned zoning district to a Planned Development (PD) zoning district. (Z-99-097, Regency Oaks Phase 2, Deborah Viera) Not heard due to new regulations. *Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 77). Continue a public hearing and consider making a recommendatioh to the City Council regarding the proposed zoning of approximately 18 acres located on the north side of Spencer Road between Woodrow Lane and Loop 288 to a Light Industrial (LI) zoning classification. The subject property is in the annexation process. The property is the DME electric generation plant. (Z-00-001, DME Spencer Road Power Plant, Mark Donaldson) Motion by Elizabeth Gourdie and seconded by Perry McNeill to recommend approval with conditions to City Council. *Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 100). Motion carries 6-0. o Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding the Detail Plan for Oakmont Estates 4 Phase 2, in Planned Development (PD-111) zoning district. The 18.4 acre property is located south of Robinson Road, east of Teasley Lane, and west of Oakmont A single-family subdivision is proposed. (Z-99-103, Oakmont Estates 4 Phase 2, Deborah Viera) Motion by Perry McNeill and seconded by Salty Rishel to recommend approval with conditions to City Council. *Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 118). Motion carries 5-1. Jim Engelbrecht opposed. OTHER ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION 9. Consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, establishing interim standards for applying policies of the comprehensive plan to requests for zoning amendments and certain specified non-residential development applications pending adoption of a revised development code; providing for administration of such standards; providing for exemptions; providing for severability; providing an effective date; and providing a savings clause. Motion by Perry McNeill and seconded by Susan Apple to recommend to City Council to delay consideration. *Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 147). Motion carries 6-0. 24. ~ 4 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13. 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O ~ondensclt TM tonight because it would only be applicable in the that zoning was actually approved that was r lots. And if the zoning isn't approved for away. 't know that ! harming it. It's unusual. I, that t the normal way we ' MR. SNYDER: ~ reiterate what I said at I think it's within your discretion but points. But I do not think that if - recommended a staff i necessarily tacitly be thc MR. okay. Thank you. Ms. i CoOURDIE: I'm stil The part ~ ~te're talking about is Phase MR. SALMON: well, physically. I that we're talking about is physically in MS. GOURDIE: Right. SO what to change the variance that was offered earlier to make it be a 31 foot wide with curb and Is that what we're doing? Page! MR. SALMON: Okay. Thoro wasn't a ~ vidth on the previous subdivision because all ~ than one acre so they GOURDIE: IS there any way we c a wider road x It gutter? purview. variance. MS MR. MCNEILL: Phase 2 have tobe changing would you have to ~'ould the lots in and road? HOW many lots well, size would be one aero. _ MR. tGNEILL: alto in that / \ ~R. s^LMos: ^bout tea, ten acres....~ / MK M~EILL: SO ~: t W~ nt from 3~ } Io~ ' ~o~, ~m ~s woul~'t ~ ~ issue. ~ Mm S~ON: well, y~, ~e s~t ~d~ ~wo~'t be ~ isme. ~ M~mu., Th~ you. )LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25. MR. RISHEL: But the street length would still ~ an iS,~le. MR~ ENGELBRECHT: The street length issue because it would it ~ over the 1,200 feet and the 1,200 feet by feet, it would e Exactly. Ms~ Gourdie, you have a ~ MS. like and I don't want to put am so confused. I can't put the two the zoning for the proper g are tied together ~ because have to give permission for ~ make this longer than it usually ~ a whole lot, to make sure that the that comes is done properly : we can say the front you're totall.~ : the horse and it's just too :hoice. I mcan, my choice would bo to 1 the zoning application is completed. MR. ENGELBRECHT: IS that a motion? : okay. I move that we MR. ENOELBRECHT: l tO that motion? I'll second I there's Phase 2. Vote, please. Motion carries six to Mr. Saknon. MR. ENOELBRECHT: We will move onto Agenda Item No. 7 which is to continue a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council regarding the prOPosed zoning of approximately 18 acres located on th~ north side of Spcnc~ Road between Woodrow Lane and Loop 288 to a Light Industrial zoning classification. The subject property is in tho annexation process. Thc property is tl~ DentOn Municipal electric generation phnt. And this is a continuation. Mr. Donaldson, would you provide us with the additional staff information, please? lyre. nONaLnSON: xhank you, Mr. Chair and Commission. When last we op~ned this public heating, we left it with two outstanding issues. One being a discussion of asbestOs within tho current structures at 09, 2000 Page 97 - Page lOC Condcns~Itr~ · .' Page 101 I thc plant and a second being a list of Light Industrial 2 uses that you may want to cx¢lucle as permit~t uses within 3 any new zone district. 4 I did not havc a chance to meet with the 5 electric utility pc. opic prior to writing the staff report 6 but I have talked with them since then. There is, in 7 fact, asbestos in the operation. Glen Fisher is here this 8 evaning and he can provide veal numbers for you as far as 9 the amount that's been removed, the amount that remains, 10 and the cost of making it totally asbestos-free in the 11 event that you would want to make that as part of a 12 condition in the zoning. And once we hear from that, then 13 we'll do the uses within tho LI district after that. So 14 I'm going to turn it over to Glen and make him available 15 for any questions that you have. 16 Mm ENGELBP, ECHT: All fight. 17 MR. FISHER: I am Glen Fisher with Denton 18 Municipal Electric and I've been working on the potential 19 sale of the Spencer Power Plant. I don't know if all of 20 you on the Commission are aware that that is one of the 21 things that did spur the request for Light Industrial 22 zoning of this. One of the things we do want to do is to 23 also annex the property right now. It sits in the County, 24 it's not part of the City, and wc want to annex that 25 property. One of the reasons to annex that property would 'Page 102 I be to not only maximize cash flow for DME but also make 2 this subject to property taxes in case a private entity 3 purchases this property. 4 In regards to the asbestos in the pl-ant, there 5 is asbestos internal to the plant which is typical of a 5 plant of this age. It was originally built in 1955. The 7 first two units went in in '55, and please don't hold me 8 to these dates. Thc last unit was put in in approximately 9 1967. So we're looking at a plant that's 34 years old. 10 The asbestos that was removed, there's asbestos internal 11 to the plant and also on the cooling towers. I don't know 12 how familiar you arc with generating statiOns bu~, of 13 course, you're heating Steam to run the turbines. That 14 steam is then discharged out to the cooling towers which 15 cool the water out before it's released into the makeup 16 pond out there at the site. 17 The asbestos internal is, in essence, on the 18 tubing and boilers th~aselves. External, it's on the 19 cooling towers, the panels of thc cooling towers for thc 20 same reason, heat control. The panels that were removed 21 wow not really part of an asbestos abatement program of 22 any sort. They were just part of routine maintenance of 23 the cooling towers themselves. 24 AS part of the bid process, the buyers that we 25 have that we are disc~_,sslng this with are aware of the Page 103' I asbestos internal to the plant and in the cooling towers 2 themselves and they understand that part of any future 3 environmental liability if they shut down, decommission, 4 and dismantle the plant, that they do have the 5 environmental obligations to handle that properly. 6 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Okay. Commissioners, any ' 7 questions? It would appear not. Oh, yes, Mr. Rishel. 8 MR. RISHEL.~ I Was the one who originally 9 brought this up and my eoncem as.we look at the internal 10 components that are asbestos protected, is that classified 11 as a friable or non-friable material? 12 MR. FISHER: I eannot answer that question. I 13 apologize. .' ' 14 MR. RISHEL: okay. I would presume that the 15 majority of the things that are on the cooling tower or 16 what we call non-friable and it's not near as likely to 17 enter the atmosphere and be a pollutant, other than the 18 faot it goes directly from the cooling tower into the. 19 holding pond. 20 MR. FISHER: Yes. 21 MR. RISHEL: And'can we safely say that the 22 ~ materials that are in the holding pond, part of those 23 materials are going to be asbestos also and that's going 24 to eventually leach into our water supply? 25 MIL FISHER: NO, sir. 1 2 3 4 5 you. 6 MR. FISHER: Thank you. 7 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Mr. Donaldson. 8 MR. DONALDSON: That's everything I know about 9 asbestos. With regard to excluding permitted uses from 10 the Light Industrial zoning district, I have provided in 11 the backup a list of all uses and made a very preliminary 12 cut at removing some of those. 13 ' Hopefully, you've'reviewed that and you may 14 have your own list. We have over the last several years 15 prohibited some of the normally allowed uses within new 16 Light Industrial zone districts. In reviewing those, 17 there seems to be really no consistent pattern. But I 18 think the ones that I've addressed kind of stand out in 19 most of them. 20 MR. ENOELBRECHT: I guess we might ask, 21 Commissioners, are there other items that you would lik~ 22 stricken in the Light Industrial us~? I have a number. 23 MR. DONALDSON: Please. 24 MR. ENGEI.BRECHT; okay. I'll just begin on 25 page 12 of the backup, and most of these I think should be Page 104 MR. IUSHEL: Or is the holding pond lined? MR. FISHER: It is a lined pond, yes. MR. RISHEL: Thank you. Mn, L~OEL~P~Cn'r: Any other questions7 Thank PLANNING AND ZONING COMIVHSSION p-Ii~RUARY 09, 2000 26. Page 101 - Page 104 1 2 3 4 $ 6 ? 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 7 8 9 10 12 . 13 reason. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Con den ~It r~ " Page 107[ are sort of long-term temporary. I think the type for a construction sit~, thcy'll go in anyway. That's not a problem This is the type that comes in that sets up for . Page 105 stricken because we have residential across the street and sort of down the slope from it. Drag strip and commercial racing. Just below that, go-cart track. A little below that there was three stables; stable - private club, stable - commercial rental, stable - boarding. Under automobile services, the second entry, auto painting and body repair. And the next to thc last entry there in that section, Ore retreading or.capping. On the next page Under agricultural-type uses, animal pound, private or public. Thc third one, animal clinic, hospital, or kennel with outside runs or pens. A little further down under commemial-type uses, cleaning and dying plant, commercial. Just below that, cleaning plant, bags or carpets, special equipment. About six, seven down, laundry plant, commercial. Skip two and then we go to petroleum products, storage wholesale. And the very last item, mixing and sale of concrete. And, finally, on the next page, under special industrial processes, temporary asphalt or concrete batehing plant. Those are my proposals to be stricken. M~. ~ONAt~SON: I believe I missed one in the retail and service-type uses, somewhere between tire retreading and animal clinic, hospital, or kennel with outside runs. MR. mSHeL: We just included it. Page 106 MR. ENGELBRECHT: In other words, animal pound, the very fa'st one. MR. DONALDSON: Okay. MR. ENGELBRECHT: YOU [got it?. Any others? MR. mSHEL: I guess just to clarify that -- would that be the first three of agricultural-types? MR. ENGELBRECHT: NO, it would be the first and the third. Animal clinic or hospital, no outside runs or pens, I think is fine. We put those many places. MR. RISHEL: okay. MR. ENG. ELBRECHT: Mr. McNeill. M~ MCNEILL: Just a point of clarification, a Why did you want to exclude laundry plant? MR. RISHEL: NOXiOus chemicals. MR. ENOELBRECHT: Yeah, when I said laundry plant, commercial, that's tl~ cue that use the large volumes of solvent and we have a residential facility fight across the street. MR. MOqEtLL: okay. And then -- I can buy that. Temporary asphalt or concrete, I'm thinking special permit there because if there's a development going to go in there, it would be reasonable for someone to set up a temporary plant there. MR. ENGELBRECh'T: well, tho type of temporary plants that we've seen requested in the City in the past 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 three or four years and operates out of a location. MR. RISHI~L: Open conveyers, dust. MR. ENGELBRECHT: l just know that the amount of public outcry with regard to these, which was at a much · greater distance from any residential than this is~ have. been great. MR. MCNEILL: okay. Thank you. MR. ENGELBRECHT: MS. Gourdie. MS. GOURDIE: My question would be the stables. "' Ms. AVpLE: That was my question, too. · MS. C-OUm)IE: I just wondered why you find that-- MR. ENGELBREGHT: Have you ever been downwind of a stable? Ms. CoOURDIE: oh, yes. But, of course, I was the one that got chastised for the bulls and the cows over in Smith tract. MR. ENGELBRECHT: BeP,.,ause there's a relatively large multi-family development right across the street and it's zoned for more. There could be more go in, more multi-family. There's already several hundred families Page i 1 live there and there could be s~teral hundred more and it 2 just seems to me that it's not appropriate to even think 3 about allowing a stable when all we have to do is strike 4 it out. It would be right across the road. 5 MS. C__,OURDIE: All right. Because I had 6 friends who live there and they said that was one of the 7 nicest things was to watch the horses across the street. 8 They found that to be the most pleasing thing about living 9 next to a power plant. 10 MR. ENGELBRECHT: But those horses aren't in 11 the power plant property. They are actually -- and the 12 difference is the fact'that they are at about the 13 elevation. Thisis uphill from that site. 14 MS. GOURDIE: YOU'Ve really thonght about 15 this, haven't you? 16 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Hey, that's the whole 17 argument of -- one of the big concerns these days about 18 any large animal agricultural operations is the runoff 19 issue. It's becoming a very largc item. 20 MS. GOURDIE: Thank you. 21 MR. RIStlEL: And the way thc wlnd blows. 22 MiL ENGELBRECHT: Is tho second one. Any 23 others? Ms. Apple. 24 MS. APPLE: I just had the same question about 25 the stables because I find them pleasant. And then also PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 09, 2000 27. Page 105 - Page 10~ 1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 2O 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ' 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Conden.~ItTM Page 109 tha animal clinic, hospital, or kennel with outside runs or pens, what was your thinking on that7 MR. ElqOELBRECHT: Basically, tl~ same as tho stabl~. I don't want to sec- I don't think it's appropriate to have larg~ animals uphill, outdoors from r~idcntial development. And this is &finitely upgrade from the r~sidcntial, tbo new ~idcntial area that's out ~ tl~ apartmems. And tha~ could bo mom right across the street. And that .was my thinking with that. We have typically allowed tbo animal clinics with inside -- with no outside runs right next to slngl~-family subdivisions but we've always in tbo past looked very carefully at the open pens issues. And that's a lot of other area, property in that Light Industrial whole ar~a ~ in which you could put that without having any impact, I think, ceaainly any immediate impact on the residential. That was my · ' Page 111. I dawned on me, one of the reasons we're doing this is so 2 the City. can sell this property and maximize its return. 3 And these things we've listed on excluding from Light 4 Industrial, what's the City's stance on that? 5 MR. DONALDSON: I haven't heard an official 6 City stance but, generally, I would think there is a 7 relationship between the number of uses that are allowed $ and any potential purchase pricer' So that if you exclude 9 uses, your potential purchase price may go down. It's 10 probably a step function rather than a straight line so 11 that there may be a set of uses that you could exclude 12 that wouldn't affect the price. Hopefully, we're on that 13 level. But, generally, I think sellers like to preserve 14 as many uses as possible. 15 MR. MCNEILL: Paid We're recommending to the 16 Council and the Council has to tweak this if they want. 17 MR. DONALDSON: That's correct. MS. APPLE: Thanks. MiL I~IOELBRF.,CHT: Mr. Rishel. MP. lUSH~L: ~st I'd like to also include in that same listing that you have gone through so thorovghly, theater driv~-in. I don't think the~'s -- I 18 'MR. MCNEILL: Thank you. 19 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Mr. Rishcl. 20 MR. mSH~L: I'd like to address Mr. Fisher 21 again and the asbestos situation. Review for me one more 22 time if thc Property is sold, any new owner would bc 23 addressing the asbestos situation both internally and don't think anybody's going to resurr~t Oordon McClcndan, Ir..but I don't -- and I don't th;nit ~ will ov~r bO a · . Page 110 theater built there, but I don't think it would be acceptable for the neighborhood. MR. ENGELBRECHT: I considered that when I 24 externally of the plant in some sort of a timely manner 25 and what is that time frame? ' Page 112 1 ' MR. FISHER: The buyers we're talking to now 2 basically want to run the plant as is. They're not going 3 to change the function of the plant. The only thing that went through but that was my thought was that it's not too likely we could have one. MIL MCNEILL: Fre~ movies for the multi-family. MR. ENGELBRECHT: If yOU could only get the sound. I used to could get the sight from where I lived, one of the old ones, but could never hear what they were Saying. Mr. Donaldson, how is this zoning case -- how does it fall relative to the moratorium? MR. DONALDSON: Tho moratorium as -- MR. SNYDER: I can answer that question. 4 might changc is there's some talk of re-powering which, in 5 essence, means pulling out one of the old turbines and 6 putting a larger turbine in. We've discussed with them 7 and I've talked to Mark about the noise requirements and 8 some of the other requirements of the particular area. So 9 they are awarc of that if they are going to go in and re- 10 power. 11 And just to address the uses that were marked 12 off, one of the things in the contract, because of the 13 .~ location of that, we have our clcctrio substation 14 distribution facilities on some adjacent property, a water MR. DONALDSON: -- defines, applies only to commercial uses, not zoning districts. So it prohibits staff from processing, reviewing, scheduling applications for detailed plans, preliminary plats, and final plats for commercial uses. Right now we have a zoning application so it's exempt from -- the moratorium does not apply. MR. I~IGELBRECHT: Thank you. Am th~r~ any other questions for staff? lvlR. RISHEL: I have a question for -- MR. ENGELBRECHT: MI'. McNeill. /~IR. MCI~_ ~.x,~ I have a question about, it just 15 treatment plant just to the north of that. So one of the 16 things we do want to do from the City's standpoint is 17 we've retained a first bay-back option on that property 18 when they decommissien the plant. Right now as to how 19 long that plant will run as is, with some of the things 20 that are going on in TI, race, you're probably looking at ten 21 ye, ar~. 22 MR. RISHEL: And is the potentially friable 23 material that we have in the internal part of the plant, 24 is that encapsulated that our people am not in any danger 25 ia that area? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEItRIIARY 09, 2000 28. Page 109 - ?ago 11~ 1 2 sir. 3 MIL RISHEL: SO most of this deals with 4 friable-type products that might be wrapping existing S cooling systems? 6 MR. FISHER: Yes. Basically, everything is 7 encased in duct. 8 ' MR. IUSItEL: Is that a metal duct --i 9 ' MR. FISHER: YeS, yes. ' ' 10 MR. RISHEL: - or latex or something? 11 IviR. FISHER: It's all metal duct. 12 MR. RISHEL: okay. Thank you. 13 MR. FISHER: Thank you. 14 MR. ENGELBRECHT: since this is a continuation 15 of the public hearing, I will ask is there anyone present 16 who would like to address this particular case? Is there 17 anyone who would like to speak in favor of this petition? 18 Anyone present who would like to speak in favor of this 19 petition? 20 In that case, is there anyone present who 21 would like to speak in opposition to the petition? Anyone 22 present to speak in opposition? Seeing no opposition, the 23 rebuttal period is waived and the public hearing is 24 closed. And, Mr. Donaldson, any final remarks from staff? 25 MR. DONALDSON: In tho previous backup of two pago 114 C°nd-°n~Itm : ' Page 115'~ Page 113 . I MR. FISHER: They are not in any danger, no, I concerned about in general as a community. 'MR. DONALDSON: We USS the terro. "shine upward" , - -{ MR. ENGELBRECHT: They've changed that from 2 3 4 5 "project into the night sky" to "shine upward." ~ 6 MR. IUSHEL: Sounds looser than we had before. 7 MR. ENGELBRECHT: We can have any amount of 8 illumination we want so long as we direct it down.. If it 9 bounces back up, well '- okay, Commissioners. Ms. 10 Gourdie. 11 MS. GOURDIE: Actually, I. do have a question 12 concerning this lighting. It says "directly illuminate 13 adjoining property." I'm perplexed by that becauss that 14 sounds likc the light has to bo shining on the property. 15 It's not the diffusion of the light. And I guess the 16 reason why I ask this is becauss of that new property on 17 Carroll Boulevard at the Chevron station that went in, the 18 whole neighborhood, everyone's homes are bright like 19 daylight. And so I'm confused as to what that really 20 means because the diffusion off of the hundreds of lights 21 that are on that Chevron station is lighting up the whole 22 neighborhood, and so I'm just wondering what does this 23 really mean now. 24 MR. DONALDSON: I think that it means that no 25 light shall be able to shine without being shielded from · · page ~i 1 view from adjoining properties. 2 MR. RISHEL: That's hard to do when you sit on 4 MS. GOURDIE: That's true. 5 MIL DONALDSON: But it's possible. 6 MR. ENGELBRECHT: yeah. 7 MR. DONALDSON: Say you have a light standard. 8 You can shield it so that the angle of the light corning 9 from the illumination is such that off of the property 10 line there is no direct illumination. 11 MS. COUP, Dm: So the intensity of thc light, 12 even though it's',' · ' . 13 MR. DONALDsON: We've never tried t°, at this 14 point, condition the intensity of the light. We probably 15 aro moving that way in our new sub regs. Wo're not there 16 yet. 17 MS. COUe, DIE: necaus~ I really don't think 18 this is working. Now that I'm starting to see properties 19 go up, it's getting pretty bright out there and I'm 20 noticing a lot of homes getting a lot of extra light and 21 moro curtains b~in$ drawn. So I think we really need te 22 work on that one a little more, specifieally, and look 23 into tho diffusion of the light, as well as the direct 24 illumlnation of the property. Anyway. I'd go ahead and 25 make a motion if anyone's ready. I will. 1 weeks ago, we had a total of three conditions. We've 2 added the fourth condition which states that uses shall be 3 limited to those described in Exhibit B of the ordinance. 4 That oxl~'bit will bo tho list of uses with the str~o-outs 5 that are approved by City Council and recommended by you. So we now have a total of four conditions; our standard or 7 kind of a substandard, different standard lighting 8 condition; the condition relating to redevelopment; tho 9 condition relating to platting, and now the condition 10 related to tho us~. 11 te~ ENOELBRECHT: okay. Commissioners, any 12 questiqns for staff, comments, or a motion? 13 ' ' ~vm. mSHete rm a little curious Why Wc haVe 14 t~xtured differently th~ lighting on our standard lighting 15 statement or is that a new statement that w~'ro going toy 16 ~ DONALDSON: Th~ standard one deals with 17 resideatial property or adjacent r~sidential property, so 15 v~'ve basically stricken that and say that any n~w 19 ext~rlor lighting shall be shielded, period. R~ceatly, 20 th~ Commission has stricken tho word "n~w." You may want 21 to do that. 22 ~n~ ~as~m~ And residontial. But ti~ other 23 thing w~ had been trying to bo conscience of was 24 projecting into tbo nlght sky and I se~ that we do not 25 havo this '~ ~ and I know that's som,'~hlng that w~'r~ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 09, 2000 Page 113 - Page 116 29. MI~ ENOELBRECHT: PI~se. Condcn~Itm Page 117 1 2 Ms. oo~m I move to recommend approval of 3 Z-00-001 of tho proposed Light Industrial 0.1) zoning 4 classification for 17.75 acres located on Spencer Road 5 between Woodrow Lane and Loop 288 with tl~ conditions as 6 recommended by staff including t~ excluded conditions 7 that Mr. Chairman Engolb~cht offered and. I believe -- was 8 it you, Mr. McNeill? · ' 9 ' MIL EN'GELBRECHT: Mr. Rishol added one. 10 Ms. c, otmDm: Mr. Rishel with t~o drive-in 11 thcagr. 12 MR. MCIqEILL: second. 13 MP~ ENOELBRECHT: It's been moved and seconded 14 to recommend approval with conditions. Any discussion? 15 Mr. Risbel. 16 ~m. mSHEL: rm going to bo voting for this 17 because I think we have a better chance of controlling tho 18 ultimate use of thls if it's part of our City and I think 19 that's important to us. 20 MR. MC~qEILL: Quegtion. 21 MR. ENi3ELBRECHT: Mr. McNeill. 22 MR. MCNEILL: But this motion doesn't have 23 anything to do with being part of tho City, does it? This 24 is strictly -- the annexation was last week. 25 ' Ma. ~m,m.: ! understand. Pa~e 1 MR. MCNBILL: okay. I want to make sure what 2 I'm voting for, Thank you. 3 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Any other discussion? In 4 that case, vote, please. Motion carries unanimously. hearing and consider making a the detailed plan for in Planned Development 111 zoning ,' property is located south and west of Oakmont. At ', I'll open the hearing and ask Ms. Viera to ~ 'And welcome, as well. MS. VmgA: ~, tonight we Planned Development 111 this is part Df weeks 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 4 5 6 7 's 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 encompassing 18., For of the land ago. this detailed ; 80 ' dwelling units. And as you .t is south of Robinson Road and L tho CDF Corinth is Basically, this is the detailed plan. This is the last s4ep of a zoning request. It gives us the detail PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 30. 6 7 8 9 10 Il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 about tho development. Going straight to tho proposed, this is an 18A-acre development who is 80 single-family dwelling units, 41 :r-, and 39 detached units or what we call ~ro from 3,600 sq square located in the Po-Hr and swap. feet. The this is a little this piece c Then in 1999 amended. portion of the had because the tonight was not part hat -- was the detailed Commission and to move forward to r that PD was plan for tho are discussing within the City However, ; detailed plan st~ of Talking about the plan analysis basically, [ this area as'a neighborhood center, new neighborhood area where conventlonal subdivisions and conventional patterns are allowed. The staff finds thel For, proposin~ that you approved that we are the cast The be platted detailed plan to be consistent with tho : Plan. And talking about transportation and basically, 760 trips per day when i Talking about access ~ development will to Robinson Cit~ eventually will have City of Denton. r idea of what we am this is the detailed plan is the detailed plan This is a golf course at Windstone at Oakmont. and will need to We, as a staff, want large trees that have the ' and also to about your c some of those trees saved As a part of the zoning pro~ss, to notify within 200 and property owners ~ resident within 500. And we and we would site. 2000 Page 117 - Page ATTACHMENT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ZONING APPROXIMATELY 17.751 ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF SPENCER ROAD BETWEEN WOODROW LANE AND LOOP 288 IN SOUTHEAST DENTON TO ESTABLISH A CONDITIONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. (LI[C]) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND LAND USE DESIGNATION; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (Z-00-001). WHEREAS, this zoning was initiated by the City of Denton, the owner of the subject property; and. WHEREAS, on February 9, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the herein described zoning of the subject property; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the herein described zoning is consistent with the 1999 Denton Comprehensive Plan and wilt provide for a sensible and compatible arrangement of land uses; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. the approximate 17.751 acres of land more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the "Property") is hereby zoned and classified as Conditioned Light Industrial (LI[c]) zoning district classification and land use designation, subject to the following conditions: Any new exterior lighting shall be shielded so as not to shine upward or directly illuminate adjoining property. Any new development or redevelopment of the property that changes use or results in an expansion of buildings or other structures greater than 25% of the current area shall require approval of a site plan by City Council following a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The site plan must meet the minimum requirements in place for detailed plans within a planned development zone district or any equivalent requirements. Prior to any sale, the property shall be platted, and public improvements made, in conformance with City of Denton subdivision and land development regulations. 4. USes shall be limited to those included in Exhibit B. SECTION 2. The City's oi'ficial map is amended to show the Conditioned Light Industrial (LI[c]) zoning district classification and land use designation. 31. SECTION 3: Should any part of this ordinance be held illegal for any reason, such holding shall not affect the remaining portion of this ordinance. SECTION 4. AnY p6rson violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a stun not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record Chronicle, official newspaper of the City of Demon, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2000. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. ~~TY ATTORNEY BY: ~~'~ 3 2 o Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A FIELD NOTES 17.751 ACRES 8SING oil that 'certain lot, tract or parcel of land situated in the Mary Austin Survey Abstract Number 4, in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, being o port of Lot 1, Block 2 of Municipal Utility Addition, on addition tO the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas according to '~he 'plot thereof recorded, in Cob'inet G, Page 346,' Plat Re~ord$, Denton CoUnty, Texas, 'and being more particularly described os followS:' . COMMENCING at on iron rod found for corner in the north line of Spencer Road, a public roadway having (7 right-of-way of 60.0 feet, said point being the southwest corner of that certain tract of land conveyed by deed to N. Alex 8ickley, Trustee recorded in Volume 987, Page 548, Deed Records, 'Denton County, Texas; THENCE N 88. J9' 46" FY, 130.00 feet with said north line of said Spencer Road to on iron rod set for PLACE OF 8EGINNG; THENCE N 88' 39' 46' FY, 299.83 feet with said north line of said Spencer Rood to on iron rod set for corner; THENCE along the arc of o curve to the right having o central angle of 32' 15' 191 a radius of 520.00 feet, o,n arc length of 292.74 feet, whose chord bears N 72' 32' 06 W, 288.89' feet with said north line of said Spencer Rood to on iron rod set for corner; THENCE N 52' 50' 00' W, 281.92 feet with said north llne of said Spencer Rood .to on iron rod set for corner; THENCE N 52' $6' 00" W, Iil.50 feet with' said north line 'of 'said Spencer Rood to' on iron rod set for corner; THENCE N 20' 02' 44' E, 92.00 feet to on iron rod set for corner; THENCE N 02' 23' 36" FY, 267.94 feet to on ;ran rod set for corner; THENCE N 88' 09' 17" E, 48.91 feet to on iron rod set for corner; THENCE N 01' 50' 44" FY, 206.45 feet to an iron rod set for corner; THENCE N Jd' 2~' 23" E, 161.33 feet to on iron rod set for corner; THENCE N 88' OJ' 4J* E, 749.08 feet to an iron rod set for corner; · . . - THENCE S 44' 06~ 34" E, 53.08 feet ~to'on iron rod set'/or corner; ' THENCE S 00' 53' 14" FY,' 562.85 feet to on iron rod set for corner; S 87' 46' 24' FY, 258.02 feet to a fence corner for corner; S 02' 25' 18" E, 114.07 feet to on iron rod set for THENCE THENCE corner; THENCE THENCE S .86' 24' 16~ FY, 68.28 feet to on iron rod set for corner; ,$ aZ' JZ' 00' £, lOI. ZJ f¢~t to ~; fence corner for corner; N 87' J5' 34" E, 294.01 feet to o fence corner for corner; THENCE S 09' 41' 28' FY, 180.28 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING · ;nd c~?~to;ning, 17.751 ccre5 33. EXHIBIT B One Family Dwelling Restrtctdd Dormitory, Boarding or Rooming House Hotel or ~otel · . . ' ....~Educatl'onal.....T~stltut.~onal: & Special. Uses.- .-'. : ..... Art Gallery or Museum Cemetery or Mausoleum . Church or Rectory College or University or Private School Community Center (Public) Day Camp Day Nursery or Eindergarten School Group Homes Halfway House Home forCare'of Alcoholic, Narcotic or Psychiatric Patients Hospital (General Acute Care) Hospital (Chronic care) Institutions of Religious or Philanthropic.Nature Public Library Monastery or Convent Nursing Home or Residence Home forAged Occasional Sales Park, Play,round;or .~,blic Community.~ente~. .-"'-'..~C.. School; 'Private' "' ' ' ........ "~' ' prlmaryLor:Secondar?/i.-. ~..-,.-:.-- : .. School,'.I~tblicor Denominational School, Business or Trade Utflft¥~ Attestor%'_ ~ Incidental Uses Accessory BUilding Community Center (Private). Electrical Generating Plant Electrical Substation Electrical Transmission Line Temporary Field or Construction office (Subject ~0 Appr6val and Control by Building Inspector) ~ire Station.or similar .Public ~afety. B?ildi~g ,..-'' · Gas. TransmissiOn.~ine.and. M6ter~n~.Statlon......{...~.-. L...~.'' ..~ .. ....Home .9Coupation.~..'.... 't '' .i '..-,-,.: =' . .'%..".-.': .' "..' '-y.~' :e ~.?:'~ ~-..---:!...;--~..%. '.-..-.. '-.' ...-. ' "Off'street Parkzng[Incidentai.t0'M&in"use. "'. : . . ~" ' .'-.'.' ~ '. Off Street Remote Parkihg Private Utility Shop or Storage Yard Public Building, Shop, Yard of Looal,'State,' or Federal Government Radioand/or Television Microwave Tower .... · Sewage Pumping Station ' Private Swimming Pool ' Telephone~ Business Office -:' , '' .Telephone Line and Exchange Switching'or Relay S~ation '- Water Reservoir; Water Pumping Station or Well Water ~reatment Plant Reoreatfona]_ art~' '~nterta'[~'men'h Use~ Amusement, Commercial (Outdoor) . Amusement, Commercial (Indoor) C. buntry cl,,h (Private) with Gblf Course Dance Hal. 1 'or Night club · Fail, round or ..~.:,~.lon'-~:a .~- .." :'..'...'.' '..' :' ":?'i' ~" .:"::': " .':.-.'.::.'.'i.'~..'.:"'.'"'.':':'.::.>"...": :::-".:':.:":":":'~: :. ~i '-"~":';"";1':[;'~!>':" '-'"' · · f.' '~.' '.. :. .~' . :' l~3hlio"G01f. 'Cbu~e ., .~' -.. Commercial Golf Course' Public Park or Playground Public Play field or Stadium Roller or Ice Skating Rink swim or Tennis Club Transportation Related Uses Airport Landing Field or Heliport Bus Station or Terminal Hauling or'Storage Company.. ~oto~ ~reight'Termi~al.' ';.'." Railroad Passenger Station Railroad Track or Right-of-Way Railroad Team Track Truck Parking Lot Commercial Parking Lot or Structure Automobile Service Uses Auto Laundry Auto Sales a~d Repair-(In-BUildin9) -.. Gasoline Service Station " Seat'.COver and Muff[er'Installation'Shop. Used Auto Part~'Sale~In-Butlding)' Retail and Service T_vpe Uses Antique Shop.. Bakery or Confectionery Shop (~etail) .... Cafeteria Cleaning and Pressing Small Shop and Pickup custom Par~onal Service Sho~ Drapery, Needlework or Weavlhg Shop'. Florist or Garden Shop Greenhouse or Plant Nursery.(Retail)" .L Retail and Service T_vp~ Uses ¢6ontinuedl_ Handicraft Shop iousehold Appliance Service an~Repair La6ndry or Cleaning Self service Mimeograph, Stationery or Letter Shop . , . · .. .. Mo _z~.'uary' :or ~/. ~e~ Parl~?.. -~.'., ~ .~. ~ .~.,~..~. ~j. -.. ',.' : ~. i .-"' . ~ .~-.. ~ · ~ . · Off~ces,~r~fe~dna~.&nd.Admx~zstra~mvel-'~':' ~v'-..'.. '~..:.'........:~.-..-... on premise Sale'of ~eer and/or.Wine Licensed Private Club PawnShop Restaurant Retail Stores and Shops -'4,000 square feet or less. Reta%l Stores and Shops - Over,4,000 square feet Studzo for Photographer, Mu~zclan, Artist or Health Secondhand Store, U~ed Furnzture or Rummage. Sale Tool or Trailer Rental Agricultural Type Uses Animal clinic or Hospital (no outside runs or pens) Farm or aanoh Greenhous.e or Plant Nursery Bakery (Wholesale) Building Material Sales · .Cabinet and Upholstery Shop clothin~ Manufacture or Light CompOUnding Or ~abrication Contractors Shop and Storage Yard Engine and Motor Repairing Feed Store Heavy Maohinery'Sales and Storage Job Printing or ~ewspaper Printing .... . :... ~... pl~lng Shop Scientific or Research Laboratories Storage and Sales of Furniture or Applia~ces (outside'a. Building) Storage or Sales Warehouse Trailer Rental or Sales Transfer, Storage and Baggage Terminal '.. Eholesale office, and S~mple Room .Special Industrial processes 36. Light Manufacturing or In~ustria~ Uses~hi~hmd~t the 'Performance standards prescribed by Article 13, 18A, 1 through?. Fraternity, Sorority, Lodge or Civic Club Ut~lity~ Accessory and Incidental Uses Commercial Type Uses Flea Market '.:' ... ... ...' ...".:.. ~. Sand,. Gravel om'Earth 8dies o~:'Stora'~e' ' ,~ .~.. , '"'. Natural Resource Storage and Extraction ' Extraction and Storage of Sand, Caleche, Stone, Clay or Gravel Petroleum or Gas Well .. _ . Floor/Area Ratio 2: 1 Maximum ~ARD REQUIREMENTS ~ Front Yard: Side Yard: Minimum 25 feet .. No side yard is specified for'non-residential use excep~ where a non-residential use abut? upon a dimtrio~ boun~arylin~ ~iv£~zn~ suoh'aistr~o~s from a residential district Or when the ~ide yard is adjacent to the street, in'which event a 'ten'(10) foot side yard shall be. provided, · _YARD I~EOUIREMENT8 . (co~i~'l~. e~) ~ . oo Rear Yard: No rear year is specified .for non-residentiaI use except where. ~etail, commercial or industrial ~ses back upon a common district line,' whether separated by .an alley or not~ dividing the district from any of the residential.dis.tricts listed, a minimu~ of '" "-:'~' "- · '~' "'"~" ' ii/~t~r~.:.(~0) z;:et :sha~'l.~. e. p~ovi~ed,:. ~ ~"'-: -...:~ ~," i. '.. i:" ' ~.".- -...:-....: ~.-.. .'.?. ..~ .'. '..'. :. ,..- . ....... .- ... . · ... ~.. · '~....:'..,.:~........ .:.... -. ~...-. '...../'. , .- .... .-., . - .: .. ~.~G~T' ~ur.a~oNs: To any .legal 'height not prohibited by other laws or ordinances. In the districts where the height of buildings, is restricted to two (2) or three (3) stOries, cooling towers, roof gables, chimneys and vent stacks may extend for additional height not to exceed forty-fiv~ (45) feet above the average grade line of the building. Water stand pipes and tanks, church steeples, domes and spires, and school buildings and institutional buildings may be erected'to exoeed'three{3).stories in height in residential 'areas restricted to two (2) or. three (3) stories in height, prdvided that.one additional foot shall be added to'the width and depth of side and rear yards for each foot that such structures exceed three (3) Signs Lighting Landscaping Screening & Fencing See Article '34-115.) ' stories in height. .su~-~N~ ~ur~o~s~ 1. 'Park~'ng (BaSed on use. 2. 3. 4. 5. 38. ~ AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET 'AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: April 4, 2000 Planning Department ~ David Hill, 349-814" Agenda No. 0 ~ - o/,.r- Agenda Item ,.:.-.-3.~1 ' Date ..... ~,- ~,. oo SUBJECT - Z-99-101: (North Pointe) Hold a public hearing and consider approving a Detailed Plan for approximately 162 acres in the Planned Development 120 (PD-120) zoning district. The property is generally located between North Elm St (US 77) and Loop 288 roughly 1500 feet west of North Locust (FM 2164). The proposal is to develop a single family subdivision. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0) with conditions. BACKGROUND The applicant has requested approval of a Detailed Plan for approximately 163 acres of the Planned Development 120 (PD-120) zoning district. The intent is to develop a residential subdivision of 454 houses. Park space, area for a regional drainage detention facility, and public land surrounding an existing city-owned water tower is also included as part of the Detailed Plan. The proposed development is consistent with the amended Concept Plan for PD-120, which was approved on August 8, 1998 by Ordinance 98-324. Twenty-nine (29) property owners were notified of the zoning request. Six (6) responses have been received; five (5) are in favor and one (1) is opposed to he request (see Attachment 3). The subject property is located within the "Neighborhood Centers" area of the 1999 Denton Comprehensive Plan. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology of Z-99-101, commonly known as North Pointe: Application Date- December 14, 1999 DRC Date(s) - January 6, 2000; January 20,2000; February 3, 2000 P&Z Date - March 8, 2000 Because the amended Concept Plan for PD-120 was approved after April 7, 1998, this zoning case is exempt from the interim residential development regulations (Ordinance No. 2000-049). ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The subject property is not platted and would need to be platted prior to any development. FISCAL INFORMATION Development of this property will increase the assessed value of the city, county, and school district. P&Z RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0) of this zoning request with the following conditions: 1. 70% of the ground floor exterior and 50% of the second floor exterior of each house shall be ora qualifted masonry material. Other siding surfaces shall be varied in color. Fencing or screening along Nicosia shall be reinforced by steel posts and shall feature masonry columns at a maximum of 50' on center. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Approve with conditions. 3. Deny. 4. Postpone consideration. 5. Table item. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning and Zoning Commission Report, March 8, 2000, Z-99-101. 2. Planning and Zoning Commission minutes from March 8, 2000. 3. Draft Ordinance. Prepared by: Respectfully submitted: Director of Planning and Development 2o ATTACHMENT 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ~enda No. Agenda Item Date Subject: North Pointe Staff: Thomas B. Gray Case Number: Z-99-101 Aqenda Date: March 8, 2000 Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council concerning a Detailed Plan for approximately 162 acres in the Planned Development 120 (PD-120) zoning district. Single-family residential development is proposed. TI= LOCATION MAP Location: between North Elm St (US 77) and Loop 288; roughly 1500 feet west of North Locust (EM 2164) Size: 162.5 acres Z-99-i0I Staff Applicant: Ottis Lee III, P.E. ClVlLworks Engineering 1192 Boling Ranch Road Azle, Texas 76020 Owner: Locust/288 Partners, Ltd. 2122 Boll Street Dallas, TX 75204 Planned development zoning districts (PD) are intended to provide forthe development of land as an integra/unit for single or mixed use in accordance with a plan that may vary from the established regulations of other zoning districts forsimilarland uses. They are also meant to encourage flexible and creative planning to ensure the compatibility of land uses, to allow for the adjustment of changing demands to meet the current needs of the community, and to provide for a development that is superior to what could be accomplished in other zoning districts by meeting one or more of the following purposes: (1) Provides for the design of lots or building; increased recreation, common or open space for private or public use; berms, greenbelts, trees, shrubs or other landscaping features; parking areas, street design or access; or other development plans, amenities or features that would be of special benefit to the property users or community; (2) Protects or preserves topographical features, such as trees, creeks, ponds, floodplains, slopes or hills; or (3) Protects or preserves existing historical buildings, structures, features or places. There are three (3) types of plans that may be used in the planned development process; concept plan, development plan and detailed plan. CONCEPT PLAN - This plan is intended to be the first step in the PD process for larger or long term developments. It establishes the most general guidelines, identifying the land use types, approximate thoroughfare locations within the boundaries of the district. DEVELOPMENT PLAN - This plan is intended to be used most often as a second step in the PD process. It includes the same information that is provided on the concept plan, plus details as to the specific land uses and their boundaries. All detailed plans should be in substantial compliance with landscape, sign, subdivision and other regulations of the Code of Ordinances. When concessions from these regulations are requested by a developer, there needs to be corresponding benefits that merit deviation from those regulations. Z.-99.-101 Staff Rep(~rt The developer is requesting approval of a Detailed Plan for approximately 163 acres of PD-120. The intent is to develop a residential subdivision of 454 houses. Park space, area for a regional drainage detention facility, and public land surrounding an existing city-owned water tower is also included as part of the Detailed Plan. The subject property is surrounded to the east and north by undeveloped land. The vacant Texas Instruments plant borders the property to the west. There is some single-family and multifamily residential development directly to the south of the subject property. The proposed Detailed Plan is consistent with an amended Concept Plan for the property, approved on August 8, 1998 by Ordinance 98-324 (see enclosure 5). This project application is exempt from the Interim Development Regulations (Ordinance No. 2000- 046). Transportation A. Trip generation The proposed development would generate approximately 4,648 trips per day if built out as a single-family residential subdivision (see Table 1 below). Table 1. Proposed Trip Generation Land Use Average Trip Average Density Acres Estimated Lots Total Trip Generation* or Sq. Ft. Generation Single-Family (SF-7) 9.55 trips/du/day 4.0 du/ac 117.9 454 4335.7 Parks 30 trips/ac N/A 10.4 312 Total Trip Generation 4647.7 Calculations provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991. B. Access The subject property is surrounded on all sides by major arterial roads: North Elm (US 77) to the south and west, Loop 288 to the north and North Locust (FM 2164) to the east. Initially, the development will have access to North Elm (US 77) via Nicosia, a secondary major arterial that at some point in the future will also connect to Loop 288 to the north. Fallmeadow Lane will also be extended into the subdivision and will also provide access to US 77 (see enclosure 3). Access will also be provided to North Locust (FM 2164) by way of an extension to Hercules Lane when the property to the east of PD-120 is developed. Nicosia is designated as a secondary major arterial by the 1998 Denton Mobility Plan. It is designated to be a four (4) lane undivided street without parking. The I=allmeadow and Hercules extensions are designated as collector streets by the Plan, they will be four (4) lane undivided Z-99,-101 Staff Repoit streets with parking. The applicant has completed a Traffic Impact Analysis, which was provided at the time of the Concept Plan. In accordance with the Traffic Impact Analysis, several improvements will be made by the developer at the time of construction. Nicosia Drive will be constructed as a 45-foot wide, 4-lane undivided read across the frontage of the property to US 77. Left and right turn lanes will be required on Nicosia at US 77, and a right turn lane will be required on Nicosia at the east/west collectors, such as the Hercules extension. These collector streets will be configured such that there will be separate right and left turn lanes at Nicosia. C. Road Capacity Initially, all vehicle access to and from the proposed subdivision will be from North Elm (US 77) via either Nicosia or Fallmeadow. North Elm (US 77) is identified as a primary major arterial read by the 1998 Denton Mobility Plan. This read is designed to be a six (6) lane divided street without parking, providing six (6) lanes of through traffic. As such, its designed traffic capacity allows for a tolerable traffic flow of up to 27,900 trips per day. US 77 is currently constructed with two (2) lanes without parking. This allows for a tolerable traffic flow of 9,500 vehicles per day. The most recent traffic counts for North Elm indicate that there may not be adequate capacity to handle the calculated trips that could be generated by the proposed development. A traffic count on US 77 east of Riney Road conducted in May of 1999 indicated a volume of 4,208 vehicles per day. A traffic count on US 77 north of Windsor conducted in March of 1999 indicated a volume of 7,345 cars per day. However, the Texas Department of Transportation is currently preparing to widen US 77 to a four (4) lane divided highway without parking. This would create a traffic capacity of up to 19,100 trips per day, which would be able to handle the additional estimated 4,648 vehicles per day generated by this subdivision when full built out. Right-of-way will be set aside for the highway to be widened to six (6) lanes pending future need. This would increase its designed traffic capacity allows for a tolerable traffic flow of up to 27,900 trips per day. As well, future connections to Loop 288 via Nicosia and North Locust via Hercules will reduce traffic demand on US 77. D. Pedestrian Linkages Sidewalks along all public streets are required. 2. Utilities New water and wastewater lines will be extended to and through the development. 3, Drainage and Topography Z-99,-101 Staff New development will be required to design and construct a drainage system to city standards. A preliminary drainage study will be required with the submission of a preliminary plat. The study must include calculations of the lO0-year storm for all drainage areas on this property and any area that drains towards this property. The developer must indicate the method by which the run- off will be carried across the property or stored on the property. A regional drainage detention facility is proposed as part of this development. 4, Signs As per the sign ordinance. = Off-Street Parking New development must provide parking according to the regulations of Chapter 35 (35-301) of the Code of Ordinances. Single-family homes are required to provide at least two (2) spaces each. 6. Landscaping This property will have to comply with the new Landscape Code, which requires fifteen (15) trees per acre and twenty (20) percent of all surfaces to remain pervious (plantable area). Open Space and Recreational Areas This residential development will be required to participate in the development of public recreational areas. Through the Park Dedication Ordinance (98-039), this development will contribute to park land dedication and park development fees. Dedication requirements are required during the platting process. Park development fees are required prior to the issuance of building permits. 8. Lighting No restrictions on residential development. 9. Environmental Quality impacts None are anticipated. January 14, 1969 - The subject property was placed in the Agricultural (A) zoning district and land use classification by Ordinance 69-01 which adopted the first zoning ordinance and map for the City of Denton. September 2, 1986 - The subject property was placed within a Planned Development (PD-120) zoning district and land use classification by Ordinance 86-173. October 6, 1998 - An amended concept plan for PD-1Z0 wa~ approved by Ordinance 98-324. Z-99-101 Staff Report The subject property is not platted and would need to be platted prior to any development. Notice of the zoning request was published in the Denton Record-Chronicle on Sunday, February 27, 2000 Twenty-nine (29) property owners within two hundred feet were mailed legal notices and one hundred twelve (112) residents within five hundred feet were sent courtesy notices informing them of the request (see Enclosure 4). As of this writing, there have been no responses. No neighborhood meetings were held. Staff recommends approval of Z-99-101. I move to recommend approval of Z-99-101. 1. Recommend approval as submitted. 2. Recommend approval with conditions. 3. Recommend denial. 4. Postpone consideration. 5. Table item. 1. Detailed Plan 2. Zoning Map 3. Denton Mobility Plan Map 4. 200'-500' Notification Map 5. Ordinance 98-324, which includes the approved Concept Plan for PD-120 6. Draft Ordinance Z-99-101 Staff ReDort ENCLOSURE 1 ENCLOSURE 2 Z-99-101 (North Pointe) NORTH ZONING MAP Agenda Date: March 8, 2000 Scale: None 11. ENCLOSURE 3 Z-99-101 (North Pointe) NORTH DENTON MOBILITY PLAN MAP , ,/~/Freeways ,,~',,, Primary Major Arterials /'~,,,' Secondary Major Arterials '..'"... / Collectors Agenda Date: March 8, 2000 Scale: None 12. Z-99-101 (North Pointe) NORTH ~o~ 500' Notification 5, ..~.~..~ ~ ' ~- ~ ..~ ~ ~ ...... ~-L-i-m~t-~-f-2[ O'-I~o-fifibation 200'-500' NOTICE MAP 200' Legal Notices sent via Certified Mail: 29 500' Courtesy Notices sent via 1st Class Mail: 112 Number of responses to 200' Legal Notice · Opposed: 1 · In Favor: 5 · Neutral: 0 Percent of land within 200' in opposition: < 1% Agenda Date: March 8, 2000 13. Scale: None ENCLOSURE 5 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING ORDINANCE 86-173 BY APPROVING AN AMENDED CONCEPT PLAN FOR 270.48 ACRES OF. LAND CURRENTLY WITHIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ONE HUNDRED TWENTY (PD-120) LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF LOOP 288, WEST oF N. LOCUST STREET; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Civilworks Engineering, on behalf of KDRCII, initiated a request to amend an approved concept plan for 270.48 acres of land currently within Planned Development District One Hundred Twenty (PD-120); and WHEREAS, on August 12, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of an amendment to an approved concept plan for 270.48 acres currently within Planned Development District Twenty (PD-20); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change in zoning will be in compliance with the Denton Development Plan; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That Ordinance 86-173 is hereby amended b.y approving the amended concept plan attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated by reference herein, as applied to the 270.48 acres of land within Planned Development District One Hundred Twenty (PD-120) described in Exhibits A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the land use factors described in Exhibit C and attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein will supercede the land use factors as described in Exhibit B. That the exterior walls of all buildings shall be constructed of one hundred (100%) percent brick or masonry materials excluding doors and windows. SECTION-II, That the provisions of this ordinance as they applyto the PD-120 as'shown in Exhibit A herein approved, shall govern and control over any conflicting provision' of Ordinance No. 86-173, but all the provisions of Ordinance No. 86-173 as they apply to that remaining portion of the district not herein affected, shall continue in force and effect and shall apply to the remainder of the district. SECTION III. That a copy of this ordinance shall be attached to Ordinance No. 86-173, showing the amendment herein approved. SECTION IV. That any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. 14. SECTION V. That this ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record- Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. Z-98-001 : PASSED AND APPROVED this the ~0 day of~ 1998. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY APPR~ED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY F:~sharedktept~LOL\Our Documcnts\Ordinances\98kZ-98-027, PD 120.doe 15. Exhibit A BEI'NIO a tract of laud siumted iu the T. TOBY SU.KVEY AbsU~ct No, 1~88 ~d xhe BBB C~ S~Y Ab~t~t No. lg6, ~ton Co~, T~, ~d b~ng a po~on of a 316.3656 ac~ ~act of l~d d~'ibed ~ Vohuue ~47, p~e 7~1, mid a po~on of a ~ of lm~d ae~cdb~d deed reco~ed in Volvo 1014, Pa~e 537 of~e Deed K~o~t of D~ton Co~, T~xas ~iug more pmdm, lmly d~s~d ~ folios: CO~C~G ~ ~ 1/~ inch ~on tod fotmd for'the No~ve~ comer of~d 316.3656 acre ~ and the No~w~t com~ of s~d T. TOBY SURVEY; ~ ~O~ ~d ~lh d,~ W~t hne of ~id 316.3656 a~e ~ m~d ~ T. TOBY S~¥, So~ 00 de~a 57 minutes 06 ~conds Wes~ a ~$tance of [87~.42 f~et to a con. ere ~OW monument fo~d for the PO~ OF BEG~G in ~e 8oath~'ly fi~t-ot~Y,l~e of LOOP 288 (x, afiabl~ ~d~ ~ alolke ~d v4~ ~e So~h~ly d~t-of-~aY ~¢ of s~d Loop 288 ~ follows: 8omh 88 de~ 54 ~n~ 44 seconds ~ a ~an~ of 32.63 f~t to a concret~ ROW mo~eat fom~d fo~ a No~ 82 d~ I8 ~,i;~ 13 secon~ E~ a ~a~ce of ~12.18 feet lo ~ con. ere ~OW moB~ent fo~d for a come~ ~o~h 76 d~ee$ 47 minate$ 50 se~ E~ a ~smc¢ of 306.82 f~t to a copse KOW ~onmuent ~d for a co~; ~o~h 75 de~ 09 ~finu~s 10 seco~s ~ a ~aace of 787.78 f~ to a ~ncrete ~OW monum~t fo~d for a comet; Noah 71 de~eei 17 ~ 5g s~nds E~t, a di~nce of 340,9~ fe~ to a 1/2 inch fo~d for a comet; No~ 7l ~ge~ 15 min~es 26 sec~& E~, a dis~ce of 7~.30 iket lo a c.onc~te KOW mon~nt fo~ for ~ be~g of s cu~'e to ~e d~ ha~g a s~dim of 5619.5~, a chord ~m~g of~ot~ 73 de~ees 51 p)!n~ aS seco~ ~t and a ~rd lel~ of 510-87 arc. b~ of S l 1.05 f~t to a ~ucw~ ROW m~mn~t ~o~d br the ~d of ~d No~ g4 de~es 08 -~;u~s 48 secon~ ~L a ~an~ d-684.90 feet ioa 1/2 inch kon x~d set f~. a cme~ Sou~ 88 de~'e~ 17 min~es 37 s~on~ F~s~ a ~smnce of 976.84 fe~ to a ~n~te ROW mon~r t%xmd f~ ~e No~ly com~ of a com~ clip a ~e ~tez~fion of ~ So~rlY fi~t-of-~a)' ~e of sfid Loop 288 ~ith fl,c ~'esterly fi~t-of-~my ~e of ~ 2164 (~able widfl~ fight-ot:x~y); ~on~ ~'~l, a d~-ce o~ 1000.57 f~t ~ a ~ete ROW montest fo~ for a ~mer; ~C~ Nort g9 ~ees 1~ ~u~es 46 ~on& We~t, a dis~ce of291S.~ fen to a iron ton fo~d for a comer; · T~CE S°uth 01 de~ee 37 min~ ~ ss~ ~ a ~uce of 977.66 f~l w iron md sa f~ a come~ ~NCE So,nh g9 de~'~s 12 i~mes 21 seco~ ~- a ~ce of 1404.76 f~et to a 5/8 ~ch kon ~ fotmd for a cornea ~CE $o~ 01 d~ 0S mi~lmes 43 secon~ W~. a distance 1977.53 feet to ~n rod set Iht a com~ ~NCE No~x g9 de~es 06 ~ 4~ ~o~:~ We~ a ~a~ce of 2500.79 feet to a 1/2 ~n md set for a ~m~; ~NCE Ho~ 00 de~ees 53 mlnu~s 15 ~n~ Ea~, a di$m¢e of 60.00 f~ to a kon md set lbr flxe So~he~g com~ of a 0.92 a~ ~aet of 1~ ¢o~d ~ ~e CiW of ~ton by ~d zecord~d ~ Vol~e 556, p~e 434, D~CT; ~ ~o~ the Soufl~lY ~ of ~i~ 0.92 acre ~, Hox~ 89 de~ees 06 ~on~ W~ a dis~ °f 200;00 fe~ a It2 ~ch iron rod set for a com~ ~CE ~ong the W~e~'ly l~e of said 0.92 ~ ~, NoRh 00 de~e~ 53 minutes 15 secon~ ~ a ~ce of 300.00 f~t to a 112 ~ck iron t~d set for a com~ ~ alo~ ~e Nox~erly 1~ of ~id 0.92 a~ ~ac~, So~h 89 de~s 06 Rfinutez 45 s~&s ~, a dis~ce of 200.00 f~t to a 1~ ~h kon md set for a '~ alo~ ~e E~terly l~e ofs~d 0.92 ~e ~cg S~ 00 de~s 53 minut~ 15 ~con~ Wes~ a ~ce of 200.00 f~t m' a il2 ~Ix iron ~ set for a T~CE Sou~ ~ ~ ~3 ~tes 15 ~ds Wes~ a ~nce of 60.00 fca to a 1/2 ~ch h~n ~o~ ~t foz a com~ · ~CE North g9 de~es 06 minutes ~5 sec°l~ds We~ a ~s~nce of 795.80 i~t ~o a 3/8 inch ~on rod fouod for a com~ ~CE ~o~ 00 donees 57 ,n~utes 06 s~o~lds E~ a dis~ of ~079.50 f~t to OF CO~~G ~itAi~ fl~ese m~ m~ bo~&s 270~35 a~ ofl~d mo.m or l~s- 17. .., Site Map/~- .... i Exhibit B { ' 18. EXHIBIT C LAND USE FACTORS AS MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 1998 PD-120, South of Loop 288 .~ Land Use Factors Moderate Low Intensity Activity Center Area Retail Floor Area Ratio 0.30: I 0.30: 1 Office Floor Area Ratio 0.30: 1 Neighborhood Service Area 0.20: 1 Floor Area Ratio Single-Family Units Allowed 470 units Multi-Family Unit Density 18 units/acre 18 units/acre 800 units maximum, both areas 19. ENCLOSURE 6 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 86- 173 TO PROVIDE FOR A DETAILED PLAN FOR 162.527 ACRES LOCATED WITHIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 120 (PD-129) ZONING DISTRICT; THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEING LOCATED BETWEEN NORTH ELM STREET (US 77) AND LOOP 288 ROUGHLY 1500 FEET WEST OF NORTH LOCUST (FM 2164); PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (Z-99-101). WHEREAS, on September 2, 1986, by Ordinance 86-173, the City Council approved a change in zoning for 412.12 acres of land to Planned Development 120 (PD-120) Zoning District; and WHEREAS, on October 6, 1998, by Ordinance 98-324, the City Council approved an amended Concept Plan for 270.48 acres of land located within PD-120; and WHEREAS, on December 14, 1999, CIVILworks Engineering, on behalf of Locust/288 Partners, LTD., submitted a Detailed Plan for 162.527 acres of land located within PD-120 with the intent to develop a single-family residential subdivision; and WHEREAS, on March 8, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of a Detailed Plan for such 162.527 acres; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Detailed Plan is consistent with the approved amended Concept Plan for PD-120; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That Ordinance No. 86-173 providing for the approval of a Planned Development Zoning District Classification and Use Designation for the property described as PD-120 is amended by approving the Detailed Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit B for 162.527 acres located within PD-120, more particularly described by the legal description attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A. SECTION 2. That the provisions of this ordinance as they apply to the 162.527 acres shown in the detailed plan herein approved, shall govern and control over any conflicting provisions of Ordinance No. 86-173 and ordinance No. 98-324, but all the provisions of Ordinance No. 86-173 and Ordinance No. 98-324, as they apply to that remaining portion of the district not herein amended, shall continue in force and effect and shall apply to the remainder of said district. SECTION 3. That a copy of this ordinance shall be attached to Ordinance No. 86-173 showing the amendment herein approved. 20. SECTION 4. That any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record Chronicle, official newspaper of the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2000. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 21. EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL "A" Being a tract of land situated in the Thomas Toby Survey Abstract No. 1288 and the B.B.B. & C.R.R. Co. Survey, Abstract No. 186 City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, said tract of land also being Tract II and a PortiOn of Tract I as deeded to Locust/288 Partners, Ltd.' recorded in County Clerk's No. 99-0025993 of the Deed Records of Denton County, TeXas, said tract of land being described by metes and bounds as follows: BEGINNING at a set 5/8 inch capped iron rod ("BHB INC") on the East right-of-way line of Terlingua Street, a 40 foot road as dedicated on the final plat of Texas Instruments Addition, Lot 1, Block 1, as recorded in Cabinet G, Slide 48 of said Deed Records, from said set 5/8 inch capped iron rod ("BHB INC"), a found 5/8 inch iron rod in Riney Road, being the southwest corner of a tract of land as deeded to KDRC II, Limited Partnership, recorded in County Clerk's No. 94-0066002 of said Deed Records, bears South 00 degrees 54 minutes 11 seconds West, a distance of 254.91 feet; THENCE North 00 degrees 54 minutes 11 seconds East, along said East right-of-way line, passing at 682.24 feet, a found 1/2 inch iron rod, being the southwest corner of said Tract II, and continuing in all a distance of 2267.51 feet to a found 1/2 inch iron rod at the northwest corner of said Tract II, from said found 1/2 inch iron rod at the northwest corner of said Tract II a found TXDOT monument (4" brass disk) bears, North 00 degrees 54 minutes 11 seconds East, a distance of 555.08 feet; THENCE South 89 degrees 05 minutes 08 seconds East, departing said East right-of-way line. and along the North line of said Tract II, a distance of 574.89 feet to a foUnd 1/2 inch iron rod at the northeast corner of said Tract II and being on the West line of said Tract I; THENCE North 08 degrees 01 minute 14 seconds East, along the West line of said Tract I, a distance of 83.48 feet to a point on the South line of a 75 foot easement deeded to Texas Municipal Power Agency recorded in Volume 1133, Page 859 of said Deed Records; THENCE South 62 degrees 31 minutes 57 seconds East, along the South line of said 75 foot easement, a distance of 1289.57 feet; THENCE South 89 degrees 25 minutes 05 seconds East, continuing along the South line of said 75 foot easement, a distance of 160.32 feet to the West line of a tract of land. as deeded to Denton 40 Joint Venture, recorded in Volume 2565, Page 72 of said Deed Records; ': THENCE South 01 degree 41 minutes 57 seconds West, along the West line of said Denton 40 Joint Venture tract, a distance of 56.31 feet to a found 1/2 inch iron rod at the southwest corner of said Denton 40 Joint Venture Tract, from said found 1/2 inch iron rod, a found 1/2 inch iron rod bears, South 53 degrees 33 minutes 50 seconds East, a distance of 2.33 feet; THENCE gouth gO degrees t t minutes t t seconds East, along the gou~h line of said Denton 40 Joint Venture tract, a distance of 1405.40 feet to a found 5/8 inch iron rod at a fence corner, being the northwest comer of a tract of land as deeded to Bob E. Tripp 22. and David E. Tripp, Trustees, recorded in Volume 996, Page 376 of said Deed Records, from said found 5/8 inch iron rod a found 1/2 inch iron rod, being the northeast comer of said Tdpp tract, bears South 89 degrees 17 minutes 11 seconds East, a distance of 1514.66 feet; THENCE South 01. degree 05 minutes 52 seconds West, along the West line of said Tripp tract, a distance of 1114.97 feet to a found 1/2 inch iron rod at the northeast corner of Lot 2, BlockA, Sandlin Addition, recorded in Cabinet O, Slide 132 of Said Deed Records, from said found 1/2 inch iron rod, a found 1/2 inch capped iron rod ("COLEMAN"), being the southeast comer of said Lot 2, beam South 01 degree 05 minutes 52 seconds West, a distance of 862.16 feet; THENCE North 89 degrees 08 minutes 45 seconds West, along the North line of said Lot 2, a distance of 1524.81 feet to a found 1/2 inch iron rod at the northwest corner of said Lot 2; THENCE THENCE South 01 degree 06 minutes 21 seconds West, along the West line of said Lot 2, a distance of 862.28 feet to a point, said point being on the North line of Lot 6, Block A, Donna Del Estates as recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 186 of said Deed Records and on the South line of said Tract I, said point also being the southwest corner of said Lot 2, from said point a found 1/2 inch iron rod bears South 01 degree 06 minutes 21 seconds West, a distance of 0.50 feet, also from said point, a found 5/8 inch iron rod, being the northwest corner of Fallmeadow North Addition as recorded in Cabinet C, Slide 75 of said Deed Records, bears South 89 degrees 09 minutes 06 seconds East, a distance of 23.42 feet; North 89degrees 09. minutes 06 seconds West, along the South line of said Tract I, passing at 973.78 feet a found 1/2 inch iron rod and continuing in all a distance of 1272.10 feet to a found 1/2 inch iron rod being the most southerly southwest comer of said Tract I; THENCE THENCE North 00 degrees 48 minutes 37 seconds East, along a West line of said Tract I, a distance of 124.87 feet to a set 5/8 inch capped iron rod ("BHB INC"); North 22 degrees 46 minutes 29 seconds West, along a West line of said Tract I, a distance of 207.56 feet to a found 1/2 inch iron rod; THENCE THENCE South 72 degrees 27 minutes 32 seconds West, along a South line of said Tract I, a distance of 175.51 feet to a set 5/8 inch capped iron rod ("BHB INC"); North 89 deg'reeS 05 minutes 49 seconds weSt, along a South line of said Tract I; a distance of 249.79 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING containing 5,805,811 square feet or 133.283 acres. SAVE AND EXCEPT a tract of land situated in the Thomas Toby Survey, Abstract No. 1288, Denton County, Texas, being the same tract of land as deeded to the City of Denton recorded in Volume 556, Page 434 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas, said tract being described by metes and bounds as follows: COMMENCING at a point being the most southerly southeast corner of Tract I as deeded to Locust/288 Partners, Ltd recorded in County Clerk's No. 99-0025993 of said Deed Records and also 23. being the southwest corner of Lot 2, Block A, Sandlin Addition aZ recorded in Cabinet O, Slide 132 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas, from said point, a found 1/2 inch iron rod beare South 01 degree 06 minutes 21 seconds West, a distance of 0.50 feet; THENCE North 89 degrees 09 minutes 06 seconds West, along the South line of said Tract I, a distance of 973.78 feet to a found 1/2 inch iron rod; THENCE North 01 degree 13 minutes 57 seconds West, a distance of 62.13 feet to a found 1/2 inch iron rod, being the POINT OF BEGINNING;. THENCE North 89 degrees 04 minutes 16 seconds West, along the South line of said city of Denton tract, a distance of 200.02 feet to a found 1/2 inch iron rod; THENCE North 00 degrees 54 minutes 05 seconds East, along the West line of said City of Denton tract, a distance of 200.01 feet to a found 1/2 inch iron rod; THENCE South 89 degrees 03 minutes 33 seconds East, along the North line of said City of Denton tract, a distance of 200.16 feet to a found 1/2 inch iron rod; THENCE South 00 degrees 56 minutes 33 seconds West, along the East line of said City of Denton tract, a distance of 199.97 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING containing 40,017 square feet or 0.919 acre. LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL "B" Being all of Lot 2, Block A, Sandlin Addition as recorded in Cabinet O, Slide 132 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas. 24. EXHIBIT B 25. mllll~ ~111111~ ~ J ATTACHMENT 2 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 8, 2000 Page 2 of 3 PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING Continue a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding a Detailed Plan for a Planned Development (PD-93) encompassing approximately 13.7 acres. The detailed plan proposal is for a 159 unit multi-family residential development and 4.3 acres of commercial development. The property is located at the southwest corner of Ryan Road and Teasley Lane. (Z-99-096, Ryan Rd./Teasley Lane, Larry Reichhart) Motion by Perry McNeill and seconded by Rudy Moreno to recommend approval to City Council with conditions. *Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached t(~ this set of minutes (Page 3). Motion carries 4-3. Elizabeth Gourdie, Salty Rishel and Jim En.qelbrecht opposed. Hold a public hearing to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding the rezoning of approximately 0.27 acres, commonly known as 1513 N. Locust, from an Office (O) zoning district to a Planned Development (PD) zoning district. The proposal is to allow office and residential uses on the property. (Z-99-084, 1513 N. Locust, Larry Reichhart) Motion by Perry McNeill and seconded by Salty Rishel to recommend approval to City Council with conditions. *Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 157). Motion carries 7-0. Hold a public hearing and consider recommending approval to City Council a Detailed Plan for approximately 162 acres in the Planned Development 120 (PD-120) zoning district. The property is generally located between North Elm St (US 77) and Loop 288 roughly 1500 feet west of North Locust (FM 2164) and is legally described as 162.5 acres in the Thomas Toby Survey, Abstract No. 1288 and the B.B.B. & C.R.R. Survey, Abstract No. 186, in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. (Z~99-101, Northpointe, Thomas B. Gray) Motion by Salty Rishel and seconded by Perry McNeill to recommend approval to City Council with conditions. *Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 56). Motion carries 7-0. Hold a public hearing to consider making a recOmmendation to City Council regarding the rezoning of approximately 8.3 acres, commonly known as RNW Addition from a Planned Development (PD-16) zoning district to Conditioned Office (O) and Neighborhood Service (NS) zoning districts. The property is located at the southwest corner of Teasley Lane and Teasley Lane. (Z-00-003, RNW Addition, Larry Reichhart) Motion by Elizabeth Gourdie and seconded by Perry McNeill to continue to March 22"d meeting. *Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 78). Motion carries 7-0. ¸27. 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 3 4 5 6 7 g 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 we've spent more time working process out. To compare to something that was eight, ten, 20 years ago is ;oing on in Denton and have to think about it, we were ' recession are changing. things that what's fight for MR. Williams. MR. WILLIAMS: I've up for a the principal say, didn't well as everyone let anything ~ a financial And things :to do I this is not other discussion? Mr. hardest vote that set himself not listen to beware." And I ~ staff who L have been but I creative. , -- and I will be voting for this, but th~ It's really tough because I've been in a '~ vhere I've been down in the audience with fl~ and felt like I wasn't being heard. ~ However, since information is out there, and '~ invest in homes, we need to go an extra male. And 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 20. 21 have to don't have any empathy fo build homes first and decide you want to build tou're going to have all heck break i how long it's been zoned on this. any other ( I just want to be ~ motion as I think a little earlier, them. This plan did not vhat would have obviously been heir concerns coming in. A few have ~ The fact that there wasn't even a buffer ' kind initially, I'm astounded, because the residents asked that. only asked the residents asked I just don't see wasn't any for that mediate So what sort t for the City? I just don't think not going to vote at all for this plan. Vote, please. Ms. Apple, I'm MS. APPLE: That's okay. there MR. ENGELBRECHT: Motion carries, four to (Commissioners Gourdle, Rishel and Engelbrecht voted against.) MIL ENOELBRECHT: commissioners, it's 7:25. .) · ENOELBRECHT: okay. Ladles the meeting. Let me ask a e No. 87 .67 No. 7? All~ that because we might consider we have so man) MR. WILLIAIvIS: I SO MR. MCNEILL: to move case. Ms. Apple. DO we want to move How How many And I ask up on the Agenda since moved and seconded Yes, YOU could do 8, 7, ) before 7 ,r a ton of 8's. Tome-- MR. RISHEL: TO me, that would be logical. to 7 -- or 6 up to 8. MR. ENGELBRECHT: IS thOrO a friendly -- are that in the form of a friendly 2 3 amendment. 4 MR. MCNEILL: tho 5 friendly. 6 ~ right. 7 7, 8, 6. other discussion? Vote, please. D All right. We'll move on to Agenda Item No. 11 7 then which is to hold a public hearing and consider 12 recommending approval to City Council a detailed plan for 13 approximately 162 acres in Planned Development 120. The 14 property is generally located between North Elm Street, us 15 77, and Loop 288, roughly 1,500 feet west of North Locust, 16 and is legally described as 162 acres in the Thomas Toby 17 Survey, Abstract No. 1288, and the B.B.B. & C.R.R. Survey, 18 Abstract No. 186, in the City of Denton, Denton, Texas. 19 At this time, I'll open tho public hearing and ask Mr. 20 G-ray to provide us with the staff report. Sir. 21 MR. ORAY: Th~nk yOU and good evening. This 22 case deals with the detailed plan for a portion of P~20 23 known as the North Pointe development. It is 162 acres, 24 grab the dot,ailed plan right here, 162.5 acres containing 454 residential units and ten acres of open space. There PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 2000 28. Page 53 - Page 56 CondcnseltTM Page 57 1 is also a four-acm public use area where the existing 2 water tower is and then 30 acres of detention. I'll just 3 go ahead and put up some exhibits just so you'll know 4 where it is. It's up here at the north part of town. 5 Hem's Eh~, US 77, and here's North Locust, here's Loop 6 288. The TI plant or the former TI plant is probably the 7 best landmark. And I'll go ahead and show you a copy of 8 the detailed planl You should have a copy in your backup 9 but here's a larger copy that I taped together and I'll 10 orient it so that the top is to the north. 11 Basically, it includes, as I said, 454 12 single-family residences. They are roughly -- the minimum 13 lot area is 7,000 square feet. The houses are located 14 hem and here. Here is the existing water tower on the 15 property. A greenbelt is proposed to go through the 16 middle of the property. This property down here at the 17 southeast comer of this site will be used as a regional 18 detention facility and the applicant is in negotiations 19 with the City about purchasing that property to put a 20 detention facility on it. See if I can think of any mom 21 information. 22 Them will be two new collectors that will be 23 built through the site. This right here will be an 24 extension of Hercules Drive. It will come over here to 25 Nicosia, which the applicant will build as part of this Page 58 1 development. And then Fallmeadow will be extended up to 2 Hercules. Hercules is set to go through and hook up with 3 the existing Hercules where it terminates at North Loenst. 4 That's when the property adjacent to the east is 5 developed. In fact, I have a map of the Denton Mobility 6 Plan that indicates what the traffic arrangements for this 7 project are. Initially, all of the traffic will probably 8 end up on Elm. Elm is currently a two-lane road but TxoOa 9 is in the process of widening that to four lanes. So once 10 Elm is widened, there should be enough vehienlar capacity 11 to serve this residential development. 12 Those are the basics of the property; I guess 13 I could go ahead and see if there are any questions or let 14 the applicant speak. 15 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Commissioners, do you have 16 any questions? Ms. Gourdie. 17 MS. Cfi)UP, DIE: YOU said the smallest lot was an 18 SF-7. what is the range? 19 MR. GRAY: I would probably have to direct 20 that question to the applicant because it's not on the 21 detailed plan. 22 MS. GOURDIE: Thank you. 23 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Are there any other 24 questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. Is petitioner or 25 petitioner's representative present? Would you give us Page 59 1 your name and business address for the record? 2 M~. LE~: Yes, sir. My name is Ottls Lee. 3 I'm with cnaLworks Engineering, 1192 Boling Ranch Road, 4 Azle, Texas, and I'm representing the property owner and 5 dcveloper in this case. I recognize many of the faces in 6 this original modified concept plan that we did in October 7 of '98 and so I know some of you are familiar with the 8 site and some of the discussions we had. 9 To review a couple of items, this is 10 originally a reduction in densities of the original POq2O 11 that was done back in, I believe, '88 or '89. This was 12 improved in 1998 of October. During that time period, we 13 reduced residential with an additional request from the 14 City at that time that there was a need to build a 15 regional detention pond. The pond originally was going to 16 be actually to the east of this property and through some 17 other negotiations and concerns, there was a request that 18 we set aside up to 25 acres of our property for a regional 19 pond that at some time in the furore will be purchased 20 under the Capital Improvement Program for thc regional 21 pond for this entire area. 22 In addition to that, we also set aside ten 23 acres. It occurs in two lots. It's basically split by 24 the collector that goes from cast to west that Mr. G-ray 25 talked about. Two lots that encompass a little over ten Page 60 1 acres for a park area that would be dedicated to the City. 2 Our requirements are actually about 3.5 acres for park on 3 that. That's been reviewed with the Parks Department and 4 our understanding is they feel good about that and look 5 forward to having that area. 6 In addition to that, we made our original 7 submittal back in December for the detailed plan. Them 8 was a concern by the Utility Department that we weren't 9 aware of at the time that came up during that initial 10 meeting for a need for a bufferyard around the water tank, 11 the water tower site. That's this site right hem in this 12 location. · 13 We originally had lots shown to abut that 14 existing about 200 yards with some greenbelt space to the 15 west of that area, between that and the neighborhood 16 services area. Since then, with some review with the 17 Utilities Department, there's an additional 4.5 acres that 18 we'll be working with the City on, actually both that and 19 the detention pond areas are both being worked on 20 agreements at this time. We've had discussions with the 21 City staff and negotiations with them and we're in the 22 process of working contracts with them for both of those. 23 One of the items is that, an original concept 24 plan, there was allowance for 470 units for this which 25 equates to approximately 2.8 units per acre. We did lose PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 2000 29. Page 57 - Page 60 CondcnscltTM Page 61 i about 16 lots with this. We did not modify the initial 2 areas to increasc that. So it dropped our density down to 3 a little under 2.8, around 2.75 units per acm. 4 We are aware of all the City requirements 5 n:garding landscaping, the subdivision ordinances. I've 6 had a lot of good meetings and suggestions with the staff 7 and feel like to this point that we've been able to work 8 ' all those out and have a good subdivision, good Planned 9 Development here that will go forward and bo good quality 10 here for the City of Denton. So at this time, I will be 11 available for any questions that you may have on this. 12 MR. ENGELBRECHT: We do have some. Ms. 13 Ooardie. 14 MS. OOURDm: Thank you. Mr. l_~:e, could you 15 please tell me what the range is for lot sizes? 16 MR. LEE: The minimum lot size that we have is 17 a 62 X 113 which is 7,000. We have lots that range up to 18 70 X 180, some of those. 19 MS. COURDIE: Thank you. 90 ~ ENOI]LBR.ECHT: Are th~l'O any other 21 questions? Do you have a minimum masonry requironent on 22 the exterior of these structures? 23 MR. LEE: NO, sir, not for residential we 24 don't. 25 MR. ENGELBRECHT: DO yOU have any fences that Page 62 1 are going to be facing the public right-of-way, backyards 2 and things? 3 MB.. LEE: The fencing that we have, the 4 backyard fencing that will face public right-of-ways would 5 be those along Nicosia towards the TI plant. And I 6 believe we have a few side yards but probably 80 percent 7 of those arc rear yards facing Nicosia. 8 MR. ENOELBRECHT: I didn't notice, did you set 9 out any requirements for those, any specific requirements7 i0 MIL LEE: NO, sir. We set up for tho entryway 11 at a southern lot, a six-foot high by 20-foot long section 12 of masonry for entryway into the subdivision. 13 MR. ENGELBRECHT: would you consider masons, 14 some sort of a masonry structure spaced at whatever we 15 teed tO do in this City along those public right-of-ways 16 to add a little bit to the character of the public view? 17 MR. LEE: i'm going to let Mr. Mike Sandlin, 18 who's a general partner for the owners answer that 19 question. 20 MR. SA~DLr~: Mr. Chairman and members of the 21 P and Z, my name is Mike 8andlin, 3137 Davis Boulevard in 22 Fort Worth. You're talking about a masomy r,:quirc~ent 23 for all tho way along the street? 24 MR. ENGELBRECHT: NO, [IO, some sort of a brick 25 ballister every so often. It could be wood in between. Page 63 I MR. SANDLIN: Columns.9 2 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Yeah, right, the brick 3 columns; masonry columns. I'm not going to seem to say 4 brick, but to add to the character for the public view. 5 MR. LEE: Along Nicosia, that's thc area that 6 we have rear yards facing public right-of-way. 7 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Right, wherever you have 8 rear andside yards facing the public right-of-way. 9 MR. SANDLr~: We don't have a problem with 10 that. What would you suggest for the spacing? 11 MR. ENGELBRECHT: I don't know. There's some 12 standard spacing in terms of the ability structurally for 13 the thing and I don't know. Whatever they space posts at 14 is what it appears to me they usually do at eight-foot or 15 whatever. 16 MR. SANDLrN: That's a little bit tight. 17 Generally, they're like -- 18 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Maybe they're more than 19 that, I don't know. 20 MR. SANDLIN: we'll come up with something. I 21 think eight-foot is a little bit much for brick columns. 22 MR. ENGELBRECHT: That may be. That may be. 23 I'm just -- the figure, I'm not sure, although I'm not 24 sure what's out on Windsor right now. There's one that 25 just went up out there. Maybe those are 16. Page 64 1 MR. RISHEL: YOU usually have a column and 2 then you have six or eight or ten pieces of fencing and 3 then another column. 4 MR. ENGELBRECHT: It may be. Whatever. 5 Right. Okay. They're suggesting to me that it's more 6 than that and it may well be. I'm not arguing that. 7 Whatever we tend to have in the City, something to sort of 8 break up the -- 9 MR. SANDLIN: It'S generally going to be 10 anywhere from 25 to 50-foot. I mean, if you put an 1 ! eight-foot -- 12 MR. ENGELBRECHT: okay. All right. That's 13 good. Whatever. Yeah. 14 MR. SANDLIN: Somewhere in that range. 15 MR. ENGELBRECHT: YOU'Ve probably put those in 16 before, I'm sure. 17 MR. S.tuNDLIN: Right, right. 18 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Okay. The other question I 19 have is any problem with making a requirement for steel 20 posts for the rest of the way? That's been something 21 w~:'v~ boon aske~ -- 22 MR. SANDLIN: On the -- 23 MR. ENGELBRECHT: On the fence, wood fence, 24 just steel posts. 25 MIL SANDLrN: okay. Only for your PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 2000 Page 61 - Page 64 30. CondcnscltTM Page 65 I right-of-way. I don't think homeowners are going to want 2 steel posts, although they are a good idea. 3 MR. ENGELBKECHT: Yeah, ye, ah. No, no. Right. 4 I'm talking about the right-of-way areas. 5 MR. SANDLIN: That's actually smart to do. 6 MR. ENGELBRECHT: I'm assuming that this -- 7 ultimately, this fence will be turned over to a 8 homeowner's association that you will have established and. 9 they're going to have to maintain this thing. 10 MR. SANDLIN: Right. 11 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Okay. And while you're 12 here, I want to ask a question of staff and maybe you can 13 answer this. Is there any construction going to take 14 place in the environmentally sensitive areas that are 15 associated with this particular tract? 16 MR. GRAY: If I remember correctly, whatever 17 environmentally sensitive areas there might be would be 18 along the -- 19 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Right, tho green area. 20 MR. ORAY: -- this creek bed right here. 21 There would be some construction, there is proposal for, I 22 believe, a drainage easement right here. I think that 23 would be a concrete-lined drainage easement. I would have 24 to speak with the drainage engineer about that. 25 MR. ENGELBRECHT: okay. Page 66 I MR. GRAY: The grass-lined, okay. And then in 2 the detention area itself, obviously, there will be some 3 construction there when the detention pond is being 4 constructed. 5 MR. ENGELBRECHT: okay. All right. That will 6 be the only real intrusions into the ESA. 7 MR. SANDLIN: Right. And getting back to the 8 regional detention pond, I'm working on a letter or an 9 option agreement to give the City so they have a certain 10 amount of time where you don't have to buy it immediately. 11 And we worked out where I'm going to give them a year's 12 time to work out the financing and we just need to get 13 that going. But that is something that we've agreed to in 14 principle. Now, it's just let the attorneys do all that. 15 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Sure. I understand. And I 16 really appreciate you-all working with the City in terms 17 of those detention ponds. We're moving in that direction 18 and I think they'll do a lot for managing our drainage. 19 Of course, in these days, we don't need much management 20 but, hopefully, that will change at some point in time. 21 I'd asked about -- you have no masonry standards or 22 requirements? 23 MR. SANDLIN: Typically, in the deed 24 restrictions, and I haven't come up with the deed 25 restrictions yet, but typically what I put in is the Page 67 I minimum that I'm going to make them do is 70 percent 2 masonry on the bottom. If you have a two-story, you don't 3 make them do masonry around the whole, but you say if it's 4 a one-story, at least 70 percent of it has to be masonry. 5 That's pretty standard and I think a lot of your 6 communities in here, when they do do the deed 7 restrictions, that's what they come up with. 8 MR. ENGELBRECHT: All right~ Okay. Thank 9 you. Any other questions? Ms. Gourdie. 10 MS. GOURDIE: Thank you. I'm curious about 11 the north side where you begin on your general retail, 12 your future office and so forth. I see transmission lines 13 but I also see that the transmission lines cut through 14 part of the tract. Is there buffering there? 15 MR. LEE: Actually, what we've done is the 16 transmission lines are acting as a boundary between the 17 office and the single-family. Except on that one corner, 18 General Retail tract, of course, it cuts through the 19 middle of that. But the transmission line here acts as 20 the buffer. And in this section, it continues on down, it 21 actually isolates the distance. And if you'll notice, 22 there's actually two transmission lines, one here and one 23 here, and those both act as pretty significant isolation 24 between the single-family and the future multi-family. 25 MS. COUP, Dm: So do you have anything planned Page 68 1 for the General Retail which is abutting the single-family 2 Block 1 and Block 2 and a portion of Block 3? 3 MR. LEE: Those are isolated areas divided by 4 another collector at this point in time. And so it's not 5 a residential street at this point in time, a local 6 residential based on the Thoroughfare Plan requirements. 7 MS. COURDIE: SO there is a road going in 8 there. Thank you. 9 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Any other questions? I'd' 10 like to come back with one. I know that you have a single 11 front yard setback on here, as I see this plan laid out, 12 which basically follows our Subdivision Regulation. But 13 we've been talking about having offsetting or offering the 14 option for offsetting setbacks so that, in essence, all 15 the homes are lined up dress-right-dress, if you will. 16 And I didn't know whether that was anything you do 17 sometimes or have considered doing or would like to do in 18 this project. 19 Ma. SANOLIN: well, any flexibility -- I mean, 20 a lot of times people complain that developments are all 21 the .same, these cookie-cutter deals, and it always is the 22 developer's fault. But it's really not the developer's 23 fault because what happens, we as a City make these 24 ordinances that kind of force you into these cookie-cutter 25 designs. You know, you have to follow this ordinance, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 2000 Page 65 - Page 68 31. CondenseltTM Page 69 1 this ordinance, this ordinance, and this ordinance. Any 2 flexibility you can give someone to be a little bit more 3 creative, I think is always appreciated. I can't tell you 4 whether my builders would be interested or not but it sure 5 would be nice to offer the flexibility because none of us 6 really like to see cookie-cutter subdivisions. We'd like 7 to see them with a little bit more pizzazz. I like to see 8 subdivisions where the streets aren't all just straight. 9 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Any suggestions on 10 variability in terms of what wording we might put in here 11 to allow that? 12 MR. SANDLIN: YOU know, it almost has to be 13 done in the concept of a Ptm, unfortunately. And a lot of 14 people don't like ~'tm's because you get tied -- they don't 15 like them because you get tied down to so many different 16 things. I sit on that side a lot and as a City you like a 17 PLm becanse then you know what you'm getting. ButI 18 would think that's really about the only way, that's the 19 only tool you have as a City is your ?tm ordinance because 20 then it's going to give you the flexibility to do all of 21 those things you're talking about. 22 MR. ENGELBRECHT: okay. I have one other 23 question. I want to hand you this little -- because it's 24 a small rendering and I drew it on them, you'll see three 25 green lines on there, and Mr. Gray can trace those out on Page 70 1 the map. My concem was, I've had a concern for a long 2 time that, first off, our Subdivision Regulations with 3 regard to the maximum block length is way too much. And 4 yours is less than that but my thought is that it's nice 5 to allow the community to move about so they can 6 communicate better with one another in terms of -- if 7 they're going to have a homeowner's association, they're 8 going to have to communicate. And I was looking at three 9 streets that appear to me to be rather long and if them 10 were some sort of a walkway in them -- them's, I think, 11 one mom, Mr. Gray, or did you get the third one? There's 12 three. 13 MR. GRAY: l just see three, one, two, three. 14 MR. ENGELBRECHT: okay, you got them. Okay. 15 If there were some sort of a pass-through in there, it 16 would allow the ability for those folks to move about and 17 conmmnicate with one another a little more, with a little 18 more ease, without having to move so far to get around 19 blocks and that sort of thing. 20 MR. SANDLIN: We can easily scoot it -- I'll 21 play the devil's advocate here. Just as soon as we do it, 22 then someone's going to complain that it's too easy for 23 someone, you know, your thieves to get around from one to 24 another and sneak around. And I did this in Bedford one 25 time and I wanted to make these -- because I had a long Page 71 I easement and I wanted people to get to them. And we 2 struggled with it a long time because what happens is, 3 say, you give five, eight feet, and what happens is those 4 homeowners aren't going to get on either side. And then 5 what are they going to do? They're going to put their 6 fences up on each side. So now you've got this alleyway 7 cutting in between. 8 MR. ENGELBRECHTi okay. 9 MR. SANDLIN: Okay. So now it's dark and 10 you've got this unlit fenced scary area to go through. 11 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Okay. I got you. 12 MR. SANDLrN: I went ahead and did it in 13 Bedford because I wanted the -~ we had to get to this 14 sidewalk that was really our park area. We had no choice. 15 But that's what was brought up and that was a legitimate 16 concern. 17 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Okay. 18 MR. SANDLIN: I agree with what you're saying. 19 It's just -- 20 MR. ENGELBRECHT: It's just the offsetting 21 side. 22 MR. SANDLIN: Yeah. 23 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Okay. All right. Thank 24 you. Thank you. I think that's all the questions. Thank 25 you. Page 72 1 MR. SANDLIN: Thank you. 2 MR. ENGELBRECHT: IS there anyone present who 3 would like to speak in favor of this petition? Anyone 4 pm,sent to speak in favor of the petition? In that case, 5 is them anyone to speak in opposition to the petition? 6 Anyone to speak in opposition? Seeing no opposition, we 7 waive the rebuttal period. The public hearing is closed. 8 Mr. Gray, any staff remarks? 9 MR. GRAY: Yeah, just a couple of minor 10 things. I have an environmentally sensitive areas map. 11 And if you can see right here, this is what would be 12 considered the environmentally sensitive area within the i 3 subdivision. And that would be wholly contained by the 14 drainage facility and the drainage easement. Of course, 15 them are City and Federal and whatever regulations about 16 building in the floodplain. The reason it is an 17 environmentally sensitive area, of course, is because it's 18 in a floodplain. So it's all contained within the 19 drainage facility. 20 I also just wanted to point out that in the 21 conCePt plan, and I believe on page 12 in your backup, 22 there is, in regards to masonry, there's a requirement, a 23 condition that says that the exterior walls of all 24 buildings shall be constructed of 1 O0 percent brick or 25 masonry materials. Going back and reading the minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 8,2000 Page 69 - Pag~ 72 Condcnsolt TM Page 73 1 there might be some debate as to whether or not that 2 should have said "all office buildings." But the way the 3 ordinance is written by now, there is a masonry 4 requirement. $ MR. ENGELBRECHT: well, this reads 100 6 percent. 7 MR. GRAY: uh-huh. It says 100 percent. It 8 does not -- go back and find it -- it does not 9 differentiate between -- it says "all buildings." It 10 doesn't differentiate between office buildings up here and 11 residential buildings. I read the minutes of the City 12 Council report and it seemed like -- or the City Council 13 meeting where this was discussed, and it seems like that 14 was a requirement for -- was being considered for office 15 buildings. So I don't know if there's an error in the 16 ordinance. 17 MR. ENGELBRECHT: But that's not what the 18 ordinance states. 19 MR. GRAY: Thc ordinance states "all." 20 MR. ENGELBRECHT: So if we don't make a 21 condition on this detailed plan, then this prevails, does 22 it not? 23 MR. GRAY: I believe so. I'll defer to Mr. 24 Snyder. 25 MR. POWELL: If I may. Page 74 1 MR. ENGELBRECHT: okay. Mr. Powell would like 2 to make a comment and then we'll ask Mr. Snyder. 3 MR. POWELL: well, I was going to suggest 4 since this condition, there is some dispute whether or not 5 that should be just applied to the commercial, and there 6 might be an amending ordinance that changes that, I think 7 the Planning Commission might want to consider an 8 additional amendment or condition for just -- that spells 9 out for the residential so in case this ordinance, the 10 condition contained is changed, we'll still have that 11 fail-back, which may happen. 12 MR. ENGELBRECHT: All right. Okay. Mr. 13 Snyder, any additional comment to that? 14 MR. SNYDER: NO. 15 MR. ENGELBRECHT: okay. All right. Thank 16 you. Yes, did you have other comments, Mr. Gray? 17 MR. THOMAS: The only other comment I had 18 was public notification. I have received since -- in the 19 last few days, I have received six responses; five in 20 favor, one opposed. I can pass these around if you're 21 interested in seeing them. 22 MR. ENOELnm~CHT: All right. If you would. 23 And, obviously, that is nowhere near 20 percent? 24 MR. GRAY: NO. And, otherwise, staff 25 recommends approval. Page 75 1 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Commissioners, any final 2 questions for staff?. If not, are there any comments or a 3 motion? Mr. Risbel. 4 MR. RISHEL: I'm concerned that if we don't 5 set some sort of a recommendation on the masonry, both 6 upstairs and downstairs, we're going to get another · 7 subdivision that looks like something that we have out on 8 1830 and I'm very much concerned about that. But let's 9 see if we can get something in the form of a motion here 10 and we'll see if we can work with it. So I'd like to move ! 1 to recommend approval of Z-99-010 -- 12 MR. ENGELBRECHT: How about 1017 13 MR. RISHEL: 101,excuse me, 101 with the 14 recommendation that 70 percent of the first floor 15 structure and 50 percent of thc second floor structure be 16 masonry and that the other siding surfaces be varied in 17 color. And that the fencing, the major posting on thc 18 fencing along the public right-of-way areas be 50 foot in 19 distance with posting to be steel posts and the major 20 decorative posting to be masonry or stone work, 50 foot on 21 spacing. 22 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Does that conclude the 23 motion? 24 MR. RISHEL: Probably not. 25 MR. ENGELBRECHT: We'll wait a minute. Page 76 I MR. RISHEL: But I'd go for a second if 2 somebody had one. 3 MR. MCNEILL: I'll second it. 4 MR. ENGELBRECHT: okay. We have a motion to 5 recommend approval with conditions. I hope you-all 6 remember what those are. And if not, we'll ask. And we 7 have a motion and second. Is there any discussion on the 8 motion? It would appear not. 9 MR. MORENO: MI'. Chairman. I0 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Yes. 11 MR. MORENO: I'd like to see the responses 12 before I vote. 13 MS. APPLE: Yeah. 14 MR. ENGELBRECHT: All right. We can do that. 15 Yes, Mr. Powell, did you have a comment? 16 MR. POWELL: Yes. I think, and I obviously 17 don't want to change your condition, but the spacing of 18 the blasters along Nicosia Drive, is that to be a maximum 19 of 50 feet so if, in essence, there was a spacing issue, 20 that they could have them less than 50 but 50 would be the 21 rnaxhnmn spacing? 22 MR. RISHEL: I think it's the word "minimum 23 spacing" we're looking for. They would be at least every 24 50 foot. 25 MR. ENGELBRECHT: If they're at least every 8,2000 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH Page 73 - Page 76 33. CondcnscltTM I 50, then you'd want a maximum of 50 feet. 1 2 MR. ~aSH~L: The minimum spacing would be 50 3 foot. 4 MR. ENGELBRECHT: NO, the maximum spacing 5 would be 50 foot. 6 MR. RISHEL: okay. One of the other things 7 that I've noticed in some of the quality subdivisions 7 8 we've been trying to take a look at is that not 8 9 necessarily do their fences all mn in a straight line. I 9 10 see a lot of situations where they're running fences and 10 11 they jigger and they jog to accommqdate landscape, they 11 12 jog to accommodate trees that might be along the fence 12 13 line in the process of trying to save those. So we'd like 13 14 to see that happen more often. 14 15 MR. ENGELBRECHT: NOW I must go back and ask, 15 16 the wording is "a maximum of 50 feet" so they would be at16 17 most 50 feet apart but could be less if they needed to do17 18 that. 18 19 MR. RISHEL: At the most, 50 feet apart. 19 20 MR. ENGELBRECHT: All right. I'm just trying 20 21 to understand where we are. Any other discussion on the 21 22 motion while the letters are being passed down? It 23 appears not. Okay. Yes. 24 MR. MCNEILL: The numbers were five and one, 25 five in favor and one opposed? MR. GRAY: CO1Tect. MR. ENGELBRECHT; If thoro ~ no other comments, vote, please. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you, Mr, Gray, MIL GRAY: Thank you. Page 78 i0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 8 which is to hold a public hearing consider making a recommendation to the City Council the re-zoning of approximately 8.3 acres, as ~ Addition, from a Planned southwest corner r Lane, or Teasley Lane River. It's an interesting intersection, public hearing and ask Mr, with the staff report and also brief comment . to is in MR. 1 Thc Denton. on pD-16 and it is at the comer of r and Teasley because at one came around at an intersection and it was still cnl!~l Teasley Lane. We are looking -- the latest, I'm needs their memory refreshed about Wal-Mart, but that was the latest case that zonmg case that was brought forward on this er>. since that time, as I said, City initiated a zoning petition. This ~ advertised Service. And upon further the Office, staff is now Service, which provide the get does same flexibility as opportunities to being flexibility to mtailwith 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ; on this site instead of Office comer, here's your the And, again, it could ground-story effect. is 8.3 acres. The ; PD square fo [ that that would be the for the site that whatever we it would still be able to permit that To review, the area as an existing residential and full compatible the draw. We feel that the -- most closely resembles that site. It does allow some retail and they are intended to be Service identity as limit the size ~ square feet with what a The trip with the generated over retail and office trips per day. keeping in the this parcel. one: would again, ; condition. page 5 of They are fairly extent. ; would rezone the entire parcel that the area shall be 86,200 square feet with no : 80,200 square feet were developed · commercial, it would have day. With a mix of general that to closer tO 2,500 . for be in effect for in kin to what the original, the latest plans had shown for this site. If you recall, it was a big box, conditions, i AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 2000 Page 77 - Page 80 · 34. ATTACHMENT 3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 86- 173 TO PROVIDE FOR A DETAILED PLAN FOR 162.527 ACRES LOCATED WITHIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 120 (PD-129) ZONING DISTRICT; THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEING LOCATED BETWEEN NORTH ELM STREET (US 77) AND LOOP 288 ROUGHLY 1500 FEET WEST OF NORTH LOCUST (FM 2164); PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (Z-99-101). WHEREAS, on September 2, 1986, by Ordinance 86-173, the City Council approved a change in zoning for 412.12 acres of land to Planned Development 120 (PD-120) Zoning District; and WHEREAS, on October 6, 1998, by Ordinance 98-324, the City Council approved an amended Concept Plan for 270.48 acres of land located within PD-120; and WHEREAS, on December 14, 1999, CIVILworks Engineering, on behalf of Locust/288 Partners, LTD., submitted a Detailed Plan for 162.527 acres of land located within PD-120 with the intent to develop a single-family residential subdivision; and WHEREAS, on March 8, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of a Detailed Plan for such 162.527 acres; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Detailed Plan will be consistent with the concept plan, and satisfies the requirements of Sections 35-136 and 35-155 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 86-173 providing for the approval of a Planned Development Zoning District Classification and Use Designation for the property described as PD-120 is amended by approving the Detailed Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit B for 162.527 acres located within PD-120, more particularly described by the legal description attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: 70% of the ground floor exterior and 50% of the second floor exterior of each house shall be of a qualified masonry material. Other siding surfaces shall be varied in color. 2. Fencing or screening along Nic0sia shall be reinforced by steel posts and shall feature masonry columns at a maximum of 50' on center. SECTION 2. The provisions of this ordinance as they apply to the 162.527 acres shown in the detailed plan herein approved, shall govern and control over any conflicting provisions of Ordinance No. 86-173 and Ordinance No. 98-324, but all the provisions of Ordinance No. 86- 173 and Ordinance No. 98-324, as they apply to that remaining portion of the district not herein amended, shall continue in force and effect and shall apply to the remainder of said district. SECTION 3. A copy of this ordinance shall be attached to Ordinance No. 86-173 showing the amendment herein approved. SECTION 4. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record Chronicle, official newspaper of the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2000. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: ~~ 36. EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL'%" Being a tract of land situated in the Thomas Toby Survey Abstract No. 1288 and the B.B.B. & C.R.R. Co. Survey, Abstract No. 186, City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, said tract of land also being Tract II and a portion of Tract I as deeded to Locust/288 Partners, Ltd. recorded in County Clerk's No. 99-0025993 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas, said tract of land being described by metes and bounds as follows: BEGINNING at a set 5/8 inch capped iron rod CBHB INC") on the East right-of-way line of Terlingua Street, a 40 foot road as dedicated on the final plat of Texas Instruments Addition, Lot 1, Block 1, as recorded in Cabinet G, Slide 48 of said Deed Records, from said set 5/8 inch capped iron rod ("BHB INC"), a found 5/8 inch iron rod in Riney Road, being the southwest comer of a tract of land as deeded to KDRC II, Limited PartnerShip, recorded in County Clerk's No. 94-0066002 of said Deed Records, bears South 00 degrees 54 minutes 11 seconds West, a distance of 254.91 feet; THENCE North 00 degrees 54 minutes 11 seconds East, along said East right-of-way line, passing at 682.24 feet, a found 1/2 inch iron rod, being the southwest comer of said Tract II, and continuing in all a distance of 2267.51 feet to a found 1/2 inch iron rod at the northwest comer of said Tract II, from said found 1/2 inch iron rod at the northwest corner of said Tract II a found TXDOT monument (4" brass disk) bears, North 00 degrees 54 minutes 11 seconds East, a distance of 555.08 feet; THENCE South 89 degrees 05 minutes 08 seconds East, departing said East right-of-way line and along the North line of said Tract II, a distance of 574.89 feet to a found 1/2 inch iron rod at the northeast corner of said Tract II and being on the West line of said Tract I; THENCE North 08 degrees 01 minute 14 seconds East, along the West line of said Tract I, a distance of 83.48 feet to a point on the South line of a 75 foot easement deeded to Texas Municipal Power Agency recorded in Volume 1133, Page 859 of said Deed Records; THENCE South 62 degrees 31 minutes 57 seconds East, along the South line of said 75 foot easement, a distance of 1289.57 feet; THENCE South 89 degrees 25 minutes 05 seconds East, continuing along the South line of said 75 foot easement, a distance of 160.32 feet to the West line of a tract of land as deeded to. Denton 40 Joint Venture, recorded in Volume 2565, Page 72 of said Deed Records; THENCE South 01 degree 41 minutes 57 seconds West, along the West line of said Denton 40 Joint Venture tract, a distance of 56.31 feet to a found 1/2 inch iron rod at the southwest corner of said Denton 40 Joint Venture Tract, from said found 1/2 inch iron rod, a found 1/2 inch iron rod bears, South 53 degrees 33 minutes 50 seconds East, a distance of 2.33 feet; THENCE South 89 degrees 11 minutes 11 seconds East, along the South line of said Denton 40 Joint Venture tract, a distance of 1405.40 feet to a found 5/8 inch iron rod at a fence corner, being the northwest corner of a tract of land as deeded to Bob E. Tripp 37. and David E. Tripp, Trustees, recorded in Volume 996, Page 376 of said Deed Records, from said found 5/8 inch iron rod a found 1/2 inch iron rod, being the northeast corner of said Tdpp tract, bears South 89 degrees 17 minutes 11 seconds East, a distance of 1514.66 feet; THENCE South 01 degree 05 minutes 52 seconds West, along the West line of said Tripp tract, a distance of 1114.97 feet to a found 1/2 inch iron rod at the northeast corner Of Lot 2, Block A, Sandlin Addition, recorded in Cabinet O, Slide 132 of said Deed Records, from said found 1/2 inch iron rod, a found 1/2 inch capped iron rod ("COLEMAN"), being the southeast comer of said Lot 2, bears South 01 degree 05 minutes 52 seconds West, a distance of 862.16 feet; THENCE North 89 degrees 08 minutes 45 seconds West, along the North line of said Lot 2, a distance of 1524.81 feet to a found 1/2 inch iron rod at the northwest corner of said Lot 2; THENCE 'South 01 degree 06 minutes 21 seconds West, 'along the West line of said Lot 2, a distance of 862.28 feet to a point, said point being on the North line of Lot 6, Block A, Donna Del Estates as recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 186 of said Deed Records and on the South line of said Tract I, said point also being the southwest corner of said Lot 2, from said point a found 1/2 inch iron rod bears South 01 degree 06 minutes 21 seconds West, a distance of 0.50 feet, also from said point, a found 5/8 inch iron rod, being the northwest comer of Fallmeadow North Addition as recorded in Cabinet C, Slide 75 of said Deed Records, bears South 89 degrees 09 minutes 06 seconds East, a distance of 23.42 feet; THENCE North 89 degrees 09 minutes 06 seconds West, along the South line of said Tract I, passing at 973.78 feet a found 1/2 inch iron rod and continuing in all a distance of 1272.10 feet to a found 1/2 inch iron rod being the most southerly southwest comer of said Tract I; THENCE North 00 degrees 48 minutes 37 seconds East, along a West line of said Tract I, a distance of 124.87 feet to a set 5/8 inch capped iron rod ("BHB INC"); THENCE North 22 degrees 46 minutes 29 seconds West, along a West line of said Tract I, a distance of 207.56 feet to a found 1/2 inch iron rod; THENCE South 72 degrees 27 minutes 32 seconds West, along a South line of said Tract I, a distance of 175.51 feet to a set 5/8 inch capped iron rod ("BHB INC"); THENCE North 89 degrees 05 minutes 49 seconds West, along a South line of said Tract I, a distance of 249.79 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING containing 5,805,811 square feet or 133.283 acres. SAVE AND EXCEPT a tract of land situated in the Thomas Toby Survey, Abstract No. 1288, Denton County, Texas, being the same tract of land as deeded to the City of Denton recorded in Volume 556, Page 434 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas, said tract being described by metes and bounds as follows: COMMENCING at a point being the mo~t'southefly southeast corner of Tract I as deeded to Locust/288 Partners, Ltd recorded in County Clerk's No. 99-0025993 of said Deed Records and also 38. being the southwest corner of Lot 2, Block A, Sandlin Addition as recorded in Cabinet O, Slide 132 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas, from said point, a found 1/2 inch iron rod beare South 01 degree 06 minutes 21 seconds West, a distance of 0.50 feet; THENCE North 89 degrees 09 minutes 06 seconds West, along the South line of said Tract I, a distance of 973.78 feet to a found 1/2 inch iron rod; THENCE North 01 degree 13 minutes 57 seconds West, a distance of 62.13 feet to a found 1/2 inch iron rod, being the POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE North 89 degrees 04 minutes 16 seconds West, along the South line of said City of Denton tract, a distance of 200.02 feet to a found 1/2 inch iron rod; THENCE North 00 degrees 54 minutes 05 seconds East, along the West line of said City of Denton tract, a distance of 200.01 feet to a found 1/2 inch iron rod; THENCE South 89 degrees 03 minutes 33 seconds East, along the North line of said City of Denton tract, a distance of 200.16 feet to a found 1/2 inch iron rod; THENCE South 00 degrees 56 minutes 33 seconds West, along the East line of said City of Denton tract, a distance of 199.97 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING containing 40,017 square feet or 0.919 acre. LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL "B" Being all of Lot 2, Block A, Sandlin Addition as recorded in Cabinet O, Slide 132 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas. 39. EXHIBIT B 40. ""-' Ill · ~.I.. '~!~ m~lll~ ~111111 II,~l~ 't AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda Item Date ~-~ AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: April 4, 2000 Planning Department ~ Dave Hill, 349-7715 SUBJECT - SP-00-001: (Oak Tree Plaza Shopping Center) Consider approving a Project Plan for 1447 S. Loop 288. The 7.44 acm property is legally described as Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 of the Oak Tree Plaza Addition and is located on the southeast comer of Loop 288 and Spencer Road. Approximately 46,000 square feet of additional commercial and office development is proposed to the existing OfficeMax development. BACKGROUND A 23,500 square foot retail building, OffieeMax, is currently located on the subject property. It is between Lowe's Home Improvement Center to the north and Wal-mart to the south. The site backs to a largely undeveloped Agriculture property to the east. Small industrial and commercial properties lie to the west, across Loop 288. (See Attachments 1 and 2.) ~' The subject property is located in a commercial - conditioned (C[c]21) zoning district created in 1995. ~ Comprehensive Plan Analysis: The project site is located in a "Regional Mixed Use Center" district. New development in this district is intended to contain the shopping, services, recreation, employment, and institutional facilities supported by and serving an entire region. Staff finds the proposed use consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. ~ Ten (10) courtesy notices were mailed regarding the Project Plan request. PROJECT PLAN ANALYSIS The DRC and the planning staff have had several meetings with the applicant's design professionals to resolve a number of issues. All the technical requirements of a project plan are addressed on the Project Plan for Oak Tree Plaza and the plan meets the minimum requirements of City Codes. Staff has identified a number of areas of concern that could not be resolved in the meetings between staff and the applicant's representatives that should be addressed by City Council. They include: the architectural features of the building, access to the site, parking, landscaping and signage. Architecture Staff finds that the proposed architecture does not meet Project Plan Standards a.(3)(e)and(f). (See Attachment 7) While the textures and materials of the buildings are the same as the existing building, the lease area lacks visual diversity. Staff recommends the addition of one or more additional facade features to break the monotony of the lease spaces. Staffrecommends more windows or another feature to relieve the blank walls of PetSmart and to transition to the all glass portion of the elevation. As per Project Plan Standards (a) 3(e), facades should incorporate windows, jogs, offsets, or similar features to provide visual diversity. · Use of trees in the sidewalk in front of the stores in tree wells with iron grates, banners, and/or open space frames could be considered in front of all stores to soften the architecture and provide human scale. · No plaza or public open space is provided. Access · The proposed access on Loop 288 driveway directs all traffic to the front of the plaza creating unsafe pedestrian and vehicular movements. Although the proposed access to Loop 288 was approved with the previous plan, those approvals have expired and the proposed site design has changed (See Attachment 3). The applicant has revised the entry in an attempt to address staff's concern. (See Attachment 6). · The removal of the proposed Loop 288 access will save existing trees and allow for additional parking or open space. · Staff believes that the proposed Loop 288 access is not needed for this site to function properly. The plaza has access from the existing driveway to the north and the "Wal-mart" driveway to the south off of Spencer Rd. · Semi-truck deliveries to the proposed PetSmart are problematic. Trucks will be required to block the Spencer Road driveway and parking spaces while attempting to back into the loading dock. · The access from the Spencer Road driveway requires additional stacking per the subdivision code. (See Attachment 4) The applicant has revised the entry in an attempt to address staff's concern. (See Attachment 6). Landscaping · The applicant has proposed curbed islands in a number of locations in an attempt to save some of the existing trees. A slight rearrangement of parking spaces and curbed islands would allow more existing trees to be preserved. Parking · Although the proposed Project Plan meets the parking requirements of the code, the distribution and location of some of the parking spaces is problematic. > The 4 to 6 parking spaces located along the frontage of the plaza, across from the Loop 288 access drive, are unsafe because drivers have to back into that driveway. (See Attachment 3) ~ The total number of parking spaces is based on the assumption of 4,000 SF being leased for an office (the parking requirements for an office are less than retail/commercial requirements). This could create the need for a variance or require the space to remain empty if an office tenant does not lease that space. )~ Forty-three (43) parking spaces or approximately 20% of the new parking spaces are proposed in the rear of the plaza. This is an uneven distribution of parking spaces. Additionally, twenty-nine of these spaces back into the Spencer Road driveway. Staff feels that this driveway is utilized more like a road than a parking isle and this amount of parking spaces with direct access to the driveway is a safety issue. )~ There is an uneven distribution of parking spaces in the front of the plaza. Assuming that the lease space to the north of and including the proposed office space is leased as retail space the required parking for that area would be 74 spaces (14,877 SF/200). Only forty- eight (48) parking spaces are located in front of that space to the north of the proposed Loop 288 driveway. (See Attachment 5) Sienaee The existing "OfficeMax" sign located in the northwest comer of the site, adjacent to the Wal-Mart/OfficeMax driveway, has advertising space on it for the new tenants. An additional sign, which staff believes is not warranted, is proposed to the north of the new Loop 288 driveway. Staff Alternatives Staff acknowledges that the site has constraints, which requires creativity to produce a development that meets the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and Interim Development Regulations. Staff believes that there are design alternatives that are better suited for the constraints and opportunities of the site while still providing the developer with a successful project. One design solution would be to split the lease space and develop a building site (a stand alone building) in the northern comer of the site. The proposed Loop 288 driveway could then be extended to the Spencer Road driveway allowing for safer access to the site, providing a break in the architecture, solve the stacking problem associated with the Spencer Rd. driveway and providing functional parking spaces. Elements of the design scheme were contained in their previous site design. Another design alternative would be to rearrange the proposed lease space in a vertical manner, providing second story office space. This alternative would reduce the building coverage; thus freeing up additional area that could be utilized for appropriate parking, landscaping and/or public plazas. Further, this design alternative would provide massing that would balance the large scale of the OfficeMax and PetSmart structures. A third alternative, if other design alternative are not feasible, would be to reduce floor area and achieve a corresponding reduction in required parking and an increase in open space. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE An Amending Plat has been reviewed by DRC and has been tentatively scheduled for the April 12, 2000, P&Z meeting. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Approve with conditions. 3. Deny. 4. Postpone consideration. 5. Table item. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map. 2. Zoning Map. 3. Unsafe parking spaces 4. Spencer Road stacking 5. Parking associated with northern leased area. 6. Applicants revisions 7. Interim Nonresidential Ordinance - Project Plan Standards Prepared by: ~'La~./l~eichh'ar~ '/ Assistant Director of Planning Respectfully submitted: Director of Planning and Development OAK TREE PLAZA ATTACHMENT 1 NORTH Lowe's I Wal. Mart LOCATION MAP o Scale: None OAK TREE PLAZA ATTACHMENT 2 NORTH c(c) C LI Wal-Mart Lowe's C A ZONING MAP Scale: None ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 4 ATTACHMENT 5 .? ,I ZO 'd I 60~Ol~qL II3 'ON X¥_-I . ~ o: HH OOSS~ ~ HHIH Hd 83:80 flHi O0-OE-HgH ~RR-30-O0 ?HU 08:29 ?N WIER ~ RSSOO FN FRX NO, 8175402209 P. 03 ~AR-31-O0 FRI 09:14 A~ NIER ~ A$SOO FN FAX NO. 8175402209 P. 02/04 'x Fo-. ~RR-31-O0 PRI 09:14 h~ WIER & R$$00 FW FRX NO. 817S402209 P. 03/04 HhR-31-O0 FRI 09:14 ~H WIER & ~SSO0 FW FRX NO. 817~402209 P. 04/04 ATTACHMENT 7 SECTION D. PROJECT PLANS 1. Proiect Plan Requirements. Every nonresidential development application identified in Section A.2.b and which is not exempt under Section A.3 shall be accompanied by a project plan. In addition, every development application identified in Section A.2. a which deferred satisfaction of project plan requirements at the time of approval of the zoning plan must receive project plan approval prior to or contemporaneous with building permit approval. The project plan shall be the basis for the City Council's decision whether to approve, approve with conditions or deny the nonresidential development application, based upon the standards set forth in this section; provided that all other standards applicable to the nonresidential development application have been met. If the development application already contains the information and documents set forth in this section, then such application may be treated as a project plan and shall be evaluated under the standards in this section. If a Zoning Plan contains several parcels that the property owner intends to develop in a similar manner with similar design characteristics, Council shall review and approve the first Project Plan, and may specify the conditions under which subsequent Project Plan approvals may be approved by the Director of Planning & Development. If the application is approved or approved with conditions, the project plan shall be incorporated as a part of the approval. Any Project Plan shall be valid for twenty-four (24) months from the date of its approval. If no construction begins pursuant to a building permit within the twenty-four (24) months, the Project Plan shall automatically expire and no longer be valid. A project plan shall contain the following: All of the information contained in a zoning plan, which will be for informational purposes only. Street names and locations of all existing and proposed streets within or on the boundary of the proposed development, right-of-way, pavement widths, sidewalks, and bikeways. Lot layout with dimensions for all lot lines and lot area. Location and use of all proposed and existing buildings, driveways, fences and structures within the proposed development. Indicate which buildings are to remain and which are to be removed. Area calculations: (1) The total area in the development. (2) The gross floor area of all existing and proposed strucures. (3) Area and percentage of the total project area coverage by: i. Structures. ii. Streets, roads, and alleys. 15. go mo iii. Sidewalks. iv. Recreation areas. v. Landscaping. vi. The total area covered by tree canopy at maturity of the trees. vii. Parking areas. Location and size of all existing and proposed public utilities in and adjacent to the proposed development with the locations shown of: (1) Water lines and diameters. (2) Sewers, manholes and cleanouts. (3) Storm drains and catch basins. (4) Fire hydrants. (5) Access, location, and screening of all dumpsters. (6) Location and size of all public utility easements. Location, size, and use of contemplated and existing public areas within the proposed development. A topographic map of the site at a two-foot contour interval. Location of all parking areas and all parking spaces, ingress and egress on the site, and on-site circulation. Use designations for all areas not covered by buildings, parking, or landscaping. All information necessary to demonstrate compliance with the terms and/or conditions of Zoning Plan approval in relation to Environmentally Sensitive Areas. A landscape plan showing in detail the location, type, and size of the proposed landscaping and plantings, and all calculations necessary to indicate compliance with Chapter 31 of the Code of Ordinances. The elevations, surface area in sq. ft., illumination type, height, and construction (material and style), and locations of all proposed signs for the development. Architectural information as required by this section for all structures proposed within the Project Plan area. All Project Plans shall indicate the material, windows, doors, and other design features of proposed structures, including all visible mechanical equipment, such as for heating and cooling. Elevation drawings may be provided, and shall be submitted drawn to scale of one (1) inch equals ten (10) feet or greater. Text descriptions shall include performance standards that will apply to Project Plan structures as necessary to indicate compliance with the Project Plan standards. Any other information deemed necessary to analyze the project. Pro|ect Plan Standards. a. Minimum Pro|ect Plan Standards The following minimum standards of project design shall be addressed in the project plan: (1) Undereround Utilities - All developments must provide for undergrotmd utility installation, excepting electrical main sub-station feeders. 16. (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (il) Interconnected streets - Where applicable, all streets must connect to other streets at both ends, or provide for the future connection when adjacent to undeveloped property. Architecture - The nonresidential project shall employ an architectural design that is compatible with the physical dimensions and features of the subject property and with adjacent land uses, based on the following factors: (a) All buildings and structures comprising the project should have an integrated design; (b) Buildings generally shall be oriented toward the street, and major entranceways should face the street; (c) Building scale, including the height and bulk of structures, should be internally consistent and should be similar to the scale of adjacent nonresidential structures, if any; (d) Mechanical equipment and storage areas shall be screened from the street and from adjacent residential land; (e) Facades should incorporate windows, jogs, offsets or similar features to provide visual diversity; (f) Roofs, alcoves, porticos or awnings should be used where feasible to protect pedestrians from the effects of climate; and (g) Building materials should be internally consistent and compatible with the character of the area in which the project is located. Garage door orientation and setbacks - Garage doors should not face any adjacent street frontages, except alleys. Where site limitations preclude the opportunity to orient garage doors away from the street, other design measures should be employed to screen or minimize visibility from public rights-of-way. Access management principles should be employed to minimize traffic flow disruptions on collector and arterial streets. Street trees - One (1) street tree per 50 linear feet of lot boundary adjacent to a street. Pedestrian Circulation and Linkages - The Project Plan should provide safe and convenient pedestrian circulation appropriate to the proposed land use. Pedestrian linkages to adjacent properties should be facilitated in appropriate locations. Parking Visibility - Parking areas should be screened from public rights- of-way to the extent possible. When visible from public rights-of-way, parking areas should be organized in smaller sub-lots to avoid large, uninterrupted expanses of pavement. Lighting - Lighting shall be designed in a manner that will not shine upward, minimizing the diffusion of light into the atmosphere, and shall not shine on adjacent properties. Traffic calming devices - Approved traffic calming devices should incorporated into the street patterns where appropriate. Fences - Fencing should be treated as a design element, and be visually 17. (12) (13) appropriate for its proposed location. Attention should be paid to details such as use of qualified masonry products and design features as accent columns, articulation, or caps. If used along an arterial and collector streets, consideration should be given to openings in fences to provide visual entry into the project area. The use ofberms is encouraged. Landscaped area or art - Landscaped features such as fountains, gardens, or other features that enhance the project are encouraged. Art such as monuments or other sculptural objects that enhance the project may also be considered. Such elements should be visible and/or accessible to the public. Transit facilities - the provision of bus turn-outs and covered seating areas for bus riders should be considered, depending on site location, levels of activity, and type of site visitation. AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET April 4th, 2000 Planning & Developme~ment Dave Hill, 349-8314 Agenda No .... Agenda Item_ Date_ SUBJECT Consider and take action on a request for relief fxom the Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance 2000-069, for Audra Oaks. A 2.93 acre parcel located on the south side of Audra Lane west of Mockingbird. The proposal is for SF-7 zoning. (RR-00-05, Audra Oaks) BACKGROUND An application for request for relief from the Residential Interim Regulations has been received. (see Attachment 1). Background information regarding the current status of this case is provided in Attachment 2. Ordinance 2000-046, known as the Residential Interim Regulations, was adopted by City Council on February 1st, 2000. This ordinance contains standards with which residential development projects must comply until the Code Rewrite project is completed and pemmnent standards are adopted. Ordinances 2000-046 also contains a separate section that allows applicants to request relief from the interim regulations, including evaluation criteria to be used by Council: Section F. Relief Procedures 1. The applicant may petition the City Council for relief from these interim development regulations by requesting such relief in writing. 2. The City Council shall not relieve the applicant from the requirements of this ordinance, unless the applicant first presents credible evidence from which the City Council can reasonably conclude that the imposition of the residential density limitations or other development standards deprives the applicant of a vested property right or deprives the applicant of the economically viable use of his land. 3. In deciding whether to grant relief to the applicant, the City Council shall take into consideration the following: (a) whether granting relief from the residential density limitations or other development standards contained in these interim development regulations, in the absence of permanent revisions to the City's Land Development Code that implement the provisions of the comprehensive plan jeopardizes the City's best interests in preventing such effects; (b) the suitability of the proposed residential uses in light of land uses allowed in the zoning districts on property adjacent to the proposed site; (c) the impact of the proposed residential use on the transportation and other public facilities systems affected by the development; (d) the measures proposed to be taken by the applicant to prevent negative impacts of the proposed use on the neighborhood; (e) the likelihood that sufficient relief will be provided to the applicant following adoption of the City's Development Code; (f) the total expenditures made in connection with the proposed residential development in reliance on prior regulations, including the costs of installing infrastructure to serve the project; (g) any fees reasonably paid in connection with the proposed use; (h) any representations made by the City conceming the project and reasonably relied upon to the detriment of the applicant The City Council may take the following actions: (a) deny the relief request; (b) grant the relief request; or (c) grant the relief request subject to conditions consistent with the criteria set forth in this section. 5. Any relief granted by the City Council shall be the minimum deviation from ordinance requirements necessary to prevent deprivation of a vested property right. OPTIONS Council may either: 1. Deny the request for relief, or 2. Grant the request for relief, or 3. Grant the request for relief, subject to conditions consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in the ordinance (and referenced above). RECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends that the decision of whether or not to grant the requests for relief should be based on the merits of each individual application. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Review schedules are discussed in the attachments. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW Two petitions were reviewed on March 7, 2000: 1. Shadow Brook Place - approved 2. Beverly Park Estates - approved One petition was reviewed on February 15, 2000: 1. Golden Triangle Joint Venture (Z-99-096) - approved FISCAL INFORMATION The petitions are being processed and brought to Council using existing staff resources. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff report Respectfully submitted: Director of Planning and Development WAIVER REQUEST STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT 1 Subiect: Audra Oaks Staff: Larry Reichhart Case Number: RR-00-05 BACKGROUND: Request: Location: Zoning: Acreage: Platting: Comp Plan Consistency: Relief from the Residential Interim Regulations (Ordinance No. 00-046) to submit a PD Detailed Plan for "SF-7" type zoning. South of Audra Lane west of Mockingbird Agricultural (A) (see Enclosure 2) 2.93 acres The property is not platted. The subject site is located in the Existing Neighborhoods/Infill Compatibility district. New development in this district should respond to existing development with compatible land uses, patterns and design standards. Staff finds the development consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, the design may be consistent and can be determined at the Detailed Plan stage. CONCLUSION: If the relief request is granted the applicant will be required to submit a PD Detailed Plan for rezoning (for review and approval at P&Z and City Council) and then preliminary and final plats prior to development. If the relief request is not granted the application will be required to submit a zoning plan and a project plan as well as preliminary and final plats prior to development. ENCLOSURES: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Application Audra Oaks ENCLOSURE 1 NORTH AUDRA LOCATION MAP Scale: None ENCLOSURE 2 Audra Oaks NORTH AUDRA PD-127 ZONING MAP Scale: None McCullar Realty, Inc 30~ Dallas Drive Suite 4t? Denton, Texas 76205 940 387 7524 Febmary29, 2000 City of Denton Mayor Jack Miller 215 E. McKinney Street Denton, Texas 76205 Re.: Relief from interim development regulations Dear Mr. Miller, I am petitioning the City Council for relief from the interim development regulations. We have attached the application, and property location infom~ation. The 2.93 Acre parcel is next to an established "starter home" neighborhood zoned for a minimum of 5,000 and 6,000 square foot lots. We feel the area is generally well maintained and would support development of similar entry level housing. With SF-7 type zoning we feel we can meet the goal of providing affordable lots to small local builders. With the lower density under the interim development regulations, lot costs would dictate housing which is out of scale with the neighborhood values. To approve our request it is our understanding that the Council shall consider the following items under Section F. paragraph 3 of the relief procedures: Item (a) "whether granting relief from the residential density limitations or other deVelopment standards contained in these interim development regulations, in the absence of permanent revisions to the City's Land Development Code that implement the provisions of the comprehensive plan jeopardizes the City's best interests in preventing such effect;" At~er additional discussions with the City of Denton Planning Staff, it is our understanding that the subject property is designated on the most recent Master plan as "Infill compatible" area. Our development proposal will exceed the ~tandard~ in the adjacent d~v~lopcd ama and provid~ a transition to ~n~ourage continued upgrades in the quality of development on the adjacent undeveloped property. Item ( b ) "the suitability of the proposed residential uses in light of the land uses allowed in the zoning districts on property adjacent to the proposed site;'' Our propOsal will be for similar land uses. Our proposal will have larger lots 'and development standards that exceed the established development standards in the adjacent developed property. Item (c) "The impact of the proposed residential use on the transportation and other public facilities systems affected by the development;" This project is a very small infill development. The total trips generated are significantly less than 1% of the capacity of any standard City of Denton Street. We anticipate that Impacts to other public facilities will be minor due to the limited scope of our proposed development. Item (d) "the measures proposed to be taken by the applicant to prevent negative impacts of the proposed use on the neighborhood;" . With the proposed compatible land use and similar design standards ~ve do not foresee any negative impacts on the adjacent neighborhood. If allowed to proceed we will correct the non-standard dead end street situation at the end of Beverly Drive. Item (e) "the likelihood that sufficient relief w'dl be provided to the applicant following adoption of the City's Development Code;" Without relief from the Interim Development Regulations I will not be able to continue my business of providing affordable lots to small local builders. Item (f) "the total expenditure made in connection with the proposed residential development in reliance on prior regulations, including the costs of installing infrastructure to serve the project;" This property was put under contract last summer assuming development in accordance with the development guide lines which were in place at that time. Item (g) "any fees reasonably paid in connection with the proposed use;" I have met with the City of Denton Development Review Committee and paid the appropriate fee. Item (h) "any representations made by the City concerning the project and reasonably relied upon to the detriment of the applicant." Only as noted above. We appreciate the opportunity to request relief from the interim regulations. We feel that our proposal will be compatible to the existing residential land uses and that we will be able to institute development standards that will be able to expand and strengthen the existing neighborhood. cgnV July 15, 1999 City of Denton Planning and Development Department City Hall West 211 North Elm Denton, Texas 76201 Re: 2.93 Acres on Audra Lane This letter will certify that MeCullar Realty, Inc. has my property under contract and has my authorization to obtain zoning and platting of this property. Sincerely, Tim Mayrath t~ v 810 Pelican Coppell, Texas 75019 INTERIM ORDINANCE RELIEF APPLICATION FORM Date: APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDINANCE NO. 2000-046 Project Name: Audra Oaks Project Address (Location): Audra Lane Existing Use: AG Vacant Proposed Use: · I fill Existing Comprehensive Plan Des~gn~on: C cmp~. t i b i cGross Acres: Existing Zonin~ AG Proposed Zonin~ SEE RELIEF PROCEDURES ON BACK U'I'LIt. dMN 1 IINI~UI%btlZ%.IIUiN Single Family 2.94 acres SF 7 Applicmt: Carl G. McCullar Ad&ess: 301 Dallas Drive O~ Denton State: TX Comp~ McCullar Realty, The 41:387 7524 F~: 383 0477 ZIP: 76205 Em~: PropertyOwn~: Tim Mayrath Ad&ess: 810 Pelican O~ Coppell State: TX Compan~ Speciality Financial Td: 436 6468 Fm 219 1224 ZIP: 75019 Em~: Contact: Carl McCullar Ad&ess: 301 Dallas Drive Denton Stye: Tx Compan)n McCullar Realty, Inc. Td: 387 7524 ZIP: 76205 EmaC: SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER OR APPLICANT [~etter st aumorization requ~ed if signature is omer property owner) PdntorT~eName: Carl G. McCullar Subscribed and sworn before me this _~day of (6~){I/t~l~ 20~1) 0 Notai7 Public ' For Departmental Use Only Case Manager:. Total Fee(s): Receipt No: Date Submitted: Accepted By: Fora ~e& 2/20O0 APPLICATION DEADLINE IS WEDNESDAYS AT 10:00 AM. 10. Application Requirements: ORD NO 2000-046, Section F. The applicant may petition the City Coundl for relief from these (Ord. No. 2000-046) interim development regulations by requesting such relief in writing. The City Council shall not relieve the applicant from the requirements of (Ord. No. 200-046), unless the applicant first presents credible evidence from which the City Council can reasonably conclude that the imposition of the residential density limitations or other development standards deprives the applicant of a vested property right or deprives the applicant of the economically viable use of their land. The applicant is requested to submit sufficient information addressing the following criteria. The applicant will also be responsible in making their case before City Council. In deciding whether to grant rdief to the applicant, the City Coundl shall take into the consideration the fo[lowing: [] Whether granting relief from the residential density limitations or other development standards contained in these interim development regulation, in the absence of permanent revisions to the City's Land Development Code that implement the provisions of the comprehensive plan, jeopardizes the City's best interests in preventing such effects; The suitability of the proposed residential uses in light of land uses allowed in the zoning districts on property adjacent to the proposed site; The impact of the proposed residential use on the transportation and other public facilities systems affected by the development; [] The measures proposed to be taken by the applicant to prevent negative impacts of the proposed use on the neighborhood; [] The likelihood that suffident relief will be provided to the applicant following adoption of the City's Development Code; [] The total expenditures made in connection with the proposed residential development in reliance on prior regulations, including the costs of installing infrastructure to serve the project; Any fees reasonably paid in connection with the proposed use; [] [] Any representations made by the City concerning the project and reasonably relied upon to the detriment of the applicant. The City Council may take the following actions: (a) denythe relief request; (b) grant the relief request; or (c) grant the relief request subject to conditions consistent with the criteria set forth in Ord. No. 2000-046. Any relief granted by the City Co,moil shall be the minimum deviation from ordinance requirements necessary to prevent deprivation of a vested property right. SlGiX~ .certifyixlg tJa~t these.~gulations have been read and understood by the applicant. 0( fft .' O PRJNT or TYPE NAME o~wl g. ~eO.u~ar VICINITY MAP ±1"= 2000' Audra Oaks 2.940 ACRES SITUATEI) 1N 1'HE MEP & PRR CO. SURVEY, ABSTRACT fl1473 CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COLIN'FY, TEXAS 12. AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET April 4th, 2000 Planning & Developm~artment Dave Hill, 349-8314'~ ~ ~q~l Agenda No. Agenda Item Date y'.. SUBJECT Consider and take action on a request for relief from the Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance 2000-069, for 416 Bryan Street. The 0.432 acre site is located on the east side of Bryan Street approximately 110 feet south of Scripture. An apa~hnent complex is proposed. (RR-00-07, Belle Bryan Apartments) BACKGROUND An application for request for relief from the Residential Interim Regulations has been received. (see Attachment 1). Background information regarding the current status of this case is provided in Attachment 2. Ordinance 2000-046, known as the Residential Interim Regulations, was adopted by City Council on February 1st, 2000. This ordinance contains standards with which residential development projects must comply until the Code Rewrite project is completed and permanent standards are adopted. Ordinances 2000-046 also contains a separate section that allows applicants to request relief from the interim regulations, including evaluation criteria to be used by Council: Section F. Relief Procedures 1. The applicant may petition the City Council for relief from these interim development regulations by requesting such relief in writing. 2. The City Council shall not relieve the applicant from the requirements of this ordinance, unless the applicant first presents credible evidence from which the City Council can reasonably conclude that the imposition of the residential density limitations or other development standards deprives the applicant of a vested property right or deprives the applicant of the economically viable use of his land. 3. In deciding whether to grant relief to the applicant, the City Council shall take into consideration the following: (a) whether granting relief from the residential density limitations or other development standards contained in these interim development regulations, in the absence of permanent revisions to the City's Land Development Code that implement the provisions of the comprehensive plan jeopardizes the City's best interests in preventing such effects; (b) the suitability of the proposed residential uses in light of land uses allowed in the zoning districts on property adjacent to the proposed site; (c) the impact of the proposed residential use on the transportation and other public facilities systems affected by the development; (d) the measures proposed to be taken by the applicant to prevent negative impacts of the proposed use on the neighborhood; (e) the likelihood that sufficient relief will be provided to the applicant following adoption of the City's Development Code; (f) the total expenditures made in connection with the proposed residential development in reliance on prior regulations, including the costs of installing infrastructure to serve the project; (g) any fees reasonably paid in connection with the proposed use; (h) any representations made by the City concerning the project and reasonably relied upon to the detriment of the applicant The City Council may take the following actions: (a) deny the relief request; (b) grant the relief request; or (c) grant the relief request subject to conditions consistent with the criteria set forth in this section. OPTIONS Council may either: 1. 2. 3. 5. Any relief granted by the City Council shall be the minimum deviation from ordinance requirements necessary to prevent deprivation of a vested property right. Deny the request for relief, or Grant the request for relief, or Grant the request for relief, subject to conditions consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in the ordinance (and referenced above). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the decision of whether or not to grant the requests for relief should be based on the merits of each individual application. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Review schedules are discussed in the attachments. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW Two petitions were reviewed on March 7, 2000: 1. Shadow Brook Place - approved 2. Beverly Park Estates - approved One petition was reviewed on February 15, 2000: 1. Golden Triangle Joint Venture (Z-99-096) - approved FISCAL INFORMATION The petitions are being processed and brought to Council using existing staff resources. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff report Respectfully submitted: Director of Planning and Development WAIVER REQUEST STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT 1 Subject: Belle Bryan Apartments Staff: Larry Reichhart Case Number: RR-00-07 BACKGROUND: Request: Relief from the Residential Interim Regulations (Ordinance No. 00-046) to submit for a building permit to construct a fourteen (14) unit apartment complex with an density of approximately 32 units per acre. 416 Bryan Street (see Enclosure 1) MF-1 (see Enclosure 2) 0.432 acres The property is not platted. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this property to be within the "Downtown University Core District. This area is intended to have a mix of educational, residential, retail, office, service, government, cultural and entertainment development. Staff finds the development consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, the design may be consistent and can be determined at the Detailed Plan stage. CONCLUSION: If the relief request is granted the applicant will be required to submit preliminary and final plats prior to development. If the relief request is not granted the application will be required to submit a zoning plan and a project plan as well as preliminary and final plats prior to development. Location: Zoning: Acreage: Platting: Comp Plan Consistency: ENCLOSURES: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Application Belle Bryan Apartments ENCLOSURE 1 NORTH S~ EGAN LOCATION MAP Scale: None Belle Bryan Apartments ENCLOSURE 2 NORTH ZONING MAP Scale: None Se ENCLOSURE 3 Scott Richter General Contractor, Inc. $25 $. Carroll ~lvd., Suite 204 Denton, [exas 7620! (940) 898-8784 March 14, 2000 City of Denton City Council Denton, Texas 76201 Dear Council Members: On January 25, 1999 we completed the process for plan design and engineering for an apartment complex to be located at 416 Bryan Street and were ready to submit this project for a building permit. Due to tragic and unexpected deaths of the owner's father and mother, this project was placed on hold until family matters had been taken care of. When we went to apply for the building permit, Mr. Mitchell informed us that we now did not meet the requirements under the new interim ordinance. The ordinance calls for 8 units per acre. If this family tragedy had not occurred, the plans would have been approved and the project would have been completed by now. This property is located in the central business district (which staffhas indicated to me is a high density area). Nearly every house on Bryan Street is a rent house and there are 7 apm hnent complexes. The densities in this area are shown as follows: Address Units per acre 225 Bryan Street 30 309 Bryan Street 42 403 Bryan Street 30 218 Bryan Street 28 410 Bryan Street 26 Proposed 416 Bryan Street 32 This plan is unique in that the parking lot is at the side of the building, not in the front as most are on this street. There is plenty of green area on this proposed plan where most of the existing buildings are concrete from property line to property line. The buildings are to be 95% masonry and stone and landscaped above and beyond the landscape ordinance. As far as traffic is concerned, the street is intersected by Oak and Scripture. The proximity of the University to this complex is close enough to allow students to walk to school, eliminating them driving to school. The owner has already invested a substantial -. 6. mount of money in purchasing this lot and having the plans prepared to meet the prior requirements at that time. We would sincerely appreciate your granting us relief from the interim ordinance. We believe that we have addressed all the outlined criteria in the relief procedures and I will be at the meeting on April 4th to answer any additional questions or concerns you may have. Sincerely, Scott Richter, President Scott Richter General Contractor, Inc. SR/pr Attachments t INTERIM ORDINANCE RELIEF APPLICATION FORM APPLICATION FOR RELIEF I~OM ORDINANCE NO. 2000-046 Existing Comprehcn~ivc Plan De6gnatkm:. £xlsth*g Zoning: , ['~, ff -,I , SEE RELIEP PROCEDURES ON BACK ~PLICANT INFORMATION Tel: c~q~-~'-18g,,, Fa.x: ~"/-'?3[q Z~P: -~ ~ a,9 I Em~l: s e- 6u ~,~.-r ~ 3u~c co t, : $co Ki,cb+cr Ad&eu: 5~5 %. ect.,9-ol)~ SIGNATURE OF PKOPERTY OW~ OR APPLICANT ~.etteryutl~rlz~bn rgciukgSit~uamre is o,J~t ~n prof..ny Suk~erib~ ,and sworn before me this APPLICATION DEADLINE I$ WEDNBSDAYS AT 10~ AM. For Departmental [/se Only =.No.: -,q£,o0'7 , Case Manage~. To~l F~e($): , Fa~ilX No: D.~,e Submi~ed: vr, Sa , e Amgtcatloa Req~lkt~leaq: ORD NO 2000.046. Section F. The =~licam m~ pe~on,he C~ Couacil for ~lie[ [rom th~e (Ord, No. 2000-046) interim development z~ations by m~ua~;.'~-g meb relie~ in writing. T~e Cit7 Co,moll d~i no~ rdL-vc the appllcam from the r~uh~meat, o~ (Ozd. No. 200-0~6), mgess the appllcam fiat presents use o! ttleur ~. responsime m m~g mat c~se before rdity C, ounciL . deciding whether ~o gain relk--f lo the applicant, the City Cotmcil ~ rgic into tl~ consld~rafioa the follo~n~. ~ Whether granting relief from the rcsi&mbl density li_~,,.afions or other development stangards comaln~l in the~ intellm der .e~..pmeat, ,r~ation, ~ ~hc absence, of pennanem revisions to the City's Laad Devdopmcat Co& that implement the pmvlsio~ o! tile comprr, heasive pla~, teopatdizes the Cites best i~terests in preventing such effects; The suitabilky of the p~oFosed r~si&~ ~ in light of land us~ allowed in the zoning districts on properey adjacent to the proposed site; The impact of ~he proposed residential use on .the tran~rt~oa and other panic fa~tics sy~m~ affected by the dewlopmem; The measures proposed to be t ~L-tv__ bythe applicant to prevent negative impacts of the proposed use on thc ndghborhood; The likelihood that ~fllcient ~ will be pro~ided to the applicant following adoption of the Ci~$ Devdopmmt ~ .Th.~ t??l expenditures m~& i~ coancolon wi~ tbe propossd residential develol~mcnt in reliance on prior reg~iom, including the costs of imvat;-g infr'~straetute to serve the proj~-~; Any fees reasonably paid in connection with the proposed use; Anyrepresentations made by the City containing the ~oject and reasonably ~ upon to the ~rlmem of the applicant. The City Council may take the followh~g actions: deny th~ rdief request; (4 gnat thc relief requeg subject ~o conditions consistent with the criteria set forth in Oni No. 2000-046. Any reli~ granted by the City C.o m~.ql '*hgl b~ the ,~J_,,hmun &~iatlon from ordinauce re~ulremm~s necessary to prevent &privation of a vested property right TOTRL P, EL~ AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET April 4th, 2000 Planning & Developme~a~ment Dave Hill, 349-8314 ~ Agenda Item Date SUBJECT Consider and take action on a request for relief from the Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance 2000-069, for Robinson Oaks subdivision.' The 36.1 acre property is located north of Robinson Road west of the future FM 2499 Right-of-Way. A single-family Planned Development (PD) is proposed. (RR-00-06, Robinson Oaks) BACKGROUND An application for request for relief from the Residential Interim Regulations has been received. (see Attachment 1). Background information regarding the current status of this case is provided in Attachment 2. Ordinance 2000-046, known as the Residential Interim Regulations, was adopted by City Council on February 1st, 2000. This ordinance contains standards with which residential development projects must comply until the Code Rewrite project is completed and permanent standards are adopted. Ordinances 2000-046 also contains a separate section that allows applicants to request relief from the interim regulations, including evaluation criteria to be used by Council: Section F. Relief Procedures 1. The applicant may petition the City Council for relief from these interim development regulations by requesting such relief in writing. 2. The City Council shall not relieve the applicant from the requirements of this ordinance, unless the applicant first presents credible evidence from which the City Council can reasonably conclude that the imposition of the residential density limitations or other development standards deprives the applicant of a vested property right or deprives the applicant of the economically viable use of his land. 3. In deciding whether to grant relief to the applicant, the City Council shall take into consideration the following: (a) whether granting relief from the residential density limitations or other development standards contained in these interim development regulations, in the absence of permanent revisions to the City's Land Development Code that implement the provisions of the comprehensive plan jeopardizes the City's best interests in preventing such effects; (b) the suitability of the proposed residential uses in light of land uses allowed in the zoning districts on property adjacent to the proposed site; (e) the impact of the proposed residential use on the transportation and other public facilities systems affected by the development; (d) the measures proposed to be taken by the applicant to prevent negative impacts of the proposed use on the neighborhood; (e) the likelihood that sufficient relief will be provided to the applicant following adoption of the City's Development Code; (f) the total expenditures made in connection with the proposed residential development in reliance on prior regulations, including the costs of installing infrastructure to serve the project; ~ (g) any fees reasonably paid in connection with the proposed use; (h) any representations made by the City concerning the project and reasonably relied upon to the detriment of the applicant The City Council may take the following actions: (a) deny the relief request; (b) grant the relief request; or (c) grant the relief request subject to conditions consistent with the criteria set forth in this section. 5. Any relief granted by the City Council shall be the minimum deviation from ordinance requirements necessary to prevent deprivation of a vested property fight. OPTIONS Council may either: 1. Deny the request for relief, or 2. Grant the request for relief, or 3. Grant the request for relief, subject to conditions consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in the ordinance (and referenced above). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the decision of whether or not to grant the requests for relief should be based on the merits of each individual application. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Review schedules are discussed in the attachments. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW Two petitions were reviewed on March 7, 2000: 1. Shadow Brook Place - approved 2. Beverly Park Estates - approved One petition was reviewed on February 15, 2000: 1. Golden Triangle Joint Venture (Z-99-096) - approved FISCAL INFORMATION The petitions are being processed and brought to Council using existing staff resources. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staffreport Re~ctfully ~mi~_~, Doug'las S~. ~well, AiCP~t Director of Planning and Development WAIVER REQUEST STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT 1 Subject: Robinson Oaks Staff: Larry Reichhart Case Number: RR-00-06 BACKGROUND: Request: Location: Zoning: Acreage: Platting: Comp Plan Consistency: Relief from the Residential Interim Regulations (Ordinance No. 00-046) to submit a PD Detailed Plan to revises PD- 100 (approved August 8, 1985n and includes 2-plexs, 4- plexs, General Retail, and 0.46 acres of open space). The proposed PD would include a density of 4.26 units per acre, an average lot size of 7,510 SF and includes a neighborhood park with a pool. North of Robinson Road west of the future FM 2499 (see Enclosure 1 ) PD-100 & SF-7 (see Enclosure 2) 36.1 acres The property is not platted. The subject site is located in the Existing Neighborhoods/Infill Compatibility district. New development in this district should respond to existing development with compatible land uses, patterns and design standards. Staff finds the development consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, the design may be consistent and can be determined at the Detailed Plan stage. CONCLUSION: If the relief request is granted the applicant will be required to submit a PD Detailed Plan for rezoning (for review and approval at P&Z and City Council) and then preliminary and final plats prior to development. If the relief request is not granted the application will be required to submit a zoning plan and a project plan as well as preliminary and final plats prior to development. ENCLOSURES: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Application ENCLOSURE 1 Robinson Oaks NORTH De, n~Fon State School LOCATION MAP Scale: None Robinson Oaks ENCLOSURE 2 NORTH De=n~Fon State School PD-176 A SF-7(c) ZONING MAP Scale: None ENCLOSURE 3 INTERINI ORI)INANCE RELIEF APPLICakTION FOBM Da'~: 03 - 07- 00 APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDIN;dXlCE NO. 2000-046 · Robinson Oaks Project Name: Project Ad&ess (Location): Robinson Rd, West of State School Rd Existing Use: No ne Proposed Use: Residential Existing Comprehensive Plan Designation: Gross Acres: 36.1 Existing Zoning~ PD andSF7 Proposed Zonln~ P D SEE RELIEF PROCEDURES ON BACK APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant: L&C B Partners Ad&ess: 6116 N. Central Expwy Ste 1313 City: Dal 1 a s State: TX Company:. Td:?14-fiqfi-qq~q~ ZIP: 75206 Fax: 214-6qR-qqqR Em~:] blennox@f]ash. Property Owner: Same as above Company: Ad&ess: Tel: ' Fax: City: State: ZIP: Email: Contact: kloyd D. Blaylock Company: Address: Same as above Td: Fag City:. State: ZIP: Emait: . ~et SIGNA/IJRE OF PROPF-i{Tkr oWNrER OR AppLICaklxrr For Departmental Use Only (SIGN AND PRIlXrr OR TYPE NAME) (Lett eiI'~f a6'-tho~rizafion requirec~ if slgnaturc~ is other tlmm property owner) base Manager:. Prlnto:;}~Typ, eName: Lloyd D. Blaylock ':' ' ' .~ · TotalFee(s): SubsErige~l.'.,~ sworn b~fore me this ~ x~t,~O' I~/Oomml~lon Explm, 0§-00-2000 D~te S~bmitted: lq~ary Public . ,~) Accepted By: BomUlxht~: APPLICATION DEADL 6 . =.~DNESDAYS AT I0:00 Application Requlrements: ORD NO 2000-046, Section F. The applicant may petition the City Council for relief from these (Ord. No. 2000-046) interim devdopment regulations by requesting such relief in writing. The City Council shall not relieve the applicant from the requirements of (Ord. No. 200-046), unless the applicant first presents credible evidence from which the City Council can reasonably conclude that the imposition of the residential density limitations or other development standards deprives the applicant of a vested property right or deprives the applicant of the economically viable use of their land. The applicant is requested to submit sufficient information addressing the following criteria. The applicant will also be responsible in making their case before City Council. In deciding whether to grant relief to the applicant, the City Counc'd shall take into the consideration the following: F1 Whether granting relief from the residentml dens,ty limitations or other development standards c°ntamed m these mtenm development regulation, in the absence of permanent revisions to the City's Land Development Code that implement the provisinns of the comprehenstve plan, jeopardizes the City s be interests in preventing such effects; Fl The sultability of the proposed residential uses in light °f land uses ail°wed in the z°ning districts °n Pr°Perry adjacent t° the proposed ske; F1 The impact of the proposed residential use on the transportation and other public facilities systems affected by the devdopmem; Fl The measures proposed to be taken by the applicant to prevent negative impacts of the proposed use on the neighborhood; Fl The likelihood that sufficiem relief will be provided to the applicant following adoption of the City's Developmem Code; Fl The total expenditures made in connection with the proposed residential development in reliance on prior regulations, indudlng the costs of installing infrastructure to serve the project; Fl Any fees reasonably paid in connection with the proposed use; Fl Any representations made by the City concerning the project and reasonably relied upon to the detriment of the applicant. The City Council may take the following actions: (a) deny the relief request; grant the rdief requesti or ~cI grant the rdief request subject to conditions consistent wkh the criteria set f°rth in Ord' N°' 2000'046' Any relief granted by the City Co _u~.ci[ shall be the.minimum deviation from ordinance requirements necessary to prevent deprivation of a vested property fight: · SIGNATURE certifying that these regulations have been read and understood by the applicant. PRINT or TYPE NA-ME Lloyd D. Bla.¥10ck AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET March 7th, 2000 Planning & Developm~a~rtment Dave Hill, 349-8314 -~ ]/~9~ Agenda No. ~)O -~O./' &~' Agenda Item_ ,~, ~ ,' SUBJECT Consider and take action on a request for relief from the Non-Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance 2000-069, for a 4.315 acre property located at the southwest comer of Lillian Miller and Southridge. The proposal is for consideration of an amended Detailed Plan for a Bed and Breakfast on the property. (RN-00-06) BACKGROUND Ordinance 2000-069, known as the Nonresidential Interim Regulations, was adopted by City Council on March 2ad, 2000. This ordinance contains standards with which nonresidential development projects must comply until the Code Rewrite project is completed and permanent standards are adopted. Ordinance 2000-069 also contains a separate section that allows applicants to request relief from the interim regulations, including evaluation criteria to be used by Council: 5. Relief requests The applicant may petition the City Council for relief from these interim development regulations by requesting such relief in writing. The request for relief shall be considered by the City Council in conjunction with action on the project plan and development application. bo The City Council shall not relieve the applicant from the requirements of this ordinance, unless the applicant first presents credible evidence from which the City Council can reasonably conclude that the imposition of the nonresidential development standards deprives the applicant ora vested property right or deprives the applicant of the economically viable use of his land. In deciding whether to grant relief to the applicant, the City Council shall take into consideration the following: (t) whether granting relief from the nonresidential standards contained in these interim development regulations, in the absence of permanent revisions to the City's Land Development Code that implement the provisions of the comprehensive plan jeopardizes the City's best interests in preventing such effects; (2) thc suitability of the proposed nonresidential uses in light of land uses allowed in thc zoning districts on property adjacent to the proposed site; (3) the impact of thc proposed nonresidential use on the transportation and other public facilities systems affected by the development; (4) thc measures proposed to bc taken by the applicant to prevent negative impacts of the proposed usc on the surrounding properties; (5) the likelihood that sufficient relief will be provided to the applicant following adoption of the City's Development Code; (6) the total expenditures made in connection with the proposed nonresidential development in reliance on prior regulations, including the costs of installing infrastructure to serve the project; (7) any fees reasonably paid in connection with the proposed use; and (8) any representations made by the City concerning the project and reasonably relied upon to the detriment of the applicant. d. The City Council may take the following actions: (1) deny the relief request; (2) grant the relief request; or (3) grant the relief request subject to conditions consistent with the criteria set forth in this section. Minimum relief. Any relief granted by the City Council shall be the minimum deviation f~om ordinance requirements necessary to prevent deprivation of a vested property right. OPTIONS Council may either: 1. Deny the request for relief, or 2. Grant the request for relief, or 3. Grant the request for relief, subject to conditions consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in the ordinance (and referenced above). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the decision of whether or not to grant the requests for relief should be based on the merits of each individual application. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Review schedules are discussed in the attachments. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW Three petitions were reviewed on March 21, 2000: 1. 1508 N. Elm (Z-99-083) - approved 2. 1513 N. Locust (Z-99-084) - approved 3. RNW Addition (Z-00-003) - approved In addition, an additional 18 staff initiated petitions were granted relief on March 21, 2000. One petition was reviewed on March 2, 2000: 1. Kerestine property - approved with conditions. FISCAL INFORMATION The petitions are being processed and brought to CoUncil using existing staff resources. petitions claim financial harm, an issue that may be evaluated by CoUncil. Several of the ATTACHMENTS 1. staff report Respectfully submitted: Director of Planning & Development WAIVER REQUEST STAFF REPORT Subject: Wildwood Inn Staff: Thomas B. Gray Case Number: RN-00-06 BACKGROUND: Request for Relief to: Location: Zoning: Acreage: Platting: Comp Plan Consistency: Relief from the Non-Residential Interim Regulations (Ordinance No. 2000-069) to proceed with a Planned Development (PD) zoning application. Southwest corner of Lillian Miller and Southridge (see Enclosure 1 ) PD-87 (see Enclosure 2). Under the existing concept plan for PD-87, six detached single-family homes could be built on this site approximately 4.3 acres The property is not platted. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this property to be within the "Existing Neighborhood / Infill Compatible" District. New development should respond to existing development with compatible land uses, patterns and design standards. The applicant is proposing to develop a 14-room bed and breakfast facility. The development will also serve as the permanent resident of the applicant. Staff finds the development to be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. POTENTIAL AFFECT OF INTERIM REGULATIONS: This application would be required to submit a Zoning Plan and a Project Plan. CONCLUSION: If the relief request is granted the applicant will be able to submit a Detailed Plan and eventually a platting application. Upon receipt of the Detailed Plan application the review process will commence. If the relief request is not granted the applicant will have to submit a Zoning Plan, a Project Plan and eventually a platting application. Upon receipt of the Zoning Plan application the review process will commence. ENCLOSURES: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Applicant's Application Prepared by: Planner I Respectfully submitted: Douglas, L Powell Director of Planning and Development RN-00-6 (Wildwood Inn) ATTACHMENT 1 NORTH VICINITY MAP Agenda Date: April 4, 2000 Scale: None RN-00-006 ATTACHMENT 2 (Wildwood Inn) NORTH SITE ZONING MAP Agenda Date: April 4,2000 Scale: None ATTACHMENT 3. ~ INTERIM ORDINANCE RELIEF APPLICATION FORM APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDINANCE NO. 2000-046 SEE RELIEF PROCEDURES ON BACK APPLICANT INFORMATION Appllcant: '~ [ L- ~--- t '~ ~q~o~ /2.0._ Ad&ess: City:. State: Ad&ess: City:. State: Tel: Fax: ZIP: Email: Company: Tel: Fax: ZIP: Emaih [S~GSATU~ o~xV owr,m~_ [ py/i~ (Letter of authorization required 7~gnature is other thru property owner) PrintorTypeName:'e~C~/C4~./ ~---. /~00/ Subscribed and sworn before me this '7 d. of ~ ~ 20 'Not af'y-IhS, bli6 - ~ ~ :~otary Public, State Of 8. For Departmental Use Only Case Manager: Total Fee(s): P. eceyt No: Date Submitted: Accepted By: Form UI~: A'2~ APPLICATION DEADLINE IS WEDNESDAYS AT 10:00 AM. Application Requirements: ORD NO 2000-046, Section F. The applicant may petition the City Council for relief from these (Ord. No. 2000-046) interim development regulations by requesting such relief in writing. The City Council shall not relieve the applicant from the requirements of (Ord. No. 200-046), unless the applicant f'trst presents credible evidence from which the City Council can reasonably conclude that the imposition of the residemial density limitations or other development standards deprives the applicant of a vested property right or deprives the applicant of the economically viable use of their land. The applicant is requested to sUbmit sufficient information addressing the following criteria. The applicant will also be responsible in making their case before City Council. In deciding whether to grant relief to the applicant, the City Council shall take into the consideration the following: ..~}/'Whether granting relief from the residential densitylimitations or other development standards contained h3 these interim devdopment regulation, in the absence of permanent revisions to the City's Land Devdopment Code that implement the provisions of the comprehensive plan, jeopardizes the City's best interests in preventing such effects; ~]'/The suitability of the proposed residential uses in light of land uses allowed in the zoning districts on property adjacent to the proposed site; ~//The impact of the proposed residential use on the transportation and other public facilities systems affected by the devdopment; '~The measures proposed to be taken by the applicant to prevent negative impacts of the proposed use on the neighborhood; e likelihood that sufficient relief will be provided to the applicant following adoption of the City's Development Code; · ~The total expenditures made in connection with the proposed residential develOPment in reliance on prior regulations, in&ding the costs of installing infrastructure to serve the project; .~'~y fees reasonably paid in connection with the proposed use; []'" Any representations made by the City concerning the project and reasonably relied upon to the detriment of the applicant. The City Council may take the following actions: (a) denythe relief request; (b) grant the relief request; or (c) grant the relief request subject to conditions consistent with the criteria set forth in Ord. No. 2000-046. Any relief granted by the City Council shall be the minimum deviation from ordinance requirements necessary to prevent deprivation of a vested propertyright. P.O. Box 51144 · Denton, TX 76206 · Office (9401 382-2206 · Fax (9401 387-9029 March 25, 2000 The Council of the City of Denton 215 E. McKinney Denton, TX 76201 RE: Request for Relief from Zo~:Plaii:"R~ment I am zn the ~rocess o~ ~om~!et~Bg:-~he P~ol'e'~t Pla~.~e~re~tu for a proposed Bed and Brea~ast proj~di:::!6::~" ~o~dtmcted~on~,~ acr$~: !0c~f0~:~Uan Miller residential ~pe~ranc~ w~e'~j ~at[~a~ ~ ~s~a c~erc~al fa~ility~ 4. My ~roject ~H~inclu~e tWO 8-inch ~ater m .i~ that ~11 be looped to $. ~ho hbilit¢ to move fO~d~!B h~ prO~eBt~Offid create hi~ffif~cant finan.ial ~ck Moore .t 1 ~SCHEDULEI o ~ MARK M. M A RTI, N ¢ ~ P 0 BOX 300 ~ . 0 E N f ON T E WILDWOOD INN LILLIAN MILLER PARKWAY DENTON TEXAS AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda No. OD -' 0 (5" Agenda Item_ ,37 - Date_ ~ -q- O~ AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CMfDCM/ACM: April 4th, 2000 Planning & Development Dep~rtment Dave Hill, 349-8314 SUBJECT Consider and take action on a request for relief from the Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance 2000-046, Behning Place subdivision. The 0.52 acre site is located north of May Street approximately 200 feet east of Ruddell. A Planned Development (PD) zoning district for a single-family development is proposed. (RR-00-08) BACKGROUND An application for request for relief from the Residential Interim Regulations has been received. (see Attachment 1). Background information regarding the current status of this case is provided in Attachment 2. Ordinance 2000-046, known as the Residential Interim Regulations, was adopted by City Council on February 1st, 2000. This ordinance contains standards with which residential development projects must comply until the Code Rewrite project is completed and permanent standards are adopted. Ordinances 2000-046 also contains a separate section that allows applicants to request relief from the interim regulations, including evaluation criteria to be used by Council: Section F. Relief Procedures 1. The applicant may petition the City Council for relief from these interim development regulations by requesting such relief in writing. 2. The City Council shall not relieve the applicant from the requirements of this ordinance, unless the applicant first presents credible evidence from which the City Council can reasonably conclude that the imposition of the residential density limitations or other development standards deprives the applicant of a vested property right or deprives the applicant of the economically viable use of his land. 3. In deciding whether to grant relief to the applicant, the City Council shall take into consideration the following: (a) whether granting relief from the residential density limitations or other development standards contained in these interim development regulations, in the absence of permanent revisions to the City's Land Development Code that implement the provisions of the comprehensive plan jeopardizes the City's best interests in preventing such effects; (b) the suitability of the proposed residential uses in light of land uses allowed in the zoning districts on property adjacent to the proposed site; (c) the impact of the proposed residential use on the transportation and other public facilities systems affected by the development; (d) the measures proposed to be taken by the applicant to prevent negative impacts of the proposed use on the neighborhood; (e) the likelihood that sufficient relief will be provided to the applicant following adoption of the City's Development Code; (0 the total expenditures made in connection with the proposed residential development in reliance on prior regulations, including the costs of installing infrastructure to serve the project; (g) any fees reasonably paid in connection with the proposed use; (h) any representations made by the City concerning the project and reasonably relied upon to the detriment of the applicant The City Council may take the following actions: (a) deny the relief request; (b) grant the relief request; or (e) grant the relief request subject to conditions consistent with the criteria set forth in this section. 5. Any relief granted by the City Council shall be the minimum deviation from ordinance requirements necessary to prevent deprivation of a vested property right. OPTIONS Council may either: 1. Deny the request for relief, or 2. Grant the request for relief, or 3. Grant the request for relief, subject to conditions consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in the ordinance (and referenced above). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the decision of whether or not to grant the requests for relief should be based on the merits of each individual application. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Review schedules are discussed in the attachments. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW Two petitions were reviewed on March 7, 2000: 1. Shadow Brook Place - approved 2. Beverly Park Estates - approved One petition was reviewed on February 15, 2000: 1. Golden Triangle Joint Venture (Z-99-096) - approved FISCAL INFORMATION The petitions are being processed and brought to Council using existing staff resources. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff report Respectfully submitted: Director of Planning and Development WAIVER REQUEST STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT 1 Subject: Behning Place Staff: Larry Reichhart Case Number: RR-00-08 BACKGROUND: Request: Location: Zoning: Acreage: Platting: Comp Plan Consistency: Relief from the Residential Interim Regulations (Ordinance No. 00-046) to submit a PD Detailed Plan for a 3 lot single- family development at a density of 5.78 units per acre and a minimum lot size of 5,574 SF. May Street, approximately 95 feet east of Ruddell. (see Enclosure 1 ) SF-7 (see Enclosure 2) 0.52 acres The property is not platted. The subject site is located in the Existing Neighborhoods/Infill Compatibility district. New development in this district should respond to existing development with compatible land uses, patterns and design standards. Staff finds the development consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, the design may be consistent and can be determined at the Detailed Plan stage. CONCLUSION: If the relief request is granted the applicant will be required to submit a PD Detailed Plan for rezoning (for review and approval at P&Z and City Council) and then preliminary and final plats prior to development. If the relief request is not granted the application will be required to submit a zoning plan and a project plan as well as preliminary and final plats prior to development. ENCLOSURES: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Application Behning Place ENCLOSURE 1 NORTH TEXAS Mesa Verde Subdivision MAY LOCATION MAP Scale: None Behning Place ENCLOSURE 2 NORTH TEXAS SF-7 ZONING MAP Scale: None ENCLOSURE 3 Surveyors & Engineers of North Texas 1621 Amanda Court Ponder, Texas 76259 PH: (940) 482-2906 FAX: (940) 482-2911 Toll-Free: (877) 481-SENT WWW.SENTCORP.COM Tuesday, March 07, 2000 City Council -City of Denton City Hall Denton, TX 76201 SCHEDULED ON i',4AR 2 3 2(}00 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MAR ]5 2000 Subject: Zoning Plan: Supplemental information Project Name: Behning Place Existing Conditions: · Location: May Street, Denton, TX. Lot location is approximately 95 feet East of the Ruddell and May Streets intersection. · Environmental Issues: The lot is not in an Environmentally Sensitive area per City of Denton E. S. A. map. There are numerous trees on the lot. The trees range in size from 3 to 46 inches. Three different species are represented on the property: Hackberry · American Elm · Post Oak Using current tree credit calculations the lot will retain over 50 tree credits as shown. EXISTING TREE CREDITS 1 8 HACKBERRY CELTIS LAEVIGATA 2 3 HACKBERRY CELTIS LAEVIGATA 3 6 HACKBERRY CELTIS LAEVIGATA 4 3 HACKBERRY CELTIS LAEVIGATA 5 5 HACKBERRY CELTIS LAEVIGATA 6 3 HACKBERRY CELTIS LAEVIGATA 7 4 HACKBERRY CELTIS LAEVIGATA 8 4 HACKBERRY CELTIS LAEVIGATA 9 12 HACKBERRY CELTIS LAEVIGATA 10 12 HACKBERRY CELTIS LAEVIGATA 11 6 HACKBERRY CELTIS LAEVIGATA 12 10 HACKBERRY CELTIS LAEVIGATA 13 4 HACKBERRY CELTIS LAEVIGATA 14 10 HACKBERRY CELTIS LAEVI( 15 5 HACKBERRY CELTIS LAEVIGATA 16 4 HACKBERRY CELTIS LAEVIGATA 17 6 HACKBERRY CELTIS LAEVIGATA 18 6 HACKBERRY CELTIS LAEVIGATA 19 6 HACKBERRY CELTIS LAEVIGATA 20 3 HACKBERRY CELTIS LAEVIGATA 21 8 HACKBERRY CELTIS LAEVIGATA 22 6 HACKBERRY CELTIS LAEVIGATA 23 6 HACKBERRY CELTIS LAEVI( 24 4 HACKBERRY CELTIS 25 6 HACKBERRY CELTIS LAEVIGATA 26 3 AMERICAN ELM ULMUSAMERICANA 30 29 POST OAK QUERCUS STELLATA 31 29 POST OAK QUERCUS STELLATA 32 29 POST OAK QUERCUS STELLATA 33 13 HACKBERRY CELTIS LAEVIGATA 34 10 HACKBERRY CELTIS LAEVIGATA 35 7 HACKBERRY CELTIS LAEVIGATA 36 30 POST OAK QUERCUS STELLATA 37 8 HACKBERRY CELTIS LAEVIGATA 38 3 HAOKBERRY CELTIS LAEVIGATA 39 34 AMERICAN ELM ULMUSAMERICANA 40 46 AMERICAN ELM ULMUSAMERICANA 41 7 AMERICAN ELM ULMUSAMERICANA 42 POST OAK Q Surrounding Zoning: o North: PD (the Mesa Verde subdivision) - single-family homes with gross density of+8.0 units/acre. This project was designed for empty nesters and young families, and qualifies for housing assistance program. o South: Single Family Detached. Zoned SF-7. Existing density is approximately 3.0 units/acre. o East: Single family detached. Zoned SF-7. Existing Density approximately 2.0 units/acre. o West: Single family detached. Zoned SF-7. Existing Density is approximately 4.4 units/acre. Surrounding Architectural 'Styles: o The surrounding homes, with the exception of the Mesa Verde project to the north, are predominately wood flamed homes circa 1950 - 1960. o The homes, for the most part, have a 1 car garage or car port which face the road. o The houses are generally placed 20 to 25 feet fi'om the property line, which places them approximately 35 to 50 feet fxom the edge of the street. Mes ! I Vtrde Pr?posed Sidewalk Z' Proposed Drive[ Rendering of Behning Place Neighborhood Compatibility: o The proposed density is significantly less than the new Mesa Verde subdivision to the north but at 5.78 units per acre is higher than the "base density" of 3.0 units per acre stated in the Interim Zoning ordinance 2000- 046 and requires relief from the interim this ordinance to be adopted. o The smaller lots are needed because of Mr. Behning's home being offset from the East property line approximately 47 feet. (See color rendering on sheet 2.) This large offs~et allows approximately 52 feet of width for lots 2 and 3. See Table 1 on next sheet for lot sizes. Example of Style desired by owner Table 1 - Lot Sizes 5,575.62 sq. ft. Transportation: o The site is 350 feet fi'om an established city bus route at Ruddell and Paisley. o Due to the small nature of this development, a Traffic Impact Analysis is not required. · Public Facilities: The site is approximately: 1.1 miles to the nearest elementary school (Robert E. Lee) 1.77 miles to the nearest middle school (Calhoun) 0.52 miles to the Sullivan-Keller Early Childhood Center 2.45 miles to the Denton High School, 2.89 miles to Ryan High School. Mack Park is less than 1 mile fi.om the site. City public swimming pool is 1.15 miles fi.om the lot. The existing 6"waterline in May street is adequate to serve the property. 3.5 persons per household X 4 households = 14 people 14 people X 125 gal/day = 1,750 gal/day 1,750 gal/day X 5 peak = 8,750 gal/day or 6.07 gal/min. The existing 8" sewer line in May Street is sufficient for this development. v~ Sewer usage should approximate water usage. Electric service is available fi.om an overhead City of Denton Electric line adjacent to the lot. Drainage run-off is to the north and is minimal with less than 40% impervious material on the lot; the drainage improvements at Mesa Verde were designed to handle this increased drainage. The 100-YR Floodplain and Floodway do not affect this property. Interim Ordinance Relief Procedures: · Relief fi.om the Interim Zoning Ordinance due to increased density does not jeopardize the City's best interests. In fact affordable housing within this infill area will enhance this neighborhood. · The proposed homes are suitable uses in light of the densities of the surrounding neighbol'ho0d. Behning Place provides a buffer in densities between Mesa Verde to the north and the existing homes to the south. · The impact on the City and adjacent neighborhood will be minimal due to the small size of this project. · To prevent any negative impacts to his neighbors, Mr. Behning proposes to: o Build homes that will blend with the existing styles of the surrounding houses. o Provide a shared drive to maximize green space. o Provide parking in the rear of the new houses to get cars offthe street, reduce apparent congestion and approve the appearance of the homes fi.om the street. o Save as many existing trees as possible with good design and careful construction practices. · There have been no expenditures made in connection with the proposed development in reliance to prior regulations. · All fees were returned to Mr. Behning when the Interim Ordinance was approved. · The City staff, concerning this development, made no detrimental representations. Behning PlaCe provides a much needed service in Denton - affordable housing within an established neighborhood. lien R. Bus 10. NAR ~5 '00 08:0G FR CO_~,TYA~D DNTN STU 314 241 8113 T3 1~04822911 P. ~2/02 INTERIM ORDINANCI:. RELIEF APPLICATION FOR I1J~I.~F FROM ORDINANC£ NO. 2000-041 ~A:$ 2 s 2000 n~VELOP~?,'T,,..,~ ........ A~4dr~ss: CRy; SIGNATURE ON PROgERTY OWNER OR APPLICANT (SIGN AND PltlNT OR 'i~S'PE NAM{~)--~ / · .ear De~oartrnentttl ~.l~ Oal~ I ! APPLICATION DEADLINE I~ WEDNF-~iDAY$ AT I0:00 ii. Application Requirements: ORD NO 2000-046, Section F. The applicant may petition the City Council for relief from these (Ord. No. 2000-046) interim development regulations by requesting such relief in writing. The City Council shall not relieve the applicant from the requirements of (Ord. No. 200-046), unless the applicant first presents credible evidence from which the City Council can reasonably conclude that the imposition of the residential density limitations or other development standards deprives the applicant of a vested property right or deprives the applicant of the economically viable use of their land. ' The applicant is requested to submit sufficient information addressing the following criteria. The applicant will also be responsible in making their case before City Council. In deciding whether to grant relief to the applicant, the City Council shall take into the consideration the following: Whether granting relief from the residential density limitations or other development standards contained in these interim development regulation, in the absence of permanent revisions to the City's Land Development Code that implement the provisions of the comprehensive plan, jeopardizes the City's best interests in preventing such effects; The suitability of the proposed residential uses in light of land uses allowed in the zoning districts on property adjacent to the proposed site; The impact of the proposed residential use on the transportation and other public facilities systems affected by the development; U! The measures proposed to be taken by the applicant to prevent negative impacts of the proposed use on the neighborhood; Iq The likelihood that sufficient relief will be provided to the appllcant following adoption of the City's Development Code; [-I The total expenditures made in connection with the proposed residential development in reliance on prior regulations, including the costs of installing infrastructure to serve the project; Any fees reasonably paid in connection with the proposed use; Any representations made by the City concerning the project and reasonably relied upon to the detriment of the applicant. The City Council may take the following actions: (a) deny the relief request; 0a) grant the relief request; or (c) grant the relief request subject to conditions consistent with the criteria set forth in Ord. No. 2000-046. Any relief granted by the City Council shall be the minimum deviation from ordinance requirements necessary to prevent deprivation of a vested property right. SIGNATL~ ce~g~t these regulations have been read and understood by the applicant. .,~"~'/~~ DATE PRI~ or ~E N~E ~Z~-~ ~ · 12 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET March 7th, 2000 Plannin. g & Developm~ t~ent Dave Hill, 349-8314 - y-~ Agenda Item SUBJECT Consider and take action on a request for relief from the Non-Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance 2000-069, for property located on Nowlin Road, a proposal to construct an accessory building used in conjunction with an existing cellular tower. (RN-00-21) BACKGROUND Ordinance 2000-069, known as the Nonresidential Interim Regulations, was adopted by City Council on March 2"d, 2000. This ordinance contains standards with which nonresidential development projects must comply until the Code Rewrite project is completed and permanent standards are adopted. Ordinance 2000-069 also contains a separate section that allows applicants to request relief from the interim regulations, including evaluation criteria to be used by Council: 5. Relief requests The applicant may petition the City Council for relief from these interim development regulations by requesting such relief in writing. The request for relief shall be considered by the City Council in conjunction with action on the project plan and development application. The City Council shall not relieve the applicant from the requirements of this ordinance, unless the applicant first presents credible evidence from which the City Council can reasonably conclude that the imposition of the nonresidential development standards deprives the applicant of a vested property right or deprives the applicant of the economically viable use of his land. In deciding whether to grant relief to the applicant, the City Council shall take into consideration the following: (1) whether granting relief from the nonresidential standards contained in these interim development regulations, in the absence of permanent revisions to the City's Land Development Code that implement the provisions of the comprehensive plan jeopardizes the City's best interests in preventing such effects; (2) thc suitability of the proposed nonresidential uses in light of land uses allowed in the zoning districts on property adjacent to the proposed site; (3) the impact of the proposed nonresidential use on the transportation and other public facilities systems affected by the development; (4) the measures proposed to be taken by the applicant to prevent negative impacts of the proposed use on the surrounding properties; (5) the likelihood that sufficient relief will be provided to the applicant following adoption of the City's Development Code; (6) the total expenditures made in connection with the proposed nonresidential development in reliance on prior regulations, including the costs of installing infrastructure to serve the project; (7) any fees reasonably paid in connection with the proposed use; and (8) any representations made by the City conceming the project and reasonably relied upon to the detriment of the applicant. d. The City Council may take the following actions: (1) deny the relief request; (2) grant the relief request; or (3) grant the relief request subject to conditions consistent with the criteria set forth in this section. 6. Minimum relief. Any relief granted by the City Council shall be the minimum deviation fi.om ordinance requirements necessary to prevem deprivation of a vested property right. OPTIONS Council may either: 1. Deny the request for relief, or 2. Grant the request for relief, or 3. Grant the request for relief, subject to conditions consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in the ordinance (and referenced above). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the decision of whether or not to grant the requests for relief should be based on the merits of each individual application. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Review schedules are discussed in the attachments. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW Three petitions were reviewed on March 21, 2000: 1. 1508 N. Elm (Z-99-083) - approved 2. 1513 N. Locust (Z-99-084) - approved 3. RNW Addition (Z-00-003) - approved In addition, an additioual 18 staff initiated petitions were granted relief on March 21, 2000. One petition was reviewed on March 2, 2000: 1. Kerestine property - approved with conditions. FISCAL INFORMATION The petitions are being processed and brought to Council using existing staff resources. Several of the petitions claim financial harm, an issue that may be evaluated by Council. ATTACHMENTS 1. staff report Respectfully submitted: Douglas S. ~owell, AICP Director of Planning & Development WAIVER REQUEST STAFF REPORT Subject: Cellular One Staff: Larry Reichhart Case Number: NR-00-21 BACKGROUND: Request: Location: Zoning: Acreage: Platting: Comp Plan Consistency: Relief from the Non-Residential Interim Regulations (Ordinance No. 2000-069) to proceed with a PD Detailed Plan zoning application for a Tele-communication Tower and not submit a Project Plan. Generally located south of Nowlin Road east of Teasley Lane (see Enclosure 1) PD-172 (Top of the Hill Subdivision approved August 3, 1999) (see Enclosure 2) 0.036 acres The property is not platted. The subject site is located in the Neighborhood Centers district. New neighborhoods may develop in conventional patterns in this district. Staff finds the use consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSION: If the relief request is granted the applicant will have to submit a PD Detailed Plan (to complete zoning requirements) for review and approval by P&Z and City Council and then preliminary and final plat prior to development. If the relief request is not granted the application will have to submit a PD Detailed Plan (to complete zoning requirements) for review and approval by P&Z and City Council, preliminary and final plat and submit a project plan for review and approval prior to development. ENCLOSURES: 1. Location Map 2. PD-172 Concept Plan Cellular One ENCLOSURE 1 NORTH LOCATION MAP Scale: None ENCLOSURE 2 [,, · ,, :~:~,.,,, / ',, '~:,, z / ",, ~'.,, · / ",, %,, | . ,, .~, ,, -:, . . , m ",, '~'.',, · I [ r~ ..~ , , . %,, / -,,, ! ~- ,,R. ,, . I'~,. · / ." '", i '<:,, / · ",,' %',, / , o , I '.', ' ! / . ~ ~a3 '~,- -',, , /~: ...z = 'x ',, / ,": ~ ,,.q [.-, ', ', /~ t~ :.z ',, ',, IN . ~ aK '~, ', ' /i~ ~ z~ · ', ', I '' · ii~ ~t2 ~ r~ ,., ,.. I z ~ _z: .- _.~ ..fl ~.. ',, ,,j / / .~-,"~ ~ ~ n ', /', / ,,4 I:I ~ ", / / ~ I ." ",1 / j ix, T8TZ 'I~T'A' ~ A~qSN/'-a~ Agenda No. ~0--~ '~'~ Agenda Item ~/! ' AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: March 7th, 2000 Planning & Development Dave Hill, 34%8314 SUBJECT Consider and take action on a request for relief bom the Non-Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance 2000-069, for property located at 520 Fort Worth Drive, a proposal to construct a self- storage development. (RN-00-22) BACKGROUND Ordinance 2000-069, known as the Nonresidential Interim Regulations, was adopted by City Council on March 2nd, 2000. This ordinance contains standards with which nonresidential development projects must comply until the Code Rewrite project is completed and permanent standards are adopted, ordinance 2000-069 also contains a separate section that allows applicants to request relief from the interim regulations, including evaluation criteria to be used by Council: 5. Relief requests The applicant may petition the City Council for relief from these interim development regulations by requesting such relief in writing. The request for relief shall be considered by the City Council in eunjunction with action on the project plan and development application. The City Council shall not relieve the applicant from the requirements of this ordinance, unless the applicant first presents credible evidence from which the City Council can reasonably conclude that the imposition of the nonresidential development standards deprives the applicant of a vested property right or deprives the applicant of the economically viable use of his land. In deciding whether to grant relief to the applicant, the City Council shall take into consideration the following: (1) whether granting relief from the nonresidential standards contained in these interim development regulations, in the absence of permanent revisions to the City's Land Development Code that implement the provisions of the comprehensive plan jeopardizes the City's best interests in preventing such effects; (2) the suitability of the proposed nonresidential uses in light of land uses allowed in the zoning districts on property adjacent to the proposed site; (3) the impact of the proposed nonresidential use on the transportation and other public facilities systems affected by the development; (4) the measures proposed to be taken by the applicant to prevent negative impacts of the proposed use on the surrounding properties; (5) the likelihood that sufficient relief will be provided to the applicant following adoption of the City's Development Code; (6) the total expenditures made in connection with the proposed nonresidential development in reliance on prior regulations, including the costs of installing infrastructure to serve the project; (7) any fees reasonably paid in connection with the proposed use; and (8) any representations made by the City concerning the project and reasonably relied upon to the detriment of the applicant. d. The City Council may take the following actions: (1) deny the relief request; (2) grant the relief request; or (3) grant the relief request subject to conditions consistent with the criteria set forth in this section. 6. Minimum relief. Any relief granted by the City Council shall be the minimum deviation from ordinance requirements necessary to prevent deprivation of a vested property fight. OPTIONS Council may either: 1. Deny the request for relief, or 2. Grant the request for relief, or 3. Grant the request for relief, subject to conditions consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in the ordinance (and referenced above). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the decision of whether or not to grant the requests for relief should be based on the merits of each individual application. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Review schedules are discussed in the attachments. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW Three petitions were reviewed on March 21, 2000: 1. 1508 N. Elm (Z-99-083) - approved 2. 1513 N. Locust (Z-99-084) - approved 3. RNW Addition (Z-00-003) - approved In addition, an additional 18 staff initiated petitions were granted relief on March 21, 2000. One petition was reviewed on March 2, 2000: 1. Kerestine property - approved with conditions. FISCAL INFORMATION The petitions are being processed and brought to Council using existing staff resources. petitions claim financial harm, an issue that may be evaluated by Council. Several of the ATTACHMENTS 1. staff report Respectfully submitted: Douglas S. l~owell, A---~--P Director of Planning & Development WAIVER REQUEST STAFF REPORT Sub|ect: Payne Self-Storage Staff: Larry Reichhart Case Number: NR-00-22 BACKGROUND: Request for Relief to: Location: Zoning: Acreage: Platting: Comp Plan Consistency: CONCLUSION: If the relief request is permitting process. Relief from the Non-Residential Interim Regulations (Ordinance No. 2000-069) to proceed with a building permit to develop self-storage units and not submit a Project Plan. 520 Ft Worth Dr. (see Enclosure 1) Commercial and SF-7(see Enclosure 2) 3.45 acres commercial & 9.46 acres SF-7 A final plat was approved on February 23, 2000. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this property to be within the "Downtown University Core District. This area is intended to have a mix of educational, residential, retail, office, service, government, cultural and entertainment development. The applicant is proposing to construct storage lockers (mini-storage) and other site improvements on the commercially zoned property (see Enclosure 3). Staff finds the use consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. granted the applicant will be able to continue the building If the relief request is not granted the application will have to submit a project plan for review and approval prior to obtaining building permits. ENCLOSURES: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map Payne Tire Company ENCLOSURE1 NORTH LOCATION MAP 5 Scale: None Payne Tire Company ENCLOSURE2 NORTH ZONING MAP Scale: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda Agenda Item. ate ¢/¢/so AGENDA DATE: April 4, 2000 DEPARTMENT: ACM: ECONOMIC~OPMENT David Hill SUBJECT CONSIDER A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ACCEPTING THE SUM OF $1,000 FROM WlNDLE FAMILY PARTNERS, LTD. AND MICHAEL C. RAMOS IN CONSIDERATION FOR EXTENDING THE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (180) DAY PERIOD FOR EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE POSSIBLE LEASE OF CERTAIN AIRPORT PROPERTY AS PROVIDED IN CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 99-055 FOR AN ADDITIONAL ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (180) DAY PERIOD; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BACKGROUND Windle Family Partners, Ltd. and Michael C. Ramos have indicated an interest in a certain tract of land at the Airport for commercial development (See Exhibit A). Judge Don Windle currently leases property adjacent to the proposed site for his private hangar. In return for $1,000 (non-refundable), Judge Windle and Mr. Ramos request that the City consider the extension of an agreement entered into in October of 1999. The orginal agreement stated the City would enter into exclusive negotiations with the parmership for the lease of Airport property for a period of 180 days. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT The agreement would end after the 180-day period, and the property would be available for lease to all interested parties. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The Airport Advisory Board has reviewed and recommends this proposal. FISCAL INFORMATION A check in the amount of $1,000 has been submitted by Windle Family Partners, Ltd and Michael Ramos in consideration for exclusive negotiations on the proposed tract. The property is currently available at $0.10 per square foot. If the City were to lease the entire tract to another tenant, the revenue would amount to $2,700 per month. However, the property is not considered a prime location, and staff does not anticipate a great deal of interest in the near future. EXHIBITS Resolution Exhibit A: Location Map Prepared by: Mark~elson Airport Manager Respectfully submitted: Linda Ratliff, Director- fJ Economic Development Department - ,~-' \\CH-LGL\VOLlkshared\deptkLGL\Our DocumentskResolutions\Windle Resolution.doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ACCEPTING THE SUM OF $1,000 FROM WINDLE FAMILY PARTNERS, LTD. AND MICHAEL C. RAMOS IN CONSIDERATION FOR EXTENDING THE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (180) DAY PERIOD FOR EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE POSSIBLE LEASE OF CERTAIN AIRPORT PROPERTY AS PROVIDED IN CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 99-055 FOR AN ADDITIONAL ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (180) DAY PERIOD; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 99-055 the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas granted to Windle Family Partners, LTD. and Michael C. Ramos (the "Payor") the right to exclusively negotiate the possible lease of certain Denton Airport Property as described in said resolution (the "Property") for a 180 day period; and WHEREAS, the 180 day time period is due to expire on April 16, 2000 and the Payor has requested that the time period be extended for an additional 180 day period for the payment of the sum of $1000.00; NOW, THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1. In consideration of the receipt of the additional amount of $1,000.00 paid by Payor to the City, the 180 day time period set forth in Resolution No. 99-055 for the exclusive lease negotiations for the Property is hereby extended for an additional 180 day period. SECTION 2. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon the passage and approval of this resolution. PASSED AND APPROVED this the 2000. __ day of , ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY By: JACK MILLER, MAYOR =N ~5~5 AIRPOF SPARTAN Dr DENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT I_~ Airport ~---1 Buildingl Fence lJne.:::~ Parking Lots/Aprons Building Occupants '~ 1. Bert Mahou/Storage 2. Bert Mahou/Storage 3. Dave Austln-Dwlght Hatcher 4. First FIn'anclellStorage B. Ralph Slater/$torege 6. John Selvldge/Storage 7. Dr. J.R. Almond/Aircraft Museum 8. Bob Smith/Robert Powelson/Salos 9. Excel Aviation 10. Excel Aviation/Aircraft Maintenance 11. Austin Avlonlce/Storage 12. Ezell Aviation/Fixed Baaed Operator North American Flight Academy 13. City of Donton/Btorage 14. City of Denton/Airport Terminal 15. Texaa Air/Fixed Baaed Operator Texaa Air Charter/Air Cargo 16. Texaa AIr/$torege 17. Toxaa AIr/$torago 18. Texas Air/Storage 19. Butch Johnson/Maintenance 20. Avionics International/Aircraft Parts 21. RItchey Corporate Hangar 22. Judge Don Wlndla/Storage 23. Hangar 10/Aircraft Museum 24. Nebrlg & Aeaoc./Alrcraft Brokerage 25. Jim Osborne/Storage/Storage 26. Robert Malecheck/Storage 27. Stoven MelechecldStorege 28. David Roaol/Storage 29. Charles Grant/Storage 30. Dong Weyar/$torage JOHN CARRELL AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Aoendaltem ....... AGENDA DATE: April 4, 2000 1 DEPARTMENT: Engineering & Transpo ~r~afio~/f ~ CM/DCM/ACM: Dave Hill? 349-8314 SUBJECT Consider an ordinance approving a Multiple Use Agreement between the City of Denton and the State of Texas by the Texas Department of Transportation for a Rain Gauge Station in the eastern right-of-way of F.M. 156 at Hickory Creek in the City of Denton, Texas; Authorizing the City Manager or his designee to sign the agreement; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND The City of Denton has placed a Rain and Stream Gauging Station at the intersection of F.M. 156 and Hickory Creek. The installation of this station was inadvertently completed within State Right-of-Way without TxDOT's permission or approval. By plans, it was our understanding that the facilities would be installed on private property. When it was discovered that the installation occurred on TxDOT Right of Way we contacted them for guidance on the issue. TxDOT responded by requiring the establishment of a Multiple Use Agreement with their organization. OPTIONS Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION Staff endorses the approval of the Multiple Use Agreement. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions) Not applicable. FISCAL INFORMATION None MAP Attached Denise M. Peretz Technical Assistant Respectfully submitted: Je~VJ21ark, Director Eflg~fleering & {Fransportation Rain Gauge Station Location Map Not To Scale - / ./.':':i:/ / EXH]'B]'T "A" / ~/~% ¢..::; .,,.:,,, CBNCEPTUAL S]:TE PLAN ~0'~ ,'.'.',' /~ /'// 1' MBN]'TBR'rNG STAT]'BN AREA / /.':'.,:t / :1' ~ /.'.;',Y I I :' ~ , /:::.:/ / , .: ~ CiCy of De'n,t, oTz ,,-oooo,-,-. } Engineering & Transportation Department T~I)OT Right-of-Way Division z~/~6/~9 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A MULTIPLE USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE STATE OF TEXAS BY THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTION FOR A RAIN GAUGE STATION IN THE EASTERN RIGHT-OF-WAY OF F.M. 156 AT HICKORY CREEK IN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City Manager, or his designee is hereby authorized to execute an agreement between the City and the State of Texas by the TeXas Department of Transportion for a rain gauge station in the eastern right-of-way of F.M. 156 at Hickory Creek in the City of Denton, Texas, in substantially the form of the agreement attached to and made a part of this ordinance for all purposes. SECTION 2. The City Manager is authorized to make the expenditures as provided in the attached agreement. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2000. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: · MULTIPLE USE AGREEMENT STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TRAVIS THIS AGREEMENT made by the State of Texas by and between the Texas Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "State", party of the first part, and the City of Denton, hereinafter called the "City", party of the second part, is to become effective when executed by both parties. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, on the day of ,19 , the governing body for the City, entered into Resolution/Ordinance No. hereinafter identified by reference, authorizing the City's participation in this agreement with the State; and WHEREAS, the City has requested the State to permit construction, maintenance and operation of a rain gauge station in the existing eastern right of way of F.M. 156 at Hickory Creek shown graphically by the preliminary conceptual site plan in Exhibit "A" and being more particularly described by metes and bounds of Exhibit "B', which are attached and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the State has indicated its willingness to approve the establishment of such facilities and other uses conditioned that the City will enter into agreements with the State for the purpose of determining the respective responsibilities of the City and the State with reference thereto, and conditioned that such uses are in the public interest and will not damage the highway facilities, impair safety, impede maintenance or in any way restrict the operation of the highway facility, ail as determined from engineering and traffic investigations conducted by the State. I AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants and agreements of the parties hereto to be by them respectively kept and performed as hereinafter set forth, it is agreed as follows: 1. CONSTRUCTION PLANS The parties hereto will prepare or provide for the construction plans for the facility, and will provide for the construction work as required by said plans at no cost to the State. Said plans shall include the design of the access control, necessary horizontal and vertical clearances from highway structures, adequate landscape treatment, and general layout; and they shall also delineate and define the construction responsibilities of both parties hereto and when approved, shall be attached to the agreement and made a part thereof in all respects. Any future revisions or additions of permanent improvements shall be made after prior written approval of the State. 2. INSPECTION Ingress and egress shall be allowed at all times to such facility for Federal Highway Administration personnel and State Forces and equipment when highway maintenance operations are necessary, and for inspection purposes; and upon request, all parking or other activities for periods required for such operations will be prohibited. 3. PROHIBITIONS/SIGNS Regulations shall be established prohibiting the parking of vehicles transporting flammable or explosive loads and prohibiting use of the area in any manner for peddling, advertising or other purposes not in keeping with the objective of a public facility. The erection of signs other than required for proper use of the area will be prohibited. All signs shall be approved by the State prior to the actual erection. 4. RESPONSIBILITIES Maintenance and operation of the facility shall be entirely the responsibility of the City. Such responsibility shall not be transferred, assigned or conveyed to a third party without the advanced written approval of the State. Further, such responsibility shall include picking up trash, mowing and otherwise keeping the facility in a clean and sanitary condition, and surveillance by police patrol to eliminate the possible creation of a nuisance or hazard to the public. Hazardous or unreasonably objectionable smoke, fumes, vapor, or odors shall not be permitted to rise above the grade line of the highway, nor shall the facility subject the highway to hazardous or unreasonably objectionable dripping, droppings or diocharse of any kind, including rain or snow. 5. TERMINATION UPON NOTICE This provision is expressly made subject to the rights herein granted to both parties to terminate this agreement upon notice, and upon the exercise of any such right by either party, all obligations herein to make improvements to said facility shall immediately cease and terminate. 6. MODIFICATION/TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT If in the sole judgment of the State it is found at any future time that traffic conditions have so changed that the existence or use of the facility is impeding maintenance, damaging the highway facility, impairing safety or that the facility is not being properly operated, that it constitutes a nuisance, is abandoned, or if for any other reason it is the State's judgments that such a facility is not in the public interest, this agreement under which the facility was constructed may be: (1) modified if corrective measures acceptable to both parties can be applied to eliminate the objectionable features of the facility or (2) terminated and the use of the area as proposed herein discontinued. 7. PROHIBITION OF STORAGE OF FLAMMABLE MATERIALS All structures located or constructed within the area covered by the agreement shall be fire resistant. The storage of flammable, explosive, or hazardous materials is prohibited. Operations deemed to be a potential fire hazard shah be subject to regulation by the State. 8. RESTORATION OF AREA The City shah provide written notification to the State that such facility will be discontinued for the purpose defined herein. The City shall, within thirty (30) days from the date of said notification, clear the area of all facilities that were its construction responsibility under this agreement and restore the area to a condition satisfactory to the State. 9. PREVIOUS AGREEMENT It is understood that this agreement in no way modifies or supersedes the terms and provisions of any existing agreements between the parties hereto. 10. INDEMNIFICATION The City shall, insofar as it is legally permitted and subject to such limitations, indemnify the State against any and aH damages and claims for damages, including those resulting from injury to or death of persons or for loss of or damage to property, arising out of, incident to or in any manner connected with any claims or suits for damages resulting from the facility and shall, if requested in writing by the State to do so, assist the State with or relieve the State from defending any suit brought against it. Neither party hereto intends to waive, relinquish, limit or condition its right to avoid any such liability by claiming its governmental immunity. When notified by the State to do so, the other party hereto shall within thirty (30) days from receipt of the State's written notification pay the State for the full cost of repairing any damages to the highway facility which may result from its construction, maintenance or operation of the facility, or its duly authorized agents or employees, and shall promptly reimburse the State for costs of construction and/or repair work made necessary by reason of such damages. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed as creating any liability in favor of any third party against the State and the City. Additionally, this agreement shall not ever be construed as relieving any third party from any liability against the State and the City, but the City shall become fully subrogated to the State and shall be entitled to maintain any action over and against the third party which may be liable for having caused the City to pay or disburse any sum of money hereunder. 11. INSURANCE The City shall provide necessary safeguards to protect the public on State-maintained highways or right of way including adequate insurance for payment of any damages which might result of the City's use of the facility and to hold the State harmless from damages by providing a Certificate of Insurance, TxDOT form 1560, naming the State as as Additional Insured. Said Certificate of Insurance is attached hereto and made a part hereof for all purposes. Or in the alternative if the City is self-insured at the execution of this Agreement or prior thereto, the City shall provide State documentation of self-insurance. 12. USE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY It is to be understood that the State by execution of this agreement does not impair or relinquish the State's right to use such land for right of way purposes when it is required for the purposes for which it was acquired, nor shall use of the land under such agreement ever be construed as abandonment by the State of such land acquired for highway purposes, and the State does not purport to grant any interest in the land described herein but merely consents to such use to the extent its authority and title permits. 13. ADDITIONAL CONSENT REQUIRED The State asserts only that it does not necessarily have suffident title for highway purposes. The City shall be responsible for obtaining such additional consent or agreement as may be necessary due to this agreement. This includes, but is not limited to, public utilities. 14. FI-IWA ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS The facility is not located on the Federal-Aid Highway System. 15. CIVIL RIGHTS ASSURANCES The City, for itself, its personal representatives, successors and interests and assigns, as part of the consideration hereof, does hereby covenant and agree as a covenant running with the land that: (1) no persons, on the ground of race, color, sex, age, national origin, religion, or disabling condition, shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination in the use of said facility; (2) that in the construction of any improvements on, over or under such land and the furnishing of services thereon, no person on the ground of race, color, sex, age, national origin, religion, or disabling condition, shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination; (3) that the City shall use the premises in compliance with all other requirements imposed by or pursuant to Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, Non-discrimination in Federally-Assisted programs of the Department of Transportation-Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and as said Regulations may be amended. That if in the event of any breach of the above non-discrimination covenants, the State shall have the right to terminate the agreement and reenter and repossess said land and the facilities thereon, and hold the same as if said agreement had never been made or issued. 16. AMENDMENTS Any changes in the time frame, character or responsibilities of the parties hereto shall be enacted by a written amendment executed by both parties hereto. 17. LEGAL CONSTRUCTION In case one or more of the provisions contained in this agreement shall for any reason be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any provision hereof and this agreement shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained in this agreement. 18. REMOVAL/ADJUSTMENT OF FACILITIES If the right of way subject to the agreement is required for future State highway purposes, then the City shall remove or make adjustments to their facilities, as determined by the State, at no expense to the State. 19. NOTICES All notices required under this agreement shall be mailed or hand delivered to the following respective addresses: STATE Texas Deparh~-~ent of Transportation Dallas District P.O. Box 133067 Mesquite, Texas 75313-3067 City of Denton 221 N. Elm St. Denton, Texas 76201 List of Attached Exhibits: Exhibit Al- Exhibit A- Exhibit B- Exhibit C~ Location Map Conceptual Site Plan Metes and Bounds Description Documentation of Self-Insurance In Witness Whereof, the parties have executed duplicate original counterparts to this agreement to become effective on the date last executed. By:. ATTEST: By:, CITY OF DENTON Michael W. Jez City Manager Jennifer Waiters City Secretary STATE OF TEXAS TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Executed for the Executive Director and approved by the Texas Transportation Commission for the purpose and effect of activating and/or carrying out the orders, and established policies, or work programs heretofore approved and authorized by the Texas Transportation Commisssion. By: Jay R. Nelson, P.E. Dallas District Engineer Date: EXHIBIT "A" CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN Gcpy D, NeiLson Instm, No, 95-R0026993 R,P,R,I],C,T, -- N31*l?'OO'E 10.00' $18'58'00'E 80.00' 10' x 80' RAIN & STREAM GAUGE MONITORING STATION AREA x Z rq F' SCALE: 1" = 100' City of Denton Engineering & Transportation Department Rigl~t-of - Way Division 99-O0003-DRAN Denise TxDQT 18/16/99 24.28 816-2 J ) /5.04 ~_ 134-9 ".. 87-1 /'/6 2552-2 ORO &.~O 1568-2 DENTON NO. 61 TARRANT CO. EXHIBIT LOCATION A1 MAP POINT DENTON DENTON RAIN AND STREAM GAUGE MONITORING STATION NORTH, DOUBLE LEWISVILLE MOUND 3088'1 81-9 $559-1 O.X'6 /.O DIST. 2 3547-1 2.52 616-$ I $~ 77 PROSF :z. 2. 0.36 619-,~ 2250-~ 43 DENTON EXHIBIT "B' County Denton Highway F.M. 156 Project Limits: F.M. 156 at Hickory Creek Page 1 of 1 December 16, 1999 BEING 800 square feet of land, more or less, situated in the William Stoneham Survey, Abstract Number 1145, Denton County, Texas and being part of a tract of land conveyed to the State of Texas, acting by and through the State Highway Commission by deed as recorded in Volume 322, Page 124, Deed Records, Denton County, Texas, said 800 square feet of land being more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows: BEGINNING at a point at the intersection of the eastern right of way line of Farm-to- Market 156 and the centerline of Hickory Creek, also being the southwest corner of a tract of land conveyed to Gary D. and Martha S. Neilson by deed as recorded in Instrument Number 95-R0026993 of the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas; THENCE North 31 degrees 17 minutes 00 seconds West along the centerline of said Hickory Creek for a distance of 10.00 feet to a point for corner; THENCE North 18 degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds East, parallel to the said eastern right of way line F.M. 156 for a distance of 80.00 feet to a point for corner; THENCE South 31 degrees 17 minutes 00 seconds East for a distance of 10.00 feet to a point in the eastern right of way line of F.M. 156; THENCE South 18 degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds West along the eastern right of way line of F.M. 156 for a distance of 80.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing an area of 800 square feet of land, more or less. Agenda Item_ ~ AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET April 4, 2000 Utility Administration Howard Martin, 349-8232~lx''''~ SUBJECT : An ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute a Project Cooperation Agreement between the City of Denton and the Department of the Army for modification of the Lake Lewisville Lake Wildlife Management Area of Lewisville Lake, Texas; and providing for an effective date. BACKGROUND: As you recall, Section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 set aside funds to restore habitat damaged or lost as a result of water reservoir construction. Before impoundment of Lewisville Lake in 1954, substantially more wetlands, bottomland hardwoods, and upland forests existed. Once the lake was modified in 1988 to raise the conservation pool, over 23,000 acres of land were inundated. Because of the many wetlands and associated bottomlands that were damaged or lost, the Corps, in conjunction with the City of Denton, sought and received Congressional funding to restore a portion of the lost habitat. The Corps and Denton developed a proposal that includes 2,645 acres of old fields, remnant riparian and bottomland hardwoods, lacustrine wetlands (wetlands related to the lake) and open water habitat located at the northern end of Lewisville Lake, north of US 380 on either side of the Greenbelt Corridor. The propose of the project is to restore wetland and bottomland communities to benefit wildlife including migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, perching and migratory songbirds and predators such as Cooper's hawk, all of which would benefit from the increased size and quality of the woodlands. Specifically, the project entails reforestation of approximately 578 acres within selected openings to provide linkage among existing riparian and bottomland hardwood habitat. Also planned is the construction of two wetland cells, including the establishment of wetland vegetation totaling 129 acres and construction and establishment of 102 wood duck boxes. The Corps and Denton formalized their understanding by entering into a Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) on July 19, 1999. (The PCA is the contract between the federal government and the non-federal sponsor describing the rights and responsibilities of each party during project implementation). It immediately follows the attached Lease. The PCA had to be executed prior to advertisement of the construction contract. The Corps recently submitted a request for bids and received a qualifying low-bid for the restoration work. Before the work can begin, however, Denton must pay its cash share (or $49,200) of the total project cost of $642,400. (The remainder of Denton's share ($111,400) will be work-in-kind ("WlK").) Before Denton can pay its cash share, both parties must sign the attached Lease. By executing the lease, the Corps officially tums thc project lands over to Denton for operation and maintenance. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT: The Corps conducted a "transition meeting" last week to officially move the project from the real estate division to the construction division. The contract will officially be awarded to the contractor the first week of April. Actual construction work will begin immediately thereafter. The City of Denton launched its reforestation effort March 11, 2000. The tree planting portion of the WlK requirement Will occur over a two year period, primarily in the fall and spring. Once the contractor completes construction of the wetland cells, Denton will plant appropriate vegetation, build the wood duck houses, and locate them throughout the wetland habitat. FISCAL INFORMATION: The total project cost is $642,400. The federal share is 75% of the cost, or $481,800. The remaining amount, or $160,600 is Denton's share of the cost. Of this, $111,400 will be WlK. (WlK includes reforestation of 192 acres by coordinating with UNT and using volunteers for labor. Volunteers will also be used for wetlands revegetation and construction and placement of the 102 wood duck boxes among the wetlands.) The remaining $49,200 will be paid by utilities. (The proposed budget for utilities for FY 00 includes funds for this project.) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends PUB approve the attached Lease. Exhibit: 1. Lease 2. 3. Ju~. ~nit~ ( ~] F~onmenta~pliance Manager PCA and other relevant material Map ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROJECT COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY FOR MODIFICATION OF THE LEWISVILLE LAKE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA OF LEWISVILLE LAKE, TEXAS; AND PROVDING FOR AN EFFECTWE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a Project Cooperation Agreement between the Department of the Army and the City of Denton, Texas for modification of the Lewisville Lake Wildlife Management Area on Lewisville Lake, Texas, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. SECTION 2. That the City Manager is further authorized to take the action and make any expenditures required by the attached Agreement. SECTION 3. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2000. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY NO. DACW63-1-00-0799 DEPARTM~.~T OF THE ARMY LEASE LEWiSVILLE LAKE DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS THIS LEASE, made on behalf of the United States, between the SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, hereinafter referred to as the Secretary, and the CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, hereinafter referred to as the Lessee. WITNESSETH: That the Secretary, by authority of Title 16, United States Code, Section 460d, as amended, and Section 1135(b} of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Public Law 99-662, as amended, and pursuant to Project Cooperation Agreement between the Department of the Army and the Local Sponsor/Lessee entered into on 19 July 1999, (hereinafter referred to as "PCA"), attached hereto and referred to as Exhibit "A", and for the consideration hereinafter set forth, hereby leases approximately 2,645 acres of land within Tracts M-Ii01-2, 2531 and 2532, to the Lessee as identified in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof, hereinafter referred to as the premises, for the implementation, operation, repair, replacement and rehabilitation of the Project Modification. THIS LEASE is granted subject to the following conditions: 1. TERM Said premises are hereby granted for so long as the PCA remains in full force and effect. 2. CONSIDERATION The consideration for this lease is the implementation, operation, repair, replacement and rehabilitation of the Project Modification and the maintenance of the premises by the Lessee for the benefit of the United States and the general public in accordance with the conditions herein set forth. 3. NOTICES a. Ail correspondence and notices to be given pursuant to this lease shall be addressed, if to the Lessee, to the City Manager for the City of Denton, 215 E. McKinney, Denton, TX 76201, and if to the United States, to the District Engineer, Port Worth District, Real Estate Division, ATTN: CESWF-RE-M, P. O. Box 17300, Fort Worth, TX 76102-0300, or as may from time to time otherwise be directed in writing by the parties. A_ny notice, request, demand, or other communication required or permitted to be given under this lease shall be deemed to have been duly given if in writing and either delivered personally, or by telegram, or mailed by first-class, registered, or certified mail. b. Any notice, request, demand, or other communication made pursuant to this Condition shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee at the earlier of such time as it is actually received or seven calendar days after it is mailed. 4. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES Except as otherwise specifically provided, any reference herein to "Secretary", ~District Engineer", or "said officer" shall include their duly authorized representatives. Any reference to ~Lessee" shall include its successors, employees and duly authorized representatives. 5. PROJECT MODIFICATION ACTIVITIES a. The Lessee shall comply with the approved Ecosystem Restoration Report or other document (~Report") described in Article I of the PCA and the management and development activities described in the Report and in the OMRR&R Manual described in Article VIII of the PCA, both by this referer~e made a part hereof. b. The Lessee's operation, management and other project modification activities are subordinate to the operation and management of the Existing Project, as defined in Article I of the PCA. The Existing Project will have operational priority in any situation where a conflict arises. c. The use and occupation of the premises shall be subject to the general supervision and approval of the District Engineer. 2 6. APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS a. The Lessee shall comply with all applicable Federal laws and regulations and with all applicable laws, ordinances and regulations of the state, county, and municipality wherein the premises are located, including, but not limited to, those regarding construction, health, safety, water supply, sanitation, and use of pesticides. In addition, the Lessee should comply with the specific directions and requirements contained in the OMRR&R Manual referenced in Article VIII of the PCA. The Lessee shall make and enforce such regulations as are necessary and within its legal authority in exercising the privileges granted in this lease, provided that such regulations are not inconsistent with the provisions of law cited in the granting clause. b. The Lessee will provide an annual certification that all water systems on the premises, if any, have been inspected and comply with Federal, state'and local standards. Lessee will also provide a statement of compliance with the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, as required in the condition on NON-DISCRIMINATION, noting any deficiencies and providing a schedule for correction. 7. CONDITION OF PREMISES a. The Lessee acknowledges that it has inspected the premises, knows its condition, and understands that the same is leased without any representations or warranties whatsoever and without obligation on the part of the United States to make any alterations, repairs or additions thereto. b. As of the date of this lease, an inventory and condition report of all personal property and improvements of the United States included in this lease shall be made by the District Engineer and the Lessee to reflect the condition of said property and said improvements. A copy of said report is attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and made a part hereof. Upon the expiration revocation, or termination of this lease, another inventory and condition report shall be similarly prepared. This report shall constitute the basis for settlement for property damaged or destroyed~ Any such property must be either replaced or restored to the condition required by the condition on PROTECTION OF PROPERTY. 3 8. AGRICULTURAL AND WILDLIFE CONTROL ACTIVITIES a. The Lessee may plant or harvest crops, either directly, by service contract, by sharecrop agreements with local farmers, or by agricultural agreements to provide food and/or habitat for wildlife and for the development and conservation of land, fish and wildlife, forests, and other natural resources. Where feasible, contracts and agreements with third parties shall be by competitive bid procedures. b. The Lessee may take, trap, remove, stock or otherwise control all forms of fish and wildlife on the premises, and may place therein such additional forms of fish and wildlife as it may desire from time to time, and shall have the right to close the area, or any parts thereof from time to time, to fishing, hunting or trapping, provided that the closing of any area to such use shall be consistent with the state laws for the protection of fish and wildlife. 9. TRANSFERS, ASSIGNMENTS Without prior written approval of the District Engineer, the Lessee shall neither transfer nor assign this lease, nor sublet the demised premises or any part thereof, nor grant any interest, privilege, or license whatsoever in connection with this lease. Agreements covered by the condition on AGRICULTURAL AND WILDLIFE CONTROL ACTIVITIES are not subject to this condition. 10. ACCOUNTS, RECORDS AND RECEIPTS a. Ail monies received by the Lessee from the sale o~ timber or crops conducted on the premises may be utilized by the Lessee for the administration, maintenance, operation and development of the premises. Beginning 5 years from the date of this lease and continuing at 5-year intervals, any such monies not so utilized or programmed for utilization within a reasonable time shall be paid to the District Engineer. The Lessee shall provide an annual statement of receipts and expenditures to the District Engineer. The District Engineer shall have the right to perform audits of the Lessee's records and accounts. b. Payment of direct expenses is authorized for planning and development of optimum wildlife habitat including planting of wildlife food plots, necessary timber clearing, erosion control or habitat improvements such as shelter, restocking of fish and wildlife, and protection of endangered species. Payment of Lessee's employees who are directly engaged in such activities at the project is also authorized. However, proceeds will not be used for the payment of general administrative expenses. c. Proceeds derived from the sale of fishing and hunting leases are not subject to this condition. 11. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY The Lessee shall be responsible for any damage that may be caused to the property of the United States by the activities of the Lessee under this lease, and shall exercise due diligence in the protection of all property located on the premises against fire or damage from any and all other causes. Any property of the United States damaged or destroyed by the Lessee incident to the exercise of the privileges herein granted shall be promptly repaired or replaced by the Lessee to a condition satisfactory to said officer, or at the election of said officer, reimbursement made therefor by the Lessee in an amount necessary to restore or replace the property to a condition satisfactory to said officer. 12. RIGHT TO ENTER AND FLOOD The right is reserved to the United States, its officers, agents, and employees to enter upon the premises at any time and for any purpose necessary or convenient in connection with Government work; to make inspections; to remove timber or ~ther material, except property of the Lessee; to flood the premises; to manipulate the level of the lake or pool in any manner whatsoever; and/or to make any other use of the land as may be necessary in connection with project purposes, and the Lessee shall have no claim for damages on account thereof against the United States or any officer, agent, or employee. 13. RESTORATION On or before the expiration of this lease or its termination by the Lessee, the Lessee shall vacate the premises, remove the property of the Lessee therefrom, and restore the premises to a 5 condition satisfactory to the District Engineer. If, however, this lease is revoked, the Lessee shall vacate the premises, remove said property therefrom and restore the premises to the aforesaid condition with such time as the District Engineer may designate. In either event, if the Lessee shall fail or neglect to remove said property and restore the premises, then, at the option of the District Engineer, said property shall either become the property of the United States without compensation therefor, or the District Engineer may cause the property to be removed and no claim for damages against the United States or its officers or agents shall be created by or made on account of such removal and restoration work. The Lessee shall also pay the United States on demand any sum which may be expended by the United States after the expiration, revocation, or termination of this lease in restoring the premises. 14. NON-DISCRIMINATION a. The Lessee shall not discriminate against any person or persons or exclude them from participation in the Lessee's operations, programs or activities conducted on 'the leased premises because of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap or national origin. The Lessee will comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. Sections 12101 et seq.) and attendant Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAG) published by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. b. The Lessee, by acceptance of this lease, is receiving a type of Federal assistance and, therefore, hereby gives assurance that it will comply with the provisions of Title VI of ~he Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, (42 U.S.C. Section 2000d)~ the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. Section 6102); the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. Section 794); and all requirements imposed by or pursuant to the Directive of the Department of Defense (32 CFR Part 300) issued as Deparsment of Defense Directives 5500.11 and 1020.1, and Army Regulation 600-7. 15. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS This lease is subject to all existing easements, easements subsequently granted, and established acc~s~ routes for roadways and utilities located, or to be located, on the premises provided 6 that the proposed grantee of any new easement or route will be coordinated with the Lessee, and easements will not be granted which will, in the opinion of the District Engineer, interfere with developments, present or proposed, by the Lessee. The Lessee will not close any established access routes without written permission of the District Engineer. 16. SUBJECT TO MINERAL INTERESTS This lease is subject to all outstanding mineral interests. As to federally-owned mineral interests, it is understood that they may be included in present or future mineral leases issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which has responsibility for mineral development on federal lands. The Secretary will provide lease stipulations to BLM for inclusion in said mineral leases that are designed to protect the premises from activities that would interfere with the lessee's operations or would be contrary to local law. 17. COMPLIANCE, CLOSURE, AND REVOCATION a. The Lessee is charged at all times with full knowledge of all the limitations and requirements of this lease and the FCA, and the necessity for correction of deficiencies, and with compliance with reasonable requests by the District Engineer. This lease may be revoked in the event the Lessee violates any of the terms and conditions of either the lease or t~e FCA and continues and persists in such violation. The Lessee will be notified of any non-compliance, which notice shall be in writing or shall be confirmed in writing, giving a period of time in which to correct the non-compliance. Failure to satisfactorily correct any substantial'or persistent non-compliance withJ$n the specified time is grounds for closure of all or part of the premises, temporary suspension of operation, entry upon the premises for the purpose of completing, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, or rehabilitating the Project Modification, or revocation of the lease, after notice in writing of such intent. b. This lease may be revoked by the Secretary, by giving thirty (30) days notice in writing in the manner described in the condition on NOTICES of this lease, in the event the FCA is uerminated pursuant to Article XIV of the FCA or the Secretary determines that the premises identified in Exhibit "B" are no longer required for the implementation, operation and maintenance of the Project Modification. 18. HEALTH AND SAFETY a. The Lessee shall keep the premises in good order and in a clean and safe condition. b. In addition to the rights of revocation for noncompliance, the District Engineer, upon discovery of any hazardous conditions on the premises that present an immediate threat to health and/or danger to life or property, will so notify the Lessee and will require that the affected part or all of the premises be closed to the public until such condition is corrected and the danger to the public eliminated. If the condition is not corrected, the District Engineer will have the option to: (1) correct the hazardous conditions and collect the cost of repairs from the Lessee; or, (2} revoke the lease. The Lessee shall have no claim for damages against the United States, or any officer, agent, or employee thereof on account of action taken pursuant to this condition. 19. PUBLIC USE No attempt shall be made by the Lessee to forbid the full use by the public of the premises and of the water areas of the project, subject, however, to the authority and responsibility of the Lessee under this lease to manage the premises and provide safety and security to the visiting public. 20. NATURAL RESOURCES The Lessee shall cut no timber, conduct no mining operations, remove no sand, gravel, or kindred substances from the ground, commit no waste of any kind, nor in any manner substantially change the contour or condition of the premise, except as may be authorized under and pursuant to the Report described in the condition on PROJECT MODIFICATION ACTIVITIES. The Lessee may salvage fallen or dead timber; however, no commercial use shall be made of such timber. Except for timber salvaged by the Lessee when in the way of construction of improvements or other facilities, all sales of forest products will be conducted by the United States and the proceeds therefrom shall not be available to the Lessee under the provisions of this lease. 21. DISPUTES CLAUSE a. Except as provided in the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.SoC. 601-613) (the Act), all disputes arising under or relating to this lease shall be resolved under this clause and the provision of the Act. b. "Claim", as used in this clause, means a written demand or written assertion by the Lessee seeking, as a matter of right, the payment of money in a sum certain, the adjustment of interpretation of lease terms, or other relief arising under or relating to this lease. A claim arising under this lease, unlike a claim relating to that lease, is a claim that can be resolved under a lease clause that provides for the relief sought by the Lessee. However, a written demand or written assertion by the Lessee seeking the payment of money exceeding $i00,000 is not a claim under the Act until certified as required'by subparagraph b.(2) below. (1) A claim by the Lessee shall be made in writing and submitted to the District Engineer for a written decision. A claim by the Government against the Lessee shall be subject to a written decision by the District Engineer. (2) For Lessee claims exceeding $100,000, the Lessee shall submit with the claim a certification that-- (i) The Claim is made in good faith; (ii) Supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of the Lessee's knowledge and belief; and (iii) The amount requested accurately reflects the lease adjustment for which the Lessee believes the Government is liable. (3) If the Lessee is an individual, the certificate shall be executed by that individual. If the Lessee is not an individual, the certification shall be executed by: (i) A senior company official in charge at the Lessee's location involved; or (ii) An officer or general partner of the Lessee having overall responsibility of the conduct of the Lessee's affairs. c. For Lessee claims of $100,000 or less, the District Engineer must, if requested in writing by the Lessee, render a decision within 60 days of the request. For Lessee-certified claims over $100,000, the District Engineer must within 60 days, decide the claim or notify the Lessee of the date by which the decision will be made. d. The District Engineer's decision shall be final unless the Lessee appeals or files a suit as provided in the Act. e. At the time a claim by the Lessee is submitted to the District Engineer or a claim by the Government is presented to the Lessee, the parties, by mutual consent, may agree to use alternative means of disputes resolution. When'using alternate dispute resolution procedures, any claim, regardless of amount, shall be accompanied by the certificate described in paragraph b. (2) of this clause, and executed in accordance with paragraph b.(3) of this clause. f. The Government shall pay interest on the amount found due and unpaid by the Government from (1) the date the District Engineer received the claim (properly certified if required), or (2) the date payment otherwise would be due, if that date is later, until the date of payment. Simple interest on claims shall be paid at the rate, fixed by the Secretary of the t Treasury, as provided in the Act, which is applicable zo the period during which the District Engineer received the claim, and then at the rate applicable for each 6-month period as fixed by the Treasury Secretary during the pendency of the claim. g. The Lessee shall proceed diligently with the performance of the lease, pending final resolution of any request for relief, claim, appeal, or action arising under the lease, and comply with any decision of the District Engineer. 10 22. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION a. Within the limits of their respective legal powers, the parties to this lease shall protect the premises against pollution of its air, ground, and water. The Lessee shall comply with any laws, regulations, conditions or instructions affecting the activity hereby authorized if and when issued by the Environmental Protection Agency or any Federal, state, interstate or local governmental agency having jurisdiction to abate or prevent pollution. The disposal of any toxic or hazardous materials within the premises is specifically prohibited. Such regulations, conditions, or instructions in effect or prescribed by said Environmental Protection Agency, or any Federal, State, interstate or local governmental agency are hereby made a condition of this lease. b. The Lessee will use all reasonable means available to protect the environment and natural resources, and where damage nonetheless occurs from activities of the lessee, the Lessee shall be liable to restore the damaged property. Lessee shall be considered the operator of the Project Modification for purposes of liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. Sections 9601 -9675). c. The Lessee must obtain approval in writing from said officer before any pesticides or herbicides are applied to the premises. 23. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE SURVEY An Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS) documenting the known history of the property with regard to the storage, release or disposal of hazardous substances thereon, is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "D". Upon expiration, revocation or relinquishment of this lease another EBS shall be prepared by the District Engineer which will document the environmental condition of the property at that time. A comparison of the two assessments will assist the said officer in determining any environmental restoration requirements. Any such requirements will be completed by the Lessee in accordance with the condition on RESTORATION. 11 24. HISTORIC PRESERVATION The Lessee shall not remove or disturb, or cause or permit to be removed or disturbed, any historical, archeological, architectural or other cultural artifacts, relics, remains or objects of antiquity. In the event such items are discovered on the premises, the Lessee shall immediately notify said officer' and protect the site and the material from further disturbance until said officer gives clearance to proceed. 25. SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION The Lessee shall maintain, in a manner satisfactory to said officer, all soil and water conservation structures that may be in existence upon said premises at the beginning of or that may be constructed by the Lessee during the term of this lease, and the Lessee shall take appropriate measures to prevent or control soil erosion within the premises. Any soil erosion occurring outside the premises resulting from the activities of the Lessee shall be corrected by the Lessee as directed by the said officer. 26. HOLD HARMLESS The Lessee shall hold and save the United States free from damages arising from the implementation, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement and rehabilitation of the Project Modification, and any Project Modification-related betterments, and management of the premises and the facilities'and improvements, except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the United States or its contractors. 27. COVENA/TT AGAINST CONTINGENT FEES The Lessee warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this lease upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Lessee for the purpose of securing business. For breach or violation of this warranty, the United States shall have the right to annul this lease without liability or, in its discretion, to require the Lessee to pay, in addition to the lease rental or consideration, the full amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage or contingent fee. 12 28. OFFICIALS NOT TO BENEFIT No Member of or Delegate to Congress or Resident Commissioner shall be admitted to any share or part of this lease or to any benefits to arise therefrom. However, nothing herein contained shall be construed to extend to any incorporated company if the lease be for the general benefit of such corporation or company. 29. MODIFICATIONS This lease contains the entire agreement between the parties hereto, and no modification of this agreement, or waiver, or consent hereunder shall be valid unless the same be in writing, signed by the parties to be bound or by a duly authorized representative; and this provision shall apply to this clause as well as all other conditions of this lease. 30. DISCLAIMER This lease is effective only insofar as the'rights of the United States in the premises are concerned; and the lessee shall obtain such permission as may be required on account of any other existing rights.. It is understood that the granting of this lease does not eliminate the necessity of obtaining any Department of the Army permit which may be required pursuant to the provisions of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 3 March 1899 (30 Stat. 1151; 33 U.S.C. Section 403), or Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1344). 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand by authority of the Secretary of the Army this __ day of , 2000 . Hyla J. Head Chief, Real Estate Division of THIS LEASE is also executed by the Lessee this , 2000. day ATTEST: CITY OF DENTON BY: City Secretary Approved as to Legal Form: Herbert L. Prouty, City Attorney BY: Michael W. Jez City Manager · City~ey 14 CERTIFICATE I, Herbert L. Proutv certify that I am the~y of the City of Denton, Texas, named as Lessee herein. Michael W. Jez of the Lessee was then That , who signed this Lease on behalf City Manager of the City of Denton, Texas, and that said Lease was duly signed for and on behalf of the City by authority of its governing body and is within the scope of its legal powers. H~rb~t ~. Pr/ 15 MODEL PROJECT COOPERATIONAGREEMENT FOR SECTION 1135, PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT PROJECT COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS FOR MODIFICATION OF THE LEWISVILLE LAKE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA LEWISVILLE LAKE, TEXAS THIS AGREEMEnt is entered into this l~_~--h .. day o2 ~(~ IV , 1~ ~, by and between the DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY (hereinafter the Government,~), represented by the U.S. Army Engineer for the F~rt Worth District (hereinafter the "District Engineer") and the City of Denton, Texas, (hereinafter the "Non- Federal Sponsor"), represented by the Mayor, city of Denton, Texas. WITNESSETH, T~L~T: WHEREAS, the :~ecretary of the Army completed construction of the Lewisville Lake in 1954, and will complete construction of the Ray Roberts Lake Greenbelt Corridor Project in 1998,1which include approximately 3,046 acres of project lands at the upper end of Lewisville Lake, Texas (hereinafter the "Existing Project", as defined in Article I.A. of this Agreement)~ WHEREAS, modification of the Existing Project is authorized by Section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Public Law 99-662, as amended; WHEREAS, the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor desire to enter into a Project Cooperation Agreement for implementation of the Lewisville Lake Project Modification (hereinafter the ,,Project Modification", as defined in Article I.B. of this Agreement); WHEREAS, Section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Public Law 9~-662, as amended, specifies the cost-sharing requirements applicable to this Project Modification; Exhibit WHEREAS, the Non-Federal Sponsor desires to perform certain work (hereinafter the "work-in-kind", as defined in Article I.M. of this Agreement) which is a part of the Project Modification; WHEREAS, the Government and Non-Federal Sponsor have the full authority and capability to perform as hereinafter set forth and intend to cooperate in cost-sharing and financing of the implementation of the Project Modification in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the Government and the .Non-Federal Sponsor agree as follows: ARTICLE I - DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS For purposes of this Agreement: A. The texm "Existing Project" shall mean Lewisville Lake, Texas, located on the Elm Fork of the Trinity River between Dallas and Denton near the city of Lewisville, Denton County, Texas. The lake has a total storage capacity of 981,763 acre- feet including 640,986 acre-feet of conservation storage at elevation 522.0 feet mean sea level (msl) with a surface area of 29,592 acres; and 340,777 acre-feet of flood control storage at elevation 532.0 feet msl with a surface area of 39,168 acres.- Lewisville Lake has an average depth of 21 feet and~250 miles of shoreline. The existing project also includes appr6ximately 5,500 acres of wildlife management area within four"separate ' tracts of lan~. ~ B. The term "Proi]ect ~odification" shall mean the reforestation of approximately 578 acres within selected openings to provide linkage among the existing riparian and bottomland hardwood habitat, the construction of two wetland c~lls, including the establishment of-wetland vegetation totaling 129 acres, and the construction and placement of 102 wood duck boxes within approximately 2,644 acres of Lewisville Lake project lands north of U.S. Highway 380, as ~enerally described in the. ~ Ecosystem Restoration Report and Integrated Environmental Assessment for Lewisville Lake Wildlife Habitat Restoration, Denton County, Texas, dated March 1998, and approved by the Commander, Southwestern Division, on May 28, 1998. 'The Project Modification includes the work-in-kind described in Article I.M. of this Agreement. C. The term "total project modification costs" shall mean all costs incurred by the Non-Federal Sponsor and the Government in accordance with the terms of this Agreement directly related to implementation of the Project Modification. Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, the te~,, shall include, but is not necessarily limited to, feasibility phase planning costs; all engineering and design costs, including those incurred in the 2 feasibility phase; the costs of investigations to identify the existence and extent of hazardous substances in accordance with Article XV.A. of this Agreement; the costs incurred by the Government for clean-up and response in accordance with Article XV.C. of this Agreement; costs of historic preservation activities in accordance with Article XVIII.A. of this Agreement; actual implementation costs;, the credit amount for the work-in- kind perfozmed by the Non-Federal Sponsor in accordance with Article II.D.4. of this Agreement; supervision and administration costs; costs of participation in the Project Coordination Team in accordance with Article V of this Agreement; costs of contract dispute settlements or awards; the value of lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and suitable borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas for which the Government affords credit in accordance with Article IV of this Agreement; and costs of audit in accordance with Article X of this Agreement. The term does not include any costs for operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, or rehabilitation; any costs due to ketterments; or any costs of dispute resolution under Article VII of this Agreement. D. The telm "financial obligation for implementation,, shall mean a financial obligation of the Government or a financial obligation of the Non-Federal Sponso~ for%work-in~k~nd, o~her than an obligation pertaining to the provision of lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and borrow ahd dredged or excavated material disposal areas, that resultD or would result in a cost that is or would be included in total project modification costs. E. The term "implementation" shall mean all actions re_cyuired to carry out the Project Modification including all actions required for modification in operations of the Existing Project. F. The tek,, ~non-Federal proportionate ~hare~ shall mean the ratio of the NonLFederal Sponsor's total cash c~ntribution required in accordance with Article II.D.2. ofi'thislAgreement to total financial obligations for implementation"as p~ojected by Zhe Government. G. The te~m "period of implementation,, ~hall mean the time from the effective date of this Agreement to the date that the District Engineer notifies the Non-Federal Sponsor in writing of the Government's determination that implementation of the Project Modification is complete. H. The term "highway" shall mean any public highway, roadway, street, or way, including any bridge thereof. I. The term "relocation" shall mean providing a functionally equivalent facility to the owner of an existing utility, cemetery, highway or other public facility, or railroad when such action is authorized in accordance with applicable legal principles of just compensation. Providing a functionally equivalent facility may take the form of alteration, lowering, raising, or replacement and attendant removal of the affected facility or part thereof. J. The tezm "fiscal year" shall mean one fiscal year of the Government. The Government fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30. K. The term "functional portion of the Project Modification,, shall mean a portion of the Project Modification that is. suitable for tender to the Non-Federal Sponsor to operate and maintain in advance of completion of the entire Project Modification. For a portion of the Project Modification to be suitable for.tender, the District Engineer must notify the Non- Federal-Sponsor in writing of the Govelinment,s determination that the portion of the Project Modification is complete and can function independently and for a useful purpose, although the balance of the Project Modification is not complete. L.:-.. The term "betterment" shall mean a change in the design and c3nstruction of an element of the Project Modification resul.:ing from the application of stan¢iards that the Government determines exceed'those that the Goverr. ment would otherwise apply for a'::c~mplishing .the design and constz'uction of that element. .{. The term "work-in-kind. shall mean the provision of materials and labor for the reforestation of 192 acres, the provi3ion of materials and labor for the construction and placement of 102 wood duck boxes, and the provision of materials and l~bor for the establishment of wetland vegetation, as appro'~,ed by Co~,,,ander, Southwestern Division in a Memorandum dated Ma 28 1998-. The work-in-kind includes implementation ef the authorized improvements as well as planning, engineering, design, supervision and administration, and other activities associated with implementation, but does not include the J implementation of betterments or the provision of lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, or suitable borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas associated with the work-in-kind. ARTICLE II - OBLIGATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR A. The Government, subject to the availability of funds and using those funds and funds provided by the Non-Federal Sponsor, shall expeditiously implement the Project Modification, applying those procedures usually applied to Federal projects, pursuant to Federal laws, regulations, and policies. 1. The Government shall afford the Non-Federal Sponsor the opportunity to review and comment on the solicitations for all contracts, including relevant plans and specifications, prior to the Government's issuance of such solicitations. The Government shall not issue the solicitation for the first contract for implementation until the Non-Federal Sponsor has confirmed in writing its willingness to proceed with the Project Modification. To the extent Possible, the Government shall afford the Non-Federal Sponsor the opportunity to review and comment on all contract modifications, including change orders, prior to the issuance to the contractor of a Notice to Proceed. In any instance where providing the Non-Federal Sponsor with notification of a contract modification or change order is not possible prior to issuance of the Notice to Proceed, the Government shall provide such notification in writing at the earliest d~te possible. To the extent possible,.ithe Government also shall afford the Non-Federal Sponsor the opportunity to review and comment on all contract claims prior to resolution thereof. ~'he Government shall consider in good ~aith the comments of the Non-Federal Sponsor, but the con~ents of solicitati¢~ns, award of contracts, execution of contract modifications, issuance of change orders, resolution of contract claims, and performance of all work on the Proje6t.Modification (whether t~:.e work is performed under contract or,by Government personnel)., shall, be exclusively within the cont~o~ of. the. Government. · 2. Throuchout the period of in~lemenRation, the Dfstrict Ez~gineer sh~ll furnish the Non-Federal ~ponsor with a copy of the Goveznment,s. Written Notice of Acceptance of Completed Work for each contract for the Projecti. Mpdification. B. TheNon~Federa~ Sponsor may request th~ Government to accomplish betterments. Such requests shall :be in writing and shall descz'ibe the betterments requested ~o be accomplished. If the Government in its sole discretion elects to accomplish the requested bette~n%ents or. any portion thereof, it-shall so ~otify the Non-Federal Sponsor in a writing that sets forth any applicable te~ms and conditions, which must be consistent with this Agreement. In the event of conflict between such a writing and this Acreement, this Agreement shall control. The Non- Federal SpOnsor shall be solely responsible for all costs due to the requested betterments and shall pay all such costs in accordance with Article VI.C. of this Agreement. C. When the District Engineer detex,~nes that the entire Project Modification is complete or that a portion of the Project Modification has become a functional portion of the Project Modification, the District Engineer shall so notify the Non- Federal Sponsor in writing and furnish the Non-Federal Sponsor with an Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement, and Rehabilitation Manual (hereinafter the "OMRR&R Manual") and with copies of all of the Government's Written Notices of Acceptance of Completed Work for all contracts for the Project Modification or the functional portion of the Project Modification that have not been provided previously. Upon such notification, the Non- Federal Sponsor shall operate, maintain, repair, replace, and rehabilitate the entire Project Modification or the functional portion of the Project Modification in accordance with Article VIII of this Agreement. D. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall contribute 25 percent of total project modification costs in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. 1. In accordance with Article III of this Agreement, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and suitable borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas that the Government determines the Non- Federal Sponsor-must provide for the i~,~lementation, operation, and maintenance of the Project Modification, and shall iperform or ensure performance of all relocations that the Government determines to be necessary for the i~,plementation, operation, and maintenance of the Project Modification. 2. If the Government projects that the value of the Non-Federal Sponsor's contributions under paragraph.D'.l, of this Article and Articles V, X, and XV.A. of this Agreement .will be less than 25 percent of total project modification costs, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide an additional cash contribution, in accordance with Article VI.B~ of this ~greement, in the' amount necessary to make the Non-Federal Sponsor's total contribution equal to 25 percent of total project modif;ication costs. 3. If the Government deter,,dnes that the vat~e of the Non-Federal Sponsor's contributions provided under paragraphs D.1. and D.2. of 5his Article and Articles V, X, and XV.A. of this Agreement has exceeded 25 percent of total project" ~ modification costs, the Govez~ment, subject to the availability of funds, shall reimburse the Non-Federal Sponsor for any such value in excess of 25 percent of total project modification costs. After such a determination, the Government, in its sole discretion, may provide any remaining Project Modification lands, easements, rights-of-way, and suitable borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas and perfor,~, any remaining Project Modification relocations on behalf of the Non-Federal Sponsor. Notwithstanding the provision of lands, easements, rights-of-way, and suitable borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas or performance of relocations by the Government under this'paragraph, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall be responsible, as between the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor, for the costs of cleanup and response in accordance with Article XV.C. of this Agreement. 4. The Government has determined that the work-in-kind is compatible with the Project Modification and has approved a credit in the estimated amount of $.70,500 for implementation of such work by the Non-Federal Sponsor. The affording of such credit shall be subject to an on-site inspection by the Government to verify that the work was accomplished in a satisfactory manner and is suitable for inclusion in the Project Modification. The actual amount of credit shall be subject to an audit in accordance with Article X.C. of this Agreement to determine reasonableness, allocability, and allowability of costs. To afford such credit, the Government shall apply the credit amount toward any additional cash contribution required under paragraph D.2. of this Article. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall not receive credit for any amount in excess of such additional cash contribution, nor shall the Non-Federal Sponsor be entitled to any reimbursement for any excess credit amount. in no event shall the Non-Federal Sponsor perform work-in-kind chat would result in either the credit afforded under this paragraph exceeding 80 percent of the Non-Federal Sponsor's share of total project modification costs or the credit afforded under this paragraph, plus the value of lands, easements,, rights-of- way, relocations, and suitable borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas for which the Government affords credit ~n accordance with Article IV of this Agreement, exceeding 25~ percent of total project modification costs. ~i. The Non-Federal Sponsor may request the Government to ~rovide lands, easements, rights-of-way, and suitable borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas or perform relocations on behalf of the Non-Federal Sponsor. Such requests shall be in writing and shall describe the service~ requested to be perfoz,,ed. If in its sole discretion the Government elects to perform the requested se~ices or any portion thereof, it shall so notify the Non-Federal Sponsor in a writing that sets forth any applicable terms and conditions, which must be~consistent i with this Agreement. In the event of conflict between suc~ a writing and this Agreement, this Agreement shall control. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall be solely responsible for all costs of the requested services and shall pay all such costs'in accordance with Article VI.C. of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the provision of lands, easements, ri~hts-of-way, and suitable borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas or perfoz~mnce of relocations by the Government under this paragraph, the Non- Federal Sponsor shall be responsible, as between the Government and Zhe Non-Federal Sponsor, for the costs of cleanup and response in accordance with Article XV.C. of this A~reement. F. The Government shall perfo~., a final accounting in accordance with Article VI.D. of this Agreement to determine the contributions provided by the Non-Federal Sponsor in accordance with paragraphs B., D., and E. of this Article and Articles V, X, and XV.A. of this Agreement and to determine whether the Non- Federal Sponsor has met its obligations under paragraphs B., D., and E. of this Article. G. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall not use Federal funds to meet its share of total project modification costs under this Agreement unless the Federal granting agency verifies in writing that the expenditure of such funds is expressly authorized by statute. ARTICLE III - LANDS, RELOCATIONS, DISPOSAL AREAS, AND PUBLIC LAW 91-646 COMPLIANCE A. The Government, after consultation with the Non-Federal Sponsor, shall determine the lands, easements, and rights-of-way required for the implementation, operation, and maintenance of the Prcject Modification, including those required, for relocal'ions, borrow materials, and dredged or excavated material disposal. The Government in a timely manner.shall provide the Non-Fe(~eral Sponsor with general written descriptions, including maps as appropriate, of the lands, easements, and rights-of-way that the Government determines the Non-Federal Sponsor must provide, in detail sufficient to enable the Non-Federal Sponsor to fulJ:ilt its obligations under this paragraph, and shall provide- the Non-Federal Sponsor with a written notice to proceed with acquis:.tion of such lands, easements, and rights-of-way. Prior to the end Of the period of implementation, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall acquire all lands, -easements, and rights-of-way set forth in such descriptions. Furthez,,~ore, prior to issuance of the solicitation for-each construction Contract, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide the Government with authorization for entry to al/lands, easements, and rights-of-way the Government determd, nes the Non-Federal Sponsor must provide for that contract. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall ensure that lands, easements, and rights-of-way that the Government determines to be required for the operation and maintenance of the Project ~ Modification and that were provided by the Non-Federal Sponsor are retained in public ownership for uses compatible with the authorized purposes of the Project Modification. B. The Government, after consultation with the Non-Federal Sponsor, shall detect,ina the improvements required on lands, easements, and rights-of-way to enable the proper disposal of dredged or excavated material associated with the implementation, operation, and maintenance of the Project Modification. Such improvements may include, but are not necessarily limited to, retaining dikes, wasteweirs, bulkheads, embankments, monitoring features, stilling basins, and de-watering pumps and pipes. The Government in a timely manner shall provide the Non-Federal Sponsor with general written descriptions of such improvements in detail sufficient to enable the Non-Federal Sponsor to fulfill its obligations under this paragraph, and shall provide the Non- Federal Sponsor with a written notice to proceed with construction of such improvements. Prior to the end of the period of implementation, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide atl improvements set forth in such descriptions. Furthermore, prior to issuance of the solicitation for each Government construction contract, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall prepare plans and specifications for all improvements the Gove~ment determines to be required for the proper disposal of dredged or excavated material under that contract, submit such. plans and specifications to the Government for approval, and provide such improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. C. The Government, after consultation with the Non-Federal Sponsor, shall determine the relocations necessary for the implementation, operation, and maintenance of the Project Modification, including those necessary to enable the removal' of borrow materials and the proper disposal of dredge~or excavated material. The Goveznment in a timely manner shall provide the Non...Federal Sponsor with general written descriptions, including maps as appropriate, of such relocations in detail sufficient to enable the Non-Federal Sponsor to fulfill its obligations under thi~ paragraph, and shall provide'the Non-Federal Sponsom with a written notice to proceed with such relocations. P~ior to the end of the period of implementation, the Non-Federa'l Sponsor sha[! perform or ensure the performance of all relocations as set forth in such descriptions. Further,~re, prior to issuance of the solicitation for each Government construction contract, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall prepare or ensure the preparation of plans and specifications for, and perfo~,, or ensure..the per~ormance of, all relocations the Government determines to be necessary for that contract. D. The Non-Federal Sponsor in a timely manner shall pro~'ide the Government with such documents as are sufficient to enable the Government to determine the value of any'contribution provided pursuant to paragraphs A., B., or C. of this Article. Upon receipt of such documents the C~Dve~nment, in accordance with Azticle IV of this Agreement and in a timely manner, shall determine the value of such contribution, include such value in total project modification costs, and afford credit, for such value toward the Non-Federal Sponsor's share of total project modification costs. E. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall comply with the applicable provisions of the Unifozm Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law 91-646, as amended by Title IV of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-17), and the Uniform Regulations contained in 49 C.F.R. Part 24, in acquiring lands, easements, and rights-of-way required for the implementation, operation, and maintenance of the Project Modification, including those necessary for relocations, borrow materials, and dredged or excavated material disposal, and shall inform all affected persons of applicable benefits, policies, and procedures in connection with said Act. F. The Government shall make available to the Non-Federal Sponsor by lease, substantially in accordance with Exhibit A, those lands administered by the ~overnment which the Government determines to be required for the implementation, operation and maintenance of the Project Modification. If there is an existing lease or license covering the property required for the Project Modification, such lease will be modified to delete this area prior to the issuance of the lease or license to the Non-Federal Sponsor of the Project Modification. No provision of this Agreement ~hall merge into any lease executed pursuant to this paragraph. ~, ARTICLE IV - CRRDIT FOR LANDS, RELOCATIONS, AND DISPOSAL AREAS : A. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall receive credit toward its share of t,~tal project modification costs for the value of-the lands, easements,, rights-of-way, and suitable borrow and dredged or excavat~d.material disposal areas that the Non-Federal Sponsor must provi¢~e pursuant to Article 'III of this Agreement, and for the value of the 'relocations that the Non-Federal Sponsor must perform or for which it must ensure performance pursuant to Article II~[ of this Agreement. However, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall not ~:'eceive credit for the value of anf lands, easements, rights-of-~a~, re'locations, or borrow and dredged or excavated material d~.sposall areas that3have been provided ~reviously as an item of coc,peration for.another Federal project',~'including the Exiating:~r.oj~ct. The Non-Federa~l Sponsor also shall not receive credit for the value of lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, or. borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas to tl~e ..extent that. such items are provided using Fedex-al funds unless [the 'Federal granting agency verifies in writing that such credit is expressly authorized by statute. B. For the sole purpose of affording credit in accordance with this Agreement, the value of lands, easements, and rights- of-way, including those necessary for relocations, borrow materials, and dredged or excavated material disposal, shall be the fair market value of the real property interests, plus certain incidental costs of acquiring those interests, as determined in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. 10 1. Date of Valuation. The fair market value of lands, easements, or rights-of-way owned by the Non-Federal Sponsor on the effective date of this Agreement shall be the fair market value of such real property interests as of the date the Non-Federal Sponsor provides the Government with authorization for entry thereto. However, for lands, easements, or rights-of- way owned by the Non-Federal Sponsor on the effective date of this Agreement that are required for the construction of the work-in-kind, fair market value shall be the value of such real property interests as of the date the Non-Federal Sponsor awards the first construction contract for the work-in-kind, or, if the Non-Federal Sponsor performs the implementation with its own labor, the date that the Non-Federal Sponsor begins implementation of the work-in-kind. The fair market value of lands, easements, or rights-of-way acquired by the Non-Federal Sponsor after the effective date of this Agreement shall be the fair market value of such real property interests at the time the interests are acquired. 2. Gmneral Valuation Procedure. Except as provided in paragraph B.3. of this ~rticle, the fair market value of lands, easements, or rights-of-way shall be dete~,,,ined in accordance with ]paragraph B.2.a. of this Article, unless thereafter a different amount is detez,Lined to represent fair market value in accordance with paragraph B.2.b. of this Article.. a. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall'obtain, for each real property.interest, an appraisal that is prepared by a qualified appraiser who is acceptable to the Non-Federal Sponsor and the Government. The appraisal must be prepared in. accordance with the applicable rules of j~st compensation, as specified by the Gcvernment. The fair market value shall be the amount set forth in' the Non-Federal Sponsor's appraisal, if such~appraisal is approved by the Gove&~ment. In the event the Goye=nment.does not approve the Non-Federal Sponsor's appraisal, the Non-Federal Sponsor may obtain a second appraisal, and the fair market value shall be the amount set.forth in the Non-Federal Spons6r's ~second appraisal, if such appraisal is approved by the Government... In the event the Go-~eznment does not approve the Non-Federal Sponsor's second appraisal, or the Non-Federal Sponso~ chooses not to obtain a second appraisal, the Government shall obtain an appraisal, and the fair market value shall be the amount set forth in the Government's appraisal, if such appraisal is approved by the Non-Federal Sponsor. In the event the Non- Federal Sponsor does not approve the Government's appraisal, the Government, after consultation with the Non-Federal Sponsor, shall consider the Gover~ment's and the Non-Federal Sponsor's appraisals and detex.,ine an amount based thereon, which shall be deemed to be the fair market value. b. Where the amount paid or proposed to be paid by the Non-Federal Sponsor for the real property interest exceeds the a~unt detexmined pursuant to paragraph B.2.a. of this Article, the Government, at the request of the Non-Federal Sponsor, shall consider all factors relevant to detexmining fair market value and, in its sole discretion, after consultation with the Non-Federal Sponsor, may approve in writing an amount greater than the amount determined pursuant to paragraph B.2.a. of this Article, but not to exceed the amount actually paid or proposed to be paid. If the Government approves such an amount, the fair market value shall be the lesser of the approved amount or the amount paid by the Non-Federal Sponsor, but no less than the amount determined pursuant to paragraph B.2.a. of this Article. 3. Eminent Domain Valuation Procedure. For lands, easements, or rights-of-way acquired by eminent domain proceedings instituted after the effective date of this Agreement, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall, prior to instituting such proceedings, submit to the Government notification in writing of its intent to institute such proceedings and an appraisal of the specific real property interests to be acquired in such proceedings. The Government shall have 60 days after receipt of such a notice and appraisal within which to review the appraisal, if not previously approved by the Government in i writing. a. If the Government previously has approved the appraisal .in writing, or if the Government provides written approval of, or takes no action on, the appraisal within such 60- day period, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall use the amount set forth ~n such appraisal as the estimate cf just compensation for the purpose of instituting the eminent domain proceeding. b. If the Government provides written _disapproval of the appraisal, including the reasons for i disapprovat, within such 60-day period, the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor shall consult in good faith to promptly resolve the issues or areas of disagreement that are identified in the Government's written disapproval. If, after such good faith consultation, the Gove&~ment and the Non-Federal Sponsor agree as to an appropriate amount, then the Non-Federal Sponsor shall use that amount as the estimate of just compensation for the p~hrpose of instituting the eminent domain proceeding. If, after such good faith consultation, the Government and the Non- Federal Sponsor cannot agree as to an appropriate amount, then the Non-Federal Sponsor may use the amount set forth in its appraisal as the estimate of just compensation for the purpose of instituting the eminent domain proceeding~ c. For lands, easements, or rights-of-way acquired by eminent domain proceedings instituted in accordance with sub-paragraph B.3. of this Article, fair market value shall 12 be either the amount of the court award for the real property interests taken, to the extent the Government detex~,ined such interests are required for the i~plementation, operation, and maintenance of the Project Modification, or the amount of any stipulated settlement or portion thereof that the Government approves in writing. 4. Incidental Costs. For lands, easements, or rights-of-way acquired by the Non-Federal Sponsor within a five-year period preceding the effective date of this Agreement, or at any time after the effective date of this Agreement, the value of the interest shall include the documented incidental costs of acquiring the interest, as dete~n~ined by the Government, subject to an audit in accordance with Article X.C. of this Agreement to determine reasonableness, allocability, and allowability of costs. Such incidental costs shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, closing and title costs, appraisal costs, survey costs, attorney,s fees, plat maps, and mapping costs, as well as the actual amounts expended forpayment of any Public Law 91-646 relocation assistance benefits provided in accordance with Article III.E. of this Agreement. C. After consultation with the Non-Federal Sponsor, the Government shall determine the value of relocations in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. 1. For a relocation other than a highway, the value shall be only that pQrtion of relocation costs that the Gove~mer~tdet~e~ines is-ne~essar~ to-pr~vide-a--f-~nc~ional~ equivalent facility, reduced by depreciation, as.mpplicable, and by the salvage value of any removed items. 2. For.a relocation of a highway, the value shall be only that portion of relocation costs that would be necessary to accomplish the relocation in accordance with the .design standard that the State of .Texas would apply under similar, conditions of geOgraphy and traffic load, reduced by the salvag~ value of any removed items. ' ' 3. Relocation costs shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, actual costs of perfo~,.ing the relocation; planning, engineering and design costs; supervision and administration costs; and documented incidental costs associated with performance of the relocation, bu~ shall not include any costs due to betterments, as determined by the Government, nor any additional cost of using new material when suitable used material is available. Relocation costs shall be subject to an audit in .accordance with Article X.C. of this Agreement to determine reasonableness, allocability, and allowability of costs. 13 D. The value of the improvements made to lands, easements, and rights-of-way for the proper disposal of dredged or excavated material shall be the costs of the improvements, as determined by the Government, subject to an audit in accordance with Article X.C. of this Agreement to detex~ine reasonableness, allocability, and allowability of costs. Such costs shall include, but not ~ecessarily be limited to, actual costs of providing the improvements; planning, engineering and design costs; supervision and administration costs; and documented incidental costs associated with providing the improvements, but shall not include any costs due to betterments, as determined by the Government. kRTICLE V - PROJECT MODIFICATION COORDINATION TEAM A. To provide for consistent and effective co~'~,,unication, the Non-Federal Sponsor and the Government, not later than 30 days after the effective date of this Agreement, shall appoint named senior representatives to a Project Modification Coordina..~ion Team. Thereafter, the Project Modification Coordin~.cion Team shall meet regularly until the end of the .period ¢.'~ implementat-ion. The. Government.s Project Manager and a counterFart named by the Non-Federal Sponsor shall co-chair the Project 4odification Coordination Team. B. The Government's Project Manager and the Non-Federal Sponsor' 3 counterpart shall keep the Project Modification Coordin~ ~ion Team informed of the progress of implementation and of signjficant pen.~ing issues and actions, and shall seek the views oi: the Project Modification Coordination Team on matters that th~: Project Modification Coordination Team generally oversees. C. Until tbs end of the period of implementation, the Project 4odification Coordination Team shall generally oversee the Pro~ ~ct Modification, including issues related to design; plans az...~ specifications; scheduling; real property and' relocatj.~n-requirements; reaI property acquisition; contract awards ~'~d modifications; contract costs; the Government's cost projectj.~ns; final inspection of the entire Project Modification or funct..onal portions of the Project Modification; preparation of the F~'oposed OMRR&R Manual; anticipated requirements and needed capabilities for performance of operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of the Project Modification; and. other related matters. D. The Project Modification Coordination Team may make recommendations that it deems warranted to the District Engineer on matters that the Project Modification Coordination Team generally oversees, including suggestions to avoid potential sources of dispute. The Government in good faith shall consider the recommendations of the Project Modification Coordination Team. The Government, having the legal authority and 14 responsibility for implementation of the Project Modification, has the discretion to accept, reject, or modify the Project Modification Coordination Team's recommendations. E. The costs of participation in the Project Modification Coordination Team shall be included in total project modification costs and cost shared in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. ARTICLE VI - METHOD OF PAYMENT A. The Government shall maintain current records of contributions provided by the parties and current projections of total project modification costs and costs due to betterments. At least quarterly, the Government shall provide the Non-Federal Sponsor with a report setting forth all contributions provided to date and the current projections of total project modification costs, of total costs due to betterments, of the components of total project modification costs, of each party's share of~ total project modification costs, of the Non-Federal Sponsor!s t~tal cash contributions requiredin accordance with Articles II~;B., II.D.., and II.E. of this Agreement, and of the non-FederaDJ proportionate share. On the effective date of this Agreement, total project modification costs are projected to be $~13,200, and the Non-Federal :~ponsor's cash contribution required under Article II.D. of this Aqreement is projected to be $49,300. Such amounts are est:nma~es subject to adjustment by the ~: Government and are n~:t to be construed as the total financial responsibilities of the Government and the Non-Federal Spcgu. sor. B. · The Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide the cash : contribution required under,Article II.D.2. of this Agreement in accordance with the ~ollowing provisions: Not less than 60 calendar~days prior to the scheduled date for issuance of the solicitation for the first Construction'contract, the Government shall notify the Non-Federal-Sponsor in writing of such scheduled date and' the funds the Gove£:~ment, after consideration 'of F~ny credit afforded pursuant to.:i~rticle II.D.4. of this Agreement, determines to be re~xired fzom the Non-Federal Sponsor to meet its projected cash contribut~ion under Article.II.D.2. of th~s A~reement. Not later than Such scheduled date, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide the Government with the full amount of the required funds by delivering a check payable to "FAO, USAED, Fort Worth District" to the U.S. A~ Corps of Engineers Finance Center, CEFC-AD-C EROC M2, 5720 Integrity Drive, Millington, TN 38054-5005. The Government shall draw from the funds provided by the Non-Federal Sponsor such sums as the Government, after consideration of any credit afforded pursuant to Article II.D.4. of this Agreement, deems necessary to cover: (a) the non-Federal proportionate share of financial obligations for implementation incurred prior to co~,~ncement of the period of implementation; and (b) the non-Federal proportionate share of financial obligations'for implementation as they are incurred during the period of implementation. In the event the Government determines that the Non-Federal Sponsor must provide additional funds to meet the Non-Federal Sponsor's cash contribution, the Government shall notify the Non-Federal Sponsor in writing of the additional funds required. Within 60 calendar days thereafter, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide the Government with a check for the full amount of the additional required funds. C. In advance of the Government incurring any financial obligation associated with additional work under Article II.B. or II.E. of this Agreement, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide the Government with the full amount of the funds required to pay for such additional work by delivering a check payable to "FAO, USAED, Fort Worth District" to the U.S. Aimy Corps of Engineers Finance Center, CEFC-AD-C EROC M2, 5720 Integrity Drive, Millington, TN 38054-5005. The Government shall draw from the funds provided by the Non-Federal Sponsor such sums as the Government deems necessary to cover the Government's financial obligations for such additional work as they are incurred. In the event the Government dete~,,ines that the Non-Federal Sponsor must provide additional funds to meet its cash contribution, the Government shall notify the Non-Federal Sponsor in writing of the additional ftulds required. Within 30 calendar days. thereafter, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide the Government with a check for the full amount of the additional required funds. D. Upon completion of the Project Modification or termination of this Agreement, and upon resolution of all relevant cl'aims and appeals, the Government shall conduct a final accounting and furnish the Non-F~deral Sponsor with the results of the final accounting. The final accounting shall determine total project modification costs, each party's contribution provided thereto, and each party's required share thereof. The final accounting also shall determine costs due to betterments and the Non-Federal Sponsor's cash contribution provided pursuant to Article IIdB. of this Agreement. 1. In the event the final accounting shows that the Zotal contribution provided by the Non-Federal Sponsor is less than its required share of total project modification costs plus costs due to any'betterments provided in accordance with A~ticle II.B. of this Agreement, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall, no later than 90 calendar days after receipt of written notice, make a cash payment to the Government of whatever sum is required to meet the Non-Federal Sponsor's required share of total project modification costs plus costs due to any betterments provided in accordance with Article II.B. of this Agreement. 2. In the event the final accounting shows that the total contribution provided by the Non-Federal Sponsor exceeds its required share of total project modification costs plus costs due to any betterments provided in accordance with Article II.B. 16 34 of this Agreement, the Government shall, subject to the availability of funds, refund the excess to the Non-Federal Sponsor no later than 90 calendar days after the final accounting is complete. In the event existing funds are not available to refund the excess to the Non-Federal Sponsor, the Government shall seek such appropriations as are necessary to make the refund. ARTICLE VII - DISPUTE RESOLUTION As a condition precedent to a party bringing any suit for breach of this Agreement, that party must first notify the other party in writing of the nature of the purported breach and seek in good faith to resolve the dispute through negotiation. If the parties cannot resolve the dispute through negotiation, they may agree to a mutually acceptable method of non-binding alternative dispute resolution with a qualified third party acceptable to both parties. The parties shall each pay 50 percent of any costs for the services provided by such a third party as such costs are incurred. The existence of a dispute shall not excuse the parties fr~m perfo~,,~nce pursuant to this Agreement. ARTICLE VIII - OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, REPLACEMENT, A}~ REHABILITATION (OMRR&R) A. ~on notification in accordance with Article II.C. of this Agreement and for so long as the Project Modification remains authorized,, the Non, Federal Sponsor shall operate, maintain, i~'epair, replace, and rehabilitate the entire Project ModificatiDn or the functional portion of the Project Modificatign, at no cost to the Government, in a manner compatible with the Project Modification's authorized purposes and in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws as provided in Article XI of this Agreement and specific directions prescribed by the Gove~ment in the OMRR&RManual and any subsequent amendments thereto. :. B. The Non-Federal Sponsor hereby gives the Government a right to enter, at reasonable tim~s and in a reasonable manner, upon property that the Non-Federal Sponsor owns or controls for access to the Project Modification for the purpose of inspection and, if necessary, for the purpose of completing, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, or rehabilitating the Project Modification. If an inspection shows that the Non-Federal Sponsor for any reason is failing to perfoam its obligations under this Agreement, the Government shall send a written notice describing the non-performance to the Non-Federal Sponsor. If, after 30 calendar days from receipt of the notice, the Non- Federal Sponsor continues to fail to perform, then the Government shall have the right to enter, a~ reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, upon property the Non-Federal Sponsor owns or controls for access to the Project Modification for the purpose 17 of completing, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, or rehabilitating the Project Modification. No completion, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, or rehabilitation by the Government shall operate to relieve the Non-Federal Sponsor's obligations as set forth in this Agreement, or to preclude the Government from pursuing any other remedy at law or equity to ensure faithful perfoxmance pursuant to this Agreement. ARTICLE IX - INDEMNIFICATION The Non-Federal Sponsor shall hold and save the Government free from all damages arising from the implementation, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement and rehabilitation of the Project Modification, and any Project Modification-related betterments, except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the Government or its contractors. ARTICLE X - MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS AND AUDIT A.. Not later th:.in 60 calendar days after the effective date of this Agreement. the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor shall develop ].)rocedures for keeping books, records, documents, and other e'-idence pertaining to costs and expenses incurred pursuant to t ~is Agreement. These procedures shall incorporate, and apply as appropriate, the standards for financial management s[,stems set forth in the Uniform ~. Administrative Require~,~ents for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Gov.~rnments at 32 C.F.R. Section 33.20. The Government and the Non.Federal Sponsor shall maintain such books, records, documents, an~t other evidence in accordance with these ¥~rocedures and for'a m:.nimum of three years after the perio~ of implementation and res,~tution of all relevant claims arising therefrom. To the extent permitted under applicable Federal. laws and regulations, the ~3vernment and the Non-Federal Sponsor shall each allow the other t~', inspect such books, documents, records, and other evidence. B. Pursuant to 32 C.F.R. Section 33.26, the Non-Federal Sponsor is responsible for complying with the Single Audit Act of !984, 31 U.S.C. Sections 7501-7507, as implemented by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-133 and Department of Defense Directive 7600.10. Upon request of the Non-Federal Sponsor and to the extent pezmitted under applicable Federal laws and regulations, the C~overnment shall provide to the Non-Federal Sponsor and independent auditors any infoza~tion necessary to enable an audit of the Non-Federal Sponsor's activities under this Agreement. The costs of any non-Federal audits performed in accordance with this paragraph shall be allocated in accordance with the provisions of OMB Circulars A-87 and A-133, and such costs as are allocated to the Project Modification shall be included in total project modification costs and cost shared in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. 18 C. In accordance with 31 U.S.C. Section 7503, the Government may conduct audits in addition to any audit that the Non-Federal Sponsor is required to conduct under the Single Audit Act. Any such Government audits shall be conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and the cost principles in OMB Circular No. A-87 and other applicable cost principles and regulations. The costs of Government audits performed in accordance with this paragraph shall be included in total project modification costs and cost shared in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. ARTICLE XI - FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS In the exercise of their respective rights and obligations under this Agreement, the Non Federal Sponsor and the Government a.9~ee to comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including, but not li:~ited to, Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352 (42 U.S.C. 2000d), and Department of Defense Directive 5500~11 issued pursuant thereto, as well as A~-my Regulations 600-7, entitled "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted or Conducted by the Department of the Army, 8nd'Sec~i°n 402 of the Water Resou:i:ces Development Act'of 1986, as ,amended (33 U.S.C. 701b-12), reguiring non-Federal preparation and: implementation of flood plain ':uanagement plans. c ARTICLE XII - RELATI~:NSHIP 'OF PARTIES A. In the exercise of their respeCtive rights and c.b~igations under this Agreement the Government add the Non- Federal Sponsor each act in an independent capacity, and neither Js to be considered the officer, agent,.or employee of'the other. B. In the exercise of its rights and obligations' under this Agreement, neither party shall provide, withdut the consent of the ocher party, any contractor with a release that waives or purports to waive any rights such ¢~ther party may have to seek relief or redress against such contractor either Pursuant to any cause of action that such other party ~my have or :for violation of any law. ;kRTICLE XIII - OFFICIALS NOT TO BENEFIT No member of or delegate to the Congress, nor any resident commissioner, shall be admitted to any share or part of this Agreement, or to any benefit that ~may arise therefrom. ARTICLE XIV - TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION A. If at any time the Non-Federal Sponsor fails to fulfill its obligations under Article II.B., II.D., II.E., VI, or XVIII.C. of this Agreement, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) shall terminate this Agreement or suspend future performance under this Agreement unless he determines that continuation of work on the Project Modification is in the interest of the United States or is necessary in order to satisfy agreements with any other non-Federal interests in connection with the Project Modification. B. If appropriations are not available in amounts sufficient to meet the Government's share of Project Modification expenditures for the then-current or upcoming fiscal year, the Government shall so notify the Non-Federal Sponsor in writing, and 60 calendar days thereafter either party may elect without penalty to terminate this Agreement or to suspend future performance under thim Agreement. In the event that either party elects to suspend future performance under this Agreement pursuant to this paragraph, such suspension shall remain in effect until such time as the Government receives'sufficient appropriations or until either the Government or the Non-Federal Sponsor elects to terminate this Agreement. C. In the evenz that either party elects to terminate this Agreement P:~.rsuant to this Article or Article XV of this Agreement,-]:oth parties shall conclude their activities relatin~ ' to the Proj~ct Modifi:.:ation and proceed to a final accounting in accordance with Articie VI.D. of this Agreement. D. ~y terminauion of this Agreement or suspension of future performance under this Agreement in accordance with this Article or Article XV of this Agreement shall not relieve the parties of ~ny obligation previously incurred. Any delinquent payment shall be char~ed interest at a rate, to be determined by the Secreta~.ry of the Treasury, equal to 1S0 per centum of the average bond equivalent rate of the 13-week Treasury bills auctioned i~mediately prior to the date on which such payment became delinquent, or auctioned immediately prior to the beginning of each additional 3-month period if the period of delinquency exceeds 3 months. ARTICLE XV - HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES A. After execution of this Agreement and upon direction by the District Engineer, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall perform, or cause to be performed, any investigations for hazardous substances that the Government or the Non-Federal Sponsor determines to be necessary to identify the existence and extent of any hazardous substances regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 20 38 (hereinafter "CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601-9675, that may exist in, on, or under lands, easements, and rights-of-way that the Government determines, pursuant to Article III of this Agreement, to be required for the implementation, operation, and maintenance of the Project Modification, except for any such lands, easements, or rights-of-way that are owned by the United States and administered by the Gover~ment, and except for any such lands that the Government detex,,~ines to be subject to the navigation servitude. The Government shall perforn~, or cause to be performed, all investigations on lands, easements, or rights- of-way that are owned by the United States and administered by the Government. For lands that the Government deter'mines to be subject to the navigation servitude, only the Government shall perform such investigations unless the District Engineer provides the Non-Federal Sponsor with prior specific written direction; in which case the Non-Federal Sponsor shall perform such " investigations in accordance with such written direction. All' actual costs incurred by the Non-Federal Sponsor or the ~ Government for such investigations for hazardous substances shall be included in total proiect modification costs and cost Shared in .accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, subject to an .audit in accordance wLth Article X.C. of this Agreement to~ determine reasonableness, allocabilit¥, and allowability of ~' costs. B. In the event it is discovered through any investigation for hazardous substances or other means that hazardous substances regulated under CERCLA e:ist in, on, or under any lands, :; easements, or rights-of-way, that the Government dete~u~nes, ~' ~ursuant~to Article III..~f this Agreement, the'Non-Federal .~ Sponsor must provide for the i,~lementation, operation, and maintenance of the Project. Modification, the Non-Federal Sponsor and the Government shalt provide prompt, written notice to eac~ other, and ~he Non-Feder~l Sponsor shall not proceed with the' acquisition of the real .")roperty interests until both parties ~ agree that the Non-Federal Sponsor should proceed. C. ~ The Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor shall deter.,ine whether to iniaiate implementation of the Project Modification, or, if already in implementation, whether to continue.w/th work on th,e Project Modification, suspend future~ perfor,,~ance under this Agreement, or te~,.inate this Agreement for the convenience of the Gove~-nment, in any case where hazardous substances regulated under CERCLA are found to exist in, on, or under any lands, easements, or rights-of-way that the Government determines, pursuant to Article III of this Agreement, to be required for the implementation, operation, and maintenance of the Project Modification. Should the Govex~ment and the Non- Federal Sponsor deter,,~ne to initiate or continue with implementation after considering any liability that may arise under CERCLA, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall be responsible, as between the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor, for the costs 21 39 of clean-up and response, to include the costs of any studies and investigations necessary to determine an appropriate response zo the contamination on lands, easements or rights of way that the Government determines, pursuant to Article III of this Agreement, to be required for the implementation, operation, and maintenance of the Project Modification, except for any such lands, easements, or rights-of-way owned by the United States and administered by the Government. Such costs shall not be considered a part of total project modification costs. In the event the Non-Federal Sponsor fails to provide any funds necessary to pay for clean up and response costs or to otherwise discharge the Non-Federal Sponsor's responsibilities under this paragraph upon direction by the Government, the Government may, in its sole discretion, either te~n,inate this Agreement for the convenience of the Government, suspend future performance under this Agreement, or continue work on the Project Modification. The Government shall be responsible, as between the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor, for the costs of clean-up and response, to include the costs of any studies and'investigations necessary to determine an appropriate response to the contamination on lands, easements, or rights of way owned by the United States and administered by the Government. All costs incurred by the Government shall be included in total project modification costs and cost shared in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. D. The Non-Federal Sponsor and the Government shall consult with each other in accordance with Article V of this Agreement in an effort to ensure tha~ responsible~parties bear any necessary cleanup and response costs as defined in CERCLA. Any decision made pursuant to paragraph C. of this. Article shall not relieve any third party from any liability that may arise under CERCLA. E. As between the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall be considered the operator of the Project Modification for purposes of CERCLA liability. To the maximum extent practicable, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall operate, maintain, repair, replace, and rehabilitate the Project Modification in a manner that will not cause liability t° arise under CERCLA. ARTICLE XVI - NOTICES A. Any notice, request, demand, or other communication required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be deemed to have been duly given if in writing and either delivered personally, or by telegram, or mailed by first-class, eglstered, r ' or certified mail, as follows: 22 40 If to the Non-Federal Sponsor: Mayor City of Denton 215 East McKinney Street Denton, Texas 76201 If to the Government: District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Fort Worth District P.O. Box 17300 Fort Worth, Texas 76102-0300 B. A party may change the address to which such communications are to be directed by giving written notice to the other ~3arty in the manner provided in this Article. C. Any notice, request, demand, or other communication made pursuant to this Article shall be deemed to have been receiv~ed by the addressee at the earlier of such time as it is actual y received or seven calendar days after it is mailed° ARTICLE XVII CONFIDR~,~fIAL I Ty T~. the extent permitted by the laws governing each party, the pa:ties agree to maintain the confidentiality.of exchanged infor~.~tion when requested to do so by the providing Party. ARTICLE XVIII - HISTORIC PRESERVATION A The costs of identification, survey and evaluation of histor:.c properties shall be included in total project modifi(:ation costs and cost shared in accordance with the provis::.ons of this Agreement. B Pursuant tO Section 7(a) of P,~hlic Law 93-291 (16 U.S.Ci Section 469c(a)), the costs of mitigation and data recovery activities associated with historic preservation shall be bozT~e entirely by the Government and shall not be included in total project modification costs, up to the statutory limit of one percent of the total amount the Govex~nent is authorized to expend for the Project Modification. C. The Government shall not incur costs for mitigation and data recovery that exceed the statutory one percent limit specified in paragraph B. of this Article unless and until the Assistant Secretary of the A~',,~ (Civil Works) has waived that limit in accordance with Section 208(3) of Public Law 96-515 (16 U.S.C. Section 469c-2(3)). Any costs of mitigation and data 23 recovery that exceed the one percent limit shall be included in total project modification costs and shall be cost shared in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. ARTICLE XIX - LIMITATION ON GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, Government=s financial obligations are limited to $5,000,000. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall be responsible for all total project modification costs that exceed this amount. the IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement, which shall become effective upon the date it is signed by the Department of the Army. THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AR3~,Y Ccl~ne-I', Corps of Engii'~eers District Engineer Fort Worth District THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY: ~ 24 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY I, .?~F-/- L- ~o~7'L do hereby certify that I am the principal legal officer of the City of Denton, Texas, that the City of Denton, Texas, is a legally constituted public body with full authority and legal capability to perform the terms of the Agreement between the Department of the Army and the City of Denton, Texas, in connection with the Lewisville Lake Wildlife Management Area Modification Project, and to pay damages in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, if necessary, in the event of the failure to perform, and that the persons who have executed this Agreement on behalf of the City of Denton, Texas, have acted within their statutory authority. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have made and execute~ this certification this ~ day of HERB PROUTY [TYPED NAME] City Attorney [TITLE IN FULL] 25 43 CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief that: (1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. (2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or e,,~loyee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. (3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents'for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for maklng or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure,. JACK MIT.?.m.R [TYPED NAME] DATE: Mavor [TITLE IN FULL] 26 44 LEWISVILLE LAKE ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE SURVEY 1. General: Operations Division responsibilities for compiling with CERCLA are satisfied by completing an Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS) (formerly the PAS/PEE) consisting of a review of available records and interviews with persons or agencies who may have knowledge of the past history of the property in question to determine if hazardous substances were released (vented or spilled), stored, or disposed of on the property in threshold quantifies. Note: ~f any finding(s) are answered "Yes', describe details on a separate page and attach to this EBS. a. Records Review. Records Finding Agency Finding Review No Yes Date Interview No Yes Date Master Plan [~ [ ] / ~'-~' ~ Aedal Photos OMP [~ [] '~'~.,~ ERGO Reports [~] [] Permanent Files [Y,] [ ] ~ J_~ b. On-site Review Finding No Yes N/A Provision [] [ ] 1) Is ~here any evidence of past or present treatment, storage, spillage, or disposal of hazardous substances in the action area? 2) Is there any lead-based ~oaint on any of the structures? (Visually inspect existing buildings, if any, for lead based paint (LBP) (usually, paint walls earlier than 1978.)) 3) Is there any evidence of polychiodnated biphenols (PCB) contamination? (Visually inspect boundaries and interior of the land area for presence of leaking electrical transformers, and other potential sources of (PCB's)). 4) Is there any asbestos-containing materials in the area? (Visually inspect existing buildings, if any, fo( asbestos-containing materials)). 5) Are there UST's on the property? 6) Are there above ground storage tanks on the property? 2. Statement of Condition: a. According to the information above, no hazardous substances were identified as released, stored, or disposed on the property in threshold quantities. b. The above information indicates hazardous substances were released, stored, or disposed of on the property in threshold quantities. [] 1) The site has been tested and no contaminants were found in detectable levels. The property is considered safe for the proposed use. [] 2) The site has been tested and contaminants were found in detectable levels. Remedial action has been taken and the property is considered safe for the proposed use. [] 3) The site has been tested and contaminants were found in detectable levels. Rgmedial actions have not been taken. Details and justification for outgranting in the current condition are attached. . [] 4~. The site has been tested and contaminants were found in detectable levels. R,:~medial actions have not been taken. Therefore, Non-availability is re commended. [] 5.' The site has not been tested. Therefore, Non-availability is recommended. Statements, end/or Conditions: (Either a, b (1, 2, 3~ Position: ~".,4,,'~---/~. ~,-v'(-'~---~ (e.g. Pa~ Ranger~is~anager, etc.) ---=-= Reserved for District Office n r / co cu [~'"~onconc_ur [ ] Condition: Signature: ~~, ~/'~ Position: (Statements and/or Conditions) 7 (Natural Resource Manager) 4? REPORT OF AVAILABILITY A. General description of proposed action: 1. Proposed use: 2. Use requested by.' _,_,_..~-:;r--r~/ /~ ~- ~='~,-,.rT--zo..J ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~~ ~,~ ~_ (Full Name, Addre~, provide POC if b~iness or agent) 3. Acreage: ~-, ~ ~ 4. Type of Vege~tive Cover: - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (i.e., F~est~, Grassland, Savanna, Pasture, Mesquite ~i~et, e~) 5. Any Part or all o¢ Tract No(s): /vl I I ¢ I -- 6. Requested term. of outgrant: % ~"-'yrs. mo. (If applicable) 7. Recommended :erm of outgrant: ~ yrs. mo. ~ dys. (If Manager Recommendation is negative, place O's) United States 'ploperty interest is dys. Start date: ! (If applicable) Start date: (If applicable) (fee simple, flowage easement, both, other, or needs to be determined by RE) 9. Give a brief description of~ny Govemment buildings and/or improvements included in the area: i,.,J' ,//'4 -. (I*~A if not applicable) 48 JUN-~4-9~ 10:O5 FEOM:PLAN~''NG & CONTROL SWF. ID=817~8~ I PAGE 2/2 c:\cgr, *b5502.dcjn 'Jun. 04. 1999 09:45;:49 - '. 49 B. Environmental and Cultural Considerations. 1. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA): In order to comply with CERCLA, Federal agencies must certify whether or not hazardous substances have been released, stored, or disposed, in threshold quantities, on the property to be outgranted. [] a. This proposal is a minor real estate action and does not require an Environmental Baseline Survey(EBS). Actions which do not require an EBS are: licenses, flowage easement consents, easements, oil and gas approvals and timber sales. Statements and/or Conditions: b. This proposal is a major real estate action and requires an EBS which is attached. Examples of major actions include: Disposals (including flowage ~asements); Leases (Park and Recreation, Fish and Wildlife, and Commercial Concession, and Agricultural or Grazing).. (Either a or b) concur !J ~..~no~?~errqur [ ] xC.~ition: Signature:: ....... Reserved for District Office ........... Pos;lion: (Natural ResoUrce Manager) 2. Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act) a. Point Source DischargQ-? National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is applicable for point source discharges (such as a sewage treatment plant or industrial plant ouffalls.) 1) This request will not cause a point source discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States. [] Statements and/or Conditions: 2) This request will cause a point source discharge of pollutants into the waters of the United States thereby requiring the grantee to obtain a NPDES permit from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and/or the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC) or their approved assignees. / (Eitt~r 1, or 2) b. Storm Water Requirements for Construction Activities: The storm water runoff portion of the NPDES is applicable for construction activities which will result in the disturbance of five acres or larger. 1) This request will not result in a construction activity"~vhibh ~vill disturb an' area of five acres or larger. 2) This request will result in a construction activity which will disturb an area of five acres or larger, thus the applicant must prepare a storm, water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the EPA or their approved assignee. Statements and/or Conditions: (Either 1, or 2) ..... =--------===-- Reserved for DistricLOlfice =~-============ concur [/-'~ no. cur [ ] Condition: ~ ~~'~/~~- ~.~~ (Either a (1 or 2)and b (1, or2) *' : ' ' Pos.on: _,~ ~'~ S~gnature ('N; --atural Resource Manager) "51 3. Protection of Wetlands, EO 1t990 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. EO 11990 requires federal agencies to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative. EO 11990 applies only to actions on federal property. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is concerned with actions which affect waters of the United States by placing dredged and/or fill material into these waters and/or into a wetland or an area that might be a wetland. [] [] [] a. This proposed action will not affect waters of the U.S, or wetlands. b. The proposed occupancy or modification will adversely impact the waters of the U.S. or a wetland. Therefore, Non-availability is recommended. c. This proposed action will affect waters of the U.S. or wetlands. However, there is no other practical altemative available for this proposed action and all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands are included in the action. d. it is requested that the District Office determine if the proposed action will have an eff~ct on the waters of the United States or wetlands. · Statement~; and/or Conditions: (Either a, b, c, or d) :;=-- ........... === Reserved for District Office ......... concur [wr~nonconcur [ ] with determination of field or project office. "' If nonconcur, 'c", or "d"'from above was selected, a determination as to th~ extent the actiOn will have on the waters o[ the US or wetlands must be made pdor to authorization and one of the following statements [ ~ a. 'This proposed action will not effect waters of the US or wetlandS. '~nis proposed action will effect waters of the US or wetlands. There is no other practical L-~emative available for this proposed action. [] [] [] [] 1) The attached Nationwide Permit, number incorporated into the outgrant document. , and its restrictions/conditions should be 2) The attached Letter of Permission, Individual, or General Permit, and its :estrictions/conditions should be incorporated into the outgrant document. 3) The attached special conditions or restrictions should be incorporated into the outgrant document in accordance with EO 11990. c. The proposed occupancy or modification will adversely impact the waters of the US or a wetland. Therefore, Non-availability is recommended. (Either a,b( l(a,b, or c) or 2)) Pos tio.: ?J?f, (NaturaCResource/Regulato~y Manager) 4. Floodplain Management E.O. 11988 and Amended by E.O. 12148: This E.0. mandates that each agency must provide leadership and take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by flood plains. [] a. This request does not contain property that is located within the 100 year floodplain or flood pool, therefore, it does not fall under the purview of E.O. 11988, Floodplain Management. b. This request does contain property that is located within the 100 year floodplain or flood pool and therefore does fall under the purview of E.O. 11988: 1) The impact of the proposed occupancy or modification is de minimus and will not adversely impact the floodplain or flood pool. [] [] 2) There is no other practical alternative available for this proposed action. The proposed occupancy or modification may be allowed subject to ihe attached restrictions/conditions labeled "Floodplain Management" ~'hich must be incorporated into the outgrant document. 3) The proposed occupancy or modification will adversely impact the floodplain or flood pooi. Therefore, Non-availability is recommended. Statement for Findi,q~j and Conditions: (Either a, b (1, 2, or 3) Signature: ......... Reserved for District Office .... concur[ n~~onco~'~ur [ ] Conditions: .~'~ /. (Either a, b (1,2, or 3) .' Position: ~ ~%'~,~ J?? (Natural~escurce Manager) 53 5. Endangered Species: Federal actions must be evaluated to determine if they are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally (or state) listed threatened or endangered species; or to destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. [] a. This action will not jeopardize the continued existence of any federal or state-listed threatened or endangered species; or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. b. After coordinating with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (if State, TPWD) it was determined that this action will not jeopardize the continued existence of any federal or state listed threatened or endangered species; or to destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. c. After coordinating with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (if State, TPWD) it was determined that this action will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of any federal or state listed threatened or endangered species; or to destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. Attached are the resulting restrictions/conditions which must be incorporated into the outgrant document in order to ensure that any impacts that the proposed action may have had on listed species or critical habitat are eliminated. [] d. It is requested that the District Office determine if the proposed action will likely jeopardize the continued existence of a federal or state listed threatened or endangered species or will destroy and/or adversely modify its critical habitat. .~' e. This action will likely jeopardize the continued existence of a federal or state listed threatened or endangered species; or will destroy and/or adversely modify its critical habitat. Therefore, Non- availability is recommended. Statements and/or Conditions: (Either a, b, c, d, or e) ~u~~--[=~===== Reserved for District Office if nonconcur or (d) from above was selected, a determination of whether the area has an effect must be made prior to authorization and one of the following statements made: [] f. This action will likely jeopardize.the continued existence of a federal or state liS~d threatened or endangered species; or will destroy and/or adversely modify its critical habitat. Attached are the results of the Corps' conference/consultation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (if State, TPWD) and resulting restrictions/conditions which must be incorporated into the outgrant document in order to reduce or eliminate the impacts on listed species or critical habitat. g. This action will likely jeopardize the continued existence of a federal or state listed threatened or endangered species; or will destroy and/or adversely modify its c~itical habitat. Attached are the results of the Corps' conference/consultation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (if State, TPWD). Non- availability is recommended. Condition: ~ - (>~t~tements and/or_Conditions: a, b, c, d, e, or f) Signature: J~----~'~~. ,~'~ '~ Position: 6 (N~tural Re~urce Manager) 6. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA): This act is the Federal legislation which requires coordination of programs and activities with the TPWD and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the conservation and rehabilitation of fish and wildlife. ~'~ a. This proposal does not pertain to any General Plans, Congressionally- authorized mitigation, or Army agreed-to recommendations in Fish and Wildlife reports prepared under the provisions of the FWCA. [ ] b. This request is consistent with the terms and conditions of General Plans, Congressionally-authorized mitigation, or Army agreed-to recommendations in Fish and Wildlife reports Prepared under the provisions of the FWCA. [ ] c. This request is not consistent with the terms and conditions of General Plans, Congressionally-authorized mitigation, or Army agreed-to recommendations in Fish and Wildlife reports Prepared under the provisions of the FWCA. Describe Impact(s): [] Recommendations to mitigate impact(s): d. This request is not consistent with the terms and conditions of General Plans, Congressionally-authorized mitigation, or Army agreed-to recommendations in ' ' Fish ~nd Wildlife reports prepared under the prOvisions of the FWCA. Therefore, Non-availability is recommended. Statements and/or Conditions: (Either a, b, c, or d) concur [~ur [ ] COndition: . Reserved for District Office ==--=--- ~ Position: (Natural Resource Manager) 55 REPLY TO A~'TEPtT~ON OF: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY FORT WORTH DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. 90X 17300 FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76102-0300 Operations Division October 4, 1996 OOT 0 ? Mr. Curtis Tunnell State Historic Preservation officer Texas Historical Commission P.O. Box 12276 Aus%~n,..~exaA. 18711 .~ Dear ~c. Tunnel1: The U.S. Army Corps of EngineerS, Fort Wort~ District, is planninq a wilalife restorat£on project at Lewisville Lake in Denton County, Texas. Th~ project will i/%=lu~e =he excavation of severa.~ wetlan~ 9on~s within the Elm Fork Trinity R/vet . floo~lain areas show~ on the enclose~ ma~. The maximum ~e~th of excavation will be between 24 and 36 inches. Because Holocene alluvial sites in this setting are so ~eepl¥ bUried, va have determined ~hat*:he proposed proJeo~ will not affect historic ~ropeT'=ies. We ~eque~ your concurren=e with ~his ~etermination. ~nclo~ure Sincerely, Chief, Tecb_nical support Branch 7, Historical and Cultural Resources (con't): [ ] c. A survey of the area has idenlffied historical and/or cultural resources. The resoumes have been determined ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Histodc Places. This request has been coordinated with the SHPO. Condition: If any of the above determinations (a-c) have been made, the following condition is required in the outgrant: "The proposed construction will have no effect on properties listed in, or eligible for, inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. No further review of the project is necessary under Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act. In the event construction encounters evidence of previously unknown prehistoric and/or historic materials (including human remains, funerary objects, sacred Objects, or objects of cultural patrimony) the con-',ractor shall avoid the materials and immediately contact the Corps of Engineers District Archeologist at (817) 978-2885." [] d. A survey of the area has identified historical and/or cultural resources. The r~sources have been determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Recommend Non-availability along this reute. [ ] e. The requested area has not been previously disturbed and activity on the sit~ may jeopardize historical ar:d cultural resources. The applicant must provide a survey · perform~y a qualified archeologist of the p~'oposed action area. s ~f (Ar~eomgist) 9 8. Miscellaneous Provisions. Findings No Yes Provision [~ [ ] a. Will the outgrant activity involve the use of pesticides? b. Will the proposed outgrant activity include fuel burners, incineratom, gas pumps, solvents or other volatile compounds? c. Will the proposed outgmnt activity include the use of substances covered by the Toxic Substances Control Act? ,[~ [ ] 1) Will the applicant utilize any lead-based paint? (ie. identification of material, numberof tanks, galJsize, etc.) [ ] 2) Will the applicant utilize any items (such as transformers) that contain polychlorinated biphenols (PCB's)? ~ ~ .~. · [ ] 3) Will the applicant utilize any asbestos-containing materials? If yes is answered to any of the following, please give a brief description of the subject [] d. waste? e. Will the applicant store or utilize hazardous materials (ie. chlorine gas, etc.)?. f. Will the appiicant be installing underground petroleum tanks? '. g. Will the applicant be installing above ground petroleum tanks? Will the applicant generate hn;~rdous waste or treat, dispose, or store hazardous [x~ [ ] I~. Will the applicant install an on-site sewage facility?. (Such as any type of septic .~.'!stem, package treatment plant, etc.) Condition: if any of the above findings (a-h)have been marked "yes", the following condition is · required in the outgrant: "The app;icant shall be in full compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations for the following provisions.' Provisions: (List ali items that are checked yes: a, b, c, d, e, f, or g) 10 58 9. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): In order to comply with NEPA, Federal agencies must certify whether or not any action has a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. a. Categorical Exclusion (CX), The environmental impacts of this action do not have nificant effects on the quality of the human environment and therefore are categorically excluded from further NEPA documentation in accordance with the CX's contained in ER 200-2-2: (Identify Ihe actual ex~usk~) [ ] b. Request Determination. Statements and/or Conditions: (Either a or b) *-'=?==--==--==-~ ~~--~ Reserved for District Office --=-=----==-==--============ concur[ ] nonconcur [ ~ nonconcur, or (b) from.above was selected, a.determination of whether the area has an effect *~ust be made.prior to authorization and one of the following statements made: [ ] a. Categorical Exclusion. The environmental impacts of this action do not have .......... ~ grJJ.fic~,t effects on the quality of th,~. h.uma~ e..-:'~-,~r,m~.nt and therefore are categorically =,. -...,~. excluded from fur;her NEP,~. dcm'me.-.tc'Jon !n acc=rdance with th~ ER 200-2-2: ~~b~ ~v~r ' (Id~-~3~ ~he actual exctusion) [ onmental Assessment (EA). The impact of this action does notqu*,~, for a CX and/or is not likely to have a ~significant impact on the quality of the human environment to require an environmental impact statement. An EA is required. ,r ] c. Environmental Impact Statement (ELS). The impact of this action is considered to have a significant impact on thq qual'.~y of the human ,environment.. Ar~' ElS is reauired Statement/Condition:./~~/ ~/~o ~'~::'/~...c,,,~-. Signature: ~ Position: ~ ~'~',~' .~' (Natural Resoum~lanager) 11 59 C. Special Conditions 1. The following site specific recommendations are made as limitations, restrictions, safety issues, clearances for power and communication lines over reservoirs (sag height), or conditions to be ~cluded in the grant to make the proposed use compatible with the operation of the project: 2. REMARKS - (include any pertinent historical, legal, policy, mission, or contmvemial fac-tom you are aware of that may affect the proposed use of the property): 3. My review of the proposal indicates that the proposal (will, o~ interfere with operation of the project, or with the land use designations and resource objec~v~,s set forth in the master plan and operational management plan. 4. B'~sed on the information provided above and my review of the Environmental and Cultural ,'~nsiderations (including the EBS if applicable), I recommend the outgrant be Date PARK MAN,~GER 12 , ~:o-n-oM L.J ~ i~ Legend ~_,_ ~ ?~%~ ~ , Railroad ,~~ ~ Streams and Rivers ~~~~ ~ .;:~ ::..:~tt-:-~:-:* ' Proj~ Area ~:~; ~ ~isting Field ~ Existing Forest ~ Low Water Area ~ ~ Proposed Nature Center ~ ~ Proposed Reforestation ~ ~ Proposed We~and ~ ? ~ ~ , ~ ':.?:...._... .... T*.. "::: .... -' ,I, '~ ': ,'-= ' "', U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT ECOSYSTEM RESTO~TION FORT WORTH CORPS OF ENGINEERS RECOMMENDED P~N FORT WORTH. TEXAS LEWISVlLLE ~KE / Roa~5GEND ~x~ Railroads '/V Creeks and Rivers ~ Lakes Greenbelt Corridor ~ 1135 Project Area ~ Greenbelt Corridor ~ Proposed BL~CKJA~K_ Propo~d Clear Creek WRP 1135ProjectArea Lake Lewisville/Lake Ray Roberts Greenbelt Corridor and I135 Project 5 10 Miles U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1135 Ecosystem Restoration Project Area Map AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: April 4, 2000 DEPARTMENT: Engineering & Transporta~on CM/DCM/ACM: Dave Hill, 349-8314 ~/~ SUBJECT Agenda No. ~_.~~_~.~_ _ Agenda Item Date /--///--///20 An ordinance authorizing the mayor or city manager to enter into an interlocal cooperation agreement with Denton county, Texas for road improvements regarding Brinker road project; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND Brinker Road is a detour route for the "Future Loop 288 Widening Project". Brinker provides access to commercial, medical and industrial areas within the City limits. These road improvements will greatly enhance the travel and safety of citizens. Staff agrees with this concept and recommends approvaL OPTIONS Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions) Approved by Denton County Commissioner's Court on June 15, 1999. FISCAL INFORMATION The City has agreed to pay $900,000 and the County will provide $600,000 as per bond elections. Attached RespeCtfully submitted: Engifi~ering & Transportation ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OR CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN 1NTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS REGARDING BRINKER ROAD PROJECT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, both the City of Denton and Denton County are political subdivisions of the State of Texas that are authorized to enter into interlocal contracts under TEX. GOV'T CODE ch. 791 and TRANSPORTATION CODE ch. 251; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it in the public interest to enter into this interlocal contract with Denton County to provide for road improvements regarding Brinker Road project; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the Mayor, Or in his absence, the Mayor Pro Tem, or City Manager is authorized to execute an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Road Improvements with Denton County, Texas substantially in the form of the contract which is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance for all purposes. SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2000. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY JACK MILLER, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY F:' shared\dept\LGL\Our Documents\Ordinances\00~Brinker Road lnterlocal AgreementAoc THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DENTON INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the City of Denton, Texas, a political subdivision of the State of Texas, hereinafter referred to as "City" and Denton County, Texas, a corporate and political body under the laxvs of the State of Texas, hereinafter referred to as "County" for purposes of the completion of certain road improvements, hereinafter referred to as the "Project."' WHEREAS, County has provided funding for several road project within the limits of City through and as part of the January 1999 Better Safer Roads Bond Program. WHEREAS, City has identified Brinker Road as a Detour Route for the Future Loop 288 widening project; and Brinker provides access to commercial, medical and industrial areas. WHEREAS, City and County value the early completion of the Project; and WHEREAS, City and County mutually desire to be subject to the provisions of V.T.C.A., Government Code, Chapter 791, the Interlocal Cooperation Act; and WHEREAS, City desires the participation of County in the Project as authorized by V.T.C~A., Transportation Code, Section 251.012; ICA.Denton. Brinker Road NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by the parties hereto as follows: I. The term of this Agreement shall commence on June 15, 1999, and shall end on, unless sooner terminated as provided in the succeeding provisions hereof. II. The Project is described as follows: in the City of Denton, Texas,'3000 LF of 4 lanes divided arterial between Wal-Mart and Colorado Boulevard III. Pursuant to V.T.C.A., Government Code Section 791.011, the parties hereto agree that the purpose of this Agreement is to ensure that certain governmental functions and services in the area of streets, roads and drainage are performed. The parties hereto further agree that each of them is authorized to perform the functions and services individually. IV. As required by V.T.C.A., Transportation Code Section 251.012 and as evidenced by the signature of the City's representative below, the governing body of City by the execution of and approval of this Agreement approves of the expenditure of County Money to participate in or to fund $ 600,000 toward financing the improvement of a street in the County that is located in the City. V. In performance of this Agreement, City agrees to assume responsibility for seeking the removal of'the referenced section of highway from the State Highway Department's maintenance responsibility and for securing all necessary surveying, ICA.Denton. Brinker Road 2 engineering and construction services related to the Project. City further agrees that it shall be solely responsible for payment of all expenses related to completion of the Project. City shall seek reimbursement for expenses related to the completion of the Project from County as set forth below. VI. As City proceeds in the completion of the Project, it shall submit to the Denton County Auditor, at 301 East McKinney Street, Denton, Texas 76201, invoices on a monthly basis for reimbursement and County shall reimburse City for all expenditures related to this project within Thirty (30) days of receipt of these invoices. Attached to this Contract is a certification by the County Auditor that the County shall include the sum of Six Hundred Thousand ($ 600,000) Dollars in its budget and that this amount shall be itemized, set aside and approved by the County Commissioners Court to be expended for the project that is the subject of this Agreement. Reimbursement from County to City shall not exceed the stun of Six Hundred Thousand ($ 600,000) Dollars. VII. In performance of this Agreement, i County agrees to assist City in expediting the completion of the Project. If, as construction of the Project proceeds, City determines it prudent to close McKinney Street, County consents to the closure. In further performance of this Agreement, County agrees to reimburse City. from its current revenues, a sum not to exceed that stated above. VIII. This Agreement maY be terminated in whole or in part by the County or City upon thirty (30) days' written notice to the other party setting forth a substantial failure by the ICA.Denton. Brinker Road 3 defaulting party to fulfill its obligations under this agreement through no fault of the terminating party. Provided, however that no such termination may be affected unless the defaulting party is given: (1) written notice delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested of intent to terminate setting forth the substantial failure to perform; and (2). Not less than thirty (30) calendar days to cure the failure; and (3) and an oppommity for consultation with the terminating party prior to termination. In the even of termination by the County, County shall reimburse the City for all invoice submitted up to and including the date of termination. Notices shall be directed as follows: For City: For County: Kirk Wilson Denton County Judge 110 East Hickory Denton, Texas 76201 With a copy to: District Attorney's Office/Civil Division 1450 East McKinney P.O. Box 2850 Denton. Texas 76201 IX. The covenants, conditions and terms hereof are to be construed under the laws of the State of Texas and are performable by all parties in Denton County, Texas. The parties mutually agree that venue for any obligation arising from this Agreement shall lie in Denton, Denton Count3), Texas. ICA.Denton. Brinker Road Xo This writing is intended by the parties as a final expression of their.agreement and as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of their agreement. This Agreement can be modified or rescinded only by writing signed by both of the parties or their duly authorized agents. XI. This Agreement is not intended to extend the liability of the parties beyond that provided by law. Neither County nor City waives, nor shall be deemed hereby to waive, any immunity or defense that would otherwise be available to it against claims arising by third parties. XII. In the event that any portion of this Agreement shall be found to be contrary to law, it is the intent of the parties hereto that the remaining portions shall remain valid and in full force and effect to the extent possible. XIII. The undersigned officers and/or agents of the parties hereto are the properly authorized officials and have the necessary authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto and each party hereby certifies to the other that any and all necessary resolutions extending said authority have been duly passed and are now in full force and effect. ICA.Denton. Brinker Road EXECUTED in dUplicate originals this, the/,_q-'L6 day of ~ ,1999. COUNTY. Denton County, Texas 110 West Hickory . Denton, Texas 76201. I, Kirk Wilson Denton County Judge Acting on behalf of and by authority of the Commissioners Court of Denton County, Texas CITY City of Denton, Texas 215 East McKinney Street Denton, Texas 76201 ' By:. Acting on behalf of and by authority of the City Council of Denton, Texas Attest: Cynthia Mitchell, County Clerk Attest: By: Approved as to form: Assistant City Attorney ICA.Denton. Brinker Road AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that pursuant to Commissioners 'Court order # 4~-/~,~b'f0/' , funds will be available in the amount of SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS .($600,000,00) to accomplish and pay the'obligatiOn'of Denton County' Texas under thisA gre em ent. ~/z2~~ ///)/'/]~,/g/(~/~ J~s-Wells, Couhty ,~udi~-o~r/ ~ ICA.Denton. Brinker Road LOWES WAL-MART SUPERCENTER BRINKER ROAD F_XT~NSlON m AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET April 4, 2000 Legal Department Herbert L. Prouty, City Attomey Agenda Agenda Item-- oat,, SUBJECT - An ordinance authorizing the City's attorneys to initiate litigation against TXU Electric & Gas to recover delinquent franchise fees and to prevent TXU Electric from operating within the City on the City's streets and rights-of-way without obtaining a franchise from the City; authorizing the City Attomey to seek the assistance of outside counsel; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND - On December 14, 1999 you received the results of the audits of TXU Electric & Gas ("TXU"), which you had authorized in August, 1999. Those results showed that TXU Gas owes the City $861,088 in delinquent franchise fees and TXU Electric owes the City $256,127 in delinquent fzanchise fees. Also last year, after several extensions of TXU's electric franchise, the franchise expired and on October 12, 1999 the City passed Ordinance No. 99-373, the City's electric service fight-of-way ordinance. Although the Directbr of Electric Utilities and outside counsel entered into extensive negotiations with TXU, they indicated that they would not agree to the franchise incorporating the terms of the electric service fight-of-way ordinance. Since that time, the City Manager and I have met with TXU officials on two occasions in an attempt to try to negotiate the renewal of the franchise and the payment of the delinquent franchise fees. During the week of March 20, 2000 and prior to a scheduled meeting with representatives of TXU, Win Colbert, the Senior Counsel for TXU, called me to indicate that he felt the negotiations were at an impasse. Mr. Colbert later followed up with a letter to me of March 22, 2000 indicating that the negotiations were at an impasse. The parties are still far apart on the various franchise issues, especially the question of whether TXU needs an electric franchise to operate within the City on City streets and rights-of-way. This leaves the City with few options except to consider litigation to resolve the outstanding franchise issues with TXU. Due to the attorney/client privilege, more information on the risks associated with litigation is included in the City Attorney's Status Report. Attached is an ordinance which would authorize the City's attorneys, including any outside counsel the City Council apprOved, to initiate litigation on these issues against TXU. This litigation would include a declaratory judgment action or litigation in the nature of injunctive relief to obtain a ruling from a court that TXU must obtain a franchise in order to operate on City streets and rights-of-way. This litigation would also seek to collect delinquent franchise fees. OPTIONS - With negotiations Currently at an impasse, the City Council appears to have the following options: Initiate litigation against TXU to resolve the outstanding delinquent franchise fee issues and seek a judicial determination that TXU needs to obtain an electric franchise to continue to operate in the City of Denton. Agenda Information Sheet April 4, 2000 Page 2 o Seek an Attomey General's opinion to determine the issue of whether TXU needs a franchise to operate on City streets and fights-of-way. Such an opinion would have to be obtained through someone who can request such an opinion, which would include a State representative, the District Attorney, or some other State official. Even if such an opinion was requested, the Attorney General might refuse to answer such a request if it contains specific fact issues. Such an opinion is not necessarily binding on TXU, who might still refuse to honor the opinion and take the issue to court. In addition, such a request would not resolve the outstanding delinquent franchise fee issues. Agree to soften the language in the electric service right-of-way ordinance that requires any electric service provider to obtain a franchise and to give ground on the additional issues TXU has indicated they cannot accept. Staff feels it has already made significant concessions to TXU and does not recommend this option. 4. Do nothing and allow TXU to continue to operate without an electric franchise. Staff feels that the only viable option lefi is the litigation option and therefore would recommend the Council approve option I. FISCAL ACTION/REVIEW - Initiating this type of litigation against a major company like TXU could be an expensive undertaking. Since this would be complex litigation, it would probably first involve the hiring of outside counsel that has expertise in the utility franchise area. These costs could be reduced if the City is able to participate with other cities in a class action lawsuit which may be brought against TXU. Respectfully submitted, Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY'S ATTORNEYS TO INITIATE LITIGATION AGAINST TXU ELECTRIC & GAS TO RECOVER DELINQUENT FRANCHISE FEES AND TO PREVENT TXU ELECTRIC FROM OPERATING WITHIN THE CITY ON THE CITY'S STREETS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY WITHOUT OBTAINING A FRANCHISE FROM THE CITY; AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO SEEK THE ASSISTANCE OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Denton has received an audit from Diversified Utility Consultants, Inc. indicating that TXU Electric & Gas ("TXU") owes the City $1,117,215 in delinquent franchise fees; and WHEREAS, TXU's electric franchise has expired and all efforts to negotiate a new franchise with TXU have failed; and WHEREAS, the City has undertaken extensive negotiations with TXU to negotiate a new franchise agreement and resolve any outstanding franchise issues; and WHEREAS, by letter dated March 22, 2000, Win Colbert, Senior Counsel for TXU, has indicated that the negotiations are at an impasse and has requested that the negotiations be discontinued; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it in the public interest to pursue any and all legal action, including litigation against TXU; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the City's attorneys (including any outside counsel the City Council may hire) are hereby authorized to initiate litigation, including intervention or participation in any class actions against TXU Electric & Gas; to collect any delinquent franchise fees shown owing by the audits of Diversified Utility Consultants, Inc.; to seek a judicial finding, through a declaratory judgment action or injunctive relief, that TXU must obtain a franchise from the City in order to operate on its streets, rights-of-way, and other public property and that TXU must comply with the City's electric services right-of-way ordinance; and to take all other action necessary to favorably resolve all outstanding franchise issues with TXU. SECTION 2. That the City Attorney is authorized to seek the assistance of qualified outside counsel to assist in this litigation. SECTION 3. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. Page 1 PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2000. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: / Page 2 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET April 4, 2000 City Manager's Office Mike Jez, City Manager AoendaNo ~-~/~'~_. Agenda Item_., Date SUBJECT Consider nominations and appointments to the City's Boards and Commissions. BACKGROUND The following is a list of current Board/Commission vacancies/nominations: There is a vacant alternate position on the Zoning Board of Adjustment. John Johnson was appointed to serve as a full-time member from an alternate position. This is a nomination by the entire Council. If you require any further information, please let me know. Resjhect fully submitted/: U~lty Secretary