HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 09, 2001 Agenda Aoenda NO 0/- ~
~ AGENDA Ag~da Item .
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL Date /- ~- O/
January 9, 2001
After determining that a quorum is present and convening in an Open Meeting, the City CoNned of the
City of De'tun, Texas wd] convene in a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, January 9, 2001 at 5 15 p m in the
City of De~lton Counml Work Session Room, Denton City Hail, at 215 East McKmney, Denton, Texas to
consider specific items when these items are listed below under the Closed Meeting secUon of this
agenda When items for consideration are not listed under the Closed Meeting section of the agenda, the
City Coun¢ll will not conduct a Closed Meeting at 5 15 p m and will convene at the t~me listed below for
its regular or spemal called meeUng The City Councd reserves the right to adjourn into a Closed MeeUng
on any item on its Open Meeting agenda consistent w~th Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, as
amended, as set forth below
1 Closed Meeting
ANY FINAL ACTION, DECISION, OR VOTE ON A MATTER DELIBERATED IN A CLOSED
MEETING WILL ONLY BE TAKEN IN AN OPEN MEETING THAT IS HELD IN COMPLIANCE
WITH TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, CHAPTER 551, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT SUCH FINAL
ACTION, DECISION, OR VOTE IS TAKEN IN 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
MEETING AGENDA OR TO RECONVENE IN A CONTINUATION OF THE CLOSED MEETING
ON THE CLOSED MEETING ITEMS NOTED ABOVE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS
OPEN MEETINGS ACT, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION SECTIONS 551 071-551 086 OF
THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT
Special Called Meeting of the Czty of Denton C~ty Councd on Tuesday, January 9, 2001 at 6 00
p m in th~ Counml Chambers at Czty Hall, 215 E Mclrdnney Street, Denton, Texas at which the
following items wall be considered
1 PmclamaUon for Ryan Rmders Football Team
2 Consider adopUon of an ordinance rezomng and approwng a Zomng Plan for a 19 57-
acre tract located on the northeast side of the intersection of Teasley and Ryan Road The
property zs currently zoned Agricultural (A) The intent zs to rezone the property to a
Planned~ Development (PD) contmmng single-family res~dential and neighborhood
service retml (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 5-0 with
cqndmons ) (ZP-O0-O09, Teasley TracO [Note The public heanng for thzs item was
opened and closed on January 2, 2001 Czty Counctl will vote to break a 3-3 t~e that was
taken on January 2, 2001 ]
3 C~nmder adoptmn of an orchnance of the Cxty of Denton, Texas, amendzng a proposed
annexatzon ordinance wtuch passed on first readmg on November 28, 2000 and was
pgbhshed on December 8, 2000 to annex two tracts of land, compnmng 881 acres, Tract
One being located on the southwestern s~de of the Cxty of Denton's extratemtonal
jtmsdzctzon east of U S Highway 377, south of Regency Court on each mdc of Country
Club Road, west of Montemto along Ryan Road and mostly north of Brash Creek Road,
and Tract Two being located west of Montec~to, south of E1 Pasco and east of Santa
Momca, and providing an effective date (A-101 )
City of Der~ton City Cotmefi Agenda
January 9, 2001
Page 2
4 Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, amending a proposed
annexation ordinance which passed on first reading on November 28, 2000 and was
published on December 8, 2000 to annex three tracts of land comprising 1,159 acres,
Tract One being located west ofU S Highway 377, south of Allred and north and south
of Johnson Lane, Tract Two being located east of Interstate Highway 35 West and west
of the Kansas City Southern Rmlway, extending south along Bonnie Brae approximately
6,400 feet north of U S Highway 377, and Tract Three being located northeast of the
lnterseetmn of Corbm and BoP. me Brae, and providing an effective date (A-102)
5 Official Action on Closed Meeting Item(s) under Sections 551 071-551 086 of the Texas
Open Meetings Act
Following the completion of the Special Called Meeting, the Council will convene into a Work
Session in the Work Session Room to consider the following
1 Receive a report from Pachard Franco regarding proposed development of the Denton
Housing Authority
2 Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding information
concermng the Umted States Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) recent Environmental
Assessment for Lake Lewlsvllle, the City of Denton's response, the City of Dallas's
response and a potential lawsmt by a homeowners' group
3 Receive a presentation, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding Phase II of
the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Program
(Program) and its impact on the City of Denton
4 Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding the process to select
an arcbateet to design the new central fire station
5 Receive a report, hold a dlseusmun, and give staff direction regarding the interpretation of
Section 34-114 (5) of the Code of Ordinances regarding perimeter streets
6 Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding a proposed
conservation district in the Bell Avenue area
7 Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding a proposed 45 98
acre residential development conta~mng 142 lots and possible voluntary annexation in
ETJ south of Blagg Road, approximately 950 feet west of Lakemew Boulevard
8 Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding the construction of a
Compost Storage/Processing Bmldmg in the amount not to exceed $97,000 00
9 Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff d~rectlon regardtng an ordinance
anthonzmg the City Manager to accept competitive bids and award a contract with Unum
Life Insurance Company of America to provide long-term disability insurance and
voluntary short-term d~sabdlty insurance for City of Denton employees
Cdy of Denton C~ty Council Agenda
Jenual3t 9, 2001
Page 3
CERTIFICATE
I cerhfy that the above not~ce of m~ttng was pos/61t on the bulletin board ~t the C~ty Hall of the
.Gay. ofDenton, Texas, on the ~/t-' dayof ~4'x3 ,2001~/~d) o'clock(am)
~'~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 IMI~AIRED 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 DIL~ (TDD) BY CALLING 1-800-RELAY-TX SO THAT A
SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE SCHEDULED THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Ag0flda nO (~ ~f. t~ t~
Aoondaltam ,~
AGENDA DATE' J~ 9, 2001
CM~C~ACM: Dawd Hill, 349-8314 ~
SUBJECT - ZP-00-009 (Teasley TracO
Consider adoption of an ordinance rezomng and approving a Zoning Plan for a 19 57-acre tract
located on the northeast side of the intersection of Teasley and Ryan Road The property is
currently zoned Agricultural (A) The intent is to rezone the property to a Planned Development
(PD) containing single-family residential and neighborhood service retail (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval 5-0 with conditions ) (ZP-00-009, Teasley Tract)
[Note The public heanng for this item was opened and closed on January 2, 2001 City Council
will vote to break a 3-3 tie that was taken on January 2, 2001 ]
BACKGROUND
The consideration of this item was contmued due to City Council Rules allowing for an item that
ended in a tie vote to move to the next meeting where all the Council members will be present
Councflmember Young was not in attendance at the meeting, Councflmembers Durrance,
Cochran, and Knstoferson voted against the application, Councflmembers Beasley and
Burroughs and Mayor Brock voted for the application Attached is a copy of the staff report
submitted for last week's meeting
OPTIONS
1 Approve as submitted
2 Approve with conditions
3 Deny
4 Postpone consideration
5 Table item
ATTACHMENTS
1 January 2, 2001 City Council Staff Report
Respectfully submitted
Douglas S Powell, AICP
Director of Planning and Development
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda Item.~_.'r~
Dato /? / O / ,
AGENDA DATE: January 2, 200,1
DEPARTMENT Planmng Department . J~ /
CM/DCM/ACM. Dawd Hill, 349-8314
SUBJECT - ZP-00-009 (Teasley Tract)
Hold a pubhc heanng and consider adoption of an ordinance rezonmg and approwng a Zomng
Plan for a 19 57 acre tract located on the northeast side of the intersection of Teasley Road and
Ryan Road The property ~s currently zoned Agricultural (A) The intent ~s to rezone the property
to a Planned Development (PD) contmmng tangle-family resldentml and neighborhood servme
retml The Planning and Zomng Comm~smon recommends approval (5-0) with conditions
(ZP-O0-O09)
BACKGROUND
The apphcant has requested to rezone th~s property to a Planned Development (PD) contmnmg
both resldenttal and nonremdentlal uses Up to 16 acres of the property ~s proposed to be single
famdy remdent~al at a density of 3 3 umts per acre Features such as street trees, hike and bike
trails and landscaped areas have been proposed m accordance w~th The Denton Plan All homes
w~ll follow demgn standards whmh ~nclude a minimum of 75% masonry Over an acre of the
property has been set amde as open space Up to 5 acres of the property ~s proposed to be
neighborhood servme retail, w~th uses hm~ted to those hsted m Attachment 1 - Enclosure 4
> The subject property ~s located ~n an Agricultural (A) zomng d~stnct created m 1969 It m
currently occupied by a radio station and antenna towers
~' The proposed development ~s consistent w~th The Denton Plan (Attachment 1
Comprehenmve Plan Analyms sectmn)
> Twenty-rune (29) property own~s were notffied of the zoning request Four (4) responses
have been received, three (3) are m favor and one (1) ~s opposed, representing approximately
1 2% of the total area w~th~n 200 feet (Attachment 1 - Enclosures 5 and 6)
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW
The following ~s a chronology of ZP-00-009, commonly known as Teasley Tract
Apphcatmn Date - June 22, 2000
DRC Date(s) - July 6, 2000
P&Z Date - November 8, 2000
ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE
A Project Plan for both the residential and nonremdent~al portions of th~s development w~ll need
to be submitted and approved by Counml before construction can beg~n Thts property ~s not
platted and therefore would also need to be platted prior to any development
FISCAL INFORMATION
Development of flus 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
As a form of lnfill development, no extension of pubhc infrastructure is necessary to service this
site
P&Z RECOMMENDATION
The Planmng and Zoning Commission recommends approval (5-0) of this zoning request with
the following conditions
1 Lighting on the property should be designed and mamtmned so as not to shine on or
otherwise disturb surrounding residential property or to shine and project upward to
prevent the diffusion into the mght sky
2 Uses allowed in the Neighborhood Service section shall be limited to the list shown in
Enclosure 2
3 The ProJect Plan must provide for pedestrian and vehicular connectivity between the
proposed neighborhood service and residential uses
4 Architectural design in the neighborhood service area shall be compatible to that of the
residential area and shall incorporate Urban Design Pnnclples as identified in The Denton
Plan
5 Open space shall be privately owned and mmntmned
6 Pole signs shall be prohibited
OPTIONS
1 Approve as submitted
2 Approve with conditions
3 Deny
4 Postpone consideration
5 Table item
ATTACHMENTS
1 Planmng and Zoning Commission Report, November 8, 2000, ZP-00-009
2 Planmng and Zoning Commission minutes from November 8, 2000
3 Draft Ordinance
Respectfully submitted
Douglas~ S Powell', AICP
Director of Planning and Development
m~ty
2
ATTACHMENT 1
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
Sublect TeasleyTract Case Number ZP-O0-O09
Staff Thomas B Gray, Planner I Agenda Date November 8, 2000
Hold a pubhc heanng and consider recommending approval to C~ty Councd a Zomng Plan for a
19 57 acre tract located on the northeast s~de of the ~ntersect~on of Teasley Road and Ryan Road
The property Is currently zoned Agncultuml (A) The ~ntent ~s to rezone the property to a Planned
Development (PD) containing s~ngle-famlly residential and neighborhood semce retail
LOCATION MAP
Locat,on northeast side of the ~ntersecbon of Teasley Road and Ryan Road
Size 19 57 acres
ZP 00
3
Apphcant Allen Bussell Owner Jack Mortenson
SENTCorp Mortenson Broadcasbng Company
1621 Amanda Court 3270 Blazer Pkwy, Suite 100
Ponder, Texas 76259 Lexington, Kentucky 40509
The developer is requesbng to rezone the 19 57 acre property to a Planned Development (PD)
conta~mng up to 16 acres of tangle family res~denbal and up to 5 acres of neighborhood service retail
located along the property's frontage w~th Teasley Lane (see Enclosure 1 )
The requested density for the res~dential port~on of th~s development ~s 3 3 units per acre The
applicant ~s proposing to set aside 1 04 acres for open space Features such as street trees, h~ke and
b~ke tra~ls and landscaped areas have been proposed ~n accordance w~th the denmty standards and
cnterla of the ~ntenm development regulations (see Enclosure 3) Other design elements encouraged
~n The Denton Plan, such as alleys and courtyard streets, have been proposed as well and w~ll be
~llustrated ~n detail at the Project Plan stage All homes w~ll have elevabons composed of at least 75%
masonry and have two car garages Other ~ssues relahng to neighborhood compabb~hty, such as
building s~ze, building height, landscaping, site configuration and architecture w~ll be addressed at the
Project Plan stage
Uses ~n the neighborhood service retail porbon of th~s development shall be hm~ted to those I~sted ~n
Enclosure 4 All structures w~thln the neighborhood service area w~ll have elevations of at least 75%
masonry and w~ll be hm~ted to a floor-to-area ratio of 1 5 No s~ngle bus~ness w~ll be larger than 4,000
square feet ~n floor area Buffenng between the res~denbal and nonresidential portions of th~s
development w~ll be required in accordance with the interim development regulabons
The property ~s currently vacant and ~s surrounded to the north and east by the Summit Oaks
remdenbal subd~v~mon and to the south by the Lakewood Estates Mobile Home Park (see
Enclosure 2) No Enwronmentally Senslbve Areas (ESAs) are located on th~s rote
1999-2020 Denton Comprehensive Plan Analysis
The Denton Plan places th~s property w~th~n a Neighborhood Centers area Neighborhood Centers are
~ntended to be ~nward-onented residential d~stncts which focus on the center of the neighborhood
These developments should locate the center of the neighborhood w~th~n a 5- to 10-m~nute walking
d~stance from the edge ofthe neighborhood The center should contain uses necessaryto support the
surrounding neighborhood such as serv~ce-onented retail or small professional offices Prowmon of
open space, such as central neighborhood "greens" and floodplain preservation, ~s also encouraged ~n
Neighborhood Centers Neighborhood Centers can also develop ~n convenbonal residential patterns
The neighborhood retail center along Teasley creates a focal point for the neighborhood, encourages
pedestnan acbv~ty and meets the ~ntent of the Neighborhood Centers concept as descnbed ~n The
zP oo 009 4.
Denton Plan The neighborhood retad wdl service not only this neighborhood but as well ex~sbng and
future development ~n the area Staff finds th~s proposed rezomng to be consistent w~th the
Comprehensive Plan
I Transportation
A Trip generation
The proposed development would generate as much as 2,283 tnps per day if built out with s~ngle-
famdy res~denbal and neighborhood service retad (see Table 1) It should be noted that the
estimated tnp generation for the neighborhood service area ~s a maximum, the actual number of
vehicle trips generated by the neighborhood service area is likely to be less than the esbmate.
especially considering the ~ncreased opportumty for b~cycle and pedestnan tnps th~s development
would facditate
Table 1 Proposed Tri 3 Generation
Land Use Average Trip Estimated Total Trip
Generation* Lots or ScI Ft Generation
Single-Family (SF-7) 9 55 trips/du/day 52 497
General Retail 41 trips/I,000 sq ft 43560 sq ft 1786
Total Trip Generation 2,283
* Calculations provided by the Insbtute of Transpollatlon Engineers 1999
B Access
Th~s development wdl have access to Teasley Lane (FM 2181 )
C Road Capacity
Teasley ~s ident~fled as a primary major arterial road by the 1998 Denton Mobd~ty Plan Th~s road
is designed to be a s~x (6) lane d~wded street w~thout parking, prewd~ng s~x (6) lanes of through
traffic As such, ~ts designed traffic capacity allows for a tolerable traffic flow of up to 27,900 trips
per day Teasley ~s currently constructed w~th two (2) lanes w~thout parking, providing a tolerable
traffic flow of up to 9,100 tnps per day The most recent traffic count for Teasley ~nd~cates that
there currently may not be adequate capacity to handle the calculated tnps that could be
generated by the proposed development A traffic count on Teasley between Ryan and Robinson
~ndmated an average volume of 7,294 vehicle tnps per day, which does not prowde adequate
excess capacIty for the number of additional trips that could be generated by th~s development
Once Teasley ~s ~mproved, however, there should be enough capacity to handle the add~bonal
esbmated maximum of 2,283 vehicles per day generated by th~s subdivision when fully budt out
It should also be noted that the apphcant has presented a Traffic Impact Analys~s (TI^) as part of
the required mformat~on for a Zomng Plan apphcat~on Th~s study has demonstrated what ~mpact
should be expected from th~s development, as well as what transportation ~mprovements wdl be
required of th~s development
D Pedestrian L~nkages
7P O0 009 5
Sidewalks along all pubhc streets are required An accessible mute to all pubhc budding entrances
are required by Texas Access~bdlty Standards (TAS)
2 Utilities
Th~s s~te has access to ex~st;ng water and samtary sewer hnes
3 Dra,nage and Topography
New development wdl be required to design and construct a drainage system to city standards A
prehmmary drainage study wdl be required with the submiss~on of a prehmmary plat The study
must include calculations of the 100-year storm for all drainage areas on th;s property and any
area that drems towards th~s property The developer must ~ndmate the method by which the run-
offwdl be carned across the property or stored on the property
4 S~gns
As per the sign ordinance Pole s;gns should be prohibited w~thm the development This
requirement can be written ~nto the ordinance as a cond;t~on of approval
5 Off-Street Parking
New development must provide parking according to the regulabons of Chapter 35 (35-301) of the
Code of Ordinances
6 Landscaping
Th~s property wdl have to comply w~th the new Landscape Code, which requires fifteen (15) trees
per acre and twenty (20) percent of all surfaces to remain pervious (plantable area) In addition,
this development wdl prowde entrance landscaping and street trees These landscaping features
can be used under the interim regulabons to achieve a greater overall density
7 Open Space and Recreational Areas
Th~s residential development w~ll be required to participate ~n the development of pubhc
recreational areas Through the Park Dedication Ordinance (98-039), this development will
contnbute to park land dedication and park development fees Dedication requirements are
required dunng the platting process Park development fees are required prior to the ~ssuance of
budding permits
In add~bon, the applicant ~s proposing to dedicate at least 1 04 acres of the development as
pnvately-ma~ntamed open space
8 Lighting
Lighbng on the property should be designed and maintained so as not to shine on or otherwise
d~sturb surreund~ng residential property orto shine and project upward to prevent the diffusion into
the night sky Th~s requirement can be written into the ordinance as a condition of approval
9 Environmental Quality impacts
No slgmficant ~mpacts are anbc~pated
zP oo oo9 6.
January 14, 1969 - The subject property was placed in the Agricultural (A) zoning district and
land use clasmficabon by Ordinance 69-01
Not~ce of the zoning request was pubhshed ~n the Denton Record-Chromcle on Saturday, October 28,
2000 Twenty-rune (29) property owners w~th~n two hundred feet were mmled legal nobces and 79
remdents w~th~n five hundred feet were sent courtesy nobces ~nform~ng them of the request (see
Enclosure 5) As of th~s wnbng, there have been one (1) response opposed to the zoning request (see
Enclosure 6)
A neighborhood meeting was held on the evening of Wednesday, November 1,2000 See
Enclosure 7 for details of th~s meeting
Staff recommends approval of ZP-00-009 w~th the following cond~bons
1 L~ght~ng on the property should be demgned and maintained so as not to sh~ne on or
otherwise d~sturb surrounding residential property or to sh~ne and project upward to prevent
the d~ffus~on ~nto the mght sky
2 Uses allowed ~n the Neighborhood Service secbon shall be hm~ted to the hst shown m
Enclosure 2
3 The Project Plan must provide for pedestrian and vehicular connecbwty between the
proposed neighborhood service and remdentml uses
4 Architectural demgn ~n the neighborhood serwce area shall be compabble to that of the
remdenbal area and shall ~ncorporate Urban Demgn Pnnc~ples as ~dent~fied m The Denton
Plan
5 Open space shall be privately owned and mmntamed
6 Pole mgns shall be prohibited
I move to recommend approval of ZP-00-009 with the following conditions
1 bghtmg on the property should be demgned and maintained so as not to sh~ne on or
ZP O0 009 7
otherwIse d~sturb surrounding remdentlal property or to sh~ne and project upward to prevent
the d~ffumon ,nto the mght sky
2 Uses allowed ~n the Neighborhood ServIce secbon shall be hm~ted to the hst shown ~n
Enclosure 2
3 The Project Plan must prowde for pedestrian and vehicular connecbv~ty between the
proposed neighborhood service and remdent~al uses
4 Architectural demgn ~n the neighborhood service area shall be compatible to that of the
remdenbal area and shall ~ncorporate Urban Demgn Pnnc~ples as ~dent~fied ~n The Denton
Plan
5 Open space shall be pnvately owned and maintained
6 Pole mgns shall be prohibited
1 Recommend approval as submitted
2 Recommend approval w~th conditions
3 Recommend demal
4 Postpone conslderabon
5 Table ~tem,
1 Zomng Plan
2 Zomng Map
3 Density Calculabon Worksheet
4 Permitted Uses ~n Neighborhood Service Area
5 200'-500' Nobficabon Map
6 Property Owner Responses
7 Neighborhood Meeting Information
ZP O000q 8
Ill Ii!il; Ifil!il i i I ; ~:
Ii Illi! Iiili ; Ii n
l,: ,.. ?ifil
.,,!!
"' III[":"::: '
!!! il[ :~ .. ,,,
il: i ,il,l
i~[i i .,'.
Engineers
ENCLOSURE 2
NORTH
ZP-00-009 (Teasley Tract)
SITE
ZONING MAP
Agenda Date November 8, 2000 Scale None
10
ENCLOSURE 3
DENSITY CALCULATION WORKSHEET
Area Summary/Base Density Calculation
Land Classification Area (acres) Base Density # of Lots
Floodway 0 0
Flood ,Fnnge 0 1 5
Other ESA 0 1 5
Unconstrmned 15 5 3 0 46 5
TOTAL 15 5 iiiiillillilliiiiiiiiill 47
Base Density (47 / 1§ 5) 3 0 umts per acre
Increased Density Calculation for Dedications
Land Classification Area Increase in Increase
(acres) Density in Umts
Open Space 1 04 47 x 3% 1
Afl HousIng (Base # of Lots) x 10%
School (Base # of Lots) x 10%
Rec Facility ,, !,B, ,a, ,s. ,e, ?,, ,o,f. ,L, ,o,! ,si. ,x..! ,0, ~,/o,,'
TOTAL INCREASE IN UNITS :::,,:,.:,.:,.::,.,.:,.:,.:,.,.::,.:,.:::,.:,.,.,.;~ 1
Base Umts plus Increase from Ded~cabons 48 units
Gross Area 15 5 acres
Density w~th Ded~cabons 3 1 umts/acre
Increased Density Calculation for Design Features
Number of Design DensIty Factor Increase in
Elements Density
6 0 ldu/a per 3 elements 0 2 du/a
Total Denmty w~th Dedication and Design Features
Base Density (47 umts / 15 5 acres) 3 0 umts per acre
Density w~th Dedication Increases 3 1 umts per acre
Density due to Design Elements 3 3 umts per acre
TOTAL ALLOWED DENSITY 3 3 umts per acre
Total Allowed Number of Units
3 3 X 15 5 acres 51 umts
Density (Gross) 3 3 umts per acre
· (51 umts/155acres)
Density (Net of ESA's and Ded~cabons) 3 3 umts per acre
· (51 umts/15 5 acres (Unconstrained))
t!
ENCLOSURE 4
ZP-00-009
L~st of Permitted Uses ~n Neighborhood Service Retml Area
Art Gallery of Museum
Church or Rectory
Institution of Rehg~ous or Philanthropic Nature
Park, Playground or Pubhc Commumty Center
Telephone, business office
Antique Shop
Bakery or Confectionery Shop (Retml)
Cleaning and Pressing Small Shop and Pickup
Custom Personal Service Shop
Drapery, Needlework or Weaving Shop
Flonst or Garden Shop
Handmmft Shop
Laundry or Cleamng, Self Service
Offices, Professional and Admmmtrat~ve
Restaurant
Retail Stores and Shops 4,000 Square Feet or Less
Studio for Photographer, Mus~cian, Artist or Health
12.
ENCLOSURE $
NORTH
ZP-00-009 (Teasley Tract)
200'-500' NOTICE MAP
200' Legal Nobces sent v)a Certified Mall 2~9
500' Courtesy Notices sent via 1s' Class Mall 7~9
Number of responses to 200' Legal Notice
· Opposed 1_ · In Favor 2 · Neutral _0
Percent of land within 200' in opposition 1 32%
Agenda Date November 8, 2000 Scale None
13
ENCLOSURE 6
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIN6
ZP-00-009
The PlanmngI and Zoning Commission of the C~ty of Denton wdl hold a pubhc heanng on Wednesday,
November 8, 2000, to consider recommending approval to C~ty Council a Zomng Plan for a 19 57 acre
tract located on the northeast slde of the tntersecbon of Teasley Road and Ryan Road (see map on
back s~de) The property is currently zoned Agncultural (A) The intent is to rezone the property to a
Planned Development (PD) contmnlng slngle-famdy residential and neighborhood service retail
The public hearing wdl start at 6 00 p m in the C~ty Councd Chambers of C~ty Hall located at 215 E
McKinney Street, Denton, Texas Because you own property within two hundred (200) feet of the
subject property, the Planning and Zoning Commisston would like to hear how you feel about this
zomng change request end inwtes you to attend the public hearing Please, m order for your op~mon to
be taken ~nto account, return this form with your comments pnor to the date of the pubhc heanng (This
~n no way prohibits you from attending end participating In the public heanng ) You may fax it to the
number located at the bottom, mall it to the address below, or drop ~t off ~n-person
Planning and Development Department
221 N. Elm St
Denton, Texas 76201
Attn Thomas B. Gray, Planner I
The zomng process includes two pubhc hearings designed to provide opportumtles for c~t~zen
involvement and comment Pnor to the pubhc heanngs, landowners w~th~n two hundred (200) feet of
the subject p~operty are notified of the zoning request by way of this nobce The first pubhc heanng ~s
held before the Planning and Zoning Commission The Comm~ssmn is reformed of the percent of
responses in support and in oppos~bon Second, the zomng pet~bon Is forwarded to the C~ty Councd for
final acbon providing the Commission recommends approval Should the Commiss~on recommend
denial, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the C~ty Councd If owners of more than twenty
(20) percent of the land area w~thin two hundred (200) feet of the s~te submit wntten oppos;bon, then s~x
out of seven votes of the City Councd are reqmred to approve the zoning change These forms are
used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposition
......... -*~ Please circle one
~ ---. In favor of requ Neutral to request Opposed to request
Mmhng Address
C,ty, State Z,p
Telephone Number
Physi~l Add~ess of Prope~ within 200 feet
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS C~TY HALL WEST · DENTON, TEXAS 76201 · 940 349 8350 · (F) 940 349 7707
ZP-OO-OOg 200 NOtice
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIN
ZP-00-009
The Planmng and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will held a pubhc hearing on Wednesday,
November 8, 2000, to consider recommending approval to C~ty Council a Zoning Plan for a 19 57 acre
tract located on the northeast side of the Intersection of Teasley Road and Ryan Road (see map on
back side) The property ~s currently zoned Agricultural (A) The intent ~s to rezone the property to a
Planned Development (PD) containing s~ngle-fam~ly resldenbal and neighborhood service retail
The public heanng will start at 6 00 p m in the C~ty Council Chambers of City Hall located at 215 E
McK~nney Street, Denton, Texas Because you own property w/th~n two hundred (200) feet of the
subject property, the Planning and Zoning Commission would tike to hear how you feel about thts
zoning change request and inwtes you to attend the public heanng Please, in order for your opinion to
be taken ~nto account, return th~s form with your comments pnor to the date of the pubhc hearing (Th~s
m no way prohibits you from attending and participating in the public hearing ) You may fax ~t to the
number located at the bottom, ma~l ~t to the address below, or drop ~t off ~n-person
Planning and Development Department
221 N Elm St
Denton, Texas 76201
Attn Thomas B Gray, Planner I
The zomng process includes two pubhc heanngs designed to provide opportumbes for c~bzen
involvement and comment Prior to the public heanngs, landowners w~thm two hundred (200) feet of
the subJect property are nobfied of the zoning request by way of th~s nobce The first pubhc heanng ~s
held before the Planning and Zoning Commission The Commission ~s reformed of the percent of
responses ~n support and m opposition Second, the zomng pebbon ~s forwarded to the City Councd for
final action providing the Commission recommends approval Should the Commission recommend
demal, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the C~ty Councd If owners of more than twenty
(20) percent of the land area w~th~n two hundred (200) feet of the s~te submit wntten oppos~bon, then s~x
out of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve the zoning change These forms are
used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposition
. '"' '*~"" Please circle one
~n favor of re~~ue~'~ Neutral to request ~pposed to reauest ~'
Comments -~ ,(' ~o ~¢,-~-~-cr ~\~.[~.~ ~or~-'~_~-,,.~
Pr, ntedName ~¢~rl./ ~ ,~,t~,~_ l~t~[ [,ta.u._) ~ .C'~_ ~?
Ma~hngAddress _~ {f ~3 l /.. r / [/~ l,~ / c£
C,ty, State Z,p ~ o NOV0 8ZOO0
Telephone Number ~O-- _c5'~. -' I [ .c:5~,
NING & DEVELOPMEN
Phys~cal Address of Property withm 200 feet ~ A/e.v /~' .EdZ.C~ ,~,~
CITY OP DENTON, T~AS c~w HALL WEST . DEN~ ,0 . (F) 940 349 7707
ZP oo oog 200 Notice
15
~r~'~ t~ Ar_KvA t~oKt- ,Il-lo- o ,J.u U~-.~l~ , 01~ ~KI OTI-, '3s,034~7707,~ 1/ 1
NOTZCE OF PUBL'rC HEAR]:N6
ZP-00-00g
The Planning and Zoning Commmslon of the City of Denton will hold a public heanng on Wednesday,
November 8, 2000. to consider recommending approval to City Council a Zomng Plan for a 19 57 acre
tract located on the northeast side of the Intersection of Teasley Road and FbJan Road (see map on
back s~de) The property Is currently zoned Agricultural (A) The intent is to rezone the property to a
Planned Development (PD) containing aingle-famil¥ residential and neighborhood service retail
The pubhc hearing will start at 6 00 p m In the City Councd Chambers of City Hall located at 215 E
McKmne¥ Street, Denton, Texas Because you own property w/thin ~wo hundred (200) feet of the
subject property, the Planning end Zoning Commission would like to hear how you feel about this
zoning change request end Invites you to affend the pubhc hearing Please, In order for your opinion to
be taken into account, return this form wRh your comments prior to the date of the pubhc hearing (This
In no way prohibits you from a~tendlng and partJolpet~ng in the public heedng ) You may fax it to the
number located at the bottom, mall It to the address below, or drop it off in-person
Planning and Development Department
221 N Elm St
Denton, Texas 7~201
Attn: Thomas B Gr~y, Planner I
The zoning process Includes two public heanngs designed to provide opportunities for citizen
Involvement and comment Prior to the public hear, ngs, landowners within two hundred (200) feet of
the subject property are nobfied of the zonh~g request by way of this notice The first public hearing m
held before the Planning and Zoning ~ommlsslon The Commission Js ,nformed of the percent of
responses m support and In oppo$~hon Second, the zoning pet,rich Is forwarded to the C~ Council for
final action providing the Commission recommends approval Should the Commission recommend
denial, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the Cry Council If owners of more than twenty
(20) pement of the land are~ within two hundred (200) feet of the rote submit wntten opposition, then slx
out of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve the zoning change These forms are
used to calculate the per~entage of landowner opposition.
Please circle one:
~ Neutral to request Opposed to request
Comments:
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ClTYHALLWEST - DENTON, TEXAS 78201 o 940349~350 . (F)9403497707
16
NOT'rCE OF PUBL'r¢ HEARINE,
ZP-00-009
The Planning ,and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton wdl hold a pubhc heanng on Wednesday,
November 8, 2000, to consider recommending approval to City Councd a Zoning Plan for a 19 57 acre
tract located bn the northeast side of the Intersection of Teasley Road and Ryan Road (see map on
back s~de) The property is currently zoned Agncultural (A) The intent is to rezone the property to a
Planned Development (PD) containing single-family residential and neighborhood service retail
The pubhc hearing will start at 6 00 p m in the C~ty Councd Chambers of C~ty Hall located at 215 E
McKmney Street, Denton, Texas Because you own property w~th/n two hundred (200) feet of the
subject property, the Planning and Zoning Commission would I/ke to hear how you feel about th~s
zoning change request and invites you to attend the pub/it heanng Please, in order for your opinion to
be taken Into bccount, return this form with your comments prior to the date of the pubhc heanng (Th/s
m no way prohibits you from attending and partic/pat/ng m the pub/to heanng ) You may fax It to the
number located at the bottom, mall it to the address below, or drop it off in-person
Planning and Development Department
221 N Elm St
Denton, Texas 76201
Attn Thomas B Gray, Planner I
The zoning process includes two public hearings designed to provide opportumtles for clbzen
involvement and comment Pnor to the pubhc hearings, landowners w~thin two hundred (200) feet of
the subject property are notified of the zoning request by way of this nobce The first pubhc hearing ~s
held before the Planning and Zoning Commission The Commission ~s informed of the percent of
responses in Support and m opposihon Second, the zoning pebtlon is forwarded to the C~ty Council for
final acbon providing the Commission recommends approval Should the Commission recommend
demal, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the C~ty Council If owners of more than twenty
(20) percent of the land area within two hundred (200) feet of the site submit wntten opposihon, then s~x
out of seven votes of the City Councd are required to approve the zoning change These forms are
used to calc~llste the percentage of landowner opposition
Please circle one ~.----- ' ~-~
In favor of request Neutral to request
Comments'
Printed Name
Malhng Address ~j~,,_'~"~
C~ty, State Zip ~ ~-~-~ ;"~"Z ~ I~.l O- C)~,~) ~ _.l.~e, · ~ L-%"'~-
Telephone Number
Physical Address of Property within 200 feet '3~{,~ t.u,' t l,~,~ ~.V,. e..{ ~c..~,
ClTY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY HALL WEST · DENTON, TEXAS 76201 · 9403498350 · (F)940349 7707
ZP. OO-OOg 200 Notice
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO lVlEM~ERS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FROM THOMAS B GRAY, PLANNER I
SUBJECT ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR ZP-00-009 (TEASLEY TRACT)
DATE WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2000
CC'
Here ts ad&uonal mater:al regarding the Zoning Plan for the 19 57 acre Teasley Tract near the comer of
Teasley Road and Ryan Road
sign-m sheet from ne:ghborhood meeting held Wednesday, November 1, 2000
citizen comments from neighborhood meeting
City of Denton, pl.,.m,.g and Developm~t - 1
221 N Ehn, Denton, Texa~ 76201
www c~tyofdenton eom
(940) 349 8350 fax (940) 349 7707
18
19.
ZP-00-009 Zoning Plan
Citizens' comments from neighborhood meeting held November 1, 2000
· I d~dn't receive a legal notice, yet I've owned my house for four months The c~ty's
tax rolls need to be updated more often
· How many stones will the nonresidential development be9
I'm womed that the nonresidential area wall be rezoned to allow apartments
· The strip center down the street (at the comer of Teasley and Robinson) has faded,
why does anybody flunk that retad wall work here9
· I would have a problem w~th alleys right behind my house Please prohibit alleys
along the perimeter of the property
· W~ll the residents of flus development have their own commumty amemhes center? I
don't want the residents ofth~s development to use the neighborhood pool ~n Summit
Oaks
· The arctutecture of the nonresidential structures should look hke the ones being bmlt
along Ldhan Mdler, we don't want ~t to look hke the ugly strip center down the
street
· There ~s too much traffic on Teasley as ~t ~s, th~s development wall make traffic
worse
· Does there have to be a nonresldentml component to tlus development? Why can't
homes be put there as well~ Why can't a park be put there instead?
· Wxll the nonres~denhal area be screened? We don't want to see dumpsters from our
homes m Summit Oaks
· I'm opposed to a washatena or restaurant being located ~n the nonresidential area
· Will two-story homes face mto our back yards? Ensure deeper rear yard setbacks for
homes abutting Summit Oaks
· W~ll the trees on the site be protected?
· I'm glad that the antennas currently on the property are going to be removed
2O
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 79
at these people who have homes on then' I would include 15 acres of smgle-fanuly res~dential and up
considered a home And a lot of these people I 2 to five acres of neighborhood servicc/retad
constdenng to braid out or subdivide It'sj 3 The propesed density on the subject properly
t they would say dunng the ele.~ttons, 4 for th~ single-fanuly residential would be 3 3 units
g at 5 This is the zoning plan that is m your packet this
6 a real hard time exchidm 6 evening The minimum lot size proposed for the
7 that , services 7 s~ngle famdy resideatml lots is 4 000 square feet The
8 MCNEILL ~mmonts, 8 apphcant is proposing to set aside I 04 acres m th~s
9 , much Is there 9 general area Features such as street trees, h~ke and
10 ready for the vote9 Vote 10 bike trads and landscaped areas have been proposed m
11 please on the passes 3-2 11 accordance with the densely standards and cntcrm o! the
12 HOLT AND GOURDIE VOTED IN 12 interim development regulations We've also encouraged
13 13 other design elements such as alleys and courtyard
14 NdW~we're ready to hear from 14 streets They will be dlustrated m the future project
15 ~ rezomng'""~{ Just want to see if staff 15 plan but are not shown on the zoning plan at this nme
16 16 This is m the neighborhood centers area of
17 NO, Slx ~ ~ 17 the Denton Plan The proposed apphcatmn is m
18 Okay Is there,- do we need to 18 compliance with the Denton Plan The applicant did
19 ye*re already heard Right SS~t ~is point Is 19 present a traffic impact analysis as a part of the zoning
t discussion or q a motion 20 requirement Thc study d~d demonstrate that the impact
thc rezomng of this land? 21 expected from this what the impact should be expected
vould be zoned Agricultural 22 from this development as well as what transportatmn
MR RISHEL I'll make a motion 23 unprovctuents will be reqmrcd of th~s development
make a motion a recommendation to the Crt,. 24 Stuff recommends reco~mnends of approval of
approval of Item 12C as It would apply to the f !5 z? 00 0o9 wah thc following conditions hghtmg on the
Page 80
I annexed or recommended for annexataon 1 properly should be designed and maintained so as not to
2 Is there a second? 2 shine on or otherwise d~sturb sun'oundlng residential
3 MS 3 property or to shine and project upward to prevent the
4 MR MCNEILL 4 d~ffuslon into the tught sky uses allowed m the
5 5 nmghborhood serwce section shall be limited to the hst
6 Agncultaral Is there , discussion? 6 shown in Enclosure 2 the project plan must prowde for
7 Motion 7 pedestrian end vehicular connect~wty between the proposed
8 where are we on the ~ 8 neighborhood service and residential uses architectural
break or are we about through? 9 design in the ne~ghborheod servme area shall be
fl0 compatible 1o that of the rcsidentml ama and shall
11 MR MCNEILL okay At this point, we have 11 tucorporate the urban design principles as ldeatffied in
12 Item 15, hold a public heanng and consider recommending 12 the Denton Plan open space shall be privately owned and
13 approval to tho City Councd a zoning plan for a 19 6 acre 13 maintained and pole s~gns shall be prohthated
14 tract located northwest of the lntersectmn of Teasley and 14 There was a nmghborhood meeting that was held
15 Ryan And Ms Ratchff will be making the report in place 15 on Wednesday No, ember I st I did pass out to you a
16 of Mr Oray 16 of those residents that were m aUendance and a sunmmry
17 Ms RATCLtFF Y all get to hear me some more 17 of the comments Mr Allen Bussell is here this evening
18 MR MCNEILL YOU're doing good You're 18 representing this apphcat~on He has proposed some
19 holding up well 19 changes to the text of the zomng plan to meet some of the
20 MS RATCLIFF YeS, Slr Before you this 20 concerns of those neighbors that ancnded the neighborhood
21 evening we have a public heanng scheduled to consider a 21 meeting I'1I let him address that with you I'll be
22 rezonmg on this properly that ~s northeast of the 22 happy to entertain any questions that you nught have
23 intersection of Teaslcy and Ryan Road It is currently 23 Ma MCNEIL[ commissioners, do you have a
24 zoned Agncultaral They're requesting to rezone 19 57 24 question for staff before we hear from the apphcant?
25 acres to Planned Development Th~s Planned Development 25 Thank you very much At th~s time then 1'11 open the
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIO"' ~"~VEMBER 8, 2000 Page 77 - Page 80
21.
CondenseltTM
Page 81 Page 83
I pubhc heanng and ask ff there ~s fig apphcam or I strangely shaped
2 apphcant's representahvc, Is he or sha ~ to make 2 I hope I feel and I dunk 1 have provided
3 comments? 3 enough control to ensure we get a quality development out
4 MR BUggBLL My name is Allen Bussell I'm 4 of this And I've been using the interim rags and the
5 employed by Surveyors and Engineers of North Texas, 1621 $ draft of the new Design Code to do that If you have any
6 Amanda Court, Ponder I'm here mpresemmg my client on 6 quesaons, I'll he happy to answer them
7 this project This is a halo bigger It might be a 7 MR MCNEILL Coyfffmssloner Poshcl has a
8 hale ens~er to zoom m on 'I~a~sc an: thc changes that 8 question
9 havc becn made and I'll pomt out tha changes berausc I'm 9 MRmSHEL xhankyou Can you give mc an
10 sure you've gone through your backup already to sec what 10 idea of some of the various lot sizes as you come past the
11 the des~gr~ encompasses So I'll go over the few changes 11 CLreular feature and rote the subd~vis~on? For example
12 that were made after the meeting with the neighbors 12 ff you turned left on that s~n:et and then continued
13 The first one m tho nonre, sldeatial lots, if 13 around the curb, the first two lots that are full size
14 you como down, I added a maxnnum haight of two and a half 14 lots, how big would the one oo the north and thc one on
15 stones In the compatibility standards, come down to 15 the south be approximately?
16 masonry, under masonry, bmldmgs, thc last hne, 16 MR BUSSELL It'S been awhile since I lind
17 buflthng~ within neighborhood service shall ha 17 this out It's probably over 7,000 I'm not sure We're
18 arChltectt~rally comparable to the single family homes in 18 gems at a density hem of 3 3
19 the area Oo down to landscaping and screening, the 19 MR RISHEL I understand
20 second heachng under tha~, neighborhood service buffered 20 Ma BUSSELL SO V~ can get some varying lot
21 w~th existing homes to the north Two-story buildings 21 s~zcs
22 within 200 feet of tho north boundary shall have no second 22 Ma RISg~L l understand So the one on the
23 story windows facing the north And this is to provide 23 north is about 7,000 and the one on the south ~s?
24 them, those homes to the north w~th privacy And the next 24 MR 5USSELt~ 1 don't know It's probably
25 one, existing homes on the oorth and east will he buffered 25 close to 9,000 I don't know
Page 82 Page 84
I from the new homes with a 25 foot rear building hoe And I MR RISHEL Okay So the one we looked at m
2 then on the second page, no alleys vail be allowed along 2 the north ~s kind of typical to one of the smaller lots,
3 the north and east boundaries of this properly And 3 ~s that correct?
4 that's to save the existang ~ that are them on the 4 MR BU~SELL Right
5 fence hno And there's some pretty slgmfieent trees 5 MR RISHEL Okay And the road size m that
6 there And those are the changes that we made 6 area, what would the road size there boo
7 The shape of the open space might get you 7 MR BUSgELL I behove ! created this with a
8 there and I understand that It looks kind of strange It 8 28-foot back to back
9 looks strange because I laid out tho property conceptually 9 MR RISHEL okay l ~ there's also some
10 ~o ge~ a lot count, basically, and how th~s thing would be I 0 features that have 28-foot roads and 22-foot roads
11 lind out You would enter the property hem Upon 11 MR BUSSELL I also addressed the road sizes
12 entenng tho property, you'd sec an entry statement A 12 -- I apologize -- with a note saying that the roads would
13 traffic circle there that would not only slow ~raffie 13 be - forg~ve me, I don't have --
14 gems m and out but would prowde a place where we could 14 MR RISHEL It shows resldentml streets and
15 pm som~ signage them, some nice signage e~ther telhng 15 residential lanes Are the residential lane features,
16 people what thc subdiwsion was or maybe some small s~gns 16 would you point those out9
17 showing what the stores were there I'm not sure what 17 MR BUSSELL gay that agmn I'm sorry
18 would go there but it would provide a nice entry 18 MR RISHEL One of the notes, I was looking
19 And then, of course, right after that, there's 19 at the landscaping, tt shows a 28-foot what they call
20 landscaped area and then the ~rafl system connecting the 20 22-foot run lanes
21 hoines m thc back of thc area away from the streets 21 MR BUSSELL Those I got from the Denton
22 connecting them to the front neighborhood service where 22 Plan
23 they co~ld walk down on a Sunday morning, grab a paper and 23 MR RISHEL Okay You don't propose using a
24 some coffee, if they wanted to without g~tmg m their 24 28 foot width street, ts that correct9
25 car to do It And so that's why that open space is 25 MR BUSSELL 1 propose to use whatever street
PLANNING AblD ZOblING COMMISSION ]oc~'~r~"BER 8, 2000 Page 81 - Page 84
22
Condense:ItTM
Page 85 Page 87
I standards are tn effect at tbe time of project plan and I Ma BUSSELL My vision heco is actually to
2 s~te plan approval 2 push the garage away from the street, to push it back from
3 MR RISHEL That's my quastton That'smy 3 tbe front of tl~ house so you don't dnve down tbe street
4 question exactly 4 and see gerages It's ugly
5 MR BUS,ELL And I added a note, Note 5 over 5 MR. RISHEL Appreciata It Thank you
6 there, right over by the streets, it says street cross 6 MR MCNEILL COllLtnlSslOner Moreno
7 sections shown for illustration only And then from the 7 MR MOaENO Yea, sa' I'm hawn8 difficulty
8 approved Denton Comprehensive Plan, subject tract street 8 with my arithmetIc here You're proposing a nummum lot
9 sections shall conform to the subdivis~on cross sections 9 size of 4,000 square feet
10 in effect at the time of platting and/or project plan 10 MR BUSSELt~ In thc nonresidential section
11 approval 11 MR MORENO tn thc nonresidential
12 MR RISHEL I thmk my point m that there 12 MR BUSSELL Yes s~r m the neighborhood
13 are some features that allow for 28-foot w~de streets or 13 center, ce~ghborhood service area
14 lanes to work for us m our community and tbem's some 14 MR. MOa~qO okay And what's your minaman
15 situations where it's much more appropriate to have a 15 lot s~ze on the res~dcetial? I guess I m~ssed tt
16 wider street than 28-foot, as an example And I'm just 16 Ma. eUSSgLL t don't havc a nunmmm lot s~ze
17 trying tO find out, as I look at the plan that you have 17 tn thc res~dentml I havc a 3 3 umts per acre
18 put forth hem, what are some of thc features that you see 18 MP. MOP. EIqO 33 umts per acre Okay
19 or you believe that would make the 22-foot wide lane 19 That*s what was confusing me Yeah, u dces say m~nanmn
20 appropriate for your subdtvlslon in some areas or do you 20 red,dentrol lot s~ze of 4,000 square feet m our backup
21 see that as appropnate'~ 21 I guess this was prepared by staff But ~t would appear
22 MR BUSSELL only with an alley and only on a 22 to me that you're minimmn res~denual lot size would be
23 fairly short street, 600 feet or less probably 23 much greater than 4,000 square feet It could be up
24 MR RISHEL okay 24 around--
25 MR BU~SELL And defimtely wath street 25 m laUSSELL it'S e~ther going to be really
Page 86 Page 88
I trees But I have yet to see an improved 22-foot street I big probably over 6,000, probably less than 16,000 It
2 section by engmeenng 2 depends on really how much open space that they want If
3 MR RISHEL would most of the homes that you 3 they want three acres of open space, then lots are going
4 have m this area, as you would build this out, would they 4 to be a llUle bit smaller Whatever ~s gumg to g:ve the
5 be two-car garages? 5 3 3 units pm' acre And there m~ght be a variety of lot
6 MR BU$SELL YeS That's stated m the 6 s~zes there and that s my hope and I beheve that's what
7 design standards 7 City staff would like to see
8 MR RISHEL And the setback on them la ld<e 8 M~ MCNE[LL Lg:t me follow up - Conmussmner
9 20-foot, tS that correct? 9 Moreno ~s looking for additmnal comments and follow up on
10 MR BUSSELL That's correct 10 the backup material from staff That's a mistake in the
11 MR RISHE~ To tbe property hno so that 11 backup materml from stuff ~s what I'm heanng lsthat
12 would -- I presume that if you have a two-car garage, that 12 correct? That u's not really a mmnnum lot s~ze of 4 000
13 would probably -- and tf it's front entry, that that would 13 square feet
14 be at least a 16-foot vnde or wider driveway 14 MR MOP. ENO Yeah I'm looking under the
15 MR BUSSELL we'r0 under the mternu regs so 15 summary of zomng requests, second para.apb
16 I don't recall the percentages but a certain percentage of 16 Ma MCSEILL Yeah It's not 4,000 So that's
17 these have to be J-entry so they can't be front entry 17 a nustake in the backup materml
18 MR RlSHEL Okay My concern is that I8 Ma MOaENO Thanks That helps
19 sometimes when we get homes that are set a little bit 19 MR BUSSELL YOU're welcome
20 closer tO the property line because of the necessity for 20 MR. MCa~tLL Thank yOU Excuse me
21 hawng sidewalks and parkmg and cars, that we see m our 21 Additional queat~ons for the apphcant? Comnussioner
22 area being a little blt larger cars, that we end up with 22 Moreno, I d~dn't mean to cut you off I just wanted to
23 people parking on the street and malong congestion and 23 make that point there that ;t looked hke them was an
24 that's not what we would design as bmldars and see as 24 error m the matenaI
25 dastrable to have a quality subdivision 25 MR MO~qo yeah, u sure ~s
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ..... MBER 8, 2000 Page 85 - Page 88
23.
CondensoltTM
Page 89 Page 91
3 what tho actual layout is going to be 3 those back lots to the neighborhood service
5 MR RISHEL If that's a mistake, what should 5 flood type feature or anything for drainage
6 it read instead of 4,0007 6 MR BU~ELL NO, no, no no In fact, the
9 any lot be less than 4,000 But being a zoning case, we 9 to me Okay Thank you
10 could lnurt R to 5,000 I mean, If you want to put a 10 MR MCNEILL Thank you very much Seeing no
11 minimum on it, the intent is to go with th~ density 11 hghts, I assume there are no additional questions Aud
12 requu-ement to vary tho lot sizes and try to get away from 12 as we stated earlier, this is a public heanng Is there
13 a minimum lot size But you stall have tho discretion to 13 anyone in the audience who would like to speak in lax or of
14 recommend a m~mmum lot s~ze 14 this petition? Anyone hke to speak in favor? Please
15 MR MCNEILL Isn't philosophy of the interim 15 come forward and state your name
16 regs and the new Zoning Code to get away from lot size and 16 MS BU~DSI~^W My name is Sondra Bredshaw and
17 go to densay? 17 I'm at 3821 Wlllowick Circle Right hero is Wtllowmk
18 MR REICHHAR? YeS 18 C~rcle so we're located right here And I just wanted to
19 MRMCNEILL so the statement renlly should 19 sayoutstandmg I am so thankful Wehedane~ghborhood
20 be tl~ requested density for the residential portion of 20 lneetlng with Ms' Gray and it's just wonderful to reahze
21 the development is 3 3 umts per acre, period 21 that they re actually hearing what we're saying and
24 your lot gets less than 10,000 square feet architectural 24 north side by not putting alleys m And so I'm glad lo
25 standards, street trees and front porches and all those 25 hear that they're thinking that way
Page 90 Page 92
type of things I One th~ng that we did still have a concern
2 MR MCNEILL which are not in effect yet but 2 about is we had mentioned that up hero at thc front - I
3 I'm just -- in the now Zoning Code 3 feel comfortable representing our neighborhood because
6 Rlshcl, does that answer your question? 6 that the Elhsons and the FIowers and other families that
8 think than it answers I appreciate where we're try to go 8 certain that whatever light retail or residential retail
9 with density and I appresmte the vis,on that you've tried 9 if you would, that's put in does not include giant
10 to bnng forth of how you see it I guess if I was going 10 floodlights that are going to be on in the evening,
11 to settle for a smaller lot size and yet allow for thc 3 3 11 parking hghts or right now, thc Chevron station thai s
12 units per acre and density, I'd look for a higher standard 12 down towards Ryan Road is while obnoxious and they don't
13 m my masonry and some of my other things that I m~ght put 13 want anything like that m their backyard So that would
15 MR BUSSELL That's why I went to a 75 15 thank you very much for listening and for allowing us to
16 percent mstend of a 50 16 meat with Mr Gray and just the receptivity to our
17 MR RISHEL could you put your conceptual 17 concerns
18 drawing up? And I know we're not approving tho conenptual 18 MR MeNEILL well, we're very glad that you
19 drawing as you have put it forth, but I'm curious As you 19 came down to express the concerns and support of thc
20 look at the water fentum, I guess, that's running down 20 neighborhood
21 thc m~ddle of the east/west direction 21 MS BllADSH^W Thank you
24 MR BUSSELL A trail 24 audience who would like to speak In favor of this Agenda
25 MR mSHEL okay That was my queslmn as to 25 item? Anyone else in the audience?
PLANNING AND ZONING COIVIMIS$- 24. OVEMBER 8, 2000 Page 89 - Page 92
CondenseltTM
Page 93 Page 95
I Is tha~ anyone in tho audience that would I residents wore concerned about second sto~,~ v, qndows from
2 hke to speak in opposition to tiaa case? Anyone m thc 2 the adjacent residential Ix:opic looking over That s ~hat
3 audience that would hke to speak in opposition? Heanng 3 thc neighborhood notes identified as a concern
4 none, I'll close tho pubhc hennng and ask staff if they 4 smd along the northern property hne, I assumed it was
5 have any closing comments 5 the residential against the residential
6 MS RATCLIFF Staff rei:eived the rg~lsed 6 MS OOURDiE We discussed that and we lc,nd of
7 comments from Mr Busselljustpnortothemenbng In 7 said that that would not he a peoslbihty R~ght I
8 roviovnng the proposed amendments to tho zoning plan aa 8 think the way that a was finally discussed vas that
9 he's -- m tho handout before you, tho only thing that 9 was only the commercial property could be condmoned that
10 staff was concerned about ts at the bottom of page I under 10 way, that residential properties can't be lmuted in that
11 landscaping and screening, under neighbeehood service 11 fashmn But correct me if I'm wren8
12 buffeanl from existmg homes to the north Two-story 12 MR MCNEILL oces the apphcant want to
13 buildings wRlnn 200 feet of the north boundary shall have 13 respond to that?
14 no second story windows facing the north If you want to 14 MR BUSSELL Yeah The second starx wmdo~
15 have such a statement on the zoning plan, we would 15 I just wanted that for the neighborhood service section
16 recommend that you say that those lots that'a are adjacent 16 1 addressed the reoldentlal with a larger setback m the
17 to those boundaries instead of putting a depth because we 17 back, with a 25-foot setback in the back So that s how
18 don't know what the lot depth is going to be It could be 18 we got away from that because we knew we couldn t change
19 le0s than - thc lots along there could be less than 100 19 the Bud&ng Codes and restrict residential height on each
20 feet 20 thfferent zones probably
21 MR MC'NEILL SO you're suggesting aJauke 21 MR REICHHART ! d even have a larger concea-n
22 within 200 feet and say adjacent 22 then for a commercial building of 4 000 square foot, the
23 MS RATCLIFF It could be across the street 23 second story not having any wmdoxv would be a huge
24 and I don't think that was the intent of the neighborhood 24 monohthlc slab of nothing It's an aesthetic concern
25 meeang I may be wrong but that was just something that 25 MR BUSSELL Then glass block or sometinng
Page 94 Page 96
I we saw And whether you want to -- if someone does have a I that is not transparent but opaque
2 second story and ~ were wtthm 200 feet but they're not 2 Ma REICHHART I also think thas sUB ha~
3 adjacent to the property and they couldn't havn a window, 3 go through a project plan
4 I don't know If you would really want that 4 MR BUSSELL I Just want to protect tbe
5 MR MCNEILL Yeah V~ry good 5 neighbors' privacy on that side
6 MR RE[CHHART I just want to expand on that 6 MR RE[CHHART 1 understand that
7 a little bit, too Quite honestly, I don't think staff 7 MR MCNEILL So does that need to exct.se
8 would recommend that condltton Typically, we don't 8 me but let me ask staff here, does that need to be m th~s
9 condition second story residential next to a second story 9 PD or does that need to be in the project plan ~hen it
10 residential or singln story residential 10 comes forward'~
11 And, quite honestly, it may even be a bigger l I MR REICHHART I would rather see n
12 concern Thei'~ might be butldmg code issues associated 12 addressed during thc project plan because it could be done
13 with the second story windows But it n~ght even be more 13 with screening, landscaping, the arcbatecture of the
14 of a aesthetic look Suat seeing if you do go to a 14 building and glass block windows would work or frosted
15 second story, just a blank wall - 15 windows or any nmnber of design solutions axe out thexe as
16 Ma OOURDIE I think ther~ was a 16 opposed to just hmltmg it to we will ha,,e no *,~andows on
17 misinterpretation I'm sorry 17 the second story facing north
18 MR MCNEILL commissioner Gourdle 18 MR MGNEILL SO if we don't include that -
19 MS GOURDIE It was for the commercial 19 and my question is ff we don't include that as pari of
20 property, not tho res~dential property Tho request at 20 this ?D approval, we're not excluthng the Coomussion s
21 the meeting was that the commercial property, if it's a 21 abihty to address that when he comes back gath
22 second Story to not have windows facing north They did 22 project plan
23 not thscuss the residentaal property It was strictly 23 MR REICHHART YOU are not
24 commercial 24 MU MC'NEILL very good Okay Adchtional
25 MIL REICHHART t thought it was t~ 25 questions from the Comrmsslon or comments from staff°
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIO ..... rEMBER 8, 2000 Page 93 - Page 96
25.
Cond~nseltTM
Page 97 Page 9~c
2 MR MCNEILL okay Conmussloners 2 Oourthe
3 Commissioner Rishel 3 MS GOL~OIE- Ijust wanted to thank Allen for
4 MR RISHEL I Just wanted to get a shake of 4 doing this The ncnghbors first came in very caanous and
5 the head perhaps Does Ms Bradshaw concur vath where 5 I'm pleased that he made a lot of concessions from where
6 we're going as a neighborhood representative that tlus -- 6 they s~arted and s~hat they wanted I was just very
7 MS BRADSHAW Is that north side? It was our 7 impressed with the ~aole process
8 understan&ng north Wlllowmk Circle would strictly be 8 ~ MCXEIUL. vet) good Conmussioncr Rlshcl
9 residential Has that changed* 9 Mi~ mS~L I too would like to thank the
10 MR MCNEILL NO, no 10 neighbors and the ncnghborhood for taking the time to give
11 MS BRADSHAW Okay 11 input to thc ale',doper and the developer taking the time
12 MR MCNEILL Thank you 12 to listen, what appcar~ to be hsten, and we're counting
13 MR RISHEL Thank you 13 on you to put forth a quahty develhpment and make sure we
14 MR MCNEILL very good Commassioners, 14 safeguard thc ne,.ghbca'hoed~ and the community and we'll
15 additional ~- let's see I should close the public 15 look forward to x~orkmg x~ath you in the futura and quality
16 hearing, which I don't remember whether I've done it or 16 things cormog from >our offices Thank you
17 not We got on a tangont here Butifwehaven't,I'll 17 MRMC'X'~iLL Thaak you very much Other
18 close It 18 comments for the Commissioners? Okay Very good Are
19 MS RATCLIFF It's been closed 19 you ready to vote on the motion? Good Vote on the
20 MR MCNEILL SO it's closed twice now 20 board, please Monon pas~es unanimously, 5-0 Thank you
~ 1 Commissioners, adthtlonal comments, discussion, or a 21 all very much
23 MS RATCLIFF staff would like to state if 23 Council A~:t~ s.~R~pg~.~.-----~'r
24 yOU want to include the additions that Mr Bussell has 24 MR REIC'jtI~al~T~st wa~_n.t out we
that would need to be a part of your mutton !5 ~a~d~eu¥~n adchuonal n~vsletter It was in
25
added,
Page 98 X Page
I Ma MCNEILL okay Conumssioner Gourthe 1N,N Record Chromcle today that was m every copy If folks/
2 MS OOURDIE DO We nec:d tO road all the 2 X,,d~dn't get a cop) of th~s tlx~e are numerous copies //
3 conditions? 3 a~a~lable at dlffexent C~ty Hall areas Also, we pads/ed
4 MRMCNEILL ldon'tthlnkso Ithlnkwe 4 outtoxal~,htacopx of the handbook, drafthand~kthat~s
5 can just say as presented by -- 5 gmng to'be part of the draft Development Cgd~ for
6 MS GOURDm Thank you I'd like ~o make a 6 everybody to use and look through that ~J'~st to let you
7 motion, please 7 know what ~s hag~nmg, Saturday af/t/eamoon or Saturday
8 MR. MCN~ILL on right ahead 8 morning at 10 00 o~l~ock we'll have'our kackoff mecang at
9 MS oougm~ i move to recommend approval of 9 Calhoun for the draft code and out sones of ne,ghborhood
10 zP 0o-o0~ with the contht~ons that am included m our 10 meahngs Available Fndayxwd( be the interactive
11 backup and also to include Mr Bassell's mformat~on 11 website that folks can log info,nd get some mformatmn
12 excludtag neighborhood services buffered from the existing 12 on the zomng for their specific properties and what s
13 homes to tbe north wluch will be considered in the 13 been happening ~th tl~ Code And t behove Friday the
14 detailed plan 14 revised Code w~ll b~ready and we will I~, getting copies
15 MS RATCEIFF SO that would include the 15 to you
16 maxunum height, buildings in the neighborhood service area 16 MR MC'NtlLL VCrX good Are them sddmonal
17 are compatible to single family homes in the area 17 comments~ ~
18 MR MCNEILL I think it was all that was tn 18 /MR S~,a~V~_ Can 1 pmnt something out* ~
19 th~s ma~al 19 MR. MCN~LL sure
20 MS RATCLIFF I Just want to roako sus~ 20 / m SNYDEP~ rt just dawned on me The, sc
21 MR RISHE~ AS amended 21 nefi~hborhood mecangs that are set up, specifically the ~\~
22 MR MCNEILL Asamended, yes Okay Wehave 22 ?~oonSatorday ~notpos~dforaP&Zmectmg Self
23 a motion Do we have a second? 23 ~ any of you do decide to aUcnd that roeetmg, make sure
24 Ma RISHEL second 24 ~/ that you don't make any comments and you're just there as
25 MR MCNEILL It'S been moved and seconded 25~' an observer
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ..... MBER 8, 2000 Page 97 - Page 10(
26.
ATTACHMENT 3
ORDINANCE NO
AN ORDiNANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE
FROM AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE
DESIGNATION TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO ALLOW FOR SINGLE-FAMILY AND
NEIGHBORI-IOOD SERVICE RETAIL USES FOR APPROXIMATELY 1959 ACRES
LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF THE INTERSECTION OF TEASLEY LANE
AND RYAN ROAD AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS 19 59 ACRES IN THE B LEWIS
SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO 769, THE E PICKETT SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO 1018, AND
THE J FISHER SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO 421, IN THE CITY OF DENTON, DENTON
COUNTY, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR APPROVAL OF A ZONING PLAN FOR THE
DISTRICT, PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000 00
FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (ZP-00-
009)
WHEREAS, on March 2, 2000, the City Council adopted Ordmance No 2000-046 winch
estabhshed certmn resadentlal antenm regulaUons (the "Residential Interim Regulations"),
WHEREAS, the Residential Interim Regulations established, among other tinngs, a
Zomng Plan requirement m the event of a request to rezone property, and
WHEREAS, on March 2, 2000, the City Council adopted Ordinance No 2000-069 winch
established certain nonresldentml ~ntenm regulations (the "Nonresidential Interim Regulations"),
WHEREAS, the Nonremdentml Interim Regulations established, among other tbangs, a
Zomng Plan requirement in the event of a request to rezone property, and
WHEREAS, SENTCorp, on behalf of Mortenson Broadcasting Co, has submitted a
Zomng Plan under both the Remdentml Interim Regulatmns and Nonresldentml Interim
Regulataons, a copy of winch as attached hereto as Exinblt "B", for 19 59 acres of land located at
the northeast sade of the ~ntersecUon of Ryan Road and Teasley Lane currently zoned
Agricultural (A), with the mtent to develop a single-family res~dentml subdivision as well as
neighborhood servme retatl, and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2000, the Planmng and Zomng Commission recommended
approval of a Zomng ?lan for such 19 59 acres, and
WHEREAS, the C~ty Council finds that the Zoning Plan, with the condlUons ~mposed
hereto, ~f any, meets the reqmrements of the Resldentml Interim Regulations and the
Nonresidential Interim Regulations and is consastent wath the approved 1999-2020 Denton
Comprehenmve Plan, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS
27
SECTION 1 The zomng dastnct classfficatlon and use designation of the 19 59 acre
property described m the legal desmpt~on attached hereto and ~ncorporated here~n as Exhibit
"A" ~s changed from Agricultural (A) zoning dlstnct classification and use deslgnat~on to
Planned Development (PD) zoning dlstrlet classfficat~on and use designation and a Zoning Plan
for the 19 59 aeres is adopted, said Zomng Plan being attached hereto and ~ncorporated herem as
Exhibit "B" for all purposes, subject to the following eondmons
1 L~ghtmg on the property shall be designed and malntmned so as not to stune on or
otherwise disturb surrounding residential property or to shine and project upward to
prevent the diffusion into the mght sky
2 Uses allowed m the Neighborhood Service section shall be hnnted to the hst shown ~n
Extublt "C"
3 The ProJect Plan must prowde for pedestrian and velucular connectivity between the
proposed neighborhood servme and remdentml uses
4 Arcbatectural design in the neighborhood servme area shall be compatible to that of
the residential area and shall incorporate Urban Design Pnnmples as identified in The
Denton Plan
5 Open space shall be privately owned and mmntmned
6 Pole slgnage shall be prohibited
SECTION 2 The City's offimal zomng map ~s amended to show the change ~n zomng
district classification
SECTION 3 Any person violating any provision of thru ordinance shall, upon
conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000 00 Each day that a provision ofth~s ordinance
is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense
SECTION 5 This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of
~ts passage, and the C~ty Secretary ~s hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be
pubhshed twice ~n the Denton Record Chromcle, offimal newspaper of the City of Denton,
Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage
PASSED AND APPROVED this the. day of ,2001
EULINE BROCK, MAYOR
PAGE 2
ATTEST
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM
HERBERT L PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
29 '
EXHIBIT A
19 594 ACRES
FIELD NOTES to all that certain tract of land mtuated m the Benjamin Lex*as Survey
Abstract Number 769, the E P~ckett Survey Abstract Number 1018, and the Jerermah
F~sher Survey Abstract Number 421, tn Denton County, Texas and being all of the called
19 571 acre tract as described in the deed from Heftel Broadcasting Texas, L P to
Mortenson Broadeasttng Company of Canton recorded under Clerk's File Number 97-
R0055904 of the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas, the subject tract being
more partacularly described az follows
BEGINNING for the Southwest comer of the tract being descmbed hereto at a 1/2 meh
~ron rod set for the Southwest comer of the smd 19 571 acre tract and the Northwest
comer of Lakewood Estates as shown by the plat thereof recorded m Cabinet C, Page 193
of the Plat Records of Denton County, Texas m the Northeast llne of F M 2181,
THENCE w~th the East right-of-way off M 2181 along the arc cfa curve to the left
having a radius of 1,477 39 feet, an arc length of 7 52 feet (chord bearing North 34
Degrees ! 8 Minutes 28 Seconds West a dastance of 7 52 feet) to the end of the smd curve
from which a right-of-way monument bears North 39 Degrees 12 Mmutes 11 Seconds
West a d~stanee of 1 42 feet,
THENCE North 34 Degrees 27 Minutes 13 Seconds West oath the Northeast line of F
M 2181 and the West hne of the 19 571 acre tract a dastance of 662 70 feet to a 1/2 ~nch
tron rod set for the Northwest comer thereof and the Southwest corner of OTE Add~tuon
az shown by the plat thereof recorded m Cabinet M, Page 116 of the Plat Records of
Denton County, Texas, ?~
TI-]~IqCE North 71 Degrees 09 Mm~es 15 Seconds East w~th the South hne of GTE
Addflwn part of the way passing at a daslance of 291 89 feet a 3/I/tach ~ron rod found at
the Southeast comer thereof and the Southwest comer of Lot 4, Block D, Summit Oaks
Add~tlon, Phase 1 as shown by the plat thereof recorded m Cabinet P, Page I~3 & ~ 64 of
the Plat l~cords of Denton County, Texas and contmumg, ~n all, a total chs~ance of
~45 67 feet to a 1/2 tach ~ron rod found at the South comer of Lot 13, Block D and a
reentrant comer of the 19 571 acre tract;
THENCE North 12 Degrees 38 Minutes 33 Seconds East w~th the East line of Block D,
Summit Oaks Add~tmn and the West line of the 19 571 acre tra~t a d~staoce of 309 60
feet to a !/2 tach ~ron rod found at the Northwest comer thereof,
THENCE North gl Degrees 55 M_mutes 17 Seconds East w~th the North hne of the
19 571 acre tract a chs/ance of ~87 97 feet to a fence comer post at the Northeast comer
thereof~
THENCE South 00 Degrees 23 Mmu~es 46 Seconds East along a fence oath the East hne
of the 19 571 acre tract a dastance of 9~1 35 feet to a $/g tach xon rod found at the
Southeast comer thereof m the North hne of the smd Block l, Lakewood Estates,
3O
TI-IL~NCE South 89 Degrees 58 Minutes 13 Seconds West along a fence w~th the North
hlte of Block 1, Lakewoorl Eslates and the South hne of thc If} S7! acre tract a d~st~nce
of 625 50 feet to a 1/2 tach xron rod found at a reentrant comer thereof and the Northerly
Noxthwest comer of Block 1, Lakewood Estates,
THENCE South 01 Degrees 18 Minutes 59 Seconds West along a fence wath the West
l~e of Block l, Lakewood E~ates and the East hne of the 19 571 acre tract a distance of
140 66 feet to a 1/2 tach xron rod found at the Southerly Southeast comer thereof and a
salaent comer of Block 1, Lakewood Estates,
THENCE South 88 Degrees 32 Minutes 01 Seconds West alon§ a fence vnth the South
lane of Block 1, Lakewund Estates and the South hne of the 19 571 acre tract a ehstance
of 241 45 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING and enclosing 19 594 acres of land
31
Z \SEN' "ec°rcm~ul'~Uu~u '~°mn
hll I, I1111 tI i ~
,,,., i,' "l i.
,,,. ,', I,.,
~!lil~ Iii. Il fill
l:ll I l~ !Ii iii
,[: Ill Iii
': :lqf
:d i,ih[l i
II~ I ,Ill
EXHIBIT C
ZP-00-009
L~stofPerm~ffed Usesln Neighborhood Service Reta~lArea
Art Gallery of Museum
Church or Rectory
Institution of Religious or Philanthropic Nature
Park, Playground or Public Commumty Center
Telephone, business office
Anbque Shop
Bakery or Confectionery Shop (Retail)
Cleaning and Pressing Small Shop and Pmkup
Custom Personal Service Shop
Drapery, Needlework or Weawng Shop
Florist or Garden Shop
Hand~cmft Shop
Laundry or Cleaning, Self Service
Offices, Profesmonal and Admimstrat~ve
Restaurant
Retml Stores and Shops 4,000 Square Feet or Less
Studio for Photographer, Musician, Artmt or Health
Agenda Ne 0['~0
Agendaltem ~ --~ -
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Date_ /- ~--O/
AGENDA DATE January 9, 2001
DEPARTMENT: Plannmg Department
CM/DCM/ACM: Davtd Hill, 349-8314/)7~
SUBJECT- (A-101) (RyanRoad/CountryClubRoad~4nnexatton)
Constder adoptton of an ordinance of the Ctty of Denton, Texas, amending a proposed annexatton
ordinance which passed on first reading on November 28, 2000 and was pubhshed on December 8,
2000 to annex two tracts of land, comprising 923 7 acres, Tract One being located on the on the
southwestern stde of the C~ty of Denton's extraterntonal jurisdiction east of U S H~ghway 377, south
of Regency Court on each stde of Country Club Road, west of Montectto along Ryan Road and mostly
north of Brush Creek Road, and Tract Two being located west of Montectto, south of E1 Pasco and east
of Santa Momca, and providing an effecttve date (A-101)
BACKGROUND
An involuntary annexation proceeding ~s betng considered by the C~ty of Denton for approxtmately
668 acres of land located generally south of Ryan Road and east of Country Club Road, which
reductton from the 923 7 acres approved for annexation on first reading by Council on November 28,
2000 A map of the reduced area bemg considered for annexatton ~s prowded tn Attachment # 1 Also
provtded ~n Attachment gl ~s a map showing parcel numbers referenced throughout th~s report On
December 8, 2000, the entire annexation ordinance for A-101, as adopted on first readmg, was
pubhshed tn the Denton Record-Chromele m accordance w~th the Ctty of Denton Charter
Actions Taken Since November 28, 2000 First Reading Ordinance Adoption
In anttctpat~on of further parcel delettons, staff has prepared an amendment to the first readmg
ordinance adopted on November 28, 2000 (Attachment 4) Several addttlonal parcels have been
deleted The parcels ~denttfied for posmble agreements m heu of annexation (parcels # 101 - 112)
have been deleted tn the draft ordinance A meetmg w~th the affected property owners was held on
January 4, 2001 to d~scuss the draft agreements Wtth some corrections and rewmons to the
agreements, ~t appeared that the property owners would be wtlhng to agree to the provtslons drafted by
the Legal Department In add~tton, parcels # 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 75, 76, 80, 97, and 99 have been deleted
after further tttle research md~cated that Btrch farm and Calvert properttes had been tnadvertently
omitted Staff consulted wtth Council Member Cochran regarding these draft delettons
Summary. of Parcel Deletmns
October 24, 2000 Original Proposal 1,370 acres
November 7, 2000 #77, 88, 89, 90 - 134 acres
November 14, 2000 gl, 2, 74, 78 - 312 acres
November 28, 2000 First Reading Acreage 924 acres
January 9, 2001 (Draft) #101-112,3,9-12
#75, 76, 80, 97, 99 - 435 acres
Remaining Acreage Being Considered for Annexation: ' 668 acres
1
SERVICE PLAN
As per state law, a servme plan has been prepared and made available for pubhc inspection
(Attachment #3) Amendments based upon parcel deletions and legal recommendations, and approved
by City Council on November 7th and November 14th, have been incorporated into the service plan
The servme plan remmns unchanged from the t~me of 1st reading adoption on November 28, 2000
OPTIONS
The boundaries of the proposed annexation may be reduced w~thout requmng lart~atlon of a new
annexation process and schedule However, the first reading ordinance, or any amendments to the
ordinance must be published in the newspaper Because the City's Charter mqmres pubhcat~on of any
amendment to the annexation ordinance, as a precautionary measure, Legal staff recommends that the
ordinance amendment be pubhshed Therefore, the proposed ordinance, as amended, may not be
approved on second reading until at least 30 days have passed after the date of pubhcat~on Because
staff anticipates further amendments to the A-101 first reading ordinance, Council adoption of an
amended ordinance has been scheduled rather than adoption on second reading
In order to meet the 30-day notice reqmmment and consider adoption of an amended ordinance on
second reading, staff will have to deliver the amended ordinance to the Denton Record Chromcle to be
pubhshed no later than January 20, 2001 The second reading of the A-101 annexation ordinance wall
then be scheduled for February 20, 2001, which is at least 30 days after the date of pubhcatmn
Annexation proceedings must be concluded w~th~n 90 days from the date of ~mtmtlon (November 28,
2000), whmh means that the last date for approval ~s February 26, 2001 It Is ~mportant to note that,
should the A-101 ordinance be amended after the January 9, 2001 meeting, the annexatmn cannot take
effect due to insufficient time to meet C~ty Charter pubhcation requirements (unless Council schedules
a Special Called meeting)
November '. C~ty Charter January 9 C~ty Charter February 20, February 26,
2000 30~day or 16, 2001 30-day 2001 2001
pubheat~on pubhcat~on
[1st Reading of requirement [1st Reading reqarrement [2nd Reading DEADLINE
Ordinance] Ordinance of Ordinance] FOR
[Dec 8, 2000 Amendment] [Jan 20, 2001 - COMPLETION
OF
INITIATIONOF - Jan 7, 2001] Feb 19, 2001] PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Counml approve the amended annexation ordinance as drafted If additional
parcels are to be deleted, staff recommends makang all amendments antm~pated on January 9th The
annexation proceeding must be completed within 90 days of ruination (90 days from the November
28th adoption on first reading is February 26, 2001), the latest regular meeting date the ordinance can
be adopted on second reading ~s February 20, 2001, w~th an ~mmed~ate effective date
2
ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT
A revised annexation schedule is provided in Attachment #2
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW
The issue of annexation of this area was first rinsed as a result of a voluntary annexation petition filed
by the Denton Independent School District (DISD) on July 18, 2000 to request annexation of an 18 1-
acre elementary school site City staff presented the information to City Council at the August 8, 2000
work session Council discussed development interest in the general vicinity and instructed staff
provide further information regarding a broader annexation action During the August 22, 2000 work
session, staff was instructed to institute involuntary annexation proceedings encompassing the area
currently under consideration because of infrastructure availability and impending development
pressure
Two required public hearings were held at the October 24th and November 7th Council meetings The
Planning and Zoning Commission held a public heanCg on Wednesday, November 8th A
neighborhood meeting was held on Thursday, November 9m, at 6 30 PM, at the MeNtor Elementary
School, to answer questions and listen to comments
During the November 7, 2000 meeting, Council approved the deletion of four parcels (#77, #88, #89,
and #90) The four parcels total an estimated 134 acres Council also decided to continue to deliberate
and possibly take action regarding further parcel deletions, pending the provision of additional
information regarding current land uses and agreements in lieu of annexation at the November 14th
meeting
On November 8, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3-2 (Rlshel, Gourdy, and McNeil -
in favor, Holt and Moreno - opposed, Apple and Williams - absent) to recommend approval of the
proposed annexation as revised by City Council on November 7, 2000 The Planning and Zoning
Commission also voted 5-0 to recommend approval to zone the subject annexation area Agricultural
(A) if the annexation is approved
On November 14, 2000, during at a special called meeting, City Council voted to delete four more
parcels (#1, #2, #74, and #78) The four parcels total an estimated 133 acres There was further
discussion of deleting parcels #101, #102, #104 thru #112 by the time of the 2na reading of the
annexation ordinance pending the possible execution of agreements restricting subdivision and
development of the land
Council Work Session August 8, 2000
Council Work Session August 22, 2000
DRC Review August 24, 2000, September 7, 14, 21, 28, 2000
and October 6, 2000
Petition Fthng Date September 22, 2000
Public Hearing #1 October 24, 2000
Public Heanng #2 November 7, 2000
P&Z Public Heanng & Recommendation November 8, 2000
Neighborhood Meeting November 9, 2000
Council Work Session &
Special Called Meeting November 14, 2000
I st Reading Adoption November 28, 2000
3
ATTACHMENTS
1 Location Map
2 Annexation Schedule
3 1st Reading Ordinance adopted November 28, 2000 (wxthom extub~ts)
4 Draft Amended Ordinance
Respectfully subm~tted~
Assistant C~ty Manager, Development Services
Attachment 1 ~
A-101 Ryan Road/Country Club Road Annexation NORTH
LOCATION MAP
SCALE NONE
Note:
Shaded parcels are under consideration for annexation as
identified in January 9, 2001 draft A- 101 Ordinance Amendment
Attachment 2
ANNEXATION SCHEDULE OF
Ryan Road/Country Club Annexation Area
Friday, September 22 Involuntary Annexation Petition filed, Annexation Study & Service
Plans Drafted, 30 day notice of intent to annex to each property owner,
each pubhe entity or private entity that provides services in the area and
each rmlroad company
Friday, October 6 Annexation Service Plans Completed
Thursday, October 5 Not,ce sent to be pubhshed on Monday, October 9 on City Webslte and
~n Denton Record-Chronicle for CC's first public hearing (Noon)
Friday, October 13 500' Courtesy Notice and Posting of signs
Thursday, October 19 Deadhne for receipt of petitions for opposition (10 days after notice)
Tuesday, October 24 City Council Conducts first public hearing
Wednesday, October 25 Notme sent to be published on Saturday, October 28 on City Webslte and
in Denton Record-Chromcle for PZ's public hearing on annexation and
zomng and CC's second public hearing on annexation and zoning
(Noon)
Tuesday, November 7 C~ty Council Conducts second public heanng
Wednesday, November8 Planmng and Zoning Commission pubhc hearing - make a
recommendation to City Council regarding the proposed annexation and
the proposed zoning
Tuesday, Nov 28, 2000 First reading of annexation ordinance - City Council by 4/5's vote
institutes annexation proceedings
Wednesday, Nov 29, 2000 Annexation ordinance published on Saturday, December 8, 2000 on City
Webs~te and in Denton Record-Chromcle
Tuesday, Jan. 9, 2001 Consaderat~on of amendments to the adopted 1st reading ordinance -
Council must approve by 4/5's vote
Saturday, Jan 20, 2001 Latest date for pubhcatlon of amended ordinance in newspaper to allow
consideration of adoption on 2aa reading on February 20th
Tuesday, Feb. 20, 2001 Second reading and adoption of annexation ordinance and zoning
ordinance - City Cotmcfl by a 4/5's vote takes final action
6
Attachment 3
[A-101 ORDINANCE ADOPTED ON FIRST READING, NOVEMBER 28, 2000]
ORDINANCE NO
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ANNEXING TWO TRACTS OF
LAND, COMPRISING 923 7 ACRES. TRACT ONE IS LOCATED ON THE ON THE
SOUTHWESTERN SIDE OF THE CITY OF DENTON'S EXTRATERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION EAST OF U.S. HIGHWAY 377, SOUTH OF REGENCY COURT ON EACH
SIDE OF COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, WEST OF MONTECITO ALONG RYAN ROAD AND
MOSTLY NORTH OF BRUSH CREEK ROAD AND TRACT TWO IS LOCATED WEST OF
MONTECITO, SOUTH OF EL PASEO AND EAST OF SANTA MONICA; PROVIDING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (A-101)
WHEREAS, the Clty of Denton washes to extend ~ts City boundary hne to ~nclude the 1,100
acre tract labeled as "Tract #1" and the 4 acre tract labeled as "Tract #2", more partmularly described
m Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, notice was mmled m accordance with state annexation law and Denton City Code,
and
WHEREAS, public heanngs were held in the Cotmcd Chambers on October 24, 2000, and
November 7, 2000, to allow all ~nterested persons to state their wews and present ewdence beanng
upon th~s annexataon, and
WHEREAS, the aforementioned public hearings were conducted not more than forty (40) days
nor less than twenty (20) days prior to the ~nstltutlon of the annexation proceedmgs, and
WHEREAS, after a pubhc heanng on November 8, 2000, the City of Denton Planmng and
Zoning Commission recommended approval of the annexation by a vote of 3-2, and
WHEREAS, annexation proceedings were instituted for the property described here~n by the
introduction of th~s ordinance at a meeting of the C~ty Council on November 28, 2000, and
WHEREAS, th~s ordmance has been pubhshed ~n full one t~me ~n the officml newspaper of the
City of Denton after annexation proceedmgs were instituted and 30 days prior to City Cotmml taking
final action, ~n accordance wath state law and as reqmred by C~ty Charter, and
WHEREAS, certmn areas have been deleted to prowde for conservation easements or land trust
dedications to protect enwronmantally sensitive areas, or have been deleted because of the
unhkehhood of ~mmment development, and
WHEREAS, the City Cotmml finds that the annexation wall be ~n compliance wath the 1999
Denton Plan,
7
WHEREAS, the areas to be annexed lie within the extratemtonal jurisdiction of the City of
Denton, Texas and lie adjacent to and contiguous to the City of Denton, Texas,
NOW, THEREFORE
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS
SECTION I The land and territory lying outside of, but adjacent to and contiguous to the City
of Denton as the 1,100-acre tract labeled as "Tract 1" and the 3 6-acre tract labeled as "Tract 2", more
particularly described m Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, as hereby
added and annexed to the City of Denton, Texas, and said territory as described shall hereinafter be
included wtthm the boundary limits of the City of Denton, Texas, and the present boundary hmlts of
said city, at ~he various points contiguous to the area described m Exhibit "A" are altered and amended
so as to include said area within the corporate limits of the City of Denton, Texas
SECTION II That the land and territory described an Exhibit "A" shall be part of the City of
Denton, Texas, and the property so added shall bear its share of the taxes levied by the City of Denton,
Texas, and the inhabitants thereof shall be entitled to all of the rights and privileges as citizens and
shall be bound by the acts, ordinances, resolutions and regulations of the City of Denton, Texas
SECTION III That the service plan attached as Exhibit B, and incorporated by reference,
which provides for the extension of mumelpal services to the annexed property, is approved as part of
this ordinance, and the implementation of the serwce plan is hereby authorized
SECTION IV The annexed property as zoned classified as Agricultural (A) zomng district
classaficatloh and use designation
SECTION V The City of Denton official zoning map is amended to show the Agricultural (A)
zoning district and use classfficataon of the property annexed
SECTION VI Should any pan of this ordinance be held illegal for any reason, the holding
shall not affect the remalmng portion of this ordinance and the City Cotmcfl hereby declares at to be its
purpose to lannex to the City of Denton all the real property described an Exhibit A regardless of
whether any other pan of the described property is hereby effectively annexed to the City If any pan
of the real property annexed is already included within the city hunts of the City of Denton or within
the limits of any other mty, town or village, or is not wthm the City of Denton's jurlsdmtlOn to annex,
the same as hereby excluded from the territory annexed as fully as if the excluded area were not
expressly described in this ordinance
SECTION VII That this ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of
its final passage and publication, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the entire ordinance
to be published once and the descriptive caption to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle,
the official newspaper of the City of Denton, Texas, wlthxn ten (10) days of the date of~ts passage
PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2001
EULINE BROCK, MAYOR
ATTEST
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM
HERBERT L PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY
Attachment 4
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING A PROPOSED
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE WHICH PASSED ON FIRST READING ON NOVEMBER 28,
2000 AND WAS PUBLISHED ON DECEMBER 8, 2000 TO ANNEX TWO TRACTS OF
LAND, COMPRISING 923.7 ACRES; TRACT ONE BEING LOCATED ON THE ON THE
SOUTHWESTERN SIDE OF THE CITY OF DENTON'S EXTRATERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION EAST OF U S HIGHWAY 377, SOUTH OF REGENCY COURT ON EACH
SIDE OF COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, WEST OF MONTECITO ALONG RYAN ROAD AND
MOSTLY NORTH OF BRUSH CREEK ROAD, AND TRACT TWO BEING LOCATED
WEST OF MONTECITO, SOUTH OF EL PASEO AND EAST OF SANTA MONICA; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (A-101).
WHEREAS, on November 28, 2000 in Annexation Case No A-101 by a vote of six in favor
and one opposed the City Council of the C~ty of Denton, Texas passed on first reading an ordinance to
annex two tracts of land, comprising 923 7 acres, tract one being located on the southwestern side of
the City's extratemtonal jurisdiction east of U S Highway 377, south of Regency Court on each s~de
of Country Club Road, west of Montec~to along Ryan Road and mostly north of Brush Creek Road,
and tract two being located west of Montemto, south of E1 Paseo and east of Santa Momca, and
WHEREAS, smd proposed annexation ordinance was duly pubhshed ~n the Denton Record -
Chronicle on December 8, 2000, as required by City Charter, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that ~t ~s ~n the pubhc ~nterest to reduce the area to be
annexed by the proposed annexation ordinance, NOW, THEREFORE
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS
SECTION 1 The proposed annexation or&nance in Annexation Case No A-101 whmh
passed on first reading on November 28, 2000 by a vote of s~x ~n favor and one opposed and which
was duly published in the Denton Record - Chromcle on December 8, 2000 (the "Proposed
Annexation Ordinance"), is hereby amended to reduce the area to be annexed so that the area to be
annexed is described as that certmn real property located ~n Denton County, Texas as partmularly
described in Exhthlt "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference All other terms and
con&tions of the Proposed Annexation Ordinance shall remmn the same
SECTION 2 C~ty staff ~s directed to publish a copy of this or&nance ~n accordance w~th the
City Charter
SECTION 3 This ordinance shall become effective lmmethately from and after ~ts passage
and approval
PASSED AND APPROVED th~s the __ day of ., 2001
10
EULINE BROCK, MAYOR
ATTEST
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM
HERBE~~TORNEY
BY "' "' '~/'
11
Exhibit A: A-101 Metes & Bounds January 9, 2001
ALL that certmn lot, tract or parcel of land lying and being situated in the County of Denton, State
of Texas, hnd being part of the W Roark Survey, Abstract Number 1087, the B B B & C R R
Survey, Abstract Number 196, the T Martin Survey, Abstract Number 900, the A G~bson Survey,
AbstractNumber498, theT Peacock Survey, AbstractNumber 1589, theT Labor Survey, Abstract
Number 779, the J Rogers Survey, Abstract Number 1084, , the M Rogers Survey, Abstract
Number 11079, the J W~thers Survey, Abstract Number 1343, the J Schultz Survey, Abstract
Number 1~223, and the F Daugherty Survey, Abstract Number 348 and being more particularly
described as follows
BEGINNING at a point ~n the present Denton c~ty limit hne, smd point being the southeast comer
of a tract estabhshed by C~ty of Denton Ordinance No 81-76, smd point lying on the centefl~ne of
F M 1830 and on the east boundary hne of the smd B B B & C R R Survey, AbstractNumber 196
same being the west boundary lane of the T Martin Survey, Abstract Number 900,
THENCEINorth 00 degrees 54 m~nutes 40 seconds West, along smd centeflane off M 1830 and the
smd east boundary hne of the smd B B B & C R R Survey, Abstract Number 196 same being the
east city hmat hne as astablashed by smd Ordinance No 81-76, a d~stance of 1,091 30 feet to a point
for comer at the most easterly northeast comer of the mty limit lane estabhshed by smd Ordinance
No 81-76, same being the most southerly southeast comer on the centerhne off M 1830 of the city
hmat lane as estabhshed by Ordinance No 83-17,
THENCE North 00 degrees 54 minutes 40 seconds West, cont~nmng along the centerhne ofF M
1830 and [the city hm~t hne as estabhshed by smd Ordinance No 83-17, a distance of 355 feet to a
point for comer in the city limit hne estabhshed by Ordinance No 83-17,
THENCE North 89 degrees 46 m~nutes 35 seconds East, departing smd centerhne off M 1830 and
the east boundary hne of the smd B B B & C R R Survey, Abstract Number 196, same being the
west boundary hne of the smd T Mart~n Survey, Abstract Number 900, and continuing along the Clty
hm~t hne ~stabhshed by Ordinance No 83-17, a distance of 40 feet to a point for comer on the east
right of Way hne ofF M 1830, smd point being the westerly southwest comer of the city limit lane
estabhsh~d by Ordinance No 80-12,
THENCE North 89 degrees 46 minutes 35 seconds East, contanmng w~th the city hunt lane
estabhshed by smd Ordinance No 80-12, a d~stanee of 640 75 feet to a point for comer,
THENCE South 00 degrees 35 minutes 35 seconds West, along the city hmlt lane estabhshed by
Ordinance No 80-12, a &stance of 761 95 feet to a polut for comer,
THENCE South 85 degrees 36 minutes 59 seconds East, along smd city hmat lane established by
Ordinance No 80-12, a d~stance of 23 60 feet to a point,
C \My Documents'~Annexatmns 8* lnterlocal Agrmnts~2000\A-101 & A- 102~A-101 F~eld Notes - rewsed 9jan01 doc
l/9/01
Page 1 of l0
A-101 Metes & Bounds: for January 9, 2001 Ordinance
THENCE North 89 degrees 56 minutes 53 seconds East, along said city limit hne estabhshed by
Ordinance No 80-12, a distance of 1,138 55 to a point for comer at the northwest comer of the city
hmlt lane established by Ordinance No 96-069,
THENCE South 00 degrees 06 minutes 16 seconds East, along the most westerly west city limit lane
established by said Ordinance No 96-069, a d~stance of 1,016 25 feet to a point for comer at the
westerly southwest comer of said c~ty limit lane established by Ordinance No 96-069,
THENCE North 89 degrees 47 minutes 21 seconds East, along the smd city limit lane established by
Ordinance No 96-069, a distance of 515 04 feet to a point for comer,
THENCE South 00 degrees 37 minutes 05 seconds West, along the smd city limit lane establashedby
Ordinance No 96-069, a distance of 271 14 feet to a point for comer ~n Sanders Road,
THENCE South 89 degrees 07 minutes 03 seconds East, along smd SandersRoad and along said c~ty
limit hne as established by Ordinance No 96-069, a d~stance of326 35 feet to a point for comer, smd
point lying on the east line of the smd T Martin Survey, Abstract Number 900, same being the west
lane of the smd A Gibson Survey, Abstract Number 498, said point also lying on the west city hmat
lane established by Ordinance No 92-060,
THENCE South 00 degrees 19 minutes 42 seconds East, along the west line of the said A Gibson
Survey, Abstract Number 498, and the said west city hmlt lane establashedby OrdananceNo 92-060,
a d~stance of 472 72 feet to a point at the southwest comer of the said city hm~t hne estabhshed by
Ordinance No 92-060, same being the northwest comer of the city limit lane estabhshed by
Ordinance No 93-188,
THENCE South 00 degrees 19 minutes 42 seconds East, continuing with the west lane of the said A
Gibson Survey, Abstract Number 498, and with the west city hm~t hne as established by said
Ordinance No 93-188, a distance of 810 95 feet to a point for comer at the southwest comer of the
city hm~t line established by said Ordinance No 93-188, said point also lying ~n the north right of
way lane of Ryan Road, a public road,
THENCE South 89 degrees 22 m~nutes 47 seconds East, along the sa~d north right of way hne of
Ryan Road and along the c~ty hmat lane estabhshed by said Ordinance No 93-188, a distance of
1,315 61 feet to a point for comer at the southeast comer of the smd city limit lane established by
Ordinance No 93-188,
THENCE North 00 degrees 37 minutes 33 seconds East, along the west city limit lane estabhshedby
said Ordinance No 93-188, a distance of 513 39 feet to a point for comer at the southwest comer of
C \My Documents~Annexat~ons & Interlocal Agrmnts~2000~A-101 & A-102~xA- 101 Field Notes - revised 9jan01 doc
1/9/01
Page 2 of 10
A-101 Metes & Bounds: for January 9, 2001 Ordinance
the Denton caty hm~t lane estabhshed by Ordinance No 99-426,
THENCE North 88 degrees 48 manures 29 seconds East along smd caty hmat hne estabhshed by
Ordananc9 No 99-426, a chstance of 251 63 feet to a poant for comer,
THENCE North 00 degrees 37 minutes 00 seconds East cont~nmng along soad caty hmat lane
estabhsh~d by Ordinance No 99-426, a dasmnce of 62 60 feet to a poant for comer,
THENCE North 88 degrees 49 manures 00 seconds East contmmng along smd caty hmat lane
estabhsh~d by Ordanance No 99-426, a d~stance of 726 00 feet to a poant for comer,
THENC]~ North 09 degrees 19 unnutes West continuing along smd caty hmat lane estabhshed by
Ordanance No 99-426, a dastance of 436 80 feet to a poant for comer,
THENCE North 09 degrees 17 manures East contanmng along soad c~ty hm~t hnc estabhshed by
Ordananee No 99-426, a d~stance of 261 feet to a point for comer,
THENCE North contanmng along soad caty hmat hne estabhshcd by Ordanance No 99-426, a
&stance of 65 feet to a poant for comer and beang m the c~ty hm~t hne estabhshed by Ordinance No
73-17,
THENCE East, along soad caty hmat lane estabhshed by Ordanance No 73-17, a dastance of 419 10
feet to a poant for comer ~n the east boundary lane of the smd A Gthson Survey, Abstract Number
498, same being the west boundary lane of the soad T Peacock Survey, Abstract Number 1589,
THENCE South 00 degrees 40 manutes 58 seconds East, along the present Denton c~ty hmat linc
estabhshed by Ordinance No 73-17 and along the west boundary hne of the smd T Peacock Survey,
Abstract INumber 1589, a dastance of 1,057 29 feet to a point for comer at the westerly southwest
comer of the caty hmat lane established by Or&nance No 73-17,
THENCE South continuing along the west boundary lane of the smd T Peacock Survey, Abstract
Number l1589 a dastance of 239 41 feet to a point for comer, smd point lyang on the north lane of
Ryan Road,
THENCE East along the north right-of-way lane of Ryan Road a dastance of 805 47 feet to a point
for come,r, smd poant lying on the exastmg Denton caty hmat lane established by Ordanance No 73-
17, smd point lying on the east lane of the T Peacock Survey, Abstract No 1589 and the west lane of
the C Poullaher Survey, Abstract No 1006,
THENCE South a &stance of 30' to the centeflme of Ryan Road, smd point being the southwest
comer of the C Poullaher Survey, Abstract No 1006 and the southwest comer of the T Peacock
C ~vly Doeuments~Annexat~ons & Interloeal Agrmnts~2000~A- 101 & A- 102~A- 101 F~eld Notes - revised 9jan01 doc
1/9/01
Page 3 of 10
A-101 Metes & Bounds: for January 9, 2001 Ordinance
Survey, Abstract No 1589,
THENCE North 88 degree 32 minutes 08 seconds East, along thc south boundary hne of the smd C
Poullaher Survey, Abstract No 1006, same being the north line of the T Labor Survey, Abstract
No 779, and the same being the southerly south Denton city hm~t hne estabhshed by Ord~nanceNo
73 - 17, a d~stancc of 300 feet, more or less, to a point for comer at the northerly northwest comer of
the Denton c~ty hm~t hne estabhshed by Ordinance No 77-5 (Tract I),
THENCE South along the ex~stmg Denton c~ty hm~t hne cstabhshedby Ord~nanceNo 77-5 (Tract I)
a dmtancc of 30 feet to a point for comer, smd point lying on the south right-of-way hne of Ryan
Road, smd point being the northeast comer of a 17 acre tract conveyed to Wayne S Ryan, et ux by
deed recorded m Volume 730, Page 599 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas,
THENCE along thc south right-of-way hnc of Ryan Road the following calls
West a d~stance of 580 07 feet to a point,
2 South 88 degrees 21 minutes 07 seconds West, 645 84 feet to a point,
3 South 87 degrees 44 minutes 07 seconds West, 100 92 feet to a point,
4 South 89 degrees 09 m~nutes 56 seconds West, 155 43 fcct to a point,
5 North 87 degrees 50 m~nutcs 17 seconds West, 311 78 feet to a point,
6 North 89 degrees 19 minutes 23 seconds West, 174 90 feet to a point,
THENCE North 88 degrees 53 m~nutes 19 seconds West, cont~nmng along the south right-of-
way hne of Ryan Road a distance of 90 00 feet to a point, smd point being the northeast comer of
a 52 486 acre tract described m a Partition Deed to Shelton Ryan recorded m Volume 2522, Page
898 of the Real Property Records of Demon County, Texas, smd point also being the northeast
comer ofa C~ty of Denton annexatmn tract being described ~n Ordinance No 99-t76,
THENCE North 88 degrees 55 m~nutes 09 seconds West cont~nmng along the south right-of-
way of Ryan Road along the northernmost hne of City of Denton aunexat~on tract being
described ~n Ordinance No 99-176 a d~stance of 872 29 feet to a point for comer, smd point
being the northeast comer of a 52 486 acre tract of land conveyed to Phoebe Ryan H~gg~nbotham
by Page 6 of Partition Deed, as recorded ~n Volume 2522, Page 898, Real Property Records,
Denton County, Texas, smd point also being the northwest comer of smd C~ty of Denton
annexation tract being described ~n Ordinance No 99~176,
THENCE North 88 degrees 53 m~nutes 19 seconds West cont~nmng along the south right-of-way
hne of Ryan Road a d~stance of 746 00 feet to a point,
C ~ly Documents~Annexat~ons & lnterlocal Agrmnts~2000~A-101 & A-102XA-101 F~eld Notes - remsed 9jan01 doc
1/9/01
Page 4 of 10
A-101 Metes & Bounds: for January 9, 2001 Ordinance
THENCE North 89 degrees 16 minutes 12 seconds West contlnmng along the south right-of-way
hne of Ryan Road a &stance of 119 75 feet to a point for comer, said point bemg the northeast
comer ora 15 435 acre tract conveyed to Wayne S Ryan by Part:tion Deed, Tract 2, as recorded
in Volume 2522, Page 898, Real Property Records, Denton County, Texas, smd point also lying
on the east line of the J W~thers Survey, Abstract Number 1343,
THENCE South along the east line of the J W~thers Survey, Abstract Number 1343 a distance of
3,344 66 feet to a pmnt for comer, said point being the northeast comer of a 10 acre tract
conveyed to Calvert Paving Corporat;on by deed recorded :n Volume 1719, Page 924 of the Real
Property Records of Denton County, Texas,
THENCE South 88 degrees 36 minutes West a d~stance of 660 feet to a point for comer, being
the northwest comer of said 10 acre Calvert Paving Corporation tract,
THENCE South 01 degree 00 m~nutes East a d~stance of 660 feet to a point for comer, bemg the
southwest comer of said 10 acre Calvert Paving Corporation tract, said point lying on the north
hne of a 10 464 acre tract conveyed to Calvert Paving Corporation by deed recorded in Volume
2115, Page 425, (Tract 1) of the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas,
THENCE South 89 degrees 22 m:nutes West along the north hne of smd 10 464 acre tract
conveyed to Calvert Paving Corporation by deed recorded ~n Volume 2115, Page 425, (Tract 1)
of the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas a d~stance of 141 48 feet to a point for
comer, smd point being the northwest comer of said 10 464 acre tract conveyed to Calvert
Paving Corporation by deed recorded m Volume 2115, Page 425, (Tract 1) of the Real Property
Records of Denton County, Texas and lying on the east right-of-way line of the Kansas City
Southern Rmlway Company (formerly G C & S F R R ),
THENCE South 34 degrees 41 minutes East along said railroad right-of-way hne a distance of
1,158 feet to a point,
THENCE Southeasterly with smd right-of-way around a 0 824 degree curve to the right 525 64
feet to a point, smd point lying on the west hne of the N Bntton Survey, Abstract No 51 and the
east line of the J Withers Survey, Abstract No 1343,
THENCE South along smd Survey lines a d~stance of 111 feet to a pmnt for comer,
THENCE West a d~stance of 52 feet to a point for comer, smd point being the northeast comer of
a 15 7998 acre tract conveyed to Coun~e Ann Cardwell by deed recorded ~n Volume 3318, Page
908, Tract 4, Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas, same point being the most
easterly southeast comer of a 102 493 acre tract to Sowell Property Partners - Hmkory Creek,
C \My Documents~Annexat~ons & Interlocal Agrmnts\2000~A-101 & A-102XA-101 Field Notes - rewsed 9.~an01 doc
1/9/01
Page 5 of 10
A-101 Metes & Bounds: for January 9, 2001 Ordinance
L P by deed recorded m Volume 4413, Page 933 of thc Real Property Records of Denton
County, Texas,
THENCE North 89 degrees 52 m~nutes 00 seconds West along a southerly hne of smd Sowell
tract and the north hnc of smd Cardwell tract a d~stance of 1,250 72 feet to a point for comer,
THENCE South 01 degrees 50 m~nutes 01 seconds West, along the common hne of smd tracts a
distance of 515 89 feet to a pmnt for comer, smd point lying in the centerhne of H~ckory Creek,
THENCE along the centerhne of smd Hmkory Creek as follows 1 South 67 degrees 25 minutes 56 seconds East 493 76 feet, to a point,
2 South 81 degrees 03 m~nutes 06 seconds East 99 98 feet, to a point,
3 South 51 degrees 50 m~nutes 31 seconds East 64 85 feet, to a point,
4 South 20 degrees 02 m~nutes 27 seconds East 108 78 feet, to a point,
5 South 03 degrees 05 m~nutes 54 seconds East 361 60 feet, to a point, being the northeast
comer of the tract of land conveyed to Jack W Basden and wife, Beverly Holmquest
Basden, by deed as recorded ~n Volume 832, Page 794, Deed Records, Denton County,
Texas,
THENCE South 89 degrees 34 m~nutes 53 seconds West, a d~stance of 1,740 feet along the south
hne of smd Basden tract of land to a point for comer, smd point lying on the west right of way hne of
Hdltop Road,
THENCE North 00 degrees 09 m~nutes 00 seconds West along the west right of way hne of Hilltop
Road, a d~stance of 45 feet to a point,
THENCE North 31 degrees 48 minutes 35 seconds West, a d~stance of 149 28 feet to a point, smd
pmnt lying on the south right of way hne of Brash Creek Road,
THENCE South 88 degrees 04 m~nutes 34 seconds West along the south right of way hne of Brash
Creek Road, a d~stance of 726 62 feet to a point for comer, smd pmnt lying on the ~ntersect~on of the
south right of way hne of Brash Creek Road and the east right of way hne off M 1830,
THENCE South 82 degrees 36 m~nutes West across F M 1830, a d~stance of 200 feet to a point for
comer, smd point being the ~ntersect~on of the south right of way hne of Brash Creek Road and the
west right of way hne off M 1830,
THENCE Westerly along the south right of way hne of Brash Creek Road, a distance of 1,810 feet
to a pmnt for comer,
C \My Documents~Annexat~ons & Interlocal AgrmntsL2000~A-101 & A-102XA-101 Field Notes - revised 9jan01 doc
1/9/01
Page 6 of 10
A-101 Metes & Bounds: for January 9, 2001 Ordinance
THENCE North across Brash Creek Road, passing at 60 feet the southeast comer of a tract of land
conveyed to John Brent Klnard and wife, Mary E Klnard, as recorded in Volume 2157, Page 591,
Real Property Records, Denton County, Texas, same being the southwest comer of an 80 acre tract
conveyed to Charles Penmngton by deeds recorded as Clerk's File Numbers 95-R0008699, 95-
R0008700, 95-R0008701, 95-R0008702 in the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas,
same being a point on the north line of Brash Creek Road and continuing north along said Kmard
and Pennmgton common line, passing at 434 14 feet the northeast comer of smd Klnard tract, same
being a point in the Graveyard Branch tributary, same being the most easterly southeast comer of a
City of Denton annexation tract established by OrdmanceNo 97-130 and contlnulngnorth along the
east line of said City of Denton annexation tract (Ordinance No 97-130) and the west line of stud
Pennmgton tract for a total distance of 2,640 feet to a point being the northwest comer of said
Penmngton tract,
THENCE East along the north line of smd Penmngton tract a distance of 1,320 50 feet to a point for
comer, smd point being the northeast comer of said 80 acre Pennmgton tract,
THENCE South along the east hne of said 80 acre Penmngton tract a distance of 2,640 feet to a point
for comer, said point being the southeast comer of said 80 acre Penmngton tract, smd point also
lying on the north right-of-way hne of Brash Creek Road,
THENCE South 89 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds East along the north right-of-way line of Brash
Creek Road a distance of 564 94 feet to a point for comer, said point lying at the intersection of the
north hne of Brash Creek Road and the west right-of-way line of F M Road 1830,
THENCE North 58 degrees 12 minutes 58 seconds East along the west right-of-way line off M
1830 a distance of 485 96 feet to a point for comer, and the beginning of a curve to the left
having a radius of 527 23 feet,
THENCE with stud curve to the left having an arc length of 534 91 feet and a chord which bears
North 29 Degrees 09 Minutes 03 Seconds East a distance of 512 26 feet along the west right-of-
way line ofF M 1830 to a point for comer,
THENCE North 00 degrees 05 minutes 08 seconds East along the west right-of-way line off M
1830 a distance of 1,051 84 feet to a point for comer, and the beginning of a curve to the right
having a radius of 1,169 35,
THENCE with stud curve to the right having an arc length of 158 43 feet and a chord, which
bears North 03 degrees 53 minutes 39 seconds East a distance of 158 31 feet along the west
right-of-way line of F M 1830 to a point for comer,
THENCE North 07 degrees 46 minutes 32 seconds East along the west right-of-way line of F M
c \My DocumentsXAnnexat~ons & Interlocal AgrmntsL2000~A-101 & A-102\A-101 F~eld Notes -revtsed 9jan01 doc
1/9/01
Page 7 of 10
A-101 Metes & Bounds: for January 9, 2001 Ordinance
1830 a d~stance of 120 90 feet to a point for comer, said point being the begmmng of a curve to
the left hawng a radms of 528 08 feet,
THENCE w~th smd curve to the left hawng an arc length of 149 46 feet and a chord which bears
South 00 degrees 19 mmutes 58 seconds East a distance of 148 97 feet along the west right-of-
way hne ofF M 1830 to a point for comer,
THENCE North 08 degrees 26 minutes 28 seconds West a distance of 148 06 feet along the west
right-of-way hne off M 1830 to apmnt for comer,
THENCE North 81 degrees 33 minutes 32 seconds East a d~stanee of 5 00 feet along the right-of-
way line off M 1830 to a point for comer, smd point being the beg~nmng ora non-tangent
curve to the right hawng a radius of 1,472 50 feet,
THENCE w~th smd curve to the right hawng an arc length of 199 74 feet and a chord whmh
bears North 04 degrees 33 m~nntes 16 seconds West a d~stance of 199 58 feet along the west
right-of-way line F M 1830 to a point for comer,
THENCE North 00 degrees 33 mmntes 33 seconds West along the west right-of-way ofF M
1830 a distance of 1,221 43 feet to a point for comer,
THENCE North 00 degrees 48 minutes 47 seconds West along the west right-of-way hne of
F M 1830 a d~stancc of 27 76 feet to a point for comer, smd point being the southeast comer of a
5 165 acre tract conveyed to Rmhard Lee Butch by deed recorded ~n Volume 1873, Page 134 of
the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas,
THENCE South 89 degrees 51 minutes 22 seconds West, departing the west right-of-way hne of
F M 1830 and along the south hne of smd 5 165 acre tract a d~stance of 500 feet to a point for
comer, smd point being the southwest comer of smd 5 165 acre tract,
THENCE North 00 degrees 08 m~nutes 38 seconds West along the west line of smd 5 165 acre
tract a distance of 450 feet to the northwest comer of smd 5 165 acre tract to a point for corner,
THENCE North South 89 degrees 51 mmntes 22 seconds East along the north line of smd 5 165
acre tract a d~stance of 500 feet to the northeast comer of smd 5 165 acre tract to a point for
comer, smd pmnt lying on the west right-of-way hne off M 1830,
THENCE North 00 degrees 48 m~nutes 47 seconds West along the west right-of-way hne of
F M 1830 a d~stance of 1,241 24 feet to a point for comer, smd point being the southeast comer
ora tract to Conrac M Altemus by deed recorded ~n Volume 901, Page 774 of the Deed Records
C LMy Documents~Annexat~ons & Interlocal Agrmnts~2000La,- 101 & A- 102~A- 101 F~eld Notes - revised 9jan01 doc
1/9/01
Page 8 of 10
A-101 Metes & Bounds: for January 9, 2001 Ordinance
of Denton County, Texas,
THENCE West along the south hne of smd Altemus Volume 901, Page 774 tract, crossing the
Kansas C~ty Southern Rmlway Company right-of-way and cont~narng along the south hne of a
tract conveyed to Conme M A|temus by deed recorded ~n Volume 901, Page 777 of the Deed
Records of Denton County, Texas a d~stance of 2,607 feet, more or less, to a point for corner,
smd point being the southwest corner of smd Altemus Volume 901, Page 777 tract, smd point
also lying on the west hne of the B B B & C R R Co Survey, Abstract No 196,
THENCE North along the west line of the B B B & C R R Co Survey, Abstract No 196 a
distance of 1004 92 feet to a point for corner, smd point lying m the center of Hmkory Creek,
THENCE North 52 degrees 35 minutes 40 seconds West along Hickory Creek a d~stance of
242 48 feet to a point for corner,
THENCE North 32 degrees 40 minutes 56 seconds West along Hmkory Creek a d~stance of 321 60
feet to a pmnt for comer, smd point being m the present Denton city 1unit line as cstabhshed by
Ordinance No 65-43 (Tract No IV), smd point being 660 feet southeast of and perpendicular to the
centerhne ofU S H~ghway 377,
THENCE Northeasterly, along the smd city hm~t hne estabhshcd by Ordinance No 65-43 (Tract
No IV), 660 feet southeast of and parallel to the ccntcrhne ofU S H~ghway 377, passing at 518
feet, more or less, the east boundary hne of the smd W Roark Survey, Abstract Number 1087, same
being the west boundary line of the smd B B B & C RR Survey, Abstract Number 196, and
cont~nmng for a total d~stance of 1,383 feet, more or less, to a point on the northeast right-of-way
line of the Kansas C~ty Southern Rmlroad, same bcmga pmnt at the westerly southwast comer of thc
city limit hne as estabhshed by Ordinance No 81-76,
THENCE South 35 degrees 27 minutes East, along the northeast right of way hne of said rmlroad
and the southwest c~ty hmit hne astabhshed by smd Ordinance No 81-76, a distance of 898 13 fcct
to a point for corner at the southerly southwest comer of the city limit hne estabhshcd by smd
Ordinance No 81-76,
THENCE North 89 degrees 37 minutes 22 seconds East, departing said rmlroad right-of-way and
contmumg along the south mty hm~t hne estabhshcd by smd Ordinance No 81-76, passing at 1,481
feet the west right of way line of F M 1830, and contmmng for a total d~stancc of 1,521 feet to thc
POINT OF BEGINNING and contmmng 690 25 acres of land, SAVE & EXCEPT a 2 25 acre Burch,
et al tract for a net acreage of 688 acres w~thin thc annexation tract,
C \My Documents~Annexat~ons & Interlocal Agrmnts~2000~A- 101 & A- 102~A- 101 F~eld Notes - rewsed 9jan01 doc
1/9/01
Page 9 of 10
A-101 Metes & Bounds: for January 9, 2001 Ordinance
SAVE & EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING TRACT
Field notes to all that certmn tract of land s~tuated in the J Withers Survey, Abstract Number
1343, Denton County, Texas, and being a portion of the called 80 acre tlurd tract descrtbed xn the
deed from V D Burch, et ux to Marvin Butch recorded in Volume 440, Page 214, Deed Records
of Denton County, Texas, subject tract being more partmularly described as follows
BEGINNING at a potnt on the north line of Brash Creek Road and on the southerly right-of-way
hne ofF M Road 1830 and being North 58 degrees 12 mxnutes 58 seconds East a distance of
20 00 feet from the northwest comer of the tract of land described in the deed from A E Wyatt
to Fred D Kurrus being recorded tn Volume 598, Page 544, Deed Records of Denton County,
Texas,
THENCE North 58 degrees 12 m~nutes 58 seconds East along the south right-of-way hne of
F M 1830 a dtstance of 323 52 feet to the beginning of curve to the left having a md~us of
617 23 feet,
THENCE w~th smd curve to the left hamng an arc length of 443 28 feet and a chord beanng of
North 37 degrees 38 m~nutes 31 seconds East a d~stance of 433 82 to a point on the southerly
right-of-way ofF M 1830 and on the west hne of the tract of land described tn the deed to
Sowell Property Partners-Hmkory being recorded as County Clerk's F~le Number 99-R0088518,
Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas,
THENCE South 00 degrees 54 m~nutes 46 seconds East along the west line ofsa~d Sowell
Property Partners-H~ckory tract a distance 489 36 feet to a point on the north right-of-way line of
Brash Creek Road,
THENCE South 87 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West along the north hne of Brash Creek
road a d~stance of 548 30 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and contmmng tn all 2 25 acres of
land
C \My Documents~Annexat~ons & lnterlocal Agrmnts~2000~A-101 & A-102La~-101 F~eld Notes - rewsed 9jan01 doc
1/9/01
Page 10 of 10
Agenda Item ~~
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE: January 9, 2001
DEPARTM,ENT: Planning Department
CM/DCM/ACM Dawd Hill, 349-8314
SUBJECT - (A-102) (US 377/I-35WAnnexatton)
Consider adoption of an ordinance of the C~ty of Denton, Texas, amending a proposed annexation
ordinance which passed on first reading on November 28, 2000 and was pubhshed on December 8,
2000 to annex three tracts of land comprising 1,159 acres, Tract One being located west of U S
Highway 377, south of Allred and north and south of Johnson Lane, Tract Two being located east of
Interstate Highway 35 West and west of the Kansas C~ty Southern Rmlway, extending south along
Bonme Brae approximately 6,400 feet north of U S H~ghway 377, and Tract Three being located
northeast of the intersection of Corbln and Bonnie Brae, and prov~ding an effective date (A-102)
BACKGROUND
An ~nvoluntary annexation proceeding is being considered by the City of Denton for approximately
553 acres of land located in the southwest section of the city, between US H~ghway 377 and Interstate
H~ghway 35 West, whmh is a reduction from the 1,159 acres approved for annexation on first reading
by City Council on November 28, 2000 A map of the reduced area being considered for annexaUon is
provided in Attachment #1 Also prowded in Attachment #1 ~s a map showing parcel numbers
referenced throughout th~s report On December 8, 2000, the entire annexation ordinance for A-102,
as adopted on first reading, was published in the Denton Record - Chronicle in accordance with the
City of Denton Charter
Actions Taken Since November 28, 2000 F~rst Reading Ordinance Adoption
In anticipation of further parcel deletions, staff has prepared an amendment to the first reading
ordinance adopted on November 28, 2000 (Attachment 4) Several additional parcels have been
deleted The parcels ~dentxfied for possible agreements in lieu of annexation (parcels # 116 - 122)
have been deleted in the draft ordinance A meeting with the affected property owners was held on
January 4, 2001 to chscuss the draft agreements In addition, parcels # 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 20 have
been deleted upon consultation w~th Council Member Cochran, under the premise that further
development of these properties would be severely constrmned by the presence of floodplmns
Summary of Parcel Deletions
October 24, 2000 Original Proposal 1,711 acres
November 7, 2000 Tract #4 (Happy Acres),
#33 - 53 - 265 acres
November 14, 2000 #28, 30, 31, 32 - 287 acres
November 28, 2000 First Reading Acreage 1,159 acres
January 9, 2001 (Draft) Tract #4 (#116- 122),
#13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20 - 606 acres
Remmnmg Acreage Being Considered for Annexation 553 acres
1
SERVICE PLAN
As per state law, a service plan has been prepared and made available for public inspection
(Attachmentl#3) Amendments based upon parcel deletions and legal reeommendataons, and approved
by City Cour~ml on November 7th and November 14th, have been incorporated into the service plan
The service plan remmns unchanged from the time of 1st reading adoption on November 28, 2000
OPTIONS
The boundaries of the proposed annexation may be reduced without reqmnng initiation of a new
annexation .roeass and schedule However, the first reading ordinance, or any amendments to the
ordinance t~ ~st be pubhshed m the newspaper Because the City's Charter requires publication of any
amendment o the annexation orchnance, as a preeautaonary measure, Legal staff recommends that the
ordinance m aendmant be pubhshed Therefore, the proposed ordinance, as amended, may not be
approved on second reading until at least 30 days have passed after the date of publication Because
staff antlmp ttes further amendments to the A-102 first reading ordinance, Council adoption of an
amended orr mance has been scheduled rather than adoption on second reading
In order to neet the 30-day notice requirement and consider adoption of an amended ordinance on
second read~ ag, staff will have to deliver the amended ordinance to the Denton Record Chromele to be
published n( later than January 20, 2001 The second reading of the A-102 annexation ordinance vall
then be seh~'duled for February 20, 2001, which is at least 30 days after the date of publication
Annexation ~roceedmgs must be concluded vothm 90 days from the date of initiation (November 28,
2000), whml means that the last date for approval is February 26, 2001 It is important to note that,
should the 3.102 ordinance be amended after the January 9, 2001 meeting, the annexation cannot take
effect due tc msufficlant tame to meet City Charter pubbcataon requirements (unless Council schedules
a Special
November; , Charter January 9 City Charter February 20, February 26,
2000 30-day or 16, 2001 30-day 2001 2001
publication publication
[1st Reading! of reqarrement [1st Reading requirement [2nd Reading DEADLINE
Ordinance Ordinance of Ordinance] FOR
[Dec 8, 2000 Amendment] [Jan 20, 2001 - COMPLETION
INITIATIOI~ :)F - Jan 7, 2001] Feb 19, 2001] OF
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recon~ands that Council approve the amended annexation ordinance as drafted If add~ltaonal
parcels are(o be deleted, staff recommends making all amendments anticipated on January 9 The
annexation broceedmg must be completed uattun 90 days of initiation (90 days from the November
28th adoptto a on first reading is February 26, 2001), the latest regular meeting date the ordinance can
be adopted ~,n second reading is February 20, 2001, w~th an immediate effective date
ESTIMAT] CD SCHEDULE OF PROJECT
A revised m nexataon schedule is provided in Attachment #2
Attachment 1
A-102 US 377/I-35W Annexation NORTH
LOCATION MAP
'~' x~ Tract 3 ~,
SCALE NONE
Note:
Shaded parcels are under consideration for annexation as
identified in Januau 9, 2001 dra~ A- 101 Ordinance Amendment
Proposed Water Lines
Water Lines
Proposed Sewer Lines
Sewer Lines /
Radroad
Under Consideration
A-101 I
A-I02
Properbes Taken Out by Vote of Council s
November 7th and 14th, 2000 , ,' -'
Properties Subject to Deletion
Pending Legal Agreement November 28th, 2000 / 4
Properties under consideration for -
Deletion Januaw 9, 2001 /
Parcels / ~ §
City Limits //
Schools
Extra Territorial Jurlsd,ct,on (ET J)
Santa
/ ~ /
/ ~? // 22
~"'~:~::~. ,¢
'~f35W
............... ,'~'
' '~ ~oark Branch
/ Sanita~ Sewer Line
........ '?' (No[ F~-d-e~
, , /
35 Wes~
j -,~ : Water Line
." (Not Funded)
/
US 377 -
~, ....... ,~,,,,~,o~m~.,~.., Annexation Area
Attachment 2
ANNEXATION SCHEDULE
FOR
US 377/I-35W Annexatton Area
Friday, September 22 Involuntary Annexation Petition filed, Annexation Study & Servme
Plans Drafted, 30 day notice of intent to annex to each property owner,
each public entity or private entity that provides services in the area and
each railroad company
Friday, October 6 Annexation Service Plans Completed
Thursday, October 5 Notice sent to be published on Monday, October 9 on City Webslte and
in Denton Record-Chromcle for CC's first public hearing (Noon)
Friday, OctOber 13 500' Courtesy Notice and Posting of signs
Thursday, October 19 Deadline for receipt of petitions for opposition (10 days after notice)
Tuesday, October 24 City Council Conducts first public heanng
Wednesday, October 25 Notice sent to be published on Saturday~ October 28 on City Websltc and
in Denton Record-Chromcle for PZ's public hearing on annexation and
zomng and CC's second public hearing on annexation and zoning
(Noon)
Tuesday, November ? City Council Conducts second pubhc hearing
Wednesday, November8 Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing - make a
recommendation to City Council regarding the proposed annexation and
the proposed zoning
Tuesday, NOv 28, 2000 First reading of annexation ordinance - City Council by 4/5's vote
institutes annexation proceedings
Wednesday, Nov 29, 2000 Annexation ordinance published on Saturday, December 8, 2000 on City
Webslte and in Denton Record-Chronicle
Tuesday, Jhn. 9, 2001 Consideration of amendments to the adopted 1st reading ordinance -
Council must approve by 4/5's vote
Saturday, Jan 20, 2001 Latest date for publication of amended ordinance in newspaper to allow
consideration of adoption on 2nd reading on February 20t~
Tuesday, F~b. 20, 2001 Second reading and adoption of annexation ordinance and zoning
I ordinance - City Council by a 4/5's vote takes final action
6
Attachment 4
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING A PROPOSED
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE WHICH PASSED ON FIRST READING ON NOVEMBER 28,
2000 AND WAS PUBLISHED ON DECEMBER 8, 2000 TO ANNEX THREE TRACTS OF
LAND, COMPRISING 1,159 ACRES, TRACT ONE BEING LOCATED WEST OF U.S
HIGHWAY 377, SOUTH OF ALLRED AND NORTH AND SOUTH OF JOHNSON LANE,
TRACT TWO BEING LOCATED EAST OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 35 WEST AND
WEST OF THE KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, EXTENDING SOUTH
ALONG BONNIE BRAE APPROXIMATELY 6,400 FEET NORTH OF U.S HIGHWAY 377,
AND TRACT THREE BEING LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF
CORBIN AND BONNIE BRAE, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (A-102)
WHEREAS, on November 28, 2000 m Annexation Case No A-102 by a vote of six in favor
and one opposed the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas passed on first reading an ordinance to
annex three tracts of land, comprising 1,159 acres, tract one being located west of U S Highway 377,
south of Allred and north and south of Johnson Lane, tract two being located east of Interstate
Highway 35 and west of the Kansas City southern Railway company, extending south along Bonnie
Brae approximately 6400 feet north ofU S Highway 377, and tract three being located northeast of the
~ntersectlon of Corb~n and Bonnie Brae, and
WHEREAS, smd proposed annexatton ordinance was duly published in the Denton Record -
Chronicle on December 8, 2000, as required by City Charter, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the pubhc interest to reduce the area to be
annexed by the proposed annexation ordinance, NOW, THEREFORE
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS
SECTION 1 The proposed annexation ordinance in Annexation Case No A-102 which
passed on first reading on November 28, 2000 by a vote of SlX in favor and one opposed and which
was duly pubhshed ~n the Denton Record - Chronicle on December 8, 2000 (the "Proposed
Annexation Ordinance"), is hereby amended to reduce the area to be annexed so that the area to be
annexed is described as that certmn real property located in Denton County, Texas as particularly
described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference All other terms and
conditions of the Proposed Annexation Ordinance shall remmn the same
SECTION 2 City staff is directed to publish a copy of this ordinance in accordance with the
City Charter
SECTION 3 This ordinance shall become effective immediately from and after its passage
and approval
10
WHEREAS, the areas to be annexed he within the extraterritorial junsdtctlon of the Ctty of
Denton, Texas and lie adjacent to and contiguous to the City of Denton, Texas,
NOW, THEREFORE
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS
SECTION I The land and temtory lying outstde of, but adjacent to and contiguous to the
City of Denton as the 550-acre tract labeled as "Tract 1", the 655-acre tract labeled as "Tract 2", and
the 1 7-acre tract labeled as "Tract 3", more particularly described an Exhtbtt "A", attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, ts hereby added and annexed to the City of Denton, Texas, and satd
territory as described shall hereinafter be included wttlun the boundary hmtts of the Ctty of Denton,
Texas, and the present boundary hmtts of smd city, at the various pmnts contiguous to the area
described tn Exhibit "A" are altered and amended so as to include satd area wlthm the corporate hmtts
of the City of Denton, Texas
SECTION II That the land and territory described in Exhtbtt "A" shall be part of the City of
Denton, Texas, and the property so added shall bear tts share of the taxes levied by the City of Denton,
Texas, and the inhabitants thereof shall be entitled to all of the rights and pnvdeges as citizens and
shall be bound by the acts, ordinances, resolutions and regulations of the Ctty of Denton, Texas
SECTION III That the service plan attached as Exhibit B, and incorporated by reference,
which provides for the extension of municipal servmes to the annexed property, ts approved as part of
this ordinance, and the tmplementatlon of the service plan is hereby authorized
SECTION IV The annexed property is temporarily classffied as Agricultural (A) zoning
district classfficatton and use deslgnatton
SECTION V The City of Denton official zoning map ts amended to show the Agricultural (A)
zoning distract and use classification of the property annexed
SECTION VI Should any part of this ordinance be held illegal for any reason, the holdtng
shall not affect the remmmng portton of this ordinance and the City Council hereby declares tt to be its
purpose to annex to the Ctty of Denton all the real property described tn Exhtblt A regardless of
whether any other part of the described property is hereby effecttvely annexed to the City If any part
of the real property annexed as already included w~thm the city hmits of the City of Denton or within
the hmlts of any other ctty, town or village, or as not wtthtn the City of Denton's jurlsdtctlon to annex,
the same as hereby excluded from the temtory annexed as fully as ff the excluded area were not
expressly described tn this ordinance
8
SECTION VII That th~s ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of
xts final passage and pubhcatxon, and the C~ty Secretary ~s hereby directed to cause the entire ordinance
to be pubhshed once and the descriptive captxon to be pubhshed twine ~n the Denton Record-Chromcle,
the officml newspaper of the Cxty of Denton, Texas, wxth~n ten (10) days of the date of ~ts passage
PASSED AND APPROVED th~s the day of ,2001
EULINE BROCK, MAYOR
ATTEST
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM
HERBERT L PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY
9
Attachment 4
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING A PROPOSED
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE WHICH PASSED ON FIRST READING ON NOVEMBER 28,
2000 AND WAS PUBLISHED ON DECEMBER 8, 2000 TO ANNEX THREE TRACTS OF
LAND, COMPRISING 1,159 ACRES; TRACT ONE BEING LOCATED WEST OF U.S.
HIGHWAY 377, SOUTH OF ALLRED AND NORTH AND SOUTH OF JOHNSON LANE,
TRACT TWO BEING LOCATED EAST OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 35 WEST AND
WEST OF THE KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, EXTENDING SOUTH
ALONG BONNIE BRAE APPROXIMATELY 6,400 FEET NORTH OF U S. HIGHWAY 377;
AND TRACT THREE BEING LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF
CORBIN AND BONNIE BRAE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (A-102).
WHEREAS, on November 28, 2000 in Annexation Case No A-102 by a vote of slx in favor
and one opposed the City Council of the Ctty of Denton, Texas passed on first reading an ordinance to
annex three tracts of land, comprising 1,159 acres, tract one being located west of U S Highway 377,
south of Allred and north and south of Johnson Lane, tract two being located east of Interstate
Highway 35 and west of the Kansas City southern Radway company, extending south along Bonme
Brae approximately 6400 feet north ofU S Highway 377, and tract three being located northeast of the
intersection of Corb~n and Bonme Brae, and
WHEREAS, smd proposed annexation ordinance was duly pubhshed in the Denton Record -
Chromcle on December 8, 2000, as mqmred by City Charter, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that ~t is in the pubhc interest to delete certain real property
from the area to be annexed by the proposed annexation ordinance, NOW, THEREFORE
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS
SECTION 1 The proposed annexation ordinance in Annexation Case No A-102 which
passed on first reading on November 28, 2000 by a vote of slx in favor and one opposed and which
was duly published In the Denton Record - Chromcle on December 8, 2000 (the "Proposed
Annexatwn Ordinance"), is hereby amended to reduce the area to be annexed so that the area to be
annexed is described as that certmn real property located ~n Denton County, Texas as particularly
described m Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference All other terms and
conditions of the Proposed Annexation Ordinance shall remmn the same
SECTION 2 City staff is directed to pubhsh a copy of this ordinance in accordance with the
City Charter
SECTION 3 This ordinance shall become effective immediately from and after ~ts passage
and approval
10
PASSED AND APPROVED th~s the __ day of ,2001
EULINE BROCK, MAYOR
ATTEST
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY
11
Exhibit A: A-102 Metes & Bounds January 9, 2001
ALL that Icertmn lot, tract or parcel of land lying and being s~tuated ~n the County of Denton,
State of Texas, and being part of the O S Brewster Survey, Abstract Number 56, the W Sajws
Survey, Abstract Number 1174, the S Pntchett Survey, Abstract Number 1004, the J
Edmondson Survey, Abstract Number 400, the W Roark Survey, Abstract Number 1087 and
being more particularly described as follows
BEGINNING at a pmnt m the present Denton mty hm~t hne as estabhshed by Ordinance No 60-
40, stud l~omt lymg 500 feet southeasterly of and perpendmular to the centerhne of Interstate
H~ghway ~5 West, smd pmnt also lying on the west hne of the Kansas C~ty Southern Rmlway
Company,(formerly G C & S F Rmlroad),
THENCEI South 20 degrees 50 minutes 12 seconds West, along the present Denton e~ty hmlt hne
established by Ordinance No 69-40, Tract II, 500 feet southeasterly of and parallel to stud
Interstate Itlghway 35 West centerhne, a d~stance of 3,638 feet to a point for comer,
THENCE' South 26 degrees 51 minutes 40 seconds West, cont~nmng along the c~ty hunt hne
estabhshed by Ordinance No 69-40, Tract II, 500 feet southeasterly of and parallel to stud
Interstate ~Hlghway 35 West centerhne, a d~stance of 5,869 69 feet to a pmnt for a comer ~n the
south hne of the stud S Pntchett Survey, Abstract Number 1004, same being the south hne of the
S Prltchett Survey, Abstract Number 1021 and the north hne of the tract described in Ordinance
No 91-033, Tract III,
THENCE South 89 degrees 02 minutes 00 seconds East, along the c~ty hm~t hne estabhshed by
Ordinance No 91-033, Tract III and stud Survey hnes, a d~stance of 2,700 feet to a pmnt for
comer at the northeast comer of the stud Tract III and the northeast comer of the J Hams
Survey, Abstract Number 555, same being the northwest comer of the W Roark Survey,
Abstract Number 1087,
THENCE South 00 degrees 08 minutes 00 seconds West, cont~nmng along the present Denton
mty hm~t,hne estabhshed by annexat;on Ordinance No 91-033, Tract III and the east hne of stud
Harris Sm:vey and the west hne of stud Roark Survey, to and along the m~ddle of a County Road,
known aO Bop_me Brae, a d~stance of 2621 35 feet to a pmnt for comer, stud pmnt being the
Southwest comer of a tract of land conveyed to Joab Partners L P recorded ~n Volume 4283
Page 855 IReal Property Records of Denton County, Texas,
THENCE South 89 degrees 29 m~nutes 08 seconds East along the South hne of stud to Joab
Partners L P tract a d~stance of 1700 62 feet
THENCE North 88 degrees 46 minutes 32 seconds East along the South hne of stud to Joab
Partners L P and the a North hne of a tract of land conveyed to V D Bureh recorded ~n Volume
239 Pagel137 Deed Records of Denton County, Texas a d~stance 1502 66 feet
C WlyDocuments~,nnexat~ons&InterlocalAgrmnts~2000XA-101&A-102XA-102 F~eldNotes- rev~sed9jan01 doc
1/9/01
Page I of 5
Exhibit A: A-102 Metes & Bounds January 9, 2001
THENCE North 00 degrees 47 minutes 19 seconds West along the Northerly West hne of smd
V D Butch tract and passing the Northeast comer of smd Joab Partners L P tract and passing
the Southeast corner of the tract of land conveyed to New T~me Investments Corporation
recorded m Volume 2399 Page 112 Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas and
continuing along the East hne of smd New T~me Investments Corporat:on tract a d~stance
2294 14 feet to the Northeast comer of smd New T~me Investments Corporation tract and also
being the Northerly most Northwest comer of said V D Butch tract,
THENCE in a Southerly D~rect~on the next following 7 calls along the East boundary of smd V
D Burch tract and along and near the meridian of I-hckory Creek,
1 THENCE South 84 degrees 05 minutes 01 seconds East a d~stance of 206 78 feet,
2 THENCE South 62 degrees 01 minutes 26 seconds East a d~stance of 242 77 feet,
3 THENCE South 55 degrees 31 minutes 24 seconds East a d~stance of 206 78 feet,
4 THENCE South 35 degrees 25 m~nutes 14 seconds East a d~stance of 298 70 feet,
5 THENCE South 07 degrees 50 m~nutes 35 seconds East a distance of 622 41 feet,
6 THENCE South 28 degrees 10 m~nutes 12 seconds East a distance of 400 35 feet,
7 THENCE South 07 degrees 13 m~nutes 55 seconds East a d~stance of 433 75 feet,
THENCE South 20 degrees 31 minutes 17 seconds East along a Butch East boundary hne
a d~stance of 21 90 feet to a point for comer, smd point being the northwest comer of the
d~sannexatmn tract estabhshed by Ordinance No 80-1, Tract III, smd point being 500 feet
northwesterly of and perpendicular to the centerhne of U S H~ghway 377 and being on an
annexation hne established by Ordinance No 69-40, Tract III,
THENCE North 43 degrees 51 m~nutes East along smd present Denton c~ty hm~ts estabhshed by
Ordinance No 69-40, Tract III, 500 feet northwesterly of and parallel to the centerhne of U S
H~ghway 377 a d~stance of 986 feet to a point for comer, said point being the mtersectmn of the
west right-of-way hne of the Kansas City Southern Rmlway Company (formerly G C & S F
Railroad) and the southwest right-of-way hne of the Union Pacific Rmlroad (formerly Texas and
Pacific),
THENCE Northwesterly along the present Denton mty hm~t hne estabhshed by annexation
Ordinance 65-43, Tract IV, and the west right-of-way hne of the G C & S F Railroad an arc
length of 1,877 feet to a point for comer, smd point being the southeast comer of C~ty of Denton
C ~ly Documents~Annexat~ons & lnterlocal Agrmnts~000~A-101 & A-102~A-102 Field Notes - revised 9jan01 doc
1/9/01
Page 2 of 5
Exhibit A: A.102 Metes & Bounds January 9, 2001
annexation Ordinance No 84-18 and smd point lying on the south hne of the A H~ckman
Survey, Abstract Number 521,
THENCEI West w~th the south line of smd Hlcklnan Survey and the along the south line of smd
Ordinance No 84-18, a dastance of 1,680 feet to a poxnt for comer, same betng the southwest
comer of ~atd H~ckman Survey,
THENCE North along the west boundary lane of the smd Htckman Survey and a west hne of smd
Ordinance No 84-18, a d~stance of 1,029 feet to a pmnt for comer lying an the centerhne of
H~ckory Creek,
THENCE North 48 degrees 14 m~nutes 27 seconds West along the centerhne of Hmkory Creek a
dastance of 302 06 feet to a point for comer,
THENCE South 81 degrees 14 minutes 33 seconds West along the centerhne of H~ckory Creek a
d~stance of 958 63 feet to a point for comer,
THENCE South 58 degrees 07 minutes 54 seconds West along the centerhne of Hmkory Creek a
dtstance of 210 84 feet to a point for comer, smd pmnt lymg wtthm Bonme Brae Road,
THENCE South 69 degrees 56 m~nutes 37 seconds West along the centerhne of Hmkory Creek a
distance of 350 feet to a point for comer, smd pmnt lying on the west hne of the J Edmonson
Survey, Abstract No 400 and the east hne of the S Pntchett Survey, Abstract No 1004,
THENCE North along smd Survey hnes a distance of 511 feet to a point for comer, smd pmnt
being the lmner-ell comer of a tract conveyed to The Veteran's Land Board of the State of Texas
by deed recorded an Volume 966, Page 57 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas,
THENCE North 89 degrees 03 m~nutes 10 seconds West a distance of 297 45 feet to a point for
comer,
THENCE North 89 degrees 03 minutes 10 seconds West a d~stance of 594 55 feet to a point for
comer, sa~d pmnt being the southwest comer of a 13 33 acre tract conveyed to Asa W Yount et
ux by deed recorded an Volume 929, Page 734 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas,
THENCI~ North 89 degrees 03 minutes 10 seconds West a d~stance of 422 50 feet to a pmnt for
comer, smd point being the southeast comer of a tract conveyed to The Veteran's Land Board of
the State Iof Texas by deed recorded m Volume 989, Page 401 of the Deed Records of Denton
County, Texas,
THENCE North 26 degrees 51 minutes 20 seconds East a distance of 1,685 26 feet to a point for
comer,
c \My Documents~nnexat~ons & Interlocal Agrmnts\2000XA-101 & A-102XA-102 Field Notes - revised 9jan01 doc
1/9/01
Page 3 of 5
Exhibit A: A-102 Metes & Bounds January 9, 2001
THENCE South 89 degrees 24 minutes 20 seconds East a distance of 600 feet to a point for
comer, said point lying on the west linc of said J Edmondson Survey, Abstract Number 400 and
the east linc of smd W Sajvls Survey, Abstract Number 1174, said point also being a southwest
comer of thc present Denton city limits established by annexation Ordmance No 84-18,
THENCE North with the east line of said W Sajvis Survey and a west line of stud Ordinance
No 84-18, a distance of 1,100 00 fcct to a point for comer at the northeast comer of said W
Sajms Survey, smd point also lying in an east and west county road (Corbin),
THENCE West with thc North hnc of stud W Sajvls Survey and a north line of said Ordinance
No 84-18 and in an east and west county road (Corbln) to thc southwest comer of Lot 23 of the
Solar Way Addition for a comer,
THENCE North 01 degrees 18 minutes 49 seconds East a distance of 592 76 feet to a point for
comer at thc northwest comer of Lot 21 of said Solar Way Addition,
THENCE South 87 degrees 17 minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 387 56 feet to a point for
comer at the southwest comer of Lot 10 of said Solar Way Addition,
THENCE North 04 degrees 55 minutes East a distance of 33 30 feet to a point at the southeast
comer of Lot 9 of said Solar Way Addition,
THENCE North 42 degrees 52 minutes 40 seconds West a distance of 75 76 feet to a point for
comer,
THENCE North 69 degrees 49 minutes 15 seconds West a distance of 80 26 feet to a point for
corner,
THENCE North 14 degrees 56 minutes 43 seconds West a distance of 70 14 feet to a point for
comer,
THENCE North 39 degrees 25 minutes 17 seconds West a distance of 119 03 feet to a point for
comer,
THENCE North 02 degrees 30 minutes 08 seconds East a distance of 186 85 feet to a point at the
northwest comer of Lot 9 and the southwest comer of Lot 8 of smd Solar Way Addition,
THENCE North 19 degrees 47 minutes 27 seconds East a distance of 713 54 feet to a point at the
northwest comer of Lot 1 of said Solar Way Addition,
C \My DocumentsL4.nnexaaons & Interlocal AgrmntsX2000~A-101 & A-102~A-102 F~eld Notes - revised 9jan01 doc
1/9/01
Page 4 of 5
Exhibit A: A-102 Metes & Bounds January 9, 2001
THENCE South 89 degrees 12 m~nutes 11 seconds East along thc north boundary hne of smd
Lot 1 a d~stance of 483 25 feet to a po:nt for corner, smd point lying 500 feet west of the east hne
of smd O S Brewster Survey, Abstract No 56,
THENCE North 500 feet west of and parallel to the east hne of smd O S Brewster Survey, a
d~stance of 700 feet to a point for corner,
THENCE East w~th the north hne of smd Ordinance No 84-18, a d~stance of 500 00 feet to a
pmnt for comer ~n the west right of way hne of smd Kansas C~ty Southern Railway Company,
same pmnt also being m the present c:ty hm~t hne as estabhshed by Ordinance No 60-40,
THENCE Northwesterly w~th the western right of way hne of smd Kansas C~ty Southern
Railway Company and the present Denton c~ty hm~t hne as estabhshed by Ordinance No 60-40
along the various calls a total d~stance of 2,400 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and
contmmng m all 553 acres of land
C \My Documents~Annexatlons & Interlocal Agrmnts~2000~,A- 101 & A-102Ls~- 102 F~eld Notes - revIsed 9jan01 doc
1/9/01
Page 5 of 5
ADendaltem
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE: January 9, 2001
DEPARTMENT: Ut~hty Adn~amstmtlon
ACM. Howard Martin, Assistant City Manager/Utlhtles ~
SUBJECT
Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding information
conccrmng the Umtod States Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) recent Environmental
Assessment for Lake Lewmmlle, the City of Denton's response, the City of Dallas's
response and a potentml lawsmt by a homeowners' group
BACKGROUND
As you may recall, the Corps of Engineers developed a Programmatic Environmental
Assessment (PEA) last year for Lake Lewlsv]lle as the second phase of a two-phase
carrying capacity and use study for the lake The two-volume draft proposal's purpose
was to determine the carrying capacity of the Lake, with a supposed focus of the impact
water-related recreation has on natural resources By determining the carrying capacity
for the Lake, the Corps could then deterrmne whether the natural resources could absorb
any further water-related development
Because the City of Denton, along wath many other entities, including the City of Dallas,
found the PEA inadequate, the City refused to endorse the PEA (I have attached a copy
of the City of Denton's PEA comments from last year ) The Corps determined that the
Lake, despite a concurrent finding that the natural resources were negauvely impacted
dunng h~gh use periods, could tolerate additional manna facilities Among other reasons
for opl~osmg the PEA, both the Cities of Denton and Dallas cited the absence of any
water quality data to support the Corps' conclusions An obvious omission from the
report was any chscusslon of the Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether 0VlTBE) levels that had
become a concern to the Cities Despite the many objections the Corps received from
vanous stakeholders, the Corps stood by Its original finding and opened the Lake for
manna, development
Under, the National Environmental Protection Act, the Corps must conduct an
Envlromental Impact Statement (EIS) for any proposed projects which will result in an
exceedenee of the carrying capaexty for the Lake Despite the fact that the Corps admits
that the carrying capacity for the Lake is currently exceeded, the Corps fmled to do an
EIS Instead, the Corps only conducted an Environmental Assessment Like the PEA,
the City finds the EA not only Inappropriate (an EIS should have been conducted), but
also fatally inadequate The City of Denton's comments on the EA are attached
The Corps makes it clear m the EA that they intend to avoid their legal obligation to
conduct an EIS by relying on an "alternative method" for lake development The Corps'
alternative consists of zomng the Lake into three distinct areas and consldenng carrying
capacity wlttun each zone only, as if the lake can somehow be physically partatloned
(Please see the attached map )
Zone A is the only zone currently exceeding its carrying capacity, according to the Corps
The fallacy of tins approach is obvious on its face regardless of where you build
mannas, boats are going to travel over the entire lake Because most of the amenities
(restaurants, boat docks, etc ) are in Zone A, it is the most popular zone on the lake
Zone A also contaxns the City's intake structure for our raw water supply In other
words, the Corps' recommendations will result in an zncrease in the number of boats
traveling in an area of the Lake that already exceeds Its carrying capacity
Like the PEA, the EA recommendations are driven by population/recreation demands and
fall to adequately analyze environmental Impacts of further development on the lake
The EA ~s not truly an environmental assessment but rather a justification for more boat
shps Because the EA fails to assess the environmental Impacts of development and
recreation use, the City of Denton thd not endorse the draft EA Likewise, the C~ty of
Dallas also found the EA inadequate, citing unresolved water quality msues
A related filing by Jim Blackburn, representing a group of homeowners on the Lake,
outlines beyond question the Corps' legal obligations with respect to environmental
assessments Similar to the City of Denton's fihng, Mr Blackburn points out the
numerous inconsistencies, ambiguities and lack of supporting documentatmn for the
Corps' calculations and conclusions I believe it is the intention of tlus group to sue the
Corps should the Corps attempt to ~asue permits for further development without first
conducting an EIS
The City of Denton faces serious ramifications from further development on the Lake
Staff believes that a properly conducted EIS would confirm that the Lake is s~gmficantly
beyond ItS can'ymg capacity wuth respect to natural resources, and that water quality ~n
particular is negatively impacted Even without water-related development, future
growth in the Lake's watershed, with its inevitable non-point source pollution, will only
exacerbate water and mr quality problems Add manna and manna-related development
on the Lake itself, and water quality will degrade further
With the City of Denton's only retake for its water supply located on Lake Lewlsvllle, it
is imperative that the City protects this resource An EIS is the first step toward proper
management of a reservoir whose pnmary function is flood control and municipal water
supply, not recreation
ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT
The Corps wall meet on October 18, 2000, wath the Cat~es of Dallas and Denton and thc
TNRCC and the EPA The C~ty of Dallas requested flus meeting to present addmonal
water ~tuahty data Hopefully, the Crees wall be able to convince the Corps to decline the
requestt~ for addmonal manna slaps
PRIOR ACTIONfREVIEW
The Pubhc Utilities Board received a report bom staff on September 18, 2000 Also, the
Caty Council Enwronmental Committee (Councllmembers Cochran, Durrance, and
Knstof, rson) thseussed the ~ssue at length at thear meeting on September 8, 2000
MAP
A map of the Corps zones for Lake Lew~svalle ~s attached as the last page oftlus packet
ExbabatlI C~ty of Denton Comments
Exh~batlII C~ty of Dallas' Comments
Exhibit III Homeowners' Comments
Exh~bat IV Lewlswlle Lake Map
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
UfllityAdmmmtratmn.215 E McKinney Street. Denton, Texas, 76201
Telephone (940) 349-8230.FAX (940) 349-8120
5 September 2000
Marcia R Hackett
NEPA Technical Manager
Umted States Army Corps of Engineers
Ft Worth District, CESWF-EV-EE
P O Box 17300
Ft Worth, Texas 76102-0300
RE Environmental Assessment for Water-Related Recreation Development, Lew/svllle
Lake, July 2000
Dear Ms Hackett
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the U S Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Environmental
Assessment for Water-Related Recreabon Development at Lewlsvllle Lake, Lewlsvflle, Texas (EA)
The City of Denton (C~ty) agrees that the Corps Is legally bound to conduct an Environmental Impact
Statement (ELS) for any proposed projects that will exceed the carrying capacity for Lew~svllle Lake
(Lake) The underlying Programmatic Enwronmentat Assessment (PEA) unequivocally states that the
Lake s carry ng capacity will be exceeded dunng certain bmes of high use (See Exh~bff 13, PEA, with
emphases" the Corps concedes that Zone A [of the Lake] will sometimes exceed ~ts mlmmum
resource protection ") Further, logic dictates that any additional boating-related projects w~ll only
exacerbate the problem The EA Rself states the following on the first page
The findings of the PEA concluded that the requests to Increase the number of vessels an the
Lake would exceed the carry[lng] capac/fy established by the Corps/n the Lewtsvllle Lake Water-
Related Development Poflcy
Therefore, the Corps ~s legally bound to conduct an EtS An EA simply does not fulfill the Corps' legal
obhgat]ons
Alternative Zoning and Carrying Capamtles
Page 1 of the EA states that "[I]n order to avoid exceeding the carrying capacity of the Lake requlnng an
EIS an alternative was developed "]t appears that the Corps' basic assumption is that by zoning the
Lake the mannas located ~n Zones B and C w~ll not adversely ~mpact the carrying capacity of Zone A
The Corps is apparently of the opinion that ~ts "alternative" bypasses the necessity of an ElS The C~ty
strongly d~sagrees
4
Despite representations to the contrary, the Corps' alternative zoning scheme ~s not sufficient to remove
Its obhgat~on to conduct an ElS There ~s no alternative, short of removing boats from Zone A, that w~ll
reduce the boat traffic ~n Zone A to the Corps' own carrying capacity hm~ts Zone A exceeds ~t carrying
capacity and w~ll continue to do so In fact, the boat traffic wdl only increase ~n Zone A as Water-related
faclhtles- regardless of where they are built- are permitted to develop on the Lake Consequently, there
~s no way for the Corps to "avoid" an ElS
The busiest and most used, Zone A contains most of the Lake's entertainment amemt~es (restaurants,
boat ramps, etc ), the retake structure for the C~ty of D '
enton s entire dnnkmg water supply and the outlet
structure associated w~th the C~ty of Dallas' dnnklng supply If [he Corps actually beheves that boats
stay only ~n the zones where therr associated marina or boat ramp is located, it could be argued that NO
more manna development be perrmtted m Zone A, Including the 'pre-approved" 97 vessel~equivalents In
fact, the" ,'
alternative w~ll only increase boat traffic ~n Zone A, the one zone on the Lake that the Corps
admits already exceeds its carrying capacity Instead of permitting add~tronal boat sl~ps on the Lake, the
City beheves the Corps should be developing alternatives which would reduce the boat traffic In Zone A,
not Cncrease ~t The Corps' creative alternative consists of a zoning scheme less for environmental
protection than as a rationale for ~ncreased boat usage on the Lake If the Corps s~ncerely believes the
natural resources assocmted wrth the Lake can sustain additional boating, then, at the very least, conduct
the required EIS to support those assumptions~
The C~ty also questions the Corps' apparent eagerness to avoid an ElS In the face of critical - and
outstanding - enwronmental ~ssues The Corps' obhgatlons, as you well know, ~nclude environmental
stewardship Avoiding environmental assessments is m direct opposer;on to the Corps' own mission The
s~gn~ficant water quahty ~ssues, many ~rnposed by recreational pressures alone merit further
environmental mvest;gatlon In the form of an EIS The City of Denton strongly encourages the Corps to
reconsider ds decision and conduct the obhgatory ElS
EA Inadequacies
Even If an ElS was not required the EA still fads to stand on ~ts own merit or In COnlUnctloa w~th the
underlying PEA As you know, the City found the underlying PEA sufficiently ~nadequate to w~thhold the
City's endorsement (For your convenience, I have attached a copy of the City's PEA comments )
Because the EA Is "tiered" to the PEA and relies on ~ts findings2, the C~ty of Denton believes the EA is
fatally flawed Even If the underlying PEA were credible, the City beheves the EA could not stand on ds
own merits for the reasons outhned below
"Vessel Equivalent" Assumptions
The EA, echoing the PEA, continually recommends an Increase of a "274 vessel equivalent" This is
ternbly misleading As noted ~n the City of Denton's PEA comments, the Corps uses a 1 10 ratio that is,
I
The EA fails to note the Corps' underlying Lew~svflle Lake Futm:e Water-Related Development Pohcy regarding
resource protectmn (See Exlubzt 13 of the 1)EA ) That document clearly states" the Corps eoneefles that Zone
A vail sometimes exceed ~ts nummurn resource proteeUon and user enjoyment level of 606 boats" (Emphas~s
added ) The EA does not apparently address thas ~ssue The onnssmn of the natural resource mapact of the excess
carcymg capaczty is ~oubhng More confusing, however, ]s the mconszstency of the Pohcy's lmm of 606 vessel
eqmvalants and the ?EAiEA's hrmt of 631 vessel eqmvalents, or the difference of 250 shps m Zone A The C~ty
subnnts that the bas~s for deterrmnmg the carrying capacity of the Lake ~s fallacmus
2 From page 4 of the EA" Whenever a PEA has been prepared and a subsequent EA or EIS ~s reqmred for a s~te-
specific action included vathm the program akeady evaluated, the more epec~fic EA or EI$ need only refer to
pernnent data from the PEA and focus on specific mapacts of the proposed project"
at best, arbitrary This "equivalent" translates rotc as many as 2,740 additional shps (Even the Corps'
own consultant, Geo-Manne, recommended a smaller ratio of 1 5, or 1,370 shps The slgmflcant
differences among "experts" of what these ratios should be Indicates a lack of rehabdlty any of these
numbers can'offer ) The City strongly believes that 2,740 additional slips/boat ramps/parking places will
translate ~nto ,far more than 274 additional boats Lake-w~de Because the conclusions throughout the
entire EA are based on these unsupportable ratios, the EA itself is not supportable
Water Quahty
The C~ty commends the Corps for analyzing more water quahty ~nformatlon than did the underlying PEA
However, there are same s~gn~ficant deficiencies
The C~ty appreciates the role of federal and state agencies ~n environmental protection The Corps' own
m~ss~on statement emphasizes the ~mportance of enwronmental protection
In all aspects of natural and cultural resources management, the Corps promotes
awareness of enwronmental values and adheres to sound environmental
stewardship, protection, comp/lance and restoration practices [PEA, Page 3, emphases
added ]
The City notes that the Corps' m~ss~on statement stands alone tt does not rely on other agencies to
determine what consbtutes environmental protection More specific to Lake Lewlswlle ~s the Corps'
Master Plan, Design Memorandum No 1C, June 1985, which states
The preservation and enhancement of natural resource values ~s an area which ~s becoming
~ncreaslngly ~mpor[ant as surrounding urban~zabon pressures threaten to decrease their value
The Corps of Engineers has a stewardshlp respons~b~#ty for the natural resources of the
Lew~svil/e project and should use Its professional expertise to preserve them (Emphases
added )
Given that "urbanlzatlon pressures" are even greater now than when the Corps wrote the above
statement ~n 1985, the Corps' obhgat~ons to protect the natural resources of the Lake are that much
greater If the Corps IS ~n possession of information concermng protection of natural resources, even ~f
other agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Texas Natural Resources
Conservation Commission (TNRCC) do not currently address those environmental concerns, the Corps,
by ~ts own mm$~on statement, must apply "sound enwronmental stewardship' ~n relation to these ~ssues
The C~ty beheves the Corps relies far too heavily on the assumptions, most of which are currently being
challenged or are under reconsideration, of ~ts s~ster agencies In so doing, the Corps is avoiding the
obhgat[ons set forth ~n ~ts own mission statement
For ~nstance, the discussion on page 5 of the EA concerning the 303(d) hst fails to acknowledge the
~nherent problems associated w~th this state program from ~ts ~ncept]on Though some stream segments
originally listed as degraded were questionable, the current rap~d dellst~ng of segments [n the Iatest
TNRCC rewewlis highly debatable To rely on the dehstlng of these segments as an ~ndlcator that all ~s
well ~n the watershed associated w~th the Lake ~s questionable
The City is grat;eful for the Inclusion of at least some of the available Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE)
~nformabon However, this ~nformatlon ~s faulty ~n several areas For =nstance, the Corps rehes on the
EPA's range for taste and odor as being 20-40 parts per b~lhon (ppb) Thru ~s extremely high according to
most states that regulate MTBE and, perhaps more ~mportantly, any water suppher responsible for
dehvenng potable water to its customers As you know, Dallas personally experienced MTBE
contaminated water as a result of the Lake Tawakom sp~ll Consumers of that water noted a taste
d~fference at 5ppb and an ~nablhty to dnnk the water at rates as Iow or lower than 15ppb Extensive data
collected by the, C~ty of Dallas and various other affected communities ~s available and should have been
reviewed befo~'e accepting an EPA guide Ine which is even now under recons~derabon The City, as a
public water supplier, is confident that its c~tlzens would rightly refuse to dnnk water w~th contammabon
The MTBE data proffered by the Corps does not include any recent data, data which the City behoves
~nd~cates the strong possibility of continuing ~ncreases in the level of MTBEs ~n the Lake The C~bes of
Denton and Dallas have both continued to momtor for MTBE since the Umverslty of North Texas study
mentioned in the EA was conducted However, none ofth~s data appears to be ~ncluded ~n the EA
The studies referred to In the EA that were conducted by the TNRCC and the U S Geological Servrce for
MTBEs m Texas Lakes are limited representations only because of the sampling technique Though the
EA mentions c~ page 6 that the studies ~ndicated that MTBE levels ~n 75% of Texas Lakes was 'barely
detectable," and that Lake Lewlsvl[[e only showed a level of 1 14ppb, these results are questionable on
their face The scientist responsible for coordlnatlng these studies at TNRCC explained to the C~ty that
these samples were taken in the middle of the lakes where d~lubon in open water s~gnlficantly reduced
levels of MTBEs~ The Corps ts well aware that MTBE ~s highly soluble, the very charactensbc that
makes ~t so d~fficult to remove from a water supply once it has been Introduced, and so therefore
dilute qu]ckly A more representative testing technique ~s to test in more confined areas such as mannas
and coves (This difference in sampling explains why the UNT sampling in the City's intake cove for
drinking water had a concentratron level of 13 5ppb while the TNRCC only had a concentration level of
1 14ppb in the middle of the same Lake )
Page 13 of the EA mentions that the Corps has had "personal communication" with the EPA, Region 6,
concerning the impact of additional boats on the MTBE levels In the Lake The unnamed EPA
representative apparently Indicated through personal commumcatlon that the ~ncrease ~n boats "would not
be expected to ~ncrease the levels of MTBE "This supposed assurance ~s not very reassuring At the
very least, the FA, should Indicate how the EPA arnved at its conclusion
The fact that the EPA "~s cons~denng reducing or phasing out the use of MTBE as an add~tlve m
gasohne" (page 6) Is an Intereabng Inclusion The Corps apparently offers th~s as m~bgabon for not taking
any steps toward Iimlbng MTBEs m the Lake as part of ~ts recommendabons Presumably, because EPA
may phase MTBE out in the future, the Corps views MTBE as a temporary ~ssue The more obvious
message ~s that 'EPA sees MTBE as a serious enough environmental problem to consider, as California
has already done, phasing ~t out (EPA clearly Is not comfortable with s~mply relying on a 20-40ppb range
to protect water iqual~ty) Until MTBE is actually phased out, however, the Corps must address it as
serious ongoing water quality ~ssue
Conclusion
The Conclusion, on page 19 of the EA, summarizes why the F.A lacks credibility Specifically, the
Conclusion states the following
The findings of the PEA concluded that requests affecting the number of vessels on the Lake
would exceed the carry[lng] capacity established by the Corps
Based upon the conclusions cf potential Impacts resulting from multiple entities proposed
act/v/t/es !as presented in this EA and the carrying capacity po/icy authorized in the PEA, the
act~wtle$ are anticipated to result In no significant adverse Impacts, either Indlwdually, or
cumulatively "(Emphases added )
s Even thc extensav~ MTBE spflI at Lake Tawakom was slgmficantly diluted by the t~ne the lume r
center of the lake P eached the
The Cty of Denton understands that the Corps reconciles these observations - that the carrying capacity
Is exceeded on the one hand, but that the proposed act~wt~es pose no s~gmficant enwronmental ~mpacts
to the Lake on the other hand - by "zomng" the Lake, thus controlhng the number of boats permitted ~n
each zone Zomng the Lake ~s an inadequate approach, at best, to controlhng boat traffic on the Lake
Its ability to mllllmlze adverse environmental Impacts is even mere dubious
If the Conclusion alone does not suffice to demonstrate the inherent weakness in the EA, perhaps the
small but reveahng paragraph entitled Socioeconomic Resources on page 6 better indicates the Corps'
apparent phdo$oph~cal pos~bon That paragraph details the tremendous growth expected throughout the
Metroplex
The decade ['I990-2000] has brought over one m/fi/on new faces to the region, w/th 70 percent of
that growth occurnng over the last five years The four core count/es around Lew/sv/lle Lake,
C°///n, Denton, Da//as, and Tarrant, captured 85 percent of a// reg/ena/ growth The slgnlf~cance
of the population trends and projections of the Lewlswl/e Lake area to this document Is
that a tremendous demand for recreational opportumt/es has been created by population
growth (Emphases added )
The City of Denton must argue that the s~gmflcance of the populabon growth "to this document" - an
environmental assessment, not a marketing document - is not recreational opportumbes but rather its
negabve ~mpact on our natural resources, speclfically water and air quality
The Lake's primary purposes, built and financed not only by the Corps but also by the C~t~es of Denton
and Dallas, are for flood control and pubhc water supply As the Corps' own Lew~sv~lle Lake Master Plan,
Design Memorandum No 1C, June 1985, states on page x-1
The LewlsviIle Lake project faclhbes, public lands, and water areas are used ~n a w~de array of
activities and purposes , and most importantly /ts basic purpose of prowd~ng flood
protection and mumc/pal water supply (Emphases added )
In the face of critical water supply and quality issues for the state as a whole and our area ~n particular,
the EA fa~ls to consider the Impact intense growth has on both water quahty and quanbty
S~mply put, the Corps' EA ~s Inadequate Furthermore, the Corps ~s under an obhgatlon to
conduct an EIS Until an ElS ts conducted, the City cannot support the proposed projects for the
Lake
S~ncerely,
Howard Mart~n
Assistant City Manager for Utd~t~es
8
0~9/15/2000 00 07 214-670-:9515 DALLas CTTy ATTY 0FC PAGE 02
City of Dallas
August 30, 2000
Ms Marcia R Hackett
NEPA Technical Manager
U S Army Corps of Engineers
Fort Worth Dlstrlct CESWF-EV-EE
P O Box 17300
Fort Worth, Texas 76102-0300
Re Water-Related Recreational Development at Lewiswlle Lake
Dear Ms Hackett
We have reviewed the U S Army Corps of Engineers (COE) document entitled
"EnvironmentalAssessment forWater, reJated Recreation Development"at Lewlsville Lake
dated July, 2000 We are both disappointed and concerned to see that the COE Is
contemplating approval of water-related recreational development at Lew~sville Lake that
will double the number of boats In and around the lake As you are aware, Lewlsville Lake
serves as a significant raw water source for the C by of Dallas and the nineteen (19)
customer cities we serve
In a letter to you dated September 14, 1999, our office submitted comments to you
requesting that any decision that would add to the number of boats using the Lake be
deferred pending the completion of' studies concerning the presence and effect of MTBE
in our lakes Further, we have since learned that the COE was apparently unaware of a
study done by the "Blue Ribbon Panel On Oxygenates in Gasoline" (appointed by
U S E PA Administrator Carol Browner), dated July 27, 1999, wherein it was
recommended that enhanced efforts be taken "to protect takes and reservoirs that serve
as drinking water supplies by restricting use of recreational water craft"
Since the date of Issuance of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, the City
of Dallas has ,become Increasingly concerned about the potential presence and possible
effects of MTBE In lakes that are used aa its water resources, Including Lake Lewtsvllle,
as a result of the experience gained by It in connection with a catastrophic release of
reformulated gasoline the resulted in MTBE entedng into Lake Tawakonl In addition,
U S E P A issued, on March 24, 2000, an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
wherein It cited studies Indicabng that MTBE can be tasted at concentrations as low as 2
parts per billion
.... Water Utilities Department
City maJJ · 1500 Maril a, 4AN · Dallea, TX · 214/870-3146
A c~ty utility providing Del as water and waatewl~ter serVlcea vital to public health and safe~,, 9
r"' V I.JIl~ IT II
09/15/~000 08 07 ~14-G70-3515 DALLAS CITY ATTV 0FC PAGE 03
Ms Marcia R Hackett
Page 2
August 30, 2000
The concern of the City of Dallas is not only with the health of Its citizens, but also w~th the
quahty and drinkability of its water supplies Accordingly, the City of Dallas d~sagrees with
the suggestion In the Environmental Assessment that ~urther marina development will have
no sIgnificant envIronmental ~mpact The City of Dallas requests that the COE defer
approval of madna development at Lewlsvllle Lake until Its MTBE study, currently
scheduled to be completed in January2001, has been concluded and its results discussed
W~th both the COE and U.S E P A
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document If you should have any
questions please call me at 214-670-3144
Sincerely,
Director
~0
Ms Marcuath Hackett
NEPA Techmcal Manager
U S Army Corps of Engmeem
Fort Worth Dlsmct, CESW~-EV-EE
P 0 Box 17300
Fort Worth, Tex~ 76102-0300
KE Comments on the Enwronmental Assessment for Levaswdle Lake
Dear Ms PIackett
Enclosed are the comments filed on behalf ofreeldents hvmg m and adjacent to P~ddler's Green
m response to the U S Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Assessment for Water Related
P. ecreancn Development, Lew~swdle Lake, LewaSVljje, Texas, dated Yuly 2000 These comments are
filed pursuant to a filmg extenmon granted to Sawme ~'v[cEnure
These comments include 16 pages ofte~ and seven attachments These attachments are (1) an
expert report of Dr Phl BechenL plus resume and exl-n'oits, (2) a document xdenufymg 100%
conservauon pool nghts to Denton and Dallas, (3) an expert report of Peter Brown plus resume, (4) a
draft study by Ceo-Mm-me, dated November. 1998, (5) an expert report by CSTI plus resume of Arno
Bommer, (6) a map prepared by C-reg Schor4 and (7) a hst of persons on whose behalf'these comments
are subrmtted, I would apprecuate your including both the comments and all attachments m the
adrmmstrauve record
I/you bare any quesUons or wash any addmonal mformaUon regarding any of these
subrmsmorm, please do not hemtate to contact us
Sincerely,
/James B Blackburn, Ir
11
C V UII:) IT III
COMLMENTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT FOR LEWISV1LLE LAKE
AUGUST 31, 2000
These corranents are subrmtted m response to a Pubhc Nonce dated July 26, 2000,
from the U S Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District, regarding an enmronmental
assessment uered to the Lew~svtUe Lake Programmauc Emaronmental Assessment
(PLEA) finahzed m September of 1999 This environmental assessment is ldentnfled as
"Environmental Assessment - Water Related Recreation Development" (hereinafter
referred to as "Supplemental Envrronmental Assessment" or "SEA") These comments
are subrmtted on behalf of a group of residents hang on Lewns,alle Lake manediatety
adjacent to the s~te of two of the mannas proposed for constmctmn m the SEA. (see
Attachment 7) Tlms same group of' residents subrmtted written comments prevmusly
(dated September 16, 1999 m a letter s~gned by Howard G~iberg) regarding the ?EA and
we incorporate those comments hereto
AS wnll be set out in detad below, we believe that the SEA Is absolutely
inadequate to meet the legal reqmrements of the Natmnal Envrronmental l~ohcy Act
There ~s hterally no detail regarding site specific tmpacts of the water-related
development that is proposed m the SEA. Tlns document snmply fads as a full d~sclosure
document and fads as an attempt to determine whether or not slgraficant impacts are
generated by the proposed water-related development Addmonally, the SEA fa,la as a
follow-up document to the PEA. The FONSI associated wnth the PEA lef'r certain issues
unresolved, including the Iakew~de tmpact of wate.-related development Those issues
were deferred to the SEA m the FONSI However; the SEA fmls to correctly analyze ti'as
~ssue and fads to fully disclose these lakew~de impacts Perhaps most importantly, the
water-related development that is analyzed m the SEA generates s~graficant anpacts In at
least one key respect the carrying capacity of the lake is exceeded Therefore, rather
than issue an SEA, the Corps must prepare an SIS on water-related development on
Lew~svtlle Lake
These comments are dpaded into four parts The first part of the comments
introduces the current SIEA m the context of the prior PEA and the Finding of No
S,gntficant Impact (FONSr) ~ssued m association wath the PEA. The second sectmn of
these comments addresses the ~ssue of water-related recreatmn development fi-om a lake-
wide perspective The ttnrd sectmn of these comments addresses ~ssues related to
spec,ac manna proposals The fourth sectmn concludes these comments
I. CONTEXT OF THE, WATER-RELATED DEVELOPBfENT SUPPLE~-'VIENTAL
ENVIRONiVIE1NTAL ASSESSM2E1NT (SEA)
As set forth m the Finding of No Slgraficant Impact (FONSI) associated w~th the
PEA that was s,gned by Col lames SWeller on 30 September 1999, there were several
1 12
~ss~es ~at were not resolved m declsmn-ma~g a~smg ~om t~e ~PEA~ Conmder the
fo~owmg excerpt from tNs FONSI
A ?rogrammatm Enmronmental Assessment pEA) was prepared whmh d~scussed
th.e enwronmenta/tmpacts of more than 300 individual development acttons being
proposed by 18 pubhc and private entrees for tmplementatmn w~thm the next 10
years on Federal lands around Lew~svflle Lake The PEA Idem~fied the future and
foreseeable md~vzdual development actmns, assessed the potentm/ cumulative
mapacts from these actmns on the human and natural envzronment and presented
mformatmn to be used m the ensuing supplement to the Lew~svzlle Lake Master
Plan, Demgn Memorandum No lC, June 1985 The PEA was prepared m
accordance wath the National Enwronmentnl Pohcy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and
pertinent trnplementmg regulataons
Nme types of act~vmes were addressed m the PEA mctudmg (1) bridges and
roadways, (2) water-related recreauon facfl~ues, (3) parks - including enhanced
amemtles ha exastmg recreational areas, (4) utGtles and utflaty corridors, (5) golf
courses, (6) habnable structures such as hotels, lodges and cabins, (7) trmls, (8)
land use clasmflcatmn changes, and (9) other rmscellaneous act~v~ues The PEA
~d~ntffied potential s~gmfieant Impacts which m~ght result from so'ne of th,;
ae;~wt~es as proposed These aet~wtles, such as addmonal mamnas bmdges
golf course and a land use reelass~fieatmn will reqmre additional assessment
~myed from the PEA
The PEA was c~rculated to interested individuals, groups, orgamzat~ons, crees,
state and federal agencies for re,~ew and comment A pubhc nouce describing
the avaflab~hty of the document was pubhshed on August 19, 1999, and the entire
document was made avmlable ma the mternet and at several local hbranes and
c~t7 halls The comment period closed on September 24, 1999 Comments were
recmved from 86 agencms, groups and md~wduals and pet~tmns were mgned by
more than 1,600 persons Comments fi-om agencies and mumc~pahues principally
supported the findings of the I~EA wath some concern expressed about the level of
boating actiwty and water quahty Cmzen remark~ were generally m
oppomtmn to addmonai boating faefl~tles, marina constructmn., hotels and
recreaUon act~wUes wtuch would reqmre large areas to be cleared of nauve
vegetatmn These types of Crolects wdl reqmre further analvs~s under NE?A
and are not eonmdered a Cart of th~s findml (emphams added, remmnder of
FONSI ormtted)
Therefore, the mtuatmn regarding addmonal boatm$ facflmes and marina
development under the FONSI assocmted w~th the PEA ~s that no dec~mons have been
made regarding the acceptabflxty of those act~wtms As stated above, the ~mpacts fi.om
these a~wt~es were potentmlly mgn~cant A FONSI can only be mgned tf the tmpacts
are not mgraficant Therefore, ~t is clear from the FONSI that the wnpacts from addmonal
boating famhues and manna development remain potentially mgmficant The purpose of
the Enwronmental Assessment on Water-Related Recreatmn Development, at least
2 13
according to the September, 1999 FONSI, ~s to determine whether m fact s~gmficant
environmental mapacts would result fa'om addmonal boating fac~htaes and mannas on
Lewasvflle Lake Such an analysis must include lake-vnde trnpacts as well as me specffic
mapacts a~soclated wath individual boating fac~ttles and manna proposals
The clear language of tins FONSI is m corffhct w~th statements on the first page
eft. he SEA. Here, the Fort Worth District states
The findings of the PEA concluded that the requests to increase the number
of vessels on the lake would exceed the carry capacity established by the Corps m
the Lew~sv'dle Lake Future Water-Related Development Pohcy (see Extublt 13 m
the PEA) Ttus pohcy authorized the increase of 274 vessels on Lewnsv~lle Lake
dlstnbuted by 0 vessel increase m Zone A, a 46 vessel increase m Zone B and a
228 vessel increase m Zone C (figure 2) In order to avoid exceeding the cargang
capacity of the lake requmng an EIS, an alternatave, based on the pohcy's
recommendations for carrying capacity hrmts, was developed and assessed m the
~PEA. Tbas alternauve reqmred that all enutles requesting anthonzatlon of
development projects affecting the number of vessels on the lake get together,
arrive at a consensus, revise and resubrmt their requests so that they not exceed
the estabhshed carrying capacity, exther cumulatively or by zone Inchv~dual
proposals for water-related recreation development that were ong~naliy subrmtted
by the various entlt~es were removed fi.om further consxderatlon m the PEA. The
FONSL whmh was executed on September 30 1999. approved the carryon,,
capacity estabhshed m the Lew~swlle Lake Future Water-Related
Development Pohcv~ allowing for a 274 vessel eqmvalent Increase without
specifying the d~smbut~on of those vessel eqmvalents (SEA, p 1, last
paragraph) (emphasts added)
The conclusion relating to the FONSI that is emphasized m the quote above from the
SEA ~s sanply incorrect The FONSI is clear - "These types of projects [additional
boating face. toes, manna constructmrt, hotels and recreaUon actlwUes requmng large
areas to be cleared] w~ll reqmre further analysis under NE?A and are not considered part
of tbas 15riding" It Is anpossible for the FONSI to approve the carrying capacity for new
boating facilities and manna construction when the FONSI specifically disavows such
approval
Therefore, the correct interpretation of the role of the SEA Is to disclose and
analyze the carrying capactty of the lake w~th regard to manna and boating faclhty
development as well as to disclose and analyze the en, aronmental anpacts of specrfic
manna and boating fac~ty developments on the environment to deterrmne ~f
"s~gnzficant" mapacts result from such manna and boating fac~Ixty development
Therefore, the SEA must address lake-w~de issues as well as s~te specific issues
a~soclated w~th water-related development No element related to marina and boating
facthty construction was approved m the PEA because ~t was not included m the Finding
of No S~grmScant Impact (FONSI) All issues assocmted w~th water-related recreation
development, instead, must be disclosed m the SEA, and no dec, sion may be made
3 14
w~thout full conslderatlon of the issues rased by public comanents as well as by the
m~pacts associated w~th inanna and boating faczhty development In fact, we urge that
envrronmental full d~sclosure under NEPA requares an Envrronmental Impact Statement
prior to deolslon-makmg on tl-as issue
IL I-~kI~-WIDE ENVII~ON1VI~NTAI~ ASSESS~I~ENT DEl~ICIENCIES
In the followmg sections, various deficiencies are set out regarding the SEA and its
coverage of lake-w~de enwronmental issues F~rst, the issue of lake level has not been
correctly integrated nato the concept of lake-w~de carrymg capacny set out in the SEA
and the PEA. TMs creates a false concept of carrymg capacity and is d~rectly related to
the potential occurrence of slgmficant enwronmental wnpacts Second, no defensible
methodology was utfazed to establish carrymg capacxty and the allowance for more
boats, even assurmng "best case" lake cond~tloas Thn-d, the SEA and PEA fml to
disclose how the final carrymg capacities were determmed and how they affect the
resources being protected Finally, no serious analys~s of the MTBE contarnmauon xssue
was completed We bekeve that these deficiencies are serious wolauons of the National
Enwronmenml Pohcy Act
A. ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITI-ILAKE LEVELS
Neither the SEA nor the PEA present any analysis of the vanauon m lake levels
as they relate to carrymg capacity of Levasv~le Lake Instead, a constant lake level of
522 feet mean sea level is assumed and used as the lake level in calculatmg carrymg
capacities Tbas ~s the level of the lake when it ~s full However, Lew~svflle Lake is not a
constant water level lake Because Lewasvflle Lake ~s a water supply lake, the lake
elevation changes slgraficantly over t~rne Depending upon ramfall and water usage, the
elevation of Lewswlle Lake wzll change A graph of the bastonc water levels at
Lew~svflle Lake is shown in figure 2 of the attached report by Dr PbalI~p Bedlent
(Attachment 1)
The determmauon of lake oarrymg capacity ~s related to the amount of surface
area that eyasts at a particular lake level Of that surface area, only a port,on ~s "useable"
for boatmg Additionally, each type of boat needs a certam amount of space Geo-
Marme, Inc prepared an analys~s of the oarrymg capacity of Lewsvflle Lake for the Fort
Worth District of the Corps of Engineers ut, hTmg these factors In tbas study, Geo-
Manne stated the follovang
The purpose of th~s invesugatlon/analys~s was to deterrmne the actual "physical
carrymg capacity" of the lake Tlus was determmed in-house using updated lake
acreages, updated acreages of water reqinred per boat by type and by re-
evaluating the actual amount of"useable" surface acreage Updated lake acreage
wa~prowdedbytheUSACE "Geo-Manne, Inc, December, 1998, p 3-11
The methodology used by Oeo-Marme allocated a speczfic number of acres of the lake to
various types of boats and estabhshed a final number of boats that presumably could
4 15
safely use the lake when ~t is at full conservatnon pool The Corps of Engineers m both
the PEA and SEA followed flus methodology vath certain mod~icatlons to estabhsh a
carrying capacity for the lake m terms o£total boats to be allowed and new boat shps and
mannas that could be authorized
The point here is that the" "
best case lake level was used for determmatlon of the
canting capactty of Lewsvflle Lake The lake acreage that was used was calculated
assuming that the lake was full - at the top of the conservation pool at elevation 522 feet
However, as shown m figure 2 of Attachment 1, the lake has rarely been at 522 feet for
several years In fact, the lake is now around elevation 507 feet According to
documentation obtained from the Corps of Engmeers web site, the cities of Dallas and
Denton have the water rights to 100% of the conservation pool between elevatmns 431
and 522 (see Attachment 2 herein) It is clear fi.om flus mformanon that the right exists
to draw down Lewuswlle Lake much lower than even the drawdown pattern indicated m
the last five years
k NEPA full disclosure document is supposed to be an honest attempt to predict
and understand the envrronmental nnpacts of a proposed action According to the 1994
Lewusvflle Lake, Texas, Manna Demand Study, fi~l,zed m ]'une, 1994, lake crowding is
sufl~cient to cause both psycholog~ca/and physical concern over the can-ymg capacity of
the lake Common sense clear]y indicates that fi.the water level ~s lower than the 522 feet
used for the determination of carrying capacity, less useable area will exnst No analysis
has been completed m the SEA or PEA regarding the anpact of more boats on Lew~svflle
Lake at tunes when water levels ~re lower than assumed m the can-ymg capacity analysis
Stated otherwuse, no attempt was made to deterrmne the carrying capacuty of the
lake at lower elevations and compare that number to the number of boats (1,112) that
were determined to be allowable (based upon the cmuTmg capacity for the lake at
elewt~on ,522) What is the unpact of operating 1,112 boats at elevation 515~ Or 507?
These drawdowns are not merely conjectur~l They have occurred wtlun the last five
years
Even the Corps' own Development Plan Gmdelmes state "Development must be
planned vath lake elevation vanances m mind," and show as slgmficant lake elevations
515 and 503 According to the Corps' 1985 Lev~svdle Lake Master Plan, the total
surface area of the lake at elevation 515 and 503 is 22,480 acres and 13,360 acres,
respectively At the top of the conservation pool (elevation 522), the total surface area is
reported ,a~ 29,592 acres, w~th only 20,117 acres considered "useable" for boating
acuwtles According to Peter Brown's expert report (a copy ofwluch is enclosed hereto
as Attachment 3), the "useable" surface area at elevation 515 is between 12,000 and
13,000 acres, or approxunately 55% of the total surface area due to emerged tree stumps
at the lower elevations as well as the slope of the lake bottom If55% of the total surface
area is considered "useable", then the useable surface area at elevauons 515 and 503 is
12,364 acres and 7,348 acres, respectively These slgrnficantly smaller "useable" surface
areas were never considered m the SEA or the PEA m calculating lake carrying capacmes
or m evaluating enwronmental nmpacts due to the addmon of more boating focal,ties and
$ 16
mannas Had they been considered, the Corps would have found that ff the carrymg
capamty of the lake is 1,112 boats at elevatmn 522, then at elevation 515, the carrymg
capacity is reduced to 683 boats, and at elevation 503, the carrymg capacity Is further
reduced to 406 boats (at 55*/0 useable surface)
It is both n'responmble and illegal for the Corps to mtentlonally chsregard
informataon directly germane to the analysis smaply because such reformation wall lead to
an unfavorable analysis Such biased action ~s specrfically prohibited byNEPA.
B METI-IODOLOGICAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH CARRYING
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
A second major problem easts wath regard to the carrymg capacity analysis that
was undertaken by the Corps tn the PEA and SEA ut~Imng the lake elevation of 522 feet
The problem is that the Corps altered data and analyses developed by their cormultants
wathout ldent~fymg any basis or source for such moddScatlons NEPA prohibits
conclusory statements that are w~thout a basis m fact or documentation
The concern rased m this subpart is directly related to the determmatlon of the
number of boats that could be "absorbed" by Lewasvdle Lake m the carrying capacity
analysis Accordmg to the PEA. and SEA, a target of 1,112 boats was selected for the
lake as a whole, a number that offers a "median" level of resource protectmn Tbs
number m distributed by allocations m three zones - zones A, B and C Zone A ~s
allocated 631 boats, Zone B ~s allocated 192 boats and Zone C m allocated 289 boats
However, the methodology underlymg this allocation is not defensible
There are two major issues here F~rst, there is a question of the relationship
between exastlng usage patterns on Lew~sv~lle Lake and the carrymg capacity
determmaUons Second, there is the question of the manner m wl~ch the number of boats
wa~ determmed
Based on data collected by Ceo-Mm-me of actual boats on the water m each zone,
the determmaUon was made that the emstmg peak load for the venous zones on the lake
to be 340 - 370 boats m Zone A, 75-80 boats m Zone B and 320-340 boats m Zone C
(based on 1- to 3-hour durations) Ceo-Marme then compared tbas ex,stag boat usage to
the md~v~dual carrymg capacmes for each zone, and concluded that Zone C is at or near
capacity Nomathstandmg ttus emstmg use data and the conclusions of ~ts own
consultant, the Corps made its own subsequent carrymg capacxy analysis and used tbs
subsequent analysis to dlstnbute addmonal boat usage on the lake As a result of ttus
"new" carrymg capacity analysis, the Corps determmed, for example, that Zone C, could
handle an additional 228 boats tn this subsequent allocatmn process No explanation is
given m the SEA of the relatmnsbap between emst~ng use pat-terns showmg Zone C as
already havmg over 300 boats and the determmatIon that Zone C could absorb an
addmonal 228 more boats In fact, on its face, it appears that the addition of another 228
boats would lead to exceedance of the Zone C medmn carrymg capacity of 289 boats (as
well as exceed Zone C's rmmmum resource protectmn level of 383 boats)
t5 17
On the other hand, the ex~stmg use pattern for Zone A ~s 340 to 370 boats
However, the Corps made a determination that there was no more capac:ty m t/ns zone,
even though the carrying capacuty allocation mthcated that 606 boats could use tbs area
(under mmmmm resource protemon) In tins mariner, an area such as Zone A, that
appeared ]~om actual use data to have add,tmnal capacity, was ekrmnated as a me for
future marinas, whereas Zone C, whtch had extensive emstmg usage, was determined to
have room for 228 more boats
There ~s sometlung wrong w~th tins methodology Why are emstmg use patterns
ignored? Why are new allocations made m areas that have extensive e,nstmg usage?
Why are new allocations not allowed m areas vath usage much lower than their capacity?
Why baa the Corps establ, shed Zones when no boater wall remain m its zone regardless
of ongm In other words, the arbitrary zones bear no resemblance to actual lake usage
On its face, ,t appears that the Corps ha~ been arbitrary and capnctous m the assignment
of capacity around the lake NEPA abhors pre-determined answers A NEI~A analys~s ~s
supposed to fully d~sclose the truth and let the dec, stun-maker and the pubhc know that
truth Tbs analys~s fmls as a d~sclosure document
More problems ernst wuth the methodology So far, the chscusslon tn these
comments has been d~rected at boats on the water However, for purposes of the SEA and
I~EA, the number of boats on the water must be related to proposed mannas and boat
ramps and parkm$ spaces The key ~ssue here ~s - what ~s the rano between the boats on
the water and the fac~t~es that etther ex~st now or are proposed to be pernntted?
Here, a d~spanty erasts between the Goo-Marine study, earher drafts of the Geo-
Manne study and the number that ~s finally used by the Corps m the PEA and SEA_
Imtmlly, Goo-Marine used a ratm of 1 boat on the water far each 5 shps, or 1 5 (See Draft
dated 11/98 as Attachment 4 hereto) In the Goo-Marine final report, a ratio of 1 boat on
the wate~ for each 8 shps occupied (1 8) was used In the Corps' PEA and SEA, a ratm
of 1 boat on the water for each 10 shps occupied was used In tbs manner, the number of
boats on the water has stayed the same, but the number of shps to be pemutted has
increased
The point here ~s that there ~s no defens~le bas~s for selecuon of 1 10, other than
~t generates the pro-determined number ofshps The consultant's report does not support
tins number No source for ttus ratm ~s g~ven Yet tbs ratm ~s incredibly anportant If
the ratm ,,s wrong, the actual number of boats on the water could increase substantially
Carrying, capacity calculatmns would be greatly exceeded Substantial safety and human
health problems would result, the very type of ~ssues supposedly addressed m an
enwronmental document such as an env~romnental assessment S~gnuficant tmpacts
would be generated, dmtatmg the need for an en, aronmental anpact statement
Suralarly, the occupancy rate of manna shps was ~denttfied by Goo-Marine to
currently! be at 88% Tbs wa~ a drop l}om the 90-95% rate found m the 1994 Marine
Demand Study GeooMarme projected that the occupancy rate would increase to 100%
7 18
by 2020 ff no new mannas were constructed Yet the Corps adopted 84% as the full
occupancy rate for mannas m its analyses, again w~thout explanatmn or d~scusslon as
reqmred by N-EPA_ If an occupancy rate of I00% is assumed, even at a rauo of 1 8 for
boat shps and dry stack mints, then the currently anthonzed 3,256 shps and dry stack
urnts, combined wuth the 710 parking spaces at boat ramps, would ymld 1,117 boats on
the water, exceeding the Corps' carrying capacity for the lake of 1,112 Thus, any new
authonzatlons for boating fac~ues or mannas should automatically necesmate an
En'aronmental Impact Statement
C DISCLOSURE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH CARRYING CAPACITY
DETERMYNA~ONS
Yet another point ~s relevant regarding these carrying capacity determinations In
the documentatmn associated watk the determmatmn of can-ylng capamty, three levels of
carrying capacity are Identrfied These are maximum resource protection and user
enjoyment, median resource protecUon and user enjoyment and rrnmmum resource
protectmn and user enjoyment However, there ~s hterally no &scussmn about the
meaning of these terms
Stated othervase, the environmental assessment ~s supposed to disclose
mformatmn m an attempt to assist the decIs~on-maker m deterrmnmg whether or not
s~graficant anpacts ernst The presence of slgrmficant anpacts ~s clearly related to these
carrying capacity calculatmns, according to the Corps Consider the followung excerpt
from the PEA
The additional authortzatmn requests [for marinas] from the various enuues
exceed the carrying capacmes m all three zones As a result, the conclusmn of
thas PEA would have been either the selectmn of the no action alternanve Or that
c~.rr~n~ capacities would have been exceeded causln~ s~tmnqcant tmpacts thereby
requmng an En'aronmental Impact Statement (EIS) (PEA, p 67) (Emphas~s
added)
On its face, ttns statement mdmates that exceeding carrying capacity would generate
s~graficant enwronmental tmpacts requmng an EIS However, there is no discussion of
the basis for tins conclusion For example, there is no d~scuaslon of the drfferences, m
terms of tmpact, between maxanum, median and rmmmum resource protection and user
enjoyment We believe that any level of resource protection and user enjoyment less than
maxanum generates substantial tmpacts. At the least, we deserve to be reformed as to
what dflS'erences ernst between these dffi'erent levels of carrying capacity
Enmronmental full &sclosure means that mformatmn is generated dascnbmg
anpacts No mformaUon has been developed that ~dent~fies the dtff'erences m these
various levels of resource protectmn From the documentation, ~t ~s clear that from a
lake-wade perspective, the median level of resource protecuon and user enjoyment was
chosen The maxn-num resource protection level lake-w~de was detemuned to be 7_35
boats, yet 1,112 boats were used for boating perrmt allocation purposes Tlus ~s the
median level of protecUon 1~o explanation ~s g~ven regarding the d~fference between a
max~mura protection level and the medmn level, and the extent to winch the resources to
be proteoted will be nupacted
Perhaps more maportantly, no explanatlon is g~ven regarding the allocations m the
various zones For example, Zone A appears to be overallocated at the lowest level of
resource ,protection The nummum level of resource protection an Zone A ~s 606 boats
(Goo-Marine, Dec 1998, pga 4-8) The procedure used by the Corps m the SEA and the
PEA has projected an exastmg load based on current authorizations at 631 boats 'Cms ~s
a clear exceedance of the mmunum carrying capacity for Zone A* According to the prior
statement, the Corps considers the exceedance of the carrying capacity to generate
slgraficant m~pacts Therefore, on its face, the exceedance m Zone A should reqmre an
EIS Why ~s tins exceedance ignored7 In fact, 606 is not shown as the carrying capacity
for Zone A* Instead, 631 is shown Tins Is a cleaz error
Zone C ,s also very interesting Zone C ~s shown m the SEA and PEA. carrying
capacity charts as having a current usage of 61 boats and a requested authonzauon of an
additional 228 boats, leading to a total of 289, the current median canting capacity Of
course, there is no explanation of what a "median" carrying capacity actually means
B/fore nnportantly, as discussed m section II B above, the measured usage currently
v~thm Zone C is one of the Inghest on the Iake, averaging between 320 and 340 boazs,
rather than the 61 used m Table 1 on p 7 of the SEA. If320 m used rather than 61, the
rrmurnum carrying capacity of 383 wtI1 be substantially exceeded wnh the addmon of
228 more boats as recommended by the SEA_ and the PEA. Such an exceedance should
generate and EIS, based on the PEA, p 67
D ISSUES ASSOCIATED VffiTIt MTBE AND I-IYI)ROCARBON
CONTAM/NATION
A,,~other fatal defect of the PEA. and SEA is the consideration of water quahty
~ssues Boating and mannas necessarily generate pollution Mannas sell gasoline to
boats m the water Boat owners may transfer fuel and work on their boats The reahty ~s
that spills and leaks of gasoline occur m mannas Perhaps more maportantly, there is a
d~rect relatlonsinp between the operation of outboard and inboard motors and pollutant
discharge Two-cycle engines are notorious sources of water pollution It ~s well known
that thes~ outboard motor engines d~rectly discharge gasohne and off residuals into the
water where the boats are operated
The first flaw of the SEA. ~s that there ~s no discussion of the generation of
pollutants from mannas and boat usage There is no quant~icat~on of the ermsslons from
two-cycle engines There ,s no discussion of manna sp~lls There is no attempt made to
understand m any real sense the magratude of the water quahty issues that may ex:st at
Lev~swlle Lake ~ftins water-related development is allowed
The most noticeable aspect of the PEA relative to water quahty ~s ~ts d~sclmmer
9 20
"A detailed study and analysis of water qughty data is beyond the scope of tins
PEA." (PEA, p 11)
The SEA_ does state that water quahty conmderanons were input into the carrying
capacity detemunanons that were estabhshed for Lew~sv~lle Lake Tbas statement does
not have any support Our re~aew of the supporting documentation indicates that water
quahty constderatlons were certmnly not taken into account m any quantnat~ve manner
There is no defensible basis for stating that water quahty was incorporated into the
carrying capacity analysis, and there ~s no explanation or discussion m the SEA or the
PEA_ as to how tins was done
A. major pollutant of concern here is Methyl Teraary Butyl Ether (MTBE)
MTBE is present m Lev~svile Lake It has been measured at concentrations as bagh as
16 7 ppb under current use patterns on Lew~svflle Lake Although a number of
statements have been made m the SEA. to the effect that there is no problem associated
with the proposed increased levels of boating tra~c and mannas, no qummficanon exasts
No documentanon exasts The only reference included m the SEA is a "personal
commumcat~on" w~th the U S Environmental Protection Agency
"The estabhshrnent of a carrying capacity on Lew~svflle Lake took into
cons~deration ~mpacts to water quahty as a result of Increased numbers of vessels
Personal commumcanon vath the EPA, Region 6, Water Quahty Section
determined that the increase of 274 vessels on the lake per the USACE policy
would not be expected to increase the levels ofMTBE m the water over the 20 to
40 ppb ident~ed by the EPA. to have the potential to cause adverse taste and
smell It has therefore been determined that there would not be sigmficant
adverse mapacts to the water quahty of Lew~swlle Lake from nnplementat~on of
the proposed acuons, except on a temporary baas" SEA, p 13-14
There is no documentation to support th~s statement of commumcatlon vath the U S
Enwronmental Protection Agency D~d the EPA use a proportional methodology9 D~d
the EPA. take into account sp~lls from the mannas to be authorized here? What exactly
did the EPA undertake m ~ts analysis? None of tl~s reformation is set out and it should
be
The msue regarding MTBE relates to dnnkang water quality and contact
recreation Lev~swlle Lake m a major water supply lake for the cities of Denton and
Dallas The existence of an MTBE sample of 16 7 ppb is very serious The EPA. is
stated to have considered an increase of 274 boats However, that is not the true mcrease
because certain capacity has already been authorized but not yet used The actual
capacity increase over current use patterns, according to the SEA and PEA, is 376 boats
rather than 274 The current use of the lake is 736 boats Since the MI'BE
concentrations are d~rectly related to boat traffic, then the increase to be analyzed m the
SEA is effectxvely a 51% increase A 51% increase m MTBE levels, m tins worst case
sltuatlon~ would add 8 4 ppb of MTBE to the lake, making the level at ttus location 25 1
ppb Th~s level would exceed the odor and taste threshold established by the EPA mud
10 2 1
generate sagnfficant mapacts, especially since tkts Iocauon as the City of Denton water
retake (see Attachment 1, l~bat Bedlent's expert report)
The point here is that the MTBE issue as serious and generates s~graficant
Lmpacts The conclusory nature of the SEA ~s sunply unacceptable The reason to
prepare an EIS is to fully discuss and disclose issues such as tbas MTBE concern There
is a tremendous potential for harm here and the dlscussmn and disclosure is inadequate
For example, how was MTBE conmdered m the caring capacity ca/culataon, ff at ally
What concentration of MTBE ~s predicted m the zone tf the pernuts are ~ssued as
proposed? Consider the folIowmg excerpts from Dr Bedaenfs report
1 Current EPA standards call for MTBE levels below a taste and odor
standard of 20 to 40 lag/L Cakforma, however, has estabhshed an MCL for
MTBE of 13 gg/L, and a secondary taste and odor MCL of $ lag/L(Cahforma
DFIS, 2000) Research has shown that the taste and odor threshold for sensitive
md~wduals is around 2 gg/L (Keller et al, 1998) Texas acknowledges a taste
and odor threshold of 15 lag/L (TNRCC web s~te)
2 The ex~stmg boating load on Lewasvflle Lake is 736, (from Table 1 of the
EA) Thas load has already resulted m MTBE levels that occastonally exceed
the primary Cahforma dnnkmg water standards, and routinely exceed the
Caltforma taste and odor standards Expected increases m boating load,
including already permatted but not bmlt expansaon (102 boats) and new
expansaon under the proposed development plan (274 boats) would add a total
o£376 boats to the lake at peak usage, assuming that the estanates are correct
Tins represents an increase of 51% m the usage levels of the lake As seen m
the d~scuss~on of the observed boating patterns, the distnbutmn of boats on the
lake does net correspond w~th the number of dockmggooat ramp facfliUes
Therefore, one can assume that a 50% increase tn the number of boats on the
lake would increase the usage throughout Zones A and C even/y Tbas
increase would reasonably be expected to result tn a proportaonal increase tn
the MTBE levels m the lake, wtuch could result tn levels of 25 I~g/L or lugher
During tames of lower lake levels, the smaller volume of the lake would be
expected to result ua hgher ¢oncentraUons of MTBE, due to reduced dilution
3 MTBE levels tn Le~nsv'dle Lake are reaching levels of concern, and
tncreased boattng on the lake w,21 serve to increase those levels Due to usage
of the lake for water supply purposes, substantial trnpacts to those dnnlang
water from the lake are expected to occur In my opwaon, the analysis of
MTBE certainly warrants full disclosure tn an ElS
SITE SI~ECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSM~ENT DEFICIENCIES
In addmon to lake-w~de issues, there are enwromnental issues and mapacts
generated by lndawdual mannas that are proposed to be located on the Lew~svflle Lake
In the SEA, three distinct manna locations are identified, including one manna at
I1 22
Cottonwood Park and another manna at I-~dden Cove The persons on whose behalf
these comments are subrmtted hve m or near F~ddler's Green, a resldentml subdl'aslon
directly across fiom Cottonwood ?ark and near to Hidden Cove They are seriously
concerned about en,~-ronmental m~pacts occurring m their commumty as a result of the
manna locatmnal dec~slom tmphc~t m the SEA.
The problem wxth the SEA is that no - repeat no - s~te speczfic en,aronmental
~npact analyms wa~ undertaken It is n-nposslble to deterrmne whether ~mpacts are
s~graflcant or not ffno analysis ~s presented The residents of Fiddler's Green submt that
it ~s wrespons~ble and arbitrary and capncmus for the Corps to determine there are no
s~gnfficant impacts assocmted w~th the SEA and the proposed Mannas when, m fact, no
factual or analytmal bas;s exists for those decisions
In the paragraphs that follow, three slte-speczfic ~ssues are presented These are
noise, water quality and land use The residents of Ftddler's Green beheve each of these
areas to raise serious trnpacts that were not considered m the SEA and that ffthese were
correctly analyzed, s~graficant mpacts would result
A. NOIS]~ IMPACTS
The SEA fmls to &sclose the potentially s~gr~icant no~se anpacts to the
commumty of Fiddlers Green assocmted vnth the proposed development of nearby
mannas Indeed the analys~s presented m the SEA merely says that 'qt ~s especially
dr~cult to predict no~se levels ~om boats " d ~t ~s not anticipated that these proposed
projects would result m s~gnflScant noise anpact"
To the contrary, the attached report from Collaboratmn tn Science and
Technology Inc (CSTI) (Attachment 5) details the following noise sources that may
anpaet residences and people at Fiddlers Green
Car traffic on shore at manna,
Social act~mt~es on shore at manna,
General commereml act~wtles at park (gas, groceries, restaurant, boat sermces,
Boat ser~ce and mmntenance actlmt~es at park (hoisting, sanding, dust collectors,
etc ),
Constructaon nmse (dredl~ng, cutting stumps, constructmn of docks, etc ),
Boat traffic to fiom and around manna (boat ramp, manna and commercml
ms~tora, etc )
Furthermore, CST~ explains that ~t ~s not espec~y d~t~cult to predic~ nmse levels fiom
boats For ~ample, measuring sound levels near an ems~mg m~a-ma at a comparable
location could determine potable ~pacts ~t would ~so be possable to pre&ct ~pacts
by measunng the nmse fiom ~fferent types of boats at a fixed distance, determining
future &stances fi:om boat traffic to anpact roes, deterrramng future m~xes of boats and
then calculating no,se levels at the ~rnpact shes ~ad nmse impacts been properly
12 2 3
assessed, mgraficant noise n'npact~ on the residences and people at Fiddlers Green are
probable Not only is the proposed marina at Cottonwood Park hkely to produce a
mgn~cam noise ~mpact at the Fiddlers Green commuraty, the proposed marina is hkely
to dramatically increase boat traffic passing m front of Fiddlers Green and force other
boats closer to ~e Fiddlers Green area Ths addmonal boat traffic will generate more
noise mupacts to Fiddlers Green
Appendix D to the SEA (letter from The Colony) locates the proposed Hidden
Cove Manna on the same side of the lake channel as F~ddlers Green Tlus manna ~
also add nmse anpacts and compound the nmse anpacts fi-om Cottonwood l~ark marina
on the Fiddlers Green commumty A comprehenmve nmse study should have been
conducted prior to a proposed Finding of No SignuScant Impact by the Corps of
Engineers
B WATER QIJALITY IMI:~ACTS
The proposed Cottonwood Park Manna is d~rectly across the lake channel from
the commumty of Fiddlers Green mud the proposed Hidden Cove Manna is on the same
side of the lake channel dn'ectly west of Fiddlers Green Cottonwood Park is one of the
largest mannas and as proposed, ,mil accommodate 840 wet shps, dry storage and a boat
ramp wath accompanying parking for cars I-D. dden Cove wall accommodate 350 wet
slips, boat ramp and 25 parking spaces No real analysis has been undertaken on the
mapacts of these mannas on the water quahty d~rectly adjacent to the Fiddlers Green
commumt'y
Between February, 1999 and Februa~, 2000, water samples were taken and
analyzed for MTBE on Lewes-nile Lake by Anne Lee at the Umvermty of North Texas
No samples were taken m Zone C where the proposed Cottonwood Park Manna and the
proposed Hidden Cove Manna would be located No base line mformatnon is therefore
avatlable about MTBE levels m Zone C Furthermore, no analysis has been undertaken
to determine the potential for sod erosion and runoff of pollutants such as fuel and off,
and there ts no analysts of the effect of the operatmn of boats or angme exhaust on water
quahty m the v~ctmty of these manna The sample locatmns that were taken near boats
ramps or marma~ showed tugher concentrations due to boat traffic at that pamcular
location Addmonally, according to the attached expert report by Dr PM Bedtent,
MrBE levels appear to have an mmual cycle, increasing m the summer w~th increased
boat usage m the lake Accordingly one would expect increased levels of MTBE from
boat tra~¢ to occur m the mcauty of Cottonwood Park, Hidden Cove and Fiddlers
Green However, no analysis was performed and a Finding of No Slgntficant Impact ts
totally inappropriate
C LAND USE IMPACTS
The anpact to the commumty of Fiddlers Green from a "land use" perspecuve
from the Cottonwood Park Manna and l~dden Cove Manna also has not been adequately
analyzed m the SEA. Specrfically, the ~mpact from these mannas on Fiddlers Green ts
13 24
related to sa.few issues, noise issues (as chscussed above m secmon HTA), visual bhght,
and lowered property values
The background mater:als for the SEA (PEA and Geo-Malune Report 1998)
indicate that Zone C m already over capacu~ f'or boats and often exceeds its carrying
capacity at both mammum and median levels of' resource protection (PS 4-1 of' Goo-
Marine Report, Dec, 1998) The addmon of' the proposed marinas wSl further add to
that over capacity
It is also our understanding that the lake area m front of';Flddlers Green is one of'
the few areas of'Lew~sv~le Lake clear of' stumps, and therefore a very popular spot £or
water-sknng The addmon o£ 840 shps at the Cottonwood Manna and 350 shps at
Hidden Cove Manna w~ll negatively trnpact th~s popular area by addms slgmficant boat
tra~c The ~pact on the residents and boaters of Fiddlers Green as well as the u-npact to
the water skang population has not even been discussed m the SEA~
The SEA robes on the Master Plan for Lew~sv~e Lake to justff7 a conclusion that
there will be no land use mapact/~om the mannas That the Master PIan designates the
sites as "future mtenmve recreation" ~s totally rmsleadmg and inaccurate The master
plan proposes oniy a boat launch and day use carnpmg for the Cottonwood Park area
There is a, substantial d~fference between a large cornmerc~al manna and a park, as far as
land use is concerned Parks eon be configured and designed to manmuze adverse
mapacts to surrounding areas through the use of addmonal roadways, visual screens and
buffers and locating campgrounds m wooded areas and play fields away f~om resldenual
subdivisions Such buffering of vessels or boats is not feasible m manna design See
attached Expert Report by Peter F/ Brown, AICP for further planning and land use
m-formation
It is our understanding that the design of the proposed Cottonwood Park Manna
contemplates ~e break-waters, wbach wall be clearly visible f~om the Fiddlers Green
commumty ~deed, Attachment ~ shows Phase IA and ~3 of the proposed Cottonwood
Park manna superimposed on a survey performed by Gregory Schon~ AL& (See
comments subrmtted by the McEnt~re Fanuly for Mr Schon% report) Note that the
proposed manna for 251 slips leaves barely a channel between it and Fiddlers Green
The ttre breakwater m proposed along the en~e length of the manna f~om west to east on
the schematic (ua a hne equivalent to the hne above the desxgnauons "no, Rev~slon
Descnpuo~, Date" ere to "Cottonwood Creek Manna") No analysis of tbas visual
~pact has,been undertaken m the SEA.
Another u-nportant unpact that has not been evaluated in the SEA. ~s the effect of
large commercml marinas on resldenUal property values in the nearby vacmaty The
homes m Fiddlers Green are valued between $100,000 and $750,000, due at least m some
part to the ldylhc location on lake ~ont property The mapact from adding a large
commercial manna d~rectly across f~om thru subdlvismn or adjacent to the comrnumty
should have been analyzed ua the SEA but wasn't The econormc mapacts of large new
mannas are significant and the SEA is ua error by fmlmg to disclose these impacts
14 2 5
IV. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it is the poslt~on of the Fiddler's Green commenters that the SEA is
tot~lly inadequate under the National Environmental Pohcy A~t In fac% the SEA makes
a mockery of the/fi]EPA process as well as both the letter and sprat of the Act The idea
behind NEPA is that enwronmental consequences are to be considered m envxronmental
declsmn-makmg An enwronmental assessment is used to help an agency determine
whether a proposed acaon will generate significant ~mpacts or not If mgmficant nupacts
wffl result ~om a proposed a~on, then a more detmled environmental ~npact statement
must be prepared Thas law is well-settled The practice is well-settled
The courts have been clear as to the intent ofNEPA_ NEPA does not prevent bad
decisions but only poorly reformed decisions If the environmental ~'npacts are fully
chsclosed, then actions that harm the enwronment may proceed The courts are clear,
however, that NEPA does not allow pre-detemnned results to be tariffed by pm'trolly
completed disclosures The agency ha~ dlscreuo% but only after fully understanding and
disclosing the mapacts of the proposed action
Such disclosure has not occurred m the case of the decisions on Lew~svalle Lake
water-related recreational development Ftrst, the agency has failed to fully explore and
consider the types of nupacts that may be generated by thus proposed acuon There is no
serious analysis of lake-w~de unpacts regarding carrying capacity and MTBE levels
There is no serious analysis of site speczSc mapacts of manna development regarding
noise, MTBE levels and land use Wkhout a senous mvesugat~on of these Issues, It is
tmposslble to make a determanatlon as to whether or not slgmficant umpacts will result
fi.om these proposed actmns That is a vxolatlon of one of the primary requu:ements of
NEPA~
However, there are more problems than disclosure problems It seems clear fi.om
the analysis of canymg capacity and water quality set out m these comments and the
attached expert reports that significant enwronmenml n-npacts will result fi.om t/us
proposed development In Zone A, the mmtmum can3ang capacuty has been exceeded,
thereby tnggenng s~gmficant mapacts by the Corps own admasslons MTBE levels far m
excess of taste and odor thresholds set by the State of Texas will occur There ~s no
discussion of the Texas taste and odor levels m the SEA, a clear v~olatlon of NF, PA.
However, there is clear ewdence that these thresholds are being exceeded currently, and
will be worsened by addltmnal boat traffic Those mapacts are surely slgmficant
The persons on whose behalf tbas pubhc comment is filed strongly assert that data
has been ormtted Carrying capacity has been rmsstated Simple, stra~ghrforw~rd
analyses have been neglected Important issues have been ignored
Tbs is one of the worst types of NEPA v~olauons - an arbitrary disregard of
issues and concerns to the dement of the public health and welfare We urge the Corps
to put tbas flawed SEA. behnd and conduct an honest full disclosure analys~s of the
15 26
mapacts of putting more marma~ and boats on a lake that has been described as
overcrowded and dangerous and that supphes dnnklng water for the C~nes of Denton and
Dallas Suck an analyms is nothing less than the duty of the Corps under the laws of the
Urated States
Respectfully subrmt~ed,
BLACIK~URaN CARTER, P C
2900 Weslayan, State 400
I-Iouston, Texas 77027
(713) 524-1012
(713) 524-5165 (fa:c)
16 27
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE' January 9, 2001
DEPARTMENT Utd~ty Adrmmstrat~on
ACM: Howard Marhn, Assistant Ctty Manager/Ut~ht~es ~
SUBJECT
Receive a presentatmn, hold a chscussion and give staff d~rcct~on regarding Phase II of
the Natmnal Pollution Discharge Ehmmatmn System (NPDES) Storm Water Program
(Program) and ~ts ~mpact on the C~ty of Denton
BACKGROUND
Thc Clean Water Act (CWA), authorized m 1972, originally focused on ~mprowng water
quahty by reducing pollutants from pmnt sources, primarily d~scharges of industrial
wastewater and mumc~pal wastewater However, the Enwronmental Protection Agency
(EPA) soon reahzed that ~mprovmg point sources was insufficient, non pmnt sources
would also have to be addressed to meet water quahty standards
Storm water runoff from large surface areas, both urban and agricultural areas, ~s a d~rect
result of land d~sturbance In the case of urban runoff, ~mperv~ous surfaces replace
formerly pervmus areas, ehm~nat~ng the natural filtration system and ~ncreas~ng
pollutants such as hydrocarbons (especmlly from parkang lots and streets) and
sedimentation from constructmn projects The EPA describes storm water as follows
When ~t rains or snows, the water that runs off c~ty streets, parking lots, and
constructmn s~tes can wash sedwnent, od, grease, toxins, pathogens, and other
pollutants ~nto nearby storm drains Once the pollutmn has entered the sewer
system, ~t ~s d~scharged - untreated - into local streams and waterways Known
as storm water runoff, th~s pollution ~s a leadzng threat to publ~c health and the
enwronment today (EPA-833-F-99-020, emphases added )
In 1987, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to regulate storm water thscharges The
EPA developed a comprehensive two-phased national program Phase I of the Program
reqmred penmts for (hscharges assocmted w~th ~ndustnal act~wty such as construction
projects d~sturbmg 5 or more acres Phase I also included mummpaht~es of 100,000 or
more w~th separate storm water systems
Despite the many efforts to reduce the negative n~pacts of storm water runoff, a 1996
national water quahty ~nventory ~nchcated that of the water bodms ~n the Umted Sates that
do not meet water quality standards, 40% were ~mpmred primarily because of polluted
storm water runoff Consequently, m 1998, the EPA proposed Phase II of the Program
for mumclpaht~es w~th a population of less than 100,000 For those cities, hke Denton,
that fall under Phase II of the program, the cities must (1) prohibit llhclt discharges
through orrhnances, (2) develop and ~mplement a regulatory program to address
construction site runoff, and (3) develop programs to m~nlmlze storm water runoff from
new development In addition, storm water famht~es owned by a mun~c~pahty (such as
vehicle mamtenance facilities) must have a permit in place by March 10, 2003
Staff will dtscuss the requirements of the Phase II Storm Water Program and the
assomated costs for the C~ty of Denton
Respectfully submitted
F~xronmental Compliance Manager
Exhibit I Video Presentation
Powerpoint Presentatton
2
3
5
· · · · · ·
10
11
13
14
18
17
18
19
20
22
23
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE' January 9, 2001
DEPARTMENT' Fire Department
/J
CNUACM' Jon Fortune, Assistant City Manager~'~
SUBJECT:
Receive a report, hold a d~scussmn and g~ve Staff d~rectmn regarding the process to select
an architect to design the new Central Fire Station
BACKGROUND:
Staff w~ll make a recommendatmn on the select~on of an architect/engineer for the design
of the new Central Fire Statmn to the City Council on February 6, 2001 Prior to that
meeting, Staffwould hke to use ttus work session to rewew the events of the past several
months and update the City Council on the C~ty's select~on process of an
architect/engineer The work session also presents an opportumty to answer questions
and receive any further d~rectmn before going forward w~th the design process Because
of theiunlqueness of th~s project and the h~gh expectations of the Commumty for th~s
project, Staff feels strongly that the City Council should be updated and kept apprmsed of
the status of the Central F~re Station pro.lect
"Old" Central Fire Station:
Enwronmental tests conducted between March 8 and March 23, 2000, indicated the
presence of a potentially dangeruus mold called stachybotrys While most molds and
mdd~ws can exhibit some level of health hazard, staehybotrys m considered to have a
greatgr potential for adverse health affects When the tests were received by the C~ty, and
as a precautmnary measure, the City Manager elected to ~mmedmtely evacuate and close
the operatmns s~de (south s~de of braiding) of Central F~re Station on the afternoon of
April 4, 2000
Over ,the next few weeks, consultants continued to gather samples from Central Fire
Statmn The laboratory results &these samples mdmated that the stachybotrys mold
~nfes~atlon was prevalent throughout the bmldmg Comprehensive enmronmental tests
revealed extension of the mold throughout both s~des of the bmldmg The north side
(previously Fire Admlmstratmn) of Central was then ~mmedmtely cl°sed Fortunately,
the apparatus bays showed no ewdence of mold Because the mold cannot be easily
contained or ~mmedlately remedlated, we have elected to keep the bmldmg, with the
exceptmn of the apparatus bays, closed until remedmt~on ~s completed Factht~es
Management has primary control over the locked port~ons of the bmldmg as a precaution
to reentry by others, including firefighters
Page 1
The firefighters are temporarily housed in a leased 2,800 square foot facihty next to
Central which was a day care center ~mmedmtely prior to our occupancy Th~s bmld~ng
prowdes adequate temporary hv~ng and trmmng accommodations for the firefighters
They can still respond from the apparatus bays at old Central which provides security and
protection from the constantly changing Texas weather for the apparatus
A committee made up of Commumty members and C~ty Staff has been formed to look at
possible options for the old Central ~n lieu of demohsh~ng the bmld~ng These options
will be brought to the C~ty Council for dlscussmn in the first quarter of 2001
Proposed Options.for a "New" Central
There were three optmns (Attachment #1) proposed to the C~ty Council and Commumty
m regards to the future of Central F~re Station (1) remediate the mold at Central and
then renovate the ex~stmg structure, (2) remedmte mold at Central then demohsh the
structure and rebmld a fire statmn at another location m the downtown area, or, (3)
remedmte mold at Central then demohsh the structure and rebuild a fire station at the old
steam plant located at H~ckory and Bell which ~s already owned by C~ty
A survey (Attachment #2) was developed and d~stnbuted to the Commumty, especmlly to
the Downtown area and h~stoncal groups The survey results overwhelmmg (82%)
endorsed option #3 In add~tmn, Staff made presentatmns at several Commumty
meetings, ~neludmg the Greater Denton Arts Council, Denton H~stoncal Landmark
Commission and Mam Street Board On August 17, 2000, an open Commumty meeting
was held to present mformat~on to the Commumty and receive input from attendees The
C~ty's press release ~s attached
After hstenmg to the Commumty and weighing the advantages and d~sadvantages of each
optmn, the C~ty Council approved the funding of Option #3 ~n the F~scal Year budget
2000/2001
Design Process for "New" Central Fire Station.
After the dec,stun by the C~ty Council to proceed w~th converting the old power plant
into a new Central F~re Station, Staffhas mmated the design phase as follows
1 Staff developed a Request for Sealed Proposals (Attachment #4), whmh was
reviewed by Purchasing and Factht~es Management prior to finahzat~on Th~s
Request for Sealed Proposals (RFSP) was then sent out to 31 vendors
(Attachment #5) broken down by C~ty (number of firms) as follows
Denton = 6 firms
Dallas = 14 firms
Ft Worth = 2 firms
Carrollton = 2 firms
Plano= 2 firms
Lew~svflle, Garland, McKlnney, Add~son, Arhngton = 1 firm each
Page 2
The RFSP was also advertised on October 18 and 22, 2000
2 On November 7, 2000, the C~ty received 11 proposals from architects
(Attachment #6) for the design of Central broken down by City (number of firms)
as follows
Denton = 1 firm
Dallas -- 7 firms
Arlington = 1 firm
Carrollton = 1 firm
Garland = 1 firm
3 The 11 proposals were evaluated by Fire Chief Ross Chadwick, Facilities
Management Director Bruce Henlngton, Assistant City Manager Jon Fortune and
Purchasing Department representative Denise Harpool The following criteria
was used to evaluate each proposal w~th the goal of selecting four finalists
Proposer's business location in the City of Denton = 20%
Proposer's previous successful project history with pubhc facilities and
especially fire station desxgn and construction = 30%
~ Proposer's previous successful project h~story with the preservation of
historical bmldlngs = 20%
~' Qualification of the Proposer and ability to perform the work = 20%
~' Creative approach = 10%
This evaluation resulted in the selection of four firms for a final interview
James Kirkpatriek
Wiginton, Hooker, Jaffary
Dallas
Randall Soott
Dallas
Brown, Reynolds, Watforfl
Dallas
4 An Interview Committee made up of Fire Chief Ross Chadwick, Facilities
Management Director Brace Hemngton, Assistant City Manager Jon Fortune,
Page 3
Main Street Coordinator Juhe Glover and Purchasing Department representative
Christy Sklrchak interviewed each finalist on November 29, 2000
During the one-hour interview, each firm was given the chance to make a
presentation and then the following questmns were asked of each firm
What expertence do you have bmldmg fire stattons?
What are some of the untque destgn concerns for fire stattons 9
Have you ever converted another butldmg/facthty tnto afire statton ~
What expertence do you have preserving htstortcal butldmgs ?
What do you thtnk of the old power plant stte as afire statton stte?
Whatproblems doyouforesee converttng the oldpowerplant tnto afire
statton?
What tnteractton do you thtnk ts necessary wtth the Communtty? Htstortcal
Landmark Commtsston/Greater Denton Arts Counctl? Ftrefighters? Ftre
Admtntstratton Stafj0 How do you propose butldtng thts tnput mto the destgn
of thts project ~
Who do you constder your chent/or chents durtng the destgn phase ~
What do you see as the best process for the destgn of thts project?
What are your firm's greatest strengths tn relatton to thts type of destgn ~
What are your firm's greatest weaknesses tn relatton to thts type of destgn ?
What ts your top prtortty during the Constructton Phase of a project ~
Why would the Ctty of Denton htre yourfirm over other A/Efirms ?
The Committee reached a unanimous conclusion on the top rated architectural
firm
4 Staff is negotiat~ng a contract with the top ranked firm The proposed contract
will go to the C~ty Council for approval scheduled for the February 6, 2001
meeting The following ~s the Stafft~mehne to get this proposal to the C~ty
Council on February 6, 2001
12/15/2000 Proposed contract sent to firm
1/3/2001 Receipt of contract proposal back from firm
Page 4
1/4/2001 Stafftargets and objectives
1/9/2001 Negotmtlons
1 / 10/2001 Request best and final offer
1/11/2001 Best and final offer back from architect
1/11&1/12/2001 Prepare award documents
1/12/2001 Award documents to Legal
1/22/2001 Post caption for February 6, 2001 agenda
2/6/2001 City Councd meeting for approval
002 Conned Updates on Central:
Over the past several months, Staffhas updated the City Council on Central Fire Station
by way of Monthly Major Project Updates (Attachment #7)
FISCAL INFORMATION:
The C~ty Council approved bond funds to complete this project in the F~scal Year
2000/2001 budget
Respectfully Submitted
Ross Chadwick
F~re Chief
Attachments
1 Central Fire Station Options
2 Central Fire Statton Survey
3 Central Fire Station Press Release
4 Request For Sealed Proposals
5 Architect's Vendor L~st
6 Architects Making Proposals
7 City Councd Major ProJect Updates - Central Ftre Station
8 Overvtew of Design Process
Page 5
Attachment # I
CENTRAL FIRE STATION OPTIONS SUMMARY
OPTION #1: RENOVATE THE EXISTING CENTRAL FIRE STATION
($2, 75B,507)
· TIME: Majority of plans oompleted. Ouickest to implement.
Negatives
· WATER: Elimination cannot be guaranteed.
· MOLD: Elimination cannot be guaranteed
· LIMITED SITE: Too small - not enough parking
· BUILDING LIMITATIONS: No room for Admin - poor design.
· COST: If Admin offices are included in cost it is barely less than #3
· PUBLIC IMAGE: Little that can be done to improve.
OPTION #2: CONSTRUCT A NEW CENTRAL FIRE STATION ON NEW SITE
($3,8~4,350)
Positives
· IMAGE: Opportunity to create state of the art facility.
· LOCATION: Opportunity to pick optimum location
· SITE: Allows Fire Admin on site.
· PARKING: Development of 62-car parking lot at old Central site.
· TIME: Longest option to complete
· COST: Most costly option.
OPTION #3: CONVERT THE DIESEL GENERATOR SITE O HICKORY/BELL
($3,002,850)
· FIDUCIARY: Retrofit of existing City building
· TIME: Site owned by City and faoility partly existing.
· IMAGE: Maintain history but create first class facility.
· PARKING: Development of 62-car parking lot at old Central site.
· BUILDING: Historical status with building brought baok to life.
· COST: Significantly less than #2, slightly more than #1
· SITE: Better location than old Central. Allows Fire Admin on site.
· BUILDING: Not conducive as drive through station.
· UNKNOWNS: Asbestos, lead paint, underground tank????
Central F~re Station Opttona by Calvert & Co/Architects, Inc, July 11, 2000
7
Attachment # 2
THE CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL
REOUESTS COMMENT~ REGARDING CENTRAL FIRE STATION
The C~ty of Denton's Central F~re Station was closed ~n Aprd 2000 due to the d~scovery of a mold which ~s
considered a potential health hazard Because of the extent of the mold and underground water at Central
Fire Station, extensive renovations are necessary to reopen the fire station The C~ty Councd must now
make a dec~s~0n on the future location of a f~re station ~n the downtown area They are requesting pubhc
comments which wdl assist them ~n the dec,sion making process The City Council wdl be considering
three (3) options on the future of Central F~re Station
"OPTION #1 RENOVATE THE EXISTING CENTRAL FIRE STATION - Est.mated Cost of
$2.755.507
Th~s option fixes the mold and water problems (however w~th no guarantees) and makes extensive
renovations to the ~ntenor The renovation plans are already completed so the t~me to accomphsh th~s
option is the quickest However, there ~s hmited parking space and Rre Administration Offices must be
located elsewhere
a OPTION #2' CONSTRUCT A NEW CENTRAL FIRE STATION ON NEW SITE - Estimated Cost
of $3.844.350
Th~s option demohshea the axlst~ng Central and budds a new Central Station ~n the downtown area at a
s~te to be determined Th~s ~s the most costly of the options but budds a state of the art facd~ty and
locates F~re Administration Offices ~n the facd~ty It allows for a new 62 car parking lot at the s~te of
the old Central
· OPTION IS: CONVERT THE DIESEL GENERATOR SITE O HICKORY/BELL - Est.mated Cost
of $3.002.850
Th~s option demolishes the ex~stmg Central and converts the h~stoncal power plant already owned by
the City of Denton at the corner of H~ckory and Bell ~nto a fire station Th~s option ~ncludes a commumty
room and locates Fire Admlmstrat~on Offices m the fac~hty It also allows for a new 62 car parking lot
at the s~te of the old Central
pLI=_~_R~ TAKE THE TIME TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING.
Wh,ch Opt,on do you prefer? Please check one of the follow,ng
[~] Option ,1 ~-~ Option #2 [] Option ,3
Why do you Prefer that Option~
What Makes Th,s S,te Important to Your
For further mformat~on on Centra) F~re Station see the C~ty of Denton's web s~te, www c~tyofdenton corn or
cable TV access Channel 26 or contact F~re Chief Ross Chadwick at 940 349 8101 or emad him at
ERChadw~@cltyofdenton corn
Attachment # 3
Auguot I0. ~000
Central Fire Station Page I of 2
Public Information Office 215 E McKlnneT, Denton, Texas 76201
August 10, 2000 John Cabrales Jr
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Public Informatmn Officer
(940) 349-8509 Office
(940) 349-8596 Fax
E-mad Jlcabral(~,,clt¥ofdenton com
Denton City Council Requests Comments Regarding Central Fire Station
The City of Denton Central Fire Station was closed in April 2000 when indoor air
quality evaluations indicated the presence of stachybotrys mold, which is considered a
potential health hazard Because of the extent of the presence of the mold and the
underground poohng of water at Central Fire Station, extensive renovations are necessary
before ~t can be reopened The C~ty Council ts currently explonng three options that will
allow our Central F~re Station to remain ~n the central bus~ness dmtnct so that emergency
response t~mes are not adversely affected They are requesting pubhc comments which
will assist them in the demsmn making process
A pubhc meeting will be held on Thursday, August 17, at 6 00 p m, in the
Council Chambers, 215 E McKanney At th~s meeting the Denton F~re Department w~ll
present information on the three options being considered for the future of the Central
Fire Station Citizen comments w~ll be gathered and forwarded to the C~ty Councd
C~tlzens can also give there ~nput by filling out a Citizen Survey located at the City of
Denton web site at www c~tvofdenton eom, or by p~cklng up a survey at the following
pubhe bmld~ngs C~ty Hall, City Hall East, C~ty Hall West, City Hall in the Mall, any F~re
Station, all Recreation Centers, and both Libraries
ADA/EOE/ADEA www cltyofdenton corn (TDD 800-735-2989)
11
Central ,F~re Station Page 2 of 2
Tl~e following options are being considered The first option considers the renovation
of thel existing Central Fire Station This option attempts to fix the mold and water
problems by making extensive renovations to the inter, or of the Central Fire Station
These renovation plans are already completed so this has the shortest completion time-
line of all the options proposed However, limited parking space will continue to be an
issue and the Fire Administration Offices must continue to be located elsewhere The
estimated cost of this option is $2,755,507
Option two considers the construct a new Central Fire Station at a new yet to be
determined location This option calls for the demolishing of the existing Central Fire
Station and building of a new station somewhere in the central business district This is
the most costly of all the options but it allows the Fire Department to build a state of the
art fa¢lhty that will also house the Fire Administration Offices m the faclhty This option
also allows for a new parking lot to be created at the site of the old Central Fire Station
The estimated cost of this option is $3,844,350
The final option proposes the conversion of the abandoned Diesel Generator Site at
Hickory Street and Bell Avenue This historical power plant is owned by the City of
Denton thus a land purchase would not be required This option calls for a community
room, and the Fire Administration Offices to be housed within this facility Like option
two, this option also calls for the demohtlon of the existing Central Fire Station and
conversion of that site into a parking lot The estimated cost of this option is $3,002,850
For more Information please contact Fire Chief Ross Chadwick at (940) 349-
8101 lot email him at ERChadwi~eitvofdenton.eom
ADA/EOE/ADEA www CltVofdenton eom (TDD 800-735-2989)
12
Attachment # 4
FOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
RSFP # 2579
ARCHITECTUAL SERVICES FOR
CONVERSION OF BELL STREET POWER
PLANT TO CENTRAL FIRE STATION
/
of
BID OPENING DATE: 11-7-2000
BY 2:00 P.M.
Prepared by: Fire Department
14
NOTICE TO VENDORS
Proposals will be received by the City of Denton, Texas at the office of the Purchasing Agent prior to
2 00 p m, November 7, 2000 for the following
RSFP #~ 2579-Architectural Services for Conversion of Bell Street Power Plant
to Central Fire Station
Quahfied prospective suppliers my obtain copies of the proposal w~th mformat~on at the office of the
Purchasing Agent, located at 901-B Texas Street, Denton, Texas 76201 in the Service Center
complex
The City of Denton, Texas reserves the right to reject or accept any proposal and award to the most
advantageous proposal received
No officer or employee of the City of Denton shall have a financial interest, direct or indirect in any
contract with the City of Denton
M~nonty and small business vendors are encouraged to submit proposals
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
(940)340-7100
TOM D ,SHAW, C P M
PURCHASING AGENT
This advertisement to run Oetoberl8 and October 22, 2000
RFSP 2579 - STANDARD AD
15
RFSP #' 2579 REQUEST FOR SEALED PROPOSAL
City of Denton Central Fire Station
GENERAL I~IFORMATION
A Project Title.
Conversion of Bell Street Power Plant anto Caty of Denton Central Fare Station
B Project Location
332 East Hackory Street
"The Bell Street Power Plant"
City and County of Denton
State of Texas
C Project Intent.
The City of Denton ("Owner") as an the process o£ selecting an
arebatectural/englneenng finn for desagn of a new Central Fare Station The
project ~s unique m that ]t will convert a regastered historical bmldang, whmh is in
a state of disrepair, into an operatmnal and fully functioning moderu fire stataon
wath admlmstratave offices and a large commumty/trmmng room
The selected Proposer will be reqmred to work closely wath the Owner throughout
the process as well as effectively interacting and communlcatang wath commumty
historical preservation groups and downtown bumnesses, which ancludes the City
of Denton Hmtoncal Landmark Commission, Greater Denton Arts Council and
Main Street Program
Therefore, the selected Proposer must anclude a combanaUon of experience in
pubhc facility/fire station desagn and constructaon as well as hastoncal building
preservation There is nothing an this Request for Proposal that would limit the
Proposer from formang a team, which meets the combanataon of experience m fire
stataon design and construction and historical budding preservation
D Estimated PrOleCt Budget
Total ProJect Budget as approximately $2,800,000
Tlus budget ancludes all professaonal architectural servmes, testing, constructaon
and contingencies
II ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SCOPE OF SERVICES
A Provide all servmes to construct the project ancludang
1 Schematac Desagn
Page 1
RFSP 2579 2000
16
RFSP # 2579 REQUEST FOR SEALED PROPOSAL
City of Denton Central F,re Station
2 Design Development Not hm~ted to but to include desigmng the building
in relationshtp to Operations and Matntenance cost and efficiencies related
to the bmldmg being a valuable useable faclhty for future years (30 years
plus)
3 Construction Documents To include written documentation from the
State of Texas conceming the wmver of ADA reqmrements and/or
confirming that all drawings and documents meet ADA requirements and
gmdehnes before bidding the project
4 Specification (Statement of Probable Costs) To ~nclude construction
estimates but not limited to land purchases, exterior landscaping, utilities,
electrical, water and furniture installation costs Also the estimates of
Operations and Maintenance annual costs to operate the new budding,
mmntmmng the braiding, and secunng the building in a safe manner, ~ e,
may ~nclude fiber, telephone utlhty
5 Satisfying all City and State registered historical braiding requirements
6 Bidding for construction will be sent out and received by the C~ty of
Denton Purchasing Department as per State statute
The recommended firm will be expected to attend numerous City of Denton
Facilities Management Department meetings, some Commumty meetings, some
C~ty of Denton H~stoncal Landmark ConunlSS~On meetings and some City of
Denton City Council meetings
B Contents of Proposal:
The architect/engineer's information should be concise and may be supported by
any exhibits that demonstrate the firm's (team's) qualifications and experience in
building fire stations and prese~mg historical bmldlngs The ~nformat~on should
address the following
1 Credentials of the architect/engineer (team) that will be directly involved
in the project
2 A description of the procedure in which the architect/engineer (team) will
work with City staff
3 A description of the procedure ~n which the architect/engineer (team) will
work with Commtm~ty groups including the City of Denton Historical
Landmark Commission
Page 2
RFSP2579 2000
17
RFSP # 2579 REQUEST FOR SEALED PROPOSAL
City of Denton Central F~re Station
4 A list of related projects and clients that may be contacted for additional
information
5 How the architect/engineer (team) will accomplish the project specifically
building a moderu state of the art fully operational fire station while
malntmmng the historical look and integrity of the existing registered
historical structure
6 Architect may be required to use the City of Denton assigned mechanical
engineer
C Architectural Design Scope of Work'
1 Ground floor to consist of the operations portion of a central fire station,
which includes the following
a Three bay apparatus floor to house
"- 1 engme company
· ~ 1 truck company (105 ft ladder track)
~ 1 ambulance company
'-- 1 reserve engine
"~ 1 reserve ambulance
b Living quarters for up to 15 24-hour shift personnel
c Dormitory quarters for
~ 2 captmns
2 drivers
6 firefighters
1 battalion chief
d Offices for
·~ 2 captmns
'-- 1 battalion chief
"- Lobby into fire station
e 1,200 square foot commumty/tralmng room
2 Second floor to consist of administrative offices of approximately 7,000
square feet This space will include offices for approximately 15
administrative staff and a large conference room, small meeting room, and
break area
Page 3
RFSP 2579 2000
18
RFSP ~ 2579 REQUEST FOR SEALED PROPOSAL
City of Denton Central Fire Station
3 Thxrd floor to consist of approximately 5,000 square feet This space will
be the shell for future expansion for possible community meeting rooms
4 Comply with ADA regulations, City ordinances and building codes
5 Comply with City of Denton Code, Article V Historic Landmark
Preservation and Historic Districts
6 Construction admlmstratlon will be completed by the City of Denton
Famhtles Management Department
7 Produce budget mformauon and cost estimates prior to bid and as needed
before beginning construction
Di A copy of the City's Standard Agreement for Architects Services is attached
IV SELECTION PROCESS
A Receipt of Proposals,
Five copies of the proposal must be submitted on or before November 7, 2000 at
2:00 P M to
C~ty of Denton Purchas,ng Department
Attent,on Tom D Shew, Purchasing Agent
9015 Texas Street, Denton, Texas 76201
The envelope contmmng the proposals shall be sealed and bear the name and
address of the Proposer and shall be plmnly marked as follows
SEALED PROPOSAl. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR
CONVERSION OF BELL STREET POWER PLANT INTO
CITY OF DENTON CENTRAL FIRE STATION
B' Basis of Proposal Comparison/Evaluat~on'
Proposals will be compared/evaluated on the basis of the following
1 Proposer's business location in the City of Denton = 20%
2 Proposer's previous successful project history with public facilities and
especially fire station design and construction = 30%
Page 4
RFSP 2579 2000
19
RFSP #' 2579 REQUEST FOR SEALED PROPOSAL
City of Denton Central Fire Station
3 Proposer's previous successful project history with the preservation of
historical buildings = 20%
4 Qualification of the Proposer and ability to perform the work = 20%
5 Creative approach = 10%
Intervmws w,II be conducted by an evaluat,on comm,ttee, who will
then make the final select,on
C Method of Award:
1 Following thc deadline for receipt of proposals, all proposals submitted
will be analyzed and reviewed by Owner The Owner reserves the nght
not to accept any proposal, or to reject any or all proposals and to waive
defects or lrregulantms in any proposal, at its discretion The Owner will
select the Proposer, who at the sole discretion of the Owner, is the most
responsible and beneficial Proposer to the Owner and will then have the
right to negotiate a contract based on all factors involved tn the proposal
2 After selection, the successful Proposer and the Owner will then negotiate
and complete all necessary documentation and contracts Dunng contract
development and negotiation, the successful Proposer shall not contact any
Owner official except the individual designated to act on the Owner's
behalf during this process If a successful agreement cannot be reached
with the first selected Proposer, the Owner will then negotiate with the
next Proposer and continue this process until an acceptable agreement is
reached
Page 5
RFSP 2579 2000
20
Attachment # 5
LIST
CALVERT & CO ARCHITECTS COHGAN ASSOCIATES, INC ALAN 17 N~LSON ARCHITECT
DICK CALVERT J~OE HAYER ALAN F NELSON
100l W MAIN ST PO BOX 110955 PO BOX 910253 2132 SAVANNAH TR.
CARROLLTON TX 75011 DALLAS TX 75391.0253 DBNTON TX 76201
ARCHITECTURAL COLLECTIVE ]NC
M[CHAEL& RUSSELL IgATES JM DBSIONS ARCHITECTS lAMES R K]RKPATR]CK ARCHITECT
1300 N LOCUgT 3204 LONG PRAIRIE RD ,VIE 3 100 W MULBERRY
DENTON TX 76201 LEWISVlLLE TX ?5067 DENTON, TX 76201
MART/IV MARK ARCHiTECT ME~A DILl]ON DOWDEY ANDERSON
{ 100 DALLAS DR TERRY ARTEHI~URN MARK DONA I,r~SON
DENTON, TX 76201 3100 MCKINNON ST SUJ Jr: 905 5225 VILLAGE CREEK DR SUITF 200
DALLAS, TX 75201 PLANO, TX 7~093
JUREN GARY ARCHITFCf
222 E MCKIN'NEy S'I MARTIN MARK ARC]-IITECT Corgan A~ocuntcs, Inc
DENTON TX 76201 205 Locust SWeet 501 Elm SU'eet
DENTON, TX 76201 Dallas, TX 75202
HOK (HBLLMUTH OBATA 4 RAI~rDALL SCO'fT ARCHITECTS, INC
KASSABAUN INC ) CAR~i't:K & BUROEST, ]NC RANDALL SCOTT
2001 irOnS AVE SU~ 2~00 38808 HULBN ~!11 LB~ I~P.~WAY #795
DALLAS, TX 7520l FT WORTH, TX 76109 DALLAS, TX 75251
ROBERT L WOODIiULL, AIA, HON ltOBBS ARCHITECTS
ARCHITEC~ S RON HOBOS SELZER ASSOCIATES, INC
ROBERT WOODHUI L 614 WEST MAIN ST #200 4514 TRAVJS g235
2709 LAWNDALE GARLAND, TX 750~0 DALLAS, TX 7520~
PLANO, TX 75023.7925
SPUROIN & ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECTS T S ORENDAIN A~SOC1ATES, INC VIDAUD + ASSOCIATES, ]NC
PO BOX 358 16835 ADDISON RD #101 {3649 MONTFORT DR #200
MCKINNEY, TX 75070-0358 ADDISOlq TX '~$001 DALLAS, TX 75240
BRINKLEY SAROENT ARCHITECTS BROWN REYNOLDS WA rFORD CALVERT & COMPANY/ARCHITECTS,
$000 QUORUM DR #12~ ARCIq[rrEc'rs, INC INC
DALLAS, TX 75240-7508 3535 TRAVIS ST 8250 100l WEST MAIN ST
DALLAS, TX. 75204 CARROLLTON, TX 75006
HALFF ASSOCIATES INC MCCASL]N ASi~)CIATES,INC PBTRBLLI ASSOCIATES,INC
8616 NORTHWEST PLAZA DR 5011 M(XONNEY AVE 2225 BAST RANDOL MILL
DALLAS, TX 75225-4211 DALLAS, TX 75205 ARL]NOTON, TX 76011
PRO FORMA ARCHITECTURE, INC
16250 NORTH DALLAS P~WY ~20~ Cater Bu~ess
DALLAS, TX 75248 3880 H'len Street W~gmton Hooker Jeff~y Architects
Ft Worth, TX 76107-7254 9696 Sfalhneu St, Sutte 255
Dall~. TX 75243
22
DEC 27 00 (W~D) 1~ 07 CXTY OF DENTON PURCHASXNG 940 ~49 7~02 PAGE ~/4
¥1l'l Architects
5910 N Cealxal llxp Smtc 1200
~I~ ~L LIST
D~I~, TX 752~ 1~2~
23
Attachment # 6
DEC 27 00 (WED) ~I 07 CITY OF D~NTON PURCHA~NO g40 ~4g 7~02 PAG~ 4/4
RFSP 2579 Date: 11/7/00
ARCHITECTUAL SERVICES FOR CONVERSION OF BELL STREET
POWER PLANT TO CENTRAL FIRE STATION
No VENDOR ' ' ' CITY
1 James R Klrkpatrmk Denton
2 McCaslin Dallas
3 Wiginton, Hooker, Jeffery Dallas
4 Hatfleld, Halcomb Architects Dallas
5 Petrelli Associates Arlington
6 Ron Hobbs Garland
7 Randall Scott Dallas
8 Calvert Carrollton
9 Brown, Reynolds, Wafford Dallas
10 Hullmuth, Obala, Kassabaum Dallas
11 Corgan Associates Dallas
Attachment #7
CITY
MONTHLY
Fire,
CITY COUNCIL MONTHLY MAJOR PROJECT UPDATES
August 4, 2000
C E N T ~L~LT~
"Ali the options for the future of Central fire Station wdl be d~scussed during the C~ty
Council Budget Session, August 4, 2000 D~ck Calvert, the architect who d~d the design
work for renovations at Central, has analyzed and compared the costs to (1) renovate
Central, (2) build a new fire station at a new site m the downtown area, or, (3} relocate
Central to the old power plant at Hickory and Bell"
October 6, 2000
C NT L F AT
"Now that that c~ty Councd has approved option #3 and the budget, we are anxious to stsrt
th~s project as soon as possible We have worked w~th Purchasing and Facd[tles and
developed the spemflcat~ons and RFP for an architect and hope to have th~s out for b~d next
week We are continuing working w~th the Historic Landmark Commission and Greater
Denton Arts Councd as we develop and fmahze the plans for the conversion of thru h~stonc
budding"
October 6, 2000
CENTRAl. FIRE STATION
"Now that that C~ty Councd has approved option #3 and the new budget, we are anxious to
start th~s project as soon as possible We have worked w~th Purchasing and Faml~tms and
developed the specifications and RFP for an architect for th~s umque project and hope to
have the RFP out for proposals starting next week"
Proposals w~ll be compared on the bas~s of the following
Proposer's bus~ness location ~n the C~ty of Denton = 20%
2 Proposer's prewous successful project h~story w~th pubhc facd~tms and especmlly fire
station design and construction = 30%
3 Proposer's prewous successful project hmtory w~th the preservation of h~stoncal
buddings = 20%
4 Quahflcat~on of the Proposer and ablhty to perform the work = 20%
5 Creative approach = 10%
"lnterwews will be conducted by an evaluation committee, who wdl then make the final
"We are continuing to work with the Historic Landmark Commms~on and Greater Denton
Arts Councd as we develop and finalize the plans for the conversion of th~s h~storlc
budding"
November 8, 2000
CEN'I'RAL FIRE STATION.
"On November 7th we recewed 11 proposals from architects for the design of Central The
umqueness of th~s project attracted many top compames We wdl narrow the 11 down to
about 3 or 4 flnahsts whom we w~ll mterwew w~th~n the next two weeks Interwews will be
conducted by an evaluation committee, who w~ll then make the final select,on The
Interview Panel w~lt be made up of Bruce Henmgton (Fac~ht~es Management), Denise Harpool
(Purchasing), Jon Fortune, Juice Glover (Mare Street and Hmtoncal Landmark Commission)
and myself"
Proposals w~ll be compared and evaluated on the bas~s of the following
Proposer's bus~ness location in the C~ty of Denton = 20%
2 Proposer's prewous successful project h~story w~th pubhc faclht~es and especially fire
station design and construction = 30%
3 Proposer's prewous successful project h~story w~th the preservation of historical
buildings = 20%
4 Quahflcat~on of the Proposer and ab~hty to perform the work = 20%
5 Creative approach = 10%
Our goal ~s to have the recommended architect to the C~ty Council for approval the first
meeting In
December 13, 2000
CENTRAL FIRE STATION
"On November 7th we received eleven (11) proposals from architects for the design of
Central The uniqueness of th~s project attracted many top companies"
"We narrowed the eleven (11) down to four (4) fmahsts whom we mterwewed on November
29t' Interviews were conducted by an evaluation committee who all agreed on the
select,on of a number one candidate The Interview Panel was made up of Bruce Henmgton
(Fac~ht~es Management), Chnsty Sk~rchak (Purchasing), Jori Fortune, Juhe GIover (Ma~n
Street and H~stor~cal Landmark Commms~on) and myself"
"Staff has begun the negotiations phase w~th the number one select~on which w~ll hopefully
end by the end of December My goal m to have a recommended architect to the C~ty
Council for approval the second meeting in January, 2001"
Attachment #8
OF
DESIGN
1
29
Overview of Central Design Prooess
1 .Develop Request w~..ook....~,..
For Sealed o.,.. I Ar~hltuatural
Props.al. (RFSP). p.,..A,,.~.~ Firm. Who
~....°bb~.,,... Submlttud
2.Sent to 31 ...-,, Proposal. for
Arohiteot8. I '~,~:~: I Evuluation
31 31
11
~.., · What expurlenoe do you
~ · Business In I James E have building Fire
~,~,..~.~, Denton = 20% I Klrkpatflek/DentonI S~tlons?
, HiKorl~l for PiN 8~iono?
PNH.ntlon - I ~..d.,, I· H.. you
20~ I 8~allas Ioonve~d another
4 , CmtlvlW - · What ex~denoe do you
10% 4 have pm~wlng
1 1 hlMorl~l buildings?
· What interuotlon do you
I' Whut d° y°u thInk °f James I think is neoeosnry with
James the old power pi.at site Kirkpatrlok/Oenton
Klrkpstrlol#Danton us e Fire Station site? the Community?
WlglntOn,Hooker, I' What problems do you Wlglnton,Hooker, I Hletorioal Lendmurk
Jef~ry/Dallne foresee oonverting the Jeffery/Dalla8 Comml$810n? Greater
Denton Arts Counoil?
old power plant Into n I Fire Admlnlstretlon
8o.,.m.ilss $oott,~Dall.s I 8toff? How do you
· Who do you oonoldar propose building thio
Bfown,Reynoldl,
Brown'Reynolds, your silent or orient8 I Wntford~Oall~s I Input Into the daslgn of
thio proJant?
Watf~rd/Osllae I during the design
4 phase? 4
Overview of Central Design Process
· What do you see as tho i
James I I James I · Whet Is your top
hast proeees for the I Klrkpatrlok/Denton
Kirkpatrl0k/Dent°n J design of this proJest? priority dudng the
WiglntO0,Hookar, , Whet sro your firm', i Wlglnton,Hooker, I Construntlon Phase of
Jeffer#Da ae greatest strengths In Jeff~rv/Dalles a proJeot?
relation to this type of · Why would the City of
8oott/Dalles over the other
8soil/Della8 deelgn? Denton hire your firm
· Whet ore your firm's Arohltestural/
~a~o*d/~slla~ ~,l"~luu ~0 this ty~ of u ~l/~all~s
4 proleet? 4
Des 10 ~ Contrast to Firm
WlglntO~ll,Hooker, I Jan 10 Request B#t & Finial Offer
I Jeffe~Y/Oallaa/. ·
T ~1 #1 I
.a~da,, I I I
AGENDA DATE' January 9, 2001
DEPARTMENT Engineering & Transportation
DCM David Hill, Assistant City Manager/Development Services
SUBJECT.
Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the interpretation of
section 34-114 (5) of the code of ordinances regarding perimeter streets
BACKGROUND:
Section 34-114 (5) of the Code of Ordinances is the portion of the Subdivision Regulations that
requires developers to provide standard improvements to proposed and existing streets that
border a development Perimeter paving typically consists of mstalhng 25 feet of City of Denton
standard pavement including curb and gutter on the side of the development Th~s standard in the
code has remained relatively the same since 1983 and has always been interpreted by staff to
mean that as a tract develops, the perimeter street improvements are required to be installed
adjacent to the development when it is developed In mult~ phase developments, this often
results In roads being reconstructed a short section at a time This requirement is treated
differently than other offsite traffic improvements in that it is not directly tied to capacity as
much as it is pavement quality Recently, some developers have inquired about the possibility of
constructing their perimeter street improvements all at one time in a later phase of development
Staff thinks the request has merit for large mult~ phase developments, especially if there is
already access to the development via a paved road ~n good condition Developers have asked
about processing a variance to accomplish fins, however at~er review by staff it was determined
that such a request would not lend itself to either of the City's variance processes as this
condition Is applicable to most large subdivisions or is not unique Upon consulting the Legal
Department, the legal staff felt that the wording of34-114 (5) was such that it could be
interpreted to allow the developer to set up an escrow account or give the City money to hold so
that the perimeter improvements would be "proxaded for"
Staffs main concern is that flus only works if certmn circumstances exist
1 The proposed development is to be constructed ~n at least two phases,
2 The first phase or phases of the development will have access to a paved road with at
least two lanes in good condition, (It should be noted that if the subject road is already at
or near capacity section 34-114 (4) of the Code of Ordinances would require construction
of capacity improvements immediately with the first phase )
3 A,development agreement including some form of surety (possibly a modified
development contract) is executed that ties the actual construction of the perimeter street
improvements to a specific time or event dunng development,
4 And that any damage to the existing paved access, which occurs during construction of
the early phase or phases of a subd~vision, is properly repmred by the developer
As the proposed interpretation of Section 34-114 (5) is such a large departure from the way it has
been interpreted over the past 17 + years, staff felt that developers or citizens may become
concerned if they see houses going up without the roads bemg immediately improved
The letter from Eastern Development and plat of Wheeler Radge is included as one example of a
subdivision that might meet the clrcmnstances listed above
FISCAL INFORMATION: There should be no fiscal impact to the City of Denton as the
required perimeter street improvements would still be constructed by the developer at some point
during the development and there would be security for the City required to ensure that the
paving would eventually be constructed Developers would most likely reahze some cost savings
as they could construct the entire road at one time in a later phase
POSSIBLE ACTIONS.
1 Dlrect Staffto continue to interpret section 34-114(5) of the Code of Ordinances the way
it ls currently interpreted
2 Dlrect Staff to interpret section 34-114(5) of the Code of Ordinances in a manner that
would allow postponement of perimeter paving to a later phase of development under the
clmumstances listed above
Respectfully submitted
~ ~ '~ meer
almon, City En~
~n~lncermg & Transportation
SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 34
(4) Street ca~amtv.
a All developments shall provide for those streets, including new streets, the
nmprovement of exmt~ng streets and the assocmted improvements and r,ghts-of-way
which are necessary to prowde adequate capacity to carry the traffic to be generated
by the property at full development "Adequate capamty" shall mean a level of
servlc¢ C, as defined by the latest edmon of the Highway Capacity Manual, as
pubhshed by the TransportaUon Research Board of the National Research Council
b Any streets required by the provm~ons of this section shall also include any
drainage structures that are part of the street improvements and are necessary to serve
the development, ~n accordance with the drainage requirements of this Code In the
case of estate subdivision streets, no underground drainage improvements, other than
driveway culverts, shall be reqmred, but adequate barrow ditches with four (4) to one
(1) s~de slopes shall be prowded
c To prowde for future street Lmprovements, any development may elect, upon the
approval of the planmng and zomng coimmsslon, to dedicate more street right-of-way
than would otherwise be reqmred for the development, in heu of constructing the
total street system otherwise required of the development by this Code, when
1 The addmonal right-of-way will be needed for a proposed arterml street, as
shown on the city's thoroughfare plan,
2 Omitting the street improvements that would otherwise be reqmred would not
substantially impair the safe movement of traffic created by the development, and
3 The market value of the additional right-of-way would, as determined by the
city engineer, be equal to or greater than the cost of the street ~mprovements
which are to be omitted
(5) Perimeter streets
a New ~)erlmeter streets Street systems shall be lind out so as to avmd the need
for new perimeter partial streets, ~ e, streets that have less than the full reqmred
right-of-way and pavement width for the class of street However, if an arterml
street is proposed by the master plan on the boundary of the development or the
development creates the need for a new peraneter street, the development shall
provide the port,on of the perimeter street for which it reasonably creates the need,
but in no case shall that portion of the street provided be less than a pavement width
of twenty-five (25) feet All perimeter streets shall be provided w~th curb and gutter
along the s~de abutting the development If the perimeter street is ultimately
proposed to serve as a dlwded arterml street and the development is required to
install half of the arterml street, then curb and gutter shall be prowded on both sides
of the perimeter street so as to provide the curb for the future median of the arterial
4 2
3
SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 34
street
b Existing peruneter streets
1 Any development on the peruneter of an ummproved perm~cter street shall
dedicate the right-of-way and Lmprove or reconstruct the street to the same extent
as ,s required for new peruneter streets, unless the peruneter street has already
been partmlly unproved, in whmh case the development shall dedmate the add,-
tlonal right-of-way and make the addmonal street ,mprovements necessary to
complete the peruneter street to the classfficat,on reqmred For the purpose of
th,s subsect,on, an "ummproved perimeter" street shall mean a per,meter street
wh,ch does not have curb and gutter or which does not substantmlly comply w,th
the street des,gn specfficat,ons or reqmrements of th,s Code
2 Where any development would be reqmred by th,s Code to unprove an
existing ununproved peruneter street whmh ,s des,gnated ,n the c,ty's master
plans as an ar,er,al street to less than ,ts full w,dth and the city's approved cap,tal
unprovements plan proposes ~nprovement of the ex,sUng per,meter street to mty
specfficat~ons within two (2) years of the date the reqmred unprovements are to
be undertaken, the development may elect, ~n heu of making the reqmred
peruneter street unprovements, to pay to the c,ty pr,or to beg,nmng construct,on
the total constructxon cost, excluding engineering and desxgn cost, of the reqmred
street unprovements The amount to be paid shall be determ,ned by the c,ty
engineer, based on the actual cost of prowd,ng for the ,mprovements, as shown
in the most recent public bids for the same or similar type street Improvements
If the money paid to the c,ty ,s not used for the reqmred xmprovements w,th,n
five (5) years of payment, the funds shall be returned to the person making the
payment
3 Any development which is to generate more than one hundred (100) veh,cle
trips per day at full development and wh,ch ,s excepted from mak,ng ,mprove-
ments to ex,sting pernneter streets ,n accordance w,th c,ty spec,hcauons for new
streets shall make the tmprovements and repa,rs to the ex,rang peruneter street
to the same extent as is reqmred for off-s,te streets
c Except,om to per,meter street reqmrements The prov,s,ons of th,s section
reqmrlng the tmprovement of ex~stlng ummproved per,meter streets to c,ty specffica-
t,ons for new streets shall not apply to the following
1 A plat for a s,ngle-famlly res,dentlal lot, where such lot ,s not part of a larger
general scheme of development or subd,v,s,on of land contmmng more than one
(1) res,den,mi lot,
2 A development that abuts one hundred (100) or less feet of an ex,sung
peruneter street, where the ex,sting off-s,te perimeter street on e~ther side of the
axx00884 43
SUBDIVISIONI AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 34
abutting pertmeter street is not improved to city specifications and there are no
proposals or plans for improvements to the perimeter street on either aide of the
abutting perimeter street as evidenced by the city's capital improvements plan or
plats approved or pending approval,
3 A development which
i Is not required or does not propose to extend a city water line to the
property to serve the development, and
n Is located more than eight thousand (8,000) feet from an existing city
water line, measured along a straight line from the nearest boundary of the
development to the nearest water line, or
4 A state or federal highway
d Off-site connectlnff streets Any perimeter street required to be unproved to meet
the specifications for new streets shall be connected to existing offslte streets in
accordance with the horizontal design specifications shown in appendix A-2 of
Ordinance No 88-103, which appendix is adopted by reference in this Code the same
as if set out at length in this section
e Design specifications for perimeter streets Perimeter streets shall be built or
improved with curb and gutter and the necessary drainage facilities in accordance
with the specifications and provisions of this Code apphcable to other streets Upon
recommendation of the city engineer, a required perimeter street meeting design stan-
dards, but without curb and gutter and related underground street storm drainage
fa¢lht,es, may be approved whenever
1 The required peruneter street is for a residential development in a low
intensity area, as shown in the city's master plans,
2 The development is not located in an area where the pattern or intensity of
development would create the need for nnproved urban drainage fac,hUes in the
foreseeable future, and
3 There are no existing or proposed nuproved drainage fa¢llmes, as shown by
the city's capital unprovements plan or by plats approved or pending approval,
In such proxmnty tO the development that would connect to or receive the
drainage waters from the required street drainage nnprovements
(6) Improvements to exlstln~ off-site streets
a Any development which is to generate more than one hundred (100) vehicle trips
per day at full development shall improve or repair connecting off-site streets as
axx0o8~4 44
Engineering
&
Transportat,on
Crty Hall West · 221 N Elm · Denton, Texas 76201
(940) 349-8358 · Fax (940) 349-8376 · Metro 434-2529
Memo
To: Dawd Hill, ACM Development Services
From,' Dawd Salmon, PE, C~ty Engineer
Dat®I 12/28/00
Re: Penmeter Paving
An ~ssue concermng perimeter pawng has come up ~n reference to Wheeler R~dge
that I beheve bears consideration The developers of Wheeler Ridge have proposed
to ~nstall their entire portion of Robinson Road at one t~me but w~sh to do ~t in a later
phase We have always ~nterpreted our ordinance to mean that penmeter paving ~s
required to be ~nstalled adjacent to the property being platted at the time of
development Th~s often creates a p~ece meal construction process w~th numerous
pavement tranmt~ons I tNnk ~t would be easy for everyone to agree that it would be
better to budd all the pawng at one time ~n a multi phase development than to build
p~eces of it in phases
We ~nd~cated to the Developers of Wheeler Ridge some t~me ago that we would work
w~th them to try to accomplish this We m~t~ally thought a vanance of the subdlwslon
regulations would be the best way to accomplish th~s Wheeler Ridge submitted a
vanance apphcat~on (attached) In prepanng P&Z backup for the variance, it became
apparent that the vanance apphcation did not really meet any of our vanance cntena
because ~t is not a unique s~tuat~on I asked Ed Snyder to look at this s~tuatlon with
me to see how we could accomplish Wheeler Ridge's request
Ed Snyder and Herb Prouty reviewed our current ordinance language (attached) and
dec~ded that ~f the developer deposited the cost of the pawng for the first phase w~th
the C~ty, or set up an equivalent escrow account, we could say that the penmeter
paving was being "prowded for" as the ordinance states Ed and Herb seemed to
· Page 1
"Dedwated to (2uahty Ser~tce
prefer the escrow option, as ~t would not put the onus on the C~ty to perform the work
The city would simply authonze release of the escrow to the developer once a
development contract was executed for the penmeter paving
One concern of Ed and Herb's ~s keeping the respons~b~l~.y of performing the work
with the developer They d~scourage the acceptance of fees and acceptance of the
raspons~b~hty for construction by the C~ty unless there ~s a specific project
programmed within a reasonable t~me frame Another of their concerns was placing
some tangible tngger ~n the agreement that specifies at what point ~n the
Development the entire read would be paved Ed and Herb, felt that because the
proposed method of delaying a port~on of the penmeter paving ~s such a large
departure from the way we have apphed the ordinance In the past, it could appear
that we were treating some developers differently or could spark concerns from
citizens or other developers when they saw houses being constructed and no read
improvements being ~nstalled
Please give me some direction on how we should proceed w~th this ~ssue I have
already added some language ~n the draft code that would specifically allow th~s ~n
some c~mumstances w~th phased developments We need to address th~s ~ssue
more ~mmed~ately ~n reference to Wheeler R~dge If you feel th~s needs to be
considered by Council, we could talk about ~t at the November 14th work session
· Page 2
7
Eastern
Development
Con~pames
5223 Village Creek Drive, State q~, Piano, Texas 75093
(972) 267 6888, Fax (972) 818 8885
July 11, 2000
Mr David 'Salmon PE
Engmeermg Administrator
City of Denton
221 N Elm Street
Denton, Texas 76201
Dear David
Thank you,for taking the time to meet with my engineer and myself to discuss the design of the
Wheeler Ridge community and the timing of the agreed upon road ~mprovements
As we discussed ~t would be in the best interest of ourselves and I beheve the City of Denton to
insure that ~he improvements are installed ~n their entirety at an appropriate t~me W~th this in
mind, I would like to propose the following installation schedule
1 ) ,Payment of the $31,000 00 for s~gnal light construction would be prod w~th the c~ty's
inspection fees due upon cpmpletlon of phase 1
2 ) The turn lanes off Teasley Lane will be installed wtth the entrance to Wheeler R~dge
from Teasley Lane
3 ) ~Hlckory Creek Road will be constructed w~th the entrance to Wheeler R~dge from
,Hickory Creek Road
4 ) 'Robinson Road will be constructed when the earlier of
a ) The entire frontage along Robinson Road has been final platted and construction
has commenced on the last phase along Robinson Road or
b) Half the lots in Wheeler Ridge have been platted and construction has
commenced on the phase that bnngs the total number of platted above the
halfway mark
If you would please review the above schedule and let me know ~fyou have any changes I look
forward to heanng from you
8
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGE~A DA~: J~u~ 9, 2001
DEPAR~NT' CD~ S~e~ .~/
C~C~ACM' Dawd ~11, 349-8314
SUBJECT
Receive a report, hold a discussion and g~ve staff dire~on regarding a proposed conservation
district m the Bell Avenue area
In 1995, the H~stonc Landmark Conumss~on bared the Newlan-Kmght Preservation Consultant
firm to assess the bastone fabric of the city of the Denton They identified over 2400 bastoncally
sigmficant sites w~thm the city lmuts In the final bastonc resources survey, the Bell Avenue
neighborhood was tdentified as an area that could be designated as a conservation chstnct m
order to protect the renuumng tustone fabric of the neighborhood
On June 12, 2000, the I-Itstonc Landmark Comnuss~on held a neighborhood meettng vnth the
residents of the Bell Avenue area to discuss the possibfl~ty of estabhsbang a conservation chstnct
The response was overwhelrmngly posmve, and the residents formed a commattee to work w~th
the Historic Preservataon Officer and the HLC From that meeung, the residems formed the Bell
Area Neighborhood Association (BANA) Since then, the neighborhood comrmttee has met
twice a month working out detads for a conservation district They have interviewed neighbors
concermng the dlsmct, about 90% of the property owners and residents support the plan At tbas
time, BANA would hke to Inform Ctty Council of the work they have done and seek their
support in conUnmng to pursue a conservation distnc~
Defimt~on A conservation d~stnct ~s a bastonc preservation tool used to preserve the
neighborhood's character and protect the area from demohUon The neighborhood parttmpants
help create an ordinance that specifically addresses the needs of the area Tax incentives can be
~ncluded in the ordinance The part~cipants also have the opportumty to develop destgn
gmdehnes based on the needs of tho neighborhood as a whole Compliance v~th the destgn
gmdehnes ts voluntary, but must be met m order to qualtfy for any tax lncenttves
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW
On September 18, 2000, the BANA reported their progress to the I-hstonc Landmark
Comrmsslon HLC recommended that the Bell Avenue Comrmttee proceed w~th work on a
conservation dtsmct (6-0)
ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE
We plan to return to City Councd w~th an ordinance estabhsbang conservaUon dismcts m July
2000
FISCAL I~IFORMATION
Should the conservation d~stnct be approved, the fiscal Impact ~s expected to be smular to the
Oak/I-hckory lustonc d~stnct, wtuch allows a 50% tax freeze on aty taxes for a period of 15
years on approved structures
1 HLC Minutes, September 18, 2000
2 Map of the proposed Bell Avenue conservation d~strlct
3 Excerpt from 1995 Newlan-Kmght I-hstonc Resources Survey
Llnda Rathff f/~
Director of Commumty Development
Prepared by
lulle Glover, Mmn Streot Program Manager
2
Minutes
Historic Landmark Commission
September 18, 2000
The regular meeting of the Denton FI~stonc Landmark Comnuss~on was held m the conference
room on C~ty Hall West, 221 North Elm, on Monday September 18, 2000 at 5 30 p m
Members present were Peggy Capps, Mark Sandel, Peggy Norton, Lanelle Blanton,
Barry Vermflhon, Rod Reeves, Steve Johansson, John Barnes, and Steve Boedeker
Staff members present were Juhe Glover, Main Street Manager, and Joyce Jeter
Also attending Brandt Daws, Sonya Whtddon, and Deb Conte with the Bell Street
Conservation group and Beth Hudson, Denton Planmng department,
I Call to order
Chairperson Peggy Capps called the meeting to order at 5 35 p m
II Nominate and elect a chairperson and wee-chairperson for the Historic Landmark
Commission FY 2000-2001
Mark Sandel made the motion to elect Peggy Capps as the HLC chatrperson The motion was
Seconded, by Barry Vermflhon The motion passed unammously Mark Sandel made the
motion to~ nominate Barry Vermflhon as HLC V~ce Chairperson, second by Rod Reeves The
motion passed unammously
III C0nslder approval of minutes of the regular meeting of August 14, 2000
Mark Sandel made the motion to approve the nunutes of August 14 Lanelle Blanton seconded
the motion The motion passed unammously
IV Receive a report on the proposed Bell Avenue Conservatton D~strict from
Committee members
Brandt Daws, Sonya Wh~ddon, and Deb Conte were present to report on Bell Avenue
Conservation D~stnet progress A door-to-door survey of the neighborhood has been compiled
tnto an area map indicating who ~s interested m a conservation district Tbas information along
w~th their mission statement ~s the first step toward their goal of creating an ordinance for a
conservation d~stnct They are asking for protocol on how to proceed
V Hold a d~scussion and make recommendations to Bell Avenue Committee
concerning wratlng an ordinance
Th~s Bell 'neighbor hood area was mentioned m the I-hstonc Structures Survey as being m danger
from encroachment Thts area has several vacant lots that could be filled with bustnesses In
order to preserve the heritage of tbas area there would need to be a conservation d~stnct with
gu~dehnes so new construction can be addressed Th~s would ensure that any new constructton
would have to conform to the neighborhood Brandt Davis and the comm~ssioners discussed the
protocol for the proposed ordinance The residents will have a group meeting of the Bell
neighborhood The group will start to compile a draft ordinance Peggy Capps read the protocol
for notifying the residents of the proposed ordinance Ten days before the proposed ordinance
goes to the Planmng and Zomng Comm~ssion, a certified letter will be mailed to all residents m
the proposed area, and all residents w~th~n 200 feet of the proposed district
1
Peggy Norton made the motion to recommend that Bell Avenue Comrmttee proceed with the
conservation district ordinance Lanelle Blanton seconded the motion The motion passed
unammously
VI Make a recommendation to City Council concerning the proposed Bell Avenue
Conservation district
It was discussed if the ordinance needs to be completed before the recommendation could
be made Beth Hudson with the Planmng Department said the ordinance does not have to be
completed, but it would be helpful to have the neighborhood vote This would give the Planning
and Zoning information on the percentage of residents interested in a conservation district
The HLC Comrmssioners will review the ordinance before it goes to the P & Z Comausslon
VII Receive a report, hold a discussion and make recommendations to the Planning and
Zoning Commission and City Council concerning amendments to the city sign
ordinance allowing sidewalk "sandwich" signs in the central business district
This amendment to the existing ordinance would allow the business in the central business
district to display "A" frame or "sandwich" signs in front of their stores The signs would be
subject to meet size standards, be well constructed and weighted agmnst the wind, as specified in
the amended ordinance Steve Boedeker made a motion that HLC recommend approval of the
amended sign ordinance to the Planmng and Zoning Comrmsslon and to the City Council
Lanelle Blanton seconded the motion The motion passed 8-0
VIII Consider and take action on a resolution recommending the City Council adopt the
plan to convert the old power plant budding located at Hickory and Bell Street into
the new Central Fire Station
Peggy Norton made a motion to recommend the City Council adopt the plan to convert the old
power plant building located at Hickory and Bell Street into the new Central Fire Station The
motion was seconded by Rod Reeves The motion passed 8-0
IX Receive a report on the reconstruction of the Wdson Pottery Kiln - Barry
Vermillion
The Wilson Pottery Kiln may have been one of the first nonagricultural industries in Denton
County The location is Hwy 2181 at Lake Sharon Drive The kiln site was on the National
Register of Historic Places wluch provides no protection The next step should have been to have
the site designated as a State Archeological Landmark, but that was not accomplished The site
has been excavated by the Denton County Historical Commission The kdln is now in storage
Jim Klrkpatnck and his architectural firm was awarded the contract to reconstruct the kiln and
the building to house it Locating the kiln next to the Selby house is one area being considered,
also being considered is the new city park In the next few weeks the drawings will be
completed We are waiting for final approval from the County
XReceive Preservation Officer's report
I The CLG (Certified Local Government) grant will be sent offthis week We are asking for
money to spend on education and setting up Conservation Districts
2 The CLG Conference will be held in Beaumont, Texas on October 12 - 14 Juhe and Peggy
Capps wdt be attending
2
XI. Future Agenda Items
Bell Avenue group agenda
XII Brief orientation for new commissioners
Everyone introduced themselves to the new comrmss~oners There was a brief discussion
regarding tustonc preservation
XIII Adjourn
Peggy Capps adjourned the meeting at 7 00 p m
Proposed Bell Avenue Neighborhood Conservation District
The Bell Avenue Conservation District located north
Neighborhood
lq
of Texas Woman's Umverslty and represents important examples of
residential design from the 1920s through the 1940s The proposed includes
the area bounded by University Drive, Bell Avenue, Sherman Drive, and
Locust Street and including porhons of Roberts and Woodland streets The
area is expenencnng commercial encroachment and heavy traffic into the
area Due to its small slze, it could provide the Clt3 of Denton xxlth a test case
for applying a conservation district to a neighborhood
The Bell Avenue Neighborhood contains important exampleq of
residential design, but contains too man)' post-1950 homes to qualify as an
htstonc district Included ~lthln the district is a home designed b} O'Nml
Ford at 1819 Bell Avenue The neighborhood holds further stgruficance for
~ts Tudor Revival style bungalows, its examples of later bungaloxx forms
dahng from before and after World War II, and its earl)' examples of Ranch
Style and modern residences Wtule the neighborhood could be ehglble for
designation as a l'ustonc district in the near future, it may not survive intact
unless a program for its future preservation is devised
The success of a conservatmn dmhnct xs dependent upon the
participation of its residents, and the residents of the Bell Avenue
neighborhood have expressed a concern and a desire to preserve the character
of their area Moreover, the lessons learned in appl)lng a conservation
district to flus area could be applied to larger and more complex areas such as
the proposed Austin Locust Street Conservation District
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Age~da Item
Date l/q? /
AGENDA DATE January 9, 2001
DEPARTMENT' Planning Department
CM/DCM/ACM: David Hill, 349-8314
SUBJECT - A-103 (Blagg Road)
Receive a report, hold a dlseusmon and g~ve staff direction regarding a proposed 45 98 acre
residential development containing 142 lots and possible voluntary annexation m ETJ south of
Blagg Road, approximately 950 feet west of Lakeview Boulevard
BACKGROUND
On December 13, 2000, Ms. Stacl Ray (representing the property owner) lnqmred about
development regulations associated with the subject property The property has recently been
purchased and the owner wants to plat and sell the property as soon as possible A concept plan
was presented to staff showing 124 residential lots, with a mlmmum 10,000 sf lot size The
proposed denmty Is approximately 2 7 traits per acre It is staff's understanding that the property
owner is not adverse to being annexed
As this property is located m the ETJ, developmem would only be subject to the City's
subdivision regulations but not the zomng regulations
The Denton Plan identifies this property to be within the "Neighborhood Centers" Dmmct
These areas may develop m conventional patterns or may be developed in a pattern of
'neighborhood centers' Single-family development is consistent with the intent of the
Comprehenmve Plan
In accordance with the City's annexation policy plan the City will "assess on a case by case basis
the annexation of areas m the ETJ when significant developments are proposed"
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW
None at th~s time
ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE
Upon C~ty CouncWs affirmative ~mtlatlon of annexation, staff will prepare an annexation
schedule for council review and approval to begin the process
FISCAL INFORMATION
None at this time
SUGGESTED RECOMMENDATION
Since this property is outside of the city hmlts, annexation is the logical step to ensure that th~s
property if developed as identified m the Denton Plan Annexation will provide the C~ty of
Denton the authority to regulate land use based upon a zoning classfficatlon Therefore, staff
recommends that the City Council lmtiate annexation for this property
ATTACI~MENTS
1 LocatiOn Map
2 PropoSed Concept Plan
Respectfully submitted
owell, AICP
Director of Plarmlng and Development
Prepared by
Lan5 gelehhart,
Assistant Director of Planning and Development
Attachment 1 ,~
Blagg Road Annexation NORTH
1..''c~' ~.
~ ~..... ~
___fi °....... ;~Hr. I
I
'.. r ETJ
. ,.~, ~. i/~~
~ .': . ., ... ~ ..
LOCATION MAP
Scale None
3
I I I I I I I
Agenda No ~-
Agenda Item -.,---~~_ '~
Date~ --
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE: January 9, 2001
DEPARTMENT. Utihty Administration
CM/DCM/ACM Howard Martin, ACM/Utfl]tias 349-8232
SUBJECT
Rcccave a report, hold a discussion and g~ve staff dlrectaon regarding the construction of a
Compost Storage/Processmg Building m the amount not to exceed $97,000 00
BACKGROUND
The compostmg operation receaved a grant from NCTCOG to provade fundmg for a small
compost bagging machine and a storage bmldlng through thear Sohd Waste Grant ~n December,
1999 The bagging device was purchased thas past spnng The purchase and construction of the
Compost Storage Bmldlng will complete the grant
Thas grant will prowde fundang to construct a 50 X 100 ft metal building for stonng the compost
bags and provade a workang area to fill bags regardless of weather condatlons Ultimately the
project will help bnng our product, Dyno-D~rt, to the larger Denton market that does not need
compost by the cubic yard or does not have the truck or traaler currently necessary to purchase at
In addatmn, thas step wall help close the recyclmg carcle by making thas product avmlable to each
person who had a part m contributing to the oragmal waste stream
OPTIONS
Th~s bualdmg will allow us to amprove our compost bagging operation, which ultamately wall
make our product more available, expand the market for recycled materials, and increase
reverltles
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends eonstructaon of the Compost Storage/Processing Building
ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT
Construction will begin upon approval by PUB and C~ty Councal
FISCAL INFORMATION
Funds provided through NCTCOG m the amount of $60,000 and the add~tlona! $37,000 will
come from the Wastewater Contingency Fund
Respectfully submitted
J~reC°ulter
ctor of Water Utilities
Prepared by
Gayla Wright D
Management Assistant
Exluhrt I B~d Summary
Exbablt II Bid Specs
Exl~b~t III Map of Proposed Bmld~ng Site
PURCHASING DEPARTMENT BID INVITATION
C~ly of Demon
901 B Texas Streel CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
Demon Texas 76209
Dale December 5,
BID NUMBER: 2616
$ID TITLE. M,ETAL BUIU)ING COMPOST
STORAGE
Sealed bid preposala will be received unul :Z:0~ p m
~l~tember Il, Z000, al the offi~ of ~he Pul.chasing Agcnt, 901-B
Texas Street, Denton, TX 76209
Fol' additional mfornmtlon contact
PURCHASING DEPARTMENT
901-B Texas gtreet
Denton Teus 76209
OIT~ce DPW Me, re
940-349 ?100 817-267-0042
INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS
S~al~l bfd proposals tllost he received In.~ulolknle. on this form, prior to o~nmg da~ a~ u~ m
relof~d u~d
2 B*ds ~all ~ planfly ~rk~ as to the b~ n~r, ~me of ~e bid, a~ b~d o~mg ~te ~ t~ ~lsl~ of~letely
mad~ or deltv~ to tl~ ~rc~smg O~mcol, Csiy of De~n, ~I-B Te~s SI~ ~mon, TX 76~
3 Any submstted article ~latt~ from ~ s~ttlcnllcos m~ ~ ~enttt]~ ~ trove full d~n~ive ~ta a~mpnnymg ~mc or ~t will not
~ ~ered
4 All ~lenals are to be quol~ ~OB ~nlon, Texas delivered lo ~e fl~r of I~ warm.m, or as m~rw~
The C*ly of ~nlon Te~s re.ryes Ibc right to a~pt ~atc sm~ in a b~d unle~ tlus ttgbl ts dem~ by t~ b~er
6 In ca~ of defaull afl~r b~d a~e~nce, the C~y of ~nt~, Texas ~y at ~ often hold file accepl~ b~r et ~Ir~or hablu for any a~
all resultant i~ cos~ aa a ~lty for s~h ~fauh
7 The C~ty of ~nmn reserves I~ n~t Io reJect any a~ all bids, to waive all mformahn~ and teqmrc t~t su~ztl~ b~ds rc~l. m to~
for a ~txty (~) day ~rz~ n~er ~nl~ et untd award i~ ma~ whoever comc~ first
8 ~e quantmea shown may ~ apptox~t~ a~ ~[d vary ~rdmg ~o ~ r~mrv~n~ of the C~ty of ~nton lhtong~ul t~
~ ~temz ~e m ~ pried ~ch net (P~k~s~ or ~pplng q~tttes will ~ comsd~md )
10 ~e Pnr~h~mg ~nn~nl ass~e~ r~lblltly for ~e ~rr~i~ a~ clarity of Ih~s bid, and all Info~at~ a~/or quv~o~
pe~ammg to Ih~s b~d s~ll ~ dl~d m t~ Clly of Denlon ~st~ Agent
I I Any a~emp m ~gotlate or g~ve intornmll~ ~ ~e co,tents of Ibis bid w~flt fie City of Denton ot I~ r~r~matsves prmr to awa~ shall
he gr~ for diq~ltficatton
12 T~ ~ltloflu a~ terms o~ ~s b~ will ~ coeal~r~ w~n eval~hq f~ award
13 ~te CKy of ~ton is exempt fr~ all sales a~ exc]~ lax~ (A~ICle ~ ~ 8)
rlN~PRCH~BID %P~S~26~6 INVITATION AND PRO~SAL
a~D m.wm~g ~616 BID PROPOSALS ~'~ ~- ov ~
City nf Denton, Te~ ~I-B Te~s Street
~r~ ~fl~nt ~nton, Te~s 76201
I 50' x 1~' x 20' Pre-Fabricated Metal Building I $ $__
for compost pr~uctwn and storage
NOTE (1) By stgm~ a~ submttt~ ~ b~ pr~osal, the bidder
certzfies that all Items b~d m~t or exceed MBMA s~ards, all apph~blc
building c~cs. and engineering reqmremen~
N~E (2) Rcques~ for Clarification(s) to ~ dkected to Tom Shaw at
the telephone amber(s) ~ ~dre~ shown on t~ B~d Inv,atton Ne~
adde~um(s) can ~ ~ued untd 5 days pr~or to thc Bid Opemng
Address Bidder/Company
Title
FIN\PRCHUaID qPBC$]2616 INVITATION AND PROPOSAL
BID ITEM
SPECIFICATIONS
COMPOST STORAGE/PROCESSING BUILDING
I GENERAL
I~em to be bid Is one (I), 50' x 100' x :20' pre-engineered metal building per
attached minimum specifications installed fully insulated and erected on our site at the
compost produ~tion facilities at 1100 Mayhdl Road, Denton, Texas 76201. Project must
meet rcqmrement~ of thc City of Denton Braiding Code and a perml! will be rcqmr~ (at
no charge to thc contractor) Completed building shall be watertight and all doors and
windows shall be installed w~th standard hardware and weather stopping or
waterproofing The project site shall be cleaned of all building waste upon completion of
the building
2 DIMENSIONS: CLEAR SPAN
A Width- 50'
B Length- 100'
C. Eave Height - 20'
3 STRUCTURAL FRb. MING - SHOP FABRICATED FOR FIELD BOLT
ASSEMBLY OR WELDED ASSEMBLY
A Well columns - 8" [.Beam consist~nt or tapered
B Roof frames - Z bar or C section minimum 1 § gauge
C Eave struts - 16 gauge C section minimum
D Sill support 14 gauge angle minimum
E All structural steel to be cleaned and coated with minimum I 0 mil red oxide
primer
4 ROOF
A 26 gauge - g0,000 PSI tensile strength
B GALVALUME - factory painted white
C UL rated Cl~s 90 for wind uph~
D Panels continuous from ridge to cave
E Laps to be scaled with ribbon of sealant tape
F Polyethylene closure strip at cave and rake of budding
WALL COVERING
A 26 gauge material
B Factory painted GALVALUME- white
C Continuous panel from ridge to cave
FIN~PRCI I~BID SP~C.S~SP£CIrlCA I IONS~2616
BID ITEM ,~, ~.~ 2 m, 4
COMPOST STORAGE/PROCESSING BUILDING SPECIFICATIONS CON'T.
6 TRIM
A 26 gauge material
B. Factory pmuted GALVALUMF~ -bluc
C Sidelaps to be sealed with ribbon of sealant tape
7 SKYLIGHTS
A 24 equal sized skylights (12 on each stde) evenly spaced over building length
B Translucent glass fiber laminated (fiberglass)
C 060" thick, 8 cz per square foot, white
8 MISCELLANEOUS
A All OALVALUME panels to have 20 year warranty
B All painted OALVALUME panels to have 20 year warranty
C Panel fasteners to be #14 x W' self-tapping sheet metal screws and match
panel fimsh
D Braiding design to be certified and s~gned by professional engineer
9 DOORS - METAL SW]ING - 3'0" ~X 6'8"
A I V4" thick 20 gauge galvanized steel
B Reinforced hinge plates
C Rust resistant primer with automatic enamel painted to match panels
D Standard hardware and lock sels
E $/8" high extruded aluminum threshold
10 A DOORS- METAL S..LIDING
A 2 each - 16' wide x I 8' high - located on 50' ends
B Panels to match sidewall panels
C Bottom guide, hoods, four-wheel trolleys and 16 gauge galvanized door trnck
D Support brackets on 2' center~
E Two four-wheel trolleys per door leaf
10 B DOOR- ROLL-UP
A 2 each - 16' w~de x 18" high - located on 50' ends
B Panels to match sidewall panels
C Manual roll-up
FIN~PROI~alD qPEC~:~PI. LIFICATION~2616
BID ITEM ,1 p~z 3 o~ 4
11 WINDOWS
A 9 ~ch
B 3x3
C Horizontal sliding with half screams
COMPOST STORAGE/PROCESSING BUILDING SPECIFICATIONS CON'T
12 A .INSULATION
A Spray type apphcallon
B Polyurethane composmon
C RIO minimum ~at~ng
12 B .I, NSULATION
A PSK reinforced wnyl back blanket
B, RI0 m~mmum ratmg
13 VENTILATION
A Turbine type w~th interior baffles and exterior wind bands
B Mounted on d~e formed sheet, peak or slope mounted
C Weatber proof rainshteld
D 12" size
E 8 units evenly sprcad
14 FOUNDATION
A Sec foundation plan drawing - Isbell Engmeenng Sheet SI-S2
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
A, Bufi&ng to be designed for future expansion on one 50' end
FIN~PRC~BID spr~c S\SPECIFICATIONS~616
BID IT~! ! P~tfig 4 01~' 4
C[] [] [] []
[]
O SR0~0029 D TON W HOUSES: S E 2
Report No SR00029B
INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA
AGENDA DATE: January 9, 2001
DEPARTMENT: Risk Management
ACM: Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services
SUBJECT
Receive a report, hold a discussion and g~ve staff d~rection regarding an ordinance authorizing the City
Manager to accept compemlve bids and award a contract w~th Unum Life Insurance Company of America
to provide long-term dlsablhty insurance and voluntary short-term dlsablhty ~nsurance for City of Denton
employees
BACKGROUND
The City has offered long-term dlsalnhty insurance to our employees as part of their benefit package since
1984 Our current plan expires 1/31/01 with UNUM Life Insurance Company at a current rate orS 28 per
$100 of payroll per month The original contract had a two-year rate guarantee with the option to renew
for three years Due to industry w~de increases, UNUM's renewal offer was $ 42 (a 49% increase) This
exceeded the City's contractual allowance for renewal, thus the City sollmted competitive bids Unum's
$ 42 offer w~lh the provm~on that the City also offer a short-term dasablllty product along with the long-
term d~salnhty plan is the lowest and best proposal This short-term disability product will provide an
option for employees who have not accrued enough vacation and sick leave to have prod t~me off dunng a
short-term disability or while wa~tang for the required 90-day ehmlnation period for long-term dlsabd~ty
to pass Short-term dlsablhty is voluntary (employee paid) and enhances the Cay's benefit package w~th
no fiscal impact on the City of Denton
An employeo survey was conducted at the City's Health and Wellness Fmr The survey results lndmated
that there wa~ a need for a short-term chsablhty plan Also dunng our recent health and wellness fair,
employees were asked ff they would participate ~n a payroll deduction for short-term dlsablhty Of the
168 msponse~ received, 121 (72%) were m favor of participating m a short-term d~sabfllty program
Request for l~roposals were sent to 20 chffemnt insurers to sobclt a competitive rate In addition to the
request for proposals for long-term dlsablhty, information was requested for a voluntary, short-term
disability benefit plan The lowest proposal received was $ 42 per $100 of payroll per month from
UNUM Included in the proposal from UNUM ~s a voluntary short-term dlsalnhty plan at no cost to the
City The UiqUM contract becomes effective 2/1/01 and offers a two-year rate guarantee including a
voluntary (emPloyee paid) short-term dlsablhty plan, L~feBalance Employee Assistance Program and
Assist AmeriCa Global Travel Assmtance Program
The LlfeBalance Employee Assistance Program provides a wealth of practical information for employees
such as education, including emotional well being, parenting, and child care, as well as, consumer
resources, ~neludlng information for home repmrs, buying/leasing a car, real estate agents, etc Also, the
Assist America Global Travel Assistance provides international access to U S style medm~ne, 24-hour
multilingual ~ervmes, emergency medical evacuation and repatriation, lost luggage assistance, legal and
interpreter referrals, and hospital adm~smon guarantee
OPTIONS
1 AwardI the contract to LrNUM for continued coverage of long-term d~sab~bty benefits
2 D~scorltmue long-term dlsablhty coverage as part of the employees' benefits package
3 To lower the costs, change the ehmmatmn penod from 90-days to 180 days before benefits begin
Th~s would be unfavorable for an estimated 815 of the C~ty's full-hme employees with httle or no
t~me accumulated for s~ek or vacatmn t~me off mcludmg the loss of current available benefits for
approximately 270 employees
4 To lower costs, allow the fire, pohce and service maintenance workers to receive long-term
dlsab~hty benefits for only 5 years and the rest of the employees to receive the
benefit for up to age 65
5 Allow a new benefit for voluntary (employee prod) short-term d~sabd~ty plan
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW
C~ty Council approved the original contract w~th UNUM on December 15, 1998, Ordinance # 98-437
FISCAL INFORMATION
The total estimated annual cost for the long-term chsabdlty ~nsurance is $174,282 The current contract
includes a two-year rate guarantee at $ 42 per $100 of payroll w~th an option to renew for an ad(htlonal
one year
BID INFORMATION
Company Name B~d Amount Per $100 of Payroll
Unum $ 42
Standard $ 426
lNG (Rehastar) $ 58
Canada L~fe $ 55
Respectfully submitted
~)l~a Orhz '
Treasury Director
Long-Term Disability Comparison
Company Standard UNUM
(Plan 2) (Plan 1)
Class ALL ALL
Monthly Benefit 60% 60%
Max Monthly Benefit $5,200 $5,200
MIn Monthly Benefit $100/10% $100/10%
Waiting Perl0d 90 days 90 days
Max Benefit Period Age 65 Age 65
Own Occupation Period 24 Months 24 Months
Rate 0 426 0 42
Rate Guarantee 2 Years 2 Years
pel!.-I s[u!elO I.np!A!PUl
LTD COMPARISON 12100
Company Standard UNUM lNG (RellaStar)
(Plan 1) (Plan 1) (Plan 1)
Claee 1 2 1 2 I 2
Monthly Benefit 60% ~0% 60°,6 60% 60% 60%
Max Monthly Benefit $5,200 $5,200 $5,200 $5,200 $5,200 $5,200
M,n. Monthly Benefit $100/10% $100110% $100110% $100110% $100/10% $100110%
Waiting Period 90 days 90 days 90 days 90 days 90 days 90 days
Max Benefit Period Age 65 5 Years Age 65 5 Years Age 65 5 Years
Own Occupation Period 24 Months 24 Months 24 Months 24 Months 24 Months 24 Months
Rate 0401 0401 039 039 038 038
Rate Guarantee 2 Years 2 Years 1 Year 1 Year 2 Years 2 Years
Schedule of Insurance
CLASS MONTHLY BENEFIT
1. All Office, Technical and 60% of monthly earmngs (rounded
Paraprofessional; Management to the next higher $1 00 of benefi0
and Supervision; and to a maximum benefit of $ 5,200.
Executive Employees
2. All Service Maintenance, 60% of monthly earmngs (rounded
Public Safety; Fire; and Police 1o the next higher $1.00 of benefi0
Employees to a maximum benefit of $ 5,200.
NOTE: The Monthly Benefit shown above will be subject to reductiom as
outlined in the Reductions Provision
GDC600-209
Page 20
see,~oldm~!
e[u!~ lind jo JeqmnN
ShortTerm Disability Income Protection Insurance
Unums Short-Term DAsaNlity (STD) Income Protectton Ansurance allows employers to design a
benefits package to meet the unique needs of the workforce, whale balancing benefit needs wAth
U~N]'{ ]'M'® effecuve cost containment
THE IMPORTANCE OF INCOME PROTECTION
Protecting everythtng Unum's STD Income Protection plan provtdes benefits for short penods of dAsaNbty due to An/ury
you work for or Allness A weekend sport's injury, a back dtsorder, a car accident, or a bout of pneumoma are all
common causes of short-term chsaNhty that can leave your company mAnus a valued employee
Consider the facts
· One in seven workers suffers a dAsabflity that fasts more than one week ~
· The average worker has only enough savAngs m last five weeks or so 2
INTEGRATED~ FLEXIBLE PRODUCT CHOICES AND SOLUTIONS
Unum's STD Income Protecuon Ansurance offers employers and employees a dAverse and Annovatlve
portfolio of group short term d~saNbty coverages, wAth plan chmces and solutmns to cover most
companies' needs In addmon, employers wall find
· FlexANe fun&ng arrangements, AncludAng employer- and/or employee-prod options
· A wide variety ofearmngs definmons, Ancome replacement percentages and benefit maximums
· Plans that Antegrate easdy with Unum's Long Term Income Protecnon insurance
WHAT CAN SHORT TERM DISABILITY INCOME PROTECTION DO?
DependAng on the plan desAgn, STD Ansurance can
· Replace up to 70% of earnmgs, up to a maxAmum of $2,500 a week,
· Continue paying benefits up to 52 weeks,
· Cover maternity as well as other short-term d~sablmg illnesses or injuries,
· Integrate w~th Workers Compensatmn and Sooal Security disaNhty programs, and
· Allow for 24-hour coverage
RETURN-TO WORK AND INDEPENDENCE
At Unum, we know that dAsabled employees want to return to Andependence and go back to work as
soon as they are able,3 whAch is why we focus on early mtervenuon and specAahzed rehaNhtatAon, and
vocational and workslte modAficauon servAces to support them ~n thru endeavor
NatlonalSafe~ Council AccldcntFacts 1999
1985 Commissioners Group D~sablh~ Table Society of Actuaries
93% of employees would return to work If they could Even tf D~sabled Amertcans Want to Work Unum Press Release Wall
Street Journal Oct 21 1997
2211 Congress Street, Portland ME 04122, ~.a Pro,¢cnng evee¥~h,ng you work ~ae® are reg,steeed
I Fountmn Square Chattanooga, TN 37402 1.~*.¢~ produci* are underwn,ten and *old and *erv,c~. aec
12/29/00 13 26 FAX UNUM LIFE INSURANCE ~005
) DISABILITY INCOME PROTECTION Policy#' .Pol_Num~
UNU
~,,~,.,,~ INSURANCE ENROLLMENT FO~
of Denton
AppUcant Name' Jo~ Doe ~~ , '
Date of B~th 3/20/1970
Date of H,re: 09/01/2000 Gender' M
Hours Worked per Week 40 Annual Earnings: $25,000
Short Term Disability Income Proteenon Insurance Plan Highhghts
60% of basic weekly eanungs to maximum of $1200
Benefits Begin: aider 14 days injury or 14 days slckncss
Benefit Duration. 11 weeks
Your Weekly Benefit $288 46
Your Monthly Cost' $12 11
* Final co*t mav vary shghtly due to rounding d~fferences
El Yes, I would like to pamcipatc 1 authonze my gmployer to deduct from my salary or
wages the necessary prenuum for this coverago My s~gnsture verifies the accuracy of
reformation contained on this form
I understand the effecUve date of my covcrage vail be delayed ill am not m acbve employment because of
an injury, sickness, temporary lay-off or leave of absence on the date fins insurance would othervase become
effective I have also read and understand the informUon m the Enronment Kit, jneluding aU
statements regarding exclusions
[] No, I do not wish to part~clpatc I understand that evidence of my msurabihty may be
required, at my own expense, ~fI decide to elect this coverage in the future
Employee Signature Date
DEC 21 00 (THU} 15 5~ CITY OF DENTON PURCHASING 940 349 7302 PAGE I/9
AN ORDINANCE ACCEFTINO COMPETITIVE BIDS ~ A~ARD~G AN
~EAS, th Cl~ hM anhclt~, r~mv~ md tabulated competitive bads for dsc
ofn~s~ rent.als, ~mpm~t, supphes or ;ewic~ m acco~ce w~ the p~ed~es of STATE
law ~d City o~m~ces, ~d
WHEREAS, 0m Csty M~ngcr or n dessgnalcd employcc has reviewed ~d recommended
;lmt the harem d~cdb~ beds ~e the lower ~s~ns~blc b~ds for the mntennls, equipm~nt, supphes
or sewsees ~ shown in the "Bed Passels" submitted therefore, and
WH~AS, ~e Cdy Co.cd h~ pmvid~ m tim City Bud8~ for the a~mpnnhon of
to be us~ for the purch~e of thc materials, ~uipment, supplies or se~,c~ ap~ved ~d accepted
harem, NOW, THE~FO~,
TIlE CO~CIL OF THE CI'~ OF DENTON HE.BY
SECTION I That lite numbered tlems tn Ihe followmg numbered bids For malone]s,
equtpment, supplies, or services, shown tn lite "Bid Proposals" eOachcd hereto, are hereby accepted
and approved as bees the lowest responsible bids for such items
BID ITEM
~ NO ~ AMOUNT
2250 ALL UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY EXHIBIT "A"
~ That by the nccepmnce and approval of lite above numbered items of the
submilted bids, Ihe Ctty accepts the offer of lite persons submlttmg the btds for such items and
agrees to purchue tile materials, equlpmem, supplies or services tn accordance with lbo te1111s,
spect§cntlons, standards, qunntlltes and J'm* the specified sums coJdmncd m Ihe Btd Inwtallons, ]Bid
Proposale, and related documents
~ That should the City and persons submlthn8 approved and accepted items
and of lbo submllted bids wtsh lo enler inlon formal wntten agreemcnl a~ n result of the acceptance,
approval, and awarding of tho bids, the City Mnnagar or Ills designated representative is hereby
aulhonzed Ia execute the wnilen conlr.ct which shall be a(Isched hereto; provided thai the whiten
contract is in accordance with the terms, condittong, ;pectlicnttong, stand.ds, qunntllle8 and
specified sums contained m lite Bid Proposal and related docmnents herem approved and accepted
~ Thai by the eeoaplance ond approval of the above numbered items o{'the
submflted bide, the (3fly Councd hereby aulhofize~ the expenditure of flu~lm therel'or tn tbo amount
mid tn aecordance with Gte approved bt(la or puraulmt to a w~tten contact made pursuant thereto us
autbonzed ham,n
~ Thai thte ordinance shall b~ome efFectlvo immediaiely upon tls paosaSe arid
approval
PASSED ~ND APPROVBD Ihia day of , {998
ATTEST
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
HANDOUTS TO COUNCIL
Attachment 2
ANNEXATION SCHEDULE
FOR
US 377/I-35W Annexation Area
Friday, September 22 Involuntary Annexation Petition filed, Annexation Study & Service
Plans Drafted, 30 day notice of intent to annex to each property owner,
each public entity or private entity that provides services m the area and
each railroad company
Friday, October 6 Annexation Service Plans Completed
Thursday, OCtober 5 Notice sent to be published on Monday, October 9 on City Webslte and
in Denton Record-Chronicle for CC's first public hearing (Noon)
Friday, October 13 500' Courtesy Notice and Postxng of s~gns
Thursday, October 19 Deadline for receipt of petitions for opposition (10 days after notice)
Tuesday, October 24 City Counc~l Conducts first public heanng
Wednesday, October 25 Notice sent to be published on Saturday, October 28 on City Webslte and
in Denton Record-Chronicle for PZ's public hearing on annexation and
zoning and CC's second public hcanng on annexation and zomng
(Noon)
Tuesday, November 7 City Council Conducts second public hearing
Wednesday, November8 Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing - make a
recommendation to City Council regarding the proposed annexation and
,' the proposed zoning
Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2000 First reading of annexation ordinance - C~ty Council by 4/5's vote
institutes annexation proceedings
Wednesday, Nov 29, 2000 Annexation ordinance published on Saturday, December 8, 2000 on City
Website and m Denton Record-Chronicle
Tuesday, Jan. 9, 2001 Consideration of amendments to the adopted 1st reading ordinance -
Council must approve by 4/5's vote
Saturday, Jan 20, 2001 Latest date for publication of amended ordinance in newspaper to allow
nd
consideration of adoption on 2 reading on February 20th
Tuesday, Feb. 20, 2001 Second reading and adoption of annexation ordinance and zoning
ordinance - City Council by a 4/5's vote takes final action
6
Attachment 3
IA-102 ORDINANCE ADOPTED ON FIRST READING, NOVEMBER 28, 2000]
ORDINANCE NO
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ANNEXING THREE TRACTS OF
LAND COMPRISING 1,159 ACRES IN THE SOUTHWESTERN SIDE OF THE CITY OF
DENTON'S EXTRATERRRITOTIAL JURISDICTION TRACT ONE IS LOCATED WEST
OF U S HIGHWAY 377, SOUTH OF ALLRED AND NORTH AND SOUTH OF JOHNSON
LANE. TRACT TWO IS LOCATED EAST OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 35 WEST AND
WEST OF THE KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, EXTENDING SOUTH
ALONG BONNIE BRAE APPROXIMATELY 6,400 FEET NORTH OF U.S. HIGHWAY 377.
TRACT 3 IS LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF CORBIN AND
BONNIE BRAE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE (A-102)
WHEREAS, the C~ty of Denton w~shes to extend its C~ty boundary line to ~nclude the 504 acre
tract labeled as "Tract 1" and the 655 acre tract labeled as "Tract #2" and the 1 7 acre tract labeled as
"Tract 3", more particularly described ~n Exhibit A, and
WHEREAS, not,ce was mmled ~n accordance w~th state annexation law and Denton C~ty Code,
and
WHEREAS, the aforementioned pubhc heanngs were conducted not more than forty (40) days
nor less than twenty (20) days prior to the ~nstltut~on of the annexation proceedings, and
WHEREAS, pubhc heanngs were held ~n the Cotmc~l Chambers on October 24, 2000, and
November 7, 2000, to allow all interested persons to state their wews and present ewdence beanng
upon this annexation, and
WHEREAS, at, er a pubhc heanng on November 8, 2000, the C~ty of Denton Planning and
Zomng Commission recommended approval of the annexation by a vote of 3-2, and
WHEREAS, annexation proceedings were ~nst~tuted for the property described here~n by the
introduction of th~s ordinance at a meeting of the C~ty Councd on November 28, 2000, and
WHEREAS, th~s ordinance has been published In full one t~me ~n the official newspaper of the
C~ty of Denton after annexation proceedings were ~nst~tuted and 30 days prior to City Council taking
final actmn, as reqmred by C~ty Charter, and
WHEREAS, certmn areas have been deleted to prowde for conservation easements or land trust
dedmat~ons to protect enwronmentally sensitive areas, or have been deleted because of the
unhkehhood of ~mm~nent development, and
WHEREAS, the C~ty Councd finds that the annexation will be in comphance vath the 1999
Denton Plan,
7
Exhibit A: A-102 Metes & Bounds January 9, 2001
ALL that certain lot, tract or parcel of land lying and being s~tuated ~n the County of Denton,
State of Texas, and being part of the O S Brewster Survey, Abstract Number 56, the W Sajvls
Survey, Abstract Number 1174, the S Pntchett Survey, Abstract Number 1004, the J
Edmondson Survey, Abstract Number 400, the W Roark Survey, Abstract Number 1087 and
being more partmularly described as follows
BEGINNING at a point m the present Denton c~ty hm~t hne as estabhshed by Ordinance No 60-
40, smd point lying 500 feet southeasterly of and perpendicular to the centerhne of Interstate
H~ghway 35 West, smd point also lying on the west hne of the Kansas C~ty Southern Rmlway
Company (formerly G C & S F Rtulroad),
THENCE South 20 degrees 50 minutes 12 seconds West, along the present Denton mty hm~t hne
estabhshed by Ordinance No 69-40, Tract II, 500 feet southeasterly of and parallel to smd
Interstate,H~ghway 35 West centerhne, a d~stance of 3,638 feet to a point for comer,
THENCE South 26 degrees 51 mmutes 40 seconds West, cont~nmng along the c~ty hmit hne
estabhshed by Ordinance No 69-40, Tract II, 500 feet southeasterly of and parallel to stud
Interstate H~ghway 35 West centerhne, a distance of 5,869 69 feet to a point for a comer ~n the
south hne of the stud S Pntchett Survey, Abstract Number 1004, same being the south hne of the
S Pntchett Survey, Abstract Number 1021 and the north hne of the tract described ~n Ordinance
No 91-033, Tract III,
THENCE South 89 degrees 02 m~nutes 00 seconds East, along the c~ty hm~t hne estabhshed by
Ordinance No 91-033, Tract III and smd Survey hnes, a d~stance of 2,700 feet to a point for
comer at the northeast comer of the smd Tract III and the northeast comer of the J Harris
Survey, Abstract Number 555, same being the northwest comer of the W Roark Survey,
Abstract Number 1087,
THENCE South 00 degrees 08 m~nutes 00 seconds West, cont~nmng along the present Denton
c~ty hm~t hne estabhshed by annexataon Ordinance No 91-033, Tract III and the east hne of smd
Harris Survey and the west hne of smd Roark Survey, to and along the m~ddle of a County Road,
known as Bonme Brae, a distance of 2621 35 feet to a point for comer, stud point being the
Southwest comer of a tract of land conveyed to Joab Partners L P recorded m Volume 4283
Page 855~Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas,
THENCE South 89 degrees 29 minutes 08 seconds East along the South hne of said to Joab
Partners L P tract a dmtance of 1700 62 feet
THENCE North 88 degrees 46 minutes 32 seconds East along the South hne of stud to Joab
Partners L P and the a North hne ora tract of land conveyed to V D Burch recorded ~n Volume
239 Page 137 Deed Records of Denton County, Texas a d~stance 1502 66 feet
C ~Vly DocumentsL~nnexatlons & Interlocal Agrmnts\2000~A- 101 & A- 102~A- 102 Field Notes - rewsed 9jan01 doc
1/9/01
Page I of 5
Exhibit A: A-102 Metes & Bounds January 9, 2001
THENCE North 00 degrees 47 m~nutes 19 seconds West along the Northerly West hne of smd
V D Butch tract and passxng the Northeast comer of smd Joab Partners L P tract and passing
the Southeast comer of the tract of land conveyed to New T~me Investments Corporatmn
recorded ~n Volume 2399 Page 112 Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas and
continuing along the East hne of smd New Time Investments Corporation tract a d~stance
2294 14 feet to the Northeast comer of smd New Time Investments Corporation tract and also
being the Northerly most Northwest comer of said V D Butch tract,
THENCE m a Southerly Dlrectmn the next following 7 calls along the East boundary of smd V
D Burch tract and along and near the meridian of Hmkory Creek,
1 THENCE South 84 degrees 05 minutes 01 seconds East a distance of 206 78 feet,
2 THENCE South 62 degrees 01 minutes 26 seconds East a distance of 242 77 feet,
3 THENCE South 55 degrees 31 minutes 24 seconds East a distance of 206 78 feet,
4 THENCE South 35 degrees 25 minutes 14 seconds East a distance of 298 70 feet,
5 THENCE South 07 degrees 50 minutes 35 seconds East a d~stance of 622 41 feet,
6 THENCE South 28 degrees 10 minutes 12 seconds East a distance of 400 35 feet,
7 THENCE South 07 degrees 13 minutes 55 seconds East a distance of 433 75 feet,
THENCE South 20 degrees 31 minutes 17 seconds East along a Burch East boundary hne
a d~stance of 21 90 feet to a point for comer, smd point being the northwest comer of the
d~sannexat~on tract established by Ordinance No 80-1, Tract III, smd point being 500 feet
northwesterly of and perpendicular to the centerhne of U S H~ghway 377 and being on an
annexation line established by Ordinance No 69-40, Tract III,
THENCE North 43 degrees 51 m~nutes East along smd present Denton c~ty hm~ts estabhshed by
Ordinance No 69-40, Tract III, 500 feet northwesterly of and parallel to the centerhne of U S
H~ghway 377 a d~stance of 986 feet to a point for comer, said point being the intersection of the
west right-of-way hne of the Kansas City Southern Railway Company (formerly G C & S F
Rmlroad) and the southwest right-of-way line of the Union Pacific Rmlroad (formerly Texas and
Pacific),
THENCE Northwesterly along the present Denton city limit line estabhshed by annexation
Ordinance 65-43, Tract IV, and the west right-of-way line of the G C & S F Railroad an arc
length of 1,877 feet to a point for comer, said point bemg the southeast comer of C~ty of Denton
C XMy DocumentsLa. nnexat~ons & lnterlocal Agrmnts~2000XA- 101 & A- 102La.- 102 Field Notes - rewsed 9jan01 doc
1/9/01
Page 2 of 5
Exhibit A: A-102 Metes & Bounds January 9, 2001
annexation Ordmance No 84-18 and smd point lying on thc south line of the A Hlckman
Survey, Abstract Number 521,
THENCE West with the south hne of smd Hlckman Survey and the along the south hne of smd
Ordinance No 84-18, a d~stance of 1,680 feet to a pmnt for comer, same being the southwest
comer of smd H~ckman Survey,
THENCE North along the west boundary hne of the said H~ckman Survey and a west hne of smd
Ordxnance No 84-18, a d~stance of 1,029 feet to a point for comer lying in the centerhne of
Hmkory Creek,
THENCE North 48 degrees 14 m~nutes 27 seconds West along the centerhne of Hmkory Creek a
distance of 302 06 feet to a point for comer,
THENCE South 81 degrees 14 mmutes 33 seconds West along the centerhne of H~ckory Creek a
distance of 958 63 feet to a point for comer,
THENCE South 58 degrees 07 m~nutes 54 seconds West along the centerhne of Hxckory Creek a
distance of 210 84 feet to a point for comer, smd pmnt lymg wxth~n Bonnie Brae Road,
THENCE South 69 degrees 56 mxnutes 37 seconds West along the centerhne of Hxckory Creek a
d~stance of 350 feet to a poxnt for comer, said pmnt lyxng on the west hne of the J Edmonson
Survey, Abstract No 400 and the east hne of the S Pntchett Survey, Abstract No 1004,
THENCE North along smd Survey hnes a d~stance of 511 feet to a poxnt for comer, smd pmnt
being the ~nner-ell comer ora tract conveyed to The Veteran's Land Board of the State of Texas
by deed recorded ~n Volume 966, Page 57 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas,
THENCE North 89 degrees 03 mxnutes 10 seconds West a dxstance of 297 45 feet to a pmnt for
comer,
THENCE North 89 degrees 03 minutes 10 seconds West a dxstance of 594 55 feet to a point for
comer, smd point being the southwest comer of a 13 33 acre tract conveyed to Asa W Yoant et
ux by deed recorded xn Volume 929, Page 734 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas,
THENCE North 89 degrees 03 mxnutes 10 seconds West a d~stance of 422 50 feet to a point for
comer, soad pmnt being the southeast comer of a tract conveyed to The Veteran's Land Board of
the State,of Texas by deed recorded in Volume 989, Page 401 of the Deed Records of Denton
County, Texas,
THENCE North 26 degrees 51 mmutes 20 seconds East a d~stance of 1,685 26 feet to a point for
comer,
C Wly DocumentsXAnnexat~ons & Interlocal AgrmntsL2000~A-101 & A-102~A-102 F~eld Notes - revised 9jan01 doc
1/9/01
Page 3 of 5
Exhibit A: A-102 Metes & Bounds January 9, 2001
THENCE South 89 degrees 24 minutes 20 seconds East a distance of 600 feet to a point for
comer, said point lying on the west line of said J Edmondson Survey, Abstract Number 400 and
the east linc of smd W Sajvis Survey, Abstract Number 1174, smd point also being a southwest
comer of the present Denton city ltmits established by annexation Ordinance No 84-18,
THENCE North with thc cast linc of said W Sajvls Survey and a west line of said Ordinance
No 84-18, a distance of 1,100 00 feet to a point for comer at the northeast comer of said W
Sajvls Survey, said point also lying in an east and west county road (Corbln),
THENCE West with the North linc of said W Sa3vis Survey and a north line of said Ordinance
No 84-18 and in an east and west county road (Corbm) to the southwest comer of Lot 23 of the
Solar Way Addition for a comer,
THENCE North 01 degrees 18 mlnutcs 49 seconds East a distance of 592 76 feet to a point for
comer at the northwest comer of Lot 21 of said Solar Way Addition,
THENCE South 87 degrees 17 minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 387 56 feet to a point for
comer at thc southwest comer of Lot 10 of smd Solar Way Addition,
THENCE North 04 degrees 55 minutes East a distance of 33 30 feet to a point at the southeast
comer of Lot 9 of smd Solar Way Addition,
THENCE North 42 degrees 52 minutes 40 seconds West a distance of 75 76 feet to a point for
comer,
THENCE North 69 degrees 49 minutes 15 seconds West a distance of 80 26 feet to a point for
comer,
THENCE North 14 degrees 56 minutes 43 seconds West a distance of 70 14 feet to a point for
comer,
THENCE North 39 degrees 25 minutes 17 seconds West a distance of 119 03 feet to a point for
comer,
THENCE North 02 degrees 30 minutes 08 seconds East a d~stance of 186 85 feet to a point at the
northwest comer of Lot 9 and the southwest comer of Lot 8 of said Solar Way Addition,
THENCE North 19 degrees 47 minutes 27 seconds East a distance of 713 54 feet to a point at the
northwest comer of Lot 1 of said Solar Way Addition,
C \My Documents\Annexatmns & lnterlocal Agrmnts\2000L6-101 & A-102La.-102 F~eld Notes - rewsed 9jan01 doc
1/9/01
Page 4 of 5
Exhibit A: A-102 Metes & Bounds January 9, 2001
THENCE South 89 degrees 12 m~nutes 11 seconds East along the north boundary hne of smd
Lot 1 a distance of 483 25 feet to a point for comer, smd pmnt lying 500 feet west of the east hne
of smd O,S Brewster Survey, Abstract No 56,
THENCE North 500 feet west of and parallel to the east hne of smd O S Brewster Survey, a
dtstance of 700 feet to a point for comer,
THENCE East w~th the north hne of said Ordinance No 84-18, a d~stance of 500 00 feet to a
pmnt for comer m the west right of way line of smd Kansas C~ty Southern Rmlway Company,
same point also being ~n the present mty hm~t hne as estabhshed by Ordinance No 60-40,
THENCE Northwesterly w~th the western right of way hne of smd Kansas C~ty Southern
Rmlway Company and the present Denton mty hm~t line as estabhshed by Ordinance No 60-40
along the various calls a total d~stance of 2,400 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and
conta~mng ~n all 553 acres of land
C LMy Doctunents'~Annexatlons & Interlocal AgrmntsX2000L~-101 & A-102~A-102 Field Notes -revtsed 9jan01 doc
1/9/01
Page 5 of 5
Exhibit A: A-101 Metes & Bounds January 9, 2001
ALL that certain lot, tract or parcel of land lying and being situated in the County of Denton, State
of Texas, and being part of the W Roark Survey, Abstract Number 1087, the B B B & C R R
Survey, Abstract Number 196, the T Martin Survey, Abstract Number 900, the A Gibson Survey,
Abstract Number 498, the T Peacock Survey, Abstract Number 1589, the T Labor Survey, Abstract
Number 779, the J Rogers Survey, Abstract Number 1084, , the M Rogers Survey, Abstract
Number 1079, the J Withers Survey, Abstract Number 1343, the J Schultz Survey, Abstract
Number 1223, and the F Daugherty Survey, Abstract Number 348 and being more particularly
described as follows
BEGINNING at a point in the present Denton city limit line, said point being the southeast comer
of a tract established by City of Denton Ordinance No 81-76, said point lying on the centerhne of
F M 1830 and on the east boundary line of the said B B B & C R R Survey, Abstract Number 196
same being the west boundary line of the T Martin Survey, Abstract Number 900,
THENCE North 00 degrees 54 minutes 40 seconds West, along said centerhne ofF M 1830 and the
said east boundary line of the said B B B & C R R Survey, Abstract Number 196 same being the
east city limit line as established by said Ordinance No 81-76, a distance of 1,091 30 feet to a point
for comer at the most easterly northeast comer of the city limit line established by stud Ordinance
No 81-76, same being the most southerly southeast comer on the centerhne ofF M 1830 of the city
limit line as established by Ordinance No 83-17,
THENCE North 00 degrees 54 minutes 40 seconds West, continuing along the centerhne ofF M
1830 and the city hmlt hne as estabhshed by said Ordinance No 83-17, a distance of 355 feet to a
point for comer in the city limit line established by Ordinance No 83-17,
THENCE North 89 degrees 46 minutes 35 seconds East, departing stud centerhne off M 1830 and
the east boundary line of the stud B B B & C R R Survey, Abstract Number 196, same being the
west boundary line of the said T Martin Survey, Abstract Number 900, and continuing along the city
hmit hne estabhshed by Ordinance No 83-17, a distance of 40 feet to a point for comer on the east
right of way line off M 1830, said point being the westerly southwest comer of the c~ty limit line
estabhshedby Ordinance No 80-12,
THENCE North 89 degrees 46 minutes 35 seconds East, continuing with the city limit line
established by stud Ordinance No 80-12, a distance of 640 75 feet to a point for comer,
THENCE South 00 degrees 35 minutes 35 seconds West, along the city limit line established by
Ordinance No 80-12, a distance of 761 95 feet to a point for corner,
THENCE South 85 degrees 36 minutes 59 seconds East, along said city limit line established by
Ordinance No 80-12, a distance of 23 60 feet to a point,
C \My Doeuments'~Annexattons & lnterlocal Agrmnts\2000~A- 101 & A- 102~A- 101 Field Notes - revised 9jan01 doc
1/9/01
Page 1 of 10
A-101 Metes & Bounds: for January 9, 2001 Ordinance
THENCE North 89 degrees 56 minutes 53 seconds East, along smd c~ty limit line estabhshed by
Ordinance No 80-12, a distance of 1,138 55 to a pmnt for comer at the northwest comer of the c~ty
limit hne established by Ordinance No 96-069,
THENCE South 00 degrees 06 minutes 16 seconds East, along the most westerly west clty hmlt line
estabhshed by said Ordinance No 96-069, a distance of 1,016 25 feet to a point for comer at the
westerly southwest comer of said city hmlt line estabhshed by Ordinance No 96-069,
THENCE North 89 degrees 47 m~nutes 21 seconds East, along the smd city hmlt hne established by
Ordinance No 96-069, a distance of 515 04 feet to a point for comer,
THENCE South 00 degrees 37 minutes 05 seconds West, along the said city limit hne estabhshedby
Ordinance No 96-069, a distance of 271 14 feet to a pmnt for comer in Sanders Road,
THENCE South 89 degrees 07 minutes 03 seconds East, along smd Sanders Road and along said c~ty
limit hne as estabhshed by Ordinance No 96-069, a distance of 326 35 feet to a point for comer, smd
point lying on the east line of the said T Martin Survey, Abstract Number 900, same being the west
line of the said A Gibson Survey, Abstract Number 498, said point also lying on the west city hmlt
hne established by Ordinance No 92-060,
THENCE South 00 degrees 19 m~nutes 42 seconds East, along the west hne of the smd A Gibson
Survey, Abstract Number 498, and the smd west c~ty hmlt hne estabhshedby Ord~nanceNo 92-060,
a d~stance of 472 72 feet to a pmnt at the southwest comer of the said city limit line established by
Ordinance No 92-060, same being the northwest comer of the city limit line estabhshed by
Ordinance No 93-188,
THENCE South 00 degrees 19 m~nutes 42 seconds East, continuing with the west line of the said A
Gibson Survey, Abstract Number 498, and with the west city limit line as estabhshed by smd
Ordinance No 93-188, a distance of 810 95 feet to a point for comer at the southwest comer of the
city limit hne estabhshed by said Ordinance No 93-188, said point also lying in the north right of
way line of Ryan Road, a public road,
THENCE South 89 degrees 22 minutes 47 seconds East, along the said north right of way hne of
Ryan Road and along the c~ty hm~t hne estabhshed by smd Ordinance No 93-188, a distance of
1,315 61 feet to a point for comer at the southeast comer of the said city limit hne estabhshed by
Ordinance No 93-188,
THENCE North 00 degrees 37 m~nutes 33 seconds East, along the west city limit hne estabhshedby
said Ordinance No 93-188, a distance of 513 39 feet to a point for comer at the southwest comer of
c \My Documents~Annexat~ons & lnterlocal Agrmnts~2000L~-I01 & A-102La,-101 F~eld Notes - rewsed 9.1an01 doc
1/9/01
Page 2 of 10
A-101 Metes & Bounds: for January 9, 2001 Ordinance
the Denton c~ty hm~t hne estabhshed by Ordinance No 99-426,
THENCE North 88 degrees 48 minutes 29 seconds East along sa~d c~ty hm~t hne estabhshed by
Ordinance No 99-426, a d~stance of 251 63 feet to a point for comer,
THENCE North 00 degrees 37 mmutes 00 seconds East continuing along sa~d c~ty hm~t hne
estabhshed by Ordmance No 99-426, a d~stance of 62 60 feet to a point for comer,
THENCE North 88 degrees 49 minutes 00 seconds East continuing along soad c~ty hm~t hne
estabhshed by Ordinance No 99-426, a d~stance of 726 00 feet to a point for comer,
THENCE North 09 degrees 19 m~nutes West continuing along sa~d c~ty hmlt hne estabhshed by
Ordinance No 99-426, a d~stance of 436 80 feet to a point for comer,
THENCE North 09 degrees 17 m~nutes East cont~nmng along smd c~ty hm~t hne estabhshcd by
Ordinance No 99-426, a d~stance of 261 feet to a point for comer,
THENCE North contmmng along smd c~ty hm~t hne estabhshed by Ordinance No 99-426, a
d~stance of 65 feet to a point for comer and being m the c~ty hm~t line estabhshed by Ordinance No
73-17,
THENCE East, along smd c~ty hm~t hne estabhshcd by Ordinance No 73-17, a d~stance of 419 10
feet to a point for comer m the east boundary hne of the said A Gibson Survey, Abstract Number
498, same being the west boundary hne of the sa~d T Peacock Survey, Abstract Number 1589,
THENCE South 00 degrees 40 m~nutes 58 seconds East, along the present Denton c~ty hm~t hne
estabhshed by Ordmance No 73-17 and along the west boundary line of the smd T Peacock Survey,
Abstract Number 1589, a d~stance of 1,057 29 feet to a point for comer at the westerly southwest
comer of the c~ty hm~t hne estabhshed by Ordinance No 73-17,
THENCE South continuing along the west boundary line of the said T Peacock Survey, Abstract
Number 1589 a d~stance of 239 41 feet to a point for comer, said point lying on the north hne of
Ryan Road,
THENCE East along the north r~ght-of-way hne of Ryan Road a distance of 805 47 feet to a point
for comer, soad pomt lying on the ex~stmg Denton c~ty hmlt line estabhshed by Ordinance No 73-
17, sa~d point lying on the east hne of the T Peacock Survey, Abstract No 1589 and the west line of
the C Poullaher Survey, Abstract No 1006,
THENCE South a d~stance of 30' to the centerhne of Ryan Road, sa~d point being thc southwest
comer of the C Poullaher Survey, Abstract No 1006 and the southwest comer of the T Peacock
C ~vly Documents~Annexat~ons & Interlocal Agrmnt$~2000~A-101 & A-102~A-101 Field Notes - rewsed 9jan01 doc
1/9/01
Page 3 of 10
A-101 Metes & Bounds: for January 9, 2001 Ordinance
Survey, Abstract No 1589,
THENCE North 88 degree 32 minutes 08 seconds East, along the south boundary line of the smd C
Poullaller Survey, Abstract No 1006, same being the north line of the T Labor Survey, Abstract
No 779, and the same b¢lng the southerly south Denton city limit line established by OrdmanceNo
73-17, a distance of 300 feet, more or less, to a point for comer at the northerly northwest comer of
the Denton city limit line estabhshcd by Ordinance No 77-5 (Tract I),
THENCE South along thc existing Denton city limit line cstabhshcdby OrdlnanccNo 77-5 (Tract I)
a dlstanc¢ of 30 feet to a point for comer, said point lying on the south right-of-way hne of Ryan
Road, said point being thc northeast corner ora 17 acre tract conveyed to Wayne S Ryan, et ux by
deed recorded in Volume 730, Page 599 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas,
THENCE along the south right-of-way line of Ryan Road the following calls
West a distance of 580 07 feet to a point,
2 South 88 degrees 21 minutes 07 seconds West, 645 84 feet to a point,
3 South 87 degrees 44 minutes 07 seconds West, 100 92 feet to a point,
4 South 89 degrees 09 minutes 56 seconds West, 155 43 feet to a point,
5 North 87 degrees 50 minutes 17 seconds West, 311 78 feet to a point,
6 North 89 degrees 19 minutes 23 seconds West, 174 90 feet to a point,
THENCE North 88 degrees 53 minutes 19 seconds West, continuing along the south right-of-
way line of Ryan Road a distance of 90 00 feet to a point, smd point being the northeast comer of
a 52 486 acre tract described in a Partition Deed to Shelton Ryan recorded in Volume 2522, Page
898 of the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas, said point also being the northeast
comer of a City of Denton annexation tract being described in Ordinance No 99-176,
THENCE North 88 degrees 55 m~nutes 09 seconds West continuing along the south right-of-
way of Ryan Road along the northernmost line of City of Denton annexation tract being
described in Ordinance No 99-176 a distance of 872 29 feet to a point for comer, smd point
being the northeast comer of a 52 486 acre tract of land conveyed to Phoebe Ryan Hlgg~nbotham
by Page 6 of Partition Deed, as recorded in Volume 2522, Page 898, Real Property Records,
Denton County, Texas, said point also being the northwest comer of said City of Denton
annexation tract being described in Ordinance No 99-176,
THENCE North 88 degrees 53 minutes 19 seconds West continuing along the south right-of-way
hne of Ryan Road a distance of 746 00 feet to a point,
C LMy Documents~Annexat~ons & Interlocal AgrmntsX2000~A-101 & A-102~A-101 Fteld Notes - rewsed 9janO1 doc
1/9/01
Page 4 of 10
A-101 Metes & Bounds: for January 9, 2001 Ordinance
THENCE North 89 degrees 16 m~nutes 12 seconds West continuing along the south right-of-way
line of R. yan Road a distance of 119 75 feet to a point for comer, said point being the northeast
comer ora 15 435 acre ~xact conveyed to Wayne S Ryan by Partltwn Deed, Tract 2, as recorded
m Volume 2522, Page 898, Real Property Records, Denton County, Texas, sa~d point also lying
on the east hne of the J W~thers Survey, Abstract Number 1343,
THENCE South along the east hne of the J Withers Survey, Abstract Number 1343 a distance of
3,344 66 feet to a point for corner, sa~d point being the northeast comer of a 10 acre tract
conveyed to Calvert Paving Corporation by deed recorded m Volume 1719, Page 924 of the Real
Property Records of Denton County, Texas,
THENCE South 88 degrees 36 m~nutes West a d~stance of 660 feet to a point for comer, being
thc northwest comer of smd 10 acre Calvert Paving Corporation tract,
THENCE South 01 degree 00 mmutas East a d~stance of 660 feet to a point for comer, being the
southwest comer of soad 10 acre Calvert Pawng Corporatmn tract, sa~d point lying on the north
line ofa~ 10 464 acre tract conveyed to Calvert Paving Corporation by deed recorded m Volume
2115, Page 425, (Tract 1) of the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas,
THENCE South 89 degrees 22 minutes West along the north line of sa~d 10 464 acre tract
conveyed to Calvert Pawng Corporation by deed recorded m Volume 2115, Page 425, (Tract 1)
of the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas a distance of 141 48 feet to a point for
comer, said point being the northwest comer of said 10 464 acre tract conveyed to Calvert
Paving Corporation by deed recorded ~n Volume 2115, Page 425, (Tract 1) of the Real Property
Records of Denton County, Texas and lying on thc cast right-of-way hnc of the Kansas City
Southern Railway Company (formerly G C & S F R R ),
THENCE South 34 degrees 41 minutes East along said railroad right-of-way line a distance of
1,158 feet to a point,
THENCE Southeasterly w~th smd right-of-way around a 0 824 degree curve to the right 525 64
feet to a,po~nt, smd point lying on the west hne of the N Bntton Survey, Abstract No 51 and the
east hne of the J Withers Survey, Abstract No 1343,
THENCE South along smd Survey hnes a d~stance of I 11 feet to a point for corner,
THENCE West a distance of 52 feet to a point for comer, soad point being thc northeast corner of
a 15 7998 acre tract conveyed to Connie Ann Cardwell by deed recorded in Volume 3318, Page
908, Tract 4, Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas, same point being the most
easterly southeast corner ora 102 493 acre tract to Sowell Property Partners - Hickory Creek,
C \My Documents~nnexat~ons & Interlocal Agrmnts~2000~A-101 & A-102~A-101 F~eld Notes - rcwsed 9.1an01 doc
1/9/01
Page 5 of 10
A-101 Metes & Bounds: for January 9, 2001 Ordinance
L P by deed recorded in Volume 4413, Page 933 of the Real Property Records of Denton
County, Texas,
THENCE North 89 degrees 52 minutes 00 seconds West along a southerly llne of said Sowell
tract and the north hne of smd Cardwell tract a distance of 1,250 72 feet to a point for comer,
THENCE South 01 degrees 50 minutes 01 seconds West, along the common line of smd tracts a
distance of 515 89 feet to a point for comer, smd point lying in the centerhne of Hmkory Creek,
THENCE along the centerhne of said Hickory Creek as follows
South 67 degrees 25 m~nutes 56 seconds East 493 76 feet, to a point,
2 South 81 degrees 03 minutes 06 seconds East 99 98 feet, to a point,
3 South 51 degrees 50 minutes 31 seconds East 64 85 feet, to a point,
4 South 20 degrees 02 minutes 27 seconds East 108 78 feet, to a point,
5 South 03 degrees 05 minutes 54 seconds East 361 60 feet, to a point, being the northeast
comer of the tract of land conveyed to Jack W Basden and w~fe, Beverly Holmquest
Basden, by deed as recorded in Volume 832, Page 794, Deed Records, Denton County,
Texas,
THENCE South 89 degrees 34 minutes 53 seconds West, a distance of 1,740 feet along the south
line of said Basden tract of land to a point for comer, said point lying on the west right of way line of
Hilltop Road,
THENCE North 00 degrees 09 m~nutes 00 seconds West along the west right of way line of Hilltop
Road, a distance of 45 feet to a point,
THENCE North 31 degrees 48 minutes 35 seconds West, a distance of 149 28 feet to a point, said
point lying on the south right of way line of Brush Creek Road,
THENCE South 88 degrees 04 minutes 34 seconds West along the south right of way line of Brash
Creek Road, a distance of 726 62 feet to a point for comer, said point lying on the intersection of the
south right of way line of Brash Creek Road and the east right of way line off M 1830,
THENCE South 82 degrees 36 minutes West across F M 1830, a distance of 200 feet to a point for
comer, smd point being the intersection of the south right of way line of Brash Creek Road and the
west right of way line ofF M 1830,
THENCE Westerly along the south right of way line of Brash Creek Road, a distance of 1,810 feet
to a pmnt for comer,
C LMy Documents~Annexatlons & lnterlocal Agrmnts~2000~A-101 & A-102~A-101 F~eld Notes - rewsed 9jan01 doc
1/9/01
Page 6 of 10
A-101 Metes & Bounds: for January 9, 2001 Ordinance
THENCE North across Brush Creek Road, passing at 60 feet the southeast comer of a tract of land
conveyed to John Brant Kmard and wife, Mary E Kznard, as recorded ~n Volume 2157, Page 591,
Real Property Records, Denton County, Texas, same being the southwest comer of an 80 acre tract
conveyed to Charles Penmngton by deeds recorded as Clerk's File Numbers 95-R0008699, 95-
R0008700, 95-R0008701, 95-R0008702 in the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas,
same be:ng a point on the north hne of Brush Creek Road and contmmng north along sazd Kznard
and Penmngton common hne, passing at 434 14 feet the northeast comer of smd Kmard tract, same
bemg a point m the Graveyard Branch tributary, same being the most easterly southeast comer ora
Czty of Denton annexation tract estabhshed by Ordinance No 97-130 and cont~numgnorth along the
east hne of smd Czty of Denton annexation tract (Ordinance No 97-130) and the west hne of smd
Pennmgton tract for a total d~stance of 2,640 feet to a poznt being the northwest comer of said
Penmngton tract,
THENCE East along the north hne of smd Pennmgton tract a d~stance of 1,320 50 feet to a point for
comer, sa~d point being the northeast comer of said 80 acre Penmngton tract,
THENCE South along the east hne of smd 80 acre Penmngton tract a d~stance of 2,640 feet to a point
for comer, sa~d point being the southeast comer of said 80 acre Penmngton tract, smd point also
lying on the north right-of-way hne of Brash Creek Road,
THENCE South 89 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds East along the north right-of-way hne of Brash
Creek Road a d~stance of 564 94 feet to a point for comer, sa~d point lying at the ~ntersect~on of the
north hne of Brush Creek Road and the west right-of-way hne of F M Road 1830,
THENCE North 58 degrees 12 m~nutes 58 seconds East along the west right-of-way hne off M
1830 a d~stance of 485 96 feet to a point for comer, and the beglnmng of a curve to the lef~
hawng a radms of 527 23 feet,
THENCE w~th smd curve to the let~ hawng an arc length of 534 91 feet and a chord which bears
North 29 Degrees 09 M~nutes 03 Seconds East a d~stance of 512 26 feet along the west right~of-
way hne of F M 1830 to a point for comer,
THENCE North 00 degrees 05 minutes 08 seconds East along the west right-of-way hne ofF M
1830 a d~stance of 1,051 84 feet to a point for comer, and the beglnmng of a curve to the right
having a radius of 1,169 35,
THENCE w~th smd curve to the right having an arc length of 158 43 feet and a chord, which
bears North 03 degrees 53 minutes 39 seconds East a distance of 158 31 feet along the west
right-of-way hne of F M 1830 to a point for comer,
THENCE North 07 degrees 46 m~nutes 32 seconds East along the west right-of-way hne off M
C \My Documents~Annexat~ons & Interlocal AgrmntsL2000~A- 101 & A- 102~A- 101 Field Notes - revised 9j an01 doc
1/9/01
Page 7 of 10
A-101 Metes & Bounds: for January 9, 2001 Ordinance
1830 a distance of 120 90 feet to a point for comer, smd point being the beg~nmng ora curve to
the left having a radius of 528 08 feet,
THENCE with smd curve to the left having an arc length of 149 46 feet and a chord whmh bears
South 00 degrees 19 minutes 58 seconds East a distance of 148 97 feet along the west right-of-
way llne off M 1830 to a point for comer,
THENCE North 08 degrees 26 minutes 28 seconds West a distance of 148 06 feet along the west
right-of-way line ofF M 1830 to a point for comer,
THENCE North 81 degrees 33 minutes 32 seconds East a distance of 5 00 feet along the right-of-
way hne of F M 1830 to a point for comer, said point being the beginning of a non-tangent
curve to the right hawng a re&us of 1,472 50 feet,
THENCE with said curve to the right hawng an arc length of 199 74 feet and a chord which
bears North 04 degrees 33 minutes 16 seconds West a distance of 199 58 feet along the west
right-of-way line F M 1830 to a point for comer,
THENCE North 00 degrees 33 minutes 33 seconds West along the west right-of-way ofF M
1830 a distance of 1,221 43 feet to a point for comer,
THENCE North 00 degrees 48 m~nutes 47 seconds West along the west right-of-way hne of
F M 1830 a distance of 27 76 feet to a point for comer, smd point being the southeast comer of a
5 165 acre tract conveyed to Richard Lee Bureh by deed recorded in Volume 1873, Page 134 of
the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas,
THENCE South 89 degrees 51 minutes 22 seconds West, departing the west right-of-way line of
F M 1830 and along the south hne of said 5 165 acre tract a d~stance of 500 feet to a point for
comer, sald point being the southwest comer of said 5 165 acre tract,
THENCE North 00 degrees 08 minutes 38 seconds West along the west line of said 5 165 acre
tract a distance of 450 feet to the northwest comer of smd 5 165 acre tract to a point for comer,
THENCE North South 89 degrees 51 minutes 22 seconds East along the north line of said 5 165
acre tract a distance of 500 feet to the northeast comer of said 5 165 acre tract to a point for
comer, said point lying on the west right-of-way line off M 1830,
THENCE North 00 degrees 48 minutes 47 seconds West along the west right-of-way line of
F M 1830 a distance of 1,241 24 feet to a point for comer, smd point being the southeast comer
of a tract to Connie M Altemus by deed recorded in Volume 901, Page 774 of the Deed Records
c Wly DocumentsXAnnexatJons & Interlocal AgrmntsX2000~A- 101 & A- 102La.- 101 F~eld Notes - rewsed 9jan01 doc
1/9/01
Page 8 of 10
A-101 Metes & Bounds: for January 9, 2001 Ordinance
of Denton County, Texas,
THENCE West along the south hne of sa~d Altemus Volume 901, Page 774 tract, crossing the
Kansas C~ty Southern Railway Company right-of-way and cont~nmng along the south hn¢ of a
tract conveyed to Conme M Altemus by deed recorded ~n Volume 901, Page 777 of the Deed
Records of Denton County, Texas a d:stance of 2,607 feet, more or less, to a pmnt for comer,
smd point being the southwest comer of smd Altemus Volume 901, Page 777 tract, smd pornt
also lying on the west hne of the B B B & C R R Co Survey, Abstract No 196,
THENCE North along the west hne of the 13 B B & C R R Co Survey, Abstract No 196 a
d~stance of 1004 92 feet to a point for comer, smd point lying m the center of I-hckory Creek,
THENCE North 52 degrees 35 rnrnutes 40 seconds West along Hickory Creek a d~stancc of
242 48 feet to a point for comer,
THENCE North 32 degrees 40 minutes 56 seconds West along Hickory Creek a distance of 321 60
feet to a point for comer, smd point being ~n the present Denton city hm~t linc as estabhshed by
Ordinance No 65-43 (Tract No IV), smd point bcmg 660 feet southeast of and perpendicular to the
centcrhne ofU S H~ghway 377,
THENCE Northeasterly, along thc smd c~ty hrn~t hne established by Ordrnance No 65-43 (Tract
No IV), 660 feet southeast of and parallel to thc centcrhne ofU S H~ghway 377, passing at 518
feet, more or less, the east boundary hne of the smd W Roark Survey, Abstract Number 1087, same
being the west boundary hne of the smd B B B & C R R Survey, Abstract Number 196, and
contmmng for a total d~stance of !,383 feet, more or less, to a point on the northeast right-of-way
hne of the Kansas C~ty Southern Rmlrnad, same being a point at thc westerly southwest corner of thc
city hrnlt hne as estabhshed by Ordinance No 81-76,
THENCE South 35 degrees 27 mrnutes East, along the northeast right of way hnc of smd railroad
and thc southwest c~ty hrn~t hne estabhshed by said Ordinance No 81-76, a distance of 898 13 fcct
to a potnt for comer at the southerly southwest comer of the c~ty hrnit hn¢ cstabhshcd by said
Ordinance No 81-76,
THENCE North 89 degrees 37 minutes 22 seconds East, departing smd rmlroad right-of-way and
contrnmng along the south city hrn~t hne estabhshed by smd Ordrnance No 81-76, passrng at 1,481
feet thc west right of way hnc off M 1830, and contrnmng for a total distance of 1,521 feet to thc
POINT OF BEGINNING and contmnmg 690 25 acres of land, SAVE & EXCEPT a 2 25 acre Butch,
et al tract for a net acreage of 688 acres w~th~n the annexation tract,
C \My Documents~Annexat/ons & Interlocal Agrmnts~2000L4-101 & A- 102~A- 101 F/eld Notes - remsed 9jan01 doc
1/9/01
Page 9 of 10
A-101 Metes & Bounds: for January 9, 2001 Ordinance
SAVE & EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING TRACT
F~eld notes to all that certmn tract of land situated ~n the J W~thers Survey, Abstract Number
1343, Denton County, Texas, and being a port~on of the called 80 acre third tract described in the
deed from V D Burch, et ux to Marvin Burch recorded m Volume 440, Page 214, Deed Records
of Denton County, Texas, subject tract bemg more partmularly described as follows
BEGINNING at a point on the north hne of Brush Creek Road and on the southerly right-of-way
hne off M Road 1830 and being North 58 degrees 12 m~nutes 58 seconds East a d~stance of
20 00 feet from the northwest coruer of the tract of land described m the deed from A E Wyatt
to Fred D Kurrus being recorded m Volume 598, Page 544, Deed Records of Denton County,
Texas,
THENCE North 58 degrees 12 mmutes 58 seconds East along the south right-of-way hne of
F M 1830 a d~stance of 323 52 feet to the beg~nmng of curve to the left hav~ng a radius of
617 23 feet,
THENCE w~th smd curve to the left having an arc length of 443 28 feet and a chord bearing of
North 37 degrees 38 m~nutes 31 seconds East a d~stance of 433 82 to a point on the southerly
right-of-way of F M 1830 and on the west hne of the tract of land described ~n the deed to
Sowell Property Partners-Hmkory being recorded as County Clerk's Fde Number 99-R0088518,
Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas,
THENCE South 00 degrees 54 minutes 46 seconds East along the west hne of smd Sowell
Property Partners-H~ckory tract a d~stance 489 36 feet to a pmnt on the north right-of-way hne of
Brush Creek Road,
THENCE South 87 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West along the north hne of Brush Creek
road a d~stance of 548 30 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and contmnmg ~n all 2 25 acres of
land
C \My DocumentsLAnnexat~on s & lnterlocal Agnnnts~2000XA- 101 & A- 102~A- 101 F~eld Notes - revised 9.1an01 doc
1/9/01
Page 10 of 10