Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 18, 2000 Agenda AGENDA CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL April 18, 2000 Agenda No. (~6P- F~/7 Agendaltem - ', ,,, Date ~//t~/O0 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 18, 2000 at 5:15 p.m. in the City of Denton Council 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: [**Before the Denton City Council may deliberate, vote, or take final action on each of the agenda items posted as a competitive matter in a Closed Meeting under the provisions of TEX. GOV'T. CODE Section 551.086(c), the City Council must first make a good faith determination, by majority vote of its members, that the particular agenda item is a competitive matter that satisfies the requirements of Section 55 t.086(b)(3). The vote shall be taken during the Closed Meeting and shall be included in the certified agenda of the Closed Meeting. If the City Council fails to determine by a majority vote that the particular agenda item satisfies the requirements of Section 551.0§6(b)(3), the City Council may not deliberate or take any further action on that agenda item in the Closed Meeting.] Deliberations Regarding Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters --- Under TEX. GOV'T. CODE Section 551.086.** Receive information from Staff pertaining to issues related to the Spencer Generation Plant, and discuss, deliberate, consider, and provide Staff with direction respecting such issues. Consider approval of an ordinance providing for, authorizing, and approving an Agreement by and between the City of Denton and Applied Utility Systems, Inc. pertaining to the purchase of combustion technology equipment and related specialized professional engineering services respecting Denton Municipal Electric; which equipment is available from only one source in accordance with the provisions of state law exempting such purchase from the requirements of competitive bids; and which professional services are exempt from the competitive bidding provisions of state law; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date. ANY FINAL ACTION, DECISION, OR VOTE ON A MATTER DELIBERATED IN A CLOSED MEETING WILL ONLY BE TAKEN 1N AN OPEN MEETING THAT IS HELD IN COMPLIANCE WITH TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, CHAPTER 551, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT SUCH FINAL ACTION, DECISION, OR VOTE IS TAKEN 1N THE CLOSED MEETING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 551.086 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE (THE "PUBLIC POWER EXCEPTION"). THE CITY COUNCIL RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADJOURN INTO A CLOSED MEETING OR EXECUTIVE SESSION AS AUTHORIZED BY TEX. GOV'T. CODE, SECTIONS 551.001, ET SEQ. (THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT) ON ANY ITEM ON ITS OPEN City of Demon City Council Agenda April 18, 2000 Page 2 MEET1NG AGENDA OR TO RECONVENE 1N A CONTINUATION OF THE CLOSED MEET1NG ON THE CLOSED MEETING ITEMS NOTED ABOVE, 1N ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION SECTIONS 551.071-551.086 OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT. Regular Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, April 18, 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 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 March 2, March 7, March 21, and March 28, 2000. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS 3. Proclamation for National Community Development Week CITIZEN REPORTS 4. Receive a report from Ed Soph regarding MTBE (gasoline additive) in Lake Lewisville. NOISE EXCEPTIONS Consider a request for an exception to the noise ordinance for Denton Cinco de Mayo at the North Texas Fairgrounds on Sunday, May 7, 2000 from noon to 9:30 p.m. o Consider a request for an exception to the noise ordinance for the Denton Unit of the American Cancer Society for the annual Relay for Life to be held Saturday, May 20, 2000, at Fouts Field from 12:00 noon to 1:00 a.m. 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 7-23). 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 7-23 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". Consider approval of a tax refund to Transamerica Tax Service for TMI, Inc. The 1999 tax was paid twice, resulting in an overpayment. City of Denton City Council Agenda April 18, 2000 Page 3 Consider approval of a tax refund to Karl A. Sweetman. The 1999 tax was paid twice, resulting in an overpayment. o Consider approval of a tax refund to Robin G. Wilson. The 1999 tax was paid twice, resulting in an overpayment. 10. Consider approval of a tax refund to Flagg Marine. The 1999 tax was overpaid, resulting in an overpayment. 11. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a public works contract for the construction of Owsley Park Repaving and Sidewalks; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date. (Bid 2472 - Owsley Park Repaving& Sidewalks Project awarded to Jagoe Public Company in the amount of $265,777.30) 12. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a public works contract for the painting of fuel oil tanks, generator housing, and transformers at the Municipal Power Plant; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date. (Bid 2480 - Painting Fuel Oil Tanks, Generator Housing, and Transformers awarded to Patrick Brothers Painting Contractors in the amount of $61,284) 13. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the acquisition of Lease Purchase Financing; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date. (Bid 2489 - Lease Purchase Financing awarded to Government Capital Corporation at the effective rate of 4.99%, approximate financing charges $99,819) 14. Consider adoption of an ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds for an emergency purchase of testing for infestation of fungi at Central Fire Station in accordance with provisions of State Law exempting such purchases from requirements of competitive bidding; and providing an effective date. (PO 04125 to The Provident Group in the amount of $7,250 plus Change Order 1 in the amount of $19,400 for a total of $26,650) 15. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a purchase order with the Houston-Galveston Area Council of Govermnents (H-GAC) for the acquisition of three ~/4-ton pickup tracks by way of an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Denton; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date. (File 2499 Interlocal Agreement - Purchase Order 04742 to H-GAC in the amount of $75,855.28) 16. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of Refuse Trucks; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date. (Bid 2476 - Refuse Trucks awarded as listed in the amount of $751,371) City of Denton City Council Agenda April 18, 2000 Page 4 17. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of Firefighter Bunker Gear; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date. (Bid 2485 - Firefighter Bunker Gear awarded to Casco Industries, Inc., in the estimated amount of $20,418.80) 18. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding an annual contract for the purchase of Firefighter Station Wear Uniforms; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date. (Bid 2486 - Firefighter Station Wear Uniforms awarded to Wilson Fire/NAFECO in the estimated amount of $39,020.50) 19. Consider adoption of an ordinance approving Amendment No. 4 to an agreement between the City of Denton and the Denton Independent School District relating to holding their elections jointly in the election districts that can be served by common polling places; and providing for an effective date. 20. Consider approval of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas determining competitive matters respecting certain public power utilities, which are subject to protection under the Texas Open Meetings Act and the Texas Public Information Act; adopting declarations and findings in the preamble; and providing for an effective date. 21. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement between the City of Denton and the City of Corinth for the impoundment and disposition of dogs and cats and the collection of fees pursuant to the provisions of said agreement; and providing for an effective date. 22. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement between the City of Denton and the City of Aubrey for the impoundment and disposition of dogs and cats and the collection of fees pursuant to the provisions of said agreement; and providing for an effective date. 23. Consider approval of the Preliminary Design Report by Freese & Nichols for the Modifications to Lake Ray Roberts Surface Water Treatment Plant. PUBLIC HEARINGS 24. Hold a public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding cable television rates. 25. Hold a public hearing inviting citizens to comment on the City of Denton's 2000 - 2005 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and the 2000 Action Plan. 26. Continue a public hearing and consider approving 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) City of Denton City Council Agenda April 18, 2000 Page 5 ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 27. Consider approval of a resolution of the City of Denton, Texas, authorizing the submissions of an application of the Criminal Justice Division of the Office of Governor, State of Texas, requesting funding for the Denton Delinquency Prevention/Intervention Program for Juveniles; providing for the return of any lost or misused funds to the Criminal Justice Division, of the Office of the Governor, State of Texas; and providing an effective date. 28. Consider and take action on a request for relief from the Non-Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance 2000-069, for 1013 Shady Oaks. The proposal is for Office/Warehouse use. (RN-00-10) 29. Consider and take action on a request for relief from the Non-Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance 2000-069, for Victoria Square Phase II. The property is located at 117 Prairie and 408 Wainwright. The proposal is for Office use. (RN-00-12) 30. Consider and take action on a request for relief from the Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance 2000-046, for McKamy Evers Estates, located on Locust Street, south of Loop 288 and north of Evers Park. The proposal is for residential (SF-7) use. (RR-00-09) 31. This item has been pulled from consideration. 32. Consider and take action on a request for relief from the Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance 2000-046, for Summit Oaks Addition, Phase II. The 38.07-acre property is located approximately 122 feet north of Ryan Road on FM 2181, east of FM 2181. A single-family Planned Development (PD) is proposed. 33. Reconsider denial of 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) (Council Member Burroughs requested reconsideration of this item.) 34. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, authorizing the City Manager to submit a grant application and all other necessary documents to obtain a grant under the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program; establishing objectives and projected use of funds and a lead-paint hazard control program description with the appropriate certifications, as authorized and required by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended and all other applicable laws; providing for an effective date. 35. Consider nominations and appointments to the City's Boards and Commissions. 36. New Business This item provides a section for Council Members to suggest items for future agendas. City of Denton City Council Agenda April 18, 2000 Page 6 37. Items from the City Manager A. Notification of upcoming meetings and/or conferences B. Clarification of items on the agenda 38. Possible continuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. 39. 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 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. Agenda No. Oa-O/ CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Agendaltem. , March 2, 2000 Oate g/Jif/aC After determining that a quorum was present and convening in an Open Meeting, the City Council convened in a Closed Meeting on Thursday, March 2, 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. Closed Meeting A. Consultation with Attorney - Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Section 551.071. 1. Deliberated and considered authorizing the City's attomeys to file a verified petition in the District Court, County Court, or County Court at Law of Denton County to obtain judicial review of the Zoning Board of Adjustment's decision in ZBA-00-004 which granted a variance from Section 33-132(2) of Chapter 33, the Sign Ordinance, regarding sign height at the property commonly known as 701 Fort Worth Drive located on the north side of 1-35 between Fort Worth Drive and Locust in the City of Denton and further known as Home Depot; authorizing the hiring of outside attorneys as necessary to avoid conflicts of interest between the competing interests of the City of Denton and its Zoning Board of Adjustment; seeking advice from the City's attorneys concerning the legality of the Zoning Board of Adjustment's decision and other issues related to such litigation, where to discuss such issues and matters in a public meeting would conflict with the attorney's duties and professional responsibilities to their client under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. The Council convened into a Special Called Meeting on Thursday, March 2, 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. The Council held a joint City Council / Planning & Zoning Commission public hearing to receive public input, consider, make recommendations and/or take appropriate action concerning 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. Public Hearing Planning & Zoning Commission Deliberations and Recommendation City Council Deliberations and Action City of Denton City Council Minutes March 2, 2000 Page 2 Dave Hill, Assistant City Manager for Utilities, stated that there were three distinct parts to the agenda item. A joint public hearing by the Council and Planning and Zoning Commission, deliberation by the Planning and Zoning Commission for a recommendation to Council and Council deliberation and consideration of adoption of the ordinance. He reviewed the time frame for consideration of the proposed ordinance as noted in the agenda materials plus proposed amendment options as attached as a handout to the agenda materials. Mayor Miller opened the public hearing. The following individuals spoke during the public hearing: Willie Hudspeth, 623 Newton, Denton, 76205 - current zoning in the area Jonthan Vison, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200, Dallas, 75214 - opposition Rob Raynor, 1108 Dallas Drive, Suite 210, Denton, 76201 - opposition Dan Martin, 717 Lafayette Drive, Denton, 76205 - opposition Weldon Davis, 4508 Mockingbird, Dallas, 75205 - opposition Claudette Fette, 2708 Glenwood, Denton, 76201 - opposition Raymond Redmon, 710 East Prairie, Denton, 76205 - opposition Ike Shupe, 1717 Main, Suite 2800, Dallas, 75201 - opposition Ed Soph, 1620 Victoria, Denton, 76201 - opposition Wayne Allen, 100 N. Locust, Suite 100, Denton, 76201 - opposition Zeke Martin, Bonnie Brae, Denton, 76201 - neutral Frank Cunningham, 1604 Churchill, Denton, 76201 - opposition Don Frazier, 1740 Westminster, Denton, 76205 - opposition Melissa Maples, 1408 Teasley, Denton, 76201 - opposition Tony Clark, 400 N. Carroll, Denton, 6201 - opposition Dalton Allen, 1111 Lexington, Demon, 76201 - opposition Scott Richter, 525 South Carroll, Suite 204, Denton, 76201 - opposition The following individuals completed Comment Cards: Joe Mulroy, 119 Ridgecrest, Denton, 76205 - opposition Chuck Carpenter, 414 Parkway, Denton, 76201 - opposition Carol Soph, 1620 Victoria, Denton, 76201 - opposition Eva Cadwallader, 3920 Fawn Drive, Denton, 76208 - neutral Jack McFarling, 1209 Buena Vista, Denton, 76205 - opposition Walter Eagleton, 1112 N. Locust, Denton, 76201 - opposition Tye DeBerry, 110 W. Hickory, Denton, 76201 - opposition Kyle Kilgora, 1228 Ave. A #D, Denton, 76201 - opposition Dick Smith, 721 W. Hobson, Denton, 76201 ~ opposition Chris Rosprim, 2113 Emerson, Denton, 76201 - opposition Andee Chamberlain, 823 W. Hickory, Denton, 76201 - favor Lacey Stokes, 1309 Hidden Oaks, Denton, 76201 - favor Brian Pigseckl, 1018 West Prairie, Demon, 76201 - favor Chad Miller, 7333 Somerset, Aubrey, 76227 - opposition The Mayor closed the public hearing. City of Denton City Council Minutes March 2, 2000 Page 3 Jim Engelbrecht, Planning and Zoning Commission Chair closed the Planning and Zoning Commission's portion of the public hearing. b. The Council went into recess to allow the Planning and Zoning Commission to deliberate the proposed ordinance. Council reconvened from its recess. Dave Hill, Assistant City Manager for Development Services, stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission's motion was to approve the ordinance with the Amendments A-G and a change on page 9, 3a from 500 feet to 200 feet. The vote was tied 3-3 that basically resulted in no recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Council deliberated the various aspects of the proposed ordinance and the amendments. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2000-069 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. Beasley motioned, Burroughs seconded to adopt the ordinance with the addition of Amendments A-G and changing the 500 foot requirement to 200 feet under page 9, 3a. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young nay", and Mayor Miller "nay". Motion carded with a 5-2 vote. 2. The Council considered and took action on the following request for relief from the provisions of Ordinance 99-474, establishing a moratorium to apply to certain specified development applications: Kerestine property, northwest comer of Woodrow Lane and Morse Street - 12.6+ acres zoned LI. This item was not considered as the moratorium was lifted due to the above action on the interim regulations. 3. The Council considered and took action on a request for relief from the Non-Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance 2000-069, for: a. Kerestine property, northwest comer of Woodrow Lane and Morse Street - 12.6+ acres zoned LI. City of Denton City Council Minutes March 2, 2000 Page 4 Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Development, presented the details of the request as noted in the agenda materials. The following individuals spoke on the request: Andy Kerestine, 201 Solar Way, Denton, 76201 - favor Robyn Mullendore, 1129 Oakhurst, Denton, 76201 - opposition Willie Hudspeth, 623 Newton, Denton, 76205 - opposition Raymond Redmon, 710 East Prairie, Denton, 76205 - favor Don Frazier, 1740 Westminster, Denton, 76205 - favor Council debated the fact that area residents were concerned about the loss of trees if the property were developed. They discussed various options to ensure that as many existing trees as possible would be preserved. Mayor Miller noted that comment cards had been submitted by Cheryl and Shanna Kerestine. Young motioned, Burroughs seconded to approve the request with the conditions of a site plan review by staff, the area that had not been filled prior to this time would be lef~ undisturbed in a natural state, the submission of a list of uses and a maximum tree preservation of interior trees in the set back (between existing footprint and street) above a 10 inch caliper. 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. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m. JACK MILLER MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 7, 2000 After determining that a quorum was present and convening in an Open Meeting, the City Council convened in a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, March 7, 2000 at 5:15 p.m. in the City of Denton City Manager's Conference Room. PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Beasley; Council Members Burroughs, Cochran, Durrance, and Kristoferson. ABSENT: Council Member Young 1. Closed Meeting: A. Consultation With Attorneys --- Under TEX. GOV'T. CODE Section 551.071. (1) Considered and discussed status of litigation styled Ex Parte Upper Trinity Regional Water District, Cause No. 2000-30033-211, pending in the 211th Judicial District Court in and for Denton County, Texas, being an action brought under the Texas "Expedited Declaratory Judgment Act:, in which the City is a party; to include possible intervention or other legal action to be taken by the City in this pending litigation. 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. (1) Received information from Staff, discussed, deliberated, considered, and provided Staff with direction respecting the valuation of, and the possible sale, transfer, assignment, 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. Regular Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, March 7, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Halt. PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Beasley; Council Members Burroughs, Cochran, Durrance, and Kristoferson. ABSENT: Council Member Young Posting of Colors by Cub Scout Pack 51 1. Pledge of Allegiance The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flags. City of Denton City Council Minutes March 7, 2000 Page 2 2. The Council considered approval of the minutes of December 7 and December 14, 1999, and January 4, January 10, and January 11, 2000. Durrance motioned, Beasley seconded to approve the minutes as presented. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS 3. March Yard-of-the-Month Awards Mayor Miller presented the following Yard of the Month awards: Joe and Ruth Bain Curtis and Carolyn Gold Denton Area Teachers Credit Union 4. Presentations Mayor Miller made the following presentations: Winners of the "Name the System" Campaign for transit system. Proclamation for Brave Combo. Proclamation for Census Awareness Month 5. Resolution of Appreciation a. The Council considered approval of a resolution of appreciation for Ralph Harpool. Beasley motioned, Burroughs seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. b. The Council considered approval of a resolution of appreciation for Jimmy Cross. Burroughs motioned, Cochran seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. CITIZEN REPORTS 6. The Council received a report from Willie Hudspeth regarding tree removal from his property. Mr. Hudspeth reviewed the situation regarding the removal of trees from his property for drainage improvements. He felt that the drainage area could have been moved to the north so as to save his trees. 7. The Council received a report from Lonnie Hillard regarding loud stereo systems in cars. Mr. Hillard was not present at the meeting. City of Denton City Council Minutes March 7, 2000 Page 3 CONSENT AGENDA Cochran motioned, Kristoferson seconded to approve the Consent Agenda and the accompanying ordinances and resolutions. On roll vote, Beastey "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. o Approved a tax refund to Thomas and Lila Sembera in the amount of $513.99. The 1999 tax was paid twice, resulting in an overpayment. 9. NO. R2000-009 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION OF THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, STATE OF TEXAS, REQUESTING CONTINUED FUNDING FOR ONE (1) JUVENILE/DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INVESTIGATOR AND ASSOCIATED TRAINING AND SUPPLIES FOR A FAMILY SERVICES UNIT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 10. NO. 2000-070 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A COST PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE PRESERVE AT PECAN CREEK PARTNERS, LTD. FOR THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE OVERSIZING OF SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAINS AND A LIFT STATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 11. NO. 2000-071 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A WATER MAIN COST PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND RANCH VENTURES, LTD. FOR THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE OVERSIZING OF WATER MAINS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 12. NO. 2000-072 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A WATER MAIN COST PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND J&S WOOD, L.P. FOR THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE OVERSIZING OF WATER MAINS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City of Denton City Council Minutes March 7, 2000 Page 4 13. NO. 2000-073 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (BID 2444-REFURBISH TEXOMA DIGGER- COMMERCIAL BODY-S48,764.30) 14. NO. 2000-074 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF FLEET VEHICLES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (BID 2457-FLEET VEHICLES AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE-S453,859) 15. NO. 2000-075 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF LOADER/BACKHOE TRACTORS AND A SKID STEER LOADER; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (BID 2459- LOADER/BACKHOE TRACTORS AND SKID STEER LOADER AS LISTED- $117,635.93) 16. NO. 2000-076 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING AN ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR THE SUPPLY PURCHASE OF DISTRIBUTION WIRE AND CABLE; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (BID 2460-ANNUAL PRICE AGREEMENT-ESTIMATED $850,000) 17. NO. 2000-077 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING AN ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE MATERIALS, SUPPLIES AND SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (BID 2461-RUBBER GOODS TESTING- J. L. MATTHEWS CO., INC.-ESTIMATED $30,000) 18. NO. 2000-078 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING AN ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, SUPPLIES AND SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (BID 2463-ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR REFUSE BAGS-RESOURCEFUL BAG AND TAG CO.-$87,300) City of Denton City Council Minutes March 7, 2000 Page 5 19. NO. 2000-079 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (BID 2464-WATER TREATMENT CHEMICALS AS LISTED-S458,600) 20. NO. 2000-080 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING AN ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (BID 2466-PADMOUNTED SWlTCHGEAR-CUMMINS UTILITY SUPPLY-ESTIMATED $230,545) 21. NO. 2000-081 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING ANNUAL CONTRACTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, SUPPLIES AND SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (BID 2467-ANNUAL MOWING CONTRACTS AS LISTED-ESTIMATED $65,000) 22. NO. 2000-082 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING AN ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (BID 2471-ELECTRICALLY CONTROLLED LINE RECLOSERS-COOPER POWER SYSTEMS C/O PRIESTER SUPPLY-NOT TO EXCEED $122,112) 23. NO. 2000-083 AN ORDINANCE 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. (PO 03178-RELIANT ENERGY HL&P; PO 03179-CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO; PO 03181-TXU ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION DIV.-S445,442.25) 24. NO. 2000-084 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF AUTOMATED METER READING TRANSMITTERS AVAILABLE FROM ONLY ONE SOURCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF City of Denton City Council Minutes March 7, 2000 Page 6 STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PO 03370-HUNT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. - $149,750) 25. NO. 2000-085 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE AVAILABLE FROM ONLY ONE SOURCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PO 03612 - ORACLE GOVERNMENT DMD-$83,535.00) 26. NO. 2000-086 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH INTELLISYS GROUP, INC. FOR THE DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF A STREAMING MEDIA SYSTEM AND RELATED SERVICES AS SET FORTH IN THE CONTRACT; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PSA 2458-DESIGN/INSTALLATION-STREAMING MEDIA SYSTEM AND RELATED SERVICES-INTELLISYS GROUP, INC.-$170,279) 27. NO. 2000-087 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND KEEP DENTON BEAUTIFUL, INCORPORATED RELATING TO DEVELOPING PROGRAMS ENHANCING THE APPEARANCE AND ENVIRONMENT OF DENTON; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 28. NO. 2000-088 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN DOUGLAS C. WEYER, THE WEYER LIVING TRUST-DATED JANUARY 12, 1995 AND THE CITY OF DENTON WHICH AMENDS AN AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO ON FEBRUARY 16, 1999; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 29. NO. R2000-010 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE RESOLUTION NO. R99-045, AS AMENDED, PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 TO ADD PROJECTS NECESSITATED BY THE NEED TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY NEAR CITY HALL EAST FOR CITY HALL EAST RENOVATIONS, NEW ERCOT REQUIREMENTS, WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION, AND ADDITIONAL SEWER LINES; TO THE UTILITY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR 2000-2004; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING City of Denton City Council Minutes March 7, 2000 Page 7 AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 30. NO. 2000-089 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REAL ESTATE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND FREDDA SUE BROCKETT, RELATING THE PURCHASE OF 0.17 ACRE OF LAND LOCATED IN THE HIRAM SISCO 320 ACRE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1184, FOR USE BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. PUBLIC HEARINGS/ZONING ACTIONS 31. The Council considered and took action on a request for relief from the Non-Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance 2000~069, for 215 First Street, a proposal to rezone 0.25 acres from a Two-family dwelling (2-F) zoning district to a Neighborhood Service (NS) zoning district. (This was not a public hearing.) Beasley motioned, Kristoferson seconded to approve the exemption. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. 32. The Council held a public hearing and considered rezoning approximately 0.25 acres from Two-family dwelling (2-F) zoning district to a Neighborhood Service (NS) zoning district. The property was located at 215 First Street. The change of zoning would allow the utilization of the existing non-residential structure on the eastern portion of the site for non-residential use. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (6-1) with conditions. (Z-99-090, 215 First Street) Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Development, presented the details of the case as noted in the agenda materials. The Mayor opened the public heating. The following individual spoke during the public hearing: Darlene Doyle, 4876 Luginbyhl Rd., Sanger, 76266 - favor The Mayor closed the public hearing. Beasley motioned, Burroughs seconded to adopt the ordinance with the conditions as noted by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Council Member Kristoferson asked for a friendly amendment to include a restriction for siguage as noted in Section 33-182 and to a wall sign. Beasley and Burroughs agreed to add those conditions to their motion and second. City of Denton City Council Minutes March 7, 2000 Page 8 On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "nay", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "nay", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded with a 4-2 vote. 33. The Council considered and took 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 was not a public hearing.) Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Development, stated that the developer had requested a postponement on consideration of Items #33-36. Tommy Baine, 700 Lakeview Blvd., Dallas, requested that the zoning case be moved to the next Council meeting for the propose of meeting once more with staff regarding some unresolved issues. Relief measures could also be postponed until that meeting. Powell suggested postponing consideration for four weeks to the April 4th City Council meeting. Kristoferson motioned, Beasley seconded to postpone consideration until April 4th. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. 34. The Council continued a public hearing and considered rezoning a 47.3 acre tract from an Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Planned Development (PD) zoning district. The property was legally described as Tract 11 out of the W. Durham Survey (Abstract 330) and was located on the south side of McKinney Street (F.M. 426), approximately 3,000 feet east of the intersection with Trinity Road. The proposal was to develop a single-family subdivision with a minimum 5,500 square foot lot size. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (6-1) with conditions. (Z-99~046, Lakeview Ranch - PD) The Mayor opened the public hearing. Burroughs motioned, Beasley seconded to continue the public hearing and consideration of the request until the April 4th Council meeting. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. 35. The Council considered and took 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. (This was not a public hearing.) Kristoferson motioned, Durrance seconded to postpone consideration of the relief until the April 4th Council meeting. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kfistoferson "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 36. The Council continued a public hearing and considered 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) City of Deuton City Council Minutes March 7, 2000 Page 9 zoning district on about 192 acres. The property was legally described as Tracts 20, 23, 27A, 36, 40, 123, 124, 125, and 127 out of the M. Forrest Survey (Abstract 417) and Tract l0 out of the W. Durham Survey (Abstract 330) in the City of Deuton, Denton County, Texas. It was located between University Drive (Hwy. 380) and McKinney Street (F.M. 426) east of Mayhill Road. The proposal was to develop a mix of single-family lots and housing types. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7-0) with conditions. (Z-99-072, Lakeview Ranch) The Mayor opened the public hearing. Burroughs motioned, Durrance seconded to postpone the public heating and consideration until the April 4th meeting. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. 37. The Council considered and took action on a request for relief from the Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance No. 2000-046, filed by W.B.B.&B. Holdings, Ltd. for 34.40 acres of the Shadow Brook Place located south of E1 Pasco Drive, between Forrestridge Drive and Mouteeito Drive. (This was not a public hearing.) Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Development, stated that this property was in the process of being rezoned before the interim regulations were approved. Some of the outstanding issues regarding the pond and drainage had been resolved with the neighbors. He reviewed the details of the problems associated with the prior work done on the property as noted in the agenda materials. Beasley motioned, Burroughs seconded to approve the relief. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "nay", Kfistoferson "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded with a 5-1 vote. 38. The Council continued a public hearing and considered zoning approximately 34.40 acres to One Family Dwelling (SF-16) zoning district and land use classification. The property was located south of E1 Pasco Drive, between Forrestridge Drive and Montecito Drive. Single family residential development was proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (5-0). (Z-99-051, Shadow Brook Place) The Mayor opened the public hearing. The following individuals spoke during the public hearing: Beverly Stephens, 420 El Pasco, Denton, 76205 - favor Stan Ratliff, 801 Ryan Road, Denton, 76205 - opposition Bob Heilig, 809 Ryan Road, Denton, 7205 - opposition Rebuttal b~' Stephens The Mayor closed the public hearing. Durrance motioned to postpone consideration for two weeks to allow for continued discussions. Motion died for lack of a second. City of Denton City Council Minutes March 7, 2000 Page 10 The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2000-091 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, INITIALLY PLACING A SINGLE-FAMILY 16 (SF-16)[C], WITH CONDITIONS ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION ON 34.40 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EL PASEO STREET AND APPROXIMATELY FIVE HUNDRED FEET NORTH OF RYAN ROAD; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z-99- 051) Burroughs motioned, Cochran seconded to adopt the ordinance with the added conditions of (1) the Shadow Brook Place grading plan as provided by the applicant would be attached to the ordinance and the applicant must implement that plan, (2) the applicant would re-establish the off-site property that was originally disturbed to a safe and restored condition as weather permitted with permission obtained by the appropriate property owner prior to such work and (3) staff would determine that the conditions had been satisfied prior to platting. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. 39. The Council held a public hearing and considered a Detailed Plan for Oakmont Estates IV in a Planned Development (PD-111) zoning district. The 18.4 acres site was generally located south of Robinson Road, east of Teasley Lane and west of Oakmont. Single-family development was proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (5- 1) with conditions. (Z-99-103, Oakmont Estates IV Phase 2) Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Development, stated that the property was in the Oakmont development. The property had been annexed with conditions in an interlocal agreement with the City of Corinth. That agreement indicated that the lot layout and configuration of the development was part of the interlocal agreement. The Mayor opened the public hearing. The following individuals spoke during the public hearing: Don Allen, Fort Worth - favor but opposed to the Planning and Zoning Commission's condition regarding 85% masonry on the homes. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The following ordinance was considered: City of Denton City Council Minutes March 7, 2000 Page 11 NO. 2000-092 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A DETAILED PLAN FOR 18.4 ACRES LOCATED WITHIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT lll(PD-111) ZONING DISTRICT; THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEING THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF NOWLIN ROAD AND SOUTH OF ROBINSON ROAD; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z-99-103) Beasley motioned, Cochran seconded to approve the ordinance with the conditions added by the Planning and Zoning Commission plus 80% brick. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "nay", and Mayor Miller "nay". Motion carded with a 4-2 vote. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 40. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, partially abandoning and vacating a 70-foot utility easement on Block 8 & 9, Wimbleton Village, Phase III, Block 10 Wimbleton Village, Phase V, and Lot 1, Block A, James Wood Autopark Addition and recorded in Volume 1029, Page 480 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas; and declaring an effective date. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2000-093 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PARTIALLY ABANDONING AND VACATING A 70-FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT ON BLOCK 8 & 9, WIMBLETON VILLAGE, PHASE III, BLOCK 10 WIMBLETON VILLAGE, PHASE V, AND LOT 1, BLOCK A, JAMES WOOD AUTOPARK ADDITION AND RECORDED IN VOLUME 1029, PAGE 480 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE Burroughs motioned, Cochran seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. 41. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance partially vacating a utility easement established by judgments recorded in Volume 588, Page 459, and Volume 2259, Page 544 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas, as it pertains to Lot 1, Block 1 of the Texas Instrtnnents Addition; and providing for an effective date. The following ordinance was considered: City of Denton City Council Minutes March 7, 2000 Page 12 NO. 2000-094 AN ORDINANCE PARTIALLY VACATING A UTILITY EASEMENT ESTABLISHED BY JUDGMENTS RECORDED IN VOLUME 588, PAGE 459, AND VOLUME 2259, PAGE 544 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS, AS IT PERTAINS TO LOT 1, BLOCK 1 OF THE TEXAS INSTRUMENTS ADDITION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Burroughs motioned, Cochran seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kfistoferson "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. 42. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance providing for the payment of eighty- five thousand dollars and no cents ($85,000.00) to Citgo Pipeline Products Company for the relocation of its pipeline in conjunction with the Nottingham Extension Street and Drainage Project; and providing for an effective date. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2000-094 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF EIGHTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($85,000.00) TO CITGO PIPELINE PRODUCTS COMPANY FOR THE RELOCATION OF ITS PIPELINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE NOTTINGHAM EXTENSION STREET AND DRAINAGE PROJECT; 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", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 43. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas appointing Assistant Municipal Judges for the City of Denton Municipal Court of Record; authorizing the Mayor to execute a contract for their term of office; establishing fees for payment for their services; and declaring an effective date. Kimberly Cawley-McCary Earlean Cobbin Murphy The following ordinances were considered: NO. 2000-096 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPOINTING KIMBERLY CAWLEY-MCCARY AS ASSISTANT MUNICIPAL JUDGE FOR THE CITY OF DENTON MUNICIPAL COURT OF RECORD; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT FOR HER TERM OF OFFICE; ESTABLISHING FEES FOR PAYMENT FOR HER SERVICES; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE City of Denton City Council Minutes March 7, 2000 Page 13 NO. 2000-097 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPOINTING EARLEAN COBBIN MURPHY AS ASSISTANT MUNICIPAL JUDGE FOR THE CITY OF DENTON MUNICIPAL COURT OF RECORD; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT FOR HER TERM OF OFFICE; ESTABLISHING FEES FOR PAYMENT FOR HER SERVICES; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE Kristoferson motioned, Durrance seconded to adopt the ordinances. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 44. The Council considered a variance from Section 34-114(17) of the Code of Ordinance, concerning sidewalks for Milner-Crouch Ranch Estates. The 4.87 acre site was located at the southwest comer of Cindy Lane and Lariat Road. It was in an Agricultural (A) zoning district. Single-family development was proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (4-2). (V-00-002, Milner-Crouch). Tim Crouch stated that he was opposed to the requirement of sidewalk on University. Kristoferson motioned, Burroughs seconded to grant a complete variance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "nay", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded with a 5-1 vote. 45. The Council considered approval of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas amending the schedule of fees contained in Ordinance 99-371 by adopting a new schedule of fees as authorized by Chapter 34 and Chapter 35 of the Code of Ordinances for the City of Denton, Texas, for filing applications for review, approval, grant or issuance of plats, plans, licenses, certificates, variances or designations required by the subdivision rules and regulations and zoning regulations of the Code of Ordinances, providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict herewith; providing a severability clause; providing a savings clause; providing for publication; and providing an effective date. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2000-098 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AMENDING THE SCHEDULE OF FEES CONTAiNED iN ORDiNANCE 99-371 BY ADOPTING A NEW SCHEDULE OF FEES AS AUTHORIZED BY CHAPTER 34 AND CHAPTER 35 OF THE CODE OF ORDiNANCES FOR THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, FOR FILiNG APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW, APPROVAL, GRANT OR ISSUANCE OF PLATS, PLANS, LICENSES, CERTIFICATES, VARIANCES OR DESIGNATIONS REQUIRED BY THE SUBDIVISION RULES AND REGULATIONS AND ZONING REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDiNANCES, PROVIDiNG FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDiNG A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDiNG A SAViNGS CLAUSE; PROVIDiNG FOR PUBLICATION; AND PROVIDiNG AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City of Denton City Council Minutes March 7, 2000 Page 14 Burroughs motioned, Durrance seconded to adopt the ordinance. On mil vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. 46. The Council considered and took action on a request for relief from the Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance No. 2000-046, filed by GBW Engineers, Inc. for the remaining phases of Beverly Park Estates, PD-90 located east of Sherman Drive and south of Loop 288. Burroughs motioned, Beasley seconded to grant the relief. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "nay", Kristoferson "nay", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded with a 4-2 vote. 47. The Council considered and took action on a request for relief from the Non-Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance No. 2000-069, for: 1508 N. Elm (Z-99-083) 1513 N. Locust (Z-99-084) RNW Addition (Z-99-003) Beasley motioned, Kristoferson seconded to grant the relief. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. Item b. Cochran motioned, Burroughs seconded to grant the relief. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kfistoferson "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. Item c. Kristoferson motioned, Beasley seconded to grant relief from the non-residentail interim regulations, Ordinance No. 2000-069 for the City initiated zoning case No. Z-00-003 for the RNW Addition. This motion did not include any other development application for the subject property not initiated by the City. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 48. The Council considered nominations and appointments to the City's Boards and Commissions. John Johnson was nominated by Mayor Miller to move from an alternate position on the Zoning Board of Adjustment to a regular member. City of Denton City Council Minutes March 7, 2000 Page 15 Beasley motioned, Burroughs seconded to suspend the rules and vote on the nomination at this meeting. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. On roll vote for the nomination. Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Miller noted that he had appointed Ray Bejarano to the Denton Housing Authority. 49. New Business The following items of New Business were suggested by Council Members for future agendas: A. Council Member Cochran asked that the issue regarding Willie Hudsepth and the removal of his trees be scheduled for a work session so that Mr. Hudspeth could present his issue all at one meeting. 50. Items from the City Manager Mr. Jez did not have any items for Council. 51. There was no continuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. 52 Council took the following official action on Closed Meeting under Sections 551.071- 551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. A. Considered and took action to adjust compensation of Municipal Judge, City Attorney, and City Manager as a result of evaluations held in Executive Session on February 22, 2000. Beasley motioned, Burroughs seconded to grant an adjustment to the compensation of the Municipal Judge, the City Attorney and the City Manager by 3% as a result of a prior evaluation. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. With no further business, the meeting was adjoumed at 9:20 p.m. JACK MILLER, MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MIINUTES March 21, 2000 After determining that a quorum was present and convening in an Open Meeting, the City Council convened in a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, March 21, 2000 at 5:15 p.m. in the City of Denton City Manager's Conference Room. PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Beasley; Council Members Burroughs, Cochran, Durranee, Kristoferson and Young. ABSENT: None 1. Closed Meeting: 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. (1) Received information from Staff, discussed, deliberated, considered, and provided Staff with direction respecting the valuation of, and the possible sale, transfer, assignment, 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. Regular Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, March 21, 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 Peldge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flags. 2. The Council considered approval of the minutes of January 18, January 19, January 25, February 1, and February 8, 2000. 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 carded unanimously. CITIZEN REPORTS 3. The Council received a report from Christine McAdams regarding the widening of Morse Street. City of Denton City Council Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 2 Ms. McAdams stated that she was still trying to resolve the paving lien situation regarding her property. 4. The Council received a report from Raymond Redmon regarding a bridge for Fred Moore Park. Mr. Redmon again expressed a need for placing a historical bridge from the County at Fred Moore Park and the time frame that was involved in the placing of this bridge. 5. The Council received a report from Tom Atkins regarding the City's health insurance. Mr. Atkins again expressed a concern regarding the City's health insurance program and the possible need to be self-insured. 6. The Council received a report from Willie Hudspeth regarding tree removal fi'om his property. Mr. Hudspeth stated he was still disturbed with the removal of the trees on his property. CONSENT AGENDA Kristoferson motioned, Cochran seconded to approve the Consent Agenda and the accompanying ordinances. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. Approved a tax refund paid by Transamerica Tax Service for Ramona Perez. The 1999 tax was paid twice, resulting in an overpayment. Approved a tax refund to Eckert Hyundai, Inc. The 1999 tax was overpaid, resulting in an overpayment. Approved a tax refund to James Wood Autopark. The 1999 tax was overpaid, resulting in an overpayment. 10. Approved a tax refund to McNatt Toyota Dodge. The 1999 tax was overpaid, resulting in an overpayment. 11. Approved a tax refund to Clayton Estates. The 1999 tax was overpaid, resulting in an overpayment. 12. Approved a tax refund to Pulte Homes of Texas for Mark and Diana Johansen. The 1998 tax was paid twice, resulting in an overpayment. 13. Approved a tax refund to Transamerica for Mitchell Joseph. The 1999 tax was paid twice, resulting in an overpayment. City of Demon City Council Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 3 14. 15. Approved a tax refund to Richard J. Fisher. The 1999 tax was paid twice, resulting in an overpayment. NO. 2000-099 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS PROHIBITING PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF DUCHESS DRIVE FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH MCKINNEY STREET SOUTH FOR FOUR HUNDRED AND FORTY-SIX FEET (446 FEET); PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 16. NO. 2000-100 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN LANES ON BOTH SIDES OF HERCULES FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH STUART ROAD TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH REDSTONE ROAD; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $200.00; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 17. NO. 2000-101 AN ORDINANCE DIRECTING THE ISSUANCE AND PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF SALE OF CITY OF DENTON GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 18. NO. 2000-102 AN ORDINANCE DIRECTING THE PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION OF THE CITY OF DENTON; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 19. NO. 2000-103 20. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF CHANGE ORDER ONE TO THE PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT PROVIDING TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION ASSOCIATED WITH U.S. 77 ROAD WIDENING PROJECT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND ROGER WILKINSON; PROVIDING FOR AN INCREASE IN THE SCOPE OF WORK AND AN INCREASE IN THE PAYMENT AMOUNT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PO #92249 TO ROGER WILKINSON IN THE AMOUNT OF $120,000 PLUS CHANGE ORDER ONE IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000) NO. 2000-104 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR EMERGENCY PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, SUPPLIES, OR SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING; PROVIDING City of Denton City Council Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 4 AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PO #02323 TO LAYNE - TEXAS IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,630) 21. NO. 2000-105 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR EMERGENCY PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISION OF STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PO #03622 TO DARR EQUIPMENT CO. IN THE AMOUNT OF $27,498.75) 22. NO. 2000-106 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR AN EMERGENCY PURCHASE OF MATERIAL, SUPPLIES AND SERVICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PO #03944 TO THE ANDREW JOSEPH CO. INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $27,022) 23. NO. 2000-107 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR A SECOND 12/20/25 MVA POWER TRANSFORMER; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE FOR SECOND AWARD. (BID #2408 - POWER TRANSFORMER AWARDED TO WAUKESHA ELECTRIC SYSTEM, DIVISION OF GENERAL SIGNAL POWER SYSTEMS IN THE AMOUNT OF $427,459) 24. NO. 2000-108 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE ANNUAL SUPPLY OF COMMERCIAL REFUSE CONTAINERS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (BID #2462 - ANNUAL PRICE AGREEMENT FOR REFUSE CONTAINERS IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $140,000) 25. NO. 2000-109 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING AN ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR THE SUPPLY OF 30 CUBIC YARD SELF- CONTAINED REFUSE COMPACTORS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTWE DATE. (BID #2468 - 30 CUBIC YARD SELF-CONTAINED COMPACTORS AWARDED TO GALBREATH INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,375 EACH, ESTIMATED ANNUAL EXPENDITURE $83,000) City of Denton City Council Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 5 26. NO. 2000-110 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF THREE HYDRAULIC DIGGER DERRICK TRUCKS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (BID #2469 - DIGGER DERRICK TRUCKS AWARDED TO PETERBILT MOTORS CO./DALLAS PETERBILT INC. IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $409,799 INCLUDING $74,000 FOR TRADE-IN OF TWO OLDER UNITS) 27. NO. 2000-111 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING AN ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR THE SUPPLY OF MISCELLANEOUS PAVEMENT MARKING; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (BID #2473 - MISCELLANEOUS PAVEMENT MARKINGS AWARDED TO ASC PAVEMENT MARKINGS, INC. IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $39,900) 28. NO. 2000-112 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING AN ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (BID #2479 - WOOD GRINDING FOR COMPOST OPERATION AWARDED TO THELIN RECYCLING CO. IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $93,000) 29. NO. 2000-113 AN ORDINANCE AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE LEASE OF DESKTOP PC'S, NOTEBOOKS, SOFTWARE, AND PERIPHERALS AS AWARDED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS GENERAL SERVICES COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION SERVICES (DIR); PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PO #03628 TO DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $157,233 PER 6 MONTHS FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $943,398 INCLUDING 36 MONTHS LEASE FINANCING) 30. This item was pulled from consideration. 31. NO. 2000-114 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REAL ESTATE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND EVELYN BARTHOLD, ET. AL., RELATING TO THE PURCHASE OF APPROXIMATELY 1.7 ACRES OF LAND AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 1-35 AND LOOP 288 IN THE B.B.B. & C.R.R. SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 141 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WATER STORAGE FACILITY; City of Denton City Council Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 6 AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 32. NO. 2000-115 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CHANGE ORDER AND EXTENSION TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AND SPAN, INC. RELATING TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION WITHIN THE CITY; AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS AS PROVtDED IN SA D FIRST AMENDMENT AGREEMENT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (RFSP 1762 - OPERATION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AWARDED TO SPAN, INc .) ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 33. The Council considered approval of recommendations from the Oversight Committee. Euline Brock, Chair of the Oversight Committee, stated that the Committee made the following recommendations for uses of the bond funds: Miscellaneous Street - McKinney Street from Bell Avenue to Jannie, Avenue E from Avenue E/D to Oak, Oakwood from Mercedes to Cul-de-Sac, Palmwood from Glenwood to Kayewood Miscellaneous Signals - coordinating the signals on Fort worth Drive, Teasley Lane from 1-35E north, and on Lillian Miller/Teasley Lane form 1-35W south, if funding was available. Beautification Project - repair of the median on Carroll Blvd., signage at City Hall, median repair and renovations to medians on Dallas Drive, and water conservation landscape at Bell/Robertson. Dr. Brock noted that these miscellaneous categories were all funded in the first year of the capital improvements program. Beasley motioned, Kristoferson seconded to approve the recommendations of the Committee. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. 34. The Council considered and took action on a request for relief from the Non-Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance 2000-069, for 2001 Fort Worth Drive, a proposal to plat 2.38 acres in a Light Industrial (LI) zoning district. (RN-00-008) Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Development, reviewed the details of the request for relief. Ken Hendricks, 420 South Bell, Denton, 76201, spoke regarding the issue. Don Fraizer presented a comment card regarding the issue. City of Denton City Council Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 7 Young motioned, Cochran seconded to grant the relief. On mil vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "nay", Kristoferson "nay", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded with a 5-2 vote. 35. The Council considered and took action on a request for relief from the Non-Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance 2000-069, for a 5.0 acre parcel north of Mingo Road approximately 850 feet west of Cooper Creek. A building permit for a 10,000 to 12,000 SF building in a Light Industrial (LI) zoning district was proposed. (RN-00-007) Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Development, presented the details regarding the request for relief as noted in the agenda materials. Beasley motioned, Cochran seconded to grant the relief. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kfistoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. 36. The Council considered and took action on a request for relief from the Non-Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance 2000-069, for 2225 E. McKinney, a Planned Development Detailed Plan proposal for office and residential development. Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Development, presented the details regarding the request for relief as noted in the agenda materials. Dick Kelsey, 206 Ridgecrest Circle, Denton, 76205, spoke regarding the issue. Burroughs motioned, Durrance seconded to grant the relief. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. 37. The Council considered and took action on a request for relief from the Non-Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance 2000-069, for the following building permits applications: ao g. h. i. j. k. 1. m. n. o. p. 3517 Teasley, Small Animal Clinic, 2,200 square feet 1611 E. McKinney, Hawkins Car Wash, 2,404 square feet Daugherty Street, Lease Building, 6,520 square feet 1209 Bent Oaks, Medical Office, 3,804 square feet Teasley at 1-35, Exxon Store, 3,000 square feet 1101 Dallas Drive, Quik Stop, 1,472 square feet Mingo Road, Telemarketing Business, 36,465 square feet 526 Smith, Mechanic Shop, 546 square feet 600 Smith, Lease Building, 10,000 square feet Nowlin Road, Prime Co. Cell Tower, 130 square feet 408 Wainwright, Lease Office, 10,728 square feet 1201 Parvin, Borman Elementary, 26,000 square feet 3300 Evers Park, Evers Park Elementary, 12,577 square feet 820 Sun Valley, Ginnings Elementary, 17,000 square feet Colorado Drive, Medical Office Building, 33,161 square feet Bolivar, St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, 16,660 square feet City of Denton City Council Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 8 520 Ft. Worth Drive, AB Storage, 23,160 square feet Airport Road, Tetra-Pak Addition, 26,000 square feet Colorado Boulevard, Medical Office Building, 3,3612 square feet 1210 Duncan, Warehouse, 16,500 square feet Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Development, stated that the above items were applications at a building permit stage that were placed in the interim regulations. The developers were ready to begin with building permits but must be exempted from the interim regulations in order to proceed. Item e. was pulled as it was not platted. Jeff Hawkins, P.O. Box 1250, Denton, 76202 spoke in favor of Item b. Council Member Kristoferson requested that Items c, j q, t be pulled for separate consideration. Beasley motioned, Young seconded to approve requests for relief except for Items c, e, j, q, and t. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. Item c. Burroughs motioned, Young seconded to approve the request. Durrance motioned, Kristoferson seconded to postpone consideration of Items c, j, q, and t to allow for further review. On roll vote, Beasley "nay", Burroughs "nay", Cochran "nay", Durrance "aye", Kfistoferson "aye", Young "nay", and Mayor Miller "nay". Motion failed with a 2-5 vote. On roll vote to approve Item c., Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "nay", Kristoferson "nay", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried with a 5-2 vote. Item j. was considered. Kristoferson motioned, Cochran seconded to deny the request. Burroughs motioned, Beasley seconded to postpone consideration to allow for further review. Scott Cates, 5220 Tartan Circle, Denton, 76208, spoke regarding the issue. On roll vote, Beasley "nay", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "nay", Durrance "aye", Kfistoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "nay". Motion carded with a 4-3 vote. Item q. was considered. Burroughs motioned, Young seconded to approve the request. Kristoferson motioned, Durrance seconded to postpone consideration to allow for further review. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", IQ'istoferson "aye", Young "nay", and Mayor Miller "nay". Motion carded with a 5-2 vote. City of Denton City Council Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 9 Item t. was considered. Beasley motioned, Burroughs seconded to approve the request. 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. 38. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance approving a real estate contract between the City of Denton and Mayhill Road Realty Co., relating to the purchase of 0.9628 acre of land located in the Gideon Walker Survey, Abstract No. 1330, or Denton County, Texas, for the utilization for electrical substation expansion authorizing the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2000-116 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REAL ESTATE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND MAYHILL ROAD REALTY CO., RELATING TO THE PURCHASE OF 0.9628 ACRE OF LAND LOCATED IN THE GIDEON WALKER SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1330, OR DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS, FOR THE UTILIZATION FOR ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION EXPANSION AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Durrance 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. 39. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, partially abandoning and vacating three sixty foot easements that extend from Stanley Street, Thomas Street, and Hillcrest Street recorded in Volume 408, Page 33 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas; and declaring an effective date. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2000-117 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PARTIALLY ABANDONING AND VACATING THREE SIXTY FOOT EASEMENTS THAT EXTEND FROM STANLEY STREET, THOMAS STREET, AND HILLCREST STREET RECORDED IN VOLUME 408, PAGE 33 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Beasley motioned, Cochran ~econded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, l~ea~ley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Item 41 was considered. City of Denton City Council Minutes March 21, 2000' Page 10 41. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance declaring a public necessity exists and finding that public welfare and convenience requires the taking and acquiring of an approximate 0.125 acre fire lane and access easement being located in the R. Beaumont Survey, Abstract No. 31 in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas; authorizing the City Manager or his designee to make an offer to purchase the easement for its fair market value and if such offer is refused, authorizing the City Attorney or his designee to institute the necessary proceedings in condemnation in order to acquire the easement; and providing an effective date. Dave Hill, Assistant City Manager for Development, presented the details regarding the proposal as noted in the agenda materials. The following individuals spoke regarding the issue: Tim McNamarah, representing Kroger Ken Burdick, 2112 Pembrook, Denton, 76201-opposition Phil Philips, 525 N. Locust, Denton, 76201 - opposition The following individuals submitted Comment cards: Scott Richter, 525 S. Carroll, Denton, 76201 - opposition Greg Muirhead, 1820 Panhandle, Denton, 76201 - opposition Weldon Lucus, 127 N. Woodrow Lane, Denton, 76201 ~ opposition Carl Anderson, 114 Mustang Trail, Shady Shores, 76208 ~ opposition Wayne Johnson, 205 N. Elm, Denton, 76201 - opposition Dale Irwin, 2912 Chapel, Denton, 76205 - opposition Lloyd Ballard, 2712 Hartlee Court, Denton, 76208 - opposition Robert Bell, 1220 Duncan, Denton, 76206 - opposition Mark Foster, P.O. Box 312, Krum, 76249 - opposition Eddie Ary, 331 Radecke Road, Krum, 76248 ~ opposition R. D Martin, P.O. Box 729, Lake Dallas, 75065 - opposition Dale McKnight, 7066 Ganzer Road, Denton, 76207 - opposition Dale Frasier, 1740 Westminster, Denton, 76205 ~ opposition . Cochran motioned, Young seconded to deny approval of the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded unanimously. 40. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance approving an agreement between the City of Denton, Texas and RPI providing for the payment of the cost of condemnation for a fire lane and access easement in the R. Beaumont Survey, Abstract No. 31; and providing an effective date. This item was not considered. 42. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to sign an agreement partially releasing an easement granted to the City from a blanket easement previously assigned to the City of Denton from Brazos Electric Power Cooperative; and providing an effective date. City of Denton City Council Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 11 The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2000-118 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT PARTIALLY RELEASING AN EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE CITY FROM A BLANKET EASEMENT PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED TO THE CITY OF DENTON FROM BRAZOS ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Young motioned, Beasley 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. 43. The Council considered nominations and appointments to the City's Boards and Commissions. Council Member Kristoferson nominated Audrey Bryant to the Human Services Advisory Committee. Council Member Kristoferson nominated Michael Monticino to the Traffic Safety Commission. Council Member Cochran nominated Jay Thomas to the Construction Appeals and Advisory Board. Mayor Pro Tem Beasley nominated Lisa Hinojosa to the Community Development Advisory Board. Council Member Burroughs nominated Adrian Norris to the Library Board. Council Member Durrance nominated Robyn Mullendore to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Beasley motioned, Durrance seconded to suspend the rules and vote on the above nominations at this meeting. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. On roll vote for the nomination to the Human Services Advisory Committee, Traffic Safety Commission, Construction Advisory and Appeals Board, Community Development Advisory Committee and Zoning Board of Adjustment, Beastey "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Young "nay", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carded with a 6-1 vote. On roll vote for the Library Board nomination. Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrancc "aye", Kriatofcmon "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. City of Denton City Council Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 12 44. New Business The following items of New Business were suggested by Council Members for future agendas: A. Council Member Kristoferson asked for further information regarding animals roaming loose in neighborhoods and that the staff contact the individual in the paper with a recent editorial regarding the City's policy. B. Council Member Kristoferson requested that the telecommunications ordinance be scheduled for the next available work session. 45. Items from the City Manager City Manager Jez did not have any items for Council. 46. There was no continuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. 47. There was no official Action on Closed Meeting trader Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. With no further business, the meeting was adjoumed at 8:46 p.m. JACK MILLER, MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 28, 2000 After determining that a quorum was present and convening in an Open Meeting, the City Council convened in a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, March 28, 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. Closed Meeting A. Consultation with Attomey- Under TEX. GOV'T. Code Section 551.071. Discussed and received 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. Work Session of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, March 28, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room in City Hall. 1. The Council received a report and gave staff direction regarding the 2000-01 budget calendar. Jon Fortune, Director of Management and Budget, presented the budget calendar for Council consideration. Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the schedule as presented. 2. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding the results of the budget priority questionnaire with City Council. Jon Fortune, Director of Management and Budget, presented the results of the budget priority questionnaire as indicated in the agenda materials. 3. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction regarding guidelines for linking to other websites and allowing other websites to link to City sites. Alex Pettit, Director of Technology Services, reviewed the areas of the city's website and the number of page requests received for information. The current policy was to not include links to externally maintained websites on any of its internally maintained websites and web pages. Council Member Cochran felt that not providing that service was limiting the services that the City could provide to its citizens. He wanted to write some guidelines for a proposal for Council to consider at another work session. Consensus of the Council was to maintain the current policy but to also look at guidelines for such a program. City of Denton City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 Page 2 4. The Council received a preliminary assessment, held a discussion, and gave direction to staff with regard to the possible annexation of a 4-247 acre tract of land located west of Sherman Drive north of Loop 288. Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Development, presented the details of the site being considered for possible annexation. Consensus of the Council was to begin the annexation process but to seek more information regarding the proposal. 5. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding the Workforce Diversity Plan Update. Carla Romine, Director of Hunan Resources, stated that the City had a five-year Workforce Diversity Plan that was published in May of 1998. A number of goals had been outlined for each department. She reviewed a summary of accomplishments for fiscal year 98/99 and an update of the diversity statistics for the organization as of January, 2000. Ross Chadwick, Fire Chief, presented a review of the Fire Department's diversity plan as noted in the agenda materials. A Citizens Task Force was proposed to look at the Fire Department's selection process. Council discussed the proposal of the formation of a task force and possible altematives to the process which included going to area churches and high schools for interest in the Fire Department and the formation of a mentor program for students interested in the Fire Department. 6. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction regarding the lease between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Denton for management of the 2,645-acre Lewisville Lake Wildlife Restoration Project. Howard Martin, Assistant City Manager for Utilities, stated that staff would like to proceed with Council consideration of this project at the next regular meeting. Consensus of Council was to proceed with the project. 7. The Council held a discussion and provided staff direction concerning a sales tax exemption sought by the Robson Development that would exempt state tax on all the equipment purchased for the wastewater treatment plant construction. Howard, Martin, Assistant City Manager for Utilities, stated that the City had received a written request for a sales tax exemption on the equipment purchases for the wastewater treatment plant construction. The plant would eventually be donated to the City of Denton and if the City were building the plant, all of that equipment would be tax exempt. Options included proceeding with the request, allowing only a portion of the exemption or denying the request. Consensus of the Council was to look further at the proposal with Robson beating the burden of proof regarding the legality of the proposal. City of Denton City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 Page 3 8. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction regarding wireless telecommunications facilities regulations. Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Development, stated that the City's current regulations were written for older technologies and did not adequately respond to the new age of wireless telecommunications services. Consensus of the Council was to draft an ordinance based on the North Texas Council of Government's model ordinance and bring it back to the City Council at a work session for discussion and direction. Following the completion of the Work Session, the Council convened into a Special Called Session to consider the following: 1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute a First Amendment to the Contract for Professional Legal Services between Wolfe, Clark, Henderson & Tidwell and the City of Denton; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2000-119 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL LEGAL SERVICES BETWEEN WOLFE, CLARK, HENDERSON & TIDWELL AND THE CITY OF DENTON; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Burroughs motioned, Durrance 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. 2. The Council considered approval of a resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign and transmit the update form to the Public Utility Commission of Texas calculating the access line fees that the City of Denton is authorized to charge certificated telecommunication providers for use of its rights-of-way to be paid the City under House Bill 1777 and allocated to each category of access line within the City of Denton; and providing an effective date. The following resolution was considered: NO. R2000-011 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AND TRANSMIT THE UPDATE FORM TO THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS CALCULATING THE ACCESS LINE FEES THAT THE CITY OF DENTON City of Denton City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 Page 4 IS AUTHORIZED TO CHARGE CERTIFICATED TELECOMMUNICATION PROVIDERS FOR USE OF ITS RIGHTS-OF-WAY TO BE PAID THE CITY UNDER HOUSE BILL 1777 AND ALLOCATED TO EACH CATEGORY OF ACCESS LINE WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Beasley motioned, Young seconded to approve the resolution with the addition of the Lifeline Customer Compensation. 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 9:00 p.m. JACK MILLER MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda Item Date AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM: April 18, 2000 / City Manager's Office ~ / Michael W. Jez, City Manager, 349-830 SUBJECT Consider a request for an Exception to the Noise Ordinance for Denton Cinco de Mayo at North Texas Fairgrounds on Sunday, May 7, 2000 from Noon to 9:30 p.m. BACKGROUND Mr. Carlos Canales of Canales Productions is requesting an exception to the noise ordinance for Denton Cinco de Mayo. The event will include a rodeo, entertainment, and a live band at the North Texas State Fairgrounds on May 7. The organization is requesting an exception to the noise ordinance for Sunday, May 7 from Noon until 9:30 p.m. The main source of the noise will come from the use of amplified sound for the purpose of making announcements in conjunction with the rodeo events and musical entertainment. As you know, the noise ordinance declares loudspeakers, amplifiers, and musical instruments a noise nuisance, particularly after 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and anytime on Sunday (Attachment 2). The ordinance does, however, provide that the City Council may make exceptions when the public interest is served. The organizers have been informed that should Council approve this request, responsible use of the amplified sound is still required by Section 20-1 of the City of Denton Code of Ordinances. In particular, Section 20-1 (a) states: It shall be unlawful for any person to make or cause any unreasonably loud, disturbing, unnecessary noise which causes or may cause material distress, discomfort or injury to persons of ordinary sensibilities in the immediate vicinity thereof. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions) None. Denton Cinco de Mayo April 18, 2000 Page 2 FISCAL INFORMATION None Prepared by: Rodn~ey itchell'~~ Management Assistant Respectfully submitted: t~etty V~'illiams Director, Management and Public Information Attachments: 1. Request from James W. Lee, III representing Mr. Carlos Canales 2. Map 3. Noise ordinance JAMES W. LEE, III ATTORNEY AT LAW 10707 FINNELL STREET POST OFFICE BOX 5404B7 DALLAS, TEXAS 75354-0427 TELEPHONE 1~14) 521-5626\654-9090 FACSIMILE (214) 654 0549 RE: Request for Exception to Denton Sound Ordinance March 27, 2000 Hon. Mayor and City Council City of Denton City Hall Denton, Texas This is a formal request on behalf of my client, Canales Productions, for an exception to the Denton Sound Ordinance on May 7, 2000, at the North Texas State Fair grounds. My client plans to produce a C/nco de Mayo event at that time and place. A PA system will be in use from Noon until 9:30 PM. There will be a rodeo from approximately 1:00 PM until about 3:00 PM, with a PA system and a band playing. At approximately 3:00 PM, musical entertainment will begin and bands will play until 9:30 PM. The public will vacate the premises by 10:00 PM. Please set this matter down for a hearing as soon as possible. If we ca: Very( furnish more information, please call on us. :uly yours, - ,, "' '~"'~' ~"'~"': '~' · m. !i!i!t,. ......~..:...'..:.:~ · .~ ~ .- ........................................................ ~ J ~.~-'.::i:.:i ,- . o % . ~I, z,,, Art. I. Art. II. Art. III. Chapter 20 NUISANCES* In General, §§ 20-1m20-30 Abandoned Property, §§ 20.31--20-70 Div. 1. Generally, §9 20-31--20-40 Div. 2. Motor Vehicles, 99 20-41--20-70 Grass and Weeds, §§ 20-71--20-73 · ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Sec. 20-1. Noise. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to make or cause any unreasonably loud, disturbing, unnecessary noise which causes or may cause material distress, discomfort or injury to persons of ordinary sensibilities in the immediate vicinity thereof. . (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to make or cause any noise of such character, intensity and continued duration as to substantially interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of private homes by persons of ordinary sensibilities. (c) The following acts, among others, are declared to be noise nuisances in violation of this Code, but such enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive: (1) The playing of any phonograph, television, radio or any musical instrument in such manner or with such volume, particularly between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., as to annoy or disturb the quiet, comfort or repose of persons of ordinary sensibilities in any dwelling, hotel or other type or residence; (2) The use of any stationary loudspeaker, amplifier or musical instrument in such manner or with such volume as to annoy or disturb persons of ordinary sensibilities in the immediate vicinity thereof, particularly between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., or the operation of such loudspeaker, amplifier or musical instrument at any time on Sunday; provided, however, that the city council may make exceptions upon application when the public interest will be served thereby; (3) The blowing of any steam whistle attached to any stationary boiler or the blowing of any other loud or far-reaching steam whistle within the city limits, except to give notice of the time to begin or stop work or as a warning of danger; (4) The erection, excavation, demolition, alteration, or repair work on any building at anytime other than between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. Monday through Friday from June I to September 30; between 7:00 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. Monday through Friday from October 1 to May 31; between 8:00 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. on *Cross references-Protected migratory bird roosts declared nuisance, 9 6-87; inspec- tion and abatement warrants, 9 19-86 et seq.; insect and rodent control in mobile home and recreational vehicle parks, § 32-91. Supp. No. 6 1389 § 20-1 DENTON CODE Saturday; and between 1:00 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. on Sunday; provided, however that the - city council may issue special permits for such work at other hours in case of urgent necessity a~d in the interest of public safety and convenience. (5) The creation of any loud and excessive noise in connection with the loading or unloading of any vehicle or the opening or destruction of bales, boxes, crates or containers; (6) The use of any drum, loudspeaker or other instrument or device for the purpose of attracting attention by the creation of noises to any performance, show, theatre, motion picture house, sale of merchandise or display which causes crowds or people to block or congregate upon the sidewalks or streets near or adjacent thereto. (Code 1966, §§ 14-20, 14-21; Ord. No. 95-184, § I, 9-12-95) Cross reference--Animal noise, § 6-26. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda No t~C~0/7 ........ Agenda Item ~, .......... ate o AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM: / April 18, 2000 / City Manager's Office Michael W. Jez, City Manager, 349-8307 SUBJECT Consider a request for an exception to the noise ordinance for the Denton Unit of the American Cancer Society for the annual Relay for Life to be held Saturday, May 20, 2000, at Fouts Field from 12:00 Noon to 1:00 a.m. BACKGROUND The Denton Unit of the of the American Cancer Society is sponsoring the annual Relay for Life at the University of North Texas' Fouts Field on Saturday, May 20, 2000, from 12:00 p.m. (noon) to 1:00 a.m. Teams made up often to fifteen participants representing all areas of the community will walk or nm on the track for twelve hours. Each team member solicits donations to sponsor them in this event. Last year teams participating in the Relay for Life raised $88,000. During the entire time, a full schedule of games, activities, music and entertainment will be in progress on the football field. The main source of noise will be from amplified sound from the stadium loudspeakers for announcements and entertainment. This event was held last year at Fouts Field and no complaints were received. As you know, the noise ordinance declares loudspeakers, amplifiers, and musical instruments a noise nuisance, particularly after 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and anytime on Sunday (Attachment 3). The ordinance does, however, provide that the City Council may make exceptions when the public interest is served. The organizers have been informed that should Council approve this request, responsible use of the amplified sound is still required by Section 20-1 of the City of Denton Code of Ordinances. In particular, Section 20-1 (a) states: It shall be unlawful for any person to make or cause any unreasonably loud, disturbing, unnecessary noise which causes or may cause material distress, discomfort or injury to persons of ordinary sensibilities in the immediate vicinity thereof. Relay for Life April 18, 2000 Page 2 PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions) The City Council granted an Exception to the Noise Ordinance on March 3, 1998 and March 23, 1999 for the 1998 and 1999 Relay for Life events. FISCAL INFORMATION None. Respectfully submitted: Bett~ ~vVilli~ams Director, Management and Public Information Prepared by: Rodney Mitchell Management Assistant Attachments: 1. Request from LaVona Duryea, Co-Chairman Relay for Life Committee 2. Map 3. Noise ordinance 317 Cocopa Drive Lake Kiowa, Texas 76240 March 9, 2000 Denton City Council 215 East McKinney Denton, Texas 76201 Dear City Council Members: The Denton Unit of the American Cancer Society is planning its fifth annual Relay for Life event which is a fund raiser to benefit cancer research and patient services. This year's event will be held at UNT's Fouts Field on Saturday, May 20, 2000, from 12:00 noon until h00 a.m. During this time, a full schedule of games, activities, music, and entertainment.will be in progress on the football field. Teain~ made up of ten to fifteen participants representing organizations from UNT, TWU, local clubs, schoolg, churches, and businesses will walk or mn on the track for twelve hours. Each team member solicits donations to sponsor them in this event. Last year sixty-eight teams Participated in the Relay. Corporate sponsors of this event include Denton Record-Chronicle, Denton Regional Medical Center, Denton Community Hospital, Andrew Corporation, Texas Bank, Texas Oncology, Wen-Den, First State Bank, Duryea Moving & Storage, Inc., and many others. Last year this Relay raised $88,000.00. This year's goal is $100,000.00! We are requesting an exception to the City sound ordinance from 10:00 p.m. until h00 a.m. on Saturday, May 20, 2000. We plan to use the stadium sound system and also a smaller sound system on the stage. There are several bands and other organizations and individual performers scheduled to perform. After dark there will be a luminaria service with special lighting and music honoring those who have survived cancer and in memory of those who have lost the battle to cancer. We do not believe our Relay activities will be a disturbance to area residents. The closest residential area is approximately two blocks north of Fouts Field. The interstate is to the south and west, and UNT is to the east. Last year the City Council graciously approved this exception request, and there were no reports of excessive noise. For additional information concerning this event, please contact me at (940) 612-1440, or (940) 591-9362 at your convenience. I would be available to appear at a City Council meeting to answer any questions regarding this request. Your consideration of this sound ordinance exception is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Sincerely, LaVona Dury~a~' ~~ Co-Chairman Relay for Relay 2000 Chapter 20 NUISANCES* Art. I. Art. II. Art. III. In General, 8§ 20-1--20-30 Abandoned Property, 88 20-31--20-70 Div. 1. Generally, §9 20-31--20-40 Div. 2. Motor Vehicles, 99 20-41--20~70 Grass and Weeds, 88 20-71--20-73 ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Sec. 20-1. Noise. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to make or cause any unreasonably loud, disturbing, unnecessary noise which causes or may cause material distress, discomfort or injury to persons of ordinary sensibilities in the immediate vicinity thereof. · (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to make or cause any noise of such character, intensity and continued duration as to substantially interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of private homes by persons of ordinary sensibilities. (c) The following acts, among others, are declared to be noise nuisances in violation of this Code, but such enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive: (1) The playing of any phonograph, television, radio or any musical instrument in such manner or with such volume, particularly between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., as to annoy or disturb the quiet, comfort or repose of persons of ordinary sensibilities in any dwelling, hotel or other type or residence; (2) The use of any stationary loudspeaker, amplifier or musical instrument in such manner or with such volume as to annoy or disturb persons of ordinary sensibilities in the immediate vicinity thereof, particularly between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., or the operation of such loudspeaker, amplifier or musical instrument at any time on Sunday; provided, however, that the city council may make exceptions upon application when the public interest will be served thereby; (3) The blowing of any steam whistle attached to any stationary boiler or the blowing of any other loud or far-reaching steam whistle within the city limits, except to give notice of the time to begin or stop work or as a warning of danger; (4) The erection, excavation, demolition, alteration, or repair work on any building at anytime other than between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. Monday through Friday from June 1 to September 30; between 7:00 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. Monday through Friday from October 1 to May 31; between 8:00 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. on *Cross reference~--Protected migratory bird roosts declared nuisance, § 6-87; inspec- tion and abatement warrants, 9 19-86 et seq.; insect and rodent control in mobile home and recreational vehicle parks, 9 32-91. Supp. No. 6 1389 8 20-1 DENTON CODE Saturday; and between 1:00 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. on Sunday; provided, however that the city council may issue special permits for such work at other hours in case of urgent necessity and in the interest of public safety and convenience. (5) The creation of any loud and excessive noise in connection with the loading or unloading of any vehicle or the opening or destruction of bales, boxes, crates or containers; (6) The use of any drum, loudspeaker or other instrument or device for the purpose of attracting attention by the creation of noises to any performance, show, theatre, motion picture house, sale of merchandise or display which causes crowds or people to block or congregate upon the sidewalks or streets near or adjacent thereto. (Code 1966, 88 14-20, 14-21; Ord. No. 95-184, 8 I, 9-12-95) Cross reference Animal noise, 8 6-26. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET ~.genda Item AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: April 18, 2000 Fiscal & Municipal Services/Tax Kathy DuBose, Assistant City Manager of Fiscal and Municipal Services ~ SUBJECT: Consider approval of a tax refund to Tranamerica Tax Service for TMI, Inc. 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 TMI, Incorporated was paid twice. Two separate checks both for the amount of $613.47 were received on 12/2/99 and on 12/27/99, resulting in an overpayment of $613.47. All documentation necessary for refund is attached. FISCAL INFORMATION: The tax overpayment revenue fund would be reduced by $613.47. Respectf¢. lly submitted: D~a~a~ Ortiz / ~ Director of Fiscal Operations Prepared by: Carolene Folse Revenue & Tax Analyst APPLICATION FOR TAX REFUND Collecting office name '~ ~ -~ D ~/ Collecting tax for: (taxing units) .... " - 2000 CITY OF DENTON TAX OFFICE CITY OF DENTON :)resent mailing address (number and street) S0'I E. HICKORY SUITE F 3,ity, town or post office, state, ZIP code Phone (area code and number) DENTON~ TX 76205 940) 349-8318 ro apply for a tax refund, the taxpayer must complete the following. uwners Name Step 1: TMI Inc. (Paid by Transamerica) Present Mailing Address (number and street) Owner's name 400 Chesterfield Center, Suite 110 City, town or post office, state, ZIP code Phone (area code and number) and address Che~t~rfield~ MO 63017 Step 2: Legal description (or attach copy of the tax bill or tax receipt): Describe Southrid~le Est. Phase 1, Block 2, Lot 20 the property Address or location of property: 2648 Cumberland Ct. Account number of property: Tax receipt number: 76993 OR 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 Step3: 1. Cit¥ of Denton 1999 1~/,,~'7/~/~ $ 613.47 $ 613.47 Give the tax 2. payment 3. information 4. Taxpayer's reason for refund ( attach supporting documentation): *'t999 taxes paid twice *l hereby apply for the refund of the above-described taxes and certify that the information I have given on Step 4: this form is true and cor~t to the best of my knowled,qe and belief,* ~Signature/? ,, Date ot application tor tax retund: Sign the form here sign~ / Any person who ~3a/kes a false entry upon the foregoing recor(~all be subject to one of the following penalties: X 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. 3 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda No. Agenda Item AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: April 18, 2000 Fiscal & Municipal Services/Tax Kathy DuBose, Assistant City Manager of Fiscal and Municipal Services~ SUBJECT: Consider approval ora tax refund to Karl A. Sweetman. 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 Karl A. Sweetman was paid twice. Two separate checks both for the amount of $569.48 were received on 10/20/99 and on 12/31/99, resulting in an overpayment of $569.48. All documentation necessary for refund is attached. FISCAL INFORMATION: The tax overpayment revenue fund would be reduced by $569.48. Director of Fiscal Operations Prepared by: Carolene Folse Revenue & Tax Analyst FROM : KARL A SWEETMAN FAX NO. : 9485918888 Mar. 25 2000 11:58PM P~ 8ant By: D~U ~ustomer 8erv£oe; 940 849 7211; ~ar-20-O0 2:SGPM; Page 2/2 ~MJCATION FOR TAX EEFUND ""jFd~)ne (m~ ~ and nur,~.t,~~) JPhme (mm ~ie'and n..~) : ......... ~'matlon Tlixpayer~ mason ~r ndUr~ ( ~ 4: Ign t~ fon'n q h,,i,i,.y~ appty for the refuncl af the iI~;'"'~ texe~ and cm'ttfY that lite Inlorn'wl~n I have given m Nly pemon who makes ii fain entz,j upa~ the foregot~ nt, cc~d ~d be euNeet ~ one of the falbwlng penalOea: 1. irt~d~mmer(t of not mom that the 10 years ret iaea than 2 ymim'.anwer ilhte of naif mrna ~an $5,000 m both .uuh fl~ end Imlxteonmen~ 2. (3or~flnehleflt llI Jill for a term uP to 1,year M l ~ln~ ~ ~d ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda No.~ Agenda Item.., April 18, 2000 Fiscal & Municipal Services/Tax Kathy DuBose, Assistant City Manager of Fiscal and Municipal Servic't~t~-~ SUBJECT: Consider approval ora tax refund to Robin G. Wilson. 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 Robin G. Wilson was paid twice. Two separate checks both for the amount of $518.21 were received on 10/4/99 and on 10/28/99, resulting in an overpayment of $518.21. All documentation necessary for refund is attached. FISCAL INFORMATION: The tax overpayment revenue fund would be reduced by $518.21. Prepared by: Carolene Folse Revenue & Tax Analyst Resp~. fully submitted: Director of Fiscal Operations ~olle~ng ~ n~me CiTY OF DENTON T~ OFFICE Cl~ OF DENTON 'DENTON: TX 76205 ~0 ~9~318 ~ a tax m~nd, ~e tax a er must ~m lete the followin . Step 1: ROBIN G WILSON ~n~s name ~ S E~M STREET andaddress DENTON TX 76201~018 ' 'step 2: ~ld~pflon (~a~ ~yof~ ~x ~ ~ m~Pt): · Caffoll Perk, Bilk t0~ Lot 19 Des~be ~nt nu~ d p~ T~ m~pt num~: Give the tax 2. C~ of Denton 1~ 10~ $ 5t8.21 ~ infor~tlon 4. Taxpayers mason ~r m~nd ( affach suppoding documentation): ~O ch~k~ ~'d on 101~ thru · 1 h~y apply ~r the re. nd of ~e abov~l~ t~es and ced~ that ~e i.~,,,m~on I have '~ Any ~n who makes a ~l~e en~ u~n ~e ~regolng ~ shall ~ subJe~ b one ~ ~e ~llowlng penal~:  1. Impfl~nment of ~t ~m that ~e 10 yearn nor le~ ~an 2 yearn an~or a fine of not mom ~an $5,000 or such fine and Impfl~nment; AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda No .... 0~ ?_~(~ AgendaDate Ite~., AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: April 18, 2000 Fiscal & Municipal Services/Tax Kathy DuBose, Assistant City Manager of Fiscal and Municipal Services ~-~// SUBJECT: Consider approval ora tax refund to Flagg Marine. 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 Flagg Marine was over paid. On 1/25/00, the tax office received the 1999 VIT disbursement in the amount of $877.61 for Flagg Marine, however, the 1999 tax was only $370.81, resulting in an overpayment of $506.80. All documentation necessary for refund is attached. FISCAL INFORMATION: The tax overpayment revenue fund would be reduced by $506.80. Respectfully submitted: Diana Ortiz ~' Director of Fiscal Operations Prepared by: Carolene Folse Revenue & Tax Analyst FROM : FLAGGMAR I NE 'PLICA"TION FOR TAX REFUND uouectmg omce name CITY OF DENTON T.AX OFFICE ,, , t"resem maulng aoaress [numoer eno s~i'6e%) 601 E, HICKORY SUITE F DENTON~ T,X 7,6205 To apply for a tax refund, the taxpayer mus!,c, om ,plote the following, uwner's ~ame Step 1: FLAGG MARINE wner's name 3322W UNIVERSITY ~d address Step 2: Describe the property Step 3: .~lve the tax 3ayment informat{on Step 4: Sign the form FAX NO. : 948565649124 JAN 2 2000 Apr. 81 2808 12:35PM Pi UOllectlng tax tot: flexing'units) ,,, CITY OF DENTON ,, [[~[1g[ll~ [~;,~d ~ugu tint] numD~-J [ l(940}.349r8318 ,, Phone (area coae aha humber) DENTON TX, ,~6208-1028 .... Legal description (or attach copy of the tax bill or tax receipt) PERSONAL PROPERTY - MOTOR VEH INVENTORY Address or location of property: 3322 E UNIVERSITY DR Account number of property: Tax receipt number: 917168 OR 9904250053 Name Year ' ' uate ' Amount AmoUnt f T_axl.ng ,Unit_From Whi For Which Refund Of The Of Of Tax Refund I~eruno is ~e* dIred Is rested Tax Payment Taxes Paid Requested ,C, ity of Denton 1999 1125/00 $ 877.61 $ 506,80 Taxpayer's reason for refund i attach supporting documentation): '99 tax was $37~.81. however, $877.61 was ,applied in VlT tax from Denton Count~ and dlstrubuted to our office on '1126100 for t999 tax, resultin~ in aB overpayment. , , ,, , *l hereby.apply foe the refund of the above-described taxes and certify that the information,I have given,on this form is true and correct to the best of my knowledl~e and belief.* ~tgna~ure..., ,, ~ .,.,? ' iL)ate o! application for tax retun~: Any person who makes a false entry upon t Ding record shall be subject to one of the following penalties: 1, Ir~r[sonment of not more that the 10 years nor less than 2 years and/or a fine of not more than $5,000 or beth 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. AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET April 18, 2OO0 Materials Management AoendaNo. Agenda Item // Date ~/~0 Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Jerry Clark 349-8390 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT: An Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a public works contract for the construction of Owsley Park Repaving and Sidewalks; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 2472 - Owsley Park Repaying and Sidewalks Project awarded to Sagoe Public Company in the amount of $265,777.30). BID INFORMATION: This bid is for the construction of approximately 1,694 square yards of four-inch concrete sidewalks in the Owsley Park, Bradley, Miller, Mulberry, and Bernard Street areas. Also included is 65 square yards of ramp replacement, 411 square yards of flared ramp, miscellaneous utility relocations, 516 feet of curb/gutter, 2,130 tons of asphalt paving, and related milling and right of way preparation activities along Stella, Charlotte, Louise, and Ave. F. The original bid for this project from Sagoe Public Company was $355,316.70. The available funds for this project totaled $267,973. We have reduced some of the line items listed in the project to bring the project within budget. Jagoe Public Company has reviewed the reduced quantities and has agreed to accept the reduced contract. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend Bid 2472 be awarded to the lowest bidder, Jagoe Public Company, in the reduced amount of $265,777.30. PRINICPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS: Jagoe Public Company Denton, Texas 76201 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT: Construction is scheduled to be completed in 50 working days or approximately the second week in July 2000. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW: The Public Utility Board reviewed this project and recommends approval. Agenda Information Sheet April 18, 2000 Page 2 FISCAL INFORMATION: Funding £or this project will come from a combination of Street/Sidewalk Bond funds ($135,773) and Community Development Block Grand funds ($130,004.30). Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet Attachment 2: Acceptance Letter from Jagoe Public Company 1372 AGENDA Bid # 2472 ATTACHMENT 1 TABULATION SHEET OWSLEY PARK REPAVING & 1999 SIDEWALK PROJECT DATE: 2/22/00 No.I Qty. I DESCRIPTION VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR Jagoe Public Ed A. Wilson Company JRJ Paving Company Prinicipal Place of Business Denton, TX Dallas, TX Ft. Worth, TX Owsley Park Repaying & Sidewalk! $ 324,299.70$ 331,714.80$ 388,689.10 1 Project Addendum#1 - Bernard Sidewalk $ 31,017.00 $ 19,219.50 $ 26,423.00 TOTAL $ 355,316.70 $ 358,137.80 $ 407,908.60 ATTACNI~ENT 2 3020 Ft. Worth Dr. JAGOE-PUBLIC CO. Hot Mix Asphalt Production, Sales & ROad Construction ...Since 1923... P.O. Box 250 Denton, TX 76202 Main # (940) 382-2581 Fax # (940) 382-9732 March 24, 2000 Mr. Dave Salmon/Mr. Brian Sherfieb Engineering Department City of Denton 901-B Texas Denton, Texas 76201 Re: Bid #2472 Owsley Park Repaying & 1999 Sidewalk Project + Alternate Dear Mr. Shaw: Jagoe-Public Company has reviewed your proposal for reductions in the above mentioned bid. Although these reductions will effect our margins, we agree to accept your proposal. In the event that Jagoe-Public Company may be of any other assistance, please let us know. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Bill Cheek, Jr. Vice President CC; ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF OWSLEY PARK REPAVING AND SIDEWALKS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2472 - OWSLEY PARK REPAVING AND SIDEWALKS PROJECT AWARDED TO SAGOE PUBLIC COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $265,777.30). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, and received competitive sealed bids for the construction of public works or improvements in accordance with the procedures of STATE law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has received and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest respondent for the construction of the public works or improvements described in the bid invitation, and plans and specifications therein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That the following competitive sealed bid for the construction of public works or improvements, as described in the "Sealed Bid Invitations", or plans and specifications on file in the Office of the City's Purchasing Agent filed according to the bid number assigned hereto, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids: BID NUMBER CONTRACTOR AMOUNT 2472 JAGOE PUBLIC COMPANY $265,777.30 SECTION II. That the acceptance and approval of the above competitive sealed bid shall not constitute a contract between the City and the person submitting the bid for construction of such public works or improvements herein accepted and approved, until such person shall comply with all requirements specified in the Notice to Bidders including the timely execution of a written contract and furnishing ofperfmmance and payment bonds, and insurance certificate atter notification of the award of the bid. SECTION III. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute all necessary written contracts for the peffomiance of the construction of the public works or improvements in accordance with · the bids accepted and approved herein, provided that such contracts are made in accordance with the Notice to Bidders and Request for Sealed Bids, and documents relating thereto specifying the terms, conditions, plans and specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained therein. SECTION IV. That upon acceptance and approval of the above competitive sealed bids and the execution of contracts for the public works and improvements as authorized herein, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds in the manner and in the amount as specified in such approved bids and authorized contracts executed pursuant thereto. SECTION V. 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 BY: BID 2472 CONTRACTUAL ORDINANCE AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET April 18, 20OO Agenda No Agenda ite n"' Date Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed Materials Management to Howard Martin 349-8232 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT: An Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a public works contract for the painting of fuel oil tanks, generator housing, and transformers at the Municipal Power Plant; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 2480 - Painting Fuel Oil Tanks, Generator Housing, and Transformers awarded to Patrick Brothers Painting Contractors in the amount of $61,284). BID INFORMATION: The equipment listed for painting has not been cleaned, prepared, and painted in over ten years. In the case of#1 and #2 fuel oil tanks, no record of their being painted since installation could be found. The fuel oil tanks have running rust visible and the diesel enclosures have more than one coat of paint that was rolled on over existing rust. The four transformers all have the paint flaking off. The project consists of four fuel oil tanks, two diesel generator housings, and four transformers. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest bidder, Patrick Brothers Painting Contractors, in the amount of $61,284. PRINICPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS: Patrick Brothers Painting Contractors Dallas, Texas 75371 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT: This project will be completed in four weeks or approximately May 19, 2000. PRIOR ACTION (APPROVAL): The Public Utility Board considered this bid recommendation on April 3, 2000. Agenda Information Sheet April 18, 2000 Page 2 FISCAL INFORMATION: This project will be funded from 1999/2000-budget fund account (610-101-1011-5140-8339). Attachment t: Tabulation Sheet 1370 AGENDA Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent ATTACHMENT 1 TABULATION SHEET Bid # 2480 DATE: 3/7/00 PAINTING FUEL OIL TANKS, GENERATOR HOUSINGS & TRANSFORMERS 1~9;..L.,..).., C~))~:...l ................... ?~!?T~0U ................. VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR BOUNDS PATRICK A. AGAPE #1 A. AGAPE #2. PAINTING BROTHERS Princi 3al Place of Business Denton, TX Dallas, TX Gladewater, TXGladewater, TX A 1 1). FUEL OIL TANK # 1 $11,286 $6,847 $11,052 $15,518 1 2). FUEL OIL TANK # 2 $11,286 $6,847 $2,018 $2,267 1 3). FUEL OIL TANK # 3 $18,609 $24,090 $11,052! $15,5181 1 4). FUEL OIL TANK # 4 $3,1SSi $2,500 $20,0131 $22,472! B 1 1). D1 DIESEL GENERATOR HOUSING $3,362 $3,500 $9,487 $11,625 2). D2 DIESEL GENERATOR 1 HOUSING $3,907 $3,500 $9,487 $11,625 C 1 1). TRANSFORMER# 3 $ 4,550 $ 2,800 $ 1,633 $ 2,000 1 2). TRANSFORMER#4 $ 5,760 $ 5,000 $ 5,615 $ 7,263 1 3). TRANSFORMER# 5 $ 5,760 $ 5,000 $ 4,980 $ 6,055 1 4). TRANSFORMER RES. $ 1,910 $ 1,200 $ 1,027 $ 1,127 TOTAL $ 69,585 $ 6'i,284 $ 76,364 $ 95,470 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A PUBLIC WORKS CONTACT FOR THE PAINTING OF FUEL OIL TANKS, GENERATOR HOUSING, AND TRANSFORMERS AT THE MUNICIPAL POWER PLANT; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2480 - PAINTING FUEL OIL TANKS, GENERATOR HOUSING, AND TRANSFORMERS AWARDED TO PATRICK BROTHERS PAINTING CONTRACTORS IN THE AMOUNT OF $61,284). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the construction of public works or improvements in accordance with the procedures of STATE law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has received and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the construction of the public works or improvements described in the bid invitation, bid proposals and plans and specifications therein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That the following competitive bids for the construction of public works or improvements, as described in the "Bid Invitations", "Bid Proposals" or plans and specifications on file in the Office of the City's Purchasing Agent filed according to the bid number assigned hereto, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids: BID NUMBER CONTRACTOR AMOUNT 2480 PATRICK BROTHERS PAINTING CONTRACTORS $61,284 SECTION II. That the acceptance and approval of the above competitive bids shall not · constitute a contract between the City and the person submitting the bid for construction of such public works or improvements herein accepted and approved, until such person shall comply with all requirements specified in the Notice to Bidders including the timely execution of a written contract and furnishing of performance and payment bonds, and insurance certificate after notification of the award of the bid. SECTION I1/. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute all necessary written contracts for the performance of the construction of the public works or improvements in accordance with the bids accepted and approved herein, provided that such contracts are made in accordance with the Notice to Bidders and Bid Proposals, and documents relating thereto specifying the terms, conditions, plans and specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained therein. SECTION IV. That upon acceptance and approval of the above competitive bids and the execution of contracts for the public works and improvements as authorized herein, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds in the manner and in the amount as specified in such approved bids and authorized contracts executed pursuant thereto. SECTION V. 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 BY: 2480 CONTRACTUAL ORDINANCE AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET April 18, 2000 Materials Management Agendaltem . /~ Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Tom Shaw 349-7100 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services~ SUBJECT: An Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the acquisition of Lease Purchase Financing; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 2489 - Lease Purchasing Financing awarded to Government Capital Corporation at the effective rate of 4.99%, approximate financing charges $99,819). BID INFORMATION: This bid is for lease purchase financing for the acquisition of the following equipment: 6 Refuse Tracks $751,371 See Bid #2476 1 6 Yd Rubber Tire Loader $303,500 Previously Approved 40 Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) $170,000 To be Bid at approximate cost 2,000 Automatic Residential Refuse Containers $ 60,000 To be Bid at approximate cost The lease period will be for 3 years with payment due November 1 of each year in the amount of $461,396.15 including financing cost. The equipment listed will be property of the City of Denton at the end of the lease or November 1, 2002. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend this contract be awarded to the lowest bidder, Government Capital Corporation at an effective rate of 4.99% with a total cost of financing of $99,817.45 over three years. PRINICPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS: Government Capital Cmporation Brookhaven, MS ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT: Funding will be available within 10 workdays of contract execution. The first payment will be due November 1, 2000. The majority of the equipment will be delivered by late August 2000. Agenda Information Sheet April 18, 2000 Page 2 FISCAL INFORMATION: Lease purchase payment will be made t~om appropriate fiscal budget line items and Motor Pool Replacement fimds. Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet 1374 AGENDA ATTACHMENT 1 BID # 2489 TABULATION SHEET Description: Fixed Effective Rate 3 Year Term VENDOR Government Capital Corporation Bank One The Associates Automotive Resources Intl. Tobyne Corporation 4.99% 5.55% 5.88% 8.14% NB NB ORDINANCE NO. An Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the acquisition of Lease pUrchase Financing; providing for the expenditure of funs therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 2489 - Lease Purchasing Financing awarded to Government Capital Corporation at the effective rate of 4.99%, approximate financing charges $99,819). 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 offimds 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 2489 All Government Capital Corporation 4.99% Annual Effective Rate 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: 2489 SUPPLY ORDINANCE. AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AoendaNo.~ ~- ~/'~ Aoendaltem . ff-~'~ Date ¢1/ ,Io 0 April 18, 2000 Materials Management Questions conceming this acquisition may be directed to Max Blackburn 349-8317 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT: An Ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds for an emergency purchase of testing for infestation of fungi at Central Fire Station in accordance with provisions of State Law exempting such purchases from requirements of competitive bidding; and providing an effective date (Purchase Order 04125 to The Provident Group in the amount of $7,250 plus Change Order 1 in the amount of $19,400 for a total of $26,650). PURCHASE ORDER INFORMATION: Purchase Order 04125 was issued to The Provident Group in the amount $7,250 to do a preliminary analytical Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) study at Central Fire Station. This was one of several steps in the Renovation of Central Fire Station project. After preliminary testing indicated a more extensive series of testing was required change order 1 in the amount of $19,400 was issued. Based upon the preliminary findings Central Fire Station was evacuated and remains closed until results of additional testing is received. The change order increased the original Purchase Order to $26,650. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend this emergency purchase order and be approved in the amount of $26,650. PRINICPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS: The Provident Group Denton, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT: Emergency Testing of Central Fire Station was started on April 6 and was expected to be completed the weeks April 10, 2000 with lab results due the following week. FISCAL INFORMATION: Funding for this emergency IAQ testing is available in the Risk Retention Fund account (740- 004-0028-8502) in the amount of $26,650. Agenda Information Sheet April 10, 2000 Page 2 Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Purchase Order 04125 to The Provident Group Attachment 2: Quotation from The Provident Group 1373 AGENDA ATTACHMENT 1 o ~'~ ~i Z o~ ~E~o 0 0 ~D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0101 ~-~ 0 ~ 0 0 '~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ATTACHMENT 2 TIIE PROVIDENT GROUP Professional Environmental & En~neering Consultants April 6, 2000 Mr. Max Blackburn Risk Mzn~g~ City of Denton Denton, Texas Subject: Proposal - Professional Services; Central Fire Station - Extensive evaluation Smehybotrys Mr. Blackburn: THE PROVIDENT GROUP is pleased to have the oppotumity to submit this proposal to conduct tile following activitiea at the Ccah'al Fire Sta~-iou. Thi~ Il©At phase of evaluation will ifxvolvc assessing tbe extent of infos~ion of Smchybot~ (and other) fungi in tl~ building and on its various internal surface~ This evaluation will require "destructive" ~mpling (actually investigating inside wslls, under floor eoverinss, etc.). Scope: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Conduct a thorough visual insp~tion of all areas in and under thc building. Remove se~ions (lxl foot sqnar¢) oteach of~¢ walls in ~ae living quarters and the old office area and collect samples. If visible evidence of mold is apparent, remove larger areas to aid in assessing further the extent of infe~a~on and thc possible cause. Investigate and sample any areas with visible signs of water damage including baseboards, crawlspaces, ~ove celhngs, and under carpets. Thowughly evaluate entire I-IVAC system removing appropriate .~ections to collect surface samples. All activities iflsid~ the suatx~t mcaa will I~ conducted h~ lull prot~tiw clothing including, appropriate respirator, Tyvek suits, mbber boots and gloves. Until cleared, no personnel will be allowed in these areas without the prescribed protective equiprnem. During the investigafon of the crawl ~lmees, requireraents for comqned space ent~ will be utilized and enforce~. Ail samples will be handled, boxed, labeled and shipped properly and in accordance w~th all DOT requirements. Every precaution will be taken to avoid any potential contamination of other areas or the ollviroluncnt. Assistance Needed From the Fire Department: Whan entry into the orawl spaces is eonduotad, the eleotrieal power in the building shall be locked out and tagged to avoid dangers to electrical bazar& in the moist/wet environment un~'r the bmlctmg. Ir'possible an electric generator (perhaps from or on thc tire tracks) is needed. Cc~tahdy thc~c is u~ aut~cipudun uf~m cmclgcl~cy and as before, p~iur to coafin~.d spa~ en~ the atmosphere shall be appropriately tested, however, during confined space entry in the crawl spaces an appropriately trained fire-fighter with emergency rescue equipment is needed (this was provided during the initial evaluation). This person will be stationed immediately outside the containment area to avoid any unnecessary exposure to City personnel. Even with the ic~note need of enW, he/she will be prepsr~l with the proper level of personal protective equipment and SCBA. Only properly trained and experience pcrsonncl will bc used. All activities will be conductcd undor the direction of a Board Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Registered Environmental Manager (REM), and Board Certified Industrial Hygienist. As the process proceeds, findings and status of the project will be, communicated to City officials on a daily basis. Fc~s: Trained personnel (2-3) for approximately a week. All required equipment except as needed from the Fire Deportment. All l~rsoalal p~'olccljvc ~quipiucut and dispusabl~s. All analytical/laboratory services, Transportation and handling of samplcs to lab. Evaluation of raw data. Develop of draft and final reports. Communication of results to staff and other personnel as needed. TOTAL 0ump sum). ..................................................................................................... $19,400.00 Note: 1. Fees do not include responsibility for repairs to itcm~/rnatcrials removed for investigation. 2. THE PROVIDENT GROUP will double-bag/drum waste materials and make recommendations relative to propex disposal. The proposed fees do not include expense for drums, bags, or final disposition and disposal of any generated wastes. Please contact us for any questions or clarification at 940-898-0861. Sincerely, ~ PROVIDENT GROUP Smnos D. WiLson CI~ RF_,M, CSP, CHlVIM, CPSM Prcsidcnt ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR AN EMERGENCY PURCHASE OF TESTING FOR INFESTATION OF FUNGI AT CENTRAL FIRE STATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (PURCHASE ORDER 04125 TO THE PROVIDENT GROUP IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,250 PLUS CHANGE ORDER 1 IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,400 FOR A TOTAL OF $26,650). 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 following emergency conditions outlined in the memorandum attached hereto, incorporated herein by reference; 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 n~essary 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 theroof~ the following emergency purchases of materials, equipment, supplies or services, as described in the "Purchase Orders" referenced herein, are hereby approved: PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER 04125 VENDOR The Provident Group AMOUNT $26,650 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. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY JACK MILLER, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 04125 THE PROVIDENT GROUP EMERGENCY PURCHASE ORDER ORDINANCE AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET April 18, 2O00 Materials Management Aoenda Item Questions conceming this acquisition may be directed to Ed Hodney 349-8271 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT: An Ordinance of the City of Denton authorizing the city manager or his designee to execute a purchase order with the Houston-Galveston Area Council of Governments (H-GAC) for the acquisition of three 3/4-ton pickup trucks by way of an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Denton; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (File 2499 Interlocal Agreement - Purchase Order 04742 to H-GAC in the amount of $75,855.28). BID INFORMATION: On March 7, 2000 Council approved the contract for the purchase of fleet vehicles. Included in the award were four 3/4-ton four-door diesel pickups for the Parks Department. The purchase order was entered with Bill Utter Ford on March 9, 2000. On March 24, 2000 we were informed that Ford Motor Company had retroactively moved the cutoff date for ordering diesel-powered 'trucks from the middle of April to February 18, 2000. The ordered trucks would be built as 2001 models with delivery in late September. With the six new positions that Council approved for the Parks Maintenance Division this year, the Parks and Recreation Department was faced with a severe lack of transportation during their busiest season of the year. After a search for available trucks we have located three acceptable units through the H-GAC Cooperative Purchasing Program. The major difference between the trucks from Bill Utter Ford and the H-GAC trucks are the H-GAC trucks are extended cab, not four-door crew cabs, do not include a trailer tow package, and are light blue instead of white. The H-GAC trucks are $167.10 more per unit than the bid price. They can be delivered within two weeks after receipt of an order. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend the order to Bill Utter Ford be reduced to one unit and that Purchase Order 04742 to H-GAC be approved in the amount of $75,855.28. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT: The three trucks are in stock and available for delivery within two weeks. FISCAL INFORMATION: Funds for this acquisition will come from Motor Pool lease account (720-025-0584-9104). Agenda Information Sheet April 18, 2O00 Page 2 Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Purchase Order 04742 to H-GAC Attachment 2: H-GAC Price Quotation 1371 AGENDA ATTACHMENT 1 o o o o o 05 z o o o o o (D o ,-I o ATTACHMENT 2 CODE O~I'IONS H.GAC Bid PRICE CODS OPTIONS H-GAC Bid PRICE S S S S Unpubilshed Options Iltemize each item below, not ~o exceed * 2S% S - __ % S S S To,it C Uaimblleh~d Options sealed to Blse Price D. Contract Price Adjuetmaut Iff aa),. sxphin hereJ ~. hl~eryCber~esllfauy, explnln herei .~O~)./,d//~ C~D. ~:~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE A PURCHASE ORDER WITH THE HOUSTON-GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (H-GAC) FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THREE 3/4-TON PICKUP TRUCKS BY WAY OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF DENTON; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (FILE 2499 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - PURCHASE ORDER 04742 TO H-GAC IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,855.28). WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance 95-107, the Houston-Galveston Council Area of Government (HGAC) 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 on behalf of the City of Denton; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended that the herein described materials, equipment, supplies or services can be purchased by the City through the Houston-Galveston Area Council of Government (HGAC) programs at less cost than the City would expend if bidding these items individually; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has recommended that the Purchase Order 03638 to Bill Utter Ford (Ordinance 2000-074) be reduced to one unit due to inability to meet projected delivery scheduling; 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 purchase order for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Purchase Orders" referenced herein and on file in the office of the Purchasing Agent, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: PURCHASE ORDER 04742 VENDOR AMOUNT HGAC $75,855.28 SECTION II. That Purchase Order 03638 to Bill Utter Ford be reduced to one unit in the amount of $26,113 (Ordinance 2000-074) due to the inability to meet projected delivery schedule. SECTION III. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items set forth in the attached purchase orders, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids to the HGAC for such items and agrees to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities and for the specified sums contained in the bid documents and related documents filed with the HGAC, and the purchase orders issued by the City. SECTION IV. That should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items set forth in the attached purchase orders wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the City's ratification of bids awarded by the HGAC, 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 and standards contained in the Proposal submitted to the HGAC, quantities and specified sums contained in the City's purchase orders, and related documents herein approved and accepted. SECTION V. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items set forth in the attached purchase orders, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount and in accordance with the approval purchase orders or pursuant to a written contract made pursuant thereto as authorized herein SECTION VI. 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: FILE 2499 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT- PURCHASE ORDER 04742 ORDINANCE AGENDAINFORMATION SHEET Agenda No.~ Agenda Item AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: April 18, 2000 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Cary Tower 349-8424 ACM: Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT: An Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of Refuse Trucks; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2476 - Refuse Trucks awarded as listed in the amount of $751,371). BID INFORMATION: This bid is for the purchase of six Refuse Trucks, (1) front load, (2) rear load, (1) side load and (2) automatic side load units. The front load, rear load and side load are Motor Pool replacements. The (2) automatic side loaders are fleet additions required to implement a residential automated pickup routes. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest bidder meeting specifications or the lowest bidder under the 3% local preference legislation meeting specifications. Item Qty Description::: i .Supplier Bid indicator Price Ext, Price 1 1 Front Load Lone Star Tmck Low Bid $139,394 $139,394 2 2 Rear Load Peterbilt Motor Co. Local Preference $ 91,630 $183,260 3 1 Side Load Peterbilt Motor Co. Local Preference $135,473 $135,473 4 2 Automatic Side Load Peterbilt Motor Co. Low Bid $146,622 $293,244 Total Expenditure $751,371 The recommend award of Item 1, a 40 cubic yard from load commercial refuse track is based upon the lowest bid meeting specifications, Lone Star Truck for a Volvo Chassis and a Hell packer body. The recommended award of Item 2 and 3, (2) rear load residential refuse trucks, and (1) side toad commercial refuse truck, is the result of a comparison of those bids meeting specifications and the application of the "3% Local Preference Legislation". Peterbilt Motor Company/Dallas Peterbilt Inc. has requested the "3% Local Preference Legislation" be invoked. Based upon the "3% Local Preference Legislation,, Peterbilt Motor Co./Dallas Peterbilt is the recommended lowest bidder for item 2 and 3. The units will consist of a Peterbilt chassis and a Heil body for the rear loaders and a Peterbilt chassis and a Pak-Mor body for the side loading commercial refuse truck. The recommendation for award of bid item 4 the (2) automated residential side load trucks is based upon the lowest bid meeting specifications. The unit will consist of a Peterbilt chassis and a Heil Packer body. Agenda Information Sheet April 18, 2OOO Page 2 RECOMMENDATION (CONTINUED): Economic Factors for Local Preference Determination: Peterbilt Motor Co./Dallas Peterbilt Inc.-Denton, TX · 1999 Property Tax approximately $226,000 · Appraisal Property value approximately $67,300,000 · Approximately 2000 employees in Denton · 7.5% of their utility bill is transferred to General FUnd · Leading corporate participant in the United Way $282,412.26 Campaign contributing a total of Bidders offering lower prices failed to meet minimum specifications for strength of side and floor constructiOn, size/capacity of packer cylinders,dimensions of load opening, design of refuse retention openings, and operation systems. PRINICPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS: Peterbilt Motor Co./Dallas Peterbilt Denton, TX Lone Star Truck Houston, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT: Delivery for the completed refuse trucks is estimated to be from 120 to 180 days after receipt of an order. FISCAL INFORMATION: The acquisition of these vehicles will be funded through a third party lease/purchase arrangement previously awarded by Council (See Bid 2489 - Lease/Purchase Financing). Approximately 33% of the total cost will be paid from the appropriate fiscal year budget. Annual payment for refuse trucks including financing cost is $259,921.76 Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M.~ 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet 1375 AGENDA Bid # 2476 Refuse Trucks ITEM#I ~Refuse Tru~k: 40 Cubic Yard Front Loading A Lone Star Truck $139,394.00 * Volvo/Heil B Lone Star Track $139,452.00 Volvo/Pak-Mor C Lone Star Track $149,479.00 Volvo/Leach D Peterbilt Motor Co. $142,330.00 Peterbilt/Pak-Mor E Peterbilt Motor Co. $141,170.00 Peterbilt/Heil F Peterbilt Motor Co. $148,725.00 Peterbilt/McNeilus G Peterbilt Motor Co. $156,663.00 Peterbilt/Leach H Dallas Mack $140,401.00 Mack/EZ-Pak I Dallas Mack $143,934.00 ' Mack/Heil J Dalla.q Mack $147,549.00 Mack/Pak-Mor K Dallas Mack $151,057.00 Mack/Leach L RDO Truck $141,959.00 Volvo/McClain M RDO Truck $156,084.31 Volvo/Heil N RDO Track $156,016.31 Volvo/McNeilus O RDO Truck $159,049.30 Volvo/Pak-Mor p RDO Truck $162,375.80 Volvo/Leach Q RDO Track $152,551.30 VolvofMcClain ITEM,#2 ~ ~Refus~ Tru~k: 25 CUbiEYard Rear Loading - Q~2 :, A Peterbilt Motor Co. $91,630.00 ** Peterbilt/Heil B Peterbilt Motor Co. $92,265.00 Peterbilt/Pak-Mor C Peterbilt Motor Co. $91,840.00 Peterbilt/McNeilus D Peterbilt Motor Co. $88,765.00 Peterbilt/Loadmaster E Peterbilt Motor Co. $94,215.00 Peterbilt/Leach F Lone Star Truck $93,690.00 Volvo/Heil G Lone Star Track $94,284.00 Volvo/Pak-Mor H Lone Star Truck $96,234.00 Volvo/Leach I Southwest International $92,000.00 IH/Pak-Mor J Southwest International $91,465.00 * IH/Heil K Southwest International $88,600.00 IH/Loadmaster L Metro Sterling $92,795.00 Sterling/Pak-Mor M Metro Sterling $92,160.00 Sterling/Iteil N Metro Sterling $94,745.00 Sterling/Leach O RDO Tracking $105,828.47 Volvo/Leach P RDO Tracking $102,378.47 Volvo/Loadmaster Q RDO Trucking $105,243.47 Volvo/Pak-Mor Tabulation Sheet Page 2 Bid # 2476 Refuse Trucks A Peterbilt Motor Co. $135,473.00 ** Peterbilt/Pak-Mor B Peterbilt Motor Co. $131,298.00 Peterbilt/Impac C Lone Star Truck $133,005.00 * Volvo/Pal-Mor D RDO Truck $145,735.00 Volvo/Pak-Mor E RDO Track $141,560.82 Volvo/Impac A Peterbilt Motor Co. $146,622.00 * Peterbilt/Heil RR B Peterbilt Motor Co. $143,992.00 Peterbilt/Leach C Peterbilt Motor Co. $136,558.00 Peterbilt/McNealus D Lone Star Truck $153,663.00 Peterbilt/McNealus E Lone Star Track $151,033.00 Volvo/Leach F RDO Track $145,541.82 Volvo/McNealus G RDO Truck $152,975.82 Volvo/Leach H RDO Track $155,605.82 Volvo/Hell RR Low Bid Meeting Specifications 3% Local Preference Low Bidder Principal Place of Business: Peterbilt Motor Co. Denton, TX RDO Truck Ft. Worth, TX Lone Star Track Houston, TX Southwest International McKinney, TX Dallas Mack Dallas, TX Metro Sterling Dallas, TX ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF REFUSE TRUCKS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2476 - REFUSE TRUCKS AWARDED AS LISTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $751,371). 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, Section 271.905 of the Local Government Code allows the City to award a contract to a bidder having its principal place of business in the City if its bid is within three per cent of the lowest bid price received from a nonresident bidder if the governing body determines in writing, that the local bidder offers the City the best combination of price and additional economic development opportunities for the City created by the contract award, including the employment of residents of the City and increased tax revenues to the City; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed the herein described bids for the materials, equipment, supplies or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore and represents to the City Council that the herein described local bidder's bid is within three per cent of lowest bid price received from a nonresident bidder; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the pnrehase 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 number 1 & 4 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 and: The City Council hereby deterniines that the vendor set forth below for items 2 and 3 has its principal place of business in the City of Denton, Texas, its bid is within three per cent of the lowest bid price received from a nonresident bidder and such local bidder offers the City the best combination of price and additional economic development oppommities for the City created by this contract award. The number 2 and 3 items in the following numbered bids for materials, equipment, supplies, or services from the below described local bidder and as shown in the "Bid Proposals" on file in the office of the City Purchasing Agent, are hereby accepted and approved: BID NUMBER ITEM NO VENDOR AMOUNT 2476 1 Lone Star Truck $139,394 2476 2,3,4 Peterbilt Motor Co./Dallas Peterbilt $611,977 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 foimal 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. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY JACK MILLER, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 2476 SUPPLY ORDINANCE. AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: SUBJECT: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET April 18, 2OOO Materials Management Agenda Item /'7 Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Ross Chadwick 349-8101 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services An Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of Firefighter Bunker Gear; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 2485 - Firefighter Bunker Gear awarded to Casco Industries, Inc., in the estimated amount of $20,418.80). BID INFORMATION: This bid is for the purchase of firefighter bunker gear consisting of fire protectant mm out coats, lumbar pants, and H-back.suspenders. This is the protective clothing worn by firefighters in the performance of their fire suppression and rescue duties. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest overall bidder as listed below. Item Description Supplier Price 1 Turn out coat Casco Industries, Inc. $578.67 each 2 Lumbar pant Casco Industries, Inc. $420.27 each 3 H-Back suspenders Casco Industries, Inc. $ 22.00 each PRINICPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS: Casco Industries, Inc. 3519 Jim Wright Freeway Fort Worth, Texas 76106 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT: Shipment of bunker gear articles can be made in 75-90 days f~om receipt of order. Agenda Information Sheet April 18, 2000 Page 2 FISCAL INFORMATION: The purchase of bunker gear will be funded from 1999/2000 budget funds account (100-060- 0051-8121). Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet 1369 AGENDA ATTACHMENT 1 TABULATION SHEET Bid # 2485 Date: 3/21/00 FIREFIGHTER BUNKER GEAR No. Qty. DESCRIPTION VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR Casco Lakefffect Lion Apparel Rescue Wilson Industries,Inc. Outfitters Concepts Fire/NAFECO Principle Place of Business: Ft. Worth, TX Groton, NY Desoto, TX Dayton, TX Grandview, TX 20 EA TURN OUT COAT $578.67 $664.26 $627.62 $640.00 $585.00 1 20 EA LU M BAR PAN T $420.27 $472.29 $460.62 $510.00 $435.00 2 20 EA H-BACK SUSPENDERS $22.00 $22.10 $31.00 Included in pants $18.25 3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A. CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIREFIGHTER BUNKDER GEAR; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2485- FIREFIGHTER BLINKER GEAR AWARDED TO CASCO INDUSTRIES, INC., IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $20,418.80). 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 2485 1-3 Casco Industries, Inc. 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 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: 2485 SUPPLY ORDINANCE EXHIBIT "A" Bid # 2485 FIREFIGHTER BUNKER GEAR No. Qty. DESCRIPTION VENDOR Casco IndustrieS,Inc. Principal Place of Business Ft. Worth, TX 20 TURN OUT COAT $578.67 EA 1 2O LUMBAR PANT $420.27 2 EA 20 H-BACK SUSPENDERS $22.00 31 EA AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda No....__~~ Aoenda Item Date April 18, 2000 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Ross Chadwick 349-8101 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT: An Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding an annual contract for the purchase of Firefighter Station Wear Uniforms; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 2486 - Firefighter Station Wear Unifom~s awarded to Wilson FirefNAFECO in the estimated amount of $39,020.50). BID INFORMATION: This bid is for the annual contract to supply firefighter station wear uniforms. These are the day to day uniforms worn by the firefighters while on duty. The shirts and trousers are made from Nomex material to be non-combustible flame resistant yet suitable for non-fire suppression activities. These uniforms compliment the bunker gear on Bid 2485 to afford the firefighter as much protection as possible. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest bidder, Wilson Fire/NAFECO, as listed below. Item Description Est. QuantiW Supplier Price 1 Pants 275 Wilson Fire $66.71 each 2 Long Sleeve Shirt 125 Wilson Fire $58.24 each 3 Short Sleeve Shirt 275 Wilson Fire $48.71 each PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS: Wilson Fire/NAFECO Grandview, Texas 76050 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT: Shipment of uniform articles can be made in 14-21 days after receipt of an order. Agenda Information Sheet April 18, 2000 page 2 FISCAL INFORMATION: The purchase of firefighter station wear uniforms will be funded from 1999/2000-budget account (100-060-0051-8108). Respectfully submitted: Tom Sh~w, C-.P.M~ 549-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet 1368.AGENDA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIREFIGHTER STATION WEAR UNIFORMS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2486 - FIREFIGHTER STATION WEAR UNIFORMS AWARDED TO WILSON FIRE/NAFECO IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $39,020.50). 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 2486 1-3 VENDOR Wilson Fire/NAFECO 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: 2486 SUPPLY ORDINANCE EXHIBIT "A" Bid # 2486 FIREFIGHTER STATION UNIFORMS No.I Qty. I DESCRIPTION VENDOR Wilson Fire Princi 31e Place of Business:Grandview, TX FIREFIGHTER PANTS $66.71 1 FIREFIGHTER LONG 2 SLEEVED SHIRTS $58.24 FIREFIGHTER SHORT 3 SLEEVED SHIRTS $48.71 Agenda No.--~.~.-~ - Agenda Item_-/9 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM: April 18, 2000 City Manager's Office/~,/ I ~_l Mike Jez, City Manageb-'~rl SUBJECT Consider adoption of an ordinance approving Amendment No. 4 to an agreement between the City of Denton and the Denton Independent School District relating to holding their elections jointly in the election district that can be served by common polling places; and providing for an effective date. BACKGROUND On January 17, 1989, the City of Denton and the Denton Independent School District approved a joint election agreement to hold their elections in districts that could be served by common polling places. This amendment reflects changes made by the Denton County Commissioners Court in the precinct designations and brings the contract up to date relative to precincts as they exist today. z~ectfully subn]itted: Eity Secretary ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT RELATING TO HOLDING THEIR ELECTIONS JOINTLY IN THE ELECTION DISTRICTS THAT CAN BE SERVED BY COMMON POLLING PLACES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on January 17, 1989, the City of Denton and the Denton Independent School District entered into a Joint Election Agreement ("Agreement") to hold their elections jointly in the election districts that can be served by common polling places; and WHEREAS, the Agreement has been amended since the County of Denton has changed the precinct designations set forth in Article I of the Agreement and these changes require that the Agreement be amended again; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the Mayor and the City Secretary are hereby authorized and directed to execute and attest, respectively, to Amendment No. 4 to a Joint Election Agreement, as amended, executed on January 17, 1989 between the City of Denton and the Denton Independent School District relating to holding their elections jointly in the election districts that can be served by common polling places under the terms and conditions being contained in said Agreement, which Amendment 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. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY 'BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY · n STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DENTON § FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT ELECTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT WHEREAS, on January 17, 1989, the City of Denton, "Owner", and the Denton Independent School District, "DISD", entered into a Joint Election Agreement, the "Agreement", to hold their elections jointly in the election districts that can be served by. common polling places; and WHEREAS, the County of Denton has changed the precinct designations set forth in such Agreement, as amended, on April 19, 1994 (Amendment No. 2), which changes have necessitated an additional amendment to Article I of the Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, WlTNESSETH: SECTION 1. That Article I "Polling Places" of the Agreement, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: ARTICLE I. POLLING PLACES. The parties agree to hold their elections jointly in the election precincts that can be served by common polling places. Early voting shall be conducted for both entities by appropriate City officials at the Denton City Hall, 215 East McKinney, Denton, Texas. The City of Denton and DISD Election Districts - Districts One, Two, Three, Four, and Corinth - and their respective polling places shall be indicated on the attached Election Districts chart which is made a part of this Agreement for all purposes and are further described as follows: A. District One shall include the following Denton county election precincts as established by the Commissioners Court of Denton County and those voters residing within the following listed precincts shall vote at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Recreation Center, 1329 Morse Street, Denton, Texas: 1. Precincts 416, 421, and 424 - Denton and DISD residents. 2. That portion of precinct 118 lying within the City of Denton - Denton residents only. 3. That portion of precinct 406 lying east of Avenue E and north of Eagle Drive - Denton and DISD residents. 4. That portion of precinct 410 lying east of Bernard Street and north of Eagle Drive - Denton and DISD residents. 5. That portion of precinct 418 lying north'and west of Audra Lane and east and south of Mingo Road - Denton and DISD residents. Page 1 of 3 F:~share~dept~LGL\Our Docum~nts\Con~acts\OO\dlsd j oint election amendment.doc 6. That portion of precinct 430 lying north of Interstate Highway 35E - Denton and DISD residents. B. District Two shall include the following Denton County election precincts as established by the Commissioners Court of Denton County and those voters residing within the following listed precincts shall vote at the Fire Station No. 4, 2110 Sherman Drive, Denton, Texas: 1. Precincts 101,115, and 130 -DISD residents only. 2. Precincts 102, 104, 106, 121, 123, 125, 403, 407, 426, and 428 - Denton and DISD residents. C. 'District Three shall include the following Denton County election precincts as established by the Commissioners Court of Denton County and those voters residing within the following listed precincts shall vote at the North Lakes Recreation Center, 2001 West Windsor, Denton, Texas: 1. Precincts 116, 127, 402, 404, 405, 408, 409, 420, and 427 - Denton and DISD residents. 2. Precinct 128 - Denton residents only. 3. That portion of precinct 418 lying north of Mingo Road - Denton and DISD residents. D. District Four shall include the following Denton County election precincts as established by the Commissioners Court of Denton County and those voters residing within the following listed precincts shall vote at the Denia Park Recreation Center, 1001 Parvin, Denton, Texas: 1. Precincts 108, 120 and 122 -Denton Residents only. 2. Precincts 111,412, 414, 415, 419, 423 and 431 - Denton and DISD residents. 3. Precincts 319, 417, and 422 - DISD residents only 4. That portion of precinct 406 lying west of Avenue E and south of Eagle Drive - Denton and DISD residents. 5. That portion of precinct 410 lying west of Bernard Street and south of Eagle Drive - Denton and DISD residents. 6. That portion of precinct 430 lying south of Interstate Highway 35E - Denton and DISD residents. Page 2 of 3 E. Those voters residing within the following listed Denton County precincts as established by the Commissioners Court of Denton County shall vote at the Corinth City Hall, 2003 South Corinth Street, COrinth, Texas: 1. Precincts 108, 118, 120, 122, and 129-DISD residents only. SECTION 2. That save and except as amended hereby, all the remaining sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, and phrases of the Agreement, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect; EXECUTED this day of ,2000. CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT BY: TITLE: Page 3 of 3 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Aoenda No. AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: April 18, 2000 Electric Utility Howard Martin, 349-8232~Y~x''~ SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS DETERMINING COMPETITIVE MATTERS RESPECTING CERTAIN PUBLIC POWER UTILITIES WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO PROTECTION UNDER THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND THE TEXAS PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT; ADOPTING DECLARATIONS AND FINDINGS IN THE PREAMBLE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BACKGROUND: Senate Bill 7, that was enacted into law by the 76th Texas Legislature, created a public power exception to both the Texas Open Meetings Act and the Texas Public Information Act for municipal electric utilities. This exception is designed to provide a "level playing field" for all participants in the existing competitive Texas electric wholesale and newly defined competitive electric retail market. Private entities participating in the electric market have always been able to protect virtually all of their activities such as strategies, planning discussions, detailed financial information, purchasing activities, and technical data from public dissemination. Prior to the passage of Senate Bill 7, municipal electric utilities were required to make virtually all their decisions and data available to the public, including other electric providers. Except in unusual situations, such as DME's dual and triple certified areas, this was not a problem as long as electric utilities were limited to serving customers in exclusive service territories. With the advent of competition in the wholesale marketplace after the 1995 Legislation session, this began to become a problem. For example, knowledge of scheduled outages of a utility's generating units provided power marketers with the ability to raise prices for replacement power because they knew how badly that power was needed by the utility with the outage. Private utilities and power marketers have been successful in preventing the public dissemination of the prices at which they bought and sold wholesale power both before and after the transactions took place. However, municipal utilities could not prevent their competitors in the wholesale market from determining that same information, either by attending open meetings where transactions were approved or through open records requests. Without the changes made to the Texas Open Meetings Act and the Texas Public Information Act made by the 76th Texas Legislature, when full retail competition takes place the situation would have become even more difficult for municipal utilities. For municipal utilities that are competing in any form, either through "opting in" to retail competition or in multiply certified areas, competitors would be able to determine every action planned by the municipal utility in the competition for energy customers and new distribution customers (in multiply certified areas) while maintaining the confidentiality of their information. For municipals who "opt out" of competition, operational and cost information could be used in development of take-over efforts, efforts to persuade businesses to locate outside of a municipal utility service area, and in preparation to attack the municipal utility as soon as it "opts in" to retail competition. An "opt- out" utility that conducts it business totally in the open until the day it "opts-in" can be assured that competitors will use that information to prepare an assault on its customers as soon as it is possible to do so. The intended effect of the changes made to the Texas Open Meetings Act and the Texas Public Information Act made by the 76th Texas Legislature was to allow public utilities to make only the same amount of information available in public that private utilities provide in public. It is unfortunate that, in order to protect the significant investment our citizens have in their electric utility and the revenue provided to the City from those investments in the new deregulated environment, a portion of the total openness of the electric utility management has been lost. However, we are fortunate that we retain the oversight of the electric utility operations by elected officials who are available to accept citizen input at all times. Denton Municipal Utility intends to remain responsive to its citizen customer/owners. The purpose of this resolution is: · To provide the citizens of Denton a clear understanding of how the City intends to implement this new law, and; To provide Council guidance to the Public Utilities Board, the City Attorney, and the electric utility staff on application of this exception. This resolution is similar to the attached resolutions that have been adopted by San Antonio, the Lower Colorado River Authority, and the City ofBoeme. TPPA also indicates that resolutions using "basically the same approach" have also been adopted by New Braunfels, Kerrville, Lubbock, Bryan, and Brownsville. The competitive issues listed in the Resolution are divided into six areas. The Financial Information section contains items that would: · Establish DME risk management strategies for fuel and purchase power supply costs. · Allow competitors to influence fuel markets to the detriment of DME · Determine the financial strength of DME · Allow competitors to forecast DME rates · Allow competitors to develop low cost take over proposals · Allow competitors to assess competitive strengths or weaknesses of DME and its ability to withstand predatory price reductions by others. The Purchasing and Contract Information section contains items that would: · Allow competitors to influence the wholesale power market to the detriment of DME · Establish levels that DME would be willing to pay for wholesale power · Establish levels that DME would be willing to pay for fuel or the transportation of fuel. · Allow competitors and vendors insight into DME purchasing habits and identity of suppliers on which DME relies heavily The Business Operations Information section contains items that would: · Inform competitors of DME's strategic and business plans · Inform competitors of the strengths and weaknesses of DME's operation. · Assist competitors in formulating offers to hire key DME employees. · Inform competitors of DME strategy regarding either the sale or acquisition of assets. The Generation/Transmission/Distribution System Operations Information section contains items that would: · Allow wholesale power marketers to take advantage of generating unit outages to raise prices for replacement supplies of energy and capacity · Determine DME's production costs for its power supply · Determine DME's growth rate and need for additional capacity · Allow competitors to develop valuations of DME's assets in preparation of take over attempts. · Determine DME's need for critical pieces of equipment whose availability could be influenced by the purchasing schedules of competitors. The Sales, Market Research and Marketing section contains items that would: · Allow competitors to adjust their sales and marketing strategies to undercut DME's efforts to add customers to its system and retain existing customers. The Competitive Customer Information section contains items that would: · Allow competitors to target DME's most valuable retail customers · Protect the privacy of its customers' energy consumption records. OPTIONS: 1. Adopt Resolution as presented 2. Determine all "competitive matters" on a case by case basis in closed PUB and Council sessions. RECOMMENDATIONS: Adopt this resolution as presented. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Conneil~ Boards~ Commission): There has been no official action or review of the Resolution by the Public Utilities Board. However each member has been given an opportunity to review the proposed Resolution and provide comments and suggestions. The Resolution was presented to Council at the April 11, 2000 Work Session. FISCAL INFORMATION: None Respectfully submitted: Sharon Mays -.~. Director of Electric Utilities RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS DETERMINING COMPETITIVE MATTERS RESPECTING CERTAIN PUBLIC POWER UTILITIES WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO PROTECTION UNDER THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND THE TEXAS PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT; ADOPTING DECLARATIONS AND FINDINGS IN THE PREAMBLE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Senate Bill 7 ("SB 7") was enacted into law by the 76th Texas Legislature, and signed by the Governor on June 18, 1999, with an effective date of September 1, 1999. Said SB 7, among other things, amended Subchapter D, Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code (the "Open Meetings Act") by adding a new Section 551.086 thereto, commonly referred to as the "Public Power Exception"; and WHEREAS, SB 7, amended Subchapter C, Chapter 552 of the Texas Government Code (the "Public Information Act") by adding a new Section 552.131 thereto, commonly referred to as the "Public Power Exception;" and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 7 defines a public power utility "competitive matter" as a utility- related matter that the public power utility goveming body in good faith determines by a majority vote is related to the public power utility's competitive activity, including commercial information, and would, if disclosed, give advantage to competitors or prospective competitors; and WHEREAS, the provisions of Senate Bill 7 exclude the following categories of information from the definition of a "competitive matter": Information relating to the provision of distribution access service, including the terms and conditions of the service and the rates charged for the service but not including information concerning utility-related services or products that are competitive; · Information relating to the provision of transmission service that is required to be filed with the Public Utility Commission of Texas, subject to any confidentiality provided for under the roles of the commission; · Information for the distribution system pertaining to reliability and continuity of service, to the extent not security-sensitive, that relates to emergency management, identification of critical loads such as hospitals and police, records of interruption, and distribution feeder standards; · Any substantive rule of general applicability regarding service offerings, service regulation, customer protections, or customer service adopted by the public power utility as authorized by law; · Aggregate information reflecting receipts or expenditures of funds of the public power utility, of the type that would be included in audited financial statements; · Information relating to equal employment opportunities for minority groups, as filed with local, state, or federal agencies; · Information relating to the public power utility's perfom~ance in contracting with minority business entities; · Information relating to nuclear decommissioning trust agreements, of the type required to be included in audited financial statements; · Information relating to the amount and timing of any transfer to an owning city's general fund; Information relating to environmental compliance as required to be filed with any local, state, or national environmental authority, subject to any confidentiality provided under the rules of those authorities; · Names of public officers of the public power utility and the voting records of those officers for all matters other than those within the scope of a competitive resolution provided for by this section; · A description of the public power utility's central and field organization, including the established places at which the public may obtain information, submit information and requests, or obtain decisions and the identification of employees from whom the public may obtain information, submit information or requests, or obtain decisions; or · Information identifying the general course and method by which the public power utility's functions are channeled and determined, including the nature and requirements of all formal and informal policies and procedures; and WHEREAS, the City of Denton, a Home-Rule city, and a municipal corporation, in the State of Texas, owns and operates a municipal electric utility; and WHEREAS, the Denton City Council, as the governing body of the municipally-owned electric utility, desires to adopt this RESOLUTION de£ming "competitive matter" for the purpose of protecting the competitive position of its electric utility, Denton Municipal Electric ("DME") as provided for in Senate Bill 7; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY FINDS AND RESOLVES: SECTION 1: That the following activities constitute "competitive matters" that are related to present and future competitive activity of the electric utility, and that would, if disclosed, provide advantage to existing or prospective competitors: A. Financial Information, including but not limited to: · Financial planning, sensitivity and scenario analysis; · Rate and pricing strategies, studies and targets; · Revenue and expense projections and targets; · Historical and projected fuel pricing, purchases and usage; · Fuel and purchased power hedging/risk management strategies; · Cost of services studies; · System valuation studies and related information; · Cash flow projections; · Internal audit reports; and · Debt allocation and debt refunding strategies. B. Purchasing and Contract Information, including but not limited to: · Power purchase pricing, proposals and contracts; · Power sales pricing, proposals and contracts; · Fuel purchase pricing, proposals and contracts; · Fuel transportation pricing, proposals and contracts; · Purchasing information, including bids, proposals and contracts; · Negotiations, modeling, data, correspondence, drafts and memoranda related to negotiations and considerations of the above contracts and pricing; · Information or data related to firms supplying goods or services related to Denton Municipal Electric; and · Alliance, joint venture and aggregation information. C. Business Operations Information, including but not limited to: Corporate strategic and business plans; · Consulting reports; · Work management studies; · Benchmarking studies; · Personnel compensation; and Divestiture or acquisition plans and strategies. D. Generation/Transmission/Distribution System Operations Information, including but not limited to: · System improvement evaluations and recommendations, including economic evaluations; · Generating unit operating and performance data, including heat rates; · Engineering and design of generation units and transmission/distribution system; Control system design and capabilities; · Maintenance schedules; · Unit dispatch and system outage information; · Load forecasts; · Generation/transmission/distribution system improvement plans and work papers; · Generation unit and system audits; · Transmission and distribution system loading characteristics and capabilities; and · Target electric generation and production levels. E. Sales, Market Research and Marketing, including but not limited to: Market research studies; · Marketing strategies, plans and budgets; · Sales and promotion strategies; and Incentive programs. F. Competitive Customer Information, including but not limited to: · Customer lists or identification data; · Customer energy pricing, sales and revenue information; Customer non-energy pricing, sales and revenue information; and · Customer load profiles. SECTION 2: That all of the declarations and findings contained in the preamble to this Resolution are made a part hereof and shall be fully effective as a part of the subject matter of this Resolution. SECTION 3: That consistent with the identification of such competitive matters, the City Council declares confidential all documents and other information concerning such matters, and will dete,mine on a case-by-case basis as to the specific activities within the scope of such identified matters whether deliberations and action by the City Council will be undertaken in an executive session or not. SECTION 4: That the City Council reserves the right to supplement or amend the list of competitive matters set forth in this Resolution by the addition or deletion, or case-by-case determinations as may be desirable in order to continue to operate and manage the City of Denton's electric system in a manner consistent with the interests of the City and its electric ratepayers, in accordance with the provisions of applicable law, expressly including, without limitation, the protections authorized by Senate Bill 7. SECTION 5: That if any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or word in this Resolution, 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 Resolution, and the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas hereby declares it would have enacted such remaining portions despite any such invalidity. SECTION 6: and approval. That this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon 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 S:\Our Documents\Resolutions\00\DME SB7 Competitive Matters Resolution - Final 041100.doc AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda Item AGENDA DATE: April 18, 2000 DEPARTMENT: CM: Police Michael W. Je~ SUBJECT An Ordinance authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement between the City of Denton and the City of Corinth for the impoundment and disposition of dogs and cats and the collection of fees pursuant to the provisions of said agreement; and providing for an effective date. BACKGROUND: The City of Denton and the City of Corinth have had interlocal agreements for the impoundment and disposition of dogs and cats for the past seven years. The animals delivered to the City of Denton under this agreement have not caused conditions of overcrowding at the Animal Control facility. The agreement states that the City of Denton will provide the following services to the City of Corinth for the impoundment and disposition of animals delivered to the City of Denton from the City of Corinth: (1) The City of Denton will hold these animals for ninety-six (96) hours if not claimed by an owner. If the owner does not claim the animal within the prescribed ninety-six (96) hours, the animals will be euthanised or made available for adoption. (2) The City of Denton will accept and hold rabid suspects in quarantine for ten (10) days. (3) The City of Denton will remove and ship the heads of rabid suspects for rabies testing by the Texas Department of Health. For the services, the City of Corinth agrees to pay fees set forth in the agreement as follows: (1) A holding fee in the amount of fifteen dollars ($15.00) for the first day or part of a day and five dollars ($5.00) for each subsequent day per animal held for reclamation by the owner. (2) A holding fee in the amount of fifteen dollars ($15.00) for the first day or part ora day and five dollars ($5.00) for each subsequent day per animal held in quarantine as a rabies suspect. (3) Fifteen dollars ($15.00) for each animal euthanized. (4) Thirty-five ($35.00) for each decapitation and shipment. OPTIONS 1. The City Council can choose not to renew the inteflocal agreement with the City of Corinth. 2. The City Council can approve the ordinance and renew the interlocal agreement. RECOMMENDATION The Department reconm~ends approval o£the ordinance and renewal of the interlocal agreement with the City o£ Corinth. 1. The interlocal agreement provides a valuable service to the citizens of Corinth. 2. The housing and disposal of dogs and cats received fi:om the City of Corinth has not, and is not projected to, create a hardship for the City's Animal Control operation. 3. The interlocal agreement is a source o£revenue £or the City. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW: The attached interlocal agreement has been reviewed £or legal form and content by the City of Denton Legal Department. The agreement has been approved by the Corinth City Council. FISCAL IMPACT: The prescribed fees in the agreement are calculated to recover all costs of all services rendered and, therefore, this agreement does not result in an increase in expenditures. Based on prior years, the agreement will result in an additional $1,500.00 in revenue. Prepared by: Jo~~ousewright Captain Support Services Division / ~~L.ctfully submitted, Matheson Chief of Police ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE CITY OF CORINTH FOR THE IMPOUNDMENT AND DISPOSITION OF DOGS AND CATS AND THE COLLECTION OF FEES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF S~AID AGREEMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That the Mayor, or in his absence, the Mayor Pro Tern, is hereby authorized to execute an Agreement between the City of Denton and the City of Corinth for the impoundment and disposition of dogs and cats, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. SECTION II. That the City Council authorizes the collection of all fees as provided pursuant to the provisions of said Agreement. SECTION III. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSI}D 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 § INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT This Agreement made and entered into by and between the City of Denton, Texas, acting herein by and through its Mayor, duly authorized by resolution of the City Council of said City (hereinafter called "Denton"), and the City of Corinth, Texas, acting herein by and through its Mayor, duly authorized by resolution of the City Council of said City .(hereafter called "Corinth"). WHEREAS,. Denton and Corinth are both local governments with the authority and power to contract; and WHEREAS, Denton is engaged in the services of holding and disposing of dogs and cats for the benefit of the citizens of Denton; and WHEREAS, Denton is the owner of certain facilities and equipment designed for the holding and disposition of dogs and cats and has in its employ trained personnel whose duties are related to the use of such facilities and equipment; and WHEREAS, Corinth desires to obtain impoundment and disposition services for dogs and eats rendered by Denton, as more fully hereafter described, for the benefit of the residents of Corinth, Texas; and WHEREAS, Corinth and Denton mutually desire to be subject to the provisions of Texas Government Code, Chapter 791, the Interlocal Cooperation Act and contract pursuant thereto; and WHEREAS, Corinth and Denton have the authority to perform the services set forth in this Agreement individually in accordance with Texas Govemment Code §791.01 l(c); and WHEREAS, Corinth will make all payments for services out of available current revenues and Denton agrees that the payments made by Corinth hereunder will fairly compensate it for the services provided; NOW, THEREFORE, Corinth and Denton, for the mutual consideration hereinafter stated, agree as follows: ' A. COVENANTS OF THE CITY OF DENTON: Holding of Dogs and Cats. Denton agrees to accept and hold dogs and cats lawfully impounded by authorized representatives of Corinth under the following temps and conditions: 1) 2) Holding Period for Dogs and Cats. Denton agrees to hold such dogs and cats for a period of 96 hours from the time they are accepted by the Animal Control Center in order to allow the owners of the impounded animal a reasonable amount of time to reclaim the impounded animal. If the animal is not reclaimed within the 96-hour period, the ownership of the animal shall revert to the Animal Control Center. Animals will be humanely destroyed or placed for adoption at the discretion of the Animal Control staff. Holding Fees for Impounded Dogs and Cats. For the purpose of; this Agreement, Denton will charge fifteen dollars ($15.00) for first day or part of a day and five dollars ($5.00) for each subsequent day holding fee that an animal is held at the Animal Control Center. In determining the meaning of the term "animal" as used herein, it is agreed that a pregnant animal which has its litter while being held, or an animal which is nursing its litter and is being kept in the same cage, will be considered one animal for the assessment of charges provided for in this Agreement. This fee will be assessed against the owner of the animal at the time the animal is reclaimed. No animal will be released until all applicable fees are paid in full 3) 4) 5) Holding of Quarantine Animals. Denton agrees to accept and hold rabid suspects in quarantine for Corinth when conditions permit, and such action is authorized by a representative of Corinth. Holding Fees for Quarantined Animals. The holding fee for quarantined animals shall be fifteen dollars ($15.00) for the first day or part of a day and five dollars ($5.00) for each subsequent day that the animal is held. Head Shipments and Rabies Testing. Upon request of Corinth, Denton will provide for the removal and shipment of heads of rabid suspects for clinical rabies testing at the Texas Department of Health. The fee for this service shall be thirty-five dollars ($35.00) for each head shipped. COVENANTS OF THE CITY OF CORINTH: 1) Financial Responsibilities. In order to reimburse Denton for its costs incurred under this Agreement, Corinth agrees to pay for the holding fees and euthanasia fees on dogs and cats received from Corinth or its authorized agent if the animal(s) is not reclaimed by the oWner. These fees will be assessed on the following basis: Euthanized Animal: fifteen dollars ($15.00) for the first day or part of a day and five dollars ($5.00) for each subsequent day holding fee for each animal as determined herein, plus $15.00 euthanasia fee. Adopted Animal: Adopted .Animal: fifteen dollars ($15.00) for the first day or part ora day and five dollars ($5.00) for each subsequent day holding fee for each animal as determined herein. c. Head Shipments: $35.00 shipping fee. Page 2 2) Denton will collect impound fees duly authorized by Corinth and as specified in this paragraph from the owners of dogs and cats received from Corinth. Impound fee monies will be applied to fees owed Denton by Corinth for animals not reclaimed by the Owner: IMPOUND FEE 1st Impoundment - $20.00 2nd Impoundment - $30.00 3ra Impoundment - $45.00 4th Impoundment - $70.00 3) Corinth agrees payment shall be made within 45 days of receipt of invoice by Corinth. Denton agrees to and accepts full responsibility for the acts, negligence, and/or omissions of all Denton's employees and agents, Denton's subcontractors and/or contract laborers doing work under a contract or agreement with Denton in perfmmance of this Agreement with Corinth. Corinth agrees to and accepts full responsibility for the acts, negligence, and/or omissions of all Corinth's employees and agents, Corinth's subcontractors and/or contract laborers doing work under a contract or agreement with Corinth in performance of this Agreement with Denton. It is further agreed that if claim or liability shall arise from the joint or concurring negligence of both parties hereto, it shall be borne by them comparatively in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas. This paragraph shall not be construed as a waiver by either party of any defenses available to it under the laws of the State of Texas. It is understood that it is not the intention of the parties hereto to create liability for the benefit of third parties, but that this Agreement shall be for the benefit of the parties hereto. The fact that Corinth and Denton accept certain responsibilities relating to the collection and impounding of dogs and cats under this Agreement as part of their responsibility for providing protection for the public health and welfare and, therefore, makes it imperative that the performance of these vital serVices be recognized as a governmental immunity shall be, and is hereby invoked to the full extent possible under the law. Neither Denton nor Corinth waives or shall be deemed hereby to waive any immunity or defense that would otherwise be available to it against the claims arising from the exercise of governmental functions. The term of.this Agreement shall be for a period of one year, commencing as of February 1, 2000 and ending January 31, 2001. Thereafter, this Agreement shall be renewed for successive additional one year terms commencing on February 1 of each year if Corinth and Denton agree in writing on or before the first day of February to a successive term and the amount of Page 3 consideration to be paid hereunder for each successive tenn; provided, however, either party may terminate this Agreement upon 30 days' written notice to the other. o This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between Denton and Corinth and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and/or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both Denton and Corinth. o This Agreement and any of its terms or provisions, as well as the rights and duties of the parties hereto, shall be govemed by the laws of the State of Texas. 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. The undersigned officer 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 necessary resolutions extending said authority have been duly passed and are now in full force and effect. EXECUTED in duplicate originals this the __ day of ,2000. CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY: JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: ~~~'~-' Page4 CITY OF CORINTH, TEXAS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: CITY ATTORNEY Page 5 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Aoenda Agenda Item Date AGENDA DATE: April 18, :2000 DEPARTMENT: CM: Police ~ Michael W. Je SUBJECT An Ordinance authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement between the City of Denton and the City of Aubrey for the impoundment and disposition of dogs and cats and the collection of fees pursuant to the provisions of said agreement; and providing for and effective date. BACKGROUND: This represents the second year for an interlocal agreement with the City of Aubrey for the impoundment and disposition of dogs and cats. This agreement is submitted at the request of the City of Aubrey. The estimated number of animals delivered to the City of Denton under this agreement should not result in conditions of overcrowding at the Animal Control facility. The agreement states that the City of Denton will provide the following services to the City of Aubrey for the impoundment and disposition of animals delivered to the City of Denton from the City of Aubrey: (1) The City of Denton will hold these animals for ninety-six (96) hours if not claimed by an owner. If the owner does not claim the animal within the prescribed ninety-six (96) hours, the animals will be euthanised or made available for adoption. (2) The City of Denton will accept and hold rabid suspects in quarantine for ten (10) days. (3) The City of Denton will remove and ship the heads of rabid suspects for rabies testing by the Texas Department of Health. For the services, the City of Aubrey agrees to pay fees set forth in the agreement as follows: (1) (2) A holding fee in the amount of fifteen dollars ($15.00) for the first day or part of a day and five dollars ($5.00) for each subsequent day per animal held for reclamation by the owner. A holding fee in the amount of fifteen dollars ($15.00) for the first day or part of a day and five dollars ($5.00) for each subsequent day per animal held in quarantine as a rabies suspect. (3) Fifteen dollars ($15.00) for each animal euthanized. (4) Thirty-five ($35.00) for each decapitation and shipment. OPTIONS 1. The City Council can choose not to renew the intedocal agreement with the City of Aubrey. 2. The City Council can approve the ordinance and renew the interlocal agreement. RECOMMENDATION The Department recommends approval of the ordinance and renewal of the interlocal agreement with the City of Aubrey. 1. The interlocal agreement provides a valuable service to the citizens of the City of Aubrey. 2. The housing and disposal of dogs and cats for the City of Aubrey has not, and is not projected to, create a hardship on the City's Animal Control operation. 3. The interlocal agreement is a source of revenue for the City. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW: The attached intedocal agreement has been reviewed for legal form and content by the City of Denton Legal Department. The agreement has been approved by the Aubrey City Council. FISCAL IMPACT: The prescribed fees in the agreement are calculated to recover all costs of all services rendered and, therefore, this agreement does not result in an increase in expenditures. Based on prior year experience, the agreement should result in approximately $1,000.00 additional revenue. Respectfully submitted, ~. m~theson Chief of Police Prepared by: ~ .~cusewright Captmn Support Services Division ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE CITY OF AUBREY FOR THE IMPOUNDMENT AND DISPOSITION OF DOGS AND CATS AND THE COLLECTION OF FEES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SAID AGREEMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I: That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute an Agreement between the City of Denton and the City of Aubrey for the impoundment and disposition of dogs and cats ("Agreement"), a tree and correct copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. SECTION II: That the City Council authorizes the collection of all fees as provided pursuant to the provisions of said Agreement. SECTION III: 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 $:\Our Docum~nt~[Ordlnanee*\OO~a. ubrey Animal Control Ord.doe S:\Our Documents\Ordinances\00'xAubrey Animal Control Ord.doc STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DENTON § INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT This Agreement made and entered into by and between the City of Denton, Texas, acting herein by and through its Mayor, duly authorized by resOlution of the City Council of said City (hereinafter called "Denton"), and the City of Aubrey, Texas, acting herein by and through its Mayor, duly authorized by resolution of the City Council of said City (hereafter called "Auhrey"). WHEREAS, Denton and Aubrey are both local governments with the authority and power to contract; and WHEREAS, Denton is engaged in the services of holding and disposing of dogs and cats for the benefit of the citizens of Denton; and WHEREAS, Denton is the owner of certain facilities and equipment designed for the holding and disposition of dogs and cats and has in its employ trained personnel whose duties are related to the use of such facilities and equipment; and WHEREAS, Aubrey desires to obtain impoundment and disposition services for dogs and cats rendered by Denton, as more fully hereafter described, for the benefit of the residents of Aubrey, Texas; and WHEREAS, Aubrey and Denton mutually desire to be subject to the provisions of Texas Government Code, Chapter 791, the Interlocal Cooperation Act and contract pursuant thereto; and WHEREAS, Aubrey and Denton have the authority to perform the services set forth in · this Agreement individually in accordance with Texas Government Code §791.01 l(c); and WHEREAS, Aubrey will make all payments for services out of available current revenues and Denton agrees that the payments made by Aubrey hereunder will fairly compensate it for the services provided; NOW, THEREFORE, Aubrey and Denton, for the mutual consideration hereinafter stated, agree as followS: A. COVENANTS OF THE CITY OF DENTON: Holding of Dogs and Cats. Denton agrees to accept and hold dogs and cats lawfully impounded by authorized representatives of Aubrey under the following terms and conditions: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Holding Period for Dogs and Cats. Denton agrees to hold such dogs and cats for a period of 96 hours fi:om the time they are accepted by the Animal Control Center in order to allow the owners of the impounded animal a reasonable amount of time to reclaim the impounded animal. If the animal is not reclaimed within the 96-hour period, the ownership of the animal shall revert to the Animal Control Center. Animals will be humanely destroyed or placed for adoption at the discretion of the Animal Control staff. Holding Fees for Impounded Dogs and Cats. For the purpose of this Agreement, Denton will charge fifteen dollars ($15.00) for first day or part of a day and five dollars ($5.00) for each subsequent day holding fee that an animal is held at the Animal Control Center. In determining the meaning of the term "animal" as used herein, it is agreed that a pregnant animal which has its litter while being held, or an animal which is nursing its litter and is being kept in the same cage, will be considered one animal for the assessment of charges provided for in this Agreement. This fee will be assessed against the owner of the animal at the time the animal is reclaimed. No animal will be released until all applicable fees are paid in full. Holding of Quarantine Animals. Denton agrees to accept and hold rabid suspects in quarantine for Aubrey when conditions permit, and such action is authorized by a representative of Aubrey. Holding Fees for Quarantined Animals. The holding fee for quarantined animals shall be fifteen dollars ($15.00) for the first day or part of a day and five dollars ($5.00) for each subsequent day that the animal is held. Head Shipments and Rabies Testing. Upon request of Aubrey, Denton will provide for the removal and shipment of heads of rabid suspects for clinical rabies testing at the Texas Department of Health. The fee for this service shall be thirty-five dollars ($35.00) for each head shipped. COVENANTS OF THE CITY OF AUBREY: 1) Financial Responsibilities. In order to reimburse Denton for its costs incurred under this Agreement, Aubrey agrees to pay for the holding fees and euthanasia fees on dogs and cats received fi:om Aubrey or its authorized agent if the animal(s) is not reclaimed by the owner. These fees will be assessed on the following basis: Euthanized Animal: fifteen dollars ($15.00) for the first day or part of a day and five dollars ($5.00) for each subsequent day holding fee for each animal as determined herein, plus $15.00 euthanasia fee. Adopted Animal: Adopted Animal: fifteen dollars ($15.00) for the first day or part of a day and five dollars ($5.00) for each subsequent day holding fee for each animal as determined herein. e. Head Shipments: $35.00 shipping fee. Page 2 2) Denton will collect impound fees duly authorized by Aubrey and as specified in this paragraph fi.om the owners of dogs and cats received fi.om Aubrey. Impound fee monies will be applied to fees owed Denton by Aubrey for animals not reclaimed by the owner: IMPOUND FEE Ist Impoundment - $20.00 2nd Impoundment - $30.00 3ra Impoundment - $45.00 4th Impoundment - $70.00 3) Aubrey agrees payment shall be made within 45 days of receipt of invoice by Aubrey. o Denton agrees to and accepts full responsibility for the acts, negligence, and/or omissions of all Denton's employees and agents, Denton's subcontractors and/or contract laborers doing work under a contract or agreement with Denton in performance of this Agreement with Aubrey. Aubrey agrees to and accepts full responsibility for the acts, negligence, and/or omissions of all Aubrey's employees and agents, Aubrey's subcontractors and/or contract laborers doing work under a contract or agreement with Aubrey in performance of this Agreement with Denton. It is further agreed that if claim or liability shall arise fi.om the joint or concurring negligence of both parties hereto, it shall be borne by them comparatively in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas. This paragraph shall not be construed as a waiver by either party of any defenses available to it under the laws of the State of Texas. It is understood that it is not the intention of the parties hereto to create liability for the benefit of third parties, but that this Agreement shall be for the benefit of the parties hereto. o The fa~t 'that Aubrey an~ Denton accept ce~ain responsibilities relating to the collection and impounding of dogs and cats under this Agreement as part of their responsibility for providing protection for. the public health and welfare and, therefore, makes it imperative that the performance of these vital services be recognized as a governmental immunity shall be, and is hereby invoked to the full extent possible under the law. Neither Denton nor Aubrey waives or shall be deemed hereby to waive any immunity or defense that would otherwise be available to it against the claims arising fi.om the exercise of governmental functions. The teim of this Agreement shall be for a period of one year, commencing as of February 1, 2000 and ending January 31, 2001. Thereafter, this Agreement shall be renewed for successive additional one year tcmis commencing on February 1 of each year if Aubrey and Denton agree in writing on or before the first day of February to a successive term and the amount of Page 3 consideration to be paid hereunder for each successive term; provided, however, either party may terminate this Agreement upon 30 days' written notice to the other. 5. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between Denton and Aubrey and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and/or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both Denton and Aubrey. 6. This Agreement and any of its terms or provisions, as well as the rights and duties of the parties hereto, shall be governed by the laws of the State of Texas. 7. 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 fome and effect to the extent possible. 8. The undersigned officer 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 necessary resolutions extending said authority have been duly passed and are now in full force and effect. EXECUTED in duplicate originals this the __ day of ~ 2000. CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ]~Y: o JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY P~e4 ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY CITY OF AUBREY, TEXAS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: CITY ATTORNEY BY: Page 5 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda No. Agendaltem , ~,~ ' , ..... Date AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: April 18, 2000 Utility Administration Howard Martin, 349-8232 SUBJECT: Consider approval of the Preliminary Design Report by Freese & Nichols for the Modifications to Lake Ray Roberts Surface Water Treatment Plant. BACKGROUND: On August 23, 1999, staff held a discussion with the PUB regarding the advantages and disadvantages of building a 10-mgd vs. 20-mgd treatment capacity at the proposed Lake Ray Roberts Water Treatment Plant (LRRWTP). Based on this discussion, the PUB recommended moving forward with the design of a plant with a 20-mgd capacity. Staff presented the PUB recommendation to the City Council in the workshop session on August 24, 1999. The City Council also endorsed the PUB recommendation to move forward with the 20-mgd design. Staff has worked with the consulting firm of Freese and Nichols, Inc. who were the original designers of the 10-mgd plant in 1990, to develop the scope of work and cost proposal for the preliminary design of the 20-mgd LRRWTP. The decision to undertake the preliminary design was made as several process units have to be modified to meet the current regulations; and instrumentation and Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) system technology has changed drastically since 1992. The preliminary design will help identify the design changes that need to be made and the feasibility of the alternative designs and costs for each alternate. The preliminary design effort then will help to develop the scope and costs associated with developing plans and specifications for the final design of the LRRWTP. The contract for the preliminary design effort and final report was approved by the PUB on October 4, 1999 and by the City Council on November 2, 1999. During the preliminary design process, the Water Utilities Department formed a review team comprised of staff members from the administration, engineering and water production divisions. This review team met with the consultant in a series of two and three day workshops to review the consultant's progress, facilitate guidance and direction on preliminary design decisions, and to provide staff with a more detailed understanding of the project leading into the design phase. Two significant recommendations that resulted from these workshops included the addition of ozonation facilities with the initial plant construction and the relocation of the ground storage and high service pump station facilities from the Hartlee Field Road site to the LRRWTP site. Staff provided an update on the economic and regulatory justification of these two recommendations to the PUB on January 24, 2000 and to the City Council on February 8, 2000. The preliminary design effort has identified the desired design modifications for the LRRWTP facilities. It also determined the estimated construction costs for these facilities to be incorporated into the FY 2001 - 2005 Water Utilities Capital Improvements Plan. The report also provides the basis for staff to identifying the scope of services and negotiate a professional services agreement with Freese & Nichols, Inc. for completing the final design of the facilities. OPTIONS: Approve the preliminary design report as submitted. Recommend desired changes to the preliminary design report. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary design report as submitted by Freese and Nichols, Inc. PRIOR ACTION REVIEW (COUNIL, BOARDS, COMMISSION) August 23, 1999 - Discussion on the LRRWTP cost update and 10-mgd vs 20-mgd plant construction. October 4, 1999 - Approval of the preliminary design contract with Freese & Nichols, Inc. January 24, 2000 - Receive an update from staff on the major decisions and recommendations from the preliminary design report workshops. April 3, 2000 - PUB approved the preliminary design report as submitted by Freese and Nichols. City Council: August 24, 1999 -Discussion on the LRRWTP cost update and 10-mgd vs 20-mgd plant construction. November 2, 1999 - Approval of the preliminary design report contract with Freese & Nichols, Inc. February 8, 2000 - Receive an update from staff on the major decisions and recommendations from the preliminary design report workshops. April 11, 2000 - Staff briefed the Council during their scheduled work session. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT: The plant should be operational by the late summer of 2002. FISCAL INFORMATION: The professional services agreement with Freese & Nichols, Inc., for the preliminary design report was based upon a lump sum amount of $142,700. The estimated construction cost of the 20-mgd plant facilities including the raw water pumping station, ozonation facilities, ground storage and high service pumping station facilities is approximately 35 million dollars. A detailed breakdown of these costs is included in the preliminary design report. A summary comparison of the costs for these facilities from the FY 2000-2004 Water Utility Capital Improvements Plan and the 1998 Capital Improvements Plan for Water and Wastewater Impact Fees (Duncan Associates) is shown in the report. Based upon the estimated construction costs identified for this project in the preliminary design report, this project can be funded without an anticipated rate increase provided impact fee revenues match current projections. MAP: None Respectfully submitted: Timothy S. Fisher, P.E. Assistant Director of Water Utilities AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: April 18, 2000 General Government Jez, City Manage~/M Michael W. SUBJECT: Hold a public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding cable television rates. BACKGROUND: The City is certified to regulate cable television rates for basic cable service, equipment, changing tiers, and the hourly service charge. Under the current franchise agreement, Charter Communications has agreed to file for new rates only once per year. The city received the appropriate FCC Forms (1240 and 1205) on March 1, 2000. The City has one year from that date to issue a rate order establishing the maximum rates that Charter Communications may charge. Council has the following options: 1) Approve the rates as filed by Charter Communications prior to June 1, 2000 and they will go into effect on June 1, 2000. 2) Issues a rate order prior to June 1, 2000 that establishes lower rates than those filed by Charter Communications and they must implement the lower rates on June 1, 2000. However, Charter Communications may attempt to obtain an order by the FCC or a court staying the effectiveness of the City's rate order and thus allowing implementation of the filed rates. 3) Take no official action prior to June 1, 2000 and Charter Communications may implement their filed rates on June 1, 2000. 4) If Charter Communications implements their filed rates on June 1, 2000, and if Council approves lower rates after June 1, 2000, then Charter Communications must implement the lower rates immediately. Again, Charter Communications may attempt to obtain an order by the FCC or a court staying the effectiveness of the City's rate order and thus allowing implementation of the filed rates. However, if the FCC or the courts uphold the lower rates, Charter Communications would have to rebate the difference to subscribers or factor the overcharges into next year's calculations. Our intention is to bring the Council a resolution establishing maximum permitted rates prior to June 1. Charter Communications' rate filing will establish rates to be effective from June 1, 2000 to May 31, 2001. Council Agenda Cable Rates Public Heating April 18, 2000 Page 2 of 3 In their filing, Charter Communications indicates that new rates are the result of "certain external costs, (i.e., programming), inflation, true-up adjustments and increased cost associated with delivering cable service as allowed by the Forms 1240 and 1205." Charter Communications current and proposed maximum permitted rates are: Item Current Proposed Basic Cable $9.44/mo. $9.90 Converter (addressable) $3.63/mo. $5.31 Converter (non- $2.23/mo. N/A addressable) Advanced analogue $3.63/mo. N/A converter Digital converter $6.95/$8.95* $11.05 Remote Control $0.37/mo. $0.18/mo. Changing tiers $2.00 $2.00 Hourly service charge $34.96/hr. $22.61/hr. * These amounts are currently being charged. The $6.95 monthly rental rate is a discounted rate given to customers for subscribing to the Digital Choice Package, and the $8.95 monthly rental rate is charged to customers that do not subscribe to this package. According to the 1999 rate ordinance, Council found these rates to be reasonable but never authorized a specific maximum permitted rate. Charter's latest filing indicates that they intend to raise the basic cable service rate $0.46 per month ($9.44 to $9.90). Their filing also contains a $1.68 increase for addressable converter rental ($3.63 to $5.31) and a $4.10/$2.10 increase for the digital converter rental ($6.95/$8.95 to $11.05). Their rate for changing tiers remains the same, while their remote rentals will decrease $0.19 ($0.37 to $0.18) and the hourly service charge will decrease $12.35 ($34.96 to $22.61). Regarding the hourly service rate, it should be noted that Charter has set certain time standards for certain types of installations which we are asking our rate consultant to examine. Last year Charter indicated that they did not intend to offer a non-addressable converter or advanced analogue converter, however Council decided to set these rates anyway. This year Charter again does not intend to offer these converters and in fact did not even file a rate for these items. Council Agenda Cable Rates Public Hearing April 18, 2000 Page 3 of 3 Staff is working with Connie Cannady of C2 Consulting, who has done our rate analysis for several years. She hopes to have her review of the filings completed by the end of April. This goal will be affected by how promptly Charter responds to Ms. Cannady's requests for information. Our goal is to bring this matter to City Council according to the following timeline: 1) Public Hearing April 18 2) Work Session April 25 3) Regular Meeting May 16 Section 8-136 (b) (2) of the Denton Cable Television Ordinance requires the City to hold a public hearing within 90 days from the date of the rate filing "to consider the proposed new rates, at which hearing all parties desiring to be heard, including the company, shall be heard on any matters relating to the performance of this franchise, the company's services and the proposed new rates." OPTIONS: Hold a public hearing to receive citizen comments. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commission): None FISCAL INFORMATION: Higher rates would impact subscribers. City receives 5% of Charter Communications gross revenues as franchise fees. Respectfully submitted: ~-~et~y~a~ns~~ Director of Management and Public Information Prepared by: Pubhc In f~cl~ J~...Cabrales J.r. ffi AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda No.__ Agenda Ite [:)ate_ -'// AGENDA DATE: April 18, 2000 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Development ~ ~ CM/DCM/ACM: David Hill, 349-8314,,~'~ ~'~f~, / SUBJECT Hold a public hearing inviting citizens to comment on the City of Denton's 2000 - 2005 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and the 2000 Action Plan. BACKGROUND Ann Hatch, chair of the Community Development Advisory Committee and Wallace Duvall, chair of the Human Services Advisory Committee will provide a brief presentation of each committee's recommendations. Preparation and dissemination of a 5-year Consolidated Plan is a requirement for all CDBG and HOME entitlement cities. The 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan updates and replaces the 1995 plan. The document provides information on population, housing characteristics and employment. This information was used to analyze affordable housing needs and develop strategies for rental, owner-occupied, homeless and special needs housing. Strategies were also developed for other community development activities: human services, infrastructure, lead-based paint activities and economic development. The Community Development and Human Services Advisory Committees developed recommendations for the use of 2000 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership (HOME) funding. These recommendations are included in the 2000 Action Plan. Regulations require a 30-day comment period on the both plans and at least one public hearing. A second public hearing will be held on May 8 at the Martin Luther King Jr. Recreation Center. The comment period for Denton's Consolidated Plan and2000 Action Plan is April 10 through May 10. Comments received during this period will be presented to City Council and included in the final Consolidated Plan submitted to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Page 1 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT Public comment period April 10 through May 10 Action Plan public hearing April 18 City Council considers approval of Action Plan May 16 Submission of Action Plan to HUD June 1 Environmental review process May 20 through July 20 Release of funds by HUD August 4 Project initiation August 5 PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council~ Boards~ Commissions) The Community Development Advisory Committee met on February 17, March 2, and March 9 to develop recommendations for the use of $1,505,338 in 2000-year CDBG and HOME funding. Minutes from the March 9 meeting are included as Attachment C. The Human Services Advisory Committee met on March 6, 13 and 20 to develop a funding process and recommendations for use of CDBG and general funds for human services. Unofficial minutes from the March 20 meeting are included as Attachment D. HSAC recommended use of $163,472 in CDBO funds for human services. This is the maximum amount allowable under the CDBG program. NOTE: Though general fund recommendations are mentioned in the 2000 Action Plan, approval of the plan does not include approval of the general fund recommendations. FISCAL INFORMATION All projects and programs approved under the 2000 Action Plan are funded with CDBG and HOME funds. No general fund dollars are included in the proposed 2000 Action Plan. See Attachment A, page 3 and Attachment B, page 4 for a list of activities with the funding source(s) and amount(s). BID INFORMATION Each project will be bid according to Federal, State and local laws and regulations. ATTACHMENTS Copies of the 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan and 2000 Action Plan are provided under separate cover. · CDAC Funding Recommendations Chart, Attachment A, page 4 · HSC Funding Recommendations Chart, Attachment B, page 5 · CDAC Minutes of March 9, pages 6 - 10 · HSAC Minutes of March 20, pages 11- 19 Page 2 Prepared by: Barbara Ross Community Development Administrator Respectfully submitted: Doug Powell Director of Planning and Development Page 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2000 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS APPLICATIONS REQUESTED FUNDS NOT Funds Available $ 740,388 ~!~~!~0~:~' FUNDED 1 CD Div.: CDBG Administration $ 225,950 ~ ~ ~ i 2 CD Div.: HOME Administration 3 HSAC Human Services Activities . $ 163,472 ~ ,,~, 91,700 ~ $ $ 101,228 $ 17,500 8 CD Div,: Rental Rehabilitation $ 66,400 $ 40,000 $ 20,400 9 CD Div,: Emergency Repair $ 25,000 $ 20,000 $ 5,000 10 BI Demolition Program $ 75,000 $ 20,000 $ 55,000 11 W/WW: Carpenter Sewer $ 195,940 $ 195,940 $ 12 Eng: Amarillo Sidewalks $ 33,000 $ 33,000 $ 13 Eng: Gayla/Bridges Repave $ 87,500 $ 87,500 $ 14 Eng: Fannin Repave $ 101,000 $ 101,000 15 Eng: McKinney Sidewalks $ 80,500 $ 80,500 16 Eng: South Central Repave $ 82,500 $ 82,500 17 Eng: E. Hickory & Ruddell Repave $ 167,000 $ 167,000 18! Non-Profit: Fairhaven- Improvements $ 34,000 $ 34,000 TOTAL FUNDING RECOMMENBEB $ 1,893,575 $ 1,129,810 $ 539,000 $ 668,087 ~Shaded requests are HOME eligible activities * CDAC recommendation: $15,000 for acquisition & rehab & $63,300 for down payment and closing costs. HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 200012001 FUNDING CDBG GENERAL BALANCE AGENCY REQUESTED FUNDS FUNDS NOT FUNDED $163,472 (FY 2000 HS Cap) (FY 99 Funded) AIDS Services $15,000 $9,000 $0 $6,000 Boys & Girls Club $14,796 $12,600 $0 $2,196 CASA $12,000 $0 $8,000 $4,000 Communities in Schools $34,946 $0 $0 $34,946 Community Food Center $3,000 $0 $3,000 $0 Denton City/County Day School $26,000 $0 $26,000 $0 Denton Co. Children's Adv. Ctr $20,000 $0 $9,000 $11,000 Denton Co. Friends of the Family $40,000 $0 $36,000 $4,000 Denton Co. MHMR (ASAP) $13,732 $3,472 $10,260 $0 Denton Co. MHMR (SIERRA) $13,560 $0 $9,000 $4,560 Denton Co. Substance Abuse $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 Denton Family Resource Center $13,868 $0 $7,650 $6,218 Denton Housing Authority $12,380 $0 $0 $12,380 Fairhaven (housekeeping) $9,500 $8,750 $0 $750 Family Health Care $27,500 $25,000 $0 $2,500 First Texas Council of Camp Fire $10,000 $0 $0 $10,000 Fred Moore Day Nursery $38,000 $0 $38,000 $0 HelpNET $30,000 $0 $22,500 $7,500 HOPE $30,000 $30,000 $0 $0 Interfaith $17,250 $17,250 $0 $0 PARD - ASAS $30,860 $15,000 $0 $15,860 PARD - MLK - Kings Kids $25,097 $19,800 $0 $5,297 PARD - Owsley Summer Playgroun $17,998 $12,600 $0 $5,398 REACH $5,000 $0 $4,500 $500 Riding Unlimited $4,000 $0 $0 $4,000 RSVP $10,000 $0 $7,380 $2,620 Salvation Army $20,640 $0 $15,000 $5,640 Sickle Cell Disease $7,500 $0 $4,500 $3,000 SPAN $29,000 $0 $29,000 $0 Special Olympics Texas, Denton D $10,000 $0 $0 $10,000 TTRIPS Si O,OOO $0 $0 $t0,000 TVVU CARES $15,000 $10,000 $0 $5,000 FUNDING RECOMMENDED BY SOURCE $571,628 $163,472 $229,790 $178,366 TOTAL RECOMMENDED FUNDING $393,262 Official Minutes Community Development Advisory Committee Meeting March 9, 2000 8:30 a.m. Community Development Conference Room Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: Pat Colonna, Sondra Ferstl, Peggy Fox, Ann Hatch - Chair, Jean Ellen Rogers, Barbara Stinnett - Vice Chair, Harry Bell, Diane Crew Luisa Rodriguez-Garcia, Barbara Ross The meeting began at 8:35 a.m. Ann Hatch, Chairperson asked members if there were any corrections to the minutes of March 2. No changes were made. Jean Ellen Rogers moved approval of the minutes as written. Sondra Fersfl seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously. The members discussed the funding requests. Luisa Rodriguez-Garcia indicated that she was finished tallying the members' project rankings and would pass out that information. Members also reviewed a suggested funding allocation sheet provided by Ms. Rogers. Ms. Hatch asked if funding for Human Services had already been set aside from the available funding. Ms. Ross and Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia stated that the 15% had already been set aside and was not included in the funding to be allocated by the committee. Ms. Rogers moved that the committee recommend funding of $78,300 to the Denton Affordable Housing Corporation. This is the amount required by law to be provided to Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO's). Ms. Hatch asked if the committee wanted the figures on the flipchart. Ms. Ross suggested that $10,000 to $15,000 be set aside to be allocated to DAHC projects that might include only City of Denton proceeds funding and not down payment assistance. Ms. Ross added that she had spoken with Jane Provo, executive director of DAHC, regarding this. To get projects on the federal information system and get credit for them, at least $1,000 in new HOME funding would need to be included. Ms. Ross indicated that the $10,000 - $15,000 could be used to ensure all projects using recycled City of Denton funding will show up on HUD's information system. CDAC members agreed to set aside $15,000 for acquisition and/or rehabilitation of units that would not include down payment and closing cost assistance. Ms. Ferstl asked if the portion that goes for CHDO operating costs is mandatory. She noted that she would prefer all the $78,300 be spent on projects and not operating. Ms. Ross explained that the grant allows 5% to be used for CHDO operating but it is not mandatory. It was noted that the 15% set aside for projects to be developed, owned or sponsored by CHDOs is mandatory. The members agreed to fund DAHC at $78,300 for down payment, closing cost, acquisition and renovation of units in Denton. Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia passed out the committee's rankings and noted that they were sorted highest to lowest score. She stated that some did not have a response from everyone and that she divided by the number of responses received. Ms. Rodriguez reviewed the rankings. Ms. Ferstl noted that the Fairhaven tenant-based rental assistance was for a two-year period and it could be cut back to one year if needed. Ms. Rogers asked if it has always been funded for two years. Ms. Ross indicated that it has been funded for three years. The initial allocation was for a one-year contract. The last time Fairhaven TBRA was funded it was for a two-year contract period. Ms. Rogers indicated that Fairhaven would not come back and request assistance next year. Barbara Stinnett reiterated that Tonia Rollins stated it could be cut in half and she could request again next year. Ms. Rogers indicated that she felt perhaps Fairhaven's capital improvement request could be cut but not the rental assistance. Ms. Ross stated that the rental assistance is also available to persons living outside of Fairhaven. There are 8 vouchers for elderly and 5 for disabled. Some of the recipients live at Fairhaven and some do not. Peggy Fox asked if they should take a vote. Ms. Hatch noted that the committee had assisted previously with capital improvement projects at Fairhaven. Ms. Hatch suggested that based on the rankings, they should look at homebuyer assistance next. Members agreed that the Homebuyer Assistance Program should be funded as requested. Ms. Hatch asked members about funding for the Home Improvement Loan program. This program funds rehabilitations and reconstructions for low-income homeowners. Ms. Fox indicated that this program serves a major need. Ms. Fox added that this program is important to maintain affordable housing for the community. Members agreed. Ms. Hatch moved on to the Rental Rehabilitation program. Ms. Rogers indicated that this is one area where she would be willing to cut to make the numbers work. Ms. Fox indicated that she had a problem with the fact that the money is there but for some reason the property owners don't take advantage of the program. Ms. Hatch stated that there was a balance of $14,000 in the program account. She indicated that perhaps the request could be reduced by that amount down to $52,000. Ms. Colonna stated that she felt persons who owned rental property should be able to make needed repairs themselves. Ms. Ross indicated that sometimes there are elderly women who use rental units as a source of income and noted that the purpose of the program was to increase rental housing availability to help low-income tenants. Ms. Stinnett asked why people don't apply for the funding. Ms. Ross stated that staff would continue to get the word out. Ms. Ross mentioned that Councilman Young has been helpful by telling people about the program. Some of the owners who have contacted the City were not residents of Denton. The program is set up to provide assistance only to Denton residents. Ms. Ross also noted that some of the problem might be the caps on owner income. The old rental program had no caps. Ms. Ross indicated that perhaps under that program, individuals or organizations were assisted that really did not need the assistance. Now she feels that program has some reasonable income caps on owners. They don't have to be low-income but they wouldn't be high-income individuals either. Ms. Fox noted that if the code enforcement officials would put pressure on the property owners to improve these properties, they might come in for assistance. Ms. Ross stated that a program of inspections and enforcement will begin soon but it would cover only multifamily units, not single-family rentals. Ms. Ross stated that the previous program spent a lot on single- family rental property. Ms. Hatch asked if the program could specify single-family. Ms. Ross stated that the program provides funding only on single, duplex, triplex and fourplex units. Ms. Hatch asked the committee to consider the Emergency Repair Program. Ms. Ferstl pointed out that they haven't touched last year's funding yet. Ms. Ross noted that Gordon Meredith stated that he felt the program would have less than $20,000 at the end of the program year. Ms. Hatch noted that Mr. Meredith indicated that repair cap had gone from $3,000 to $5,000 so they could afford to repair or replace damaged roofs. Ms. Rogers stated that one good hail storm could wipe out a lot of the funding. Ms. Ferstl indicated she would like to see the funding reduced. She was interested in paving some streets. Members agreed to reduce the funding for the Emergency Repair Program to $20,000. A discussion on the Demolition Program began. Ms. Rogers was concerned that the demolitions would not take place as quickly as planned. Ms. Fox pointed out that there were a lot of properties that need to be demolished. Ms. Rogers noted that the program currently has $83,000 in unexpended funds. Ms. Ross stated that Ms. Bateman indicted that they wanted to take down 40 units over the year. With an average of about $3,000 per structure, they would need about $120,000 to complete that number. Ms. Colonna stated that the average number of structures being demolished each year is about four per year or so. Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia gave the committee some information on the average cost of demolitions. Ms. Colonna stated that this was a major concern regarding the residents of Southeast Denton who attended the public hearing. Ms. Stinnett agreed that the demand is there but that the system breaks down when you try to figure out who owns the property. Ms. Hatch mentioned the trouble when trying to demolish an historic structure. Ms. Colonna mentioned a bum out on her street. Ms. Ross indicated that there has been an increase in personnel and perhaps that will help to carry out condemnations more quickly. Ms. Fox indicated that code enforcement had stepped up their activities. This has been brought out at the Southeast Denton Neighborhood Association meetings. Members continued to discuss the demolition program. Ms. Rogers suggested that $20,000 be provided in addition to the current balance. Members agreed. Members discussed the Carpenter Road sewer project. Ms. Hatch stated that this would be the last phase of a project that has been requested of the committee over several years. Ms. Colonna indicated that she would like to see City services extended to those who are annexed. However, she felt many of these units were rental and she would not want to assist owners who should upgrade their own property. She felt that if they were homeowners it would have been a top priority. This project will increase the value of a rental property owner's investment. Ms. Rogers indicated that these properties were annexed and that the people living in them did not have a choice. She added that the substandard conditions could cause EPA to come in. It may cost the City much more than $195,000 to clean it up. Ms. Rogers mentioned the Water/Wasterwater personnel's statements regarding the fact that when it rains and the sewage backs up into the creek it creates a health hazard. She added that she understood where Ms. Colonna was coming from. Ms. Stinnett added that this was the final phase of a large project that would keep a major health problem from expanding. Ms. Hatch noted that this would not be the last time this was going to happen and that the committee should make a recommendation that the City determine how they are going to meet the water and sewer needs of those annexed into the community. Members agreed to fully fund the Carpenter Sewer project. Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia gave the committee an update on available funding based on the committee's allocations thus far. HOME is expended and there is approximately $83,000 in CDBG left to allocate. Ms. Ross stated that Adult Day Care was not going to use the $10,000 to renovate their facility. She indicated that the HAP program could use the fimding from the cancelled project. This would free up $10,000 that could be given to the HAP program so that the ctm'ent request could be reduced. Ms. Hatch asked the committee to consider the Amarillo Street sidewalks. Ms. Rogers noted that this was the Engineering Department's number one priority. Ms. Colonna stated that sidewalks are in bad shape over in that area. Ms. Ferstl stated that she still felt the committee should repave a street. Ms. Colonna stated that she did not understand why CDBG funding was used to repave streets. Ms. Ferstl stated that the Gayla/Bridges area needed repaying to finish out the project. Ms. Ross stated that there is a capital improvement program but that these may be streets that were not included in the CIP. She noted that the CIP is a citizen participation process. None of these projects would be done in the next five years unless they find another funding source. CDBG is a potential funding source. Ms. Ross indicated that CDBG has always been an infrastructure or "bricks and mortar" program where capital improvements were eligible activities. Members agreed to fund the Gayla/Bridges street repaving project. Ms. Stinnett asked if the Homebuyer Assistance Program was fully funded next year. Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia stated that she requested $421,000 and the committee granted $394,678. Ms. Fox asked if East Hickory Street could be repaved. Members agreed that the drainage project in Southeast Denton should be completed next year and the street could be repaved in the 2001-year CDBG budget. Ms. Ross offered to call Dave Salmon to ask about the timing of the street repaves in Southeast Denton. Ms. Hatch asked about the Fairhaven improvements and did the committee want to fund those. Members agreed that Fairhaven could probably request the funding from another source. The committee agreed to reduce funding to the Homebuyer Assistance and Home Improvement Loan programs by approximately $7,000 each. Members agreed to fund the following activities. Denton Affordable Housing Corp - Afl. Housing Opportunities Prog Fairhaven - Rental Assistance Homebuyer Assistance Home Improvement Loan Program Rental Rehabilitation Program Emergency Repair Program Demolition Program Carpenter Rd Sewer Amarillo Sidewalks Gayla/Bridges Repave $ 78,300 $ 87,218 $416,510 $247,020 $ 40,000 $ 55,OOO $ 20,000 $195,940 $ 33,000 $ 87,500 Ms. Ross asked the committee to provide some information regarding their decision not to provide operating/administrative funding to the Denton Affordable Housing Corporation. She stated that this would be the first year since the organization's inception that they did not receive operating funds. Ms. Ferstl stated that she did not want to fund operating for any agency. Members discussed the funding for DAHC. Ms. Ross stated that DAHC's contract allows 10% of program proceeds to be used as administration. This is what the HOME program allows the City to do. Ms. Ross noted that she wasn't aware that they were also taking the profit off of the sale though she noted this was a very small amount. DAHC does not always make a profit off of the homes they sell in Denton. Ms. Ross also asked that if Council wanted to set up a request for CHDO proposals she would suggest that the proposal be for acquisition, renovation and down payment assistance rather than just down payment assistance. Ms. Colonna stated that the assessment stated that more housing funds were needed and that DAHC is doing this type of work. They are the only agency doing the activities that the assessment stated were priority needs. Ms. Stinnett indicated it would be good to have more than one agency doing these types of projects. Ms. Ross indicated that future contracts would include minimum citizen participation requirements. She added that staff had previously attempted to get more stringent requirements in the contract but due to agreement necessary to go forward on the Mockingbird project these requirements were dropped. Attached and incorporated as a part of the minutes is the committee's ranking of submitted projects/programs. Members discussed the timing of the public hearings and approval by City Council. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m. 10 Unofficial Minutes Human Services Committee Meeting March 20, 2000 - 6:30 p.m. Community Development Conference Room Members present: Staff present: Betty Tomboulian, Bettye Myers, Wallace Duvall, Carol Brantley, Kent Miller, Peggy Kelly, Elinor Hughes, Teri Rheault, Mae Nell Shephard, James McDade Barbara Ross, Dan Leal, Anita Ferguson The meeting was called to order by Wallace Duvall at 6:35 p.m. Dr. Duvall asked if there were any changes to the March 13, 2000, minutes. Ms. Kelly stated that she had not said the sheriff's department referred patients to the SIERRA program, as stated in the minutes. She suggested the statement be changed to say that someone said that the sheriff's department referred patients to the SIERRA program. With that correction, the committee approved the minutes as written. Dr. Duvall asked if there were any staff presentations. There were none. Mr. Leal stated that when the last item on the agenda was discussed, he had some information for the committee. Mr. Leal suggested that the MHMR Adolescent Substance Abuse Program application be scored tonight, since the committee postponed scoring their application at the last meeting. Committee members reviewed the last eight applications based on the established categories of services and the scoring criteria. The following chart illustrates the consensus of the committee regarding these applications. Agency Program Priority Factor Factor Factor Factor Total Category 1 2 3 4 Score Denton Co. Adolescent Prevention - 2 30 0 50 7 87 MHMR Substance Abuse (ASAP ) Riding Therapeutic riding Enhancement-3 30 10 20 7 67 Unlimited RSVP Senior volunteer Prevention - 2 10 10 35 8 63 program Salvation Homeless shelter Basic Need- 1 30 10 50 8 98 Army Sickle Cell Sickle Cell Prevention - 2 20 8 35 8 71 Disease Disease screening SPAN Home delivered Basic Need - 1 30 10 50 8 98 meals for seniors TTRIPS Daycare Prevention - 2 30 10 35 9 84 assistance to teenage mothers TWIJ Health ~creening Prevention - 2 30 10 30 8 98 C.A.R.E.S. to low-income youth Factor 1 - Service to low-income; Factor 2 - other funding sources; Factor 3 - priority need; Factor 4 - organization capacity 11 Members discussed some items while scoring the agencies: Denton County MHMR - ASAP Ms. Kelly asked if they serve low-income clients. Mr. Leal stated that clients pay on a sliding scale. Based on their income, clients in Lewisville do not pay, and the program expects Denton clients to fall into the same income categories. Mr. Leal stated that the program in south Denton County was funded solely by the cities of Lewisville and Carrollton. Dr. Myers stated that she had been told adolescent substance abuse was a very real problem in Denton. Mr. Miller asked where low-income children would go for this service. Since this was a new program in Denton, Ms. Kelly asked if Mr. Leal could score this program, based on his experience with the SIERRA program. Mr. Leal said he would rate ASAP 7, based on the SIERRA score. Riding Unlimited No discussion. RSVP Mr. Miller stated that the agency serves all income levels. He stated that the volunteers are not low income. Mr. Miller stated that poverty was not an issue. Volunteers were from all income levels. Salvation Army Mr. Miller asked about their beneficiary or service count. He stated that the numbers served did not seem to be very high. He stated that there seemed to be a large budget, but there was a low service count. He counted 600 bed nights out of 9,000 possible bed nights. Mr. Miller asked if the shelter was not being used, or if the word is not out. Mr. Miller stated that there appeared to be a gap in the amount they are serving. Ms. Kelly stated that after the first couple months one would expect the shelter to be full. Dr. Duvall stated that they said they were almost filled every night. Dr. Myers stated that some come in for meals and go back out on the street. Ms. Kelly stated that clients are asked to attend a religious service. Ms. Hughes asked how they could be scored on desired outcome achieved. Mr. Leal stated that he was impressed on how the shelter was set up. He stated that there needed to be some improvement with them working with other agencies in town. Ms. Ross stated that it might be the nature of the organization that they have to meet standards set up by the national organization. Mr. Miller stated that the application showed they served over one thousand in January of this year. Mr. Miller suggested that, if the committee decided to fund them, their grant be set up on a draw. He suggested reimbursement be done by how many they serve. He straggles with the rules that people can only come a certain number of nights and then they are back out on the streets. Ms. Hughes stated they have empty beds, but people are turned away because they have stayed their limit. Dr. Myers, who is on the local Salvation Army's board, stated that the Dallas board was looking over the local board's shoulder constantly. Dr. Myers stated that they are trying to work on filling the shelter. The layout of the structure can cause a problem. Ms. Ross suggested that certain things be stated in the contract, if they are funded. She stated that if they could not comply with the contract, then they should not accept the money. Ms. Rheault stated that the rules should state that if they have the space, they should not turn anyone away. Mr. Miller hoped the Salvation Amly 12 could work in a more open way. Ms. Tomboulian asked if they could switch areas, so that if there were no women at the shelter, that the women's area could be used for additional male clients. Dr. Myers suggested that if the committee funded them, they could state their concerns that if the person has been there three nights and people are turned away, then the city could not fund them further. Mr. Miller stated that the people that had been there past the limit could be there on standby. If there was room, then they could be admitted. Mr. Leal stated that stays are at the discretion of the commander. Ms. Ross suggested the committee look at rankings and then discuss the agency further. Dr. Myers stated that she is looking for funding for a 15-18 passenger van, a program car for the shelter. The Dallas board would not approve of a "used car." Sickle Cell Disease Ms. Kelly asked why the committee made them a priority two. The committee agreed that they were not direct healthcare, but a screening organization. Mr. Miller stated their clients are not necessarily low income. Mr. Leal stated that they are doing screening, but if someone is diagnosed with sickle cell disease, they work with that person. Ms. Kelly asked about the client's income level. The committee agreed that the organization screens all income levels. Ms. Rheault asked what percentage is low income. Mr. Leal answered that 69% are low or very low income. SPAN Ms. Kelly stated that she had struggled with their application. Ms. Shephard stated several of the applications are not very well prepared. Special Olympics, Denton, Texas Ms. Kelly suggested that this organization not be approved for funding. The committee agreed not to fund this organization. TTRIPS Dr. Myers stated that the school district should be paying for the students' children's day care. Mr. Miller stated her point was well taken. There was discussion that the committee not fund them. It was stated that DISD had money available to fund this program. A vote was taken and the majority voted not to fund the TTRIPS program. TWU C.A.R.E.S Mr. Miller stated they were asking for funding for services for children in the Boys and Girls Clubs. Mr. Miller stated that their request was for a health screening process and should be priority two not one. Clients will be referred out for treatment. Ms. Rheault stated the children would not receive treatment, unless they were referred by this program. Mr. Leal stated that he didn't realize that the request was only for clients at the Boys and Girls Club. Mr. Miller stated that it was prevention, not treatment. Ms. Tomboulian stated that the children would be referred to another agency for treatment. Mr. Leal stated funds would be to help pay for a nurse practitioner. The funds would be paying for the part of her time that would be spent on this program. Mr. Miller stated that her salary was $56,000 and this request would be for a portion of her salary. Mr. Miller 13 suggested they be a priority two. It was asked where the children are referred. Interfaith, PediPlace, Cook's Children's would see these clients. Ms. Rheault stated that those agencies would not treat the children, unless they were evaluated and referred by TWU C.A.R.E.S. Dr. Myers stated they had requested funds for a different program in the past. Mr. Miller stated this was a program to watch and, if it works, it will be a big payoff for the dollars invested. Children from Owsley and Fred Moore will be transported to the Phoenix Apartments for service. Dr. Myers suggested that the history of an organization should be put in the beginning of the application. The committee agreed to change the ranking to a priority two. Mr. Leal passed out ranking sheets. Requests totaled $571,627 this year. The amount budgeted last year was $393,275. Ms. Ross stated that when she had asked about the budget this year, the city's chief financial officer stated that the next budget year was going to be tight. Ms. Ross stated that the committee would probably want to award at least the same amount as last year. Ms. Kelly asked what they were going to do about the priorities. She stated they should be used in some way. Dr. Duvall stated there are two agencies with priority three. The committee agreed not to fund Camp Fire Boys and Girls and Riding Unlimited. Dr. Duvall stated that since requests for funding were so much more than what was awarded last year, the committee might begin by looking at what agencies they funded last year and cut amounts back to what they received last year. Ms. Kelly stated that she had figured that they could keep most agencies at what they received last year. Ms. Ross suggested the committee discuss the agencies ranked over 90. Ms. Kelly suggested priority one agencies be given what they requested and priority two what they received last year. Dr. Myers stated that she did not want to exclude Denton Family Resource Center. Ms. Kelly said she could. Ms. Hughes stated that the committee was trying to do something new and would hate to see this process as being rigid. Mr. Miller stated that there is some difference in city funds and CDBG funds. CDBG funds are locked into low mod-income. Ms. Kelly suggested that many were going to have to stay at the same level as what was awarded in the past. Ms. Shephard stated that was better than not getting anything. Dr. Duvall suggested that the committee go down the list awarding the agencies the same as last year and then make adjustments in the amounts, if necessary. The committee discussed the priority one agencies and listed what they received last year to see how much could be reduced from what was requested. Ms. Tomboulian suggested splitting the difference requested from what was given last year. The committee reviewed several of the agencies and suggested funding as follows: Request Suggested Award Family Health Care $27,500 $25,000 HelpNET $30,000 $22,500 14 The committee discussed that HelpNET's application asked for a social worker for part of their funding year. Ms. Tomboulian suggested that the committee allow two-thirds of the increase over last year. HOPE $30,000 $30,000 Interfaith $17,250 $17,250 Salvation Army $20,640 $15,000 Ms. Brantley stated that the Salvation Army is only serving half the number of clients they say they are serving. Mr. Miller stated that the need is there, and he would like to encourage them to increase their bed nights. Ms. Rheault stated that by giving them more money was not going to make them change their rules. Mr. Miller suggested that a contract be written up with stipulations. Ms. Ross stated that the Salvation Army might not be getting the word out to the homeless that shelter is available. Ms. Shephard asked if they could negotiate stipulations. SPAN $29,000 $29,000 Community Food Center $ 3,000 $ 3,000 Fred Moore Day Care $38,000 $38,000 Denton City County Day Care $26,000 $26,000 Friends of the Family $40,000 $40,000 AIDS Services $15,000 $10,000 Dr. Duvall stated that Adult Day Care was included in the totals. He stated that a new program to discuss was MHMR ASAP. Dr. Myers suggested to not fund the TTRIPS program. Ms. Hughes asked why the TTRIPS program came to CDBG in the first place. Ms. Kelly explained that DISD stated that they should not pay for daycare for these children. They said they would have to pay for daycare for the staff, if they funded daycare for students. Dr. Myers stated that there is a lot of money out there for this program. Ms. Kelly asked who would be hurt, if this program is not funded. Ms. Hughes asked where the other scholarships come from. Ms. Ross stated that she thought there is state money available for some childcare. Ms. Tomboulian asked, when recommendations are given, if the committee gives their reason for declining funding for an agency to the City Council. Ms. Ross said there is a time limit at the City Council meeting. Ms. Hughes asked how many babies could be kept in day care with this grant. Infant care is extraordinarily expense. The committee voted to decline TTRIP's request. The committee discussed the MHMR - ASAP program. Ms. Kelly suggested that since it was a new program, she felt they should not receive all that they are requesting. Ms. Ross asked if they could do this program with less than what was requested. Mr. Miller suggested that they be awarded what was requested, due to their scoring. CASA was reduced to the $8,000 requested last year. Dr. Myers stated that the committee knows that TWU C.A.R.E.S could be cut to $10,000 and still function. Committee agreed to award $10,000 to TWU C.A.R.E.S. Ms. Kelly stated that the committee was getting subjective, when they scored each agency. Ms. Hughes stated that Denton Family Resource Center scored low. She said that it was the top priority for Vision Denton. Dr. Myers explained that the agency has really 15 improved with the new director. Ms. Hughes stated that building strong families was a priority. Mr. Miller asked "who is against motherhood?" Mr. Miller asked if the director of DFRC could raise the money if they were cut. The committee stated that ifDFRC was cut, the city council would award them the funds anyway. Mr. Leal stated that he scored them the way he did, because DFRC does not have funds in their budget to make it through this year. They need to raise $12,000 to make it to the end of the program year. If they don't raise the $12,000, the city would have to give the money spent back to the Children's Trust Fund. The agency's fiscal responsibility and reporting practices are weaknesses. Ms. Ross stated that Children's Trust Fund reporting is more stringent than some other agencies. Mr. Leal stated that staffhad met with the executive director and asked for written commitments to fund the agency until the end of August. He stated that they have applied for other grant funding, but haven't heard yet if it will be granted. The director feels they will have a good chance to receive the grant. Dr. Myers stated that is a service that cannot fail. Ms. Ross stated they are asking for other grants also. Dr. Myers asked if they had applied for CHIPS. Mr. Miller stated that one of the concerns he has is where will the funding come from in the future. He asked if the agency would expect the city to fund it every year. Dr. Myers stated that DFRC can't apply to United Way for funding until it has been in existence for three years. Ms. Hughes suggested that they be at least partially funded. Mr. Leal stated that reducing Fairhaven by $1,000 would not hurt the program. Dr. Myers stated she did not want to cut Fairhaven's request. Ms. Ross stated that they did not spend all their grant money last year. Mr. Miller asked the committee to deny RSVP's request. Ms. Kelly stated there are not many senior citizens services. Mr. Miller stated the volunteers go to the hospital, city offices, library, and Denton Good Samaritan, etc. He stated that it is not a poverty agency. He explained that RSVP is not an agency that is vital. The senior citizens would still volunteer. Ms. Shephard suggested reducing them, but not denying them. Ms. Tomboulian suggested they reduce all agencies scored below 80 by 10%. Dr. Duvall stated that RSVP has a thousand volunteers that they need to keep up with. They have a small staff. He stated that $8,000 is not a lot of money and the county may not be giving money to them next year. Mr. Miller stated that their request is for salaries. Dr. Duvall suggested they be awarded what they received last year. Ms. Kelly suggested 10% be cut from agencies which scored below 70. Ms. Tomboulian suggested that they not cut the Owsley program. Mr. Leal stated that the Boys and Girls Club runs at Owsley from 3 p.m.- 7 p.m. The Owsley Summer Playground program runs from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Mr. Miller asked what would happen if Friends of the Family was dropped to $36,000. Ms. Tomboulian stated that they do get funding from other sources. Mr. Miller stated that its service is needed, but that they do have other sources of funding. The need for services is there, but the need for city funds is not as much as some of the other agencies. The committee agreed to reduce Friends of the Family to $36,000. Ms. Kelly asked if they could talk to the city council about the committee's scoring system to explain their system of deciding. Ms. P,.heault suggested that all agencies in priority two be reduced byl0%. 16 Mr. McDade stated a lot of the children that live in Owsley leave for the summer. He felt they should reduce Owsley's and the Boys and Girls Club requests. The committee agreed to also reduce Fairhaven. Ms. Ross reviewed the committee's decisions. Mr. Leal stated that the committee had cut two Owsley programs. Dr. Duvall suggested $900 be given back to the Denton Family Resource Center. Dr. Myers suggested that if DFRC can survive three years they can apply for United Way funding. The committee agreed on the funding allocations. (See attachment.) Mr. Leal stated that the Consolidated Plan for 2000-2005 was being prepared. He asked the committee for recommendations to be included in the Consolidated Plan. Dr. Duvall suggested infant day care be included. Ms. Hughes asked for an update on what was going on with the daycare agencies. Dr. Myers explained that Denton City-County Day Care, Fred Moore Day Nursery and Denton Christian Preschool are meeting to come up with a plan and the possibility to consolidate some services. Fund raising and daily operations could be consolidated. Mr. Miller said he is struck by the efforts committee members make. San Francisco public and private agencies work hand in hand for day care. Dr. Myers stated there could be some funding from corporations. Corporations would pay for employees and buy x- number of slots for infants, which would create slots for low-income infants. Mr. Miller stated that the issue that is critical is breaking the barriers between private and public. He asked "how do we solve the problem for day care and the community? Public and private partnerships need to be formed for daycare and infant daycare." Dr. Myers asked if Denton Regional at Flow is the only corporate daycare in town. Ms. Hughes stated that it was started for people that work at night who had trouble finding care for their children during nontraditional hours. Mr. Leal asked if infant daycare was a subject to be addressed in the Consolidated Plan. The committee answered in the affirmative. Mr. Leal asked if the committee felt healthcare needed to be addressed. Mr. Miller stated that they had talked about healthcare in the past. He stated that when you talk about facilitation of collaboration you are looking at low-income health care. There is even a shortage of doctors that will accept Medicaid patients. The hospitals have huge numbers of losses on indigent care. Dr. Myers stated that they had met with representatives from both hospitals and they had talked about them writing off uncollectible accounts in the millions. Mr. Miller stated that there needs to be a breakdown in barriers, including the political barriers. Mr. Miller stated he was optimistic about something being done about this. Ms. Brantley stated that she felt healthcare should be a high priority and that the CHIPS program will help. She stated that the city needs to get behind CHIPS and publicize the program. Dr. Myers said some handholding could be done about publicity for CHIPS. DFRC could be a good source to get the word out. Mr. Leal asked the committee if the problem of homeless needed to be addressed. Ms. Ross stated that the Salvation Army was participating in the Continuum of Care Planning Committee. Mr. Leal asked if the committee would be interested in getting involved in all of these issues. He explained that these areas were noted in the Community 17 Assessment Survey. Mr. Miller asked ifHelpNET could be used as a base. Ms. Rheault stated the potential is there. Dr. Myers asked if the churches are involved with HelpNET. Ms. Hughes stated that some of the churches depend on HelpNET to do screening. Ms. Tomboulian asked if the committee would be able to increase the financial base to provide these services? She asked if there would there be some way to measure. Will the city have more money for these things? Ms. Ross stated that the committee could set some kind of funding goal. Ms. Tomboulian stated that with the increase in population in Denton, the city would have an increase in tax revenue. Mr. Miller stated that the word that captures what she is talking about is "infrastructure" of social services. Infrastructure is just as important as roads and city services. Ms. Tomboulian stated that a percentage of the city budget should automatically be allocated to human services. Dr. Duvall stated that .8 % was now being allotted from the general fund. Mr. Miller stated that the committee has not increased its funding, but has reduced the funding percentages, as compared to city budget. Dr. Myers asked how this committee would work with the other committees, like the Vision Project. She stated that folks need to know that the city is not going to take over and tell everyone what they are going to do. Ms. Ross said that the Continuum of Care planning committee, asked Mr. Leal to facilitate the committee and combine the information gathered. Ms. Hughes asked the committee to look back at the Needs Assessment. It was suggested there that there is no central place that people can get information about housing. One central source is needed for someone to get information regarding safe, affordable housing. Ms. Rheault said that was one of HelpNET's goals. Ms. Hughes suggested that next year an RFP be put out and HelpNET could bid on it. Ms. Hughes suggested that agencies be told that more RFP's will be put out next year and agencies will not continue to receive funding year after year. Ms. Tomboulian stated there was not enough time to do it for this year's funding cycle. Ms. Kelly stated that without church input, they do not know what resources are available. Ms. Ross stated that they could do a draft and send it out to committee members. If the committee feels it needs to meet about this, they can set up a date at a later time. Ms. Ross explained that there would be a public hearing on the 18th of April with a brief presentation to the city council. Staff will ask for public comments at that time. Council may request it be done at a work session. The committee agreed they need to change the application and should start early to do so. Mr. Miller suggested that a meeting be held with staff regarding the scoring system. Ms. Tomboulian stated there had been a lot of discussion regarding changing the present process. She suggested that the committee meet during the summer to designate the process and keep the council informed of any possible changes. She suggested that needs be met, rather than funding agencies. Mr. Miller stated that the committee had put the scoring process in place without meeting with the agencies. He suggested that the committee identify the needs. Dr. Duvall stated that the scoring system needs to be reviewed. Dr. Myers stated that many of the agencies have the mentality of entitlement. Many are essential, but some of the money needs to be freed up to fund other programs. 18 She hoped United Way could take certain kinds of things without government restrictions. This could free up getting new kinds of things started. The question was asked "what happens if the committee cuts a funding request." The question was answered that the city council can award the full request to the agency, they can reduce another agency or send the recommendations back to the committee. Dr. Duvall thanked the committee for all their hard work and stated that they had accomplished something. He also thanked the staff. Meeting adjourned 9:32 p.m. 19 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET April 18, 2000 Planning Department David Hill, 349-8314. Agenda Item SUBJECT - Z-99-096: (Ryan/Teasley) Continue a public hearing and consider approving 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 Due to a publication error in the agenda wording, the City Council could not take action on this application at the April 4, 2000 meeting. The notice has been revised and City Council may now take action on this request. Since the last meeting the applicant has revised the Detailed Plan (See Attachment 1) to include; · An eight (8) foot high masonry, brick or stucco faced solid wall at the end of each parking area adjacent to the single-family properties. The remainder of the fence will be 8' solid wood fence as originally proposed. · All units adjacent to the single-family properties shall be one (1) story (a reduction from 1 ½ stories). · One building has been eliminated and replaced with an 7,850 SF open space/park area. No additional responses from adjacent neighbors has been received. Opposition is 30.9 %, thereby requiring a super majority vote. ATTACHMENTS 1. Revised Detailed Plan (full size blueprints have been included in Council packets) 2. April 4, 2000 City Council Backup Respectfully submitted: Director of Planning and Development Proparod by: Lafl'y'Reichhart Assistant Planning Director ATTACHmEnt? i 1 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET ATTACHMENT 2 April 4, 20O0 Planning Department David Hill, 349-8314 Agenda No. ~ Agenda Item 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 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, 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. 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) o£ 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. Prepared by: Assistant Planning Director Respectfully submitted: Assistant Director of Planning and Development ATTACHMENT 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM Agenda Item O te.. Sub|ect: Ryan Rd / Teasley Case Number: Z-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. I 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 buffer yard · Lower density · Durability of the screen wall/fence. e 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 forthe 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 E~CLOSURE 1 ENCLOSUI~E 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM Agenda Item Date_ Sub|ect: Staff: Ryan Rd / Teasley Larry Reichhart Case Number: Z-99-096 Aqenda Date: January 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 January 26, 2000 public headng was continued to February 23, 2000 to provide time for the applicant to hold an additional neighborhood meeting to try to resolve outstanding issues. On Tuesday, February 15th, 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 February 16th. Approximately 13 neighbors, city staff and the applicants attended the meeting (See Enclosure 1). The applicant reviewed the modifications they had made to the plan including: · Three and four plexes and limiting the building height adjacent to the single-family properties to 1% stories with · No second story windows adjacent to the single-family properties · 15 foot setback to single-family properties (zoning allows t0'). · Expansion of club house pool and play area (Not required per concept plan) · 75% Masonry (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 properties (Applicant thought they would be able to accommodate this request). · No boats or RV storage in the parking lots adjacent to the single-family properties. (Applicant thought they would be able to accommodate this request). · Elevated noise levels from apartments. · Car lights shinning through fence. · 1 story height limit adjacent to single family properties · Increased bufferyard · Lower density · Durability of the screen wall/fence. Z-99-0':11 P&Z Report 9 . Ij 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. 10. Z Feb- 18-00 10: .B2A ~ ENCLOSURE P.02 February ! 7, 2000 Larry Reichhart City of Denton 215 East McKinney Denton, Texas RE: SW comer 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 lbr February 23 to March 8th so we may continue our work with the neighborhood. Golden Triangle Joint Venture 13. A~endaN0o PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ~'STAFF REPORT O ~"'. .Subject: Ryan Rd / Teasley Case Number: Z-99-096 staff: Larry Reichhart, Dev. Review Manager 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 MAP Location: The property is located at the southwest corner of Teasley and Ryan Road. Size: 9.5+ acres 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 tile 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 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. 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 t59 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-story construction height. (the applicant has limited the multi-family units adjacent to the single-family housing to l~ stories (max. 35') with no 2"d 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 I_andscape Plan) Sec. 35-176. Detailed plan information The detailed plan shall contain the followincl information: (1) Acreage. 'The acreage in the plan as sh~own 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. (~-) 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 nonresidential, the maximum total floor area. (6) Residential development. The number, location, and dimensions of all the lots, the minimum setbacks, the number of dwelling units~ and number of units per acre (density) (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 landscaping plan as required by the city's landscape ordinance. (~0) Open space. The approximate location and size of greenbelt, 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. 17. i 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. 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. = = 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. 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 commemial 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 ~ stories (35' max.) adjacent to the single-family houses with no 2nd story windows facing the single family properties. · Proposed a evergreen hedge · Willing to relocate dumpsters · Willing to rearrange open space. 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. i ENCLosuRE NO. ~N ORDINANCE 'AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,. TExAs, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN'APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF OPJ)INAMCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO. 69-1, AND AS SAID MAP ~PPLIES TO _~.~.R_O~IM~.TELY 30.3595 ACRES OF LAND SITUATED IN THE ELI' PICKETT ~UKYE~, 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 Eli. 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 record ~g~.328, Deed Records of said Count ...... e~ in_Volume 225, ~, ~uu oe~ng ali of a (called) ~.uz~ 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 R~an Road at the north- east corner of a 26.171 acre tract out of said 117.5 acre tract at~ point 1035.84 feet east said Survey; of the northwest corner of said tract and o~-~ THENC~ north 89042'49'' 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 ri having a central angle of 32024' and 00", a chord of south 17037~45,, 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 294.5 fe~t '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 89053' 'west, a distance of 1299.88 feet to' a Steel pin at the southeast corner of said 28.171 acre tract; THENCE north 00°07,4 ,, ~.~ i~ a 4 .... , 1100.57 feet to. the place of begi~ntn= nd containing in all 31.0154 acres of land, there being 0.6559 acr~ within Ryan Road, leaving a net of 30.3595 acres of land. SECTION II. Cit.?~_~.a~pr°ying.this planned development d.~-~ .... ~ . un= ~uai s~ce p&an, attached hereto, for the area designed for SF 6 use. Prior to the development of the areas designated as multifamily (MF) district and general retail (GR)'on th~ site plan attached hereto, a final comprehensive site plan shall required to be submitted and approved· as part of this ordinance in accordance with Article ll, 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 sin§lc family housing should not exceed two-story construction height. 2. Parking lot lights should be positioned away from residential buildings. 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 Zontn§ 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 human 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 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. . · CITY OF D~NTON, TEXAS ATTEST: CHAKLOTTE ALLEN~ CITY SECRETAKX CITY OF DENTON, T~S APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: DEBRAADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTOR/~EY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ~ Z-1702/PAGE 26. : -...7I / /' ENCLOSURE 3 ~, ~"'~,-99-096 (Ryan Rd. / Teasley Ln., PD-93) NORTH ROBINSON VICINITY MAP 28. Agenda Date: January 12, 2000 Scale: None Z-99-096 (Ryan Rd. / Teasley Ln., PD-93) NORTH A A ~ ZONING MAP Agenda Date: January 12, 2000 Scale: None ENCLOSURE 5 ~.99-096 (Ryan Rd. I Teasley Ln., PD-93) NORTH LAND USE MAP Texas Local Government Code 219.005 "~ comprehensive plan shall not constitute zoning regulations ~r establish zoning distdct boundaries' 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 Agenda Date: January 12, 2000 Scale: None ENCLOSURE 7 ~-~.-99-096 (Ryan Rd. / Teasley Ln., PD-93) NORTH DENTON MOBILITY PLAN MAP Freeways Primary Major Arterials ",' Secondary Major Arterials ....""........" Collectors Agenda Date: Janua~ 12,2000 Scale: None ENCLOSURE Z-99-096 (Ryan Rd. @ Teasley) NORTH 500' Notification Limits ROBINSON 200'- 500' NOTICE MAP Agenda Date: January 12, 2000 Scale: None Z-99 ,9l (Ryan Rd./Teasley) - Opp .Jition Number Street Name Comment 3009 Overlake Dr. Glenn I believe that our neighborhood will lose property value due to apartments being built. The apartments will seem 3904 Overlake Dr. Huff overbearing on our homes. I do not feel the zoning in this area is consistent. We have upscale single-family housing, mobile home lots and now you 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 Overlake Dr. OIdham 3936 Overlake Dr. Muller 3937 Overlake Dr. Carter 3941 Overlake Dr. Noto 3945 Overlake Dr. Boso 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 Overlake Dr. Goggin 3957 Overlake Dr. ' DuBois 3961 Overlake Dr. Clark 2220 Wildwood Lane LeBrun 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. i Z-99;,,96 (Ryan Rd./Teasley) - Opp, - ition ' I do not wan~'t'o 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 family. NEUTRAL Although neutral in opinion, would prefer the property for 3928 Overlake Dr. Mandviwalla single-family residential. 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. ...Jan-l~-ZO00 1Z:O4pm Frem-WINSTEAP~HREST g UINICK-3 ~- Z14-?4~-$3go~ T-aSS P.OOZ/OOZ F-gT3 ~-.~ZlNSTEAD S£CHREST &: MINICK January 12,. 2o00 VIA FAX 940/382-7923 Ed Snyder, Esq. Assistan! City Auomey City of Denton 215 Easl McIGnne~ Denton, TX 762~1 Re: PD 966 Dear Ed: As ~c discussed yestcrday,.our cliem has submiued a detailed development plan application scheduled for P&Z consideration this evening. A neighborhood meeting was held on Monday regardh~g this matter. Several of the residents expressed a !i_~ing concern due to stuffs delay in scheduling and givh~g notice of the meeting. Our client is willing zo request a postponement wnighL but I have a concern regarding thc impact of the Interim Reside~ial De,~clopmem Regulations being considered this c~ening. While our cliem's application is exempted from the current moratorium, it ~ould apparently Rtl! bc exempted from the new interim regulations. Please accept this letter as o~ reques~ that flae P&Z postpone the detailed development plan request and amend the interim regulations to exempt this application. This agreemen~ to postpone floes not waive our legal rights to object ~o, and p~otest, the correm moratorium and the imerim regulations. Please let me know how the City intends to proceed in ibis matter. Sincerely, Arthur J. Aatderson /~'~ AJA/pIg CC: Doug Power (via fax 904/349-7707) Alyson Archer (via fax 972/599-99gg) . .ODMAtPCI:X)C"g~D.,~d..L A-e,_ 1 ~ 2 S4230H 179 DALLAS HOUSTOIq MEXICO CiTY 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 trac~ in the Fi 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 intemection 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). 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. *Discussi0n*of item is included in Court ReP°rter's transcript attached to this set'of minuteS ~ (Page 224). 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. 15. *Discussion of item is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 224..). 37. C~ndcns~ItTM Page 33 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 iust south of 35 and we did continue this to our next r the owner of the [ David ~ one probably the lead on this project, tomorrow and .they hope t~ ldR. REICHHART I will sec if address the issue. Is there to address this particular, who would There appears motion to continue7 R¢ichhart? Let mc -- who would likc to like Anyone present Ail fight. present, therc be a i like to make thc continue Item our Agenda to the i meeting, of the P~. second. MR. l! It's been I to continue 8 to January 26. r 26th ..... ' Page 34 Then Agenda Item 13 is to hold a public hearing consider making a recommendation to City Council 3 regarding a detailed plan for a Planned Development 4 .District 093 e.ncompasslng approximately 13.7 agres. The 5 detailed plan proposal is for a 159-unit multi-family 6 residential development and 4.3 acres of commemial 7 development. The property is located at tho southwest 8 comer of Ryan Road and Teasley Lane. At this time, I 9 will open the public hearing and ask Mr. Reichhart to 10 provide us with the information that he has from the 11 petitioner, I believe. 12 .. - ~ Pd~IClmA~T: 'Andl again, we're'looklng at 13 "the'parcel On the southwest comer 0f Ryan Road and . 14 Teasley. This is part of PD-g3. At a neighborhood 15 meeting this week, wc had a meeting Monday night, and I 16 think by the end of that meeting some people, were feeling 17 a little rushed in the neighborhood, quite honestly, and I 18 think the developer picked up on that and just wanted 19 everybody the opportunity to understand what was being 20 proposed out here. 21 Another neighborhood meeting has been 22 scheduled for a week from tonight, Wednesday night, where 23 tho applicant will be willing to talk to the neighbors 24 again. So hc thought it would be be.st to meet again with 25 the neighbors before proceeding. And that's basically the Page 35. request tonight is to continue again until January 26th. IvlR. ENGELBRECHT: commissioners, any questions for Mr. Relehhart at this time? Ms. Gourdie. MS. GOURDIE: Actually, I do just have one question for the future. Are they filling in this pond? I guess it looks like they are. MR. REICHHART: Tho detailed plan shows they are/ffling in the detention ,- the pond. ' .MS. coUP'DIE: SO there's no flOOdway? 10 MR. REICHHART: NO. 11 MS. coURDIE: It'S just a pond that was built 12 for the cows that once roamed there? 13 MR REICHH~T: I believe so, farm pond or 14 something like that. 15 MS. coUP, Dm: Thank you. 16 -MR. EN'GELBRECHT: Mr. Rishel. 17 MR. RISHEL: There's a number of letters from 18 citizens that may want to speak. Was there a percentage 19 generated on the number of people that were opposed to 20 this? 21 MR. REI¢ItHART: AS of 5:00 o'clock tonight, 22 it's 20.4 percent. 23 MR. RISHEL: Thank you. 24 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Any other questions at this 25 time? Okay. i:In that ease~ is there anyonepresent who . · . · '.: ' · Page 36 1 would like to speak in' favo~ of this petition'at this 2 time? Anyone present who would like to speak in favor of 3 this petition at this time? In that ease, is there anyone 4 present who would like to speak in opposition to this 5 petition at this time? 6 Yes, six, if you would come down and give us 7 your name and address for the record. 8 MR. GARNER: Hi. My name is Richard Garner. 9 I live at 2321 Wildwood. And I just wanted to briefly say 10 that I am opposed to this zoning change. I feel that the 11 population density in this area is probably excessive as 12 it is. We have manufactured home parks a~jacent.to both 13 :sides of our propek'Y in questiOn here; Again, I think 14 it's tho density factor that we really don't want to have 15 in our baekyards, associating that with higher traffic 16 flows, things of that nature. And I just wanted to 17 vocally oppose this change. 18 MR. ENGELBRECHT: commissioners, are there any 19 questions of the speaker? Mr. Rishel. 20 . MR. RISHBL: ye~s. lvr-..r. Cnarner, on the wrap, 21 where do you live in relationship to the map that's on the 22 board there? 23 MR. GARNER: I'm within tho 200-foot area on 24 Wildwood which is a single street and I'm on the side that 25 is directly adjacent to tho property. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 2000 3 8. Page 33 - Page 36 CondenseltTM ~ 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. 5 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 st~i.'p centgr of commercial property and ' 8 ' the rest of it is mobile homes; is that correct? 9 MR. GARNER: .correct. There's one strip 10 center 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 MiL 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 MiL 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 C~unercial presently. That's my understanding. MR. RISHEL: And arc you wanting tho things that could go into Light Commercial? MR. GARNER: Yeah, such as maybe an office budding, a professlonaI building, schools, public building, something of that nature. Basically, what we're trying to avoid is tho hustle and bustle of a seven-day, 24-hour development in our baekyards. We were told by tht cl~velop, er this would b~ a single-story development, obviously, for privacy issues. I think an apartment complex would certainly destroy that privacy. Most apartments that I've ever seen are two levels or more. So that's another ConCern.: But we were -; fr6ms0me :of the: people I've talked to and I can't represent all of them but maybe like an office building or some scenario like that. MR. mSI~L: AS you look at the office building that's immediately to the east of that site on Robinson Road, what percentage of that strip center would you say is occupied at this time? MR. OARNEP~ Vd make a wild guess and say mayb~ tea percent. MR. RISHEL: That's what I was tMnklng. Okay. Thank you very much. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 · '" ' ,Page 39[ MIL MOP-ENO: YeS. I wonder if Mr. Donaldson ' I or somebody would c0nf'mn the present zoning. Our backup ] says it's sinl~le-family. This is on pal~ 6 as of [ S~t~nl~r of '96. MIL DONALDSON: Tho subject site is within ~-p~ which has ten acres of multi-family use~ and four acres of general retail uses or office - I'm sorry, commercial useS. : i M~. REICHHART: 'rt~ slt~ in/lUeStiOn, I've ' hlghllghted it with the orange. The multi-family portion is here. Thc area surrounding t~s, this whole parcel was originally part of or is part of PD-93. At the time of the cooccpt plan app/0val, we had general retail, multi-family at 17 units per acre, and then single-family. And at the same time th~ ordinance was approved, thn detailed plan for the single-fam/ly was approved. The single-family is constructed at this tknc. MIL ENGELBP,~CHT: Are ~ any Other queStions, Commissioners? Thank you, Mr. Garner. Appreciate you coming. M~. OARh'V~ Thank you, sir. MR. I~GELBP, ECHT: IS there anyone else present who would lLke to spcnk in opposition to this petition? Anyone else present to speak in opposition to the petition? All right..~Commissioners, are there other 1 queStions for staff at this time? 2 MS. GOURDI~ YeS, please. 3 MR. EI~GELBRECHT: MS. Gourdle. 4 Ms. OOURDIE: Thank you. I would, when this 5 comes forward, I would like to know, w6 know Ryau Road is 6 an impossible road, we know Teaslcy is fast and then slow 7 through that area. I would just like to have intensity g 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 houses are coming on-line. And how feasible 11 it is to have such a -- I mean, 350 bedroom units, that's 12 Pretty intense usage, I think, of tho nine acres of land.. 13 ' And then the commercial development, which I'm. Seeing up 14 tho street is more intense then was told at the meetings, 15 just out of tho reality chcck. So I'djust like to know 16 what would happen in thls aren if this really went in, if 17 you could do that for us - me. Thank you. 18 MIL ENOELBRECHT: Did yOU want to make a 19 comment, Mr. ReiehharO 20 MR. REICHHART: I would just recommend that we 21 pass that on to tho applicant to provide that information 22 and we'll revlow it. We're not going to do a traffic 23 impact analysis. 24 MS. OOURDIE: All right.' Thank you. 25 MR. I~GELBREtmT: commissioners, any other Y 12 2000 ., ' -, . : P_age 37.; Page 40 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ~IANLIAR , . , ..... ~.~.-.=~: ~,.;~.., CondensoltTM Page 41 I questions? I have a question. I do not sec in the 2 multi-family any sort of recreational anything for the 2 3 apartment complex residents. I don't see a swLraming pool. 3 4 I don't see a public joint building, nothing. 4 5 MR. REICHHART: If you look in -- I know it's 5 6 this area of the detailed plan. 6 7 MIL ENGELBRECHT: Right. 7 8 ' ' ,MR. REICHHART: There was an area identified ' 8 9 as either leasing and reCreation and as potential uses. I 9 10 think it was swimming pool, tennis club, and something 10 11 ¢ls~. 11 12 MIL ENGELBRECHT: Right. Okay. Basically, 12 13 they're suggesting that they would offer that space for 13 14 lease to someone. 14 15 MR. REICHHART: I think that would be the 15 16 leasing offices, you know, like an apartment where 16 17 someone's there renting out the -- and we can let the 17 18 applicant speak on that but I think that's -- 18 19 MR. ENGELBRECHT: okay. Whenever they come 1 20 forward, we eau. 20 21 MR. REICHHART: We'll pass that on to them 21 22 that that's a concern. 22 23 MR. ENGELBRECHT: AU right. Would you 23 24 briefly desoribe the buffer between the single-family 24 25 -residential and the multi-family?. . 25 I MR. REICHHART: That was one Of the major 1 2 concerns or topics brought up at the neighborhood meeting 2 3 and that's one of the things that the applicant is going 3 4 to speak on at the nclghbo[hood meeting to pursue 4 5 different alternatives, from what they told me. What is 5 6 proposed right now, there's a ten-foot setback between the 6 7 property llne and the building line of the proposed 7 8 buildings. And it seemed like at the end of the meeting 8 9 that there would be a'landscaping hedge, evergreen, live 9 10 evergreen hedge to backup to the fences that are currently I0 11 there. And that ~emed the direction that everybody was 11 12 : going in, talking a brick Wall, an additional wooden. . ~ 12 13 fenee. A lot ~f different altemati~cs were · ' 13 ' 14 investigated. But there's ten foot between the property 14 15 line and the building. 15 16 MR. ENGELBRECHT: A question, haven't we 16 17 typically in the past required the more dense development 17 18 to provide the solid screen such as the brick wall, the 18 19 fence, or the whatever? 19 20 MR. REICHHART: We have done that. 20 21 MR. ENGEL~RECHT: And another question I have 21 22 is in regard to thc screening between the multi-family and 22 23 the commercial usa, retail Use. As I understand that, 23 24 that is a vegetative screen? 24 25 .. ~ l~cm-~mT: Right. 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 2000 · Page 43 MIL ENGELBRECHT: Is'that what that is? MIL REICHHART: That's what they're proposing. MIL'ENGELBRECHT.- Okay. I'm not asking you to provide this now, but I would like some diseussien by staff when this comes back with regard to the issue of security and safety where we have a commercial like this. abutting multi-family and there's no, in essence, there's the ability for c0ntinuo~S pass-through pedestrian traffic all along the area. Is that a good idea frbm a security perspective? Ifnot or it doesn't matter or whatever. But I would like some discussion on that. Any other -- okay, Mr. Moreno. MIL MOP. EgO: I'm sorry, but I'm still confused . on this property's history. It's now PD-P3 that included single-family development, multi-family development, and general retail.. And the single-family portion has been built-out. Is that what I heard? MR. REICHHART: Correct. MR. MOP, ENO: And now the applicant is seeking multi-family and commercial. MIL REICHHART: And commercial, the remaining vacant parcels. · .MR. MORENO: And tell me again tho distinction between what they have now and what they want· It sounds · almost the same.- M~ ~U~ICH~a~T: It is, but it's the detailed Plan portion of a PD. okay? .It's tl~ final step in tho zoning process for tho Planned Dovclopment, which is basically tho slto plan approva! is what the Planned Development -- tho uso of what they're proposing is consistent wlth thc cone~t plan. M~ MORENO: okay. So tl~y'vc already got the multi-fnmily and thc commercial in place. Is that what rm hearing? M~ RE~CHHART: ?h~ concept plan identifies those as thc two additional, the remaining uses, correct. · M~.MOR~O! okay~ Thank you. ' MR. ENOELBRECHT: Mr..McNeil1. ' ' ' MP~ MCNEILL: That was really my question. From what I read here, they're not asking for anything that hasn't already been -- they're just continuing in the normal process to have approved what was already approved in th~ concept plan. M1L REILT-IHART: COrr~t. MR. MCNEILL: SO they're not asking for anything other than what's normal? MIL REICHHART: COITgCt. MR, MCNEILL~ Tkank you. MR. ~OELBRECh'T: Any Other quesfious, Commissioners, commen~s or a motion to continue? Page 44 Page 41 - Page 44 40. CondcnseltTM 5 6 7 8 9' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 I 21 24 Page 45 MR. mSHEL: ! make tl~ motion we continue Z-99-096 to o~ lan~ 26~ ~ m~fing of P~. MS, ~PL~ ~o~d. ~ ~OELB~: It'S ~n mov~ and s~ond~ ~ continue ~ lan~ 26~. Disemsion? Vo~, pl~se. Motion c~ ~an~ously. District. ask s MS. RAGLAND: I am ~e small area a proposal for tho District. If and Chairman My name is Dedra Ragland. You have before you Street [ by City Council. Tho plan contains a for area-wide improvements in tho Fry Street area. have a copy of tho plan and those recommendations. want to point'out, there were two basic recommendations and Page 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 '8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 that district! plan, Council, it was areas. I would like eliminate the there was a lack opportunities have in place. to have And as I mentioned, you do havca , District I that 2 this. 3 4 5 Corporation. 6 involves of tlao 7 Ught now, there is 8 $250,000.00 being : 2000-2001 cIP package. 9 In conjunctior ~roposal, area 10 property owners are in the City 11 to District. This 12 'Pm would allow them with additional funds for 13 [ beyond what the City 14 15 Tho include lfi the creation ' District which 17 district would 18 19 location ¢ 20 of 21 that 22 that 23 24 There's also an ordinance to prohibit open 25 glass codtalners within this district. Page 47- the Glass lot within the ~ The -t City recommendation may have acent and surrounding though that there were a was a recommendation to . the merchants felt expansion parking they were looking maybe s owners. So they property owners and between th~ really don't own the property in wMch arc located on. 'As I mentioned, Council [ ask staff to come up with some alternative scenarios to the parking Wc looked at thre~ diffc~nt scenarios. The ~516 would allow expansion. , Street dis~ct. 1 2 3 ratio i 4 spaces e 5 6 7 tho mexchants 8 If we reduce thc 9 1,000, 10 and 150 Il recommends elimlnatinl 12 13 14 requirement 15 purposes. 16 17 how it would 18 19 20 21 on aveacagi tho plan wMch would be 100 ~f 22 a couple of notices wltMn the 200-foot 23 notification which only represents about 2.31 percent ~ .... 24 oppOsition. Wc have identified four options for 25 Commission to review. Wo are recommending Option 1 whlch PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 2000 Page 45 - Page'48 41. P{anning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 26, 2000 Page 2 of 3 ppmval of the Final Plat of the Preserve at Pecan Creek Section A, Phase II lng 24.861 acres. (FP-99-125, The Preserve, Section A, Phase II) d.. approval of t,he Final Plat of the Preserve at Pecan Creek Section I 30.042 acres. (FP-99-078, The Preserve, Section G, Phase I)' " e. Con: ' approval of the Final Plat of the'Preserve at Pecan Creek; ' II being .915 acres. (FP-99-127, The Preserve, Section G, Phase II) Consider appl I, The 25.361 The property is correct a scrivene Motion by Susan Apple ar fl-4c, d and e. *Discussion of item is include~ (Page 2). Motion carries 7-0. of an Amending Plat of the Final Plat of Windso~ Ridge is generally located south of Windsor and ~as Planned Development (PD-86) zoning district. (AP-00-003, Windsor Ridge, Larry by Perry McNeill to approve Court Reporter's transcript attached. Phase , of the plat is to excluding f minutes PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING Continue a public hearing .amend SeCtion 1(5, 8.and. ' amendment to the ordinance to maintaining trees greater than 2 inch~ southern property bufferyard, tree and screening be removed. (Z-99-071, 2446 Lillian Motion by Salty Rishel and seconded by to City Council. *Discussion of item is included in (Page 8); Motion carries 6-1, Elizabeth GoL making a ~e removal endation to City Council to The applicant has requested an' 15 foot bufferyard, relief from ~d 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 to this set of minutes 7. Continue a pub ~..regarding a Detailed Streets north of zoning district. A Thomas B. cons!der making a 3r0ximate!y 10 acres property is located in the Plann .S.D. education facility is proposed. City Council' Mulkey and Audra 9 (PD-9) PD-9 Detailed Plan, Motion by Salty to (Page and seconded by Perry McNeill to recomr is included in Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes Continue a public heating 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.tra~script 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. to all a public to 0.24 acres, commonly known as 1504, 1506 and 1508 N. Elm, from an ~ Zoning district to a Planned Development (PD) zoning district. The proposal is and residential uses on the property. (Z-99-083, 1504-151 Elm, Larry Motion b~ City Council. *Discussion of item is ir (Page 144). Motion carries 7-0. and seconded bY Salty Rishel to ', i in Court Reporter's transcript With conditions to this set of minutes 10. Hold a public hearing Detailed Plan encompassing (PD-173) zone district. The Ranch Road (formerly Crawford open space/golf course and Reichhart) a re to City Council regarding the acres within a Planned Development located at the northeast corner of Robson ~lorence Road. A residential development with (Z-99-102, Robson Ranch, Larry Motion by Perry McNeill and .to City Council.. ' *Discussion of item is' (Page 156). Motion carries in court RePorter's transcrip! apProval With conditions "' ~d to this set of minutes PUBLIC; 11. Hold a rega~ ANNEXATION AND ZONING · Ig and consider making a recommendation to the ~ncil 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. 2 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18. 19 20 21 22 14 15 16 17 18 19 90 21 22 23' 24 25 CondonsoItTM Page 65 see our school board do better planning when they pick school sites. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Any other comment? I' like to say I will be voting I recognize that this a courtesy I do want to commend the C!ty, working and : ~ take into acCOunt'all tho ;'of the major OneSl I ; we're' s Audra is turned into basically, is wha~ Mingo Road and that will disburse thai district has done a good terms of managing the 1 the parent traffic by I ~in~mum will go up to And I think chool whoever designed this, in and staff traffic and on two sides, will I believe. -- ; were some retention ponds. those, that I t district to ensure that safety Mr. t want to make a comment? MR. RISHEL: I just wanted to echo your I think we've seen an. ongoing 'and tho neighbors we have a And be . make sure, . that in an expeditious manner. ;tho history that WO'Ve motion. MR. All r even to zero. as I'd earlier, we will be taking .) At this time, we will public hearings this evening~ We'll move · -onto Agenda Item N°, 8 which is to continue a public .. hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding a detailed plan for Planned Development 93 enenmpassing 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 comer of Ryan Road and Teasley Lane. This is a continuance of a previous public hearing. I believe we're going to have staff report at this time. MIL ?OWELL: MI'. Chairman, Commissioners, we have included in your packet a staff report for thls appllcati6n. As shown on the map, it is located at the · ' Page 6~ 1 intersection of Teasley and Ryan Road. The application is for a 159-unit multi-family residential development 3 comprising bf 9.4, plus or minus, acres. The staff has 4 recommended or asked that this item be held to your next 5 meeting. The reasons for that are three-fold. One, there 6 is a pending action or possible action by City Council to. 7 look at initiating a rezoning of this property because, 8 through th6 moi-~torium ordinance, it }vas.deemed that this 9 development is inconsistent with the general plan. Two, 10 we're not quite sure of what tho effects of the interim 11 regulations not yet approved would have on this ordinance. 12 And thirdly, we'd like to understand or research better 13 what kind of conditions that we could recommend be placed 14 on this property so that it would be in conformance with 15 the general plan. 16 Because of those reasOns, we -- staff has 17 asked that this ltem be held over to your next meeting. I 18 don't know if, Ed, you 5rant to say anything further?. 19 MR. SNYDER: NO, that's fine. 20 MIL POWELL: we'll answer any questions you 21 might have. I'd be happy to go through the staff report 22 in Mr. Relchhart's absence or answer any questions you 23 might have. 24 1~. MCNEILU yeah, I'd like to hear the staff 25 report. · ' · · Page. 68 I Mi~ ~O~.LtmF. CH'r: okay. Commissioners, yeah. 2 Okay. Let's go ahead and hear the staff report. I, also, 3 I'l!just interject now, I just received a number of cards 4 from individuals who wish to speak on this Agenda item. 5 ~ POWELU AS I mentioned, this application 6 is for a detailed plan for multi-family. In your backup, 7 th~ is a sit~ plan or a plan, a detailed plan, that does 8 show the location of parcels. You'li also not~ that the 9 commercial area located along Teasley is also indicated on 10 tl~ plan in your packet. The commercial portion is caught 11 under ti~ non-residential moratorium and we do have a 12 revised plan that tho applicant has submitted that takes _. 13 away or takes off t~at commercial, so that·cannot b~ part 14 of your diseussian or consideration tonight. 15 Tho conditions on the concept plan, which is 16 Ordinance 8568 was at th6 multi-family that abuts a 17 single-family to the west and to the south should not 18 exceed two-story construction height. Tho applicant has 19 llmbed the multi-family units adjacent to the 20 single-family housing to one-and-a-half stories or a 21 maximum of 35 fl~t with no second story windows facing ti~ 22 single-family prolxa'ties. Parking lot lights should he 23 positioned away from residential buildings. A not~ to 24 ibis effect has been and should be included on tho plans. 25 Scrc~nlng shall bo provided to protect tho Page 65 - Page 08 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2000 44. 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 2O 21 22 23 24 25 · ~CondcnscIt TM ~ Page 69 I multi-family housing from commercial retail activities and I ~ PoW'~u 'this is for a detailed plan wl~cl~- 2 also buffers single-family housing from multi-family 2 is th~ second part of th~ Planned D~olopmcnt precis 3 developments. The proposed ~-eening should I~ indicated 3 whea~ such'i~erna can be reviewed by you and the City 4 on thc general landscape'plan. And tho~gh I wasn't at thc 4 Council. 5 neighborhood meetings, it's my understanding that the 5 MS. APPL~ Thanks. 6 iSSUe of buffering this development from tho existing 6 Ma. ~,~o~P.~CaX: Mr. MoNdlI. 7 houses adjacent to it was one of~ I guess, the most 7 ~a~ MC~r~Lt: xhls is not anotber stop, ~s 8 ' concem to the adjoining property 0wners~ Wedohavea 8.-'isthCfinalsteplntbeabProvfill~rocess, laltnot7 : 9 number -- I have received a number of letters of ' 9 . M~. P°WELt~ X~t is' correct, tbe second and opposition to this request. Cmrently, those total over 10 final. the 20 percent for the adjoining property owners within 11 M~ MC~W~t.C: YeS. So, actually, it's tl~ 200 feet. 12 third step. There's concept, d~volopment, and then thc Staff finds that the detailed plan does have 13 final detailed plan. 'And so this is not a zoning change. all tho elements required to complete an application, make 14 Th~s is simply providing thcadditional information a complete application. But there's a number of issues 15 required un&r our ordinances for th~ developer to go ' that still exist including tho buffering and the design 16 forward with ~s plan. characteristics of this project that would make it 17 M~ SN~O~ rll answer that question. Thc compatible with the existing single-family residences that 18 Planned Dcvel0pment process under our ordinances, although surround it and to make sure that it is in compliance with 19 there arc thre~ steps, tl~ applicant can go from thc first thc general plan. 20 stop to tbe third step and that's what's been done lmm. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Yes, We do appear to have at 21 Each of those stops is treated as a separate zoning ease least one question. Ms. Apple. 22 with tl~ required notices going out and public hearings MS. APPLE: Just for a polnt of clarification 23 and tho protest rulo. Thatls oneofthoissues, thatis and I guess informational purposes, it's my understanding 24 one of thc ~easons why wore requesting a postponement to that this is part of the Planned Development. Thc 25 give us an opportunity to como back and give you advice at · ' ' ' .. Page 70':' ..' : . '.. Pag~ deVelopment was for so many acres of single-family, su I the next meeting as to preciselY, what's your latitude in ~ 1 2 many acres of multi-family, and so many acres of retail or 3 commercial. So this is really not a change. It's just 4 .utilizing the plan that was in place. In other words, 5 this isn't something new that's coming about building 6 these apartments. It's part of the Planned Development. 7 And ff one, I guess, had looked at tho overall 8 development, they would have seen the area designated for 9 the single-family residences, the area for the 10 inulti-family, and the area for the commercial. Am I 12. M~ ~OWELD Yes.: And, in fact, in'your ' ' . 13 backup on page 14 there is, I b~lieve, a copy of the ' 14 detailed plan that shows thc single-family development 15 adjacent to this site that doe~ so. The multi-family and 16 the commercial doesn't have the details for that and 17 .that's why this pureel Or this application is coming back 18 tonight. So this was part of the larger parcel at one 19 time. 20 MS. APPLE: ! guess I just wanted to get that 21 out because I'm seeing the neighbors' concerns and, though 22 I sympathize certainly with those, I guess my dilemma 23 would be the fact that this was already in place and it's 24 just this part of it that's coming before us now so that 25 it can go forward. Page 71 I 2 discretion with regard to placing those conditions on this 3 detailed plan should you choose to. That's one of the 4 reasons why we're asking for it to be posgoned. But, 5 yes, this is a Planned Development.' This is the secend 6 step that they've taken. And if this is approved, this 7 would be the final step in thc process. 8 MR. MCNEILL: Ail right. I guess one of the 9 questions I'd have then, I mean, this is -- seems like 10 this is tho second or third time that this is, since I've 11 be~ on the Commission, that this has come forward. And 12 :why would it just occur this week that we needed to delay '13 it?i What°CCurredthisweekto.s~Y~ W~ll, gee,: We ought 14 not to proceed? We've got additional reqnix~ments hero. 15 I guess I don't understand why we would want to delay 1{5 this. 17 · MP~ SNYDEm well, last night the City Council 18 had a meeting and at that meeting, this was one of two 19 projects that they looked at. 20 MIL MClX~ILL: Behind closed doors, as I 21 recall. 22 MR. SNY~ER: No, it Was not. It Was a work 23 session. 24 MI~ MCNEILL~ It Was a work session? Okay. 25 MR. POWELL: But ][ do believe that tl~s is t~e PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 200n 45. Page 69 - Page CondonsoItr~ ,, Page 73 I in-st 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. MCNEILL: But this was iii process, so does 5 it fall under the new ordinance? 6 MIL POWELL: well, that's one of the masons, 7 again, that we.would like to postpo99 it. The ordinance 8 is draftexl and, of course, we're going to discuss that 9 later this' evening: We're not sum exactly what the 10 effect of the applicability section, which could change -- 11 MR. McIqEILL'. well, I'm not a lawyer, but 12 isn't there a term here, posto facto, you can't pass 13 something ahead of me when I've got something going here. 14 It seems to me we've gut a problem if we attempt to do 15 that. What you're telling me is we may pass an ordiuanco 16 someday and it may affect this plan so we should not look 17 atthls. Is that what we're saying? 18 MR. SlqYDER: 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. 24 MR. ENGELBRECHT: MS. (}otlrdie. 25 MS. GOURDI~.: Tb~nl~ you.' The few times that · . : Page 74 1 we've seen this was becausc of the interim ordinance 2 moratorium; is that correct? It hasn't come 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 M~ DONALDSON: This is the first zoning 10 application that we've had for the multi-family portion of 11 this. 12' ' 'Ms~'OOURDm: Bfit we'v6 had this'in °ur packet 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 MR. DON~,Lo$ON: Yes, y~s. 19 MS. COURDIE: okay. 20 MR. POWELL: Yes. This it6'Ea has ~ on a 21 previous Agenda. This is a continuance from that. 22 MS. COURDIE: It looked familiar. And my 23 second question is on page 4 under number 10, open space, 24 it's got check marks to the approximate location and siz~ 25 Page 75 1 proposed use of land ahd whether -~ anyways. Where's thc 2 open space that it's nearby? I mcan, I'm very familiar 3 wlth thls ar~ and I don't know of a park being wlthln -- 4 is this what it's saying or is it mostly saying what's on 5 the property? (5 MR. POWELL: That's within tho development. 7 MS. COUP, DIE: okay. Is this property subject 8 t0'the Park Dedicati°n Ordinance? : 9 MR. POWELL~ Ye~, ma'am.. 10 MS. GOURDIE: 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 the five-aero 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 fca in lieu af at 17 the time of platting. 18 MS. COURDIE: 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 tho platting 22 process. 23 MS. COURDI~: At the platting process? Okay. 24 Thank you. 25 MR. ENGELBREcHT: MI'. Williams. · ' ' ' " Page 76 1 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I got kind of confused 2 here, so I need to ask a question of our attorney. You 3 mentioned something about the City Council lcok~ at this 4 last night in a work session. 5 MR. ShrTO~.R.' ~o, it was a special-called -- it 6 was a work session, but there was a special-called item on 7 this property and another property. 8 MR. WILLIAMS: okay. I'm getting confused 9 because it seems we don't need a Planning and Zoning if 10 the City Council is going to look at them first. Just let 11 thom go ahead and look at them all, and I can go home. 12 ' MIL SNY'DER: NO, no. The purpose of the ' 13 ,special,called meeting Was ~- let me' back up a little bit. 14 MR. WILLIAMS: okay. 15 M~ Slx'YDER: AS a part of the proposed interim 16 non-resldentiai regulations, one of the processes was for 17 the Planning staff to look at pending applications to see 18 whleh pending applications would not be consistent with 19 the new Comprehensive Plan. As a part of that, there were 20 two cases, two applications that were reviewed, that were 21 determined to be inconsistent. This happened to b~ one of 22 them. 23 MR. MCNEILL: ~etermined to be incenslstent? 24 MR. SNY~£a: ~neonslstent. And as a result of of greenbelt, open, common, or recreation areas. The 25 that, it was on last night's Agenda to review. The ' PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 200P Page 73 - Page 76 46. ~CondensoItm Page 77 I Council did not take any action. They decided to postpone 2 it until next week, February 1st, at which time -- 3 MIL WILLIAMS: SO why are we wasting our time 4 with it? 5 MR. POWELL: If I may, the action would be to 6 direct staff to look at rezoning the prol~rty which would 7 go through the process and yea would be part of that 18 'process. The activity was not to rezone the prot~rty but 9 to whether or not staff should be dixected to pu~uo that. 10 MR. SNYDER: TO bring it back to P&Z. It 11 would bo brought back to Planning and Zoning Commission 12 Now, that may or may not ever happen. The point is that's 13 one of the three reasons why we're saying to postpone 14 this. If you can just wait and see what Council's going 15 to do next week and we're only asking this be postponed to 16 your next m~ting. The other issue had to do with making 17 sure that you get tho best possible advice before you act 18 on this as to what kind of conditions you can place on 19 this detailed plan. 20 M~ WILLLa~IS: I hear what you're saying, but 21 I'm not understanding what you're saying. What do you 22 mean about -- I think you need to be a little bit more 23 specific. 24 MR. SNYDER: I'm sorry. I can't be any more 25 specific than that. · . page 78 I MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. Like I'm saying, I'm 2 trying to learn a process. Am we reviewing things after 3 thc City Council or bcfore the City Council? I guess 4 that's my bottom-line question. Because if we are 5 reviewing them after the City Council, why are we here7 I 6 guess that's my concern. 7 MR. SNYOER: well, we're just making a 8 recommendation. You know, if you want to proceed tonight 9 with this and consider this plan, that's your prerogative. 10 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Mr. RisbeL 11 MiL RISHEL: Legal staff question, was it 12' determined that it was inconsistent or was it just thought 13 that it might bo inconsistent? Was there a determination 14 made when they -- 15 MR. SNYDER: I can't -- I'd have to defer to 16 Planning staff on that. It's my understanding that there 17. was a -- that's tho reason why that case, this property is · 18 being reviewed. 19 MR. IUSHEL: Can you answ~r'that? 20 MR. POWELL: There w~ a determination that 21 this application, this development proposal could be 22 potentially conflicting with the -- or inconsistent with 23 the Comp Plan. 24 MR. RISHEL: okay. Thank'you. 25 MR. ENOELBRECh'T: Mr. McNeill. 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Ill 19 20 21 22 23 24 · -' Page 79. MR. MCNEtLL: 'I have a legal question then. ' I What happens then to this concern or direction or effort that the Cify 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. SNYDER: Well, this detailed plan, the same rules apply that always apply. Yo~ would make a reCOmmendation. It will.go on to Council. Ahd 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? MR. SNYDER: CoITeCt. MR. ENGELBRECHT: It would take that anyway beeaus~ the 20 percent rule is in effect. MR. SNYDER: Yeah, that*s correct. MR. MCNEILL: Okay. So clther way, it's going to take a sut~r-majority for this to be -- the detailed plan to be approved? MR. SNYDER: Con'~t. MR. MCNEILL: Thank you. MR. ENOELBRECHT: Arc thoro any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Powcll. Is petitioner or petitioner's n~Prescntative pr~ent? I might say, I · recognize tho staff rextuest, but it s~ancd to me to bo approprlat~ that we contlnuo through the process because tho petitioner is hero and, as well, we have some individuals who would llke to speak to the case. M~ mwn~: My name is Dale Irwin. I office at 525 South Carroll in Denton. We ar~ - tl~ Irwin Realty Group is a prospectlvo buyer or we're attempting to purchase tho property. We do not own it. Tho owners of tho pro!xaly ar, hero tonight. But I think it's already been stated that this is a part ora 3 l-aero tract that }vas zoned a Planned Dev. elopmcnt in 1985, I bollm, e. Tho first phase o{* that Planned D~velopm3nt which was, I believe, 17 acr~ has been already been built-out. Tho property was sold by tho sellers to Cholco Homea and that property was built-out and thoro ar~ approximately 95 homes or somewhere in the 90s that are already in existeaco there. And.this is, I guess, the Second phase of tho Planned D~velopment that was done at that tlmo. What we're doing at this point is presenting a site plan that we are trying to do our very best to work with the neighbors and try to como up with something that is workable, you know, for thom and ~verybody concerned. We held two nolghborhood meetings within tho 25 hst probably two weeks or maybe tlax~ weeks. We were one PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 200° 47. Page 77 - Page 8C CondensoitTM Page 81 I ~f 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 llke 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 continuance and 7. had a second neighborhood meeting. There was .a -- a~ the 8 · meetings, there wasa constderable 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 bo -- well, it 19 would bo 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 5 6 7 8 II 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 ~ .. . · 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, 2 3 Teasley Lane here. We came up with this concept thinking 3 4 that we would be met with open arms or at least favorable 4 $ reaction from the neighbors because if apartments are 5 6 going to go in there, what WOuld you like to have next to 6 7 you. And so we put a perimeter around here that is 7 8 one-stery units or one-and-a-half story units. In other 8 9 words, they're limited. The zoning Hmlts them to 9 10 two-stories around the perimeter, but we cut it down and 10 11 said, well, we would llke to propose, like, a three-unit 11 12 apartment andfoUr-units, ~raall concentratlons.of units~ 12 13 ' .one-st6ry with a maximum of one-and.a_half. Now,.what is 13 14 a one-and-a-half story? You know, the second floor would 14 15 Probably consist of a bedroom and a bath, perhaps, if you 15 16 chose to do that. But that doesu't menn that they all 16 17 will be one-and-a-half stories. 17 18 Along the same line we proposed that tho 18 19 windows in the second story or the half-story, ! guess you 19 20 could call it, would be -- there would be no windows so 20 21 that they wouldn't bo looking -- you know, the issue of 21 22 looking in my backyard would not be there. So we have 22 23 that in oUr presentation to start with. 23 24 Tho remaining buildings in tho interior part, 24 25 and keep '~ mind that this presentation -- this is ia tho 25 Page 83 Planned Devclopment~ as you all know perhaps better than I, that these are the building sites that we're illustrating~ Those are the maximum building site. Thc building, once it gets designed and we get beyond this step and, you know, the City Council passes this, wcll, then we get into the actual site design -- I mean, Planned' Development and design and so forth. But these are the maximum building Sites a~ are these around the perimeter. · But the interior buildings, we're proposing that they be no more than two stories and we can make it work doing that, also. The entrances, and I'll briefly touch on this, we worked with, I'think, the Engineering Department and tried to make them work in line with what they suggested. And the Ryan Road entrance hero lines up across from the entrance across the street hero. The entrance here going into the apartments off Tensley Lane lines up with the mobile home park entrance on Teasley Lane, which is, I think, a good traffic design we're told and that works for us. And then our entrance into thc commercial right here that's stated right there. Recreational center will be -- let me get my bearings straight -- right here. And, again, that's just a block and whexe a building would go and probably the building would be up here,, which would be our leasing ".' ' ,Page84 office, you know, where you'd probably have your office and so forth. The recreational area, the swimming pool, so forth would be in this general area. Truthfully, when we get down to it, probably this row of parking would eliminate right -- am I'm pointing that out right there, and maybe even this building, because I think we can make it work without that and then that would all be recreational area across there, if I'm making sense. But at this point, I think that there's not any point really in getting into that. Elevations that we are proposing, this just gives you a style. But Some of'the requirements'that we,re putting '6n i~ would be'a pitched ro~f With, I believe, an eight by 12, 8/12 pitch, which is, I think, in line with what the houses in the neighborhood are. We're proposing a 75 percent masonry or brick construction. We use brick mostly in our developments that we have done in the past. And, of course, this little elevation here was designed primarily for that perimeter that I was referring to. And as you can see, a one-story plan here and a story-and-a-half here, not a lot of difference between a story-and-a-half and a one as far as the height of the building. But the important point that I think is of concern and of interest to the neighbors that there are PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2000 Page 81 - Page 84- 48. 6 7 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 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -- CondenseltTM Page 87 setback. And eli tho back, We're talking about, a 15-foot~ setback.instead of 20 foot on the front. I Will point out that another way of developing this, and we came up With this plan thinking that this would probably bo better for the neighbors by ~ having, you know, a towahouse or a four-plex or a tri-plex or something next door to you and With the restrictions thg~ we've already mentigned. So .that, again -- but :- anothe~'waY of doing thls and comingup with more. green space in a way that still would bo Within the confines of the way it was originally zoned would be to build the buildings around the perimeter of the lot two-story, which is the way in wMch it was approved, and then build in the interior two and three-StOry buildings, which would, obviously, put the same number °f units on the project and give more open space. So it's kind of a six of one and a half-dozen 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 tho 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. Marla's having a baby. I've got to take her to Page 85 not any windows facing into tho backs of their properties. And this is just a typical front elevation that we uso. As far as the buffer, and I'll speed through this as quickly as I can, we heard a variety ~f different words of advice and request from the neighbors. And I think some of the neighbors wanted -- well, first of all, there's already a fence there that the original developer, which was'Choice Homes, put up. And each resident has a six-foot, i think it's a Six-foot backyard fence that' they're responsible for maintaining, and just like you would bo if you had a fence in your backyard. We're proposing to put a living hedge. That met with a lot of tbo nelghbor's approval. Some of hhom wanted another wood fence. So, you know, I don't know that there's an answer as far as making something that would fit everybody's need, but we personally like a living hedge or something that is green and looks good and so forth and there would bo. That would be the second buffer, which would bo a hedge and then the existing fence that's .already there. Then between the commercial property and tho apartment site, we would propose the same thing, another living hedge. We would propose on the commercial site, and it shows there a couple of entries, entranceways so that you could go from, you know, tho pedestrians or ·" , Page 86 peOPle that live there could travel from the apartment site to the retail, whatever develops there in the future. So it wouldn't bo a buffer or a fence to keep people out but to make a path to where they could get from point A to point B, if I'm making sense. Some of the coneems of the neighbors that came out of the two neighborhood meetings that we had and I'll hasten to say that all of tho neighbors that attended the meeting were very courteous. I think their concerns were, number one, that they probably don't want apartments in tho area, and I think there's a misunderstanding that, you know, we're trying to zone the property, The property was zoned priOr.tO their be, ing there, you know, prior to' the homes being built there. So I certainly understand ' their feelings there and so forth. They were ooneerned about the windows looking into the back of their deal and I think we addressed that by having, you know, one-story buildings.around the perimeter versus the two-story. And then, numbCr twO, agreeing to design the plans so that they would not have windows there, period. Another concern by one or two of the people was that thc buildings where the ten-foot setback, wMch is required, wcro a littio close to the fence and to their property. So with thc design that we came up With, we moved it forward as far as we could, wMch is a 15-foot 5 6 7 8 9 l0 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 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the hospi .. Win YOU do this So if tUs w ,t too well planned, well, that's tho reason. Pm blaming him. And I'll bo 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, als0. Mm LmGEr~RECHT: okay. Commissioners, any questions? There doesn't appear to bo any. Ivim IRWIN: okay. Thank you, sir. Mm ENGEL~R~CHT: Thank you. Did the owner Wish to make a statement? Okay. Actually, I'll do it this way. Is them anyone present who would like to speak in support of this appliqation? If you would give us your name and business'address, please.. Mm ANDERsON: SUm. 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 bour-andza-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 camo 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 Couueil members, to PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 200C 49. Page 85 - Page 88 CondonseltTM Page 91 Page 89 I 'postpone taking any action tonight is because if you 2 apprevc this request, which meets all tl~ City's 3 reqtth~ents and staff recommended approval when this casc 4 became tt~ p&7. two weeks ago, then that puts a littic ldnk $ into thek plans and ~ can't figure out what to do at 15 that point. So that's why ~ am asking you to delay 7 acting on this applleatlon tl~s evenhag. . s ' my of ,i*etlc d n't tUnk rve· 9 seen a situation wh~ thc developer and the neighborheed 10 were encouraged to go meet together to delay taking action 11 on a slt~ plan. And th~ concessions, tbe~ ar~ incredible 12 concessions that have been made by Mr. Irwin. 13 Particularly, putting on~-stary as part of an apar~ent 14 project next to thc single-family houses, and wl~le that 15 dchy is going on and there's tho enco~ent to enter 16 into negotiations to inltlatc a down-zoning. I think 17 that's the most extx~me had faith - l'm sorry, Ms. 18 Ooardi~, it is. I mean, I'm not sure how many P&Z 19 l:earings you've had, but it's a true statement. 20 Ma. OOURD~: Mr. Anderson, adchr~s thc 21 situation, not me. 22 Ma. ~o~t. Bg~_.~rr: ! would appreclatc it if 23 you'd address the group as a whole, sir. 24 ~ ~lqvm~.qoN: ! epologizo. Of the three 25 reasons, w~ would request.that tbe delay not be granted. Page 90 I We would ask that the P&Z either vote up or down. Staff 2 has raid that it meets all of their requirements in the 3 report that was provided to you two weeks ago. This is 4 even more concessions than what are legally requked as 5 part of tho 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 11 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 ared 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 ~ber 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 do~s that very thlng that was requested 21 of us. 22 I undershmd from reading the ordinance that 23 there is a requirement that this be a public hearing. Mr. 24 Snyder and I are in clear disagreement that this is a 25 zoningc/se. If you'rc going to havo zoning in a dty and 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 i3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you're going to have pe6ple rely on ZOning, not just prolaxty owners but tho city and tha ndghbors, you've got to know Wl~t you have. And this property was ZOned in 1985, and it was zoned for multi-family, single-family, and commercial. TI~ slnglo-family portion was d,ycleped. A concept plan was approved by tbe City showing the development of tbe multi-family at 17 dwelling · units an acre. There's been a slgn on that prol~rtY · . - advertising that it's going to be for mtflti-family use that's been on them since tbe folks that are hem in the aucllenco bought their houses. Them is no shock that th/s was going to be a multi-family sit~. A pr~limlnary plat was approved approximately .. six months ago. The property is under contract. Any further delay will damago tho property owner. There's no reason to delay this, specifically for the reason of delay in order that certain members of th~ Council can try to figtu~ out a way to inifiat~ a down-ZOning at this point in time. Mr. McNcill, you're correct. If I read tho staff report correctly, it says tho detailed phn is tl~ final step in thc process. The d~vclopmcnt rights for this d~vcloper were established when this preperty was ZOned. Tbey were established whcn thc concept plan was approved showing the dcveloPment with thc density that is shown e.xacfly on this ..... ' · 'page 92 datailed plan today. And I acknowledge and recognize that the site plan is the appropriate process to tweak where buildings am supposed to go, how parking is supposed to be laid out, et cetera. But that's not thc issue. The issue that there are folks -- is the fight to develop multi-family itself. MIL ENGBLBRECHT: TLrno'$ tip. MIL Ah'OEP, SON: And as the correspondence I've already sent to the Council is that we're going to take the necessary lengths to ensurc that wc can do that. lVliL ENGELBRECHT: Thank you. Are there questions, Commissioners? I have MIL BNGBLBRECHT: YOU indicated that you represent the owner. MR. ANDERSON: I do. MIL ENGBLBRECHT: Was it tho same ov, mer that owned the single-family portion that was sold off recently and built by Choice Homes? Mm AX'DERSOIa: I don't -- is that true, Allison? Yes. MR. ENGELBRECHT: I just wanted to make sum I understood that it was the owner who chose to -- Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone present who would like to ~ak in favor of this petition? Anyeno.olse pre.sent'to PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2000 50. Pago'89 - Page 92 ~' Condens~ItTM ~ 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 93 speak in favor of the petition? In that case, I do have some individuals, some cards from individuals who indicated they would like to speak in opposition. Richard Cromer. And, please, I'll ask all of you to give us your name and address for the re.rd. MR. OAK~E~ .chairman and Commissioners, my nameis Richard Garner.. I llve at 232! Wildwcod Lane. I was here two weeks ago speaking in opposition to, at the time what I thought was a rezoning issue. And I've noticed even some of the Commissioners have asked is this a rezoning or not. And just for record, it has been a confusing process. Since that time, I have ieamed that this is a Planned Development and what I am opposed to is specifically this detailed plan, just for the record. The reasons that I am opposed for it, primarily, I believe thc population density is too high. I don't think that this ten-acre tract can support this type of population density. Two weeks ago I had pointed out that there are mobile home parks on two adjacent property lines of this tract: I don,t know how many are out there. I would assume hundreds. I really don't know. The original tract that's under this drawing shows a few mobile homes, but I - " ' ' Page 94 I' think if you drove by there, you'd see that it is 2 intensely developed. I think that's not quite so dear. 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 construction issues, those type of 6 things. 7 Another concem 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. Ithinkit 14 should tm more in lines of 50 feet, maybe 100. I don't 15 know. But I think tea to I$ fe~t is a little too clo~ 16 to, youknow, our property for an apartment structuro. I 17 don't see much difference between a one-and-a-haft story 18 and a two-storY building. They're saying this is a one or 19 on,-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'il tread as 24 lightly as I can. I once saw a poster one time that said 25 a good n~nager is somebody who can step on your feet 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 :20 21 24 Page 95] without soiling Your shoes. And I m going to ~ to be a~ [ good man. ager here just real briefly. [ I feel like this whole thing, this whole l proeeas has not been straight-forward with, particularly;~ / the property owners. Some of the owners assess a lot of blame to Choice Homes for not fully disclosing what this property was intended for. My wife.and I, we did our re~e~ch l~foi~ wc bought the property. :': .' ' ": We Were somewhat misled by sbmestaff members in the Planning and Zoning office, some employees. We were inquiring what is this property zoned for, what am thc uses that could bo put on here. Our impression after talking to th~m, at~d this.was about 18 months ago, pure and simple, our impression that there's no way there could be apartments built on this tract. And so we went forward with our purchase decision and bought a homo there. When thc City sends out the certified letters, you know, the notices to the people in the 200-foot radius or what have you, if you'll go back and look at those, in capital letters italicized, it does say this is a rezoning issue, which we now know it's not. But I think maybe the City should relook at the notices that they're sending out to residents so that these issues are a little bit more clear. That's just my two cents. And there were some statements made in the town meetings that -- I MR. ENGELBRECHT: You've got about 20 seconds. 2 MR. GARNER: Okay. Misleading statements, it 3 wouldn't do any good to show up here. Theycanput 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 hero and oppose a detailed plan such as this. And 7 that's all I'll say. 8 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Them is at least one 9 question. Mr. Moreno. 10 MR. MOP. ENO: Yes, sir, Mr. Cromer. Did 11 somebody at the Planning Department tell you that this was 12 sow_ethi!lg other th.an a Planned Development or ~a 13 multi-family? Is that what I'heard you say? . 14 MR. GARNER: It was explainad that it was a 15 PD, which I didn't understand what that meant at the tbno. 16 We asked for clarification. We were told, well, there's 17 several options of land uses that this comer could be 18 used for and they went down the list. They said, well, it 19 could be an office building. It could be a McDonald's. 20 It could be so forth and so on. Tho individual said, 21 well, it could be apartraents. The individual hesitated 22 and said, well, I don't really think that would really 23 work because, again, population density. Something ebbs/ 24 17 units per acre, there was not enough land to allocate 25 proper parking facilities. So we were kind of under the UARY 26, 200P Page 93 - Page 96 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 51. 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 :9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 !2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 ;22 23 24 25 CondcnsoItr~ Page 97 .' Page 99 hnpression, well, this would never happen. I all these issues and I think that's not appropriate for laP,. MOP, LIne: But you did, indeed, hear that it 2 this are4.. could be apartments? MR. GARNER: YeS, sir. Yes, sir, wo sure did. MR. MOI~O: All fight, sir. Thank you. ~ GARNER: Yes. laR. ENGELBRECHT: /my other questions, Commlss~0uers? Thank yOu. '! al~0 have a card from Sennif~r Huff. "' ' MS. HUFF: lay name is Jennifer Huff. I live at 3904 Overlake Drive. Well, I just want to point out I agree with what my neighbor has said. I do not believe that this plan is appropriate for this particular area. As residents, we are concerned about several factors. One of them is damage to our own private property, our fences. There is no buffer besides some hedges that ara protecting our fences. I don't believe that's sufficient enough to protect our fences from the residents of the apartment complex from damaging them. Again, they spoke about the privacy. I believe it's an invasion of privacy even if it's a two-story and the windows are not facing our homes, the patios and the windows from the two-stories in there a little bit further can see still right into our yards. I don't believe that a six-foot fence is .suffieient enough 3 MR. ENGELBRECHT: commissioners, any 4 questions? Thank you. I also have a card from John 5 Hoeffler who indicated he might want to speak. 6 MIL HOEFFLER: My name is John Hoeffler. 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'yea~s aha I've 10 seen the City go through a lot of changes. I've seen the " 7 Page 98 at this point in time. I am 5'6" and even with the fences, the fences go down a little bit on our landscapes, and so if you stand back at our doors, you can s~ over those fences very clearly. So people can actually look into our windows and into our baekyards and I believe that's an invasion of privacy. It's going to be a disruption to our everyday life on this plan, if you don't mind me using this, right hero. There's parking that is parallel and perpendicular up to our backyards. Parallel all along here. And there's actually perpendicular fight in this comer up hero and that is goingt° allow headlights' sMning'right .; into the backyards through the spaces in the fences into the bedroom windows of my neighbors. Again, I just want to comment on the traffic. The area is already highly trafficked. It's very congested. And I know that they're proposing a light up here at Ryan and Teasley. But you have to also consider that there is an entrance going into our neighborhood here and then you have two additional entrances going out on to Teasley. And it's getting very dangerous over there. In conclusion, I kind of want to say that this development is an invasion of our neighborhood. We're losing our privacy, safety, as far as having to deal with 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 undeystanding 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 ~aart 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 ~0ning process, that it is very much a part of zoning. It has a place here and this is whore the Zoning Commission has an opportunity to more closely examine a PD. In this case, one that was passed in 1985; is that correct? The City's changed since 1985 and ! guess one of the questions I had has been answered as far as the density. I was curious if the density had been set forth in that PP. And, certainly, the developer has the right to develop this property to that density. He doesn't necessarily have the duty to develop it to that high a density. Ho could have a lot more green space and move buildings farther from the perimeter, ~1o several 0thor things if he were' willing to lower tho density. I'm curious how this density at 17 units per acre compares to your existing zoning for multi-family. You have seVeral different levels of multi-family zoning. 'I'm just curious where that falls in there as far as density. I would imagine alSO that in your current zoning ordinances that in your multi-family requirements that setbacks and buffers where multi-family occurs adjacent to residential areas arc probably greater than what was set forth in this I'D. I don't know that but I'm just curious about that. Thank you. MP,- ENGELBRECHT: I thln~ there's a question. 2 3 4 ? 8 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2~ 24 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2000 Page 97 - page'lO~ 52. ~ CondenscltTM ~ Page 101 I Mr. McNeill. 2 MR. bfCN~.ILL: YOU said you live in Corinth? 3 MR. HOEFFLER: Yes. 4 MR. MCNEILL: And what do you do down there? 5 What is your occupation'/ 6 MR. HOEFFLER: I'm in tho construction 7 business. S MR. MC~V_L; Okay.: Thankrou.'. "· 9 MR. ENG£L~IU~Ch~r: ! wane to preface my 10 statement by saying I know I have a number of cards of 11 individuals who are expressing opposition but do not wish 12 to speak and I will review those momentarily. But, first, 13 is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition 14 to this petition? Anyone else present who would like to 15 speak in opposition to the petition? 16 Yes, sir. 17 MR. TO'BBS: sorry, I'm not a very good lg speaker, sir. My name is Steve Tubbs. I live at 3912 19 Parkhaven Drive. One of our main concerns is they're 20 suggesting to.put a stop light right here at Ryan and 21 Teasley. That will allow people to cut through our ama 22 for a shortcut. We've got kids out there riding bikes and 23 roller skating and now you can just cut right through hero 24 opposed to going to the light. We're going to have 158 25 additional units, approximately 318 cars. That's a lot I moTM traffic and it's already bad right thoro: 2 I think, you know, just having our wood fence 3 between their property and ours isn't a vocy 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 there*s a question. 8 Mr. Rishel. 9 MR. RISHEL: MI'. Tubbs, is it? 10 MR. TUBBS: Yes, sir. 11 MR. RISHEL: We have a whole list of people 12 :that have attended some bf the meetings, I suppose, or 13 made ~omments regarding.thls for or against or'negative or '. 14 ncutral, and l don't see your namc on here. Haveyouhad 15 a chance to fill out any sort of request form? 16 MR. TUBBS: I've beesl to both meetings. 17 MR. RISHEL: Have you7 18 MR.TUBBS; Yes, Sir. . 19 'MR. RISHEL; Have you made any -- 20 MR. 'rUSSS: ! brought up questions to Larry. 21 MR. RISHEL: okay. I was just curious that I 22 didn't -- what street are you on'/ 23 MR.TUBBS: 3912 Park. haven. 24 MR. RISHEL: Okay. I didn't know whether 25 there had been an oversight on some comments that you PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2000 Page 103 1 might have made previously Or -- that I didn't*have and I 2 just wanted to find that out. 3 MP~ TUBBS: yeah, I signed in both times I was 4 there. · 5 MR. IUSHEL: Thank you. 6 MR. TO'BBS: Thank you. 7 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Any other questions? I just 8 hive a comment, Mr. Tubbs. I i~licvc that light will go 9 in at Teasley and Ryan uregardiess of this development. 10 And your comment about tho 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 'already have cut-through traffic beeause there's a 15 stop slgn now that holds traffic up. And if Y°u're having 16 probl~.s with that, please bring that to engin~m~ng 17 immediately. 18 MR. TUBBS: Okay. We've already had an 19 accident out here and they used it for, like, two hour's. 20 MR. ENGELBRECHT: I re.~.,og~izo that that can be 21 a problem and there are ways that you can work to, at 22 least, discourage that cut-through traffic 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 · '" :' ' :' ' ' ' Anyone else prcscPa~_.~at 1 sp~k in opposition to this Potltion?' 2 to speak in opposition to tho petition? 3 In that case, lot me review the cards that I 4 have. I have a card from, I believe, it's Kevln Surber, 5 3916 Parkhaven. It just indicates opposition. Mark 6 Holiman, also on Parkhavca indicates opposition. William 7 Karl, 3937 Parkhaven in opposition. Some comments, single g trailer courts north of us, why Change single-family 9 residents to dlffercnt zoning. I think wo'vo covc~l that 10 issue. Lomflne Karl, same address in opposition. Doreen 11 Shc~hard, 3956 Parkhaven, would like to se~ area re'zoned 12 for slngl~-family. TI~ density in tho area is too high. 13 ~ am already en0u~h muJti-family dwellings in Denton. 14 And Raymond Shepherd, same address, tho dcnslty in th~ 15 area is too high. Th~ traffic is too high already and it 16 will drive down our prepay values. Apartments would 17 drive down tho upkecp of our arca. Allrlght. Thcrohas 18 been opposition and thexo is an opportunity for rebuttal 19 if tho petition wislx~s to do so or petitioner's 20 ret~r~¢nt~tivo. Okay. Tho indication is they do not care 21 to make any remarks in rebuttal. Therefore~ th~ public 22 hearing is closed. Is Mr. Rclchhart on now? 23 MR. RF. ICmtART: lgucss SO. ~3oodcvcnlng. ~ 24 M~ l~o~ee,~m'r: ca~od evening. I b~lieve you 25 va~ her~ for and heard most of tho remarks by tho - Pago 101 -Pago CondcnscltTM Page 105 I ' MR. REICHI:IART: I've heard most of the remarks 2 from the neighbors at the neighborhood meetings. And some 3 of tho 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 ~naiysis with the comPrehenSive Plan I0 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 tho Comprehensive Plan. 15 I would also reiterate our request to continue Iffthis. And that's really -- thero's two reasons now. The 17 first reason, and I want to go back to one of the statements by the applicant's attomey regarding our 19 original staff report. And you have to member 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 rote any detailed plan. Right now, we don't 24 have the tools to be able to say, staff, anyway, to bo 25 - able to say the building orientation should be changed, . 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 106 the architecture should be this. Those are issues that are raised by the neighbors and the Commission. So the lug staff report, the technical merits of the plan were addressed. After the neighborhood meeting, even the applicant realized the opposition and the concerns of the neighbors and requested the continuance. Based on our second neighborhood meeting is why -- and this staff report was written approximately a week ago after that neighborhood meeting that there still is a number of concerns by tho neighbors. What type of fence? How high? Is it brick? Do we do stone? Do we do living hedge?. What'type bf living hedge? Is ten foot· enough'setback? Well, the applicant Can go to 15but some people think 20. Is this area going to be redesigned? If 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 107 blanket, just continue for the sake of oontinulng. There are reasons to do that. You can give the applicant direction Oh what to do with the site plan. Building elevations, location of buildings, landscaping, what type of screening, what type of buffer, and those issues. And also to be able to gather as much information as we can - and find out what direction City Council is going to take. S O with that, we are recommending to continue. ·." MR. ENGELBRECHT: It appears that we do have some questions. Ms. Apple. MS. APPLE: I'd like Mr. Hoeffier's question addressed in regard -- werc you present when he spoke? MR. REICHHAKT: I might not have been. MS. APPLE: okay. Let me address this to Mr. Donaldson then just because he heard the question about the average density for the multi-family. This one would bo 17 units per acre. Could you address his question, please? MIL DOI, IALDSON: Yes, ma'am. City-wide, the average density of our multi-family housing if you exclude mobile home parks, which are technically muiti-family, is between 20 and 25 units per acre. He also asked about our typical zoning districts and what they would allow. We currently have three multi-family zone districts, MF-1, MF-2, and MFg. MF-2 is used predominantly around the . · 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 ff you had all two-bedroom units, you 5 could achieve a 35 unit per acre density. 6 The MFR, the 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 comparable to 9 our least dense multi-family zone district. I0 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: .!f.it.exceexls two stories, then it 13 . has ~o increase the Setback one foot for everY two feet of. 14 height. So this proposal is comparable to our setbacks in so, how is that redesign going to take effect? So the reason for our request for a continuance this time is to be able to give the applicant some direction, to be able to address those concerns and ex)me back with a site plan. So maybe we eau move this building. We'll lose this parking. We'll get the green space here. What are we going to approve if that's the dkeetlon we're going to go? Now, all of that took place prior to the City . Comer action which still is another reason to possibly continue this, as our recommendation. So it isn't just a 15 Our straight zoning districts. 16 MS. APPLE: Thank you. 17 MIL ENGELBRECHT: 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. C, OURDIE: Okay. Pardon me. I didn't mean 25 to interrupt. Was it 1998 that the Denton Development PLANNING AND ZONING' COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 200n Page 105 - Page 10~ 54. · ~CondonsoltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 '9 I0 11 12 13. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Plan was approved and put forward, the old one? MR. DONALDSON: 1988. MS. GOURDIE: okay. So this whole thing actually came before that was done, correct? MR. DONALDSON: 1985. MS. COUP, DIE: 1985. SO this really wasn't Page 109 consistent with any plans, s9 to speak? It really didn't follow -- it was out there On its own? ~ MP,. PmICHHART: Any reZOning has t° bo -- I mcan, at the time in '85, it had to bo -- I'm talking without the knowledge, but if it was approved, it was consistent with something in '85. MS. COURDIE: It was nothing.. . MR. ENGELBRECItT.: NO, no. There was a plan. Thom was a previous plan. There was a previous Land Uso 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Page Ill[ which is considered multi-family -- well, you just said ~ it. MR. DONALDSON: I don't know that I would -- MS. COURDIE: And I know that we , inconsistently followed that rule during the past two ~ years that I've been on this thing. We consistently do within the half-mlle.. Anyway, that's a whole another storY.· All.right. $o we're kind of not alre about wheTM ~ 'this would have'fit, aceording to Mr. Anderson's argument, we're not really sure if it was really totally consistent with 1988's plan either. MR. REICHHART: Based on the criteria, I think we would have sa~d it was consistent. MS. COURDIE: SO it Was over beeaus~ he said 159 versus 150. MS. GOURDIE: okay. And so -- MR, ENGELBRECHT: It would have met the requirement, I can toll you. MS. COURDIE: For 1988 or 19857 MR. ENGELBRECHT: '85. MS. COURDIE: okay. SO whan 1988 came along, I know you don't have the stuff here and I'm sorry that I'm throwing this at you. MP~ REICHHART: Mark docs. 16 MR. REICHHART: Nine units. 17 MS. GOURDIE: 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. COURDm: But, see, this is the problem 22 with this verbiage because you say it's guidcllnes 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 y'al[ a 25 favor by making it less. So I'm confilsod by the words we I MS. COURDIE: 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 hase it on this new information and 7 say it's a borer deal or it's a worse deal. They always 8 uso that as tho baseline for us. So I'm just wondering, 9 would that bo consistent -- would that bo considered 10 consistent or would it have been somewhat consistent in 11 19887 12 MR, DONALDSON: If we were to'have used the ' 13: .'88 Plan for analysis, this would bo in an area called -- 14 classifledaslowint~msity. And evan in tho 'gS Plan 15 they contemplated multi-family development within low 16 intensity land us~ districts and allowed, along an 17 arterlal road, which both Ryan 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 we've -- 22 MR. DONALDSON: And they've asked for 159 23 units. 24 MS. COURDIE: So they're over that limit. And 25 being that they're within 150 feet of manufactured housing 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 usc. Wc'ro using guldelincs when wc want it to say one thing and we*re saying that we're muklng it a better d~al · because this is what thc con¢cpt plan was and we're making it bcttcr bccause this is what it would have been if wc'd lct y'all do it, which is gospel versus guidelines. So I'm just saying that ttgre's some k~,~,inology heco that could bo misconstrued. My next question is if tMs project goes in, docs there have to bo a left-hand turn lane installed on both Tcasley and Ryan? lv~ P~ICrlHART: yeah. T~ traffic impact ana!ysis .which will; bo required at tl~ time of platting .' would indicate what typo of improvements would j~:l to'be done on both Teasley and Ryan. MS. c, orumr~ t guess -- okay, t~t's a big if because we know this intersection is hallacious, again · that word, to get in and out of. · Okay. My next qucstlon is Ix~ng that theY've withdrawn th~ commemial side 0f thls, how will -- will tho only access into th~ apartments b6 off of Ryan Road or will that one entry number five -- M~ ~CHHA~T: ~hoy'll still have th~ shared access off of Tcasl~y. They can build !,'leo that person of it. Ma OO~RDm okay. So they'll have one PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 20Pn Page 109- Page 112 55. 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 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Con&nsoItTM Pagd 113 ~ntrence on Tcasley and one on Ryan? MR. REICHHART: Right. MS. C, OURDIE: Okay. And then Mr. Engclbrecht had spoken about the light going up faffly soon. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Well, I think it's a foregone conclusion there will be a light at that intersection. Pag~ 115 bo left up for a bit of interpretation. And I think One of the things, wc 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 little bit aioser. And I think, quite honestly, if we're talking about ' MS. COUP. DIE: wasn't them one approved, Mn Salmon? · :.' MIL SALMON: Tho State warranted one. MS. COUP, DIE: The State warranted one. Okay. So we really don't know if this traffic is going to be alleviated. MR. SALMON: I think it's going to happen very soon. MS. COUP, Dm: Okay. Thank you. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Mr. Williams. MR. WILLIAMS: NOW, I understand on page 4 in your bold letters what somewhat inconsistent means. You still haven't dsfmed to mo what potentially -- density is potentially inconsistent with plan. I don't know what that means because that's very, very confusing. MIL REICHHART: BeA~ause, quite honestly, I don't think the density issue has been 'solidified yet so it's still a moving target, quite honestly. Page 114 MIL wa.ms: I still don't understand what you're saying. MR. DONALDSON: Tho Comprehensive Plan that was adopted doesn't establish any density guidelines within specific land use districts. It merely states a target of 12 to 14 units per acre average over the entire City. So it's hard to determine whether any one project is consistent with that until we get our Development Code adopted. · MIL REICHHART: Because tho verl~iage in the Comprehensive Plan says moderato density, small apartment buildings and townhomes. '" ' . :: .':' MR. WILtt4MS: okay.': . ' MIL REICHHART: Arid until we get that information, we can't make a -- MR. WILLIAMS: Did you write this, Larry? Did you write this? MIL REICHHART: Yes. MR. WILLmMS: okay. Why did you even mention it then? MR. REICHI-IART: It's -- one of the things that we're looklng at is trying to analyze the plans based on the Comprebonsive Plan. Quite honestly, for the next six to eight months until we get the Development Code rewritten too, there's still a few areas that are going to 8 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 density and .if yeti look at the Interim De{'elopment Regulations, there's som~ 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 usc Webster's definition of words and think words are powerful, could you say that we don't have any answers yet rather than -- beeauso to me when you say potentially, to me it's saying that tomorrow this may bo 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 ail we're going to accept on this, then this could potentially bo. 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 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 ' ' ' Pag0 116 tomorrow. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Any other comments? Mr. Moreno. MR. MOP, ENO: Yes, sir, Larry. You have suggested a continuance bec. uso 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. · · 'MR. MOP, ENO: And yet.there have· been.twp meetings With the neighborhood by tho apPllCam, as ! ' understand your backup matefiais. MR. REICHI-IART: CorreOt. MR. MORENO: 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-hail story building would bo 35 feet, but he's proposed an evergreen hedge, and he's making some rearrangements on his open space. MIL REICHHART: Correct. MR. MORENO: SO the only thing that I think is missing is the building materiais. Ma. e.~cm-m~T: Except that the neighbors also PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 200" 56. Page 113 - Page 116 ~CondenseltTM · 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 25 Page 117 said - I mcan, you'H have a group of neighbors when th~ say v~ can move it back 15 - you're moving it back 15, that's great. Th~n someone else will stand up and said I don't think that's enough. I think you should be 20 or 25 feet. Okay. I think - we'r~ going to propose a living hcd~ against your fence. Well, that's nice, but now if somethln, g happens -- someone on your property damages the fcncc~ it's Our rcsponsl'bility to rcpalr it, not' yours..' We want an eight-foot brick wall. Someone else would Say I want an right-foot wood fence. . MI~ MORENO: But thee issa~ have bgcn brought up and the applicant has come back with a proposal is my point. M~p.~cam~R~': correct. And my point is that ~ is no consensus from th~ neighborhood as to which one of those can b~ agreed upon and that's why I think wa have to ~ive the applicant direction. And if you'r~ comfortable with making a rcconnncndatlon for approval with 15 conditions that this, this, and this and this pod will b~ rcdcslgncd without seeing that, that's fine. But I think those'thlngs should he ideofificd on a plan, brought back to this Commission, and then approved. MI~ MORENO: Isn't this 1l~ sita plan that the applicant has asked us to vot~ up or down? MI~ I~ICHHART: Y~, and those buildings am " ' Page 119] ~ MoPa~o: okay. i do have one -- I think, one other question. This sit~ plan shows two entrances on Teasley Lafie. I think I heard somebody say there's one. MR. REICHHA~T: We cannot act on the commercial portion of this d~velopmcnt. That has to be removed from any approval and any future plans be~au.~ the moratorium, which would eliminate this other entrance. MR. MOP'O: Okay. . : . MR. S~'YDER: Let's be clear.. This document that's sitting up here, is that the detailed plan? MR. REICHHART: MR. SNYO~-R: That's in the packet? MR. REICHHART: Yes. MR. SNYDER: NO. Did you say there's commercial on this? MIL REICHHART: oh, there*s commercial on this. This is the direction the applicant was going prior to the moratorium. We would have to, in any approval we would have to exclude the commereial portion of this development. MR. SNYD~g: I just want to make sum that the detailed plan is not the same one. MR. REICHHART: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. MCNEILL: what's there is not what's in · the backup? ten foot from the property line and there is n° living hedge along that wall or along tho walls and the buildings haven't been reoriented to get more green space. These are things he's willing to do, wMch is great. If that's what we want to see, than we should direct the -- in my opinion, direct the applicant, yes, move the buildings to 15 foot, put your one-and-a-half stories along the parameter. MR. MOP--SNO: So we. could vote in concept or in general on this slto plan with the conditions that he has proposed, as well as others we may come up with. Is that what I'm hearing?. : ' M~ imlcmtA~T: I would belieVe'you could always vote on a plan with conditions and maybe that has a better -- MR. SNYDER: well, I just want to say what I think. Larry said was you can do it that way but what he's recommending is that you give direction t° the applicant and make blm do it -- if there's a number of these things that you want changed, make blm do it and bring it back and then vote on it. MR. MOP, ENO: Bring it back okay. MAL gNYDBR: That*s what Larry would recommend. Isn't that right? MR. REICHHART: Correct. Thank you. 1 2 3 4 6 7 8' 10 11 12 14 16 17 18 2O 21 22 2~ 24 ~5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Right. MR. MCNEILL: This is what the applicant is submitting for approval? MR. ENGELBRECHT: Right. MR. SNYDER: My point is this can't be because it has commercial on it. MIL MCNEILL: NO, it doesn't. It says future commercial development. MR. ENGELBRECHT: what's on there now is what's in our packet. MR. REICHHART: The applicant originally submitted this plan. Okay. This iswaY back when they fn-st started talking about doing this. They weren't going to do the commercial. Then they thought, well, why not. Let's do the commercial right now. They came back with this plan. And what we're saying to them is, no, you have to go back to this plan. These two plans am very similar. They're both showing the ten-foot building. setbacks, the landscaping and SUch. It's just that when we get done, if there is a plan that goes forward~ it's going to have the future development identified like this, a big open space, no approval. '.' · .. Page' ! 23 MR. ENOELBRECh'T: lrregardlass of which plan 24 we have here, what percent do we have in opposition? 2~ MR. REICHItART: 25.6. 57. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2000 Page 117 - Page 120 CondcnsoltTM , Page 121 I MR. ENGELBRECHT: 25.6. The 20 percent rule 2 is in effect. Thoro has.to be a super-majority at the 3 Council level to approve this? 4 MiL REICHHART: Correct. 5 MR. ENGELBRE~HT: I have a couple of other 6 questions. One has to do with, there was discussion here 7 abp.ut this is a Po. There's talk about the density there. 8. and we're using straight zoning criteria as Sort cfa 9 guide, if you will ' ' 10 MR. REICHHART: Correct. 11 MR. ENOELBRECHT: But there is no reason in 12 tho world to do that, is there? A PO is a Po. 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 como in for straight zoning. Am I incorrect in my 17 statement there? 18 MR. REICHHART: wall, 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. ENOELBRECHT: We do this all thc 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 ' ' MIL ENOELBRECHT: Well, a PD isn,t a new · ' - 'Page 122 1 concept. I mean, all the time under the old '88 Plan, 2 this new plan, we'll talk about PD'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 Pn is to be different, to design 6 based on the piece of land, what's mound 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 bee. use we're requiting the detailed l0 plan.. ll MR. REICHHART: One.answer to that is a lot of 12' detailed plans} when' they are approved, will grab portions 13 °fa'straight Zoning ease, especially land Use. ' ' ' 14 MR. ENOELBRECHT: 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. Sl, a'DER: Let me respond to that question. 20 MR. POWELL: If I could, I think you'll find 21 in your backup on page 2, the very fizst, part of tho 22 staff report where it talks about Planned Development and 23 zoning procedures. It talks about the intent of eD 24 districts. AndI'llreadpartofitifyou'dlike. It 25 said, the gn districts am int~ndcA to provide for tho Page 123- 1 development of land as aa integral unit for single or 2 mixed-use !n 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 $ flexible and creative planning to ensure compatibility of 6 land uses, to allow for the adjustment of changing derriar/ds 7 to meet the current needs of the community, and to provide 8 fora develol~ment that is superior to that could be .' 9 accomplished 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, sir. 12 MR. ENGELBRECHT: okay. Thank you. Mr. 13 McNeill, you have'a question? 14 MR. MCN£1LL: 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 PD and now he's coming 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 PD? . " : . Page 124 I MR. REICHHART: Correct. 2 MR. MCNEILL: And what was developed fit in 3 with that original Po. That portion of it was 4 single-family? 5 MR. R.EICHHART: That's correct. 6 MR. MCICEmI~ I appreciate the folks that live 7 in the single-family houses there that, you know, you 8 don't like things changing around you when you do one 9 thing. But the fact is this has been approved for 15 10 years, has been known for 15 years of what this potential 11 usage of the rest of this land was. Is that correct? 12 . ' MR. REICHHART: Yes. '. 13 · ' ".'MR. MCNEILL: ThankyoU.'-': .' : '- 14 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Any other comments, 15 Commissioners? I would like to say that -- two points. 16 One, while there are certain rights that go with zoning, 17 property that is not developed with zoning after a number 18 of years, I think any city and every city has to question 19 and go back and look at, is it proper for what we have in 20 our environment today. 21 Secondly, this is a really unique one because 22 it was the owner who went and developed the single-family 23 first and now faces a greater than 20 percent rule. So, 24 yeah~ it's kind of ma interesting case. Commlssiouers, you 25 have/my -- oh~ 1~. Oourdic, you have a comment? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 200° 58. page 121 - Page 124 , CondenseItTM . 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. GOuRDIE: A motion. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Yes, please. MS. C-OURDm: All right. I move to deny Z-99-096. MR. RISHEL: second. Page 125 Page 127. lVlR. ~.l~GEla~P, ech"r.' commissioners, I know there are a number of you'that have indicated request to respond. But at this time, I'm going to ask that we retire to Executive Session. MR. SNYDI~R: Let me state this. I'm asking on ~ MS. GOURDIE: And I'd like to make a statement why. I believe Mr. Anderson is correct, up or down, and 'I'm going ti> glv~ the reasons why I'm voting down; This is a beautiful Piece of land. You have a natural cattle pond which you could have easily designed around and created some open space. Many times we've taken commercial property and zoned it differently and, again, as Mr. Engelbrecht said, this is a.PD, y'ail can do it. You can make it work with the land and the land is dictating something extraordinary there but y'all are choosing to take the land and t° change it into something it's not. So I believe that this is a totally -- it has no open space. It's not -- and we do that to every property that's come here. We've always asked where's the' open space in multi-family? Where are these people going to go to? Where is the nearest park? Where is everything? None of this is here so this is not any different than anything else that we've done. It's pcorly designed. .. - Page 126 The traffic has not been determined yet, And we know that once that platting figure comes up, it doesn't really matter anymore because it's just a mess up there. I have a real hard time when people say there's a fight to develop land. And it's a ehoiee. You bought the land and you chose to do something with it. And when you choose to do it, that's on your own. But we're in a representative form of government. It's called democracy. Not this capitalism rules democracy that I keep seeing in front of me that if you have the money, you can do what you want with it. And 100 years or so ago, we had people buying peopleand doing what they want~xt with them and. that wasn't right either. We abolished that because it was wrong. And you don't'have any right to develop this' land just bemuse you bought it. The density is too quick and I believe thre~-story apartment buildings is just too much on this property. And I have to say it is somewhat inconsistent with the way we've designed neighborhood centers to be in our current plan. It would have been incensistent, somewhat ineonslstent in the 1988 Plan. It may have been okay for the 1981, but it's showing that it's been inconsistent and this property has changed. It's not the way it was meant to be back in 1985. So those are the reasons why I'm choosing to recommend deulai 6 this item that we go into Executive Session, consultation' 7 between attorney and his client under Section 551.071 of 8 the Govem_m~t Code, to receive advice from your attorney 9 conceming threatened litigation. ' ' I0 For ptuposes of the record, I just want to 11 point out that -- and Mr. Anderson did send a letter to 12 thc City, I guess it was the day before yesterday, where 13 he stated our client will vigorously oppose any 14 down-zoning attempt or rejection.of thc detailed plan. 15 They have authorized this law firm to relentlessly pursue 16 all remedies against the City and any City offieiais to l? the extent requited to protect their property fights 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 2O you into Executive Session to discuss what those potential 21 remedies he's talking about are about in closed session. 22 MR. ENGELBRECHT: At this time, we'll adjourn 23 to closed session. 24 (Commissioners convened into Executivc 25 Session.) .. 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 (Commissinner~ reconvened into their Regular 'M_J Session.) MIL ENGELBRECHT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we have concluded our Executive Session. And given the amount of time since we took our last brea~, we are now going to take a ten-minute break. MR. ENGELBRECHT: okay. Wc will reconvene thc meeting. We have a motion on the table with a second to deny. We do have a number of individuals, number of Commissioners who would like to address this issue. Mr. Moreno ..... ·. · MR. MOP. ENO; y~, sir, Mr2.Chairman. I'm going to be voting against the motion to deny and it's not because I necessarily' approve of the detailed plan that's before us. But I'm going to concede to Mr. Reichhart that there are some unresolved issues that need to be addressed in this particular site plan. Tho fact that it's technically inCOrrect with regards to tho applicant's responses makes it difficult for me to vote either yes or no on this particular site plan. I will agree with the Chairman that this particular PO may be too 01d and out of character with th~ conditions in the community now, particularly in regards I to neighborhood compatibility. However, this plan has i PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2000 59. Page 125 - Page 128 CondensoItTM Page 129 ~ in effect for -- or essentially in effect since 1985 and it's going to be very difficult for me to oppose the plan. I've said before, ! think a deal is a deal. And there may be some details that can ho worked out, particularly with regard to building materials which is a concern of this Commission and this Commissioner. I guess that's all I want to say.. I just wanted:to.sa.y that I'll .~. .be v0~ng against .the ~aotion. .. Page 131 I member of this Commission, I may he'pulled into something 2 that - that's not what rm about. I'm about being fair 3 to everyone because I've been treated unfairly. And I'm 4 the guy that I have to look at in the momlngs when I 5 shave. And, also, I'm the guy that has to answer to his 6 higher power when that day comes. And based upon my own ' 7 ctl~,cs, I will have. to vote against this motion. 58 MR.I~qOELBRECHT: Mr. Rishel. " MR. ENGELBRECHT: Ms..Apple~ MS. APPLE: I will also be voting against the motion. I think this is not a bad use for a comer that is adjacent to mobile home parks on both sides. That 9 10 11 12 MR. RISHEU JUSf as a point or interest to my fellow Commissioners, and I think probably I was th~ one that the last t/mo wc had thls before us, made the original proposal to approve this. I0 11 12 13 would have been my concern when purchasing the property 14 not the future use of some vacant land. Just a personal 1 $ opinion. 16 My preference would have been to continue thc 17 item to iron out some of the things because I think that 18 the developer has made a lot of concessions; going to the 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 be of a good quality. And 25 I'm just uncomfortable with the unanswered questions. - Page i30 I I think there's still - I think he's como 2 some, and I think there's some mom things that tho 3 neighbors want. And I think if they could, you know, just 4 mcct somewhere in tho mlddlo. Maybe bo could como down on 13 And since that time, wo have a momtorlum .. 14 that's been placed upon us on commercial-type things. As 15 I look at tho plan that had been put forth hereto us 16 today, I think it would bo an error for us to approve 17 something that in tho basic detail of tho general notes 18 and the general notes commercial site to approve anything 19 that has ti~ words "commercial site" in it whatsoever. $o 20 I'm really reluctant to deal with any piece of prol~'rty 21 that mentions and it has tho word "commercial" in hem 22 numerous times, as put forth as something that we might 23 approve. I don't think we can do that as a Board, as a 24 deliberating body for our State with tho current 25 momtorlum in phqo. .' : . I I'm very sensitive to tho fact that wo have a 2 20 p~rceot rule that is going to bo significant, that tho 3 neighbors have so graciously articulated to themselves · page 132 4 this evening. I'm very much concerned of thc fact that 5 tho density some and, you know, add a larger buffer 6 possibly. Ivlayhe take cmo of some of their concerns about 7 the privacy issues. I llko tho fact that he went to tho 8 lrlplcxes on tho pcrlmcter as opposed to multi-unit bulldlngs. I thought that was a hug~ concession because 10 those will look like -- there am some beautiful trlpl~xes 11 on Coantry Club Road that look like large gorgeous homes. 12 'Most peep!o d0n't?ven, know that.they ..are dupl~es and . 13 triplexes. So that would have been ;- my preference would 14 have been to continue it to glvo the developer and tl~ 15 nclghbors time to come to a mlddlo ground somow]xa'~. But 16 I don't think this is an inappropriate usc for tbls 17 particular comer. 18 MR. I~OELBR.~CHT: Mr. Williams. MR. WlLLIAlVIS: rll also bo voting agalnst 20 this motion in that I'm from tho old school. If I start 21 off playing football in the first quarter, I would like to 22 still bo playing foothall in tho fourth quarter rather 123 than a combination of football, basketball, hockey, and 24 somethlng else. And I'm ve~j, very conccmed and I'm 25 trying to ugo my words very, very cawfully, that as a 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 when wc looked at this originally, it was indicated to us that it was consistent with thc Denton Plan and it was consistent with tho Denton Comprehensive Plan. And now as wc have more light shed upon this, it appears with thc density factors that we have, that it is no longer consistent with that. And I will bc voting in favor of denying this. MR. ENOBLBRECHT; Mr, McNeilL ' IvIR. MC~'EILLi well, i ~oul~ say dltto toMr. Williams and ]Ms. Apple and Mr. Moreno and I'd add that I think that tho rant that commercial may bo on tho drawing, there's a moratorium on commercial, there's not a moratorium on the word "commercial" and we know that there's going to be commercial districts eventually in the City. 8o I don't have a problem with that. I think that, reiterating what Ma'. Moreno said, that a deal was made, a deal bas gene forward and oreo, body was cognizant of what was going on tlxao or should have been. And so I will he voting against tho motion. ~ ENOELURECrrr: 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, 200P ~0. Page 129 - Page 132 ~ Cond~nseItTM Page 133 I plan for a Planned Devclopment. And them wcrc the rules 2 in 1985, as well. If something is out of place, you can 3 deny it. It does serve, I think, everyone well if you 4 address those issues that you find fault with. I'm going 15 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 ~ouple of ' 9 oth~r cases not that long past, we have requked, 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 concern abOUt the head-in parking adjacent to the 115 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 concerns about the recreation 19 area, supposedly recreation area. There are no specifics. 20 There should bo specifics. This is a detailed plan. We 21 should know what those are and where they're going to bc. 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 wesa trade-offhere trying to reduce the. . Page 134 I - size and density along tho singlerfamily and et cetera. 2 But we have a facility with very little open space. 3 Additlonaily, 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 folks to pass through 8 anywhere and pedestrian traffic to exist all along that area and I don't think that's what -- the way we ought to 10 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. Tho motion fails three to four. 115 (Commissioners Apple, Moreno, McNeill, 16 Williams voting in opposition.) 17 MR. MCI, IF. ILL: I'd like to make a motion. 18 MR. ENGBLBRECHT: Yes, Mr. Mclqeill. 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 dear whether these have 22 really been put on the drawing that we have or not, but 23 the changes that am indicated on page 6. Are those on 24 tho drawing? MIL REICHHART: NOs sir. · ' Page 135- I MIL MCNEILL: okay. ~ 2 MR. REICHHART: Some might be but they're a 3 little cloudy. 4 MR. MCNEILL: okay. So we would, with the 5 ehanges that the buildlngs will be movod from ten to 1~-~ 6 foot from the property line; would llmlt the adjacent 7 buildings to one-and-a-half stories adjacent to 8 singlerfamily housing; with no second-story windows facing 9 the siffgle-family prol~rties; would propose an evergreen i 10 hedge; they would relocate dumpsters; and they would 11 rearrange the open space. 12 MR. WILLIAMS: I second the motion. 13 MR. ENGELBRECHT: It'S beerl 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: MI'. 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, thc residential and the apartments. 21 MR. MCNEILL: I accept that. 22 MR. EIqGELBRECHT: SO WO would add, in essence, 23 we're addlng 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 vote for that either. 'My wish would.be for a c°ntinUan~ to move the developer closer to the neighborhood and maybe como up with some more concessions. So I'll be voting against this motion, also. MiL ENGBLBRECHT: MS. (.~ourdie. MS. GOURDIE: I cannot vote for this either, mainly because I realize -- I don't think we really understand the magnitude of this piece of paper. I know from a previous thing, a lot of things warn left off this piece of paper we weren't aware of and it got through and what you're seeing being developed is exactly what's on this piece of paper, because it got through the system. .~Mr. Irwin Said that the pitch Would be 8/12. On here it reads, number 5, roof pltches shall be a minimum of 6/12. It needs to state 8/12. There's se much subjective stuff in here. Under residential site, general notes number I0, loading areas in the commercial site shall i)9 permi~ in accordance with the zoning ordinance requirement. I haTM a question. Why am we discussing commercial site requirements in a residential site area? This is poorly written. It wasn't edited. I don't believe that there's enough conditions on the site. I agree with Mr. Engelbreeht that there needs to be something done to help alleviate pess-throvgh traffic between the multi-family and the co~merciai wl~ch PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 20('~ Page 133 - Page 136 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 17 2O 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 1(5 17 18 19 20 :2 24 25 COndons~ItTM Page 137 would be a solid wall with certain entrances to allow I people pas-through privileges. 2 It's just -- it's a bad thing and I think it 3 comes from us not really Understanding the magnitude of 4 this piece of paper. It also has commercial on it. And 5 what this is is =- this is what fall are approving is 6 this document. If you don't change this document, this is 7 what"s going to go'through. So thismotion needsto say · 8 no commercial development on this. This motion needs to 9 state whatever it is you want to do. Otherwise, this 10 piece of paper is what's going to go through. And I thlnk 11 that would be sorry because I'm now starting to sac how 12 important this piece of paper is and we need tu look at it 13 and really make a serious rccommendatlen and put down ot~ 14 blascs towards people that we work with or know as friends 15 and start zoning the land, not our friends. 16 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Mr. Morgno. 17 MR. MORENO: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, like Ms. 18 Apple, I will also be voting against this particular 19 motion. I can't help but feel that there is still some 20 room for compromise in the areas of density, open spaces, 21 and, as I said before, building materials. 22 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Mr. Williams. 23 MR. WILLIAMS: Ihave to take issue with Ms. 24 Gourdie because I think we can all disagree and still not · 25 · · ' ' Page 138 ' be disagreeable. And I will not have anyone insult my 1 integrity. I have no money. I have no power. I have no 2 prestige. I don't have any -- the only thing I havc is my 3 integrity and when somebody starts telling mo I'm voting 4 for my friends, I take that as a personal insult and I 5 will not tolerate it. 6 MS. GOURDIE: well, I apologize but I never 7 mentioned your name, sir. 8 M~ ENG~.L~RECHT: I, too, will be voting 9 against the motion, basic, ally for the same reasons I 10 stated before. Okay. If you would, vote, please. Motion 11 · fails two to tive. :. · ~12 ":. ' . (Commissioners Apple; G°u~die, Moron0, McNeill ' and Engelbrecht voted in opposition.) MIL ENGELBKECHT: Commissioners, would you like to try for a third option? Ms. Apple. MS. APPLE: I'd like to move for a continuance in order to give tho developer time to maybe hold another neighborhood meeting and try to come a little bit closer to some understanding. I think that they've como a long way. I think that the neighbors, you know, in working with them may b~ understanding some things a little bit more about the process .and maybe some of tho things that can and cannot be done. And I would like to give them that opportunity. Long motion. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 139 Me, msnEu secbnd. .MIL ENOELBRECHT: DO yOU want to continue this to tbe next'meeting? M~ P,~cn~?: In order to have a neighborhood mcctlng and - if I may jump in -- and make tbe rovlsinns, I don't think two weeks is adequate for staff to be able to rcvlcw a plan that chang~ and bring : Something. .hastily to ybu..And.][ don't know that that would give thc applicant time-to ~- if it+s to havca neighborhood meeting, I don't know how much compromise is going to be made there as opposed to getting direction from the Commission and maybe taking that to the neighborhood. And ~,hat do you think about this, is there . any more room -- because it was -- I mean, there are so many different opinions of what should happen, given thc fact that if multi-family is built on that site. I mean, from one-story around thc parameter to six, 12-foot brick walls to, I mean, all sorts of-- MS. APPLE: ,~nd I still think this is workable and I hate that it will take the additional time because I know that's of a concern. But I think it's better than just pitching it. I would say two meetings, continue in two meetings. MIL ENOELBRECHT: Legal staff would llke to .ma,ko a comment, i~ you don't mind. 7 · : . Page.140 M~ Sl, ViDF_~ ! think, if thc purpose is to contlnuc, to look at what conditions should bc placed on thc detailed plan, other than just say meat with the homeowners and try to work out a compromise. I agr~ with Larry, wn probably need to give a little more direction than that. I think you already kind of have mcatinned some things but, you know, the point I'm trying to make is thc decision ultimately has to be yours and it probably won't be productive just to have a neighborhood meeting with sort of an open-ended Agenda. MS. APPLE: But I think it's important to have .. tho n~ighb0rs involved because I thlnk to just have tho dOVel°Per meet with tho staff and to exclude tho neighborhood is not what I want to accomplish. MI~ REICHHART: ThO goal of tho - I don't want to speak for tho davdoper, but ff I was d~voloplng this property at this point, my goal would be try to ~et some of tho neighbors to rescind ~ opposition to get below 20 percent opposition and that may take another mooting to sit down and say this is th~ final. This is what we can do. Is this something you can live v~.th?. MS. APPLE: well, I think there are some issues that have como out that probably need to bo · addressed again with th~ neighbors and exactly what you said is, it might take away some of tbe opposition. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 200C Page 137 - Page 140 62. CondenseItTM Page 141 I MR. ~ouLEPaschm so do you want to make it 1 2 two meetings from now? Is that the -~ 2 3 MS. APPLE: I think based on Larry's 3 4 recommendation that it would bo impossible to do it in 4 5 two. 5 6 MR. REICHHART: AlSt to get the notices ou~ 6 7 and schedule a room isn't going to bo until next week and 7 8 I know ~ have· some neighborhood meetings I have'lo go to 8 9 next week and won't bo able to attend this one.' So it 9 10 might bo at the end of next week that we even have 10 11 scheduled a meeting. 11 i12 MS. APPLE: And, certainly, with staff working 12 13 with the developer, too, I don't mean to just say just 13 14 the noighborhood meeting. But I think that's an important 14 15 -- I think certainly the neighborhood concerns are an 15 16 important part of what would ultimately occur. 16 17 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Let me ask staff, if we 17 18 continue this to the next meeting and then parties are not 18 19 ready, we could just continue it again? 19 20 MR. REICHHART: Continue it again, correct. 20 21 We could. 21 22 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Yes, l~Lr. McNeil1. 23 MR. MCNEILL: Wbon you said ~e second 23 24 meeting, that's actually a month from how. 24 25 MR. ENOELERECHT: Right. That's right. 25 · , Page 142 I MR. MCNEILL: SO it's not two weeks. 1 2 MR. REICHHART: February 23rd, I think. 2 3 MR. RISHEL: Regular-scheduled meetings. 3 4 MS. APPLE: Two meetings. 4 5 MIL MCNEILL: which is basically a month from 5 6 now? k,. 6 7 MIL ENGELBRECHT: Right. Do you want to make 7 8 that the motion? S 9 MS. APPLE: Well, my initial one to the next 9 10 meeting and I understand from staff that that's not enough I0 I1 time. But if you would like -- 11 12 MR. ENGELBKECHT: I have no -- . 12 13 ' MR. REICHHARTi AS Ge'Chairman pointed out -- 13 14 well, miracles can happen. 14 15 MS. APPLE: I just hate to bring everybody in 15 16 again and then you go through it. I'd rather just -- 16 17 MR. ENOELBRECHT: Exactly.. So I'm not sum. 17 18 What is the motion? 18 19 MS. APPLE: Oh, I don't know. I'm going t° 19 20 move to enntinu¢ to the first available meeting at which 20 21 time -- WO can do that, can we not? ~. 21 22 MR. SNYDER: I think you ol2ght to continue it 22 23 to a cb. to certain. 23 24 MS. APPLE: Becaus~ we*ye done that. 24 25 MR. REICHHART: February 9th is the next 25' PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 200fl 63. Page 143 meeting. February 23rd is the'two meetings. ~ ' ' MR. MCNEILL: February 23rd. ~ MS.-APPLE: LOt'S continue it to February 23rd to give all parties plenty of time. ~ MR. ENGELERECHT: All right. There's a motion to continue to February 23rd. Is there a second? MR. RISlmL: I would like to second that. MR. ENGELBKECHT: Okay. ' ' : . MR. RISHEL: I'd ~Iso like t6 stress'the'fact that I think several of us on the Commission are concerned about what is put forth on the plan as being as much as possible, as accurate as possible, with what the proposal is going to be. So I'd like to see as much of the detail. handed forth to us that we can work with. And if we still have the moratorium in place, to try to work with the word "commercial." MR. ENGELBRECHT: .Wo have a motion and a second to continue this hearing until February 23rd. Discussion? Mr. MoNoill. MR. MCNEILL: The fact that Mr. Risbol, Commissioner Rish¢l raises the commercial, the fact that tho word "future commercial development" is on hero is not in vio!ation of the moratorium; is that correct? ,.?~: MR. SNYDER: well, I think ho was pointing to some other language on them, as well.. It would be better if all reference to commercial is taken Off of thls 1!~._,/,, bocaus~ the detailed plan just deals with -- MR. REICHHART: I think if we had a wide open space that said futur~ commercial development is fine. That part's okay. :~ MR. RISHEL: It sayS "commercial" eight or nine different times on there. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Aro there other comments? I do think, Mr. Reichhart and other staff members' comments are appropriate. If we're going to continue this, then I thlnk that we should point out areas of concern that we may have on this plan so that all parti~ have some sens~ · Of direction; neighbors, the developer, property owner, et cetera. And having said that, are there any other comments'/ Ms. Apple. MS. APPLE: ~ast that for the record I'd certainly like for everyone coneemed to take into account all the concerns that'were addressed tonight by everyone; the Commission, tho neighborhood, everyone involved, and let these bo included in what you're going to try to work out. ~, MR. ENGELERECHT: Any Other comments? If not -- there doesn't appear to bo. Vote, please. Motion ~ carries unanimously. Thank you. 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. ' . .. iPUBLIC 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 I Rd./Teasley Ln., Lar~y Reichhart) · Motion by Salty Rishel and seconded by Susan Apple to continue to next regular meeting. t *Discussion of item is included in Court RePorter's transcript attached to this set of minutes B (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, members, 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 64. 1 :2 4 ? 10 11 12 13 15 17 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 1 PROCEEDINGS MI~ ~O~LBI~:srr: Good evening, ladies and At this time, I'd llke to call Io or&r tho ; CondensoltTM Page B t of tho Plannln~ T~xas, for tbo 23rd, is 26th. · Commlssi0ncrs motion7 MS. APPLE: 1'11 MR. RISHE~ MR. ENOELBRECHT; a movtxt and seconded to approve. bring our system up for All right. Vote, please. We'll move ~ Th~ following staff and basis Deoton ~ opportunity to raise questions rc~arding these items ' to consideration. Commissioners, is thcr~ a r~luest to pull any itt~m, comments, or a motion? . MR. RISHEL: I make th~ motion we approve the 2 3 second. 4 5 to approve. 6 vot~ pkase. ' 7 We'll mow 8 had therule~ up. 9 rcvi~v th~n even though ~ 10 Thcrcwcgo. Okay. Thank 11 in tbo audlenc~ our prct.~inr~ i2..tbo overboad ito your left. - i3 ' . '. FirSt, rll( n tho motion? In that unenlm0usly. We mt those up this case. t who am ~ is on See6h~L and :that, the tho staff will mad the then make a s petitioner will be granted 15 the potitioner, slx~kers in minu~ to speak. ask for s an opportuult~ ~pposifion, thc l~titloner will bo At that time, and staff will pr~cnt its ' of 45 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 members in opposition. Give minutes. and ff someone could - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 I mlnut~, I'll just read it off of this. Actually, ~ so that those in thc audience n~w information not that the audience tuestions I also ask, it's i from We do have one it~n on the Agenda for public this ~vening. This is Item No. 5. It's a 17 continuation of a public hearing. Conslder making a 18 recommendation to City Council regarding a d~ailcd plan 19 for Planned Development 93 cncompasslng approximately 13.7 20 acres. The detailed plan proposal is for a 159-unk 21 multi-family resi&ntial d~velopm~nt and 4.3 a~res of 22 commercial d~v¢lopm~nt. The property is located at the 23 southwest coraar of Ryan Road and Tcasloy Lane. Since 24 this is a continuation, Mr. Pow¢ll, do you have -- I think 2:5 you have some information for us rcgardlng thls case. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 i3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IVlR. POWI~LU I do, sk: If youql look on page 5 of your staff report, Enclosu~ 2, we did r~xfiv¢ a letter from th~ applicant r~questlng this item bo held to March 8th so that they can work with th~ n~ighborhoods on tho design of tbo project. MP,. ENGELBRECHT: commissioners, any questions for staff'/ Bcfor~ we ask for a vote on the continuance, I thought wc might s~ if thcrc's anyone in thc audience who is he~ and would like to address this particular issue. Is there anyone present who would like to addr~s this particular case, clth~ pro or con? If you would~ sir, please glvo us your nam~ and business address for tbo .~Cord, . - .. · . ..:: . .: ~.~c~me .Yes. i,m D.L. Archer, the owner, Alyson Archer's fatbor. Honorable members of the P&Z, we request a two-week continuance in or&r. that we can continue to work with the homeowners and refine our d~tailed site plan. Ivac l~uBRfff_.trr: All right. Commissioners, any questions? Thank you. Appreciat~ it. MR. ARCHER: YOU'I~ welcome. IVtR. ENOELBRECHT: IS there anyone else pr~ent who would like to addr~s this particular casc, tither in support or in opposition? It would aplx~r not. In that ca~ Comm~ssloners, any questions, commcots, or a motion? .. J Page 1 - Pale 4 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 23, 2000 65. Cond~nsoltTM 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 $ 10 11 i2 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 !2 24 MR. RISHEL: Motion. M~ ~osLmi~z~rr: ~. Rishel. ~ RISH~.L: I move to continue Z-99-096 to tho next regular me~fing. MS. APPLE: second. MR. ENOELBRECI-rf: it*s t~:~n moved and seconded to congnue this particular case to th~ n~xt rcgulariy 'sclxxluledmeeting. Discus~iol}? Vo~picas0. Motion carries unanimously.' us wlih a last time for discussion, for your mvi~w. ~ th~ meeting time to 6:0C z you time prior to the meeting to eat instead break. is it? MR.I 10st; page 5 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 .Page,6 there Any becomes cffcctlve I.do -- before I move Session, attendance or to the work matters of i for the' not ; m our rules. mt that that yes. ~ries unanimously. for those:who are in the not~ with regard is used to explore Planning Commissioners a future regular or citizen input, generally from City staff, officials, and the individual organizations proposing Commission action, if'invited by Commission to pm'tlcipat~ in thc Page 7 1 Participation by individuals and members of 2 to speak ceases whan the Chair 3 closed to public hearing. 4 public meetings 5 attend, they are 6 hearings, s, ', am not alloweA to in 7 the do so Any 9:' beginning oftbe 10 citizen's opinion Should the the matter be placed on a the staff will generalll : defining the proposed action, which will all citizens prior to the regular citizens attending the ~ to hear the to attend 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 !2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 : said that, we'll move No. hold a discussion~ held I might not~ that I had a letter at your chair this evening with r .Mr. Powell. Page 8 MR. POV~LL: Mr~ Chalr, Commissioners, what we but also eontalned taff held with the Chamber of l -- held at the Chamber's MIA POWELL: And there were · member& What thc staff mt oUt.es that were dealt with, we are t those meetings. The f process. commercial is somewhat a me~ting I am sorry. , Council .included from ~r tssues that . the platting and there's fffort to look at a ~ could , to bo and sold full knowledge ¢ ~ going to So it was no longer a linear process that you see on the bottom of the first page of the staff mpo~ but there's a dual-track process. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 23, 200° 66. · Page 5 - Page 8 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.rFeasley 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 S~_~.~ Rishel and Ji~recht o_p_Eosed. 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. : · . 7. 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. 8. 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 McNeiil 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. 6'7. Condcnselt TM 1 2 3 4 6 7 8' 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS MR. I~IOELBRECHT: Good evening, ladies and of the Phnning and Zoning Texas fo 2000. First it~n consider approval I MR. MCNEILL: MR. ENOELBRECHT: to approve. Vote, please. We'll move on to thc following recommendation. the staff to City of Denton Commission ] s six to zero. The · has had to pull an item? not, ~ comment or a motion? MR. RISHEL: Make the motion we approve the Consent Agenda. Page 2 MS. APPLE: second. Mil. ENGELBRECHT: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. Any discussion? Vote, ix to zero. .1 move on then to the' a this evening. I would brieHy in attendance, First, I'll ¢ wc'll ask the s and make the overhead, the petitioner spcakto thc petition. And support of the petition will minutes witt Following opposition an minutes with five opposition, petitioner will be rebuttal. At the staff will individual tho its report, that, No. 3 on granted 15:minutes to · , spe~akcrsin . · of 30 for each speaker. ; speakers in to spe~ for a:of 45 for each speaker. play an( ,~cak in I'll close the public hearing , final remarks. The five-minute time limit for : can be modified by consent of the f arranged in advance of the meeting. We Page 3 2 presentln~...rmation not g!~revlous speakers. 3 Commissioners ma u~ anyone and call on the 4 staff at any time.a~.to closed scssian as I,~? .The first public hearing this evening is 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 multi-family 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 heating. I would ask Mr. 18 Rclchhart for additional staff comments at this time. 19 MR. REICHHART: That3k 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 Tcusley 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 sununarizo where the plan is at this point and we can take page 4 1 it from them. But thc plan has been revised. You've 2 beco given COpies of the updated plan. 3 And some of the items that have been addressed 4 on the now plans include an expanded open space, the 5 recreation area near the pool, that area right there. A 6 note has been added to thc 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 I0 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. S0 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 remit 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" 68. Page 1 - Page 4 CondonseItTM Page 5 I things, but tbey're just still out there and we're just 2 noting thorn, 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 d ref.~ll, 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 propcrties. · ~ 10 Increased bufferyard, the origina! 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 arc still waffling at what the correct distance should be 15 greater than that or at that level. Lower density has Id 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 providc 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 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 6 districts for similar land uses. They're also meant to encourage flexible and creative planning to ensure the compatibility of land uses to allow for the adjustment of changing the bands 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And wc interpret that to mean that, as ~' . appropriate and in correlation to required information, that this plan does contain the minimum required information that we require. The detailed plan conditions should relate to that section of the Code. And since this ~ project is a proposed PO detailed plan, we believe that the conditions related to building orientation, locatign use, arrangement, ~onstmction, 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. And wc've talked about that on a detailed plan before, what can the Commission do regarding detailed plans and we believe there is quite a bit of wiggle room, if you will, what we can do. And, finally, as I said, this plan does meet thc miniraum requirements for a detailed plan but it does not provide for 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. Bottom line, staff is not making a recommendation. Wc're not going to recommend approval, nor are we recommending denial. Wc strongly believc that, although thc uses may be appropriate for this area, that still there are site issues that need to be addressed or that could be addressed by this Commission prior to us going forward. And, again, some of those are standard lighting conditions. But additional conditions could address setbacks, thc buffering, screening, building elevations and orientation, and the height and matcxial of those buildings. districts by meeting one or more of the following purposes. And thc one that's really identified and is highlighted in page 2 of the staff report, that it says, provides for the design of lots or buildings, increased recreation, common or open space for private or public use, berms, greenbelts, trees, shrubs, or other. ' landscaping features, parking areas, street design or 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 It may be a departure from what we've normally done. We usually always make a recommendation. But v~ have -- typically, in tbe past wc have recommended approval if minimum rcqulrcments are met. And we believe, upon reviewing the requirements and what a Planned · D~vclopm~n? is reslly supposed to do, that tbe design of this. plan is not a superior design. It is one that could bc found in any multi-family zoning district. And I'll access, or other development plans, amenities, or features that could be of a special benefit to the property users of a community. The original concept plan did not address those requirements, specifically. And staff believes that the detailed plan should, therefore, address these issues. Further, SeCtion 35155 of the Code contains the following provision that 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. 15 open up for questions. 16 Ma. I~N'OELBRECHT: okay. Mr. McNeill. 17 M~ Me. mu ~ have sevceal questions. In 18 previous backup information when this was before us, thc 19 statement was made, all detailed plans should be in 20 substantial compliance with variance ordinances. Is it in 21 substantial compliance with these ordinances? 22 ~v~ REICHHART: Right. Yes. 23 M~ MCNEILL: okay, first question. And the 24 second question, and it says, th~ site design docs not 25 provi& the creativity. How did you measure that PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 2000 69. -, P~o5-P~e8 COndenseItTM 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 thcrc 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 combin9 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 1Vlr. Powell would 24 like to make a comment about this, too. 25 MR. POWELL: Yes, if Imay. I do think that 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Page 10 1 staff is always in a difficult position. We don't want to design the project for the applicant. But as Mr. Keichhart said, if the look through the Comp Plan, it gives examples, design examples of things that we're looking towards. And, in fact, we've brought a sheet tonight that shows some of those. It is a tricky question to answer what would make it more unique and, in our opinion, what has been presented doesn't have that uniqueness and the design leads to, I wouldn't say incompatibility, but causes some incompatibility with the surrounding uses, single-family uses. MR. MCNEILL: And then the' second part of that statement says, provide for development that is SUPerior ' to what could be accomplished in other zoning districts. I'm not sure I understand what that means. MR. REICHHART: I think the intent of a Planned Development was -= I mcan, for one example, a recent development that we had was 215 First Street. It was where there was that existing block building on the back part of the property that's lost its non-conforming status, but it's -- our Code does not allow for two uses, two incompatible uses and commercial and residential is deemed incompatible on the same property. The only way 24 you can do that is with a Planned Development. And the 25 Planned Development allows for the -- something out of the 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 1S-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 m6re 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 outsidc the typical zoning requirements 12 of, you know, 1S-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. COUP, DIE: 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. c_,ommlE so they're not -- there's no 2 secrecy hero. There was nothing that was held behind and 3 they know exactly what they were up against and they're 4 not following through on it. I just want to malco sum 5 that I'm reading this right, that they know it was a 6 Planned Development and they understand what a Planned ? I~vclopment m~ans. And that the City Council and the 8 Planning and Zoning Commission has the authority because 9 of the Planned Development zoning to ask of this, 10 specificatious to bo changed and have details done to it. 11 Okay. I just wanted to make sure I know that, understood 12 that cOrreetly. Thank you. 13 ' Ma. ~qO~[~m~CHT.' MS. Apple. 14 MS. APPLE: tarry, could you tell me if this 15 was zoned Multi-Family, as you were 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 M~ lmltmmmT: ! 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 he less than 21 what it would have been ten years ago. 22 MS. ~eet. E: Just a rough guesstimate of what 23 it would be now. 24 M~ RE[C~H~RT: I mean, something like -- 25 another thing that this Board has seen was the Fairfield · Page 9 - Page 12 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 2000 70. CondenseltTM , . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25. Page 13 student housing and that had upwards to 24 units per acre. This is at 17. So I don't think the density is as much an issue, quite honestly. I think 17 units per acre, I mean, is something that could have easily obtained that zoning density. MS. APPLE: But my question is, if it were zoned Multi-Family, what could it allow? ' MR. REICHHART: i'Up to or a range? ' MS. APPLE: Yes. MR. REICHHART: Oh, I think, say, if it was zoned within the -- I think the highest I've seen is like in the 24s, something like that. MS. APPLE: And this currently would be? MR. REICHHART: 17 units per aero. MS. APPLE: okay. Another question I had Page 15 bit. And as cars are pulling directly into these parking spots, the headlights could shine, then shine through into the baekyard. And that's why the applicant provided a solid wooden as opposed to like board-on-board or something like that. It's a solid fence. regarding some of the things that the neighborhoods had asked about -- MR. REICHHART: One thing about the neighborhoods I don't know if I mentioned, we're still at 31 percent opposition. MR. ENGELBRECHT: I WaS going to ask you that when you got finished hero. MS. APrLE: Okay. One question, just I know the boat or Rv storage, et cetera, do you know if their neighborhood deed restrictions also have limits on their. 6 MS. APPLE: B~ause I was thinking about that 7 and I thought this is at the comer of two of tho really 8 busiest ~reets, 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 turned onto Ryan, you 14 could get -- 15 MS. APPLE: It seems like that might actually Page 14 I ability to store boats and RVS? Was there any discussion 2 of what their deed restrictions arc? 3. MR. REICHItART: 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 aga{nst Lhe back of Y0ur -- 13 MS. APPLE: I gUeSS what I'm trying to ' : 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 1 fence to eight feet. 2 MR. REICHHART: Eight foot. Their last 3 proposal was six. 4 MS. APPLE: Thank you. 5 MR. REICHHART: The 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. RmCHHART:' These illustrations illustrate Page 14 ascertain is if they're trying to keep this project 15 consistent with their neighborhood standards; i.e., the -- 16 MR. REICrtmT: NO. I don't think they have 17 that standard and that was a condition that was 18 voluntarily added by thc applicant. 19 MS. APPLE: By the developer? 20 MR. R.EICHHART: YC$. 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 typo of fence you have, if it's a wood fence, 25 eventually the slats or whatever may shrink up a little 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 fides 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 "x._j 24 streetscape setting to get more pedestrian linkages. 25 MR. MORENO: And has the applicant seen these PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 2000 -.Page 13 - Page 16 71. CondonseItTM Page 17 I 'illustrations? 2 MIL 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 MIL 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 l2-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 mount of space between the residential 22 properties and where the first building would be, I've 23 heard anywhere from 20 to 30-foot up to 50-foot those 24 buildings should be pushed back away from the property 25 1 Page 19~ one of the difficulties was that them was opposition to the project and that was maybe 21 or 22 percent. And then this last time it was postponed or not brought on our Agenda, one of tho two, I forget which, and th~ opposition was 28 or someth/ng percent. Every time this has come back to us, has the opposition gotten bigger within the neighborhoods from what you've seen with the neighborhood 8 meetings that you've had? · 9 · Ma-REIc~ItART: lthinkwhat wegetatthe 10 neighborhood meetings am 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 fn:st 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 moro people involved to submit their letters 20 in. 21 M~ mSI~EL: 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 tho people that thc developer was trying to work with lines. One-story construction along the residential · Page 18 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 thc 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 MIL MOP. ENO: IS it your sense that if some of 12 the~ conditions were agreed to by the'applicant that the 13 opptsition 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. MOP. ENO: That's what I wanted to know. 21 Thanks. 22 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Mr. Rishel. 23 MR. mSHEL: This has been postponed or 24 continued a couple of different times. As we had looked 25 at initially tho first time. this was bro~_~ght before us, 25 their ideas. Has there been a neighborhood meeting singe ' ' . " Page 20 then.9 1 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 I'll 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 neighbo?hood meetings or what to do about that. 13 MR. RISHEL: ·Okay: Thank you. 14 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Yes, MI'. 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 MIL REICHHART: correct. 22 MIL POWELL: Okay. 23 MILREICHHART: Tbere is :-. the propexties 24 adjacent to this site that are in tho yellow arc tho ones 25 that we've received opposition from, so you can see, and Page 17 - Page 20 ?LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 200n 72. Condens~ItTM Page 21 I here's the line that marks the 200-foot limit, and there 2 are very few property owners that have submitted 3 opposition or letters. 4 MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't understand what you 5 said. 6 MR. MCNEILL: Yeah, what does that mean? 7 MR. REICHHART: That's the 200-foot buffer 8 around this property. Okay? These lots right here 9 represent the adjacent single-family subdivision, and that I0 continues on for another block or so back to the west. 11 The yellow highlighted properties indicate that we've 12 received letters from those individuals. So there are 13 one, two -- 19 properties that didn't submit a letter. 14 They don't have to submit a letter. It'snota 15 requirement. But that is a high majority of a 16 neighborhood, of adjacent neighborhood that would submit 17 letters and they're all in opposition. 18 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Mr. Reiohhart, would you put 19 tho detailed plan back up there again? Now, what we have 20 on this detailed plan, as I understand it, is ail the 21 multi-family footprints. 22 MIL REICHHART: Right. 23 MiL ENGELBRECHT: And did we not, one of the 24 earlier ones, show some footprints in the commercial? 25 MR. REICHHART: we did. And that was before .' Page 22 I 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 ret-ms of this comer, it 10 would seem to me that there is some value in having a 11 eoordinatexl whole to this entire comer, the commercial 12 'and the multi-family, in terms Of its design and its -- Page 23 I I require screening, it didn't say what, between all ~u~e ' 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 buffering, it doesn't say what adequate bufferin~'"- 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 9' integrate these :- l0 MR. ENGELBRECHT: That's just what I was going 11 to ask. 12 MR. KEICHHART: -- arid 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 thc 24 buffer. 25 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Okay. All right. Is there 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 original concept plan, it did 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . . . Page' any particular reason why the commercial, as we have it ~- labeled, could not include some multi-family or some sort of residentiai in it, as a third story, second story, as we're doing downtown? Would there be any reason from planning perspective that that couldn't be done? And I say that and my other thought is, would that increase the density and is there really any problem with that if we have -- are having some increase in density if we have a design that incorporates the entire unit. MR. ~,EICHI~RT: I think we'd have to modify the concept plan and the detailed plan could do that. But I think the designation identified in the original concept plan was for General Retail and if I recall that multi-family is not a permitted use. MR. ENGELBRECHT: But. again, this is a PD and that's why we're -- MR. REICHHART: A PD allows you to do that. MR. ENGELBRECHT: That's the idea of creativity. MR. REICHHART: Correct. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions, Commissioners? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Reiehhart. Is the petitioner or ~ petitioner's representative present? 1 MS. ARCHER: Good ev~ing. I'm Alyson Archer 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 2000 73. -.Page 21 - Page 24 Condcnsclt r~ Page'25: 1 f~om 2112 West Springcreek Parkway, Plane, 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 singlcffamily ~as developed in '96. We came 9 forward last summer and started this process and to we've 10 gone through a number of DRC meetings, a number of 11 homeowners meetings. 12 And just for clarification, 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 thc current PD allowed for 25 two-story ab~_~ttin~ the sin~le'family, that we did, a 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pag~ 26 concept that was kind of a toWnhouse three-plex type facility and separated those. They looked more like single-family buildings abutting the single family. So that we didn't just put traditional two-story multi-family next to that. We've done it with a pitched roof and 75 percent masonry requirements. I think you've all seen in your packets the elevation plan, but I just want to take a minute to do that again and say that I don't think that this is a plan that just looks like your standard two-story apartment complex that's been plopped up next to somebody else. So if there's some specific questions on that, I'd love to address them for you, but I think that the plan that's ' been put together worked hard on some creative issues. MR. ENGELBRECHT: would you just turn that around a little bit more and maybe they can pick it up on the overhead? Thank you. MS. ARCHER: I don't mean to hit or miss but I'm just going to hit some high points. Relative to the homeowners, I feel like that the majority of thc opposition letters came in prior to a detailed concept plan even being delivered to them or them having an opportunity to look at it. So I think from this concept of what were those homeowners kind of looking for and where were we in that process, I th~nl~ we've kind of Page 27 1 stated -- I think th~ majority of them are opposlng it 2 because they don't like th~ use. 3 I've said in several meetings before that th~ 4 zoning was in place five years before their homes were 5 built and there's a largo sign on the property that says 6 apartment 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 . 10 lot of those by limiting the height, removing the 11 buildings -- the windows, s,moving the balconies, and 12 adding tho 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 thr~ peopto that would like to, you know, 16 meet with us a number of times to try 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 ~ 23 that we've done an appropriate plan and would like to move 24 forward with it. 25 lvm. ENOELBRECH?: commissioners, do you have Page 28 1 questions7 Msl Oourdie. 2 MS. c, OtmDI£: Thank you. Ms. Archer, how far 3 is it from Building No. 1 to the pool? 4 MS. ARCHEP.: It's th~ farthest building away 5 from thc pool. 6 MS. GOURDIE: 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 recreation area in the 9 middle of the complex to sexve 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 go a little further or 12 maybe get in their car and drive over? 13 MS. ARCHER: I think that tho 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. I understand that there may be some eoncems 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 them and which building they would 22 particularly pick to live 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. Andif 25 that was a concern, that one might be suitable for someone Page 25 - Page 28 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 2000 74. Condens~It m 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 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 29 else. MS. Cfi)LIP, DIE: Thank you. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Any other questions? Would you review where you stand with the buffer and the -- as I see the detailed plan, there's a 15-foot sethack between the single-family and your units. There's a wood fence buffer. Are there plantings in there in that 15 feet, as well?· MS. ARCHER: What we did after the last meeting was to, again, there wasn't one person who everybody agreed on one thing, so we actually said, okay, we'll do the eight-foot fence, two feet higher than the requirement is. We do it so that it was board on board so that you didn't have any light issues. And then on top of that we threw the landscape in front of that building in all of those parking areas so that when they couldn't decide between whether they wanted the landscape buffer or they wanted another fence, we gave both. MR. ENGELBRECHT: I Was thinking about that from the perspective of the residents more than the -- of this complex. Because ff the fence is there, that goes away and I just wondered. So that's basically landscaped with plantings in that 15-foot buffer? MS. ARCHER: It has both, yes, sir. Ma. E~HEI~BK~CHT: Okay. Al1 right. Mr. Page 30 Williams. MR. WILLIAMS: I have a two-part question and I'll ask thc easiest part first. Did your company have anything to do with the building of the homes? MS. ARCHER: The single-family homes. My father and I purchased this property as a whole. It was 31 acres. We sold the 17 acres to Choice Homes who built the single-family. So we originally had the entire -- we owned the single-family land, also, but we sold that land for tho single-family development. But tho zoning was in place many, many years before we made that original sale. So we knew that we had our zoning in Phce and Our PO ill place for that. . MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. But why would You bUild homes first? MS. ARCHER: well, there was not a market for the multi-family for a long time and we've owned the property for a long time and we didn't see any reason why that would be a problem. I mean, we had the zoning in place. MR. WILLIAMS: YOU live in Piano, right? MS. ARCHER: ACtually, I live in -- my office is in Plane, yes. MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. In other words -- okay. You don't know Denton folks. Next thing, could you list Page 3 1 the ten concessions that you made? I've slept sin~ 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 littlebit better bere. It'S 9 One-and-a-half stories abutting the single-family and'two · i0 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 PI)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 PI) 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 cight-fogt fence and the landscape buffer. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH The recreation facilities, there are no recreation facilities required, as I understand it, by City standards, although we do have to give the donation to the park funds. We've included a club, pool house, and play yard and recreation play area. The roof pitches, minimum is 3/12. We've made the roof pitches on these 6/12 so they look like single-family homes instead of more standard flat-roof apartments. The building layout, there was no minimum requirement. We did the layout which included the three and four-plexes so that they would again be more conducive to single-family townhouse looks than a large two-story apartment building. : The two.other restrictions that we added that there weren't any reqUirements for that the homeowners asked for was the no RV or boat parking and no second-story balconies adjacent to the single-family or on the side of the buildings that abutted the single-family. So those arc the ten items. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. MS. ARCHER: Thank you. MR. ENGELBRECHT: MS. Gourdie. MS. GOURDIE: I had one more question for you I didn't get to. I was wondering where is the -- is there a laundry facility located in this apartment complex or will the units be having the washer and dryer hookups? 8, 2000 75. Page 29 - Page 32 Condcns~ItTM pag6 33 1 " MS. ARCHER: Individually. 2 MS. GOURDIE: Individually. Thank you. So 3 will the units be having the washer and dryer in the units 4 already provided there when they move in or are they going 5 to be required to bring the washer and dryer? 6 MS. ARCHER: Yes, that's what I understand. 7 MS. GOURDIE: SO they'll be in the units. 8 ' . MS. ARCHER: I'm sure that they can Iease them, 9 yes. 10 MS. GOURDIE: well, I guess that's where I'm 11 trying to understand is if they cannot lease them and if 12 they're not provided for, then where do they go to do 13 their laundry? 14 MS. ARCHER: They'll be in the units. 15 MS. GOURDIE: okay. Thank you. And I ask 16 that question because man? people put their laundry 17 facilities next to the management offices. Thank you. 18 MR. ENGELBRECHT: lhad asked staff earlier 19 about the issue of designing this comer as a coordinated 20 whole. And I have a concern that we're going to wind up 21 with a two-part -- again, another chopped up corner when 22 we could integrate this as one whole piece in this area. 23 I wonder if you have any thoughts in terms of design and 24 planning for that commercial area to incorporate and be a 25 part of this entire development? : · Page 34 I 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 w°'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. ENGELBRECHTi All right. Thank you. I 14 think that concludes the questions. Thank you very much. 15 MS. ARCHER: Thank you. 16 MR. ENGEI..BRECHT: 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 Comml.qsion on the neighborhood opposition, I 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 35 and I'm not representing the neighborhood, but it's my impression that the opposition is still there primarily -- I'm not so sure that it's about multi-family issues or commercial issues as much as just the intrusion of our privacy and safety concerns of kids and those type of things. I did go to tho last neighborhood me~ting we had and I asked speaifically on the ten points, there's a list of ten different items, had threo specific concerns. Number one was the building height on the perimeter. And I'd like to sec clarification -- moved away from one-story versus one-and-a-half versus two-stories. It's still a 3S-foot structure, is my understanding, which no matter: how you call it it's 3$-fcet tail. I was told that there's probably not compromise for that. I asked about the buffer from ton to 15 feet, I don't think is too much of a concession considering the height of their building. I was also advised that there was no concessions on that either, that that's the way it's going to be. And then I think some of the issues on the buffer foacing is -- I think the general consensus is wood versus a solid structure. And my concern specifically was a solid structure. It'd doesn't have to be Acme brick or whatover. It could be cinder block or whatever. But mainly for the reason Of durability, 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 36 something that's going to last for 20 years, safety issues, you know, just something that's solid as opposed to a wood fenc~ butted up to my wood fence. And I guess my concern them is, well, what about maintenance. You know, tl~ first couple of years it's going to look great. Ten years, 15 years, 20 years from now, who's going to maintain tt~s? Are they going to maintain it? Is there a commitment to that? So I was recommending maybe a solid structure to eliminate that concern. And I was told, well, that's cost-prohibitive. So them have been some points specifically addressed at the last meeting. The plan basically is the same exact plan that I've seen the last three -- two or . three meetings that I've attended. And I haven't seen any changes whatsoever. So I'm still opposed for it, obviously. To clarify some other things, too, that I just heard, I don't think there's a campaign in the neighborhood. Nobody certainly knocked on my door and said, hey, you know, get out them and come to meetings and rally the troops. I think a lot of these decisions are self-made, certainly on my behalf. I've looked at this on my own and looked at the merits and made my own decisions. I think maybe one of the problems you have is PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 2000 Page 33 - Page 36' 76. CondenseItTM Page 37 I in the neighborhood tlxa~ are a lot of amy-at-home moms. 1 2 They know each other. I'm not onactly in the loop of 2 3 these people but they know each other and they talk and 3 4 when something offends them, they get together. And I 4 5 think that's only natural. But I certainly don't believe 5 6 there's a campaign to let's get the owners. I don't think 6 7 the intentions ave there. 7 8 I've been in sales for 20 years and your first 8 9 impressiOn is thc most important impression. I missed the 9 10 very fast neighborhood meeting but thc gist I'm getting [0 11 from most of thc neighbors is, well, we're thc owners. 11 12 We're going to put this hare regardless of what you think.12 13 Too bad. I think maybe had ~ been some negotiation or 13 14 some give and take at thc very fa:st meeting, you wouldn't14 15 have such a large opposition. I think they kind of shot 15 16 themselves in the foot. 16 17 M~ I~OELBRECHT: okay. Thank you. I believc- 17 18 thexo is a question. Mr. McNeill. 18 19 MR. MC2qEILL: when you moved in there or when 19 20 tho majority of the ncighbors moved in there, wore they 20 21 aware that this was zoned Multi-Family? 21 22 MR. OARNF_~ That's a tricky question. I 22 23 would have to say no. There's been reference made to a 23 24 sign on this comer which I have yet to over see. That 24 25 reference was made at the last P & Z meeting whom we camo 25 . - Page 38 1 up and I think their attorney had said there's been a sign 1 2 there for all these years and we didn't think to address 2 3 that issue at the meeting, but a lot of the neighbors have 3 4 said we've never seen a billboard that says "future home 4 5 of apartments," period. 5 6 I think Choice Homes grossly misrepresented 6 7 the land use of that property. Myself and a lot of the 7 8 other homeowners asked specifically what was going to be 8 9 in that comer. The biggest eoneem was multi-family 9 10 because most people who bought homes there are starter l0 11 homes, they just moved from an apartment, they don't want11 !12 to ·invest $100,000.00 and live next to an apartment again. 12 13 And I know for a fact that the Choice Homes sales 13 14 representatives absolutely said there's no way that 14 15 apartments could go there. And I know that's not our 15 16 problem or anybody else's problem in this room, but they 16 17 were grossly misrepresented, in my opinion. 17 lg MR. MCNEILL: Thank you. 18 19 MR. GARNER: Yes, sir. 19 90 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Mr. Williams. 20 21 MR. WILLIAMS: ~ I hearing you saying that 21 22 the real estate agents broke the Real Estate Commission's22 23 -- could lose their licenses for misrepresenting -- 23 24 because I think from my memory of the Real Estate 24 25 Commission regulations, that if a homeowner asks, they 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 200(~ Page 39] have to tell what they know and I think that -- and I wan~ to know am I hearing this, because this is being taped live. MR. GARNER: Yes, sir. MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. GARNER: Arid it's my understanding, and I'm not a real estate expert but, yes, I know there are disclosure laws. But it's my understanding maybe that onlY applies to me as a homeowner and I'm trying to resale my home. If somebody were to ask me, what's back there, I would have to say, yes, I know what's there. And maybe there's some loopholes if it's a new home, maybe they're exempt from that disclosure. I really don't know but I can tell you that that was not disclosed properly. MR. WILLIAMS: The only thing I want to say, I know what a real estate agent, to maintain his license in the State of Texas, has to do. MR. GARNER: Yes, Sir, I think a new homo salesperson is not licensed in all cases. That's just my understanding. MR. ENGELBRECHT: okay. Ms. Apple. MS. APPLE: My recollection is that at the last meeting, and I thought it was you, but it must not have been obviously, that someone actually said from this neighborhood, and I can go back to my minutes, that they actually went done to the City and asked and that they were told that this was zoned for apartments. And I had thought it was you. MR. GARNER: In the vex~ first meeting, yes. We don't take the word of a salesperson. We called Planning and Zoning to find out exactly what is this zoned for and, in all honesty, it was very confusing and it was -- you know, I'm just a layman and it was a little hard to get to the bottom line what is this property zoned for. And being that it is split for multi-residential and commercial, you know, you hear both of those terms. I know~ a statement was made, well, the odds of an apartment going there are relatively slim in reference to the Denton ' Plan, in reference to I think there's some requirement of "X" amount of parking spaces versus "X" amount of square footage, "X" amount of-- you know, those type of issues. So, I mean, we did get to the bottom line but it took a lot of work. And then I also stated that on the notices that are sent out to the 200-foot property owners, you really had to read that very carefully to understand that this was not a zoning issue. And the reason I say that is because of the wording that was in bold, italicized letters, you know, you're being notified of a zoning change. I can't remember the exact words and I / think maybe that might help the m~ide, nts in the future if Page 37 - Page 40 77. CondenseltTM 1 2 7 8 10 11 12 14 15 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 - Page 41 Rat was looked at. MS. APPLE: Thank you. MR. ENGELBRECHT: I think that concludes the questions. Thank you. MR. GARNER: Thank you, sir. MR. ENGELBRECHT: Is there anyone else present who would like to speak in opposition to this petition? Anyone else present to speak irt opposition? :If there's additional oppositi°n, petitioner does have an opportunity for rebuttal. Any comments, Ms. Archer? MS. ARCHER: Only if there were any questions that were raised there. MR. ENGELBRECHT: MS. Gourdie. MS. GOURDIE: I do have a question for you. 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 ~ 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 putting homes up 6 or something. So them was some original - 7 M~ WILLIAMS: Misrepresentation. 8 ~ I~tCH~T: I don't kn°w if it was 9 misrepresentation or llke it Was the sales rep that 10 thought that they were going to end up buying it and keep 11 going or whatever. But for the majority of th~ folks that 12 lived around that community were 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 Is the sign you're speaking of the one with the arrow on it that's right in front of the pond? MS. ARCHER: Archer, uh-huh. MS. GOURDIE: Okay. It says Archer Real Estate for sale. MS. ARCHER: And underneath of it, it says multi-family and retail MS. COUP, DIE: okay. I just wanted to make sure that's the one you were talking about. Thank you. MS. ARCHER: Thank you. MR. ENGELBRECHT: .The public hearing is · page 42 I closed. Mr. Reichhart, do you have any final comments? 2 Mil. REICHHART: a~st 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 jtmt start talking and that ~ of thing. 7 ~ comment that, you know, there was a 8 sugg~fien that if you did these three things, move the 9 buildings back, keep i~ One story, do something with tbe 10 fene~ -- there were a couple of other enmments. People 11 would stand up at the neighborhood meetings and say, make 12 ' everything one-story. And it was directly asked to some . 13 xielghbors, if I did that would YOu remove 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 threa things were done -- I mean, you might get one 18 person to remove their opposition but, by doing that, you 19 might get mon~ opposition. I mean, that's the moving 20 target that's out there. Them 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 C'hoiee Homes, the information that thc 15 questions -- 16 M~ ENGELBRECHT: I think thoro are some 17 questions. Ms. Oourdio. 18 MS. oouimm: ?hank you. I'd like you to 19 clarify for Mr. Garner about tho 35-foot height of tbe 20 building. Is he correct in saying that all the buildings 21 am going to bo the same height even though one is 22 on~-story and the other ones on the inside am two 23 stories? 24 MP~ REICHHART: I ttdnk tho fact that the 25 elevations of the building ar~ such that in the rear, this 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 44 is the rear elevation, that this portion Of the building is one-story. Okay? In the front, they can go up to two stories and a two-story elevation, I believe, can go up to 35 foot. So at the top of the building, what you would be looking at, although it would be a one-story, it's all -- it's the roof going up. So the actual height of the building could go up to 35 feet. But the rear portion, there would be no windows on the side. There would be no second -- you wouldn't see a second-story window or anything like that. That's the intent of the -- MS. GOURDIE: Okay. Well, I guess what I've heard now is, although you,ve been present at all the meetings and i could be misinterpreting what I've heard, but I was under the impression they wanted a one-story building including the roof line so that they didn't have an overpowering presence above their homes. And even though it's.all roof line, it still gives the illusion of a two-story building for them to he looking at. And from what I've heard for the past few times is, what I thought their image was, that they were trying to convey was we want a one-story building that's at a one-story elevation and then on the inset go up higher. And I -- obvinusly, that's not what happened and I guess that's why there's part of a miseonfuslon as to what's really happening. MR. REICHHART: I think it's a fair statement PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 2000 78. Page 41 - Page 44 CondcnsoltTM Page 45 I that, you know, a number of adjacent property owners said 2 I would rather sec a one-story adjacent to this property 3 or adjacent to my property. 4 MS. GOURDIE: Thank you, Mr. Reichhart. 5 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Se~ing 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 fight there in the 10 single-family? I 1 MR. REICHHART: Correct. 12 MR. ENGELBRECHT: NOW, would that include 13 trees? 14 MR. REICHHART: It very well could. I'd have 15 to relook 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 does 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 wMch sort of makes me question what sort of creativity 5 was here. When this plan was initially presented, there 6 wasn't any siding requirements. 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 rD? Do you recall? 12 MR. REICHHART: I think tho applicant -- at 13 the first neighborhood meeting anYway, the questinn'came 14 up is do you want dual fences back to back. I think maybe 15 the initial I'D 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, ff that's creativity, I'm sorry, 20 Ijustdon'tseeit. 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, NIMB iS going 24 to -- not in my backyard is going to jump up immediately. 25 And it's just something you expect and, therefore, you PLANNING AND ZONING COMlVIISSION MARCH Page 47] 1 design with that in mind. It would appear that tl~s ' 2 design didn't. At best, it's come along and attempted to 3 address a piece at a time. 4 There was tho 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 · called 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 I1 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: Mr. McNeill. 18 MR. MCIqEILL: 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 hackyard. And so I think 23 that's why this was addressed that way. And in terms of if I'm doing this drawing and that's the concern, I'm not going to.clutter that up with trees so I can't tell what 24 25 ' Page I that building looks like. 2 MR. ENGELBRECHT: A reasonable argument. 3 MR. MCNEILL: $o 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 tO 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'swhy I was'asking. Mr. M°reno. 14 MR. MOP, ENO: 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 sce if there's any way to come to 17 somo 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 forgive me, I don't remember 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 8, 2000 Page 45 - Page 48 79. CondcnscltTM Page 49 I ' 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? · 9 MR. REICHHART: I pers°nally don't know of 10 any. And the other contention, I don't know the history 11 of that, per se, ff it was built together at the same 12 time, multi-family was there first. 13 MR. MOR.ENO: I think they Wel'~ built within a 14 year of each other but, truthfully, I don't recall which 15 came first. I think the homes. 16 MR. MCNEILL: The homes were first. 17 MR. MOP, ENO: So I just kind of wanted to make 18 a point that apartments, multi-family and single-family 19 homes can coexist. 20 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Ally other questions? It 21 would appear not. Thank you, sir. Commissioners, do you 22 have any other questions for staff, any comments,'or a 23 motion? 24 MR. MCNEILL: I'll make a motion. 25 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Mr. McNeill. 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 50 MR. MCN~EILL: I recommend approval as it's submitted on the plan with the conditions as outlined here on the plan in terms of the buffer, in terms of the fence, in that they would do lighting so that it's not to shine 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 51 in a timely manner has kind of thrown this into a different light. I am a little bit disappointed that tha developers have not found thc enthusiasm to go back to th~ neighbors and try to work with them tbe beat ~ possibly could to win them over to their side and have them look at what they're trying to do bere as a project that is a logical thing and I think maybe tho best thing for this type of corner and traffic situation and lots of things we havo going on here. So I'm a little bit concerned with that. I still have 31 percent opposition and I'm very sensitive to the,citizens that we have, even though they don't appear to bo as organized a neighborhood group as we sometimes sec that come before as. And I caution our Planning and Zoning people and our City Council people both to think of themselves if this was at Brash Creek or if this was at Southridg~ or if this was at Nortldakeo how they would look at it if it was siUing in their neighborhood and 31 percent of their population and they had all of their n~ighbors turn out with them because tbey're a very organized different sets of groups thea~. This does not seem to be a col~ivc group, although they have registered with our City and our planners th~ fact that they are opposed to it at this point in time. I sec 1 a lack of effort by the developer to try to put forth a 2 plan that is really creative, that can work with the 3 neighbors, and that they can find a way to compromise and 4 get something that's going to be quality for our up or otherwise disturb the surrounding residential property or to shine and project upward to prevent the diffusion in the night sky. MR. MORENO: second. MR. ENGELBRECHT: It's been moved and seconded to recommend approval with conditions as outlined in the staff recommendation. Are there -- discussion? Mr. Rishel, 5 community. 6 M~ ENOELBRECHT: MS. Gourdie. 7 MS. c, ommm: xhank you. I will not be voting 8 infavorofthismotlon. As I stated last time, Ibelievo 9 this is a Planned Development. They purchased this 10 property as a Planned Development. If they were unclear 11 what a Planned Developmend meant -- which I find an 12 impossible thing to'have happen with tho reputation of the . : - MiL RISHELi Thank you~ Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the logic that Mr. McNeill and Mr. Moreno have tried to bring to the argument. I certainly think that it's logical to think that if I was developing a piece of property, that it would be nice to have a residential area blocked or buffered in some way from major streets and other things by commercial and multi-family. That's a logical explanation and a logical pattern to follow in the development process. I think that there has been a situation here where we maybe put the cart before the horse. The process of developing the lots in very extensive multi-family and not having something that we knew was in place that was going to be able to come forth 13 applicant. They're very well aware of how things work in 14 ~hls town. And so I find that this hcks what a Planned 15 D~velopment was designed for and it's more as a -- it's 16 almost being treated as a straight zoning cass and keeping 17 everyone sq~regated and dismissing itself from what the 18 intent of Planned Development, which is to bring 19 everything together and make it work as a community within 20 itself, and this isn't happening. 21 I also think the traffic is still a concern. 22 I also believe that there is some misinterpretation as to 23 what the neighborhoods had requested and what was being 24 done. And I just find that with the way Denton has 25 changed in the past four or five years, we have a whole page 52 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 2000 80. Page 49 - Page 52 Condenselt r~ Page 53 I new philosophy, we've spent more time working each and 2 every process out. To compare to somethlng that was built 3 five, six, eight, ten, 20 years ago is not being realistic 4 as to what's really been going on in Denton and the 5 growth. You have to think about it, we were in a 6 recession at that time and things weren't going as well as 7 they seemed, so everyone let anything they could get in to 8 get in because it was a financial prospect:. And things 9 are changing. We're prosperous. We're building to do 10 things that are right for the City. And this is not 11 what's right for Denton at this moment in time. 12 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Any other discussion? Mr. 13 Williams. 14 MR. WILLIAMS: This is the hardest vote that 15 I've ever had to make. I see a developer who set himself 16 up for a beadaehe. I see homeowners who do not listen to 17 the principal "buyers beware." And I see City staff who 18 say, well, they should have been more creative, but I 19 didn't show them how to be creative. 20 So -- and I will be voting for this, but this 21 is tough. It's really tough because I've been in a 22 position where I've been down in the audience with my 23 grievance and felt like I wasn't being heard. 24 However, since information is out there, and 25 when we invest in homes, we need to go an extra mile. And Page 54 I also don't have any empathy for the developer who knew if 2 you build homes first and decide you want to build 3 apartments, you're going to have all heek break loose. So 4 -- but based upon how long it's been zoned that way, I'll 5 have to go with history on this. 6 MR. ENGELBRECHT: Any other comments? I just 7 want to say that I will be voting against the motion as I 8 think my questions to Mr. Relchhart indicated a little 9 earlier. The single-family residential was there. This i0 plan did not appear to me to have addressed what would 11 have obviously been some of their eoncems coming in. A 12 few have been made along the way. The.fact that there 13 wasn't even a buffer proposed of any kind initially, I'm 14 astounded. And that was only added because the residents 15 asked that. And, basically, everything else was only 16 asked for because the residents asked for it. I just 17 don't see that -- there wasn't any planning for the 18 immediate consideration for that immediate single-family 19 residential. So what sort of consideration would there 20 have been for the City? I just don't think it went into 21 it and I'm not going to vote at all for this plan. Any 22 other discussion? Vote, please. Ms. Apple, I'm sorry. 23 MS. APPLE: That's okay. 24 MR. ENGELBRECFIT: Motion carries, four to 25 three. I 2 3 4 $ 6 7 8, many ofyou e 9. amhere 10 that because 11 12 wc hay, 13 MR. WILLIAMS: 14 Me. MCIqEILL: 15 16 to move -- make I 17 Ms. Apple. 18 MS. APPLF~ Page 551 (Commissioners Oourdie, Rishel and Engelbreeht voted against.) _ _ I .~DJ - :~. / okay. Ladies ~ meeting. Let me ask; How 8? righ( How many 5? No. 7? All And I ask a request that the Agenda since been moved and seconded Any discussion? Yes, ) before 7 19 since them am a few 20. 6. 21 7's i to have 22 to wait for a ~'s. To me - 23 Ma. RISHEL: TO me, that woul~ 24 Shoot 6 up to 7 -- or 6 up to 8. 25 MR. ENGELBRECHT: IS thoro a friendly -- are I you putting that in the form of a friendly amendment? 2 1,11 accept that as a friendly 3 amendment. 4 MP~ I'll second the 5 friendly. 7, 8, 6. All right. Any passes unanimously. All right. We'll 7 then wMeh is to hold a 'recommending approval to. approximately 162 acres nllright. So now? Motion Agenda Item No. and consider plan for PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 2000 as e Thomas Toby 1288, and the B Survey, a the City Texas. )pen the public hearing ~ us with the staff report. ~RAY: 'thank you and This case ~ with the detailed plan for a s the North Polnte development. It is acres, grab the detailed plan right here, 162.5 acres containing 454 residential units and ten acres of open space. There 81. us Page 53 - Page 56 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Abstract No. 11 At this time. Oray to property 77, and is I~ 'Page ATTACHMENT 3 ~"~-99-096 (Ryan Rd./Teasley Ln, PD-93) NORTH 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 % Scale: None 82. AREA CALCULATIONS FOR Z-99-096 R an Rd./Teasle Ln. Calculated By: LCR Date Calculated: 2/1/00 A. TOTAL AREA (Site and 200' Notice Area): 1,221,111.0 SF B. AREA OF SITE ONLY 596,248.5 SF C. AREA WITHIN 200' NOTICE AREA (A - B) 624,862.5 SF' 1. PROPERTIES IN OPPOSITION (See Attached Table) 193106.3 SF 2. PERCENT OF NOTICE AREA IN OPPOSITION (1/C) 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, JANET . 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 76205-3422 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, RAUL 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, MATTHEWS 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 GR SSON 2781.8 2408 WILDWOOD LN DEEB, BEVERLY DENTON, TX 76205-3420 6193.5 2409 WILDWOOD LN BROWN 6202.4 2417 WILDWOOD LN FRANKLIN 3954.2 2420 WILDWOOD LN SMITH, WAYNE L II & DEANN U DENTON, TX 76205-0000 6980.3 2421 WILDWOOD LN BROWN/RAPER 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 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. 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 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. 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 fmed 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 f~om 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 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 8 6. EXHIBIT A 89° AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET April 18, 2000 Finance/Treasury Kathy DuBos¢, Assistant City Manager Fiscal and Municipal Services Agenda No.~ Agenda Item__ Oate_~.,~_~_~_~ SUBJECT: Consider Approval Of A Resolution Of The City Of Denton, Texas, Authorizing The Submission Of An Application Of The Criminal Justice Division Of The Office Of Governor, State Of Texas, Requesting Funding For The Denton Delinquency Prevention/Intervention Program For Juveniles; Providing For The Return Of Any Lost Or Misused Funds To The Criminal Justice Division, Of The Office Of The Governor, State Of Texas; And Providing An Effective Date. BACKGROUND: The City of Denton has utilized a Title V grant since 1995 to fund the Denton Teen Court and the Fred Moore After School programs. The Denton Teen Court and the Fred Moore After School programs were established as a result of a study done by a community planning task force appointed by the City Council. This group consists of persons from governmental and community interest organizations covering the full spectrum of the community. The City of Denton, Denton County, Denton Independent School District, Texas Woman's University and The University of North Texas have all had an active role in creating and maintaining this program. The grant requires an annual resolution authorizing the submission of the grant application and assuring the return of any lost or misused grant funds. Resolution #99- 009, which authorized the submission of the 2 year grant application was submitted for this year. However, the State's Criminal Justice Division Office requested that the City submit an entirely new resolution for this year. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the resolution as required by the grant for continuing the Program utilizing grant funds. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commision): The Council passed a resolution to authorize the submission of this grant in FY99. FISCAL INFORMATION: The funding requested is $97,800 for operation of the Program. Respe,~tfully submitted: Diana Ortiz Director of Fiscal Operations RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION OF THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, STATE OF TEXAS, REQUESTING FUNDING FOR THE DENTON DELINQUENCY PREVENTION/INTERVENTION PROGRAM FOR JUVENILES; PROVIDING FOR THE RETURN OF ANY LOST OR MISUSED FUNDS TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION, OF THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, STATE OF TEXAS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Denton is eligible to receive funds fi.om the'Criminal Justice Division of the Office of the Governor, State of Texas, and desires to increase the effectiveness of the Denton Delinquency Prevention/Intervention Program for Juveniles by providing funding to the Fred Moore After School Program and the Teen Court of Denton; and WHEREAS, in order to receive such funds, it is necessary for the Council of the City of Denton to authorize the submission of a Title V Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Grant Application to the Criminal Justice Division of the Office of the Governor, State of Texas, requesting funding; NOW THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1. That the City of Denton, Texas, certifies that it is eligible to receive a funding allocation fi.om the Criminal Justice Division of the Office of the Governor, State of Texas, for a Title V Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Grant for 'the Denton Delinquency Prevention/Intervention Program for Juveniles. SECTION. 2. That the City Council authorizes and directs the City Manager, or his designee, to represent and act on behalf of the City of Denton in applying for and working with the Criminal Justice Division of the Office of the Governor, State of Texas, in regard to such grant application. SECTION 3. That in the event of loss or misuse of any Criminal Justice Division funds awarded by this grant, the City of Denton assures that the lost or misused funds will be returned in full. SECTION 4. That the City Manager, or his designee, shall forward a copy of this resolution to the Criminal Justice Division of the Office of the Governor, State of Texas. SECTION 5. 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 BY: Agenda No, o o .- o / 7 ~ y'-, .,,,~", o o . AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: April 18th~ 2000 DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: Planning & Development Department Dave Hi!1,349-8314 ~,_~ SUBJECT Consider and take action on a request for relief from the Non-Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance 2000-069, for 1013 Shady Oaks. The proposal is for Office/Warehouse use. (RN-00-10) 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 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) 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; 1 (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 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 thc 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 April 4, 2000: 1. Wildwood Inn - approved 2. Cellular One - approved 3. Payne self-storage - denied Three petitions were reviewed on March 21, 2000: 4. 1508 N. Elm (Z-99-083) - approved 5. 1513 N. Locust (Z-99-084)- approved 6. 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. staffreport Respectfully submitted: well~,' Director of Planning & Development WAIVER REQUEST STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT 1 Subject: 1013 Shady Oaks Staff: Larry Reichhart Case Number: RN-00-10 BACKGROUND: Request for Relief to: Location: Zoning: Acreage: Platting: Comp Plan Consistency: Relief from the Non-Residential Interim Regulations (Ordinance No. 2000-069). The request is to proceed with the building permit process. 1013 Shady Oaks. (see Enclosure 1) LI (Light Industrial)(see Enclosure 1) 0.99 acres The subject property is platted. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this property to be within an Employment Centers District. This area is intended to provide locations for a variety of workplaces, including limited light manufacturing uses, research and development activities, corporate facilities, offices, and institutions. The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSION: If the relief request is granted the applicant would be required to submit a building permit application for review and approval prior to obtaining a building permit. If the relief request is not granted the application will be required to submit a project plan and a building permit application prior to obtaining a building permit. ENCLOSURES: l. Zoning Map 2. Application (includes a proposed site plan) 1013 Shady Oaks ENCLOSURE 1 NORTH ZONING MAP Scale: None INTERIM ORDINANCE RELIEF APPLICATION FORM s, PPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM: Non-Residential Interim Ordinance ?roject Name: · ' ?roject Address (Location): Existing Use: Existing Comprehensive Plan Designation: Existing Zon'ng: Gross Acres: * ~ ~ ~ SEE RF'I'.n:.F PROCEDURES ON BACK APPLICANT INFORMATION Civ: ~T~ State: ~ Z~: 7~ ~0 / Emil: Address: ~0/0 ~~~ Teh ~>g~3d CiV: %~ State: ~V 'Z~: 7~ ~ ~ Email: Conta~: ~~ ~ Company: Address: ~~ Ciw: State Z~: Email: SIGNA~ OF P~OPEK~ O~K OK ~P~CA~ ForD~a~mental Use Only . , . ... :... .' . .. . . . SIGN ~eRer ~f au~or~tlon req~ed ff si~a~e ~ other th~ prope~ owner) Subscribed ~d sworn before me t~s '- , ', ,, L~~xss~O~vx~ts~L~ R~dptNo: ' ' '~ ' ' '" ~ ~ ~';~ ':~ 7" · · . · ' Date gub~e& Acc~tM By: Nota~ Phblic ~ APPLICATION DEADLIN~ Tg wI:.DNESDAYS AT 10:00 AM. 6. Any underlined text aonlles onl-. t- .t ........ Non-Resldentlal Inte-'r~ o-~".'~--~--t-ne t~on-xteslaential interim Ordinance. ~!1 other text non'-- - t_.t .... tl ' ~..u-uzaz~ccs. . . 1-'P~ z c~ tO u o r.n z-i. eszclen Application Rcqulremcnts: The applicant maypefitiou the Gity Council for relief from these interim development rcgrtlatlons requestingsuchrellefinwrltlng Therequestforrellefshallbeconslderedb theCi Co · · by ~r°jeet plan and development a~lleatlon, y ty until m c°njtmm'on with action_ on__the Th'e'GityC°uneilshalln°trellevetheappllcantfromthesere ulreme . Which the City Goundl can reas · · q uts, unles~ the a lieant first · · . · onably conclude that the un sition oftbe r .... PP! .... presents creW..'ble ewdence fro use ot the,r land. , ...... ~'"'t'=, ~y ngnt or depnves the applicant of the economiC; viable The applicant is requested to submit sufficient information ..... ' ' .... "~'' '" responsible in malting their case before City'Council. addressing the following criteria. The applicant will also be In deelding whether to grant relief to the applicant, the City °une'l shall take into tbe i:omideratlon the followlng: Fl Whethergrantlngrelleffromtheresidentialdensityllmkatiuns, non.reside .'., c°ntamed m these interlm develooment reeul..:_- · . ~- ~tuat~o% m that implement the provisions of the comprehensive plan, jeopardizes the City's best in&rests in preventing such effects; r- vn~ rO me I,;lty s 1.and Development Code Fl The sultability °f the Pr°p°sed resldentlal or non-resldentlal uses in light ofland uses allowed in the z~nlng dlstrlcts on property adjacent to the proposed site; FI. The impact 6f.the proposed residential or non residential use on the transportation and other public facilltles'sy'~ms affected by the deve!o~m,e,nt; ~, '.. Fl The measures pr°p°ied to be taken by the applicant to prevent negatlve impacts of the proposed use on the nelghborhood; Fl The likelih°od that su~cient relief will be provlded to ihe applicant following adoption of the City,s Development Code; Fl Thetotal expenditures made in COnnection with the provosed resldenti' "' '.i - . ,, '. '~'.-. ' ', . regulations, includiw,,L ....... t: .... ':--: ~ - t~ ' ='°r.n°n'resment~maevel°pmentlnrelian onprlor ~ .......... *,',m~. ~ng ~mrastructure to serve rue project; · . ce Fl Any fees reasonably paid in connection with th& propos..~d use; Fl Any representatlons made by the City concernlng the project and reasonably relled upun to the detrlment,qf the appllcant. The City Council may take the following actions: (a) deny the relief request; · . grant the relief request; or . ((c)) grant the teller request subject to condltxons conslstent with the criterla set forth in the interim development regulations. Any relief granted by the City Council shall be the mlr;;mim~ ~vlatlon from ordinance requi~,,ments nec, e~ary to prevent Ck~rlvafion of a vested property Hght. . SIGN~ations have been read and understood by the applicant. AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET April 18th, 2000 Planning & Development Department~'~ Dave Hill, 349-8314 Agenda No. Agenda Item SUBJECT Consider and take action on a request for relief from the Non-Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance 2000-069, for Victoria Square Phase II. The property is located at 117 Prairie and 408 Waimight. The proposal is for Office use. (RN-00-12) 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 eonta'ms a separate section that allows applicants to request relief from the interim regulations, including evaluation criteria to be used by Council: 5. Relief requests bo 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 lan& In deciding whether to grant relief to the applicant, the City Council shall take into consideration the following: 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 fi.om ordinance requirements necessary to prevent deprivation ora 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 thc attachments. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW Three petitions were reviewed on April 4, 2000: 1. Wildwood Inn- approved 2. Cellular One - approved 3. Payne self-storage - denied Three petitions were reviewed on March 21, 2000: 4. 1508 N. Elm (Z-99-083) - approved 5. 1513 N. Locust (Z-99-084) - approved 6. 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. Several of the petitions claim financial harm, an issue that may be evaluated by Council. ATTACHMENTS 1. staff report Respectfully submitted: Director of Planning & Development WAIVER REQUEST STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT 1 Subject: Victoria Square, Phase II Staff: Larry Reichhart Case Number: NR-00-12 BACKGROUND: Request for Relief to: Location: Zoning: Acreage: Platting: Comp Plan Consistency: Relief from the Non-Residential Interim Regulations (Ordinance No. 2000-069) to relieve the requirement of a Project Plan. 117 Prairie & 408 Wainright. (see Enclosure 1) Commercial (see Enclosure 1) 0.34_+ acres Both properties are platted. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the northern 20 %_+ of the subject 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 remaining 80%_+ of the site is in the Developed Areas of Floodplain. As the surrounding areas are currently developed, staff finds the use consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSION: If the relief request is granted the applicant would be required to submit a building permit application for review and approval prior to obtaining a building permit. If significant floodplain issues are identified during the review of the building permit, a development plat could be required to resolve floodplain issues. If the relief request is not granted the applicant will be required to submit a project plan and a building permit application prior to obtaining a building permit. If significant floodplain issues are identified during the review process, a development plat could be required to resolve floodplain issues. ENCLOSURES: 1. Zoning Map 2. Land Use Map 3. Application ENCLOSURE 1 Victoria Square Phase II NORTH SYCAMORE PRAIRIE ZONING MAP Scale: None ENCLOSURE 2 Victoria Square Phase II NORTH LAND USE MAP Scale: None INTERIM ORDINANCE RELIEF APPLICATION FORA{ APPLICATION FOR BI=.IIF. F FROM: Non-Residential Interlm Ordinance Date: Project Name:' V~ ~7/~/~ ' Project Address (Location): ( ~-'[ .~A! gu~. q- ~ ~,~4~ . Gross Acres: /~/, ~ SEE ~I.~F PROCED~ ON BACK '-'" I I'" Address:~2-~ ~- [,3ttO%t3~s'~. .Tel.~DcO 5gT.-J-ag'%\ Fax: Ciw~ ~ State: ~ . Z~: ~& ~ ~ Emfil: Prope~ Owner: ~ ~0 {~ Company: Address: Td: F~: Ci~: State: ' Z~: Email: Conta~: ~~ .Company: Address: Teh F~: Ci~: State Z~: Emalh SIGNA~ OF PROPER~.O~R O~P~CA~ For D~a~mental Use Only SiGNAl: · ~ ~/'~ . .. · ~e=er of aff~idn~q~ ii~T=e ~ other thru prope~ owneO C~e M,-,Sen Subscribed ~d sworn before me t~s APPLICATION DEADLINE IS We~'"*""qAYS AT 10:00 AM. 7. Any u..nd.e.rlln_e.d.t.~xt applies only to the Non-Residential Interim O~dinance./~11 other text a iles to b ' · Non-Res~dential Interun Ordinances~ Pp otb Reudential and Appli~tlon Requirements: The applicant mav,~tltloa the Ci"- Co.---e'~ t .... ,? ~ ..... requesting such relief in wrltin~ The request ~rrr'~lie f .t., t':'-~: __'~.~_~u ~,~,, ~.~, ex~.orn~tnese ~t~ ~elopment r~atlo~ by proje= plm and develoPment ~3plicatian ,-~, uu consmerea oy tne ~'W ~== m conjun~ion with a=ion on tl.e · ~ Ciw Council shill not relieve the applic~t from ~ req~emen~ ~ ~e apoffmt ~ r~n · · ~.t ..... ~, u~m~ r~=ent~m oem~W ~tanom, non-r~identi~ ~ or other development st~dar& deprives the applic~t of a vested Prope~ N~t or &pfiv~ the applimt of~e econobay ~able me nf their Ired. · ~e applicant is requited to sub~t snffieient info~atlon addr~slng the following criteria. ~e applicant will also be r~onslble in m~ng their c~e before Ci~ Council. N deciding whether to grant relief to the applicant, the Ciw Counell sh~l t~e into th~ ~gnside~tlon the following: U Whet}er grating rellq fr°m the resldential densi~ limltations, non.residenti~'st~dar& or other deve eontmM m ~ totem development r~atlon N the ab ...... c ............. , _ . lopment u~& -~-- ~ ....... ~; m~cn~ rem~om to me U~W s ~d Development ~e that implement the provisions of the comprehensive pl~, jeop~di~s the Ciw's best interests in preventing such effe~s; ~ The suitabfliw of the pro, sM r~iden~ or non.r~idenfi~ m= N ~t oflmd m~ ~owed N ~e ~g ~m on pro~~ adjacent to the proposed site; The impact df.the proposed residential or non residential me on the transportation and other public facilities systems affected by the development; VI The measures proposed to be taken by the applicant to prevent negative impacts ofthe proposed use on the neighborhood; VI The likelihood that sufficient relief will be provided to the apphcant following adoption of the City,s Development Code; VI The total expenditures made in conneCtion with the Proposed residential or n~n-resldentlal deVelo ment in ' ' ' regulanous~ ~neludmg the costs of installing infrastructure to serve the project; p reliance on prior VI Any fees reasonably paid in connection with the proposed use; VI Any representations made by the City concerning the project and reasonably relied upon to the detfiment ofthe apl~licant. The City Council may take the following aCtions:' (a) deny the relief request; c)) grant the relief request; or ' g an~ ,,e re,icl request subject to conditions consistent with the criteria set forth in the interim development regulations. Any relief granted by the City C°tmcll shall be the rn;n';,atrna d~vlatlon from ordinance requirements neceSSary to pre~ent d~pfivatlon of a vested property fight. AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET/ enda No. Agenda I!em _ April [8th, 2000 ~--' ~--~' '~ Planning ~ Development Department Dave Hill, 349-8314 SUBJECT Consider and take action on a request for relief from the Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance 2000-046, for McKamy Evers Estates, located on Locust Street, south of Loop 288 and north of Evers Park. The proposal is for residential (SF-7) use. (RR-00-09) 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 ease 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 fight 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 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 Five petitions were reviewed on April 4, 2000: 1. Lakeview Ranch- approved 2. Audra Oaks - approved 3. Robinson Oaks - denied 4. Belle Bryan Apath~,ents - approved 5. Behning Place - approved Two petitions were reviewed on March 7, 2000: 6. Shadow Brook Place - approved 7. 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: Douglas S.l'~owell, AICP Director of Planning and Development WAIVER REQUEST STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT 1 Sub|ect: McKamy / Evers Estates Staff: Larry Reichhart Case Number: RR-00-09 BACKGROUND: Request: Location: Zoning: Acreage: Platting: Comp Plan Consistency: Relief from the Residential Interim Regulations (Ordinance No. 00-046) to plat and develop the property under current SF-7 regulations. Generally south of Loop 288 and west of Locust. (see Enclosure 1 ) SF-7 (see Enclosure 1) 59_+ acres The property is not platted. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this property to be within the "Neighborhood Centers" District. These areas may develop in conventional patterns or may be developed in a pattern of'neighborhood centers'. The property also has Developed Areas of Floodplain on the property. Any issues related to the floodplain will be resolved during the platting process. Single-family development is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSION: If the relief request is granted the applicant will be required to submit preliminary and final plats, in accordance with SF-7 zoning regulations, prior to development. If the relief request is not granted the applicant will be required to submit a zoning plan and a project plan prior to submitting preliminary and final plats. ENCLOSURES: 1. Zoning Map 2. Application ENCLOSURE 1 McKamy/Evers Estates NORTH I ! I I PD A Li.22 LOOP 288 PD ZONING MAP Scale: None o ENCLOSURE 2 /~ INTERIM ORDINANCE RELIEF APPLICATION FORM APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM: Residential Interim Ordinance ?roject Name: i~ Id tt t{- E f Existing Use: ~_~'~! - b/~Nr Proposed Use: .~b"$//~'~-/ttW/,4~ ExistingC°mprehensivePlanDesignati°n:---¢{~ '~.,~..t~ih ~0~ ~/~,'~ ~ ~l. ~J Exist~g Zo~ ~- 7 ~- 7 Proposed Zo~g: ~' 7 Gross A~es: ~ ~ SEE ATTACHED ~LIEF PROCED~S ~PLIC~T INFOHATION ~/~ff~; 0~ Stae: Z~: Em~: ~ ~0~ State:~ Z~: ~ Em~: ~ ~~ State%~ ~ Z~: Em~: SIGNA~ OF PROP~ O~R OR ~PLI~ For Depa~mental Use Only (s ss v ox ~ of au~o~$n req~ ~si~a~e is o~ than prope~ owne0 ~e M~ager:. ~ibed ~d ~orn before me t~s  Receipt No: ~7 d. of~~ 200__O ~' ~'~;a~;f Te~sS : ~ - ~" Date Sub~aed: APPLICATION DEADLINE IS WEDNESDAYS AT 10:00 AM. Application Requlrements: 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 o£the economically viable use of their land. The applicant is requested to submit sufficient information addr~sslngthe following crlte~ia. 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 denslty limitations or other development standards contained in these interim development regulation, in the absence of permanent revisions to t.he City's Land Development Code that implement the provisions of the comprehensive plan, jeopardizes the City's best interests in preventing such effects; V! The suitability of the proposed resldential uses in light of land nses 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; VI The measures proposed to be taken by the applicant to prevent negative impacts of the proposed use on the neighborhood; VI The likelihood that sufficient relief will be provided to the applicant following adoption of the City's Development Code; VI .The total ~xpenditures mad.e, in connection with the proposed resldemial development in reliance on prior regulations, including ~he costs of instalhng infrastructure to serve the project; ' VI Any fees reasonably paid in connection with the proposed use; {~ Any representarions made by the City concerning the project and ressonably relied upon to the detriment ofthe applicant. The City Council may take the following actions: /deny the relief request; grant the relief request; or (c) grant the relief request subject to conditions consistent with the criteria set forth in Ord. No. 2000046. uzy.re. lief granted by the City Council shall be the minimum deviation from ordinance requirements necess~-y to prevent epnvhtion of a vestM property right, ' ' ' SIGNATURE certifying that these regulations have been read and understood by the applicant. PRINTorTYP~.NAM~ ~"L./,r'4 t~/z:5; SKJ REALTY PARTNERS 8 March 2000 MR. MICHAEL JEZ, City Manager The' City of Denton· ~ 215 E. McKinney St. Denton Tx. 76201 Dear Mr. Jez, On behalf of the Trustees of the Bob E. Tripp Trust ~2, I would like to request a waiver of the requirements of Ordinance #200-046 (Interim Development Regulations). This is in connection with a 59 acre tract located on Locust, just north of Evers-School-and-Evers Park.. We would appreciate scheduling our hearing as soon as possible. A Trustee of the Trust will address the Council on behalf of the T .rust and I will speak in favor of the request. The imposition of the Ordinance #200-046 deprives the Applicant, the Bob E. Tripp Trust #2,' of its vested property rights and of the economical use of its property. t~,,,,.~ away the zoning on which we have relied on · The ordin~n;~ aP, ectively ~'-~ JOHN F. SKELTON AIA 7001 Preston Road LB 28 Dallas Tx. 75205 (214) 520-7175' JFS:ns Ench Application for Waiver (Original) · Mrs. Celia Reid · Cc: ' ' " ' · Mr; Mike Cochran Mrs. Roni Bea~ley AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CMfDCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET April 18th, 2000 Planning & Developm~_~t Department Dave Hill, 349.8314 \~ ~ ~'~-'~ Agenda No. - Agenda Item Date ,., SUBJECT Consider and take action on a request for relief from the Residential Interim Regulations, Ordinance 2000-046, for Summit Oaks Addition, Phase II. The 38.07 acre property is located approximately 122 feet north of Ryan Road on FM 2181, east of FM 2181. A single-family Planned Development (PD) is proposed. 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 Febru_a_ry 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) thc 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 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 Five petitions were reviewed on April 4, 2000: 1. Lakeview Ranch - approved 2. Audra Oaks - approved 3. Robinson Oaks - denied 4. Belle Bryan Apartments - approved 5. Behning Place - approved Two petitions were reviewed on March 7, 2000: 6. Shadow Brook Place - approved 7. 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 staffresources. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff report Respectfully submitted: well, AICP Director of Planning and Development WAIVER REQUEST STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT 1 Sub.iect: Summit Oaks, Phase 2 Staff: Larry Reichhart Case Number: RR-00-14 BACKGROUND: Request: Location: Zoning: Acreage: Platting: Comp Plan Consistency: Relief from the Residential Interim Regulations (Ordinance No. 00-046) to construct a single-family subdivision. 3801 Teasley Lane. (see Enclosure 1) PD-162. (see Enclosure 1) 38.068 acres The property preliminary platted. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this property to be within the "Existing Neighborhood/Infill Compatibility" area. New development should respond to existing development with compatible land uses, patterns, and design standards. The applicant is proposing to construct a single-family development on the site (see Enclosure 2). Staff finds the use consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSION; If the relief request is granted, the applicant will be able to continue the platting review process for review and approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to development. If the relief request is not granted, the application will be required to submit a design plan as well as completing a final plat prior to development. ENCLOSURES: 1. Zoning Map 2. Application RR-00-14 ENCLOSURE1 (Summit Oak, Phase 2, Final Plat) NORTH SF-10 '1 SF-7 A A LOCATION MAP 5. Scale: None 84/07/2008 16:29 APR,-07' O0(FRI) 13:39 8172446877 ¢IVILWORK$ --' :817 757 ll4{]S ~NC'r,©$UR~ 9 P. 00l INTEEIlVl ORDINANCE RELIEF APPLICATION FORM Date;. APPLICATION FOR.' RELIEF FROM: Rzsid~d4si I. nt~-hn Ordinance Proj~N*--~.; Summit .Oaks 'iddition:- Phase II e~j~:~-o=~io.): Appro.x,: lZ2' nor{h o~ R.yan Road on FM Z181 east of FM ZlS1. ~tistlng U~e: Ur~developed Exi~tl.g Zoning_ PD(I'F-7) Gross A¢r,~: 38.0.7 l~oe,,aedU~e:_ S'Ingle Fami!y Residential S~ngle Family Residential PropMea Zoai,~ Same SEE ATFACI4m~ RELll!P I~OCi~UR~ Applic=-~, 0itl s Lee, I:I'I' Comps7; CIVILworks E'n~neeri.'n.~ ~,, 11~2 Bol~n'g Ranch. Road T~_(B17'.)'448-QS~5 F~ (8~1.)448.6390- Bmpe~r: H~rley A~'soctates:, I?nc. Comply: Jamea R: Harris Co. A~s; 6300 ~d~lea ~lmcm Su.i'tp R?& Ta:.(B17J737'~q~4 F~, ('817.)72T~8405 (~GN ~ P~T OR ~ N~) . Te~ F~b):..... Sub~i~ ~d ~om b~a me API~I/CATION DF..ADLINE IS WIEDN~.SDAYS AT 10,00 AIW.. A?R.-O?'OO{PRIJ 1~9 JAgE$ RHARRIS CIVILWORKS PAGE~ 83 TEL:~I7 757 ~405 P, O02 la deciding whether to g:raa~ rdicf to The applicutg the City Council .h-Il :d~ iaco the coasider~zion ~he follo~,iag: ~ ~ul~. of d~ prop~, residemial or ~r~ rig ~ M I~t of ~ ~ .~o~ ~ ~ ~s ~ on pm~r ~J~t ~ the propo~ ~ ~ ~ ~P~d ~d~ or aon~ ~ ~ ~~o~ ~ o~public~~ ~by ~c ~dopmcng The ~ proud m ~ ~fl by r~ ~p~ to p~: ~c imp~ of ~c propo~ ~ on the ~r~ The I~;h~ ~g ~t r~ ~al ~ ~ ~ ~ ~pl~g ~o~ ~p~ of ~e o~'s ~nt C~g I~ The ~ral c~di. ' .m. res ma~ ia con~ection ~rirh ih~ pr~p~n:ci rc~laarkl or now~,~ ~m~ in rdi~ on prior Amy fees ~aabl¥ p~id ia con~,.,-,~.,n wkh the Fropo~ed u~ The O~ Couacil may' ~akc d~ ~ollowiag ~ (b) ~t ~e ~H~ r~ or (c) ~ the r~ r~ ~b}~ to ~n~do~ ~nm~t ~h ~he criteria ~ ~ in ~he iut~ ~op~x ~o~, SIGNATUR~ certifying r. hat thes~ regulgions h~.ve beea r~ ~,~d uttde~T, ood by the applica~L 84/87/2888 1~:29 8172445077 CIVILNOF~<$ P~GE 81 Facsimile Cover Sheet rDATE; 0a/07/2000 j JOB NO,: 99070 J PDOJECT: SUMMIT OAKS PH :2 TO Company: Attention: Fax Number: CITY OP DENTON BETH HUDSON (940)349-7707 FROM Name: 01TIS LEE, III Fox Number: 817/448-&390 Number of Pages Including Cove,': 3 NOTES/COMMENTS: Ms. Hudsonl, at the lequest of Mr. Jim Haddock, we are subrnitting this application for relief from the Interim Ordinance. We believe that based on the history and work completed on fl~is project the application is justified. Based on conversations wilh Mr. David Hill. we look forward to addressing this issue with the Cily Council on April 18. I om sending this for your information os case manager for this project cc' Mr. David Hill Mr, Doug Powell IF YOU HAD ANY PROBLEMS RECEIVING THIS FAX, ?LEASE NOTIFY US AT (8171244'bO77 J SI:~-IT BY: ellis Lee, Ill, P.£ J CIVILworks Engineering 192 Baling ROnCI~ Rood * AZI~, Texas 76020 ' Phone(817J448-9595 ' FoxlB]7}448-6390 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET April 18th, 2000 Planning & Developm~ment Dave Hill, 349-8314 Agenda No. Agenda Item Date . ~ SUBJECT Reconsider denial of 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) (Council Member Burroughs requested reconsideration of this item.) BACKGROUND An application for request for relief from the Residential Interim Regulations has been received. (see Attachment 1). Background infor,xiation 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. 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 This application was reviewed by Council on April 4, 2000 and denied 5 to 2. Councilmember Burroughs (who voted with the majority for denial) asked that reconsidered. Subsequently, this item be Five petitions were reviewed on April 4, 2000, including this application which was denied: 1. Lakeview Ranch - approved 2. Audra Oaks- approved 3. Robinson Oaks - denied 4. Belle Bryan Apartments - approved 5. Behning Place - approved Two petitions were reviewed on March 7, 2000: 6. Shadow Brook Place - approved 7. 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. Applicant's request 2. Staff report Respectfully submitted: Director of Planning and Development Residential Deslg~ Group OfftcnlFieid Survk,~ Group . Urban. Planning & Landscape Design Group U. SA' Profess'loP, al Sar'vicas FOUNDED 1982- Providing P~efessional Civil Enginesrin~ OAVIO M. SCHNURBU$OH, P:E.'. .I Prudent. CEO April 12~ 2000 ROBERT L. PRUETT, JR., P.E. Execute Vice President · COO : Mr: Larry Reichhart: .... C ty of Denton,'City Hall West 221. N: Elm omc~ Denton, TX 75201 TIMOT~Y W, MAY, R.L.A,. L.L ' ' Vfce President,. L~d Planning ' u,~, ~,,t~., 0,0~,.. RE:'Robinson'Oaks subdivision ROOERT ia. STENGEL~,' P.E~ ~an, -' Robinson Road, west.of State SchoOl Road E,~,.,,o.0,o,, ' '..'. "USA Project No. 99089.0.. . .' TODD B. TURNER. R.P.L.S;. ATTACHMENT 1 J]lC, ~unicipal Design Group Commsrolal Design'Group Constrocfloo Administration. Group, 'via facsimile to (940) 349-7707 Original'via U. S. Postal' Service o~.o,,~0,, Mr. Reichhart, ' "-- " ' -. GARY ROMA1-Z, R.P.L:S.. ' . ' . n.,, 0,,,an0,, The Robinson Oaks project was brOu§ht before City.Council °n'-4/4/2000 for' an. interi.m . ordinance relief. City Council deniedou? request. . We have spent the last several' days re-designing the 'land plan, attempting tO'comply with ' the interim'drdinan~e. Wefeel we have met theintent of the interim ordinance but are unable.to comply.fult~ and. still, have a. viable' p'roiect. We have shared, those revisions with you. We have'also'contacted and pr°~,ided additional information to Councilman Burroughs for his reconsideration of the project~ Please be advised th'at Councilman Burroughs~ verbally agreedlto recoi~sider the.relief request yesterday'and place'it'on the next Council a~enda. We formally request that our case be placed on thenext Council agenda for relief reconsideration. Our reconsideration case will provide the Council and Staff with.more project history, timelines, Comprehensive' ' Plan and interim ordinance compliance, in greater detail than what was presented at'the last - - Council meeting. Should you have any further c.omments, please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience.. Sincerely, o ,' ' ' Tviicm~ p~i~n~ ~'d Landscape Architecture CC: . M'r. Lloyd Blaylock 8700 STEtrO'NS FR'EEW~Y TE.L'EPH. ONE 214.,634-3366 SUI. TE FOUR HUNDRED D.A.LLAS TEXAS 75247- 725 FAX 214o634-3338 E,I/IAIL: mai. l@esaengineers.'com www.g~aengjneora.aom April 12, 2000 LENNOX INVESTMENTS, INC. 6116 N. Central Expressway Suite 1313 Dallas, Texas 75206 Tel. 214-696-9933 Fax. 214-696-9935 Hand Delivered Mr. Larry Reiehhart City of Denton Demon, Texas RE: Robinson Oaks Dear Mr. Reiehhart, As you know, the City of Demon Council turned down our request for a waiver of the Imerim Ordinance for Residential Development. I perceived that the Council felt we could accomplish our goals by applying the ordinance and its density credits. We have further studied the ordinance and have come to the conclusion that there is no way to do this by applying the non-subjective "Criteria for Increased Density" as shown in the ordinance. We do feel we qualify for the following Increases: 1% increase for putting 5% of the land area in open space. Possibly 6 of the 9 Design Features. This would depend on interpretation. We could not qualify for the Rec. Facilities, the School Site Dedication or the Housing Affordability. Using the formulas in the ordinance, we think we could get only 3.23 lots per acre. That will equate to only 109 lots with an average size of 10,280 sq.fL As far as the subjective criteria of which the ordinance makes reference, we found on page 12 of 28, under "Density Consideration", the Council may consider the current zoning of the subject property. (Current zoning is duplex, fourplex and retail.) Also, on page 14 of 28 under "General Criteria", the Council may increase the base residential density if the development "provides superior project design" or "enhances the quality and usability of open space for the project and preservation of natural features preservation within the project." (Our site plan lends itself to saving trees.) We have developed a revised site plan showing 135 lots and an expanded amenity area in the form ora bike trail leading to the north and east streets. This will provide direct access from those areas to the amenity center. The 135 lots require a density of 3.97 or 3.98. This density is consistent with the projects that are developed or are to be developed in all directions from this site. We have shown those projects on the enclosed aerial photograph. They are as follows: 1. Our Project 2. Oakmont II Estates. Our project which is zoned SF-7 with a density of 4.0 lots per acre. 3. The Kirby and Wheeler Ranch Tracts recently zoned PD with a 4.0 maximum density with 45 to 55 ft. lots. 4. Wynstone at Oakmont Development - 4.09 lots per acre density. 5. An existing trailer or modular home development. 6. A high density Choice Homes project with proposed apartments and retail. 7. Summit Oaks Development - 4.07 lots per acre density. 8. The Texas State School for the Mentally Retarded. We feel the above shows our project would be out of place unless it can be produced with a density of 3.98 or 4 units per acre. In the event we were required to produce 3.23 lots per acre or 109 lots, the lots would be 10,280 sr.. There is no market for lots of this size in this area. IfI could sell them to a builder, the price of the lot would dictate that he build a home with a sales price of $275,000.00 to $300,000.00. I do not believe that someone who will pay that price for a home wants to live next to a modular home development. This project is a unique one in that in order to save trees, we designed the majority of the lots with excessive depths. That is the reason that even with a large number of the lots being 55 ft. in width, we have an average lot size of 8,300 sf. We have tried to work within the sprit of the interim ordinance by incorporating the following items into our development: 1. Using 5.06% of the land area as open space. (The amenity center and bike trail). 2. We will install street trees where there is no existing tree. 3. We will install a masonry wall along Robinson Road and wooden fences on the other three property lines. All will be maintained by the home owner's association. 4. We will landscape the amenity center area and the bike trail. 5. Our density will not exceed that of any project within 500 ft. 6. We will require that the exterior walls (inclusive of windows) for each home to consist of at least 75% masonry. 7. All dwellings shall have a minimum ofa 2 car garage and the builders will be required to offer plans that have side facing garages. 8. In order to save trees and avoid the tunnel effect of the front building lines, we will stagger those building lines by moving some oftbem back an appropriate distance. We can accomplish this because our lots are deeper that the norm. 9. We are below the maximum density allowed under the ordinance. (4.5 lots per acre) In response to the comments contained in the Interim Ordinance Relief Procedures that the City Council shall take into consideration (copy attached), I offer the following: Granting relief is contrary to Comprehensive Plan? Section 3, c, 6 (page 17) of the Denton Comprehensive Plan 1999-2020 states "Future residential developments within established residential areas would be developed in a manner that responds to the existing residential development with compatible land uses and development patterns. Existing neighborhoods within the city will be protected and preserved." Also, [fl read the map on page 19 correctly, our project falls under "Existing Residential Patterns". Suitability of proposal in light of adjacent property? The proposed residential use is suitable in light of the land uses allowed in the zoning districts on property adjacent to the proposed site. Impact on transportation and other public facilities? The proposed residential use will not negatively impact transportation or other public facilities. Measures taken to prevent negative impacts on neighborhood? The measures proposed by the applicant to prevent negative impacts on the neighborhood include fencing or wall around the entire project. Likelihood sufficient relief will be provided after adoption of development code? No Response Total expenditures made by applicant on project? The total expenditures made in connection with the proposed development in reliance on prior regulations is $42,370.95 which does not include the land cost or the cost of over sizing the lift station at Oakmont II Estates (next door) in order to take the sewage from approximately three fourths of this project. It does include engineering, tree survey, topographical survey clearing and market studies. Any fees paid? Yes, on July 27, 1999 we obtained a clearing and grading permit under Planned Development 85 - 159. Any represemations made by the City? No Response A time line concerning this project is as follows: October 1998 Purchased the property as an extension of the Okmont II subdivision July 1999 Met with the city about clearing and tree survey. Developed a plan for limited clearing in order to produce an accurate tree survey' July 27, 1999 Obtained a clearing and grading permit. August 1999 Preformed selective clearing and grading in order to obtain a tree survey and topographical map of the site September 1999 - January 2000 Worked with builders on desired product. Commissioned Residential Strategies to produce a market study for the project. Developed preliminary site plans. February 2000 - April 2000 Developed final site plan and cost analysis. Went to city staff for comments. We feel we have offered a well thought out design with amenities and densities that are equal or better than any project or development in the neighborhood and we respectively request that we be allowed to have a rehearing before the City Council. Yours truly, Lloyd D. Blaylock President eric. 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 condude that the imposition of the residential densitylimltations 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 ske; [] The impact of the proposed residential use on the transportation and other public facillties 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 sufficient relief will be provided to the applicant following adoption of the City's Development Code; [] The total expenditures made in connection wkh the proposed residential development in reliance on prior regulations, indudlng 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; grant the relief request; or (b(c5 grant the relief request subject to conditions consistent with the criteria set forth Ord. No. 2000-046. Any relief granted by the C~ty Council shall be the mmunum dewauon from ordinance reqturements necessary to prevent deprivation of a vested property right. SIGNATURE certifying that these regulations have been read and understood by the applicant. DATE PRINT or TYPE NAME AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: ATTACHMENT 2 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET April 4th, 2000 Oax~e H!!1,349-8314~'~ : . 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 locattd 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 standords are adopted. Ordinances 2000-046 also contains a separate section that allows applicants to request relief, from thO interim regulatiOns, including evaluation Criteria to be USedby 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; 11. · 4. (t) the total expenditures made in connection With the proposed residential development in reliance on prior regulations, including the costs of ?stalling 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 cfa 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 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 staffresources. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staffreport R~ctfully ~mi~. Director of Planning and Development 3.2. WAIVER REQUEST STAFF REPORT ATTACI-IIV,_~NT 1 ISub|ect: Robinson Oaks St.a_fi: 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 prio[to development. If the relief requestis 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 13. ENCLOSURE 1 Robinson Oaks NORTH ~" De.n=ton State School · ·LOCATION MAP ...i Scale: None ENCLOSURE=2 ~obinson Oaks NORTH ~.A '~ De.n~ton State School 1, pD176 I SF-7(c) · ZONING MAP Scale: None 15. ENCLOSURE 3 ('~' INTEPd[M ORDINANCE RELIEF APPLIC~kTION FO~qlVl Da~}: 03-07-00 APPLICATION FOR RELIEF PROM ORI)INANCE NO. 2000-046 .: Projec~Name:' Robinson Oaks -.. : .. . - . Projec~Ad&ess (Location): Robinson Rd, West Of State Sch6ol Rd ' ' ~ '.": · ExlstingUse: None Proposed Use: Residential Existing Comprehensive Plan Designation: Gross Acres: 3 6.1 Exlsting Zonlng: PD andSF7 Proposed Zordng:. P D SEE RELIEF PROCEDURES ON BACK APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant: L&C B Partners Address: 6116 N. Central Expwy Ste 1313 Ci~ Dal 1 as State: :PropergrCh~nen Same' as 6bove · Address: City: State: Contac: Lloyd D. Blaylock Address: Same as above Ci~ ;. -. State: Compar~. Teh?l 4-6q6-qq23 TX ZIP: 75206 Td: Fac ZIP: Emalh Fam ?14-Gqfi-qqq~ Emalh I bl ennox@fl ash Td: Fac ZIP: Email: · ,.. let _. APPLICATIONDEADL 1 6. ~DNESDAYSAT IO:OOAM. m ' Application Requh-emen. ts: ORD NO 2000-046, Seedon F. The applicant may pedtion the City Councll for relief from these Ord. No. 2000-046) imenm development regulations by requesting such relief m writing. - credible evldenee from wmen me t.~ty t~ouncu can reasonau~' ~on,~,~ other development standards deprives the applicant of a vested property fight or deprives the applicant of the economically viable. me of their land. .' ." ' ' ' ' :' i ' ': :' .7.' ..' : ' . ' ' ' . The app. l, ica .nt is re.quested to submlt sufficient iMo..r~natlon addressing the following crltena. The applicant will also be responsible m making their case before City Council. In deciding whether to grant relief to the applicant, the C~ty Counml shall take into the consideration the following: U1 Whether granting relief from. the. resident!al dens~tylimlta, t~.ons or development regulatlon~ in the absence ox permanent revisions to ~ne provlslons of the comprehensive plan, jeopardizes the City's best interests in preventing such effects; I-I The suitability of the proposed resldenual uses m light of lad uses allowed m the zomg dismcts on property adjacent to the proposed site; I-1 The impact of the proposed resldentlal use on the transportation and other public facilities systems affected by the development; 12 The measures proposed to be taken by the applicant to prevent negative impacts of the proposed use on the neighborhood; 12 The likelihood that sufficlent relief will be provided to the applicant following adoption of the City's Development Code; The total e~penditures made in connection wlth the proposed resldendal development in ?elianee on prloi' regulationS, including the costs of installing infrastructure to serve the project; 12 Any fees reasonably paid in connection wlth the proposed use; I-1 2M~y representatlons made by the City concerning the Proiect and reas°nably relled up°n t° the detrlment °{ the applicant' The City Councll may take the followlng actions: deny the relief request; grant the relief request~ Or ...... ~c} grant the relief request subject to condiuons conststent with the cntena set forth in Ord. No. 2000-046. .. deprivatlon, ofavestedpropertyfightl. ". '..' - .. '::' : : · 5' ' :. ' '- .... SIGNATCYRE certlf38n§ that these regulations have been read and understood by the applicant. PKINTorTYPBNAME Lloyd D. Blaylock 17. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Aoendaltem -~../-/' Date /-///~/~ AGENDA DATE: April 18, 2000 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Development /~ OM/DCM/ACM: David M. Hill, 349-8314 ~ SUBJECT Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas authorizing the City Manager to submit a grant application and all other necessary documents to obtain a grant under the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program; establishing objectives and projected use of funds and a lead-paint hazard control program description with the appropriate certifications, as authorized and required by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended and all other applicable laws; providing for an effective date. BACKGROUND This ordinance authorizes the City Manager to submit a grant application in the amount of $1 million to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Program for development and execution of a Lead Hazard Control Program within the City and County of Denton, Texas. The grant application deadline is May 17, 2000. The City of Denton Community Development Division will administer this program. A required match of 10 percent of the grant award will be provided from the Community Development Block Grant-funded housing programs. The Lead Hazard Control Program will include the following activities to be accomplished over the three-year grant period: Lead-based paint (LBP) hazard reduction activities for an average of 150 units for eligible owner and renter-occupied properties and first-time homebuyer properties when LBP is present. · Purchase two x-ray fluorescence (XRF) machines and other equipment as needed for testing for the presence of LBP in target housing (built before 1978). · Through a partnership with the Denton County Health Department Nursing Services Division, provide funds for administering 150 blood lead level venous tests for eligible citizens when free testing is not available through other means, i.e., personal insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, other programs funding this activity, etc. Develop a partnership with the school districts and day-care facilities in the County to identify "at risk" children and refer them for testing. Page 1 Develop a partnership with an independent training firm licensed by the State Health Department to provide training in lead hazard reduction safe work practices for eligible low-income and minority workers and contractors. In parmership with Denton County Health Department Nursing Services Division, develop and provide citizen awareness workshops and educational campaigns designed to increase awareness of the dangers of lead poisoning and how to minimize risks of lead poisoning. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT Application deadline is May 17, 2000. The HUD Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program provides for a three-year expenditure period of the grant. The Community Development Division's goal is to have all funds expended by 10/31/2003. During the first year, CD staff will prepare personnel, contractors and lead workers through training, purchase equipment, notify schools, daycare facilities and the community of the scope of services available, determine strategies, assist with planning and preparation of community partners. In years two and three the primary activity will be to identify hazardous properties, complete lead-based paint reduction activities, educate the community and conduct blood lead level testing. The program will provide lead-based paint assessments of all housing units where elevated blood lead levels are found, conduct lead-based paint risk assessments, provide assistance through grants and loans for lead-based paint reduction and abatement in affected target housing. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The Department of Housing and Urban Development's Title X Final Rule becomes effective September 16, 2000. The Final Rule stipulates regulations and requirements for properties built before 1978. The Community Development Division includes a strategy in the proposed Year 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan in the event that funding is awarded from the HUD Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Grant Program. The Home Improvement, Emergency Repair, Homebuyer Assistance and the Rental Rehabilitation Programs are activities that fall under the new Federal LBP requirements. The Lead-Based Paint grant will assist with increased project costs resulting from the new regulations. The Community Development staff recommends applying for this grant. FISCAL INFORMATION The Community Development will request $1 million from the Department of Housing and Urban Development Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Program. The City of Denton will provide a match of 10 percent from CDBG-funded portions of the Community Development Division housing programs in the amount of $33,334 each year of thc three-year period. No general fund dollars are required to carry out this project. Page 2 BID INFORMATION N/A ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed Ordinance Prepared by: Housing Rehabilitation Specialist Respectfully submitted: Director of Planning and Development Page 3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION AND ALL OTHER NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO OBTAIN A GRANT UNDER THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT LEAD-BASED PAINT HAZARD CONTROL GRANT PROGRAM; ESTABLISHING OBJECTIVES AND PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS AND A LEAD-PAINT HAZARD CONTROL PROGRAM DESCRIPTION WITH APPROPRIATE CERTIFICATIONS, AS AUTHORIZED AND REQUIRED BY THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974, AS AMENDED AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas, is concerned with the development of viable urban communities including decent housing, a suitable living environment and expanded economic opportunities; and WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas, has a special concern for persons of Iow and very low income; and WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas, as a CDBG entitlement city, wishes to apply for and obtain a grant of approximately $1 million under the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program, under Section 1011 of the Residential Lead-Based Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992) and all other applicable laws; and WHEREAS, in applying for this grant, the City o£Denton, Texas, intends to comply with Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, 12 U.S.C. 1701(u) and 'will provide training, employment and other economic oPPortunity for low and very low income persons (as defined in 24 C.F.R. 135.5) and for business concerns which provide economic opportunity for Iow and very low income person; and WHEREAS, the primary goal for the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program is to reduce the exposure of young children to lead-based paint hazards in their home; and WHEREAS, if the City of Denton, Texas, obtains funding - through its Department of Community Development - it will develop a lead-based program, a portion of which will be to pursue partnerships with the Denton County Health Department Nursing Services Division to administer blood level lead testing and to provide education with the Denton Independent School District for referral of"at risk" children not currently being tested; and WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas has met or will meet all citizen participation requirements, if any, including the holding of public hearings; and WHEREAS, the Residential Lead-Based Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 mentioned above, the Community Development Act of 1974, the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, Page 4 as amended, require an application and appropriate certification and the City Council deems it in the public interest to authorize the City Manager to make application for this Grant; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, authorizes the City Manager to sign and submit to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and all aPpropriate officials thereof, a grant application, all necessary certifications, grant agreements and other documents as well as appropriate assurances for entitlement of funds under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, as amended, and all other applicable laws, as necessary, to obtain a grant under the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program. .SECTION 2. That the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, authorizes the Director of Planning and Development to handle all fiscal and administrative matters relating to the application and the administration of the Grant Program if it is funded and all other matters connected therewith. SECTION 3. That the City Secretary is hereby authorized to furnish true, complete and correct copies of this ordinance to all interested parties. SECTION 4. 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 Page 5 Page 2 of 2 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM: SUBJECT April 18, 2000 City Manager's Office / Mike Jez, City Manager 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 t~om an altemate position. This is a nomination by the entire Council. If you require any further information, please let me know. Re/sp~ctfully su~bmitte~:/ J/~ifer Wa~s-- (F_,i~ y Secretary HANDOUT TO COUNCIL-4/18/O0 Good evening My name is DAVID EVERS TRIPP My address is at 2900 North Elm. I also am a Trustee of the Bob E. Tripp Trust which owns a 59 acre tract on Locust immediately north of the Evers Elementary School and Evers Park My father passed away in October 1998 and I began working with an old family friend, John Skelton, to carry on my father's work in getting a plat approved by the City. I have attended numerous City meetings (Exhibit: Chronology) with Mr. Skelton. Our trust and Mr. Skelton have spent over $30,000 in trying to meet the City's requirements over these past four years. The principal problem is that the City wants to build a rainwater runoff detention pond to help solve a drainage problem farther down Cooper Creek. When my father and Mr. Skelton first applied for plat approval in 1996, there was, at that time, no requirement for a detention pond. Our Engineers prepared the preliminary plat based on the City's requirements. My father was surprised at the first Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting when he found that the City wanted 15 acres -- or almost a third of our usable property -- for a runoff detention pond. The staff subsequently agreed that 3 acres was a more reasonable contribution and we changed our plat. When we reapplied in April 1997 the staff told us we would be put on hold until a new study was prepared by Denton's consulting engineers. Then the staff requested the deletion of the major throughfare, Evers Parkway, which again forced us to re-design the plat; but with a new connection to the south. We were still awaiting the engineering study when the staff asked for the deletion of any connection to the south. When we originally submitted our plat the City did not have Hercules going past Locust on its thoroughfare plan. In 1998, a new thoroughfare plan called for Hercules' extension which required us to once again re-design. After 18 months from the time we first applied, the City's study was complete and the City's staff asked that the detention pond be increased in size. But rather than asking for a specific size, the City asked us to have our Engineers tell the city what the maximum size the pond could be with minimum damage to the plat. Our Engineers came back with a detention pond of 6.34 acres. In August 1998 the City commissioned its engineers to design the detention pond. (Exhibit: One Pond) In December it was presented to us but the City decided to split the pond. In March of 1999 the City's final plan, with two ponds (Exhibit: Two Ponds) was presented to us and our Engineers. We and the City reached agreement that there would be one pond of 6.34 acres and the City would purchase the land from us for that pond. With this finally resolved we authorized topographical surveys and final engineering work. We submitted our plat this February only to be turned down. The City told us that we no longer had zoning; we were also told that the City's staff did not know if they still wanted (1) the 6.34 acres, (2) or a portion of different configuration (3) or no property at all. There always was to have to be an additional detention pond on the property to the west. It has become apparent that there is more than enough area on the property to our west to construct the entire detention pond required, at less cost than building separate ponds. But that decision has not been made. A final note came out of the recent DRC meeting. Not only is Hercules to be extended, but the staff is now calling for Hercules to bend south to connect with a proposed street from the west. Until a few months ago there was not even a proposed plat to the west. What we are asking for is a waiver from the Interim Development Code and also from the requirement for extending Hercules. We ask that the City abide by its agreement to accept the 6.34 acres so we do not have to re-engineer our plat for the sixth time. We also ask that our plat be required to conform only to the regulations in place in December 1996, when the Trust and Mr. Skelton first applied for plat approval. This would relieve us from having impact fees on the lots. We will continue to meet our obligations. And we'd appreciate your help in approving these requests in light of our contributions to the City and the benefit to the City from this development. CIVIl works Engineering HANDOUT TO COUNCIL-4118/O0 April 17, 2000 City of Denton Planning and Development Department Attn: Mr. Doug Powell 221 N. Elm Denton, Texas 76201 RE: SUMMIT OAKS PHASE 2 INTERIM ORDINANCE RELIEF REQUEST CWE PROJECT 99070 Mr. Powelh This letter is intended to provide documentation for our request for relief from the Residential Interim Ordinance. We have had significant activity on this project in recent history as shown below: ~ , ..... ~ 1. January 7, 1998 - P&Z approval of Detailed Plan and PD zoning 2. January 28, 1998 - P&Z approval of Preliminary Plat Phase 1 and 2 : 3. August 12, 1998 - P&Z approval of Phase 1 Final Plat 4. June 14, 1999- Phase 1 construction accepted 5. March 9, 2000 - submittal of construction plans and Final Plat for Phase 2. Construction plans and the final plat for phase 2 began in November of 1999. During that time period, we had discussions with City staff and understood that property that had approved detailed plans or preliminary plats would be exempt form the moratorium and the interim standards. We continued to work on the plans based on that input. Based on this continued activity and submittals of the phase 2 plans based on input from City staff, we have requested the relief from interim residential standards for Summit Oaks Addition Phase 2. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, ClVlLworks Engineering orris Lee, III, P.E. Owner 1192 Boling Ranch Road ~. Azle, Texas 76020 ~* Phone (817)448-9595 *~ Fax (817)448-6390 Community Development Division Planning & Development Department 100 W. Oak, Suite 208' Denton, TX 76201 (940)349-7726' Fax (940)383-2445 MEMORANDUM To: From: Through: Date: Re: Mayor and Members of the City Council /~/] / Barbara Ross, Community Development Administr Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Developmen~~'~ April 14, 2000 Consolidated Plan and Action Plan Attached are draft copies of the 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan and the 2000 Action Plan. Both documents are currently available for public review at the Community Development Division office, the Martin Luther King Jr. Recreation Center and Denia Recreation Center. The public comment period will end on May 10. A second public hearing will be held on May 8 at the MLK Center. Community Development Advisory Committee and Human Services Advisory Committee recommendations are included in the 2000 Action Plan. A summary of the recommendations for use of CDBG and HOME funds is on page eight. The Action Plan also includes a listing of HSAC's general fund recommendations. Please note, however, that acceptance of the plan does not approve the general fund recommendations. They will be reviewed during the regular budget process. The 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development uses information from the 1990 Census and other sources to describe Denton's population and housing characteristics. These characteristics along with public comments, the human services community assessment and input from local service providers was used to develop a set of strategies for the next five years. These strategies are included inthe Consolidated Plan on pages 18 - 55. Strategy charts include: 1. Rental Housing 2. Owner-Occupied Housing 3. Homeownership and Production of Affordable Units 4. Continuum of Care 5. Lead-Based Paint 6. Barriers to Affordable Housing 7. Human Services 8. Inkastmcture and Public Service Facilities 9. Anti-Poverty These documents may be mended at any time. Council may wish to consider amending the five-year plan if the 2000 Census reveals any significant changes in the community's needs. Please contact me at 349-7235 with any questions regarding these documents. Fair Housing * Homebuyer Assistance * .Home Improvement * Emergency Repair www.cityofdenton, com ADA/EOE/ADEA Detailed Plan for 301 S. Carroll and Maps for Robinson Oaks located in Exhibit File