Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
June 19, 2001 Agenda
AGENDA Agenda It~jm CiTY OF DENTON CITY COX CIL Oato J~e 19, 2001 After det~mng ~at a quo~ xs present ~d convening ~n ~ ~en Meeting, ~e C~ty Counml will conv~e m a Closed Meeting of the C~W of Denton C~ty Counml on Tuesday, June 19, 2001, at 5 15 p m m ~e City of Denton Co~c~l Work Session Room, Denton C~W Hall, at 215 E~t McK~ey, Denton, Tex~ to consider spemfic ~tems when these ~tems ~e hsted below ~der ~e Closed Meeting section of ~s agenda ~en ~tems for consideration ~e not hsted under the Closed Mbetmg section of ~e ag~da, the C~ty Co.cd will not conduct a Closed Meeting at 5 00 p m ~d will convene at ~e t~me hsted below for ~ts regul~ or special called meeting The C~ty Council rescues ~e right m ~joum into a Closed Meeting on ~y ~tem on ~ts ~en Meeting agenda conmstent w~th Chapter 551 of~e Texas Gove~ent Code, as mended, as set fo~h below 1 Closed Meetmg A Consultation w~ Attorney - Under TEX GOV'T CODE Section 551 071 (1) Dmcuss ~d consider s~ategy ~d status of lmgat~on w~ ~e C~ty's attorneys ~n ht~gat~on styled Ct~ of Denton, et al v T~ Electrtc Company, et al, Cause No 009383 c~ently pendmg ~n the 134th D~stnct Corn of Dallas Co~ty, Texas, ~d dmcuss legal ~ssues concerning ~s ht~gat~on w~ ~e a~omeys where to dmcuss these matters ~n pubhc would conflmt w~th tho duty of the C~ty's a~omeys to the C~ty Co.cd under Tex~ D~smplm~ Rules of Profesmonal Conduct of the State B~ of Tex~ ~ F~ ACTION, DECISION, OR VOTE ON A MATTER DELIBE~TED ~ A CLOSED MEET~G ~LL O~Y BE T~N ~ AN OPEN MEETING THAT IS HELD COMPLI~CE ~TH TE~S GOVE~ENT CODE, CH~TER 551, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT SUCH F~ ACTION, DECISION, OR VOTE IS T~N ~ THE CLOSED MEET~G ~ ACCO~ANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 551 086 OF THE TEXAS GOVE~ENT CODE (T~ "P~LIC POWER EXCEPTION") THE CITY CO.CIE ~SERVES THE ~GHT TO ~JO~ ~TO A CLOSED MEET~G OR EXECUTIVE SESSION AS AUTHO~ZED BY TEX GOV'T CODE, SECTIONS 551 001, ET SEQ (THE TEXAS OPEN MEET~GS ACT) ON ~ ITEM ON ITS OPEN MEET~G AGE~A OR TO ~CO~E~ ~ A CONT~ATION OF THE CLOSED MEET~G ON THE CLOSED MEET~G ITEMS NOTED ~OVE, ~ ACCO~ANCE ~TH THE TEXAS OPEN MEET~GS ACT, ~CL~G, WITHOUT LIMITATION SECTIONS 551 071- 551 086 OF THE TE~S OPEN MEET~GS ACT Regular Meeting of the C~ty of Denton C~ty Co~ml on Tuesday, J~e 19, 2001 at 6 00 p m ~n the Co.eft Chmbers at C~W Hall, 215 E McK~ey S~eet, Denton, Tex~ at w~ch ~e following items will be considered 1 Pledge of ~leg~ce A U S Flag B Texas Flag ~ "Honor ~e Tex~ Flag ~ I pledge alleg~ce to thee, Texas, one ~d md~ws~ble" 2 Conmder approval of the m~nutes ofJ~e 5 ~d J~e 12, 2001 City of Denton City Counml Agenda June 19, 2001 Page 2 PRESENTATIONS 3 June Yard of the Month Awards CITIZEN REPORTS 4 Donald Cox regarding drug enforcement activities 5 Wdhe Hudspeth regarding concerns for District One 6 Mildred Hawk regarding historic bridges for the Ryan Road area 7 Ross Melton regarding jury power, lawsmts and separation of powers NOISE EXCEPTIONS 8 Consider a request for an exception to the noise ordinance for construction act~wty at 2233 S Loop 288 between the hours of 3 00 a m and 6 00 a m on Friday, June 22, 2001, by Parkway Constmctmn 9 Consider a request for an exeeptlun to the no,se ordinance for the Apollo Nights summer concert series at Fred Moore Park on June 24, July 8, July 22, August 5, and August 19 from 6 00 to 10 00 p m CONSENT AGENDA Each of these items is recommended by the Staff and approval thereof will be strictly on the basis of the Staff recommendations Approval of the Consent Agenda anthonzes the City Manager or his designee to implement each Item m accordance with the Staff recommendations The City Council has received background mformat~on and has had an opportunxty to rinse questions regarding these items prior to consideration Listed below are bids, purchase orders, contracts, and other ~tems to be approved for payment under the Consent Agenda (Agenda Items 10 - 18) This listing xs provided on the Consent Agenda to allow Council Members to discuss or w~thdraw an xtem prior to approval of the Consent Agenda If no items are pulled, Consent Agenda Items 10 - 18 below will be approved with one motion If~tems are pulled for separate &seussion, they wall be considered as the first items following approval of the Consent Agenda 10 Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the C~ty Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Dunk~n Sims Stoffels, Inc, for the design of Cross Txmbers Park as set forth in the contract, and prowding an effective date (PSA 2656 - Professional Services Agreement for Design of Cross T~mbers Park awarded to Dtmkm Sims Stoffels, Inc, for a total mount of $71,000 00) 11 Consider adoption of an ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds for the purchase of Remote Termmal Units (RTU's) which are avmlable from only one source in accordance w~th the provisions of State Law exempting such purchases from C~ty of Denton C~ty Council Agenda June 19, 2001 Page 3 reqmrements of competitive b~ddlng, and providing an effective date (PO 15203 to Advanced Control Systems m the amount of $26,190) 12 Consider adoption of an ordmance accepting competitive b~ds and awarding an annual contract for the purchase of roadway hght poles, providing for the expenditure of funds therefore, and prowchng an effective date (B~d 2674 - Roadway L~ght Poles awarded to Genlyte Sales m the estimated amount of $60,000) 13 Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive b~ds and awarchng a contract for the purchase of a substation materials and eqmpment package, prowd~ng for the expenchture of funds therefore, and prowd~ng an effective date (B~d 2678 - Teasley Substation Material and Equipment Package awarded to Utthserve Incorporated ~n the amount of $298,346 85) 14 Conmder adoption of an ordinance authorizing the Mayor to execute an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Completion of Preliminary Schematms and Environmental Assessment for Loop 288 from 1-35 North to 1-35 West between the City of Denton and Donton County, Texas, and promdmg an effective date 15 Consider adoption of an ordinance authonz~ng the C~ty Manager of the C~ty of Denton, Texas to act on behalf of the C~ty of Denton ~n executing the Owner's Certfficate of a Final Plat of Lot 1, Block A, Ray Roberts Water Treatment Facility, and promdmg an effective date 16 Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas authonmng the City Manager to execute a Personal Servmes Agreement for asset recovery services w~th Greenbnar Recovery, Inc to assist Denton ~n recovenng dormant assets to whmh the C~ty ~s apparently entitled, and prowchng an effective date 17 Consider and take action on a variance from Section 34-124(0(3)(a) of the Code of Ordinance, concerning open flumes for Hills of Argyle Phase 3 Subd~ws~on The 171 acre s~te ~s located east of the intersection of Chipping C ampden Road and H~ghway 377 The property ~s m an Agricultural (A) zomng dmtnct A single-family subdivision ~s proposed The Planmng and Zomng Commission recommends approval (5-1) (V-01- 0007) 18 Consider approval of a resolution amending ResoluUon No R2001-028 estabhsl~ng gmdehnes for persons submitting speeffie redmtnct~ng proposals to amend dates for subm~ssmn of plans and final adoption, providing a sawngs clause, and prow&ng an effective date ITEMS FOR INI)IVII)UAL CONSIDERATION 19 Consider adoption of an ordinance of the C~ty of Denton, Texas, amending Sections 18- 151 and 18-152 of the Code of Ordinances of the C~ty of Denton, Texas to delegate the authority to enforce parking laws to the Umvermy of North Texas Pohee Department for the streets and portions of streets named ~n the Fry Street Small Area Plan as well as all streets or portions of streets previously delegated and listed ~n th~s ordinance, authorizing City of Denton Caty Council Agenda June 19, 2001 Page 4 the City Manager to s~gn an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Denton and the Umvers~ty of North Texas for the enforcement of parking regulations by the Umverslty of North Texas an the areas described wath~n this ordinance, provadlng for a severablhty clause, prowdmg for a savings clause, and providing for an effective date 20 Consader approval of a resolution approving a ProJect Plan for approximately 10 8 acres, in a Commercial (C) zomng chstnct, generally located at the northwest comer of Umverslty and Loop 288 A shopping center wath an Albertson's grocery store, gas station, restaurant and related site and access Improvements as proposed (SP-01-0014) 21 Consider and take action on a request for relief from the Resadentlal Interim Zoning Regulations, Ordinance 2000-046 for approxamately 17 acres generally located 1,000 feet southwest of the intersection of Robinson Road and P~ne Hills Lane The property ~s ~n a One-family dwellmg (SF-7) zomng &strict A sangle-famlly subdivision as proposed (RR-O I-O006, Braewood at Oakmont, Phase 3) 22 Consider and take action on a request for rehef from the Non-Residential Interim Zomng Regulation, Ordinance 2000-069 for approxamately 0 2 acres located at 315 W Sycamore Street The property as zoned Multa-famlly resadent~al (MF-1) A Planned Development (PD) zomng thstnct ~s proposed to allow for a jewelry stem (RN-01-0006, W Sycamore) 23 Consider and take actaon on a request for relief from the Resadentml Interim Zoning Regulations, Ordanance 2000-046 for a 5 105 acre property located at 1710 Morse Street The property as an a One-family dwelling (SF-7) zoning district A Multa-famdy zomng district ~s proposed (RR-01-O005, Denton Housmg Authortty) 24 Consider and take action on a variance from Section 34-114(17) of the Code of Ordinance, concerning s~dewalks for Halls of Argyle Phase 3 Subdlvaslon The 171 acre sate is located east of the antersection of Chlppang Campden Road and Haghway 377 The property as in an Agricultural (A) zomng thstnct A sangle-famaly subthvlsaon as proposed The Planmng and Zomng Commassaon recommends approval of a partial variance (4-2) with conditions (V-01-0004) 25 Consider approval of exactaon variances relating to A Section 34-114(5)b, perimeter pawng, of the Subdlvaslon and Land Development Regtflat~ons for Hobson Vdlage The 37 6 acre sate is located northeast of the intersection of Hobson Road and FM 1830 The property as an an Agricultural (A) zoning district Commercml and residential development as proposed The Planmng and Zomng Comrmsslon recommends demal (6-0) B Section 34-114(17), s~dewalks, of the Subdlvlsaon and Land Development Regulations for Hobson Village The 37 6 acre site is located northeast of the intersection of Hobson Road and FM 1830 The property is ~n an Agricultural (A) zomng chstnct Commercial and resldenoal development is proposed The Planmng and Zomng Commission recommends denial (6-0) 26 Consider nominations and appointments to the C~ty's Boards and Commissions Caty of Denton C~ty Courted Agenda June 19, 2001 Page 5 27 NeW Business Thls ~tem promdes a section for Cotmcll Members to suggest items for future agendas 28 Items fi.om the City Manager A Notification of upcoming meetings and/or conferences B Clarification of items on the agenda 29 Possible Continuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551 071-551 086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act 30 Official Action on Closed Meeting Item(s) under Sections 551 071-551 086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act CERTIFICATE I certify that the above notme of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the C~ty Hall of the C~ty of Denton, Texas, on the day of ,2001 at o'clock (am)Om) CITY SECRETARY NOTE THE CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS IS ACCESSIBLE 1N ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT THE CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED MEETING PLEASE CALL THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 349-8309 OR USE TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF (TDD) BY CALLING 1-800-RELAY- TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE SCHEDULED THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES A lencla Item June 5, 2001 Date After determtmng that a quorum was present and convening in an Open Meetmg, the City Council convened in a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, June 5, 2001, at 5 00 p m in the City of Denton Council Work Session Room PRESENT Mayor Pro Tern Beasley, Council Members Burroughs, Fulton, Phillips, and Redmon ABSENT Mayor Brock, Council Member McNedl 1 The Council considered the following in Closed Meeting A Consultation with the City Attorney - Under TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE Section 551 071 (1) Received legal advise t~om the City Attorney or hs staff concerning legal issues regarchng rmls to trmls agreements with Union Pacific Rmlroad lncludmg the acqulmt~on thereof by DART, and related legal issues regarding mass tranmt and hike and bike trmls B Deliberations regarding real property - Under TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE Section 551 072 (1) Received information from staff, discussed and deliberated concemmg the possible purchase, exchange and value of real property with Union Pacific Rmlroad, contaunng approximately 6 acres, for municipal services, mcludlng parking facilities, located adjacent to and west of Mumc~pal Center East and the City's facilities management facilities in the City of Denton Regular Meetmg of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, June 5, 2001 at 6 00 p m in the Council Chambers at City Hall 1 Pledge of Allegiance The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the U S and Texas flags 2 The Council considered approval of the minutes of April 3, April 10, April 17, April 24, May 1 Special Called Session, May 1, and May 8, May 14, May 15, May 16, May 22, and May 29, 2001 Council Member Redmon lnchcated that he would not be voting on the minutes of April 3, April 10, April 24, May 1 Special Called and May 1 as he was not present at those meetings Mayor Pro Tem Beasley asked for a correction to the May 22na meeting to indicate that Howard Martin indicated that the Public Utilities Board felt that the procedure would be cost prohibitive at this point m time On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", and Phdhps "aye" Motion camed unanimously C~ty of Denton City Council Minutes June 5, 2001 Page 2 PRESENTATIONS 3 Mayor Pro Tem Beasley presented a proclamation for Flag Day CITIZEN REPORTS 4 Gerald DeMarsh regardmg procedures at the Police Department Mr DeMarsh was not present at the meetmg 5 Brian Sutherland with the Township II Neighborhood Association Group regarding the City not mamtmmng Pdo Grande Blvd per an agreement Mr Sutherland was not present at the meeting 6 Glynms Phillips regarding the condtt~on of the roads getting to Swmher Road Mr Pbalhps stated that he would be speal~ng for bas wife He stated that several meetings ago a representatxve of the Preserve indicated that the development would help mmntaln Swisher Road if the Council granted a variance to a transportation plan for the development Thirty days had passed and nothing had been done an regards to the mmntenance of the road 7 Charlye Hegglns regarding redistricting Ms Hegglns stated that redistricting was ~mportant to everyone in the State of Texas She rewewed the statlstms presented from the Census She ~ndmated that it was ~mportant to use the census figures correctly so as to not negatively ~mpact the m~nonty voting population The NAACP would be making an effort to attend all forums regarding red~smctlng 8 Mae Nell Shepherd regardmg redistricting Ms Shepherd asked that the NAACP be included in discussions and procedures involved in the redistricting process that currently was in progress 9 Mildred Hawk regarding bastonc bridges for the Ryan Road area Ms Hawk was not present at the meeting 10 Ross Melton, Jr regarding trial by jury and attorneys Mr Melton complmned about attorneys and jury reals NOISE EXCEPTION 11 The Council considered a request for an exception to the nmse ordinance for a Juneteenth celebration at Fred Moore Park on June 19 until 11 00 p m Fulton motioned, Redmon seconded to approve the exception On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", Phillips "aye", and Redmon "aye" Motion carried unammously C~ty of Denton C~ty Council Minutes June 5, 2001 Page 3 CONSENT AGENDA Burroughs motioned, Redmon seconded to approve the Consent Agenda and accompanying ordinance and resolutions On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", Phdhps "aye", and Redmon "aye" Motion camed unanimously 12 NO R2001-029 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DENTON EMERGENCY PLANNING ADVISORY COUNCIL (DEPAC) AS AN ADVISORY GROUP CONCERNED WITH ALL EMERGENCIES AND THEIR IMPACT UPON THE CITY OF DENTON AND DENTON COUNTY, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE 13 Th~s ~tem was pulled from consideration 14 NO 2001-205 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF PUBLIC SAFETY SYSTEM MOBILE DATA COMPUTERS (MDC) UPGRADES WHICH IS AVAILABLE FROM ONLY ONE SOURCE 1N ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDS, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (PO 14516 TO DATALUX 1N THE AMOUNT OF $130,240 FOR MDC PUBIC SAFETY UPGRADES) 15 NO 2001-206 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF AUTOMATIC THROW OVER SWlTCHGEAR WHICH IS AVAILABLE FROM ONLY ONE SOURCE 1N ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDS, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (PURCHASE ORDER 14681 TO S & C ELECTRIC COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $65,200 FOR AUTOMATIC THROW OVER SWITCHES) 16 NO 2001-207 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF VIDEO DIRECTION COUNT STATIONS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE FROM ONLY ONE SOURCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDS, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (PO 14685A TO CONSOLIDATED TRAFFIC CONTROLS INC IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,330) C~ty of Denton C~ty Council M~nutes June 5, 2001 Page 4 17 NO 2001-208 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A SKID MOUNTED COMPRESSED AIR FOAM SYSTEM, PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2677 - COMPRESSED AIR FOAM SYSTEMS AWARDED TO FIRESTORM LLC IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,350) 18 Approved a tax refund to Texas Manor Inc ~n the amount of $570 09 The 2000 property value was decreased by the Denton Central Appratsal D~smct 19 Approved a tax refund to Cooperwood LTD ~n the amount of $867 63 The 2000 property tax was prod twine 20 Approved a tax refund to Preserve at Pecan Creek ~n the amount of $774 29 The 2000 property tax was prod twine 21 Thas ~tem was not considered 22 Approved a tax refund to Intemataonal Isotopes ~n the amount of $4,231 60 The 2000 property tax was overpmd 23 Approved a tax refund to Pamey Bowes in the amount of $1,589 67 The 1999 property tax was prod twace 24 Approved a tax refund to Extraco Mortgage ~n the amount of $635 58 The 2000 property tax was prod twice 25 Approved a tax refund to Sears Roebuck & Co an the amount of $973 77 The 1999 property value was decreased by the Denton Central Apprmsal D~stnct 26 Approved a tax refund to Mason Stewart in the amount of $597 37 The 2000 property tax was prod twine 27 Approved a tax refund to Matthews Country Club Est LP ~n the amount of 1,742 18 The 2000 property tax was pa~d twace 28 Approved a tax refund to Matthews Country Club Est LP an the amount of $1,117 89 The 2000 property tax was prod twine 29 Approved a tax refund to Matthews Country Club Est LP ~n the amount of $1,123 61 The 2000 property tax was ptud twine 30 NO 2001-209 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF THE AWARD OF SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT IN CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING STYLED THE STATE OF TEXAS AND City of Denton C~ty Council M~nutes June 5, 2001 Page 5 CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS V$ RD MARTIN, CAUSE NO ED-2000-01212 1N AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $24,535 31 NO 2001-210 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF THE AWARD OF SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS 1NTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT IN CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING STYLED THE STATE OF TEXASAND CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS V$ TEX MORGAN MARTIN, CAUSE NO ED-2000-01211 IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $39,900 32 NO 2001-211 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROHIBITING PARKING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SPENCER STREET BEGINNING 3078 FEET EAST OF WOODROW LANE AND EXTENDING 645 FEET EAST TO A POINT 2821 FEET WEST OF LOOP 288, PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, PROVIDING FOR A SAVINGS CLAUSE, PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $ 200 FOR VIOLATIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION 33 NO 2001-212 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS PROHIBITING PARKING ON THE EAST SIDE OF CEDAR STREET BEGINNING SEVENTY-FIVE FEET NORTH OF THE NORTHERN CURB OF WALNUT STREET AND EXTENDING NORTH ON CEDAR STREET FOR TWENTY-TWO FEET, PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE, PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, PROVIDING A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS, AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE 34 NO 2001-213 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING CHAPTER 18 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON REGARDING MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, AMENDING SECTION 18-109 TO ADD A DISABLED PARKING SPACE ON WEST HICKORY STREET AND TO REMOVE A DISABLED PARKING SPACE ON ROBERTS STREET BECAUSE IT IS NO LONGER NEEDED, PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, PROVIDING FOR A SAVINGS CLAUSE, PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY NOT TO BE LESS THAN $ 250 OR MORE THAN $500 FOR VIOLATIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION PUBLIC HEARINGS 35 The Councd held a pubhc heanng and considered adoption of an ordinance approving the request to zone approximately 46 acres of land proposed to be annexed into the City (A-01-0002) to an Agriculture (A) land use classification and zomng d~smct The s~te was generally located on the south s~de of Blagg Road, approximately 1000' west of Lakewew Boulevard The Planning and Zomng Comm~smon recommended approval (7-0) (Z-Ol-OOO4, BlaggRoadAnnexattonArea) City of Denton City Council Minutes June 5, 2001 Page 6 Dave Hill, Assistant Caty Manager for Development Servaces, stated that this was a public heanng and zomng request for a land use classification The Council would not be able to vote on the annexation as SlX members of the Council were not present He suggested Council open the pubhc heanng for those present who would like to speak and then continue the publac hearing to a date certmnWlthoutanyaetion The date certmn would be July 17th The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public heanng No one spoke dunng the pubbc heanng The Mayor Pro Tem closed the publae hearing Burroughs motioned to table the Item to the July 17th Council meeting and contmue the public heanng at that meeting 36 The Councal held a pubhc hearing and consadered adoption of an ordinance approvmg a Project Plan/Detailed Plan at 801 Sherman Drive in a Planned Development (PD-197) zoning district The 0 6-acre property was generally located lA male north of Bell Avenue, on the west side of Sherman Drive A convemence store with gasoline sales was proposed The Planmng and Zomng Commission recommended approval with conditions (5-0) (SP-01-0004, Sherman Shell) Larry Reachhart, Assistant Director of Planmng and Development, stated that the concept plan for th~s proposal had been approved on May 1 and the detailed plan was under consaderat~on at this meeting There was a hst of 7 con&tions recommended by the Plannang and Zonang Commission The Mayor Pro Tern opened the pubbc hearing The followmg andivlduals spoke dunng the public hearing J F Plangman, 3300 W Umverslty, Denton, 76207 - favor Joe Panson, 2320 Salado, Denton, 76201-regulation of alcohol sale an proxlmaty to a church The Mayor Pro Tem closed the public heanng The followmg ordinance was considered NO 2001-214 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AMENDING ORDiNANCE NO 2001-190 TO PROVIDE FOR A PROJECT/DETAILED PLAN FOR 0 6 ACRES LOCATED WITHIN A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD-197) ZONING DISTRICT, TIlE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEING LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SHERMAN DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY ¼ MILE NORTH OF BELL AVENUE, PROVIDiNG A SItVERABILITY CLAUSE, PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000 00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (SP-01-0004) City of Denton City Council Minutes June 5, 2001 Page 7 Burroughs motioned, Redmon seconded to adopt the ordinance with the recommended conditions by the Planning and Zomng Commission On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", Phillips "aye", and Redmun "aye" Motion earned unammously 37 The Council held the second of two public heanngs to consider the involuntary annexation and service plan for approximately 2,226 acres of land generally located south of FM 2449, west of 1-35 West, north of Robson Ranch Road and partially west of the Robson Ranch Development and John prone Road in the extraterritorial junschction (ETJ) of the City of Denton (A-Ol-OOO5, Hunter Ranch Annexation) Dave Hill, Assistant City Manager for Development Services, stated that this was the second public heanng regarding this proposed aunexaUon Council had asked staff to stretch the annexation schedule as long as possible in order to accommodate the developer's proposal to drill an exploratory well before starting the annexation The preference of the developer was to install the wells before the first reading of the annexation orchnance but due to time constraints, that would not be possible One option to consider was to adopt the schedule as presented A second option was to direct staff to not proceed w~th this proposal and allow the applicant to file a voluntary annexation petition That petltmn should be received before the Council stopped the current annexation process A third option was to stop the process completely and work within the schedule of the applicant A new involuntary annexation could be lmtlated by the City at a later date The current annexation proposal included the Lynch and Coleman properties Ed Snyder, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the developer would agree to not submit any more development applications that were related to property By delaying the process and drilling the wells before the first reading of the annexation ordinance, any argmnent regarding vestment on the property would be closed The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public heanng M~sty Ventura, Hughes and Luce, 1717 Main Street, #2800, Dallas, 75201, indicated that she was speaking for the property owner The property owner was willing to proceed with a voluntary annexation prowdmg that their development plat was approved by the Planmng and Zoning Commission on June 13th The owner was also wflhng to forgo any ad&tional development applications whale the armexatlon was being considered for service uses other than gas development They did not want to go forward with the current annexation schedule The Mayor Pro Tem closed the public heanng Consensus of the Council was to consider the developer's request for a voluntary annexation process provided a voluntary annexation application was received by June 19th 38 The Council held a public heanng and considered adoption of an ordinance approving a Detailed Plan for 1 389 acres m the Planned Development 173 (PD-173) zoning district The property was located on the north side of Robson Ranch (formerly Crawford) Road approximately 2,000 fee~ west of its intersection with Ed Robson Boulevard The intent was to develop a golf course maintenance facility for the Robson Ranch development The Planning and Zoning Coramasslon recommended approval (7-0) with conchtlons (Z-O0-O15, Robson Ranch Matntenance Yard A) City of Denton City Council Minutes June 5, 2001 Page 8 Larry Remhhart, Assistant Director for Planning and Development, stated that this was a request for a detmled plan for a maintenance facility and was not subject to the interim regulations The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public heanng No one spoke dunng the public heanng The Mayor Pro Tern closed the public heanng The following ordinance was considered NO 2001-215 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AMENDING ORDINANCE NO 99-265, TO PROVIDE FOR A DETAILED PLAN FOR 1 389 ACRES LOCATED WITHIN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 173 (PD-173) ZONING DISTRICT AND LAND USE CLASSIFICATION, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEING GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ROBSON RANCH (FORMERLY CRAWFORD) ROAD APPROXIMATELY 2,000 FEET WEST OF ED ROBSON BOULEVARD IN THE CITY OF DENTON, DENTON, COUNTY, TEXAS, PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE, PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,00000 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (Z-00-015) Burroughs motioned, Phillips seconded to adopt the ordinance On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", Plulhps "aye", and Redmon "aye" Motion earned unanimously ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 39 The Cotmml considered and took action on a request to extend the approval of a Specific Use Permit (SUP # 218) for a fratermty house located on the southeast comer of West Oak and Fry Streets, at 1305 West Oak Street The 0 75 acre site was zoned General Retml (GR) The proposal was to develop a rune (9)-bedroom fratermty house for the Delta Lodge The SUP was originally approved on June 15, 1999, by Ordinance No 99-208 with a one-year extension approved on June 6, 2000 (SUP No 218, Delta House) Larry Remhhart, Assistant Director of Planmng and Development, stated that the Lodge had submitted building plans that were currently going through review Ongmal plans had ~ndlcated that a three-story structure would be bmlt that would require spnnklers The addition of the spnnklers placed the project out of the Lodge's budget and thus they were having to redesign the plans for a two story structure Robert Bone, 712 Smokense Circle, Denton, 76205 spoke in favor of the extension Phillips motioned, Redmon seconded to approve a one year extension of the specific use permit On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", Phillips "aye", and Redmon "aye" Motion carried unammously C~ty of Denton Clty Councd M~nutes June 5, 2001 Page 9 40 The Council considered and took acUon on a request for rehef from the Residential Interim Zomng Regulattons, Ordinance 2000-046 for a 19 6-acre property located at the southeast comer of H~ghland Park and Wisteria The property was in an Agricultural (A) zomng dastnct A slngle- famdy subdivision was proposed (RR-Oi-O002, SE Comer Htghland Pk &Wtsterta) Larry Relehhart, Asststant D~rector for Planmng and Development, stated that single fanuly-7 zomng was requested for the property wbach was currently zoned agriculture Council Member Burroughs asked by the rehefwas needed Remhhart stated that the interim regulataons reqmred 3 umts per acre and the proposal was for 4 or 4 5 un~ts per acre The small s, ze of the parcel dad not allow for dedacat~on of open space nor for a school s, te Burroughs moUoned, Redmon seconded to approve the rehef request On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", Pbalhps "aye", and Redmon "aye" Motion camed unammously 41 The Council considered and took action on a request for rehef from the Residential Interim Zomng Regulations, Ordanance 2000-046 for approximately 110 acres located east of the 1-35W and Ponder interchange The property was m a Planned Development (PD-139) zomng district The expansion ora single-family subdav~s~on was proposed (RR-OI-O003, The Vintage) Larry Relchhart, Assistant D,rector for Planmng and Development, stated that the proposal already had an approved concept and detml plan Originally some of the property had been ~dentffied as being ~n a potential flood zone The property owner had learned that some of that property was not located ~n the flood zone and would hke to reclmm the property Under the Interim regulatmns, the developer would have to rezone the enUre property Granting the request for rehef would ~nclude the reclmmed property w~th the planned development Charles Jowell, 1812 Woodrldge Drive, Arlington, 76013, stated that a flood study found 6 acres outside the flood area that the developer wanted to add for addatlonal lots The new acreage would add 35 lots w~th the density increasing just slightly The new configuration would add addat~onal frontage to the school s~te Burroughs motioned, Fulton seconded to approve the request for rehef On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", Phllhps "aye", and Redmon "aye" Motion camed unanimously 42 The Council considered and took action on a request for rehef from the Non-Res, denUal Interim Zoning Regulations, Ordanance 2000-069 for approximately 1 7 acres site located at 2400 E Umvers~ty Drive The property was m a Planned Development (PD-14) zoning dastnct A snack bar/restaurantwasproposed (RN-OI-O004, 2400E Umverstty Snack Bar) Mohammed Youms, 308 Maple Street, Richardson, 75081, stated that he would hke to develop a snack bar ms,de the convemence store he intended to remodel There would also be a dry cleaners and apphance repmr shop ~n the bulldang C~ty of Denton C~ty Council Minutes June 5, 2001 Page 10 Burroughs motioned, Fulton seconded to approve the request for rehef On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", Pballlps "aye", and Redmon "aye" Motion camed unanimously 43 The Council considered and took action on a request for rehef from the Non-Resldentml Interim Zomng Regulations, Ordanance 2000-069 for approximately 2 0 acres located north of University Dnve between Old North and Nottingham The property was in an Agricultural (A) zomng d~stnct A Sonic Drive-In restaurant was proposed (RN-01-O005, $omc Drtve-In) Larry Remhhart, Assistant Director for Planning and Devleopment, stated that this was a straight commercial zoning request Burroughs motioned, Phdhps seconded to approve the request for rehef On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", Pbalhps "aye", and Redmon "aye" Motion camed unanimously 44 This item was pulled from conslderataon 45 The Council considered approval of a resolution nominating a member to the Board of Managers of the Denco Area 9-1-1 District, and declanng an effective date Dlanna Ortlz, Director of Fiscal Operations, stated that the term for Ohve Stevens was due to expire and Mayor Stevens had expressed a desire to continue another term After all nominations from the County were received, the Council would vote on a representative Council Member Burroughs nominated Olive Stevens Consensus of the Council was to nominate Mayor Stevens 46 The Council considered appointments to the Racial Profiling Task Fome Council Member Fulton appointed Zackery Sprathng 47 There were no nominations and appointments to the City's Boards and Commissions made at th~s meeting 48 New Business The following items were suggested by Council Members for future agendas A Council Mmber Redmon requested a work session ~tem to discuss the possibility of developing language to relax the ~ntenm regulations 49 Items from the City Manager A Notification of upcoming meetings and/or conferences B Clarification of ~tems on the agenda City Manager Conduff did not have any items for Council City of Denton Caty Council M~nutes June 5, 2001 Page 11 50 There was no continuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551 071-551 086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act 51 There was no official action on Closed Meeting Item(s) under Sections 551 071-551 086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act W~th no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7 26 p m RONI BEASLEY, MAYOR PRO TEM CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 12, 2001 The City Council of the City of Denton, Texas observed a demonstration of decibel levels on Tuesday, June 12, 2001 at 5 00 pm m the parking lot behind Muther's at 113 Avenue A, Denton, Texas PRESENT Mayor Brock, Mayor Pro Tem Beasley, Council Members Burroughs, Fulton, McNefll, Phflhps, and Redmon ABSENT None Following completion of the demonstration and after determlmng that a quorum was present, the C~ty Council convened m a Work Sess,on on Tuesday, June 12, 2001 at 6 00 p m m the Cotmefl Work Session Room 1 The Council received a report, held a d,scuss,on, and gave staff d,rect~on regarding proposed rev,slons to Sect,on 20-1 of the Code of Ordinances regulat,ng nmse Scott Fletcher, F,eld Operation-East-Denton Pohce Department, stated that on April 24, 2001 staff presented a background packet on proposed revls,ons to the current no,se ordinance After Council discuss,on, staff was requested to do further research m several areas ,nclu&ng outdoor music fest,vals, outdoor performances, decibel levels and industrial performance standards Regarding the outdoor mus,c festival, staff had suggested a 70 dba at the estabhshed perimeter of the event be estabhshed while Council had asked staff to consider a 75 dba level The concern w,th outdoor performances dealt with the amount of no,se produced by bands or other music sources ,n an outdoor setting It was determ,ned that the amount ofnmse would have to be much less to stay wlthm the requirements of the ordinance Staff suggested using the prov,slons set out for amplified sound in the ordinance rev, slons to cover all venues and properties employing amplified sound or any other source delineated m the spec,ftc secUon of the ordinance The industrial performance standards were incorporated Into the Development Plan Staff was recommending that Council adopt the ordinance as written Mayor Pro Tem Beasley felt that the ordinance should remain at 70 dba and not be ~ncreased to 75 dba This was a good starting point and further evaluat, ons could take place on how effect,ye was the ordinance Council d,seussed the pros and cons ofusmg the decibel for the standard of noise regulation Consensus of the Council was to move forward with the ordinance, keep the 70 dba instead of ~ncreaslng ,t to 75 dba and to look into more sensmve meters to make sure all bands of noise were covered A review of the ordinance would be scheduled to determ,ne ~ts effect,veness Tom Kay spoke regarding the issue 2 The Council received a report, held a &seusslon and gave staff direction concerning the development of a drainage fee Jim Coulter, Director of Water/Wastewater, stated that m FY 1999, the drmnage program was transferred to the Wastewater Department He md~cated that water and wastewater rates were not designed to carry the funchng for the drmnage program and recent drought condmons had enabled Water and Wastewater to provide drainage funding In addition to the transfer of the City of Denton C~ty Council Minutes June 12, 2001 Page 2 drmnage program, the responsibility for bridges and creek crossings was also transferred Current ftmdmg levels for drainage were not adequate to cover the costs of bridge and crossing mmntenan~e One method c~tles were using to help with the advancing costs for drainage, bridge and crossing maintenance was the development of drainage fees Other cities that had developed drmnage fees indicated that some form of ~mpervlous coverage basis was used for the calculation of the fees This appeared to be the most equitable means of assessing a drmnage fee The Drmnage Division was recommending a schedule of public meetings to d~scuss drmnage ~ssues ~nclud~ng future funchng ~ssues Staff was recommending the continued development of a drmnage fee based on impervious surface area calculations Th~s approach was most equitable because it placed a proportionate cost of the drmnage unpacts on the customers that placed the greatest load on the system Consensus of the Council was to look at a governmental rate for school and other government ent~tles ~n the city, to look at a means to calculate the rate for smaller s~zed homes and to continue the development of a drmnage fee based on impervious surface area calculations 3 The Council received a report and held a discussion on conversion of the overhead electric lines to underground along University Boulevard Chuck Sears, Engmeenng Administrator, presented an overview of the project and some of the challenges associated w~th the project Phase I, Loop 288 to Locust Street, was scheduled to be completed m November 2001 Phase II, Locust Street to 1-35, was scheduled to be completed ~n 2003 Money was included in the 2002 budget for cont~nmng the construction from Locust to 1- 35 There were no plans available for Phase II at th~s point ~n t~me The final design would be coordinated with the TxDOT plans and costs could change When Phase I was completed, there would be no power lines wslble adjacent to either s~de of Umverslty There would be four street crossings remaining - a transnusslon line and d~stnbut~on at Old North, a crossing at Ruddell, a crossing at Bell and a crossing just west of Loop 288 He reviewed the costs associated with the project Other challenges associated with the project ~ncluded obstructions such as buildings, walls, gas lines and meters, curves ~n the road and bridges and open drmnage plus higher costs assocmted w~th necessary remote improvements 4 New Business The following ~tems of New Business were suggested by Council Members for future agendas A Cotmcd Member Fulton requested an update on the LiNK routes, partmularly in northeast Denton B Council Member Redmon asked for a d~scusslon regarding a standing ~tem on the agenda for board and commission appointments C Council Member Plulhps asked for a discussion on automated garbage p~ck-up, including the status on the results of the test program ~f there was one Immediately following completion of the Work Session, and after determlmng that a quorum of the Council was present, the Denton City Council convened a Special Called Closed Meeting on June 12, 2001, and continuing thereafter until completed, ~n the City of Denton Work Session C~ty of Denton City Councd Minutes June 12, 2001 Page 3 Room 1 The Council considered the following ~n Closed Meeting A Deliberations Regardang Certmn Public Power Utdlt~es Competitive Matters --- Under TEX GOV'T CODE Section 551 086 **Consultation w~th Attorney --- Under TEX GOV'T CODE Section 551 071 (1) Received competitive electric market ~nformatmn and directed questions to potential purchasers, d~scussed and dehberated the same Received a confidential competitive electric utility presentation and received competitive electric market Information from Staff and C~ty's consultants, discussed, dehberated, considered, provtded Staff with d~rectlon, vote, and took final action as necessary, regarding future wholesale power purchase transactions and strategies including, but not hm~ted to the replacement of electric generation resources, and the proposed sale, transfer, assignment, or other d~vestlture of a part of the C~ty of Denton's electric utlhty system, ~ncludang, w~thout hm~tatlon the Spencer generation facility located on Spencer Road m the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, and the two hydroelectric faclhtles owned by the C~ty located in Denton County, Texas Conducted a consultation w~th the C~ty's attorneys and ~ts outside legal counsel m order to obtmn the advice and recommendataons of the C~ty's attorneys concerning the above-referenced ~ssues, where to d~scuss such Issues and matters in a public meeting would conflict w~th the attorney's duties and professional respons~bd~tms to their client under the Texas D~sclphnary Rules of Professional Conduct, or any other applicable Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct Immediately following the Special Called Closed Meeting of the City Council, and after determining that a quorum of the Cotmcll was present, the City Council considered the following specific items set forth below, in a Special Called Open Meeting of the C~ty Council at the C~ty of Denton Work Session Room 1 The Council considered adoption of an orrhnance of the C~ty of Denton, Texas prowdlng for, authorizing, and approving the execution by the City Manager of an Asset Purchase Agreement by and among the City of Denton, Spencer Station Generattng Company, L P, a Delaware limited partnership, and PG&E Generating Company, LLC, a Delaware hm~ted habdlty company, anthonmng and approving the execution by the City Manager of a Trans~tton Power Agreement by and between the City of Denton and PG&E Energy Trading - Power, L P, a Delaware hm~ted partnership, approving and anthonztng the execution by the C~ty Manager of a Transition Power Agreement Guarantee by and between the C~ty of Denton and PG&E Trading Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited habd~ty company, anthonz~ng and approwng the execution by the City Manager of a Bill of Sale by and between the C~ty of Denton and Spencer Station Generating Company, L P, authorizing and approving the execution by the City Manager of an Assignment and Assumption Agreement by and between the C~ty of Denton and Spencer Station Generating Company, L P, authorizing and approwng the executton by the C~ty Manager of a Continuing Slte/Intereounectlon Agreement by and between the C~ty of Denton and Spencer Station Generating Company, L P, authonmng and approwng the execution by the City C~ty of Denton C~ty Council Minutes June 12, 2001 Page 4 Manager of an Easement, License and Attachment Agreement by and between the C~ty of Denton and Spencer Station Generating Company, L P, anthonzlng and approwng the execution by the City Manager of a Guarantee by and between the C~ty of Denton and Spencer Station Generating Company, L P, anthonzmg and approving the execution by the C~ty Manager of a Water Pdghts Agreement by and between the City of Denton and Spencer Station Generating Company, L P, anthonzmg and approwng the execution by the City Manager of a Reclaimed Water Service and Wastewater Return Agreement by and between the C~ty of Denton and Spencer Station Generating Company, L P, authorizing and approving the execution by the C~ty Manager of a Power Transfer Agreement by and between the C~ty of Denton and PG&E Energy Trading - Power, L P, authonmng and approwng the execution by the C~ty Manager of a Spemal Warranty Deed by and between the C~ty of Denton and Spencer Statmn Generating Company, L P, authorizing and approwng the execution by the City Manager of Blanket Conveyances by and between the C~ty of Denton and Spencer Station Generating Company, L P, authorizing and approving the execution of such other agreements and other documents, Including, w~thout hmltatlon, certificates, contracts, asslg~maents, hcenses, leases, d~rectlons, ~nstruments, and statements by the c~ty manager, which are incident or related thereto, as shall be reasonably determined by the c~ty attorney or bas designee, confirming and ratifying that the C~ty of Denton, 1ts mayor, Its mty counml, Its city manager, and ~ts city attorney shall be authorized and empowered to perform such acts and obligations as are reasonably required to consummate this transaction, ratifying all prior actions taken by the city council in furtherance of the foregoing transactions, making such flnchngs as are reqmred by the Pubhc Utthty Holding Company Act of 1935, as amended, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ~mplementlng regulations, finding and determlmng that several of said agreements pertmn to a competitive electric matter as set forth under the provisions of Section 551 086 and Section 552 131 of the Texas Government Code, as amended, finding and determ~mng that Texas Government Code Section 252 022(a)(15) and Section 272 001(J) apply, adopting slgmficant findings, conclusmns, and remtat~ons as are set forth ~n the preamble of tbas ordinance, finding that the sale of these electnc generation resources owned by the city ~n connection w~th ~ts electric ut~hty under the asset purchase agreement are not essential to continued effective utility service when cons~denng the purchase of capamty and energy, and other arrangements made by the c~ty under the terms of the transition power agreement and other agreements, authonzmg the expenditure of funds therefor, and prowdlng an effective date Sharon Mays, Director of Electric Utilities, stated that staff was recommending that the C~ty sell the Spencer Generating Plant, the Ray Roberts and Lew~smlle Hydroelectric Plants to the Spencer Generating Company and sign a power purchase contract for 5 years w~th PG&E Energy Trading Company That contract would supply all of DME's wholesale capacity and energy reqmrements above the output from the G~bbons Creek Plant The 5 year period would be used to watch the new deregulated market to determine an appropriate strategy for DME to prowde future service to the c~t~zens Greg Kelly, PG&E National Energy Group, stated that th~s company was a d~fferent group from the Pamfic Gas and Electric Company, the Cahforma utthty They had no t~es w~th Pacific Gas and Electric on a business basis Mark Carney, PG&E, spoke on enwronmental accomphshments of the company Ctty of Denton City Council M~nutes June 12, 2001 Page 5 The following orthnance was considered NO 2001-216 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS PROVIDING FOR, AUTHORIZING, AND APPROVING THE EXECUTION BY THE CITY MANAGER OF AN ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT BY AND AMONG THE CITY OF DENTON, SPENCER STATION GENERATING COMPANY, L P, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND PG&E GENERATING COMPANY, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE EXECUTION BY THE CITY MANAGER OF A TRANSITION POWER AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND PG&E ENERGY TRADING - POWER, L P, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION BY THE CITY MANAGER OF A TRANSITION POWER AGREEMENT GUARANTEE BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND PG&E TRADING HOLDINGS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE EXECUTION BY THE CITY MANAGER OF A BILL OF SALE BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND SPENCER STATION GENERATING COMPANY, L P, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE EXECUTION BY THE CITY MANAGER OF AN ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND SPENCER STATION GENERATING COMPANY, L P, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE EXECUTION BY THE CITY MANAGER OF A CONTINUING SITE/INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND SPENCER STATION GENERATING COMPANY, L P, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE EXECUTION BY THE CITY MANAGER OF AN EASEMENT, LICENSE AND ATTACHMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND SPENCER STATION GENERATING COMPANY, L P, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE EXECUTION BY THE CITY MANAGER OF A GUARANTEE BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND SPENCER STATION GENERATING COMPANY, L P, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE EXECUTION BY THE CITY MANAGER OF A WATER RIGHTS AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND SPENCER STATION GENERATING COMPANY, L P, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE EXECUTION BY THE CITY MANAGER OF A RECLAIMED WATER SERVICE AND WASTEWATER RETURN AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND SPENCER STATION GENERATING COMPANY, L P, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE EXECUTION BY THE CITY MANAGER OF A POWER TRANSFER AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND PG&E ENERGY TRADING - POWER, L P, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE EXECUTION BY THE CITY MANAGER OF A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND SPENCER STATION GENERATING COMPANY, L P, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE EXECUTION BY THE CITY MANAGER OF BLANKET CONVEYANCES BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND SPENCER STATION GENERATING COMPANY, L P, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF SUCH OTHER AGREEMENTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, CERTIFICATES, CONTRACTS, ASSIGNMENTS, LICENSES, LEASES, DIRECTIONS, INSTRUMENTS, AND STATEMENTS BY THE CITY MANAGER, WHICH ARE INCIDENT OR RELATED THERETO, AS SHALL BE REASONABLY DETERMINED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY OR City of Denton City Council Minutes June 12, 2001 Page 6 HIS DESIGNEE, CONFIRMING AND RATIFYING THAT THE CITY OF DENTON, ITS MAYOR, ITS CITY COUNCIL, ITS CITY MANAGER, AND ITS CITY ATTORNEY SHALL BE AUTHORIZED AND EMPOWERED TO PERFORM SUCH ACTS AND OBLIGATIONS AS ARE REASONABLY REQUIRED TO CONSUMMATE THIS TRANSACTION, RATIFYING ALL PRIOR ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN FURTHERANCE OF THE FOREGOING TRANSACTIONS, MAKING SUCH FINDINGS AS ARE REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935, AS AMENDED, AND THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS, FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT SEVERAL OF SAID AGREEMENTS PERTAIN TO A COMPETITIVE ELECTRIC MATTER AS SET FORTH UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55! 086 AND SECTION 552 131 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, AS AMENDED, FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 252022(A)(15) AND SECTION 272 001(J) APPLY, ADOPTING SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECITATIONS AS ARE SET FORTH IN THE PREAMBLE OF THIS ORDINANCE, FINDING THAT THE SALE OF THESE ELECTRIC GENERATION RESOURCES OWNED BY THE CITY IN CONNECTION WITH ITS ELECTRIC UTILITY UNDER THE ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT ARE NOT ESSENTIAL TO CONTINUED EFFECTIVE UTILITY SERVICE WHEN CONSIDERING THE PURCHASE OF CAPACITY AND ENERGY, AND OTHER ARRANGEMENTS MADE BY THE CITY UNDER THE TERMS OF THE TRANSITION POWER AGREEMENT AND OTHER AGREEMENTS, AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE Burroughs motioned, Beasley seconded to adopt the ordinance On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Phillips "aye", Redmon "nay", and Mayor Brock "aye" Motaon camed with a 6-1 vote 2 The Council considered adoption of an ordinance approwng a letter real estate agreement between the C~ty of Denton and Union Pacific Railroad Company relatmg to the purchase of approximately 190,400 square feet of land located between E McKmney and Prairie and adjacent to Union Pacific rail lmes for use as parking and hike and b~ke trails and related purposes, authorizing the expandlture of funds therefor, and providing an effective date The followmg ordinance was considered NO 2001-217 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A LETTER REAL ESTATE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY RELATING TO THE PURCHASE OF APPROXIMATELY 190,400 SQUARE FEET OF LAND LOCATED BETWEEN E MCKINNEY AND PRAIRIE AND ADJACENT TO UNION PACIFIC RAIL LINES FOR USE AS PARKING AND HIKE AND BIKE TRAILS AND RELATED PURPOSES, AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE C~ty of De~aton C~ty Council Minutes June 12, 2001 Page 7 Fulton motioned, Beasley seconded to adopt the ordinance On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNelll "aye", Pbalhps "aye", Redmon "aye", and Mayor Brock "aye" Motion camed unammously 3 The Council considered adoption of an ordinance approwng a correction deed between the Caty of Denton and Umon Pamfie Rmkoad Company relating to a lane sale agreement dated July 2, 1993 for Umon Pa¢lfi¢'s Denton Branch Rml Lane between Milepost 721 72 at Denton, Texas, and Milepost 729 5 at Coors, Texas, and provadmg an effectave date The following orchnance was considered NO 2001-218 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A CORRECTION DEED BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY RELATING TO A LINE SALE AGREEMENT DATED JULY 2, 1993 FOR UNION PACIFIC'S DENTON BRANCH RAIL LINE BETWEEN MILEPOST 721 72 AT DENTON, TEXAS, AND MILEPOST 729 5 AT COORS, TEXAS, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE Beasley motaoned, Burroughs seconded to adopt the ordinance On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burrough~ "aye", Fulton "aye", MeNefll "aye", Pbalhps "aye", Redmon "nay", and Mayor Brock "aye" Mgt~on earned w~th a 6-1 vote 4 There was no official action on Closed Meetang Item(s) under Sections 551 071-551 086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act Wath no further bus~ness, the meeting was adjourned at 11 10 p m EULINE BROCK, MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS JENNIFER WALTERS CITY sECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ~,genda Item AGENDA INFO~ATION SHEET oate AGENDA DATE June 19, 2001 DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office CM. Michael A Conduff, City Manager, 349-8307 SUBJECT Consider a request for an exception to the Noise Ordinance for construction activity at 2233 S Loop 288 between the hours of 3 00 a m and 6 00 a m on Friday, June 22, 2001, by Parkway Construction BACKGROUND Farrier Concrete in conjunction with Parkway Construction are the contractors for the Burger King facility located at 2233 S Loop 288 A request for an exception to the noise ordinance has been requested to allow pouring of the concrete foundation at this location to begin at 3 00 a m on Friday, June 22, 2001 The request for an exception to the noise ordinance is being made for two reasons The first is a safety issue The intersection of Loop 288 and 1-35 East experiences a high volume of traffic during normal business hours Farrier Construction estimates that it will take approximately 3 to 31/2 hours to get the 100+ yards of concrete in place By receiving this exception, they will be able to greatly reduce the disruption to business and traffic on this comer The secondary reason for the request would be to allow some relief from high daytime temperatures In the event of inclement weather, Parkway Construction is requesting an alternate date of Monday, June 25th, 2001, beginning at 3 00 a tn As you know, the noise ordinance declares the erection, excavation, demohtlon, alteration, or repair work on any building at anytime other than between the hours of 6 00 am to 830 pm from June I to September 30 and 700 am to 830 pm Monday through Friday from October 1 to May 31 as a violation (Attachment 3) The ordinance does, however, provide that the City Council may make exceptions The applicant has been informed that should Council approve this request, responsible use of the amplified sound is still required by Section 20-1 of the City of Denton Code of Ordinances In particular, Section 20-1(a) states It shall be unlawful for any person to make or cause any unreasonably loud, disturbing, unnecessary noise which causes or may cause material distress, discomfort or injury to persons of ordinary sensibilities in the immediate vicinity thereof Parkway Construction Exception Burge[ King June 19, 2001 Options 1 Grant Noise Exception as proposed 2 Grant Noise Exception w~th amendments and/or conditions 3 Noise Exception can be denied PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Councfl~ Boards, Commissions) None FISCAL INFORMATION None Respectfully St}bm~tted etty Wiqliams D~rector, Management and Pubhc Information Attachments 1 Request from Twig Branch, Parkway Construction 2 Map 3 Noise or&nance Attachment 2 attachment 3 Chapter 20 NUISANCES* Art I In (]eneral, §§ 20-1--20-30 Art I1 Abandoned Property, §§ 20-31--20-70 D,v 1 Generally, §§ 20 31--20 40 D,v 2 Motor Vehicles, §§ 20-41--20-70 Art. III. Grass and Weeds, §§ 20.71--20-73 ARTICLE I IN GENERAL Sec 20.1 Noise (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to make or cause any unreasonably loud, disturbing, unnecessary noise which causes or may cause material distress, discomfort or injury to persons of ordinary sensibilities in the immediate v,clmty thereof (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to make or cause any noise of such character, intensity and continued duration as to substantially interfere wRb the comfortable enjoyment of prorate homes by persons of ordinary sensibilities (c) The following acta, among others, are declared to be noise nuisances m violation of this Code, but such enumerat,on shall not be deemed to be exclusive (1) The playing of any phonograph, television, radio or any musical mstrmnent m such manner or with such volume, particularly between the hours of 10 00 p m and 7 O0 a m, as to annoy or disturb the quiet, comfort or repose of persons of ordinary senmbd,tles in any dwelling, hotel or other type or residence, (2) The use of any stationary loudspeaker, amplifier or musical instrument ,n such manner or with such volume as to annoy or disturb persons of ordinary sensibilities In the immediate vicinity thereof, particularly between the hours of 10 00 p m and 7 00 a m, or the operation of such loudspeaker, amplifier or musical Instrument at any time on Sunday, provided, however, that the city council may make exceptions upon application when the public interest will be served thereby, (3) The blowing of any steam whmtle attached to any stationary boiler or the blowing of any other loud or far-reaching steam wb,stle within the city hmR% except to give notice of the time to begin or stop work or a~ a warning of danger, (4} The erection, excavation, demohtwn, alteration, or repair work on any braiding at anytime other than between the hours of 6 00 a m and 8 30 p m Monday through Friday from June 1 to September 30, between 7 00 a m and 8 30 p m Monday through Friday from October 1 to May 31, between 8 00 a m and 8 30 pm on ,Cross references--Protected migratory bird roosts declared nuisance, § 0 87, inspec- tion and abatement warrants, § 19 86 et seq, in~ect and rodent control iii mobile hvme and recreational vehicle parks, § 32 91 Supp No 6 1389 6 § 20-1 DENTON CODE Saturday, and between 1 00 p m and 8 30 p m on Sunday, provided, however that the city council may issue special permits for such work at other hours in case of urgent necessity altd in the interest of public sefety end convenience (5) The creation of any loud and excessive noise in coanectlon w~th the 1ending or unloading of any vehicle or tho opening or destructson of bales, boxes, crates or eontslners, (6) The use of any drum, loudspeaker or other mstrumen or device for the purpose of attracting attention by the creation of hOrSeS to any performance, show, theatre, motion picture house, sale of merchandise or d,sploy wluch causes crowds or people to block or congregate upon the sidewalks or streets nenr or adjacent thereto (Code 1966, §§ 14-20, 14 21, etd No 95-184, § l, 9-12 95) Cross reference--Animal noise, § 6-26 Agenda No ~ Agenda Item Date,~,~-Z,~ AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE' June 19, 2001 DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office CM: Mmhael A Conduff, City Manager SUBJECT Consider a request for an exception to the noise ordinance for the Apollo Nights summer concert series at Fred Moore Park on June 24, July 8, July 22, August 5, and August 19 from6 00tol0 00pm BACKGROUND Mr Harold W Jackson has requested that the City Council grant an exception to the noise ordinance for Apollo Nights (Attachment 1) The summer concert series reqmrlng an exception to the noise ordinance will take place on June 24, July 8 and 22, and August 5 and 19 in Fred Moore Park The concert series will include a variety of music which w~ll be provided free of charge to the community These actlvlt~es are scheduled from 6 00 to 10 00 p m for each date The mmn source of noise from these activities will be the use of speakers for music provided by a DJ and announcements The surrounding area consists mainly of resldentml nexghborhoods, with Oakwood Cemetery to the north (Attachmant 2) As you know, the noise ordinance declares loudspeakers, amplifiers, and musxcal instruments a noise nmsance, particularly after 10 00 p m Monday through Saturday and anytime on Sunday (Attachment 3) The ordinance does, however, provide that the City Council may make exceptmns when the pubhc interest is served The ol'ganlzers have been informed that should Council approve this request, responsible use of amphfied sound xs still reqmred by Section 20-1 of the City of Denton Code of Ordinances In partmular, Section 20-1(a) states Juneteenth Noise Exception June 19, 2001 Page 2 It shall be unlawful for any person to make or cause any unreasonably loud, d~sturbmg, unnecessary noise which causes or may cause material d~stress, discomfort or injury to persons of ordinary senslblht~es m the ~mmedmte vicinity thereof FISCAL INFORMATION None Respectfully Submitted Be~tty Williams D~rector, Management and Pubhc Informatmn Attachments 1 Request from Mr Jackson 2 Map of the area 3 Noise Ordinance 2 May-~O-O! !2t54P Danton Parks and Rac. 940 349 83B4 P.02 At~;achmen~; 1 City ol Denton Parks and Rccreatmn Ed Ho¢iney 215 East M~Kmney Denton, Tx 76201 Dear Mr Hodney, We would like to do hold our Junetemath celebration at Fred Moore Park on June 19, lmm 12 00 nnnn to I 1 00p tn Can you cxtunded the park closing tame by om. hour Apollo N~ght Schedule for the Sununcr 2001 June 24 July 8 & 22 August 5 &19 Along with the Apollo Nights ia thc park, wc would hke your approval to palk a rccrcatton whmle m the p~rk, to prowd¢ free relrcshmcnts to tt, o Sincerely, Harold W Jackson 3 attachment 2 [] [] Fred Moore Park Area Engineering & Transporatlon G I S attachment 3 Chapter 20 NUISANCES* Art I. In General, §§ 20-1--20-30 Art I1 Abandoned Property, §§ 20-31~20-70 DIv 1 Generally, 4§ 20-31--20 40 Dlv 2 Motor Vehicles, 44 20-41--20-70 Art III. Grass and Weeds, 4§ 20-71--20-73 ARTICLE ! IN GENERAL Sec 20.1 Noise (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to make or cause any unreasonably loud, disturbing, unnecessary noise which causes or may cause material distress, discomfort or injury to persons of ordinary sensibilities in the immediate vicinity thereof (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to make or cause any noise of such character, intensity and continued duration as to substantially interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of private homes by persons of ordinary sensibilities (c) The following acts, among others, are declared to be noise nuisances m violation of this Code, but such enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive (1) The playmg of any phonograph, television, radio or any musical instrument in such manner or w~th such volume, particularly between the hours of 10 00 p m and 7 00 a m, as to annoy or disturb the quiet, comfort or repose of persons of ordinary sensibilities in any dwelling, hotol or other type or residence, (2) The use of any stationary loudqpeaker, amplifier or musical mstrument In such manner or with such volume as to annoy or disturb persons of ordinary sensibilities in the immediate vicinity thereof, particularly between the hours of 10 00 p m and 7 00 a m, or the operation of such loudspeaker, amplifier or musical instrument at any time on Sunday, provided, however, that the city council may make exceptions upon application when the public interest will be served thereby, {3) The blowing ofany steam whistle attached to any stationary boiler or the blowing of any other loud or far-reachmg steam whistle within the city limits, except to g~ve notice of the time to begin or stop work or as a warning of danger, (4) The erection, excavation, demohtlon, alteration, or repair work on any building at anytime other than between the hours of 6 00 a m and 8 30 p m Monday through Fmday from June 1 to September 30, between 7 00 a m and 830 p m Monday through Friday from October 1 to May 31, between 800 a m and 830 p m on *Cross references--Protected migratory bird roosts declared nmsance, § O 87. mspec- tlon and abatement warrants, § 19 86 et seq, m~ect and rodent control m mobile home and recreational velncle parks, § 32 91 %l'p No 6 1389 5 4 2o-1 DENTON CODE Baturday;, and between 1 O0 p m and 8 30 p m on Sunday, provided, however that the city councd may issue special permits for such work at other hours m case of urgent necessity al~d in the interest of public safety and convenience (5} The creation of an)' loud and excessive noise in connection with the loading or unloading of any vehlcla or the opening or destruction of bales, boxes, crates or containers; (6) The use of any drum, loudspeaker or other instrument or device for the purpose of attracting attention by the creation of no~ses to any performance, show, theatre, motion picture house, sats of merchandise or d~splsy which causes crowds er people to block or congregate upon tile sidewalks or streets near or adjacent thereto (Code 1966, 44 14-20, 14-21; etd No 95-184, 4 1, 9-12-95) Cross reference--Ammal noise, 4 6-26 Agenda Iter~_~ ~/~? AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET 0ate_ ~./~/~//~/ AGENDA DATE: June 19, 2001 Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed DEPARTMENT: Materials Management to Ed Hodney 349-8271 ACM Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services ~ ~'~J SUBJECT An Ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Dunkm Sims Stoffels, Inc, for the design of Cross Timbers Park as set forth m the contract, and providing an effective date (PSA 2656 - Professional Services Agreement £or Design of Cross Timbers Park awarded to Dunkm Sims Stoffels, Inc, for a total amount of $71,000) PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT INFORMATION' The Professional Services Agreement is for the design of the Cross Ttmbers Park including Destgn Development Phase, Construction Documents Phase, Bidding Phase and Construction Phase The Pro£esslonal Services Procurement Act, Chapter 2254 of the Texas Government Code reqmres the selection of a Professional Service be determined on the basis of demonstrated competence and the most h~ghly qualified in response to the sohcltat~on at a fmr and reasonable price Dunkln Sims Stoffels, Inc was chosen for this project based upon the ranking criteria of the selection committee and in accordance with RFSP 2656 and successful negotiations RECOMMENDATION' It ~s recommended that this Professional Serwces Agreement (PSA 2656) to Dunkm Sims Sto/fels, Inc, be approved, along with the contract document in the amount of $71,000 PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Dunk~n Sims Stoffels, Inc Dallas, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT. It ~s anticipated that the Notice to Proceed will be Issued on or about June 30, 2001 Estimated design compleUon date, September 2001, with estimated construction commencing October 2001 1 Agenda Information Sheet June 19, 2001 Page 2 FISCAL ,INFORMATION Th~s Professional Service Agreement will be funded from account (822-PRK-PARD-7103- 9253) Respectfully submitted Tom Shaw, C P M, 349-7100 Purchasing Agent 1579 Ag¢llda 2 ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (PSA) WITH DLrNKIN SIMS STOFFELS, INC, FOR THE DESIGN OF CROSS TIMBERS PARK AS SET FORTH IN THE CONTRACT, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (PSA 2656 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN OF CROSS TIMBERS PARK AWARDED TO DUNKIN SIMS STOFFELS, INC, FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $71,000) THE COUNCIL OF TIIE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS WHEREAS, The professional services prowder (the "Prowder) mentioned in thts ordinance ~s being selected as the most h~ghly quahhed on the bas~s of ~ts demonstrated competence and quahficatmns to perform the proposed professional services, and WHEREAS, The fees under the proposed contract are fmr and reasonable and are consistent w~th and not lugher than the recommended practices and fees pubhshed by the professional assomatmns apphcable to the Prov~der's profession and such fees do not exceed the maximum prowded by law, NOW, THEREFORE, SECTION 1 That the C~ty Manager ~s hereby authorized to enter into a professmnal service contract w~th Dunkan S~ms Stoffel, Inc, to prowde professmnal arctutectural and related services for the Cross T,mbers Park, a copy of wi'ach ,s attached hereto and incorporated by reference here, n SECTION 2 The C~ty Manager ~s authorized to expend funds as reqmred by the attached contract SECTION 3 The finchngs m the preamble of tlus orchnance are ~ncorporated herein by refercnce SECTION 4 Th~s ordinance shall become effecnve ~mmedmtely upon ~ts passage and approval PASSED AND APPROVED tlus the day of ,2001 EULINEBROCK, MAYOR 3 ATTEST JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORIVl I-IERBERT L PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY PSA 2656 - CONTRACTUAL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ORDINANCE 4 F,~t~Uk, b r FOR PROPOSAL #2656 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY OF DENTON A/E Demgn for Cross Tnubers Park AGREEMENT FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES Tlm Agreement made as of the 19th day of May, 2001 between the C~ty of Denton, Texas, hereinafter referred to as "Owner", and Duulon Stoas Stoffels, Iuc, located at 9803 Wtate Rock Trad, State 210, Dallas, TX 75238, herema~er referred to as "Arcttuect" for the Cross Tm~bers Park, Czty of Denton The Owner and Arctmect agree as set forth below ARTICLE 1 ARCHITECT'S RESPONSIBI]LITI~S 1 1 ARCHITECT'S SERVICES 1 1 1 The Arclntect's servmes consist of those services performed by the Arcbatect. Arclutect's employees and Arctntect's consultants as enumerated m Artmles 2 and 3 of fins Agreement, any other services included m Amcle 11 and Exlnblt A 1 1 2 The Arcbatect's serrates shall be performed as expedmomly as ~s consistent vnth the lnghest degree of professional sl~ll and care and the orderly progress of the Work Upon request of the Owner, the Arcbatect shalI subnnt for the Ownets approval a schedule for the performance of the Arcbatect's services wlnch may be adjusted as the Project proceeds, and shall include allowances for periods of ttme reqtnred for the Owner's rewew and for approval of subrmsslons by authormes having junsd~cuon over the Project Tnne imuts established by fins schedule and approved by the Owner shall not, except for reasonable came, be exceeded by the Architect or Owner, and any adjuslments to tlns schedule shall be mutually acceptable to both parttes 1 13 The sermces covered by thts Agreement are subject to the rune lmutattnns contained m Subparagraph 1041 ARTICLE 2 SCOPE OF ARCHITECT'S BASIC SERVICES 2 1 DE2FINITION 2 1 1 The Arclutect's Basic Sermces consxst of those described tn Paragraphs 2 2 throu~a 2 6 and any other services ~dentffied tn Article 11 as part of Basic Sermces, and tncIude vnthout hrmtatmn to any other arctutectural services necessary to produce Paragraph 2 3 a complete and accurate set of ConstmcUon Documents, as described by and reqmred m 2 2 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE 2.2 1 The Arcl'ntect, m comultat~on w~th the Owner, shall develop a written program for the Project to ascertain O ' wners needs and to estabhsh the reqmrements for the Project 2 22 The Arclntect shall provide a prelanmary evalnatton of the Owner's program, conslructmn schedule and constmcUon budget reqmrements, each tn terms of the other, subject to the lmtaUons set forth tn Subparagraph 52 1 2 23 The Arclntect shall rewew w~th the Owner alternative approaches to design and construction of the Project 2 2 4 Based on the mutually agreed-upon program, schedule and constmctmn budget reqmrements, the Arclntect shall prepare, for approval by the Owner, Schemattc Design Documents consisting of drawings and other documents fllus~'atmg the scale and relationship of ProJect components The Schemauc Design shall contemplate comphance w~th all apphcable laws. statutes, ordinances, codes and regulahons Agreement for Arctutectural Servmes - Page 1 of 12 P,~QUEST FOR PROPOSAL #2656 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY OF DENTON A/E Design for Cross Tmabers Park 2 2 5 The Architect shall subrmt to the Owner a Prelmunary Estunated Construction Cost A_mount (ECCA) based on current area, volume or other umt costs and which mthcates the cost of each category of work revolved m constructing the Project and estabhshes an elapsed ttme factor for the penod of tune from the commencement to the corrrpleUon of conslractlon 2 2 6 Based on the approved Schematac Design Documents and any adjustments authorized by the Owner m the program, schedule or comtructton budget, the Architect shah prepare for approval by the Owner, Design Development Documents cous~stmg of drawings and other documents to fix and describe the s~ze and character of the ProJect as to architectaral, structural, mechamcal and electrical systems, matenals and such other elements as may be appropriate, which shall comply path aH apphcable laws, statutes, ordinances, codes and regulauons m force at the time of deargn, cous~stent path professional slall and care m accordance path standards of the profession Owner's approval of the documents, shall not constatute a wmver of the Architect's duty to produce Documents and specdica~ous that ,mil be sufficient and adequate to fulfill the purposes oft_he Project 2 2 7 The Architect shall advme the Owner of any adjustments to the Prehinmary Estmaated Coustmctmn Cost mount (ECCA) m a further Detailed Statement as descnbed m Paragraph 2 2 5 2 3 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PHASE 2 3 1 Based on the approved Design Development Documents and any fiather adjustments m the scope or quahty of the ProJect or m the coustmctaon budget authorized by the Owner, the Architect shall prepare, for approval by the Owner, Constructton Documents cous~stmg of Drawings and Spec~ficataons setting forth m detail reqmxements for the construction of the ProJect, which shah comply path all apphcable laws, statutes, ordinances, codes and regulanous 2 3 2 The Architect shall advise the Owner of any adjustments to prewous Prehmmaty Esttmated Coustmc~aon Cost (ECCA) mthcated by changes m requtrements or general market contht~ous 2 3 3 The Architect shall assmt the Owner m connection path the Owner's respons~b~hty for filing documents required for the approval of governmental authonttes having junsd~ctton over the Project 2 4 BIDDING 2 4 1 The Architect, followmg the Owner's approval of the Construction Documents and of the latest Prelmmu~ Estmaated Coustmct~on Cost Amount (ECCA), shall assist the Owner during the hiddmg phase Tins will comtst of answering mqumes requested by the purchasing officml for the C~ty of Denton, evaluating new contractors for respous~bdlty prior to award oftha contract, and recommending award or non-award to the C~ty of Denton's purchasing offictal 2 4 2 If the lowest hid for the coustmctxon of the ProJect exceeds the total constmctton cost of the ProJect as set forth m the approved Prelmamary Estm~ted Coustmct~on Costs of the ProJect subrmtted by the Architect, then the Architect, at Its sole cost and expense, roll revase the Coustmctton Documents as may be requtred to reduce or mothfy the quanUty or quahty of the work so that the total constructton cost of the ProJect pall not exceed the total coustmclaon cost set forth m the approved Prelurenary Estanated ConstmcUon Costs 2 $ CONSTRUCTION PHASE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 2 5 1 The Architact's respous~bfltty to prowde Basra Services for the CoustmcB. on Phase under ttus Agreement commences wth the award of the Contract for Constmctmn and terminates at the ~ssuance to the Owner of the final Cemficate for Payment, unless extanded under the tm of Subparagraph 9 3 2 2 5 2 Couslmct~on Phase duties, respons~bthttes and lumtatmus of anthonty of the Architect shall not be resl~cted, modffied or extended pathout written agreement of the Owner and Architect Agreement/'or Architectural Services - Pa~e 2 of 12 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #2656 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY OF DENTON A/E Des~g~ for Cross Ttmbers Park 2 5 3 The Arelntect and/or ~ts consulting team shall make penodm s~te ws~ts to detemune if the project ~s proceeding m accordance vath the contract documents The Arclmtect and/or consulting team shall not be responsible or hable for the Contractor's failure to perform the constmctron work m accordance vnth the contract documents 2 $ 4 The Axcluteet shall not have control over or charge of and shall not be respous~ble for construction means, methods, techmques, sequences or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs m connectmn w~th the Work The Arclutoct shall not be respous~ble for the Contractor's schedules or fmlure to car~ out the Work m accordance vath the Contract Documents except insofar as such failure may result fi.om Arclutecfs neghgent acts or ormsslous The Arcbatect shah not have control over or charge of acts or omassions of the Contractor, Subcontractors, or their agents or employees, or of any other persom performing pomous of the Work 25 S Except as may otherwise be promded m the Contract Documents or when threct commumcat~ous have been specifically authorized, the Arcl'ntact and Contractor shall corranumcate through the Owner Commumcat~ous by and w~th the Arclntec~s consultants shall be through the Owner 2 5 6 Based on the Axclutect's observat~ous at the s~te of the work and evaluattons of the Contractors Apphcat~uns for Payment, the Arclntect shall review and certify the mounts due the Contractor 2 5 7 The Arclntect's ceraficat~on for payment shall const~tnte a representatton to the Owner, based on the Arctutect's observat~om at the site as promded m Subparagraph 2 6 5 and on the data comprising the Contractor's Apphcat~on for Payment, that the Work has progressed to the point md~cated and that the quahty of the Work is m accordance w~th the Contract Documents The foregoing representaUons are subject to minor dewat~ons from the contract Documents correctable prior to completion and to spemfic quahficat~ons expressed by the Archttect The ~ssuance of a Certificate for Payment shall further constttute a representation that the Contractor is entitled to payment tn the amount c.~mfied However, the issuance of a Cemficate for Payment shall not be a representatton that the Architect has (1) reviewed coustmctton means, methods, techmques, sequences or procedures, or (2) ascertained how or for what purpose the Contractor has used money prevtously pard on account of the Contract Sm 2 5 8 The Arctutect shall advise the Owner of any Work wluch does not conform to the Contract Documents Whenever the Arc~utect considers it necessary or adwsable for anplementaUon of the intent nfthe Contract Documents, the Arclutect may request and reqmre adthtlonal inspection or testing of the Work m accordance vnth the prowslons of the Contract Documents, whether or not such Work ~s fabricated, installed or completed However, neither tlns anthonty of the Axclntcct nor a dec~slon made m good froth either to exem~se or not exerctse such authority shall give rise to a duty or responsththty of the Arclmtect to the Contractor, Subcontractors, material and eqmpment supphers, their agents or employees or other persons perfonmng portmus of the Work 2 5 9 The Arclutect shall remew and approve or take other appropriate act~un upon Contractor's subnuttals such as Shop Drawings, Product Data and Samples for the purpose of determining whether such subn.attals, contemplating the work. to be completed, vall be m compliance vath the reqmrements of the Contract Doctunents The Arclutect shall act vnth such reasonable promptness to cause no delay m the Work or m the coustmcUon of the Owner or of separate contractors, wtule allowmg suffiment tame m the Arctntect's professmnal judgment to penmt adequate review 2 5 9 a Rexaew of such subrmtrals is not conducted for the propose of deternunmg the accuracy and completeness of other details such as thmonslons and quant~ttes or for substantiating mstmct~ous for mstallattun or performance of eqmpment or systems desxgned by the Contractor, all of winch remain the respousxbxhty of the Contractor to the extent reqmred by the Contract Documents The Arclutect's rewew shall not constitute approval of safety precaut~ous or, unless othervase specifically stated by the Arcbatect, of coustruc~on means, methods, techmques, sequences or procedures 259.b The Arclntecfs approval of a specific item shall not mthcate approval of an assembly of wtuch the ~tem m a component When professional cemficat~on of performance characteristics of materials, systems or eqmpment ~s requtred by the Contract Documents, the Arctutect shall be anttfled to rely upon such certfficat~on to estabhsh that the materials, systems or eqmpment will meet the performance criteria required by the Contract Documents Agreement for Arctutectural Servmes - Pace 3 of 12 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #2656 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY OF DENTON A/E Destgnl for Cross Tin,hers Park 2 5 10 The Arcbatect shall prepare Change Orders and Construction Change D~rectwes, wath supporting doctunentalaon and data, tf deemed necessa~, by the Arclntect as provided m Sub-paragraphs 3 1 1 and 3 3 3, for the Owner's approval and execution m accordance wtth the Contract Documents 2 5 11 On behalf of the Owner, the Arclmtect shall conduct mspecttons to determine the dates of SubstanUal Compleuon and Final Completton, and shall issue Certificates of Substanual and Final CompleUon The Arclntect wall receive and remew written guarantees and related documents reqmred by the Contract for Constmctaon to be assembled by the Contractor and shall issue a f'mal cemficate for Payment upon compliance wath the reqmrements of the Contract Documents 2 ~ 12 Interpretatmns and decisions of the Arctntect shall be consistent vath the intent of and reasonably m/erable from the Contract Documents and shall be m writing or m the form of drawings When making such mterpretatmns and wat~al dec,stuns, the Arelntect shall endeavor to secure faltlfful performance by both Owner and Contractor, and shall not be hable for results or mterpretaUons or demsions so rendered m good froth m accordance vath all the promslons of tins Agreement and m the absence ofneghgence 2 5 13 The Arcbatect shall render written damsmns wathm a reasonable tn'ne on all clam, d~sputes or other mat~ers m questaon between the Owner and Contractor relating to the executton or progress of the Work as provided m the Contract Documents 2 5 14 The Arelutect (1) shall render sermces under the Agreement m accordance vath the tughast professmnal standards prevaihng m the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex area, (2) vail retrnburse the Owner for all damages caused by the neghgence of the AmJntect, and (3) by acknowledging payment by the Owner of any fees due, shall not be released frour any rights the Owner may have under the Agreement or thrmm~h any of the Arclutect's obhgatlons thereunder ARTICLE 3 ADDITIONAL SERVICES 3 1 GENERAL 3 1 1 The services described m tins Article 3 are not included m Basic Services unless so ~dent~fied m Amcle 11, and they shall be paid for by the Owner as provided m ti'ns Agreement, m addltmn to the compansatmn for Basic Servmes The services dascnbed under Paragraphs 3 2 and 3 4 shall only be provtded ~f authonzed or confirmed m writing by the Owner If services dascnbed under Contingent Adchtmnal Sermces m Paragraph 3 3 are requtred due to ctrcumstances beyond the Arclutect's control, the Arclutect shall notify the Owner prior to commencing such services If the Owner deems that such sermces described under Paragraph 3 3 are not requ.tred, the Owner shall give prompt written nottce to the Arclntect If the Owner mchcatas mwrttmg that all or part of such Contingent Adchtmnal Serwces are not reqmred, the Archttect shall have no obhgat~on to prowde those services Owner vall be responsthle for compensating the Arclutect for Cuntmgent Addmonal Sconces only if they are not reqmred due to the neghgence or fault of Arclntect 3 2 PROJECT REPRESENTATION BEYOND BASIC SERVICES 3 2 1 If inure extensive representatton at the rote than is dascnbed m Subparagraph 2 6 5 is reqmred, the Arclntect shall provide one or more ProJect Representatives to assist m carrying out such addltmnal on-site raspons~bfllt~es 3 2 2 ProJect Representatives shall be selected, employed and chrected by the A~chaect, and the Arclutect shall be compensated therefore as agreed by the Owner and Arclutact The duties, responslb~ht~es and hrmtatmns of authority of ProJect Representatives shall be as described m the ed~tton of AIA Document B352 current as of the date of tins Agreement, unless otherwase agreed 3 3 CONTINGENT ADDITIONAL SERVICES 3 3 1 Makang matenal revlsaons m Drawings, Spectficalaons or other documents when such revisions are Agreement for Architectural Services - Pa~e 4 af 1 ? REQUEST FOR. PROPOSAL #2656 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY OF DENTON A/E Des~gn~for Cross Tmabers Park mcouslstent with approvals or mstmcttous prewously g~ven by the Owner, mchidmg rewsmus made necessary by adjustments m the Owners program or Project budget, 2 required by the enactment or rewslon of codes, laws or regulations subsequent to the preparation of such documents, or 3 due to changes reqmred as a result of the Owner's failure to render demsmn m a ~rnely manner 3 3 2 Promdmg serwces requr:ed because of sagmfieant changes m the Project mchidmg, but not lmuted to, size, qnahty, complemty, the Owner's schedule, or the method of hiddmg and contracting for construction, except for serwces requrred under Subparagraph 2 4 2 3 3.3 Preparing Drawings, Specfficat~om and other documentation and supporting data, and pmwdmg other sermces m connectxon vath Change Orders and Constmctton Change Dtrect~ves 3 3 4 Prowdmg consultataon concerning replacement of Work damaged by fire or other cause during coustmctton, and furmshmg services reqmred m connectaan with the replacement of such Work 3 3 5 Prowdmg services made necessary by the default of the Contractor, by maj or defects or defimenctes m the Work of the Contractor, or by failure of performance of e~ther the Owner or Contractor under the Contract for Cons/~uctton 3 3 6 Providing serwces m evalnatmg an extensive number of clam subnutted by the Contractor or others m connectmn with the Work 3 3 7 Providing services m connection with a pubhc hearing, arbxtratlon proceeding or legal proceeding except where the Architect la party thereto 3 3 8 Preparing documents for alternate, separate or sequentml hids or prowdmg serwces m connectxon with b~ddmg or constructaon prior to the eompletaon of the Coustructaon Documents Phase 3 4 OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES 3 4 1 Prowdmg fmanmal feasab~hty or other special studies 3 4 2 Promdmg plarmmg surveys, s~te evahiataous or comparative stuthes of prospective sites 3 4 3 Providing specml surveys, envrronmental smdaes and submissaous reqmred for approvals of governmental authonlaes or others having junsdtctlon over the ProJect 3 4 4 Promdmg servaces relatave to future fac~ht~es, systems and eqmpment 3 4 5 Provtdmg sermces to investigate existing courht~ons or faetht~es or to make measured drawings thereof 3 4 6 Promdm_g services to verify the accuracy of drawings or other mformatton funushad by the Owner 3 4 7 Prowdmg coordmatton of constractaan performed by separate contractors or by the Owner's own forces and coordmataon of serwces reqmred m connectxon with eoustruct~on performed and eqmpment supphed by the Owner 3 4 8 Prowdmg servmes m coanect~on with the work of a cousmact~on manager or separate comultants retained by the Owner 3 4 9 Promdmg detailed quantity surveys or inventories of material, equipment and labor 3 4 10 Proxadmg analyses of owmng and operating costs Agreement for Architectural Services - Page 5 of 12 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #2656 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY OF DENTON A/E Demg~ for Cross Tnubers Park 3 4 11 Making mvast~gattons, mventones of materials or equipment, or valuations and detmled apprmsals of extstmg faclht~es 3 4 12 Providing assistance m the utthzat~on of eqmpment or systems such as tasting, adjusting and balancing, preparataon of operation and maintenance manuals, training personnel for operatmn and maintenance and consultatton dunng operatten 3 4 13 Provtdmg mtenor desagn and snudar services reqmred for or m conneclaun vath the selecaon, procurement or mstallataon of thnuture, furmshmgs and related eqmpment 3 4 14 Promdmg serwces other than as prowded m Sectmn 2 5 3, after issuance to the Owner of the final Certfficate for Payment and expiration of the Warranty period of the Contract for Consmact~on 3 4 15 Promdmg services of consultants for other than arclutectural, structural, mechamcal and elecmcal engineering portions of the ProJect provided as a part of Basic Servtces 3 4 16 Providing any other semcas not othervase included m tlus Agreement or not customarily furmshed m accordance wath generally accepted arclutectural practtce 3 4 17 Prepanng a set of repmducable record drawings showing s~gmficant changes m the Work made during constmcUon based on marked-up prints, drawings and other data furmshed by the Contractor to the Arclutect ARTICLE 4 OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES 4 1 The Owner shall consuh wtth the Arcbatect regarding reqmrements for the ProJect, including ( 1 ) the Owner's objecttves, (2) schedule and design constraints and criteria, including space reqmrements and relataonslups, fleraNhty, expendabthty, special eqmpment, systems and site reqmrements, as more specffically dascnbed m Paragraph 2 2 1 and ExlnNt A 4 2 The Owner shall establish and update an overall budget for the ProJect, including the Constmctton Cost, the Owner's other costs and reasonable contmgenmas related to all of these costs 4 3 If requestod by the Archttect, the Owner shall furmsh credence that financial arrangements have been made to fulfill the Owner's obhgat~ons under tins Agreement 4 4 The Owner shall designate a representative anthonzed to act on the Owner's behalf wtth respect to the ProJect The Owner or such authorized representative shall render dectsmns m a tanely mariner pertaining to documents subnntted by the Axclntect m order to avoid unreasonable delay m the orderly and sequantml progress of the Arclutecfs services 45 The Owner shall furmsh surveys descnbmg phys~caI charactens~cs, legal lmutat~ons and utthty locations for the site of the Project, and a written legal descnptton of the site The surveys and legal mfomtton shall include, as apphcable, grades and lines of streets, alleys, pavements and adjoining proper~ and stmcturas, adjacent drainage, nghts- of-way, rasmct~ons, easements, encroachments, zomg, deed restncUons, boundanes and contours of the site, locauons, dnuem~ons and necessary data pertannng to emstmg butldmgs, other unprovements and trees, and mfomt~en concerning avatlable utthty sermces and hnes, both pubhc and pnvate, above and below grade, including reverts and depths All the mfermatton on the survey shall be referenced to a project benchmark 46 The Owner shall furmsh the set, aces of other consultants when such sermces are reasonably required by the scope of tho ProJect and are requested by the Arclntect and are not retained by the Arclntect as part of~ts Basic Servmes 47 The Owner shall funnsh structural, mechamcal, chermcal, att and water pollutmn tests, tests of hazardous materials, and other laboratory and enmronmental tests, mspect~ous and reports reqmred by law or the Contract Documents At the C~ty's duscretmn ~t may perform, or may have services performed by others, 1 e archaeological Agreement for Architectural Services - Pa~e 6 of 12 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #2656 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY OF DENTON A/E Design for Cross Ttmbers Park surveys, feaslbthty stuthes, or envxronmental studIes Any and all reports provided by such services to the Architect shall be utll~ed as thrected by the Ctty of Denton The City of Denton takes no responstblhty for the reformation prowded from such servtces 4 8 The Owner shall furmsh all legal, accoantmg and insurance counseling servtces as may be necessary at any mne for the ProJect, including audttmg servmes the Owner may reqmre to verify the Contractor's Apphcatmns for Payment or to ascertain how or for what purposes the Contractor has used the money paid by or on behalf of the Owner 4 9 The sarvtces, mformatton, surveys and reports required by Paragraphs 4 5 through 4 8 shall be furotshed at the Owner's expense, and the Archttect shall be entffied to rely upon the accuracy and completeness thereof ~n the absence of any neghgence on the part of the Areh~tect 4 10 The Owner shall gtve prompt written nottce to the Amh~tect if the Owner becomes aware of any fault or defect m the ProJect or nonconformance wtth the Contract Documents 4 11 ArohlteCt shall propose language for certificates or certtficatlons to be requested of the Architect or Architect's consultants and shall submit such to the Owner for review and approval at least fourteen (14) days prior to execution The Owner agrees not to request certifications that would reqmre knowledge or services beyond the scope of this Agreement ARTICLE 5 CONSTRUCTION COST 5 I DEFINITION 5 1 I The Cons~ructton Cost shall be the total cost or estimated cost to the Owner of all elements of the ProJect designed or specffied by the Architect 5 1 2 The Construction Cost shall include the cost at current market rates of labor and materials furnished by the Owner and eqmpmant destgned, specified, selected or specially prowded for by the Architect, plus a reasonable allowance for the Contractor's overhead and profit In adthuon, a reasonable allowance for contingencies shall be included for market conditions at the time of bidding and for changes ~n the Work during construction 5 1 3 Construction Cost does not include the compensation of the Architect and Architect's consultants, the costs of the land, rights-of-way, financing or other costs which are the responslblhty of the Owner as provided ~n Article 4 5 2 RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONSTRUCTION COST 5 2 1 Evaluattons of the Owner's ProJect budget, Prehmmary Estnnated Construction Cost Amount (ECCA) prepared by the Arohttect represent the Archttect's best judgment as a design professtonal famfltar w~th the constructton industry It ts recogmzed, however, that ne~thar the Arehttect nor the Owner has control over the cost of labor, materials or eqmpment, over the Contractor's methods of determining btd prices, or over competmve btddmg or market condmons Accordingly, the Areh~tect cannot and does not warrant or represent that bids will not vary from the Owner's Project budget or from any esmnate of Construction Cost or evaluation prepared or agreed to by the Architect 5 2 2 A fixed hm~t has been estabbshed, the ArchItect shall be permitted to include cont~ngenctes for design, b~ddtng and prtce ascalatlon, to determme what materials, eqmpment, component systems and types of construction are to be Included m the Contract Documents, to make reasonable adjustments in the scope of the ProJect and to include m the Contract Documents alternate bids to adjust the Constructmn Cost to the fixed hmit 5 2 3 If the Btdthng Phase has not commenced wtthm 90 days after the Architect submits the Construction Documents to the Owner, any ProJect budget or fixed hmtt of Constmctmn Cost shall be adjusted to reflect changes ~n the general level of prices m the constmctton industry between the date of subm~ssmn of the Constmctmn Documents to the Owner and the date on which proposals are sought Agreement for Architectural Serwces - Page 7 of 12 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #2656 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY OF DENTON A/E Des~gnlfor Cross Tn'nbers Park ARTICLE 6 USE OF ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS 6 1 The Drawings, Spemficat~ons and other documents prepared by the Arclutect for t/us ProJect are instruments of the Archttect's servme for use solely vath respect to tins ProJect and, unless otherwase provided, the Arcintect shall be deemed the author of these documents and shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, mcludmg the copyright The Owner shall be permttted to retain cop~es, including reproducible cop~es, of the Architect's Drawings, Spemficattons and other documents for mformat~un and reference m connection wtth the Owner's use and occupancy of the ProJect The Arclntect's Drawings, Spemficat~om or other documents shall not be used by the Owner or others on other projects for adtht~ous to tins Project or for completton of tins ProJect by others, unless thts Agreement is terminated because Arcintect is m default of tlus Agreement, at winch tnne the documents become the properB, of the City of Denton. 6 2 Subn'uss~un or dustnbuttun of documents to meet offictal regulatory reqmrements or for anmlar purposes m connectton v~th the ProJect is not to be construed as pubhcatton m deroganon of the Arcintect's reserved rights ARTICLE 7 TERMINATION, SUSPENSION OR ABANDONMENT 7 1 Arcintect may terminate tins Agreement upon not less than flurry days written not, ce should the Owner fa~l substantially to perform m accordance vath the terms of tins Agreement through no fault of the Arclntect Owner may terminate tins Agreement or any phase thereof upon flurry (30) days pnor wntten not, ce to the Arcintect vath the understanchng that mamethately upon recetpt of such not, ce, all work and labor being performed under the Agreement shall cease tmmechately Before the end of the thaw (30) day period, Arcintect shall mvome the Owner for all work ~t performed prior to the receipt of such not,ce No amount shall be due for lost or annc~pated profits All plans, field surveys, and other data related to the ProJect shall become property of the Owner upon termmanon of the Agreement and shall be promptly dehvered to the Owner m a reasonably orgamzed form. Should Owner subsequently contract w~th a new arcintect for continuation of services on the ProJect, Arcintect shall cooperate m providing mformaaon 7 2 If the ProJect ~s suspended by the Owner for more than 30 consecutive days, the Arctutect shall be compensated for sermces performed prior to not,ce of such suspension When the ProJect ~s resumed, the Arckntect's compansatmn shall be eqmtably adjusted to provide for expenses recurred m the interruption and resmnpUon of the A~cintect's serwces 7 3 Tins Agreement may be ternnnated by the Owner upon not less than seven days written nonce to the Arcintect m the event that the ProJect m permanently abandoned If the ProJect m abandoned by the Owner for more than 90 consecutive days, the Arclutect or the Owner may terminate flus Agreement by g~wng written noUce 7 4 Failure of the Owner to make payments to the Arcintect m accordance vath tins Agreement shall be consxdered substantial nonperformance and cause for termmat~un 7 5 If the Owner fads to make payment to Arclntect w~thm thu~ (30) days of receipt of a statement for semces properly performed, the Amintect may, upon seven days written no,ce to the Owner, suspend performance of servmes under flus Agreement Unless Arclmtect receives payment m full vathm seven (7) days of the date of the nottce, the suspensmn shall take effect wtthunt further not,ce In the event of a suspens~un of services under flus secbon, the Arclutect shall have no habthty to the Owner for delay or damage caused the Owner because of such suepens~on of 7 6 In the event of termination not the fault of the Arctutect, the Arclntect shall be compensated for servmes properly performed prior to termination Agreement for Archttectural Sermceq - Pa~,a ~ n~' 1 ') REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #2656 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY OF DENTON AYE Demgulfor Cross Tanbers Park ARTICLE 8 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 8 1 Tbs Agreement shall be govemed by the laws of the State of Texas 8 2 Terms m fins Agreement shall have the same meaning as those m AIA Document A201, General Condlt~nns of the Con,'act for Comtmctton, current as of the date oftlus Agreement 8 3 The Owner and Arcbatect, respecttvely, bind themselves, their partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to the other party to ti'ns Agreement and to the parmers, successors, assigns and legal representattves of such other party wth respect to all covenants of tins Agreement Neither Owner nor Architect shall assign tins Agreement vathout the written consent of the other 8 4 Tlm Agreement represents the entre and integrated agreement between the Owner and Arclutect and supersedes all prior negottattons, representalaons or agreements, e~ther written or oral Tins Agreement may be amended only by written msmanent signed by both Owner and Arclmect 8 5 Nothing contained m tins Agreement shall create a con~:actual relat~omlup wtth or a cause of acUon m favor ofa ttard party against e~ther the Owner or Archatect 8 6 Unless otherwtse prowded m tlm Agreement, the Arctntect and Arclutect's consultants shall have no respons~b~hty for the dmcovery, presence, handling, removal or d~sposal of or exposure of persons to hazardous materials m any form at the Project rote, including but not hnnted to asbestos, asbestos products, polychlormated b~phenyl (PCB) or other toxtc substances, prowded, however. Arctntect shall have the respons~bthty to and shall report to the Owner the location of any hazardous meteml that an arclntect of snmlar skill and expemse should have notaced 8 7 The Arclntect shall have the nght to include representations of the design of the Project. including photographa of the exterior and interior, among the Arclutect's promottonal and professmnal materials The Archttect's materials shall not include the Owner's confidennal or proprietary mformatmn ff the Owner has premously advmed the Archttect m writing of the epecdSc mfonmtaon considered by the Owner to be confidantml or proprietary The Owner shall prowde professional credit for the Archttect on the constmctmn mgn and m the promoUonal matermls for the ProJect ARTICLE 9 PAYMENTS TO THE ARCHITECT 9 1 DIRECT PERSONNEL EXPENSE 9 1 1 Direct Personnel Expense ~s defined as the direct salanes of the Arclntect's personnel engaged on the Project and the pomon of the cost of then: mandatory and customary contributions and benefits related thereto, such as employment taxes and other statutory employee benefits, insurance, sink leave, hohdays, vacataons, pensions and smnlar conmbuuons and benefits 9 2 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES 9 2 1 Remabursable Expenses are m addtt~on to compensataon for Basic and Additional Servmes and include expenses recurred by the Arclutect and Arclutact's employees and consultants m the interest of the ProJect, as xdenttfied m the following Clauses 9 2 1.1 Expense of transportataon m connectton w~th the Project, expenses m connectton vath anthortzed out-of- town travel, and fees prod for securing approval of anthontaes having junsductaon over the Project 9 2 1.2 Expense of reproductmns (except the reproduction of the sets of documents referenced m Subparagraph 2 6 19). postage and handling of Drawings, Spemficatmns and other documents Agreement for Arcbatectural Servmeq - Pa~,e q aF 19 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #2656 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY OF DENTON A/E Deslg~ for Cross Ttmbers Park 9 2 1 3 If authorized m advance by the Owner, expense of overtmae work requn'mg lugher than regular rates 9 2 1 4 Expense of renderings, models and mock-ups requested by the Owner 9 2 1 5 Rennbursable expenses for 9 2 1 1 and 9 2 1 2 shall not exceed $3,500 00 (See Exlublt A) 9 3 PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF BASIC SERVICES 9 3 1 Payments for Basic Services shall be made monthly and, where apphcable, shall be m propomon to services performed v~thm each phase of servme, on the basts set forth m Subparagraph 10 2 2 9 3 2 If and to the extent that the tmae nutmlly estabhshed m Subparagraph 10 4 1 of ttus Agreement is exceeded or extended through no fault of the Arclutect, compensatmn for any serwces rendered during the adthUonal period of tune shall be computed m the manner set forth m Subparagraph 10 2 2 9 4 PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES 9 4 1 Payments on account of the Arclntect's Adchtaonal Services and for Reunbursable Expenses shall be made monthly upon presentaaon of the Arcl~tect's statement of ser~ces rendered or expenses recurred 9 5 PAYMENTS WITHHELD 9 5 1 No deductions shall be made from the Arcluteefs compensation on account of penalty, hqmdated damages or other sums w~thheld from payments to contractors, er on account of the cost of changes m the Work other than those for wluch the Architect is responstble 9 6 ARCHITECT'S ACCOUNTING RECORDS 9 6 1 Areluteet shall make avarlable to Owner or Owner's authorized representatave records of Remabursable Expenses and expenses pertaining to Adthtmnal Serwces and servaces performed on the basas of a multaple of Dxrect Personnel Expense for mspecUon and copying dunng regular business hours for three years afl:er the date of the final CerUficate of Payment, or until any lmgutaon related to the Project ~s final, whachaver date as later ARTICLE 10 BASIS OF COMPENSATION The Owner shall compensate the Archxtect as follows 10 1 BASIC COMPENSATION 10 1 1 FOR BASIC SERVICES, as described m Arttcle 2, and any other services included m Artmle 11 as part of Baste Servtces, Bastc Compensanon shall be $53,000 00 per Arcbatects Proposal, a copy of wtuch as attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exlub~t A 10 1 2 Progress payments for Basra Servmes m each phase shall total the following percentages of the total Basic Compensatmn payable Design and Development Phase 35% Construc~on Documents Phase 40% Btddmg Phase 5% Construe'non Phase 20% Total Baste Compensatmn 100% Agreement for Architectural Semces - Page 10 of 12 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #2656 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY OF DENTON A/E Design for Cross Tunbers Park 10 2 COMPENSATION FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES 10 2 1 FOR PROJECT REPRESENTATION BEYOND BASIC SERVICES, as described m Paragraph 3 2, compensation shall be computed at the hourly rates to be agreed upon at the rune of negot~atmns 10 2 2 FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES OF ~ ARCHITECT, as described m Arttcles 3 and 11, other than (1) Adchtmnal Project Representation, as described m Paragraph 3 2, and (2) servxces included m Article 11 as part of Addxttonal Sermces, but excluding servxces of consultants, compensatton shall be computed as follows Prmmpals $ 95 per hour Assocmtes $ 65 per hour Techmcal Staff $ 45 per hour Clencal Staff $ 30 per hour 10 3 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES 10 3 1 FOR REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, as described m Paragraph 9 2, and any other xtems included m Article 11 as Reunbursable Expenses, a multiple of 1 10 trines the expenses recurred by the Arclutect, the Arclutect's employees and consultants m the interest of the ProJect 10 4 ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS 10 4.1 IF THE BASIC SERVICES covered by tlus agreement have not been completed by August 30, 2001, hereof, through no fault of the Arctutect, extension of the Arclutect's servtces beyond that tune shall be compensated as pmwded m Subparagraphs 9 3 2 and 10 2 2 10 4 2 Payments are due and payable thmy (30) days from the date of the Arclutect's mvmce Amounts for servmes properly performed wluch remain unpmd s~xty (60) days after the invoice date shall bear interest at the rate of one (1%) percent per month. ARTICLE 11 OTHER CONDITIONS OR SERVICES 11 1 Arclutect shall maintain, at no expense to Owner, a professional habfitty (errors and ormssions) insurance pohcy placed vnth a company rated at least A-/X by Best's Key Rating Grade, authorized to do business m Texas, m an amount not less than one rmlllon dollars ($1,000,000) Such pohcy shall requu:e the gtvmg of written not. ce to Owner at least tlurty days prior to cancellation, non-renewal or material modlficat~on of any pohmes, evidenced by return receipt of Umted States Ce~fied Marl Arclutect shall furmsh Owner w~th copies of said polmles or certificates ewdencmg such coverage 11 2 Archttect agrees to mdemmfy and save and hold harmless, the City, ~ts officers, representatives, and employees from and against any and all clanm or stats for injuries, damages, loss, or lmbth~y of whatever kind or character, a~smg out of or m counect~on vnth the performance by the Arclutect of those services contemplated by ttus Agreement, based upon allegations of neghgant acts or ormsslons of Arclutect, its officers, agents, employees, consultants and subcontractors 11 3 Arclutect shall promde the following add~tmnal services that are not a part of the basra services upon request of the Owner 1 American Dlsab~hty Act Cext~ficat~on per State Reqmrements 2 Topograpluc Base Map and Boundary Survey (Per Exlub~t A) not to exceed $14,500 3 Bid documents beyond conslrucl~on documents promded for tn sectton 2 3 1 Agreement for Arclutectural Servmes - Pa~e 11 of 12 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #2656 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY OF DENTON A/E Design for Cross Timbers Park of the Owner~ Amencan D~aohhty Act CemficaOon per State Reqmremenls 2 Topographic Base Map and Bounda~ Survey (Per Exluht A) not to exceed $14,500 3 B~d documents beyond consUuction doaunenls prowded for m sectmn 2 3 1 Tlus Agreement entered mto as of the day and year first written above OWNER AR CT I' BY BY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR A21'I~ST BY APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM HERBERT L PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY Agreement for Architectural Services - Page 12 of 12 Dunkin Sims Stoffels, lnc, Landscape Architects/Planners May 7, 2001 Ms Janet S~mpson Assistant Director. Parks & Recreation Department City of Denton 321 E MoKInnoy Street Denton, Texas 76201 Dear Ms Simpson We aDpreclate the npportun[W to submit th~s scope of serv~ooa for Cross Timbers Park hi Denton, Texas. This proposal ia being submt~ted for your review and approval The profes~ionol ao~vmea for this park will ba p~=pafad by the following consulting team Dtlnk~n Sims Stoffels, Inc. will be the primary cpnsultant for the project, Lady Bird Johnson W~Jdflower Canter and Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers, Inc The scope of aervlces ~s dtvlded rotc two phases, Phase I, Basra Design Services. and Phase II, Reimbursable Ext3sn~R~ PHASE I - BASIC DESIGN SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS Construction documents wdl be prepared for the park elements Illustrated in the master ptan prepared by Mesa Design (Phase anal and w~thln the allocated park constructmn budget Thru sectmn also includes the servlc~ prnv~Hed by the Lady B~rd Johnson W~ldflowcr Center The services ~n this phaso ore divided Into four soctionu (1) da~tgn and development, (2) construction documents and spec{fmatmns, (3I btddmg and contract award, and (4) cu~[rut.[lo~t observation Each section sets forth the services to be performed Des,ge Development Phase Sohematm alternative plans wilt be prepared by the consulting team and presented to staff for their review and oommonts. Tho plans wdi be prepared with staff H1pu[ ~f~ ~aga['d to the final design dec~slons. Aft:er the C~ty and Consultant have agreed upon the final program elements, a pxuhm~nary cost estlmate will be prepared deta~lmg the park elements In the construction phase 9803 White Ro=k Trail Salt= 2t0 Dallas, Texas 75238 2t4-553-5778 EXHIBIT A-1 LADY BIRD JOHNSON WILDFLOWER CENTER The Lady B~rd Johnson W~ldflower Center will perform the followln¢l serwces for Cros~ T~mh~rs Park Site Visit - The LRP will conduct a site visit w~th interested partms to become familiar with Cross T~mhar~ Park and the exiting site condltmna Dunng the aitu walt information will be collected needed to complete a two-acre prams restoratmn plan, 12,000 square feet wetland planting plan, prelirmnsry t~ed layuu{ and Interpretation bpecies hsts from other regional prames (Flower Mound, Culp Branch) will be obtained or developed Habitat on the two-acre prairie restoration will be mapped for micro-topography, so~ls, exotic and mvamve species populations, and desirable plant populations Specleq Imtq will be developed for the wetland planting based on species found m Pecan Creek, other stretches of Hickory Creek, and the Elm Fork cf th~ Tnmty River Mlcro-s~tes w~ll be Identified and mapped tn ~l~e hair-acre wetland planting area. A second site we~t will be conducted to review the project work to date, present conceptual tnmrpretatlon to Interested part,es, finalize the restoration plan and trail layout. Conatru_o_tl_on Do_cuments and ~_eolflcatlons Construction documents and spec~flcations will be prepared for the park elements outhned tn the DOSt eet~rnato for construction Tho conaulb.g t~am will perform The following tasks ~n this section of the project a Grading Plan(s), which wdl estabhsh ~rades for all elements of the prnje~t · Layout Plan(~} In~'atJng by d~menslons all structures, playmg flclda, walks, roads, parking areas, planting areas, otc Electrical Plan(s) showing the location of all light standards, controls, w~res, etc · Planting Plan(s) locating and Identifying all plant material and a list of plantq including quantities, sizes, and varieties m Construction Details provldmg plans, sections, elevations of the Individual slemonts of the plane a Prepare approprlaza add or deduct alternates a Prepare the technical speclficatmns Cost estimates will be prepared for each of the program's elements The cost for these elements wdl be revaawad with staff BIDDIN(3 AND GONTRACT AWARD The Consultant will be responsible for the followmg tasks in this phase · Answer questions and Interpret drawing dunng the b~ddmg period EXHIBIT A-2 s Assist the C~ty ~n reca~wng b~ds s Prepare any reqwred addendum, · Analyze the bids and make a written recommRnH~tion to the C~tV for awarding a contract Construction Administration We wdl perform the following tasks dunng this phase of the project · Consultation and adwse to the C~ty · Preparation of elementary and supplementary sketches required to resolve field conditions · Approval of submittals and shop draw, ngs submitted by contractors for confor- mance with the design concept a The~msu[t[ng-teamshalL make-penodl~eite vi~ts to determine if the~oroy~ct m [~ro~sedlng In a~eordanee with the contract documents The consulting team shall not be responmble or liable for the Contractor's failure to perform the construction work In accordance with the ~u.L~c~ documents · Review and approval o1 all certificates for payment submitted by the Contractor s Prepare Change Orders for the City's approval and execution · Coordinate final site walk through w~th the City at the conclusion of the construction and provI;ie a punch hat to Contractor to compleLe Lhe project Professional Fsss The Consultant shall perform the scope of services m Phases I for the fee a fee of $§3,000 00 PHASE II - ADDITIONAL SERVICES (ESTIMATED FEES) The tees presented below for each task are estimated fees Because the scope of services of the serwoes for each item cannot be determmed at this time Topagraphln Bass Map and Boundary Survey A one-foot interval on-the-ground topog;aphy ;n=p rind boundary survey will be prepared for sectmns of the park requ~nng grading and ADA access which w~ll be under construction Critical spot elevations will be established, ] · major trees, sewer manholes, existing street grades, storm sewer ;nlets, etc This w~ll be supplemented by all known easements and utdit~es We would recommend the City budget $14,500 for this task Plan and Speaiflcatlon Prlntmg The Consultant will invoice the City at the incurred cost plus 10% for a(I out-of-house printing EXHIBIT A~3 of plans, epeclfmatmns and plotting of AutoCadd files. Requested mounting or laminating of master plans wtJ[ also be .~vu~c~d at The Incurred cost In-houselprln~ing of check pnnts for use In preparing the construction documents are Included In the basra design services, Postage end d~hvery expenses will not be Invoiced during the Design Phase of thc Courier0 express ma~l, or overnight delivery charges, as well as, the cost of ma~lmg sets of oontrnc! documents to prospective bldde~ will be charged [o the City. We would recommend the C~ty budget $3,000 to $3,500 for this task PREPARATION OF ALTERNATES The Consultant's fees are based upon the total dollars allocated for construction nf th~ project The Consultant w~ll prepare an estimate for probable cost of construction This estimate will be based on the design d~v~lopment phase of ~he project Should the Cl~y request design servmes on alternates to be prepared for bidding above the allocated ~710,4.16 00, the eonsuklng team will invo~ee the City In adriatic(1 To tl~e ur~u~nal conTrac[ amount, the agreed percentage of construction cost for preparation of plans, construction documents and specifications for the alternates Any such eXpenses shall be pr_e-au~ by th~ City ~n advance of work being perfor~(~ We appreciate the opportunity to qtihmlt th~ scope of services and Ieee forward to working w~th you and the Den[on parks and recreation staff If you have any questions, do not hesitate call ms Dennis Sims, ASLA Prlnmpal EXHIBIT A-4 Ag0n~a I'~em It[' - ! AGENDA DATE. .Tune 19, 2001 ~ucsUons concemm~ this acqulmt~on may be directed DEPARTMENT. Materials Management to Ray Wells 349-7108 ACM Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Mumclpal Services ~6~ {hi SUBJECT' An Ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds for the purchase of Remote Terminal Units (RTU's) which are available from only one source in accordance with the provisions of State Law exempting such purchases from reqmrements of competitive bidding, and prowdmg an effective date (PO 15203 to Advanced Control Systems m the amount of $26,190) PURCHASE ORDER INFORMATION' This purchase order is for the sole source acqulSlUOn of RTU's to implement the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) communication control system for the Industrial Substation and the Woodrow Substation The pnmary intent is to tie these substations to the existing SCADA master supervisory control and data acqmsluon network Advanced Control Systems designed our substation control network and are the only source for upgrades or additional eqmpment The SCADA network is a propnetary system protected by patent and/or copyright Sole Source matenals, supplies or services protected by patent copyright are exempt from the bid process as per Chapter 252 of the Texas Local Governmental Code RECOMMENDATION' We recommend Purchase Order 15203 to Advanced Control Systems be approved m the amount of $26,190 PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS' Advanced Control Systems Nomross, GA ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT: Shipment of two RTU's estimated to be 90 days after receipt of an order or approximately the second week in September 2001 Agenda Information Sheet June 19, 2001 Page 2 FISCAL INFORMATION: Fundtng for the RTU's is available from Revenue Bond accounts · 654-080-RB01-3620-9217-CO66705B $13,095 · 654-080-RB01-3620-9217-CO67705B $13,095 Respectfully submitted Tom Shaw, C P M, 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1 Pumhase Order 15203 to Advanced Control Systems Attachment 2 Quote from Advanced Control Systems 1580 Agenda 2 PURCHASE ORDER NO 15203 r~ THIS IS A zzx CONFIRMING ORDER This number must appea~ on all~ (IF MARKED) ~ invoices dehvery shps cases ctns boxes packing slips a~d bills DO NOT DUPLICATE ~ ~eq No B~d No Date 05 23 01 Page No .~ CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS PURCHASING DIVISION / 901-8 TEXAS S~REET I DE~TON 3F-.XAS 76201-4354 940/349-7100 D/FW ~ 817/267-0042~ FAX 940/349-7302 NDOR ADVANCED CONTROL SYSTEMS Visit the C~ty of Denton's WebsJte at ~/~wct~yofd~ntor~com ~,ME/ 2755 NORTHWOODS PARKWA~ DELIVERY CONYIRMATION ONLY C22 )DRESS ADDDE-9S ELECTR I C SUB STAT I O N/F I B ER NORCROSS GA 30071 1701 C SPENCER RD DENTON, TEXAS 76205 MIKE PORL VENDOR NO ADV49000 DELIVERY QUOTED 06 30 O1 FOR DESTINATION BUYER TS TERMS 01 t.000 EA VENDOR CAT. # N / A NFG NAME 13,095.000 13,095.00 CITY # 9200 ACS QUOTE #-ECIQ-1983 ITEM~i 02 1.000 EA VENDOR CAT. % N / A NFG NAME 13,095.000 13,095.00 CITY # 9200 ACS QUOTE #- ECIQ-1983 ITEN ~1 WOODROW SL~BSTATION RTU SINGLE SOURCE P~GE TOTAL : 26,190.00 GR~ND TOTAL : 26,190.00 654 080 RB01 3620 9217 C066705B 13,095.00 654 080 RB01 3620 9217 C067705B 13,095.00 ~d ~¢Lg~l In~ce wff~ dupl~ ~. 4 Sh~ppmg ms~uctmns F 0 B Desta~mn prepmd ~u~* oth.,~,...~...h.d) 8~1[ f~ - ACCOUAt~ P~le 5 No feder~ or state sales tax shall be ~ncluded Purchasm9 Dw~s~on 2?5 E McKmney SC mn prices balled ATTACHI~ENT 2 Quotation OV~NG EO [20NT~OL SY-C::;TEM S' 2755 \onhwoodq Park~a7 Page I of 1 Norcross Oeorgna 30071 Tel (770) 446.$85a Fax (770) 448-0957 To Denton Mum~dpal 215 E McKmney Denton. TX 76201 -.~229 Attn Brad G~bbon$ Phone 940-349-7607 Fax 940 349 7549 Date Ma~ 22, 2001 ] ACS Quote No EC01Q-1983 Custom~ P O or Con.act No F O B ( ) Dcstmanon tX) Te~ Due upon Receipt of 8h~p Va Best Way Norcross ~voice Customer Requested Date Sales Tax % Not ~cluded ACS hsumated S~pp~ng Dale 90 Day~ ~0 Sh~ppmg Ch~ges Not ~cluded Item ~ty Descr~ptmn Umt Price Total 1 2 _0~ ~lt~t ~-~Q Re~ T~mal Uua, ~C& 7000~2 pr~tocot, ~qmpped w~th · 16 Analog ~puls 0-~1 tnA) (070~94) · 32 D~g~tal ~puts ($OE/$tam~/Accum) (070536) · 20 Momenta~ ConSol Ou~uts, 10A 125 Vde (070S43 x 59 16 Latch Consol Outputs. 10A. 277Vae (070538x2} · On~ ~D Gateway Module w,h R5485 interface. DN~ 3 0 protocol (SEL-2030 & Elee~o D~S 300+) (m~tmum of LO00 total ~alues may be returned) · RS-232 Pon to Customer Sugphed Ftber Modam for Master Stauon Commtmmattons $13.095 $ 26.190 · 125Vdc/115 Va~Pow~rSupply · No encloa~e r~qmr~d, ganel mount*d. approximately 47 x 39 meh;s ~3 pan~l) · 2 I OpEn Connect ~-7500 ~D Profile (Electro lndustrte~ DMMS ~00+ - DNP 30prot¢col~ $ 500 , 3 I OpEn Cot, t~ect NTU-7~00 ~D P~file (8EL-2OJO - Oenertc Level 2 - DN~,~,O frotoco0 $ 500 total The above 9uotatlonds vahd for ninety (90) da~s All purchase orders should be marled to contract admmatratoI Ot th: above address This quotation contains proprieta~ ~formatlon B~ b~tchael Po~ T~tle RTU Systems Enelneer _ * Items 2 and 3 are not required at this time ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF REMOTE TERMINAL UNITS (RTU'S) WI{ICH ARE AVAIl.ABLE FROM ONLY ONE SOURCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COlViPETITIVE BIDDING, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (PO 15203 TO ADVANCED CONTROL SYSTEMS IN TH~ AMOUNT OF $26,190) WHEREAS, Secuon 252 022 of the Local Government Code provades that procurement of atems that are only avmlable from one source, anclurhng, atems that are only avmlable from one source because of patents, copyrights, secret processes or natural monopolies, films, manuscripts or books, electncaty, gas, water and other utthty purchases, captive replacement parts or components for eqmpment, and hbrary matenals for a pubhc hbrary that are avatlable only from the persons holding exclusave d~stnbut~on rights to the materials, need not be subrmtted to competitive bads, and WI--IEREAS, the Caty Council washes to procure one or more of the items mentioned m the above paragraph, NOW, THEREFOR.E, THE COUNCIl. OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS ~ That the following purchase of materials, eqmpment or supphes, as described an the "Pumhase Orders" hsted hereon, and on file in the office of the Purchasing Agent, are hereby approved PURCHASE ORDER VENDOR AMOUNT 15203 Advanced Control Systems $ 26,190 ~ That the acceptance and approval of the above atems shall not consUmte a contract between the Caty and the person subrmmng the quotaUon for such atems unttl such person shall comply wath all reqmrements specafled by the Purchasing Department ~ That the C~ty Manager ~s hereby authorized to execute any contracts relating to the ~tems spemhed m SecUon I and the expenditure of funds pursuant to smd contracts ~s hereby anthonzed SECTION 4 That thas orchnance shall become effective ~mmeduately upon ~ts passage and approval 5 PASSED AND APPROVED tins the day of ,2001 EULINEBROCK, MAYOR ATTEST JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM HERBERT L PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY 15203 - Advanced Control Systems SOLE SOURCB 2001 6 ^oenda i~o ~o~nda ~tem Date_ ~//~ AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET ! ' '/ AGENDA DATE. June 19, 2001 Questions concerning th~s acqulsltaon may be d~rected DEPARTMENT: Materials Management to Ray Wells 349-7108 ACM Kathy DuBose, F~scal and Mumclpal Services ~ ~ SUBJECT' An Ordanance accepting compet~tlve b~ds and awarding an annual contract for the purchase of roadway hght poles, providing for the expenditure of funds therefore, and promdmg an effective date (B~d 2674 - Roadway L~ght Poles awarded to Genlyte Sales ~n the estimated amount of $60,000) BID INI*ORMATION. Th~s b~d ~s for an annual contract for the purchase of 35 foot steel roadway hght poles w~th double arm and s~ngle arm configuration These poles w~ll be used for ~nstallatlon of 250-watt roadway hghts along various streets RECOMMENDATION: We recommend th~s annual contract be awarded to the lowest b~dder, Genlyte Sales as listed below Item 1 Pole / S~ngle Ann $1,015 Each Item 2 Poles / Double Ann $1,177 Each PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS. Genlyte Sales Carrollton, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT: Pole can be dehvered ~n lots of 10 each m~rnmum shipment an 6 weeks after receipt of an order FISCAL INFORMATION: The purchase of these poles wtll be funded from Warehouse Working Capital account (710-043- 0582-8701) and recharged to the appropriate work order as the poles are ~nstalled 1 Agenda Information Sheet June 19, 2001 Page 2 Respectfully submitted Tom Shaw, C P M, 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1 Tabulation Sheet 1576 Agenda ATTACHMENT 1 TABULATION SHEET BID: 2674 Date 5/24/01 ROADWAY LIGHT POLES No~ Qty [ DESCRIPTION VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR '.., .. ,~ ...1.~¢~ I[~.,;~ Dealers . "' .~ .71~ !1~ ll.~.~ ~,..~ Power Cummins Techl~ne Pnester Genlyte I ' ' 11, ,, ,' 'i:¢ Electnc '." , ~ , ., ¥,~ ..... ,..~ Telephone Principle Plac,e of Business Grand Prairie Ft Worth Ft Worth Arhngton Carrollton Denton POLES, ROADWAY LIGHT WITH 8' SINGLE ARM PER ATTACHED $1,015 $1,014 $969 $950 $640 00 $1,021 65 1 63 SPECIFICATIONS PRICETOBE HELD FIRM FOR ONE YEAR POLES, ROADWAY LIGHT WITH 8' DOUBLE ARM PER ATTACHED $1,177 $1,299 $1,198 $1,162 $750 00 $1,249 50 2 25 SPECIFICATIONS PRICETO BE HELD FIRM FOR ONE YEAR 10 OF 10 OF 10 OF ANY 10 OFANY ANY IS THERE A MINIMUM ORDER NO NO ANY COMBO QUANTITY? COMBO COMBO COMBO 140-154 20-22 6 WKS 80-100 DELIVERY 7-9 WKS 7-9 WKS DAYS WKS DAYS ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING AN ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF ROADWAY LIGHT POLES, PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2674 - ROADWAY LIGHT POLES AWARDED TO GENLYTE SAI.RS IN TI-IE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $60,000) WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of STATE law and City orchnances, and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has mwewed and recommended that the herein descnbed bids are the lowest responsible b~ds for the materials, equipment, supplies or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" subrmtted therefore, and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the matenals, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted herein, NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS SECTION 1 That the numbered items in the following numbered b~ds for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" on file in the office of the City Purchasing Agent, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such Items BID ri'EM NUMB~ NO VENDOR AMOUNT 2674 1 & 2 Genlyte Sales $ 60,000 SECTION 2 That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the subrmtted bids, the City accepts the offer of the persons subnnmng the b~ds for such xtems and agrees to purchase the materials, equipment, supphes or services in accordance with the terms, speclflcaUons, standards, quantities and for the specified sums contmned In the Bid Invitations, Bid Proposals, and related documents SECTION 3 That should the City and persons submxttmg approved and accepted items and of the subrmtted bids wish to enter into a formal wntten agreement as a result of the acceptance, approval, and awarchng of the bxds, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby anthonzed to execute the written contract which shall be attached hereto, prowded that the written contract ~s m accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quanUUes and specified sums contained m the Bid Proposal and related documents here~n approved and accepted 4 SECTION 4 That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered xtems of the subrmtted b~ds, the Cxty Council hereby authorizes the expenchture of funds therefor ~n the amount and m accordance w~th the approved b~ds or pursuant to a written contract made pursuant thereto as authorized here~n SECTION 5 That flus orchnance shall become effecUve ammechately upon its passage and approval PASSED AND APPROVED this day of ,2001 EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM HERBERT L PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY 2674 SUPPLY ORDINANCE- 6-2001 5 Agenda hlo ~ Agenda Itj,~m,~ /~ AGENDA DATE: June 19, 2001 Questions concerning thts acqulstuon may be dtrected DEPARTMENT: Materials Management to Ray Wells 349-7108 ACM Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services ~ J~ \~,~ SUBJECT. An Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of a substation materials and equipment package, providing for the expenditure of funds therefore, and provldmg an effective date (Bid 2678 - Teasley Substation Material and Equipment Package awarded to Utlhserve Incorporated in the amount of $298,346 85) BID INFORMATION' This btd ts for the acquisition of steel structures, bus work, tnsulators, electrical connectors, switches and miscellaneous hardware necessary for the construction of the new Teasley Substation This material is purchased as a package to tnsure proper structural design that fully integrates all aspects of the connection to the transmission hne The Teasley Substation will supply power to an area of southeast Denton and provide backup support to Spencer, Pockrus and Locust substations The bid spectf~cattons lnchcated that dehvery within 12 weeks after receipt of an order was requtred and would take precedence over lowest cost tn the evaluation process This dehvery requirement is further explmned in the following excerpt from the Public Utilities Board Agenda Information Sheet dated June 4, 2001 "It ts critical that the Teasley Substation construction be completed late this year to accommodate the ambitious construction schedule planned for the next two to three years and particularly for the ne.xt 12 months Constructton will take approximately two months after recetpt of the material package meaning that the matertal must be on hand no later than mtd October A transmtsslon line outage of several days wdl be requtred to construct the transmtsston structttre for the Teasley Substation It ts dtfficult to obtatn outages of thts transmtssion line Other than for emergencies, outages are only posstble durtng the lower load times of the year (mtlder seasons) Wtth the open access requtrements mandated by state law, other power compantes rely on the line as heavtly as Denton does Consequently, a large conttngency window must be planned into the constructton schedule to tnsure that an outage can be obtatned Because of the schedule and tie related concerns, a 12-week deltvery requirement was wrttten tnto the spec~catton Uttltserve was the only company able to meet this deltvery requtrement Bid prtces and evaluated costs are shown on the summary tn attachment 1 1 Agenda Information Sheet June 19, 2001 Page 2 BID INFORMATION (CONTINUED): The evaluated cost for Utthserve's btd ts $6,044 85 higher than the lowest evaluated cost The dehvery time for the lowest evaluated cost ts 24 weeks The three month delay would cost many times thts amount tn the overttme that would be requtred to recover some of the lost time, would hkely make tt necessary to contract constructton of the Teasley or other projects, and could delay completton of other crtttcal projects Clearly the minimal addtttonal cost ts justified" PRIOR ACTION/VIEW (COUNCIL~ BOARDS, COMMISIONS): Pubhc Utlhty Board rewewed thru recommendation on June 4, 2001 RECOMMENDATION: We recommend th~s b~d be awarded to the lowest b~dder-meet~ng mqmrement of spemficat~ons, Ut~hserve Inc, m the amount of $298,346 85 PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS: Ut~hserve Inc Connth, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT: Th~s substation materials purchase ~s scheduled to be sh~pped w~th~n 12 weeks or prior to September 1, 2001 FISCAL INFORMATION: Funding for the Teasley Substation construction ~s available from Electric Revenue Bonds Respectfully subrmtted Tom Shaw, C P M, 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment I B~d Evaluation Sheet 1577 Agenda 2 ~ TEASLEY SUBSTATION - STEEL STRUCTURE, MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT (Bid ~2678) ~ Clark Substabon Power Substabo~s Ubhserve Global Power Systems D~s-T~'an packed Sub Total Package C ~st $278,065.00 $297,664.00 $298,346 8'~'--'~ -- $299,966 50 $287,902 O0 .... $297,0t7 GO $297,664.00 $293,946.85 $299,966 50 $287,902.00 E'~valuated Cos Fotal Weight of Steel, P~ rods 77 OGO 98,244 75,696 78 712 __ 80 000 Switch Ma~nufacturer __-- __ Morpac ! Pas~'~ Morp~c -- p~ ~ Pascor Notor Ope~tor~Mfg __ ~-- Morpac Morpac Pascor -- -- Moq~c-- Pascor Speclficabon ~el~very In format;on Requirement -- -- --ouedabon Approvat Draw ngs 4~Weeks ARO 12 Weeks ARO 5 Weeks ARO 4 Weeks ARO 6 Weeks ARO 4 Weeks ARO -- 3 Weeks After Receipt of ~nchor bo~t Delwery 8 Weeks ARO 14 Weeks ARO Approved Ca!,~ dnt~n~s 6 Weeks ARO 4 Weeks ARO 8 Weeks 5 Weeks A~ter Receipt of I Draw~egs 12 Weeks Approved Calculabees and ~O Calcs 4 Weeks Steel & Equip Approval D; aw~ngs 8 Weeks ARO 16 Weeks ARO Drawings 8 Weeks ARO 6 Weeks ARO 5 Weeks After Receipt of Approved Calculabons and Weeks Pr;or to --mai Drawings & Instmct~ ~ Books 12 Weeks ARO 26 Weeks ARO Drawings 12 Weeks ARO 12 Weeks ARO Shrpment Steel 10 Weeks Afte~ 10 Weeks After Receipt of Dwg Approval Bus 10 - Approved Calculaf~ns and 12 Weeks After Dwg 12 Weeks ARO /~oroval 24 Weeks ARO ~e~we~y of Stoe~ & Bus Md; .-, ~; 12 Weeks ARO 30 Weeks ARO Dramngs 25 & 26 Weeks After [~,=w;i,~, 3 Weeks ARO Recetpt of Approved 24 Weeks After ~e~wer/of 1 ~SkV Sw~ctte~ 12 Weeks ARO 30 Weeks ARO C.~ dn~r~S and Drawings 10 Weeks ARO Approval 24 Weeks 10 Weeks After Receq)t of Approved Ca]cub~ees and ~)elwer/of 1.~08~V An*esten __-- 12 Weeks ARO 30 Weeks ARO Dra~ngs 6 Weeks ARO 10 Weeks ARO 20 Weeks ARO btalDe~ve~yTime 12 Wee.~s ARO 30 Weeks ARO 26 Weeks ARO 12 Weeks ARO 27 Weeks ARO 24 Weeks ARO ~toeJ -- $61 713 00 $103,273 00 $69 971 14 $74 862.22 $.93 010 00 1200A Sw~ches W]Ut Interr jpte~ __-- $2371500 $1955200 $2381500 $2438813 $10090200 200A Sw~tches W~teet In ~n'uptor __ $44 393 00 $34 470 00 -- $27,291--'(~ - $60 027 40 Contained m $100 920 00A Sw~tches W'lUt Interru Jter $47 430 00 $39,104 00 $47,630 00 $48 776.26 __ dotor Operator __ $7 425 GO $6 594 00 $6 864 GO $6 780 82 nsulators -- $16 205 00 $40 170 00 --~ 157 00~ $15 035 43 $44 574 00 ~us Matena] $66 966 GO $42 281 00 $47 050 91 $45 401 ~6 $69 089 00 108kV Staten Class A~eet ,.rs $4 218 GO $5 820 00 $3 715 80 $5 794 28 $5 927 00 =eg~neenn9 & Design $6 000 00 $6 400 00 $17 655 00 $18 900 00 $4 40000 Power Substatmns Coul not meet deleve~ ;equ~enents Ut;hserve Recommen~ec chedu~e 89 bus p~pe Addl~)nal amount deducted for evalua{]on Gtobal Could not meet del very requ~remen~ Dis-Tran Ceek] not meet ( e~very requirements tee~ excepbee to delivery of matenal ~n 9roup~ngs as specr~ed delrvery dates only va;~d for 30 days took excepbon to ~eld~n9 ce~ficat]on ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A SUBSTATION MATERIALS AND EQUIPIVIENT PACKAGE, PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2678 - TEASLEY SUBSTATION MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT PACKAGE AWARDED TO UTII.TSERVE INCORPORATED IN TH~ AMOUNT OF $298,346 85) WHEREAS, the C~ty has sohcltcd, recexvcd and tabulated competmve b~ds for the purchase of necessary materials, equxpment, supphes or services m accordance w~th the procedures of STATE law and City orchnances, and WKEREAS, the C~ty Manager or a designated employee has rewewed and recommended that the hereto described b~ds are the lowest responsible bxds for the matenals, eqmpmcnt, supphes or services as shown m the "B~d Proposals" subrmttcd therefore, and WHEREAS, the Cny Council has prowded m the C~ty Budget for the appropnaUon of funds to be used for the purchase of the materials, eqmpment, supphes or services approved and accepted here~n, NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS SECTION 1 That the numbered ~tems m the follow~ng numbered b~ds for materials, eqmpment, supphes, or serv~cas, shown m the 'B~d Proposals" on file m the office of the C~ty Purchasing Agent, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible b~ds for such items BID ITEM NUMBER NO VENDOR AMOUNT 2678 AI.I. Utd~serve Incorporated $298,346 85 SECTION 2 That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered ~tems of the subrmtte~t bxds, the Cny accepts the offer of the persons submitting the b~ds for such ~tems and agrees to purckase the materials, eqmpment, supphes or servxces m accordance w~th the t~rms, spec~flcaUons, standards, quanUUes and for the specified sums contained m the B~d InwtaUons, Bxd Proposals, and related documents ~ That should the Cxty and persons subnnttmg approved and accepted xtems and of the subrmtted b~ds wxsh to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the acceptance, approval, and awarding of the b~ds, the C~ty Manager or h~s designated representauve xs hereby anthonzed to execute the written contract wluch shall be attached hereto, prowded that the written contract ~s ~n accordance wxth the terms, cond~uons, specxflcatxons, standards, quanUUes and specxfled sums contained m the B~d Proposal and related documents herexn approved and accepted 4 SECTION 4 That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered 1terns of the submatted blds, the City Councal hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor m the amount and m accordance with the approved bids or pursuant to a written contract made pursuant thereto as authorized herein SECTION 5 That th~s orchnance shall become effective ~mmechately upon ~ts passage and approval PASSED AND APPROVED th~s day of ,2001 EULINEBROCK, MAYOR ATTEST JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY APPROVED AS TO 1 ,RGAL FORM H~RBERT L PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY 2678 SUPPLY ORDINANCE- 6-2001 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: June 19, 2001 DEPARTMENT: Engineering ACM David Hill, Development Services 349-8314.~ /, SUBJECT: Consider an ordinance anthonzlng the Mayor to execute an lntcrlocal cooperation agreement for completion of prehm~nary schematms and cnwronmental assessment for Loop 288, from 1-35 North to 1-35 West, between the City of Denton and Denton County, Texas, and providing an effective Date BACKGROUND. Denton County approved partial funding for the Preliminary Schematics and Environmental Assessment for the Westom Extension of Loop 288 m the January 1999 Good Roads Program The City of Danton 1996 Bond Election included $1,187,000 for Masch Branch Road Phase 2 Later, the Bond Oversight Committee approved splitting the Masch Branch Road money to 1 Western Boulevard, between Airport Road & US 380 $800,000 2 West Extension - Loop 288 259,000 3 Airport Improvements 128,000 The subject agreement commits the City of Denton's pomon of the Loop 288 Preliminary Schematic and Environmental Assessment funding to Denton County who is managing the project RECOMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW {Council, Boards, Commissions) N/A FISCAL INFORMATION The City of Denton's participation according to the agreement is not to exceed $259,000 Denton County's portion is not to exceed $500,000 Under the terms of the agreement, Denton County is the lead agency for the project, and will invoice The City of Denton on a monthly basis as the work proceeds -1- Once the Schematm and Envaromnental Assessment for the Loop 288 Extensaon have been completed, the 2000-04 CIP Program mcludes $1 mdllon for Loop 288 Extension - Phase I (from IH-35N to US 380) and $250,000 for Loop 288 Extension - Phase II (from US 380 to IH- 35W) Some oftlus funding may be daverted to allow completaon of the US 77 project an the near future, and will be presented to C~ty Cotmcfl for consideration ATTACHMENTS 1 Ordinance 2 Interlocal Agreement 3 Sate Map Dared Salmon, Assastant Darector Eng~neenng Department Engmeenng Department -1- ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN INTBRLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AND DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS TO LOOP 288, AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS SECTION I The Mayor, or m her absence the Mayor Pro Tern, is hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the C~ty, an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between the C~ty of Denton, Texas and Denton County, Texas for road ~mprovements to Loop 288, substanttally m accordance w~th the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement winch is attached hereto and mcorporated by reference here~n SECTION 2 The expenditure of funds as set forth ~n the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement ~s hereby authorized SECTION 3 Tins ordinance shall become effective ~mmedmtely upon ~ts passage and approval PASSED AND APPROVED tins the day of ,2001 EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY By APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM HERBERT L PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY By (~" S\OurDocum~nts\Ordltmnces~01\Int~flocalAgn~t Loop288 Denton County doc THE STATE OF TEXAS ) ) COUNTY OF DENTON ) INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS TO LOOP 288 BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between Denton County, Texas, a poht~cal subchvmlon of the State of Texas, hereinafter referred to as "County" and the City of DENTON, Texas, a corporate and political body organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas, hereinafter referred to as "City" This Agreement is for purposes of the completion of certain road improvements to LOOP 288, as described on Exhibit "A," hereinafter referred to as the "Project ' WHEREAS, County has provided funding for several road projects within the limits of the City through and as part of the January 1999 Better Safer Roads Bondl Program, WHEREAS, City and County value the early completion of the Project which involves roads which are integral parts of the County's road system, and WHEREAS, City and County mutually desire to be subject to the provlmons of V TCA, Government Code, Chapter 791, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, and C,ty of Denton ICA 1 WHEREAS, City desires the parhclpahon of County In the Project as authorized by V T C A, Transportation Code, Sechon 251 012, NOW, THEREFORE, st ss mutually agreed by the parties hereto as follows I The term of this Agreement shall commence upon execution by all parties and shall terminate upon completion of the Project or upon terrmnatlon of flus Agreement under the provisions of Section VIII II The Project is described as follows Improvements to LOOP 288, as described on Exhibit "A" III Pursuant to V T C A, Government Code Section 791 011, the parties hereto agree that the purpose of this Agreement ss to ensure that certain governmental functions and services in the area of streets, roads and drainage are performed The parties hereto further agree that each of them ss authorized to perform the functions and services individually IV As required by V T C A, Transportation Code Section 251 012 and as evidenced by the signature of the City's representative below, the govermng body of City by the execution of and approval of this Agreement approves of the expenditure of County money to participate in or to fund an amount not to C~ty of Denton ICA 2 exceed FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND AND 00/100 ($500,00000), for the project V In performance of this Agreement, the COUNTY will be responsible for h~nng the engmeenng firm for the Project Addlhonally, the COUNTY agrees that all funds remalmng after the procurement of eng~neenng services will be committed to the construction of the Project VI In performance of this Agreement, the City and as evidenced by the signature of the City's representahve below, the governing body of City by the execution of and approval of thru Agreement approves of the expenditure of City money to participate in or to fund an amount not to exceed TWO HUNDRED FIFTY NINE THOUSAND AND 00/100 ($259,000 00), for the project VII As County proceeds in the completion of the Project, it shall submit invoices on a monthly basis for reimbursement TWO HUNDRED FITY NINE THOUSAND AND 00/100 ($259,000 00), unless otherwise authorized by the governing body of the City of Denton, to the City of Denton Finance Department, Attention City Controller, at City Hall, 215 E McKmney Street, Denton, Texas 76201, and the City shall reimburse County for all expenditures related to the Project within Thirty (30) days of receipt of these invoices Attached to this Contract is a cerhflcatlon by the County Auditor that the County shall include the sum not to exceed FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND AND 00/100 C~ty of Denton ICA 3 ($500,000 00), in its budget and that this amount shall be itemized, set aside and approved by the County Conumsmoners Court to be expended for the Project VIII This Agreement may be terminated in whole or in part by the County or City upon thirty (30) days' written notice to the other party setting forth a substantial failure by the defaulting party to fulfill its obligations under ttus agreement through no fault of the terminating party No such termination may be affected unless the defaulting party is given (1) written notice delivered by certified mall, ret-urn receipt requested of intent to terrmnate setting forth the substanOal failure to perform, and (2) not less than thirty (30) calendar days to cure the failure, and (3) an opportumty for consultation with the terminating party prior to termination In the event of termination by the City, City shall reimburse County for all invoices submitted up to and including the date of termination Notices shall be d~rected as follows For City Hon Euhne Brock The City of Denton Mayor 215 E McKinney Street Denton, Texas 76201 Copy To Michael Conduff, City Manager City of Denton 215 E McKlrmey Street Denton, Texas 76201 For County Hon Scott Armey Denton County Judge 110 East Hickory Denton, Texas 76201 C~ty of Denton ICA 4 Copy to District Attorney's Office/Civil Dlmmon 1450 East McKanney P O Box 2850 Denton, Texas 76201 IX The covenants, condltaons and terms hereof are to be construed under the laws of the State of Texas and are performable by all parhes in Denton County, Texas The parhes mutually agree that venue for any obhgahon arising from this Agreement shall lie m Denton County, Texas X This wrltmg is intended by the parhes as a final expression of their agreement and as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of their agreement This Agreement can be modified or terminated according to the provisions of Section VIII only by writing signed by both of the parties or their duly authorized agents XI Th~s Agreement is not intended to extend the hablbty of the parties beyond that provided by law Neither County nor City waives, nor shall be deemed hereby to waive, any immunity or defense that would otherwise be available to it against claims arising by third parties XII In the event that any portion of this Agreement shall be found to be contrary to law, it is the intent of the parties hereto that the remaining portions shall remain valid and in full force and effect to the extent possible C~ty of Denton ICA 5 XIII The undersigned officers and/or agents of the part~es hereto are the properly authorized officials and have the necessary authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the part~es hereto and each party hereby certifies to the other that any and all necessary resolutions extending said authority have been duly passed and are now in full force and effect EXECUTED in duplicate originals COUNTY CITY Denton County, Texas The City of DENTON, Texas 110 West Hickory 215 E McKlnney Street Denton, Texas 76201 Denton, Texas 76201 By By Hon Scott Armey Hon Euhne Brock Denton County Judge The Mayor for the City of Denton Acting on behalf of and by Acting on behalf of and by authority of the Commissioners authority of the City Council of Court of Denton County, Texas Denton, Texas Date Date Attest Attest By By Cynttua Mitchell, County Clerk City Secretary C~ty of Denton ICA 6 Approved as to form Approved as to form By Robert Schell Herbert L Prouty Assistant District Attorney City Attorney AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE I hereby certify funds will be available in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND AND 00/100 ($500,000 00), will be cormmtted to engineering and design and the remainder will be applied towards right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation and construction, toward financing the Project to accomplish and pay the obligation of Denton County, Texas under this Agreement James Wells, County Auditor C~ty of Denton ICA 7 "EXHIBIT A' The Loop 288 Project is an urban arterial with a design speed of 70 mph Mamlanes will consist of 4,12-foot lanes with 10 foot outside and 4 foot inside shoulders Ttus w~ll be designed to be a major freeway around the C~ty of Denton This project consists of construchng approximately 9 miles of four-lane highway, w~th frontage roads, ramps and interchanges with IH35, US 380, FM 2449 and IH35W The project w~ll involve a number of bridges and overpasses C~ty of Denton ICA 8 ~ Futur~We~tloop AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET I)ate ~//'~ / Ol AGENDA DATE. June 19, 2001 DEPARTMENT: Engineering ~ CM/DCM/ACM Dave gltll: 349-8314 ~ SUBJECT Consider adoptmn of an ordinance authorizing the C:ty Manager of the C:ty of Denton, Texas to act on behalf of the C~ty of Denton in executmg the owners' certfficate of a final plat of Lot 1, Block A, Ray Roberts Water Treatment Fac~hty, and providing an effective date BACKGROUND The subject tract was purchased in 1990 as part of the plans to develop an add~t:onal raw water treatment facility All of the reqmrements have been met to allow for final plat to be filed RECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends approval of thc ordinance authorizing the City Manager to act on behalf of the City of Denton ~n executing the owners' certfficate of the final plat of Lot 1, Block A, Ray Roberts Water Facility PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW {Council, Boards, Commissions) The Planurng and Zoning Commlss~on approved the final plat on March 14, 2001 FISCAL INFORMATION Denton County Clerks Plat F~hng fee of approximately $100 00 MAP Attached Prepared by Paul W~lliamson -- Real Estate & Capital Support Manager Respectfully submitted Charles F~edler, D~rector Eng~neenng Department Location Map N H \WflhamsonPauNvly Doeuments\ClTYCOUN~¢¢06_l 9_0 l\RayRobertsWaterTreatmentFacflltyOrdmance doc ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DENTON IN EXECUTING THE OWNERS' CERTIFICATE OF A FINAL PLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK A, RAY ROBERTS WATER TREATMENT FACILITY, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS SECTION 1 That the C~ty Manager is anthonzed to act on behalf of the C~ty of Denton ~n executing the owners' certfficate of a final plat of Lot 1, Block A, Ray Roberts Water Treatment Famhty, a copy ofwhmh final plat is attached hereto and made a part hereof SECTION 2 That tNs ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval 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 Agenda No ~ Agenda Item AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Date ~// AGENDA DATE June 19, 2001 DEPARTMENT Legal Department CM/DCM/ACM Herbert L Prouty, City Attorney SUBJECT: An ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas authonmng the City Manager to execute a Personal Services Agreement for asset recovery services with Greenbnar Recovery, Ine to assist Denton in reeovenng dormant assets to which the City ~s apparently entitled, and promdmg an effective date BACK~: On May 3, 2001, Greenbnar Recovery, Inc, of Los Angeles, California,-- an asset recovery firm--wrote me a letter intimating that Greenbnar had located dormant cash assets in the amount of $42,520 71 which they intimated rightfully belonged to the City of Denton Greenbnar has offered to enter into an Agreement with the City whereby they would assist Denton m recovenng these assets Greenbnar would be paid a contingency of 10% of any cash or cash equivalent recovered The City would not be obligated to pay Greenbnar anything ~f they are unable to recover the assets m this dormant account OPTIONS' 1 Enter mto an Agreement with Greenbnar to attempt to recover the dormant assets and pay a 10% eontmgeney fee upon recovery 2 Not enter into an Agreement with Greenbrier 3 Enter into an Agreement with Greenbrier under different terms and conditions RECOMMENDATIONS' The Legal Department recommends the City enter into an Agree- ment with Greenbnar FISCAL, INFORMATION. Since Greenbnar will only be prod ~n the event of a recovery of all or a portion of the dormant account, there is no negative fiscal impact In the event of a recovery, tlus would have a posmve fiscal impact Respectfully submitted, C~ty Attorney ORDINANCE NO . AN ORDINANCE OF TIlE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PERSONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ASSET RECOVERY SERVICES WITH GREENBRIAR RECOVERY, INC TO ASSIST DENTON IN RECOVERING DORMANT ASSETS TO WHICH THE CITY IS APPARENTLY ENTITLED, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, Greenbnar Recovery, Inc (Greenbnar) has located dormant cash assets tn the mount of $42,520 71 which Greenbnar andlcates rightfully belongs to the City of Denton, and WHEREAS, the City Council deems ~t m the pubhc interest to employ Greenbnar on a contingent fee bas~s of 10% of any cash recovery of the assets if Greenbnar ~s successful m assastlng Denton in recovenng those assets, NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS SECTION 1 That the City Manager ~s hereby authorized to execute a Personal Servxces Agreement for asset recovery services w~th Greenbnar Recovery, Inc to assist the Cxty in reeovenng dormant cash assets, m substantxally the form of the Agreement attached hereto and tncorporated herewith by reference SECTION 2 That the C~ty Manager is hereby authorized to make any payments and to take any aetaons that may be authorized under the attached Agreement SECTION 3 That this ordinance shall become effective ~mmed~ately upon its passage and approval 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 ~ / STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DENTON § PERSONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ASSET RECOVERY SERVICES This Agreement is made and entered into on the day of ,2001, by and between the C~ty of Denton, a Texas Mumc~pal Corporation w~th ~ts pnnclpal office at 215 E MclQrmey Slreet, Denton, Denton County, Texas 76201 (heremaf~er referred to as "Clmmant") and Greenbnar Recovery, Inc, P O Box 361358, Los Angeles, CA 90036-9998 (heremafter referred to as "Greenbnar") WHEREAS, Crreenbnar has located dormant cash assets m the amount of $42,520 71 winch Greenbnar mdmates rightfully belongs to the City of Denton, and WHEREAS, the Oty of Denton (Clmmant) desires to engage Greenbnar to assist ~t m recovenng these cash assets Now, Therefore, m consideration of the promises and mutual undertakings herexn contmned, the parUes agree as follows 1 Upon receipt of th~s executed agreement, Greenbnar will disclose to the City of Denton tho source and nature of exactly $42,520 71 in dormant assets to winch clmmant ~s apparently enUtled In consideration of Greenbnar's location and assistance m the recovery of these dormant assets Clmmant and Greenbnar agree to the following (a) Greenbnar w~ll at Clasmant's d~scretion use its best efforts to assist the Clanuant ~n the recovery of these assets (b) The Clmmant may forego recovery at any time and for any reason and may termmate this Agreement without cause upon gxvxng notme xn writing to Greenbnar by faxmg such notice to Greenbnar at (323) 936-1088 or by sending smd noUce to Greenbnar Recovery, Inc at P O Box 361358, Los Angeles, CA 90036-9998 (c) All expenses pertmmng to the recovery process shall be the sole respons~bthty of Greenbnar (d) No fee commlsmon or other conmderatlon wall be due Greenbnar unless the dormant assets, or any part of them, are recovered and dehvered to Clmmant (e) If Clmmant has attempted to obtmn or recover these assets w~thln the previous s~x (6) months of the date of this Agreement and prowdes reasonable documentation to Greenbnar evidencing tins, then Greenbnar will be due no fee or comm~ssmn regardless of whether ~t assists in the recovery of the dormant assets or not (f) If recovery ts pursued on Clatmant's behalf by Greenbnar, or as a result of Claimant's or Greenbnar's action and any cash or cash equivalent ts received, then Clmmant agrees to pay 10% of any cash or cash eqmvalent recovered to Greenbnar within 30 days of the Clannant's receipt of the funds 2 Greenbnar shall comply wtth all federal, state, local laws, roles, regulations, and ordtnances apphcable to the servmes performed pursuant to this Agreement, as they now may read or heremaf~er be amended 3 Greenbnar shall not assign any mterest to this Agreement and shall not transfer any interest tn th~s Agreement (whether by assignment, novation or otherwise) without the prior written consent of the Clmmant 4 This Agreement, including all ex[nbtts and amendments annexed hereto and made a part hereof, constitutes the entire agreement between the part,es hereto w~th respect to the subJeCt matter hereof and supersedes all other oral or written representations, understanchngs or agreements relating to the subject matter hereof The only exlub~t attached to tins Agreement ts the Ltm~ted Power of Attorney Letter which is attached to and made a part of th~s Agreement for all purposes authorizing Greenbnar as ~ts agent for Clmmant to collect funds due Denton 5 Venue of any suit or cause of action under this Agreement shall he exclusively m Denton County, Texas This Agreement shall be governed by and construed ~n accordance w~th the laws of the State of Texas 6 Tins Agreement may be returned to Greenbnar or Clmmant by facsimile transm~sston, m wluch case the stgned facsmule shall be deemed an original 7 Each party represents that tt ts authorized to enter in to this agreement and that the lndxwdual executing this agreement on behalf of the party is authorized to enter into ttus agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Oty of Denton, Texas, has caused this Agreement to be executed by tts duly anthonzed City Manager, and Greenbnar has executed this agreement by its duly authorized offioal EXECUTED on this the __ day of ,2001 CITY OF DENTON, CLAIMANT BY MICHAEL A CONDUFF, CITY MANAGER Page 2 of 3 ATTEST JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM HERBERT L PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY GREENBRIAR RECOVERY, INC BY Page 3 of 3 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET '~U~"~t~ ~0, { -._(~a~L~ A~enda I~em [' ~ AGENDA DATE: J~e 19, 2001 DEPARTMENT' Pl~mg Dep~ent~ DCM: Dawd H~I1, 349-8314~ SUBJECT - V-01-0007 (Hdls of Ar~le Phase 3) Consider ~d t~e action on a v~ce from Section 34-124(0(3)(a) of the Code of Od~n~ce, concerning open flmes for H~lls of Argyle PMse 3 Subdivision The 171 acre s~te ~s located east of ~e ~ntersect~on of Chppmg Cmpden Road ~d H~ghway 377 The prope~y ~s ~n ~ Agncult~al (A) zomng d~stnct A s~ngle-fmfly subdivision ~s proposed The Plying ~d Zomng Commission reco~ends approval (5-1) BACKGROUND The apphcant is proposing to develop 171 acres into 72 estates resldentml lots, 2 lots for future non-residential uses, and 1 open space/drainage lot The Subdivision Regulations reqmre a closed pipe system to handle runoff discharges The apphcant is proposing to construct an aboveground concrete time between 2 lots that drain runoff from several driveway culverts and roadside d~tehes The concrete time wall also serve as a htke and bike trail to access the common area eneompassmg the floodplain The applicant proposes an aboveground concrete flume based on the cost for the subject ~mprovements compared to the proposed use OPTIONS 1 Approve as subnutted 2 Approve w~th condmons 3 Deny 4 Postpone conslderutlon 5 Table ~tem P&Z SUGGESTED RECOMMENDATION The Planmng and Zoning Comm~ssmn recommends approval (5-1) ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Braiding permxts can be ~ssued upon the approval of the final plat PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following ~s a chronology of V-01-0007, commonly known as Hdls of Argyle Phase 3 Subd~vxs~on Apphcat~on Date - February 5, 2001 P&Z Date - May 23, 2001 FISCAL INFORMATION Development of th~s property will ~ncrease the assessed value of the city, county, and school d~stnct Development of th~s property wall no reqmre short-term pubhc ~mprovements that are the responsthd~ty of the c~ty ATTACllMENTS 1 Plannmg and Zoning Commission Report, May 23, 2001, V-01-0007 2 Planmng and Zomng Commission minutes from May 23, 2001 lly sub. m~tt~l~ j. D~glask3 Powell, AICP D~rector of Planmng and Development Prepared by Deborah V~era, Planner I 2 ATTACHMENT WATER UTILITIES 901-A Texas Street Denton, TX 76209 (940)349-8452 Fax(940)349-7334 DATE May 23, 2001 TO Members of Planmng and Zomng Comm~smon FROM Dale Hoelt~ng, P E Semor C~wl Eng~neer-Drmnage SUBJECT, Request for Exaction Varmnce - Hills of Argyle, Phase III - V-01-000? The exacbon variance request V-01-0007 presented by Isbell Eng~neenng Group, Inc (IE) for Hills of Argyle, Phase III, ~nvolves Section 34-124(f)(3)(a) of the Subd~ws~on and Land Development Code Section 34-124(f)(3)(a) states, closed p~pe systems shall be required for dmcharges up to and ~nclud~ng the equivalent flow of a forty-e~ght-~nch p~pe, unless the grade of the natural ground m less than 0 5 percent, then an enclosed p~pe system shall be required for dmcharges up to and ~nclud~ng one hundred (100) c f s Please see Exhibit I for the location of Hills or Argyle and Exhibit II for an dlustrabon of the detads related to the vanance request In the case of Hdls of Argyle, Phase III, the apphcant ~s propomng to construct an aboveground concrete flume between two lots that drmn runoff from several dnveway culverts and roadside d~tches The concrete flume wdl also serve as a h~ke and b~ke trail to access the common area encompasmng the floodplmn The proposed flow through the two lots for the 100-year storm m 81 c f s and the required p~pe raze to handle the flow ~s 39 ~nches Therefore, an enclosed p~pe system to handle the flow m required by ordinance In Phases I and II of the Hdls of Argyle, a variance was granted to allow concrete flumes to be built between lots The lot sizes where the concrete flume m being proposed ranges from one to three acres The proposed flume w~ll be 10 feet w~de and be contmned ~n a 50 and 75 feet trad and drainage easement W~th the large lots and relatively large easement, the hkehhood of a property owner construcbng anything aboveground is greatly reduced Most of the drmnage for the subd~wmon ~s being handled ~n roadmde d~tches as allowed for estate type roadway versus enclosed p~pe system as requ~rad when curb and gutter streets ~s constructed Therefore, constructing an aboveground flume through the large lots fits w~th the surrounding drainage d~tches, which will contribute flow to the flume The flume will drmn ~nto H~ckory Creek floodplmn and common area rather than a street or another p~pe system In other subd~v~mons w~th smaller lots that have curb and gutter streets and p~pe systems, an enclosed p~pe through the lot as required by ordinance m the preferred method of construcbon City staff recommends the following Approval of exaction variance (V.0t-0007) from Section 34-124(f)(3)(a) of the Code of Ordinances. Th~s recommendation ~s based on the ~tems presented ~n this document NTS m % ~~ Lot 12 ~ 1 52 Ac .~--~ 1 35 Ac FF=571 50 %o ~"~ Lot 13 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' 276 AC Lot 24 '- 129 ~ Lot 25 ~ ~ ~=671 ~ 1 2~ Ac a~ Lot 22 ~ ~ 2 07 Ac ~ BLOCK Lof 15~ ~ 1 O0 ~ ~ ' ~ Lot 23 - ' ~ 2 07 Ac ~ ~ MIN ~570 ~ Lot 16 5~6 1~ Ac ~ ~ Lot 2~ ~ ~a Lot 25 Z 06 Ac I 26 Ac ~8 M~ ~57~ ~ot 22 ~ ~, Lot Lot 21 fO0 AC Lot 17 1 07 Ac 1 15 Ac ~ ~=570 ~ ~ Lot 25 ~ 4 57 Ac Lot 18 o 18' RCP (~ " Lot 26 NORTH V-01-0004 & V-01-0007 (Hills of Argyle Phase 3) LOCATION MAP Scale None ATTACRMENT 2 Page 1 this variance is, enc, ~t's a large lot, two, we ha~c a 2 2 SO-foot drainage and trail ensement which is a fairly 3 ~m. RlSan~. ?hat will movc us on ~o tbe next 3 largearca Wctypicallyden'tgetenseme~tsthat large 4 item of Afl0nda wluch will be 11 C, being B of 11 has ~ 4 We feel hke since it's a ~ settings, I know many of 5 pulled, and that's consider an exaction vamance of 5 these areas don't even really have fences on them, but the 6 Section ? 1 1 of the dzama~ design corena concerning 6 obstructton to flow tn th~ particular case, unkke most ? open flumtm ~ Hoelting will pre~ent for tbe City ? of our subdivisions that have smaller lots, our 8 ~vm HOa;~TiNO I llunk all of y'all know where 8 recommendation typtcall) has been on ~.ms!l lots to have 9 ths m but I'll --.lust for ~fe~nce It'souton3??, 9 thlsa~anenchisedpipes)~tem Andwethdp.x:ommenc[ 10 Brash Creek Road, I think that's been Identified before l0 denial of a suralar variance probably two months ago I I want to apolo~ze in your backup that ',he recommendation 11 this particular ca~ 2 from staff, I behcve, was left out of your packet~ if any 12 I think that's basically In a nutshell v, hat Is 3 of y'all we~ wondenng why we &dn't make a 13 happemng on Phase 3 ,So staff is recommend~ag approx 14 ~ecommcndanan m your backup 14 of the exaction ,,amance r~xtuest, V-01-000?, to support 5 Also, I ~anss the other thing that was left 15 the concrete flume versus the underground pipe system 16 oatandawasmen~enedahnlebitwithtbeprevlous 16 MR RISREL MS Gourdie ? vanance wes that there was a dramate variance requested 1 ? MS GOURDIE Plebe clarify for me, is the 8 for Phases I and 2, the same as what we'~ conmdemag 18 hike and b~ke trml in the flume or is it on the rode of 9 now The variance ',hat's in froot of you, you had seen 19 the 20 the sam~ form of flus for a previous subchvm~on, that is 20 MR HOELTlhO W e had discussed several 21 that for flows, drama~ flows up to 100 c~ or the 21 options on that and, obviously, we ~ ere proposing ~2 equivalent of a 48 inch pipe, the City requwes that to be 22 something somex~hat wider to actually segregate the hike 23 an under~reund enclosed system Previous on Phases I and 23 and b~ke trail from the concrete flume But, obi ~ously, 24 2, staff recommended approval of the drainage vamance to 24 that takes more space and more loss of tre~s This 25 allow them, instead of an enclosed pllm sysmn, to put m 25 parttcular proposal that tins been put forward to us woula Page 30 Page 32 a ten-foot concrete pdot channel to serve for the I actually have a ten-foot flat bottom w~th mx-tach curbs 2 drainage on Phases I and 2 2 and would serve both for drmnage and as a trml system 3 This subdivision In an estate-style 3 I believe Phase 1 and 2 a~ that same wa) I don't knov, 4 subdlvtslon where the majority of the dramage is handled 4 how much the citizens use that as access to the trail 5 tn the roadside ditches Driveway culverts serve to carry 5 Maybe the apphcant can discuss that a little hit further 6 the drainage from one side of the ditch to the other for 6 But we have discussed various options on that and, ? all the driveways There may be one or two enclosed ptpe '7 certainly, obvtously, that's open for diseusstoo 8 systems on Phase l and 2 Idon'tknow 8 MS GOURDIE lWaSjustcunousbacausetf 9 What they're proposing on Phase 3 Is to use 9 it's used for drainage and the ram starts, the kid~ are ~0 the concrete flume as, I believe, in Phas~ 1 and 2 as a 10 trying to get ho~r~, and not knowing the flow or fl' they 11 hike and bflce trail, access to the common area, along with 11 stop to dilly, ts there a risk that, you knox,,,, the'. ~t 12 a drainage flume The sactten that the variance actually 12 caught tn It or somebody ~ts caught`) E~ en tho_ugh it's z 13 applies to Is from Winthrop up to Cavendish, the 13 mx-inch curb, I understand that they can pop tl:emselves 14 cul-de-sac, this piece The actual flows In this 14 up, but people a~n't aware of when water comes up in a 15 particular area exceed the criteria for an enclosed pipe 15 flow Has flus ever been a situation we should be l0 system, therefore, it can he an open channel In an open 16 concerned over'~ 17 channel, our mmunum bottom is ten feet and ~t also 17 YR HO£LTING Well, obviously, It would -- 18 reqcures a concrete pilot channel tn the bottom l 8 that is one of the rrmsons ~aff is looking at is fi.ere an 19 For this parttcular section, it was expressed 19 altemative to try to get a .hke and b,'<e trml out of the 20 that there are qulte a few number of trens out here To 20 normal flow of water You also haxe u'mLration water, 21 do an enclosed -- what would have to happen If they adher 21 anyone watemng thou' yard, ~s going to allow waer to ~2 to our curt'eot ordinance would be to put an underground 22 continue to go down flus 23 pipe system, and then over the top of that, put thetr 23 We've looked at a particular demgn to rake 24 trml wbach would serve as access 24 care of the u-ngaUon water, to try and push mom of the 25 And one of the reasons the staff is supporting 25 water to the rmddle or to one side or the other se people THE PLANNING AND ZONING COIVlMISS' 'AY 23, 2001 Page 29 - Page 8 CondonsoltTM Page 33 Page 35 I could access or usc ~t But that ~s obmously a vnhd M~. HOELTINCr That S a~3ut a ')5 pcrccnt 2 concern 2 slope 3 NOW, I don't know how stenp the banks are 3 Mit OYEP. we re not lenlang at anything bke 4 Tlus partteular luke and bike trad will be probably thr~ 4 this We're looking at more hkc ~lus 5 -- I don't know I haven't sun the profile Two to 5 MR HOELTINC~ 4/1 Ill OUr tyBcal standard for 6 three feet d~p, the actual ditch with the concreta In the 6 any earthen channel that we bmld and that's placed at 4/1 7 bonom I don't know what the s~de slopes look hke It 7 so they can be mowed. Typical side slopes, lot's say for 8 would probably be best if that was at a flat~'r slope so 8 a detantion pond where you allox~ - if someone was to fall 9 if people we~ in ~t and water was coming, they could step 9 in the pond and be able to walk out, we usually like to 10 aside that We have 50 foot for an easement so they could 10 see those 6/1 or flat~' 11 actually walk bee~de tbe flume m that event 11 Me. niSHEL O-~e of the concerns that I think 12 MS OouRom Thank you 12 x~x~ would have as Can~mssmners and citizens would be the 13 MR RISHEL Any other questions, 13 fact that when you have something that's going to have 14 Comimssleners? Ms Holt 14 ~ater mnmng on ~t cor. anuously that sometimes a slime 15 MS HOLT DO W~ have other flumes like this 15 or a mold or a pam~m ~s up in there which tends tc 16 in town that are used as bike trails? 16 retain water and not dr out which makes it fairly 17 MR HO£LTt~U ldon'tknowporsonally David 17 unusable for blkers or Eukers So l would be cancemed 18 may know of one instance where that has been used I know 18 about what that would - how we would Inhibit that from 19 they're basically functioning in that purpose for Phases 1 19 happening and how we can come up wnh something that's 20 and 2 20 going to be long-turin ~.,able for es 21 MR RISHEL would It help the ConllnlSslon if 21 MR REICHHAR- JUSt to point out these 22 the peHtlOner had a profile of what that might look like? 22 trails will be owned an maintained by a homeowner's 23 And I don't know ff they do or not Obviously, Mr 23 a~soClatlon so the resack'uts m the area will have a say 24 Hoelung says he does not 24 on how they re malnm::ed If they do become a 25 MR HOELT[NO YOU're talking about a typical 25 maintenance problerm ?m sure they'll get after it and Page 34 Page 36 I cross seetion'~ mamtmn tt 2 MR RISHEL Ye~Lll YOU said you didn't know 2 MR R1SHEL '~ou're sure, right9 3 what the profile of the slopes would be 3 MR REICHFLa. RT If they're not using ti, then 4 MR HOELTING well, I can try to approximate 4 they're not going to ~'~otTy about It 5 Pardon my -- I didn't do very well in grapincs 5 MR HOELTIX. G From the standpoint of drainage 6 MR RISHEL we're used to worlang with Mr 6 and functionality, the ease of maintenance from the City's 7 Salmon, remember So we're pretty flexible 7 standpoint in tfus pa-mular ~ssue, enclosed pipe systems 8 MR HOELTING okay Tins basically -- tins 8 ~em put in simply because obviously they're easter to 9 would be a ten-foot cross section of the flume itself, and 9 mamtmn We want o try to match what we did on the 10 from that, basically, it would come up as a side slope and 10 first one We don't 2el hke it's going to be a major 11 then I would assume flatten off at some point Tins 11 issue We don't feel hke the obstruction of the flow 12 particular angle m here would be of the question tf It's 12 hke we nught have e- the abihty to maintain it if we 13 too steep, if a person could get out of that And you may 13 chdn't have an enclo-~d pipe system on smaller lots -- I 14 want to look at flattening that type of slope This ts 14 may be confusing a Lale blt 15 going to probably be, Jack, I'd guess, three feet maybe 15 If tins same *.tuaUon occurred on a small 16 MR DYER Most of those slopes m there are 16 lot, the tendency ls to fence those whtch makas tt very 17 from the back slopes from the back of the curb out Most 17 hard to maintain and that's a hale blt different case 18 of those -- 18 than what we went before But the Issue w~th the Ifad, 19 MR RISHEL why don't you come forward for us 19 theapphcant, I tlunk would pmbably be the best to 20 and address the audience 20 address that Issue 21 MR DYER I'm pretty sure that most of those 21 MR RISHEL gue'3s the next question would 22 slopes are a maximum of about, the worse case they're 22 be is what we have m there m the first two phase, ts tt 23 going to be at is about a 4/1 side slope winch is -- tf 23 x~ orkmg for us now" And do you expect that long-term it 24 you can visualize it, it would be somewhere m the 24 ,~xll be a good solutlc, u for uso 25 ne~ghhorhood of about like that 25 MR HOELTING From the standpomt of THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIc''' ' \Y 23, 2001 Page 33 - Page 36 9 CondenseltTM Page 37 Page 39 I drainage, we're not having, experiencing problems w~th 1 m ov~q it's very shght It's not that 2 that parttoular area We are experiencing problems with 2 mu~.h 3 the roadstde chtohes but that's aside from tins And 3 ~as ootr~olE okay So that is an 4 there's obvious issues with that end I won't go rote that 4 exaLeeral~on It's mom hke tins, just with a hnle $ right now But as far as the flumes, we have not had any 5 ~h,~_ there Okay Thank you 6 issues, not been a problem with it 6 Mil. RISHEL Mr Moreno 7 MR RISHEL Thank you, Mr Hceltmg Any 7 ~ MOaENO Yea, Mr Chairman I move that 8 other questions, Commissioners? Conurasslon, do I hear a 8 we ,'ecommend to the City Council the approval of exaction 9 motion, recommendation, comment? Would the petitioner 9 varmace V-01-0007 10 hke to speak on tins issue9 10 ~ mSHEL ts there a second? 11 MR HOLLAND It'S "I think Dale summed tt 11 Ms APPLE second 12 up pretty good It works pretty good m the first phase 12 ~ PUSEE~. It's been moved and seconded 13 and they do use tt for a wallong end btlong trail Tins 13 An', tim. her chscusslon? Comments? If them Is none 14 one ts m a kind of untqco location because at tbe end of 14 pl~_-,e '~ o,~e Mocon carries unammously, 6 0 15 the cul-de-sac here ts a very large grove of trees that 15 That bnngs us to Item 11D on our Agenda 16 basmally encompasses tins whole area 16 wla~.h is consider the approval of the preliminary plat of 17 And so to do any underground type of 17 the -hlls of Avgy~ le Phase 3 18 situation, we'd basically go in, we'd have to knock out a 18 ,ds 'a~ cord evemng, Commission I 19 large amount ofthe native trees end that's what we're 19 behe~e >~ou are aware of the locaBon of the site Th~s 20 trying to chromate We're try~.ng to maintain that as the 20 172-ach: development is proposing 75 lots 72 of them 21 beauty of the site, as well as the functtonahty of tt 21 w~L be resldentml two of them will be potonnally 22 MR RISHEL Thank you, Bnen Motion9 Any 22 nor-residential uses, and one open space lot The two 23 other cormnonts9 Vtok)' -- excuse me, Ms Holt 23 lot~ .ocarsxt along 377 will require to be rozoned prior to 24 M~3 HOLT I was -- he said he wanted to do a 24 an, de,,eJopment 25 motion That's fine I was going to do a motion 25 The density of the proposed development is 44 Page 38 Page 40 MR RP~HEL That's fine I lob per acre At tins point of time, the staff and the 2 MR MORENO oh, I'm sorry 2 apT.~cant haxe agreed to make some changes to the plat so 3 MS HOLT NO, go 3 In .:.at x,,ay that prevents them to get that third variance 4 MR RISHEL The petitioner would still hke 4 th~ wt~, hsted tn your backup and we' il actually fulfill 5 to present, I think, if you don't mind Please 5 the ,amc purpose of the variance 6 MR DYER One of the tinngs that you had 6 The staff ts recommendmg approval contingent 7 asked was about -- where did our cross-section go -- about 7 to z:e appro,,al of the variances with one condition that 8 slrme and mold end that sort of thmg One of the things 8 50 2~et of LOt 21, Block C-' that I wanted t° sh°w °n the 9 we did that you can't really see because of the scale here 9 ex.head camera Tins Is Lot 21 This Is the 50 feet 10 Is that the bottom of tins fittme actually comes down just 10 th~ we are asking to be incorporated rote the Lot 31, 11 shghtly Tins ts more -- tins ts kind of an exaggerated 11 Blo. k C Tins ts the open space drainage lot to ehunnate 12 view I'mnotenarttstmthts, but there ts a shght 12 the aeed for the strcet front vanence That ts the only 13 drop in the rmddle of tins whmh forces the water to the 13 co~Sttton that staff has put in at this point of tune on 14 center So ff you had, for instance, spnnkler systems 14 the ~lat If you have any questions, staff ts wllhng to 15 that are,going off m yards and any other kind of 15 an~-er 16 dramage, it's very light flows that ultimately causes 16 MR RISHEL SO as clarification, the 50-foot 17 that kind of thing to build up, continuous water, tt would 17 be&',mes part of an easement that ties in w~th the rest of 18 be kind of isolated to the center of the flume whmh ts 18 the open space 19 more m response to your questxon 19 MS XaERA The 50-foot would become part of 20 MR RISHEL Thank you, Mr Dyer Ms Holt, I 20 Lo 31 21 still have you showing as wanting to questten sometlung 21 MR mSHEL Becomes part of the open space 22 MS HOLT NO They dtdntt turn me off 22 are& 23 MR RI~JHEL MS Gourdte 23 Ms VIBRA Yes 24 MS GOURDIE If that's actually -- do 24 MR RISHEL Okay 25 btcyclas, can they nde on that w~th that slope? 25 MS VlERA SO tn that way, they will have THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMlvlISSIt'"~0 ' - \Y 23, 2001 Page 37 - Page 40 CondcnscltTM Page 41 Page 43 1 street frontage and they don't have to pursue the 1 better sense to rezone it Commercial now, subdivide it, 2 variance 2 and go on, but the applicant has decided to subdivide 3 MR mSHEL And that would be a -- part of 3 those two lots out now They meet the rmnrmum 4 the motion, would be part of the recommendation that we'd 4 requirements of the zoning I mean, they could put two 5 make to City Councd9 5 residential lots on those 6 MR REICHHART NO, this ls Just a plat That 6 MR WILLIAMS And the next thing, I guess I'm 7 doesn't have to go onto City Council 7 confused, also, we voted on a plat that has no sidewalks, 8 MR RISHEL ~ Wtlhams 8 however, we just said they had to put sidewalks I'm 9 MR WILLIAMS Yeah I'm kind of confused 9 totally confused 10 here This is the first time that I have voted on a plat 10 MR REICHHART The approval of the 11 when a zoning change was needed Are we doing this 11 pmkmmary plat is contingent on whatever the outcome of 12 backwards? 12 the variances are If City Council denies the mdewalk 13 MR SNYDER This IS not a zoning change 13 variance and says you have to put sidewalks on the whole 14 V~at she's saying is they're going to mconfigum this 14 subdivision, they'll have to come back with a -- just show 15 lot 15 a plat that shows sidewalks on it The lots won't change 16 MR REICHHART There are two lots that arc 16 The roads won't change We'll just add sidewalks and 17 adjacent to 377 Those two lots am -- m the future, the 17 that'sacondltionofthisappmval If you are mqmmd 18 apphcant is proposing that those are going to be 18 by City Council to put sidewalks on, you will show 19 commemiat lots, but they are at a size -- It's zoned 19 sidewalks If they get the full variance and they don't 20 Agricultural right now and all they have to do is have ~2e 20 have to put any sidewalks on, the plat is ready to go It 21 minimum one-acm lot These meet the mmunum 21 goes forward as an approval contingent on whatever the 22 reqmmments He could put two houses on tho~e lots ffhe 22 outcome of the variances are 23 had to And he's not gems to build unythmg on those 23 MR WILLIAMS 1 get what he's saying 24 now In the futura, he's just gems to potentially mzom 24 MR RISHEC Did that answer your question~ 25 them They meet the mmLmum subdivision requlrem~rs 25 MR WILLIAMS It doesn't make any sense, but I Page 42 Page 44 i whether they're Agnoultaral or any whatever the use I hear exactly what he's saying 2 is, so we do, you know -- *,hey m~t all th~ mmLmum 2 MR RISH£L Ally Oth~' questions? Ms 3 standards, therefore, ',,m basically have to appmvna 3 Oourdle 4 MR WILLIAMS okay I'm still confused 4 MR WILLIAMS ~ like a crazy way to do 5 because all I can do is go by what I read, a zoning change 5 business 6 will be r~lUlred prior to the development for lots 6 MS OOURDIE Although It does say in here 7 designated for non.*osldential land use 7 that if one or all of the abex e mentioned variances am 8 MR REICHHART COrrect 8 recommended for denial, that we're supposed to say I move 9 MR WILLIAMS okay Let me ask a quesUon 9 to &sapprove the preliminary plat And being that we did 10 Are we setting ourselves up to wh*m somebody comes, and l 10 a partial variance, is that sull considered -- 11 hope I'm not sail ham, bat somebody comes five )~ars 11 Ma REICHHART NO That motion probably 12 from now to braid a restanrant and th~ homeowners come up 12 I'll take credit for that monna I made Deborah change 13 in arms Why am we setting a future Planning & Zoning 13 it Th~ motion should be conungent -- whatever the 14 Comnussionup for this? Why don't we do tho zomng? To 14 contingent because these do go forwardtoCltyCouncll 15 me, we're doing this backwards and we're making problems 15 it should be contingent on xs hatever the outcome of the 16 when we shouldn't be, and that's my conc~'n 16 variances are 17 MR REICHHART The apphcant has the abthvy 17 MS GOURDIE Well, you do have that as thc 18 to subdivide las properVy as long as tt meets the 18 top one, if they're recommtmdmg for approval 19 rcqmmments of thc zoning Thc zoning is Agnculraml 19 MR REICHHART Y~; That's the way it should 20 Thosc two lots mint th~ l'cqttlnlnlents of an Agncaharal b~ 21 lot 21 MS OOURDIE And then you go down to - so do 22 If he decides to come back and do a zoning. 22 not look at th{; second area 23 apphcatlon after he's, as we typically say, built in las 23 MR REICHHART 24 own opposit~ea around ~t, then that's las call I mmn, 24 MS OOUROIE Thank you 25 tham'S nothing we can do about that h imght ~ 25 MR REICHHART Thank you THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSl ..... ~Y 23, 2001 Page 41 - Page 44 CondonsoltTM Page 45 47 MR RISHEL conumssloncrs, any further 1 a which is cons~dea' 2 questions of Ms Vlera'~ Would you hke to close, Ms 2 ~ 34 114(5)b of thc Code of £ 3 Vtera? 3 And Mr Dawd Sahnon will p ~ both 4 MS VE~RA The staff doesn't hav~ any 4 5 additional remarks 5 Thank you, uf the 6 MR RISHEL Okay Any further questions, 6 Comm,eqmn ' just got a map up here s ~ the 7 comments, or a motion from the Comnusslon'~ Ms Apple 7 locaUon of the ~ tract 8 MS APPLE I'll make a motlan I move to 8 Hobson Lane and ,0 also known l Club Road 9 approve the Hills of Argyle, Phase 3 prehaunary plat 9 This 10 contingent on the outcome of the vananoes vnth the 10 unorthodox ~n that there 11 following condition as recommended by staff, that 50 feet 11 apphcauon yet for zomng or 12 of Lot 21, Block C, adjacent to the proposed drainage and 12 apphcant has offered are two ~' development 13 trail easement, be incorporated into Lot 31, Block C, to 13 scenanus I guess I wanted ) front that 14 eliminate the need for the street front variance 14 these the variances 15 MR RISHEL Mr Moreno 15 being hcable only for 16 MR MORENO We're actually recommending 16 the tx~o scenarios that 17 approval, not approving flus site, is that correct'~ 17 So ~f the c comes back ~ 18 MR RE1CHHART NO, you're approving It 18 somedung e~ther ~ ~ or 19 contingent on the outcome 19 presen~l rials e' then the vanances or ~ 20 MR MORENO We are approxang tt'~ 20 the ',anances ~s appheable 21 MR REICHHART Y~ 21 variance ~s t based on one of the two 22 MS APPLE cont~gent on the outcome 22 that are, d th~s evening 23 MR MORENO okay 23 five now they come in and ~t's something 24 MR RISHEL And v,e have a motion Is there a 24 hfferent, then those variances would not be 25 second'~ r that development We'd be back at ground Page 46 Page 48 1 MR MORENO And I'll second that I i on tlus ~ssue 2 MR RISHEL It's been moved and seconded 2 So I just wanted to make sure that that 3 Any further discussion or conu~ents° Seeing no further 3 front because we normall' 4 comments or questions from the Comrm~lorl, would you 4 until In 5 please vote Motion carries 5-1 5 th~s case 6 (COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS x, OTED IN OPPOSITION) 6 process 7 MR RISHEL In theory, that 7 MR Thank you Mr 1, for your 8 8 clanficaUon 9 site located 9 we're looking 10 'Isan 10 atap 'two 11 ~f this 11 vanances ,avmg would 12 consideration a variance from 12 apply to Hobson Lane and then Country Club 13 Section 34-114( ff Ordmanoes concerning 13 Roar ~awng 14 sidewalks And Mr present for the 14 ordinance would not a Hobson Lane And 15 staff 15 then the varmnce for the the entire 16 MR [ to point out the 16 penmen' of the ~ Club Road 17 have the option to 17 and H~glaway 377 g to prowde 18 discuss or ~ s together, but 18 C~E s~dewalks on the : of the 19 vote on t I l~ that out 19 development 20 to you 20 Agum 21 21 22 22 evemng commumty mixed use c 23 23 the h a the western edge of the property Ther 24 to have them present both of these at the 24 there's an area of townhomes and then 25 Then I will read the second part of that, of Item No 12 25 an patao homes and then an ama of single falmly THE PLANNINO AND ZONING COMMISSI-- -12 kY 23 Page 45 - Page 4~ AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE' June 19, 2001 DEPARTMENT Legal CM/DCM/ACM' Herbert L Prouty, C~ty Attorney SUBJECT A Resolution amendmg Resolution R2001-028 estabhshtng gmdehnes for persons subm]ttmg specffic rethstnct]ng proposals to amend dates for submission of plans and final adoptton, prowdmg a sawngs clause, and providing an effective date BACKGROUND Atler the C~ty Councd adopted the Resolution No R2001-028, attached, the Denton County Branch of the National Assocmtion for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) passed a resolution, attached, urging the Denton C~ty Council to from a committee consisting of commumty leaders to provide input on redistricting State law reqmres the C~ty to prowde the rechstnctmg plan to the County by October 1, 2001 The C~ty Council ~n Resolution No 2001-028 promded that plans should be submitted by July 1, 2001 The attached resolution amends the date for the subm~smon of plans to August 1, 2001 with final adoption by the C~ty Cotmc~l on September 4, 2001 to provide additional t~me for cmzen input The schedule will be ~mpacted due to the add~tmnal community involvement and pubhc comment concerning the plans The proposed schedule will need to be amended to ensure that the legal deadhnes wall be met OPTIONS I The City Council may pass the Resolution to amend ~ts schedule to allow for more t~me for c~t~zen input , 2 The C~ty Council may dechne to pass the Resolution and leave the schedule for submmmon of plans as July 1, 2001 FISCAL IMPACT The C~ty Councd has employed the law firm of B~ckerstaff, Heath, Smlley, Pollan, Kever & McDamel, L L P to assist them mformulattng a redistricting plan for a not to exceed fee of $25,000 The formation of a c~tlzens committee tnvolwng the NAACP ~n the manner ~nthcated m the NAACP Resolutmn was not part of Bmkerstaff's original scope of work The amount of their legal fee will probably be ~ncreased depending on the increase ~n legal servmes due to the amount of additional pubhc involvement contemplated by the NAACP request Respectfully submitted Herbert L Frouty C~ty Attorney S \Our Docun~nts~ solut~ons\O 1 ~.rnend~ Oty Gmd~hnos Resolution doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. R2001-028 ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR PERSONS SUBMITTING SPECIFIC REDISTRICTING PROPOSALS TO AMEND DATES OF SUBMISSION FOR PLANS AND FINAL ADOPTION; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Denton has certaan responsibilities for redistricting under federal and state law including, but not limited to, Amendments 14 and 15 to the United States Constitution, U S C A (West 1987), and the Voting Rights Act, 42 U S C A § 1973, et seq (West 1987 and Supp 1999), and Tex Gov't Code Ann §§ 2058 001 and 2058 002 (Vernon Pamph 2000), and the Denton C~ty Charter, and WHEREAS, on the 15th day of May, 2001 the City Council passed Resolution No R2001-028 estabhslung gmdehnes for persons submitting specific redlstnctlng proposals, and WHEREAS, subsequent to the passage of Resolution No R2001-028, the Denton County Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) passed a resolution urging the C~ty Council to provide additional opportumty for their input and recommendations, and WHEREAS, C~ty Council desires to provide more time to persons who have specific redistricting plans they wish the C~ty Council to consider, and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the date of submission of plans and final adoption to allow more time for cmzen input, NOW THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES' SECTION I That Section I, subsection 3 of Resolution No R2001-028 ~s hereby amended to read as follows 3 Plans should be submitted by August 1, 2001 In order to meet the deadlines imposed by state and federal law, the City Council will need to adopt a plan by September 4, 2001 SI~CTION II That save and except as amended hereby all the remmmng sections, subsect~or~s, sentences and clauses of Resolution No R2001-028 shall remain in full force and effect SECTION III This resolution shall become effective immediately upon 1ts passage and approval PASSED AND APPROVED fins the __ day of ,2001 EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM HERBERT L PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY 2 S \Our Documentsq~.esolutmns\O [\C~t7 Gmdchnes Resolution doc A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR PERSONS SUBMITTING SPECIFIC REDISTRICTING PROPOSALS, AND PROVIDING AN EFFETIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City Counml for the C~ty of Denton has certain responsibilities for red~stnctmg under federal and state law mcludmg, but not hm~ted to, Amendments 14 and 15 to the United States Constitution, U S C A (West 1987), and the Voting Pdghts Act, 42 U S C A § 1973, et seq (West 1987 and Supp 1999), and Tex Gov't Code Ann §§ 2058 001 and 2058 002 (Vernon Pamph 2000), and WHEREAS, the City Council has certain responsibilities for redmmctmg under the C~ty Charter, and WHEREAS, ~t ~s necessary to provide for the orderly cons~deratlun and evaluation of red~stnctmg plans Much may come before the C~ty Council, and WHEREAS, these gmdchnes relate to persons who have spemfic redmtnctang plans they w~sh the C~ty Council to consider, and WHEREAS, the C~ty Council welcomes any comments relevant to the redistricting process, NOW THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES SECTION I That m order to make sure that any plan that m~ght be submitted is of maximum assistance to the City Council in ~ts dec~slon makang process, the C~ty Council hereby sets the following guidelines ,, 1 Plans should be submitted ~n writing If a plan ~s submitted orally, there ~s s~gmficant oppormmty for misunderstanding, and ~t is possthle that errors may be made m analyzing ~t The City Council wants to be sure that all proposals be ~fully and accurately considered 2 Any plan should show the total populatmn and voting age populanon for Blacks, Hlspanms, Asxans and Anglo/other for each proposed City Council district If a plan ~s submitted w~thout a populatmn breakdown, the C~ty Council may not have suffiment information to give it full conslderat~on 3 Plans should be submitted by July 1,2001 In order to meet the deadlines ~mposed by state and federal law, the City Council will need to adopt a plan by August 1, 2001 4 Plans should red~stnct the ent,re City The C~ty Council, of course, w~ll be consldenng the effect of any plan on the entire C~ty Also the C~ty Council ~s subject to the Vo'ang Pdghts Act, winch protects various racial and language mmont~es Thus, as a matter of federal law, ~t w~ll be reqmred to consider the effect of any proposal on mult~ple racml and ethrnc groups If a plan does not red~stnct the entn:e C~ty, ~t may be ~mposs~ble for the City Counc~l to assess Its impact on one or more protected mmonty groups 5 Plans should conform to the cntena the City Council w~ll be using m drawung the C~ty Council member dlstncts SECTION II Thru resolutmn shall become effective immediately upon ~ts passage and approval PASSED AND APPROVED this the ay of L//~ ,2001 EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM HERBERT L PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY / 2 DENTON COUNTY BRANCH OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE Whereas The Denton County Branch of the NAACP ~s the pretmere a~nl rights orgamzanon within Denton County Whereas the Denton County Branoh of the NAACP was instrumental tn devdoptng the first smile member dismet boundaries Whereas the President of the Denton Counly Branch of the NAACP humbly beseeched the Denton City Council to consult with the Denton County Brimch of the NAACP concernm$ ovfl nghts matters on May 15, 2001 Council Whereas the Denton County Brar~h of the NAACP perceaves th,e Denton Ci~M~t on May chsrespeofful of the goals and asptrations of the Denton Coun~ ~AACP m 15 2001 the Denton City Counal approved a Consultant's rec, o~r~mended entena for d~elopm$ boundaries for stogie member chsmcts without eff~nsuitmg nor contactm$ the Denton County NAACP Branch fur input Be it r~olved that the Denton County Branch of the NAACP sllt)ngly urges the ]~ton City Council to reconsider tts criteria for developing single member chstnets until the Denton County Branch of the NAACP has an opportumty to determine ffthe cntena comphes with the ¥otmg Raghts AM Be it further resolved tha~ the Denton County Brandh of the NAACP lughly recommends that the D~ton C~ty Council form a comrmttee cotmsl~ng of c~mmumty leaders including members from the Der~ou County Branch of ~he NA,~2P Executive Committee to develop cntena, and recommend single member droner boundsnes to the Denton Ctty Council Carl M Wilhar~ Charlye Heggms President Secreta~ May 23, 2001 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET ! ' -! AGENDA DATE' June 19, 2001 DEPARTMENT: Utilities DCM. Howard Martin, Assistant City Manager/Utlhtles ~ SUBJECT: Consider adoption of an ordinance of the C~ty of Denton, Texas, amending Secttons 18-151 and 18-152 of the Code of Ordinances of the C~ty of Denton, Texas to delegate the authority to enforce parking laws to the Umvers~ty of North Texas Pohce Department for the streets and port~ons of streets named m the Fry Street Small Area Plan as well as all streets or portions of streets prewously delegated and hsted m this ordinance, authorizing the City Manager to s~gn an mterloeal agreement between the C~ty of Denton and the Umvers~ty of North Texas for the enforcement of parking regulations by the Umvers~ty of North Texas m the areas described w~thln tins orehnanee, provlchng for a severabfl~ty clause, providing for a savings clause, and provlthng for an effective date BACKGROUND. The Fry Street Small Area Plan looked at several ~mpaets that could be ~mproved by utillz~ng existing systems UNT has committed s~gmficant resources to parking enforcement Fry Street ~s heawly impacted by students seeking short term parking instead of parkang m the UNT Lots Tbas adversely affects the businesses m tins area The parkang proposal also adds most of the streets between Welch and Bernard around the UNT parking lots from Mulberry down to Maple ~ncludmg Maple all the way to Avenue BUNT has the abthty to better enforce the abusers of the parkang regulations m ti'ns area through control of grades/degrees The City of Denton has a much lower collection rate v~th students UNT would take the revenue from meter sources, ere such as the parking meters around the Fry Street Area as part ofth~s agreement Originally scheduled for late 2000 Council meeting, UNT put on hold till now RECOMMENDATION: Approve the proposed agreement w~th UNT PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions) Rewewed and approved by Traffic Safety Commission on October 2, 2000 UNT placed on hold until ttus month due to legal issues they had to work out FISCAL INFORMATION: Th~s change wall be funded by UNT Respectfully submitted Howard Martin Assistant City Manager-Utilities Prepared by Asst Director of Utility Field Senates Exhibit I Traffic Safety Backup Memo Exhibit II Traffic Safety Comrmsslon Minutes, October 2, 2000 Exhibit III: Map Exhibit IV Proposed Ordinance RTH IEXAS Umventty Police February 21, 2000 Jerry Clark, P E Director of Engineering & Transportation Department C~ty of Denton 221 N Elm Street Denton, TX 76201 RE Memorandum of Understanding with respect to Fry Street Small Area Plan Dear Jerry The Umvers~ty of North Texas, through ~ts Police and Traffic Services Dlv~ston, agrees to accept respons~bfl,ty for the control of parking pursuant to the attached proposal It ts my understanding that our agreement m th~s matter will be ~ncorporated wahtn the terms aud conditions of our ex~st~ng contract for parktng and traffic control on streets wahm and contiguous to the umversay It ~s our further understanding that we will assume respons~bd~ty for the enforcement, maintenance, and revenue collection for the parking meters currently located in the Fry Street Area as designated w~thm the attached proposal In return for our assuming th~s responsibility, the umvers~ty will retain all generated parking tine and meter revenue Thanl~s for working closely w~th us to assure that both the City of Denton and UNT are able to meet our mutual needs for parking and traffic control in the designated areas W~th ~st regarc~, /RTichard Deter r Director attachment pc Fred Pole, UNT V~ce President for Admmlstrattve Affatrs Gary Matheson, C~ty of Denton Chtef of Pohce PO Box 310948 · Denton, Texas 76203 0948 · (940) 565 3000 Fax (940) 369 8788 · TDD (800) 735 2989 · wwwunt edu/pohce EXHII$JT I Minutes Traffic Safety Commission October 2, 2000 ITEM #4 REVIEW AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A REVISION TO ORDINANCE 91-133 WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS FOR TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT, WHICH INCLUDES ADDING THE FOLLOWING: A Maple - Ave D to Bernard B West Highland - South Welch to Bernard C. West Prairm - South Welch to Bernard D Chestnut - South Welch to Bernard E West Sycamore - South Welch to Bernard F West Mulberry - South Welch to Bernard G Avenue A- West Hmkory to South Welch H West Hickory - West Mulberry to South Welch South Avenue B - West H~ckory to West Oak J West Oak - South Avenue B to South Welch K Fry - West Oak to West Hickory L South Welch - West Oak to Avenue A/West Mulberry Clark sa~d th~s request is part of the Fry Street Small Area Plan Th~s plan ~s an attempt by the C~ty of Denton, the Fry Street Development Corporation, and others m the Fry Street area to look at that area and try to do some master planmng as opposed to doing nothing Th~s area wants to grow w~th the future and has been ~mpressed w~th the development on the Square and the growth the Square has received The Small Area Plan has vanous components such as changing d~rectlons of streets and parking issues Th~s Is the first component to come to the Commission Most of the people that use th~s area are students It ~s d~fficult for the C~ty to get them to pay their t~ckets Students leave after a few years and do not see the benefit of paying their bckets If the school enforces the t~ckets, they can put a hold on their grades until the t~ckets are pa~d Chief Deter, UNT, ~s here to g~ve you the details of th~s request and UNT has been very good ~n joining ~n th~s partnership between the C~ty and UNT A lot of th~s area is adjacent to the parking for the university The C~ty only has two parking officers for the entire c~ty, whereas UNT has a much larger 4 EXHIBIT II staff and a more modern system as far as parking enforcement UNT has had excellent results enforcing traffic ordinances Montmmo asked ~f this was just for parking enforcement Clark sa~d yes Ridens asked if it included speeding Clark said it is traffic enforcement so ~t does include speeding - all traffic enforcement Richard Deter, Director, UNT Police, came forward to speak to the Commission Deter sa~d this was the first time he has addressed the Commission He has been at UNT since April 1999 and the Fry Street Small Area Plan was already in progress when he arrived Th~s rewslon ~s more of a negotiated agreement to update some of the things UNT was already doing with parking and traffic enforcement to meet the needs of the Fry Street area, as well as to meet the expansion needs of the university If the revision ~s approved, UNT would assume everything the City Pohce is currently enforcing There are no plans to change meter rates or parking spaces UNT and the C~ty underjo~ntjurisdlcbon are currently momtoring traffic enforcement in that area Deter said he doesn't foresee this changing The parking s~tuabon would change After research, ~t does appear that most of the problem parking ~s students According to Chief Matheson, the collection mechanism has not been good UNT has agreed to take over the enforcement of parking meters and illegal parking Th~s includes the staffing, maintenance, and the revenue Most of the property conbguous to the side streets ~s owned by UNT A large percentage of that ~s already parking area Most of that ~s not controlled parking at the present, it is open parking The area off Maple Street ~s partly controlled and partly open UNT w(3uld probably change that zone Walters asked Deter ~f UNT has a set jurisdiction Deter said technically, it is countywide jurisdiction Normally, they don't go beyond the basic primary area of the campus, but as far as general law enforcement duties, they have countywide junsd~ct~on R~dens asked if there would be any changes m the enforcement of the traffic on Welch St between Maple and Mulberry Deter sa~d UNT has been working w~th City staff on some serious concerns w~th traffic flow on Welch, especially w~th the level of pedestrian traffic One of the considerations City staff has been looking at ~s a configuration s~mllar to Bell Avenue at TWU to see ~f it ~s appropriate The University has some very serious concerns as to pedestrian flow, but Welch ~s a major traffic flow area too Montmino asked ~f there was a way to tell how good a job UNT is doing on collecting traffic fines Deter sa~d the number of t~ckets written can be reported UNT has an electronic tracking system Walters sa~d the main ~ssue ~s UNT can put a hold on grades or records so tickets can be collected Clark sa~d once this gets through Council, probably December or January by the t~me the ordinance is written, staff could request annual updates after it ~s ~mplemented Sawko asked if UNT has the manpower to pohce the area Deter sa~d that should not be a problem UNT has seven full-t~me people to do nothing but wnte parking bckets, along w~th about 20 part-time people and police ~f needed He said UNT would probably add more part-time people because the area needs to be checked regularly If not, ~t would defeat the whole purpose Walters asked if anyone wanted to speak for or against revising ordinance 91-133 No one came forward Sawko made a motion to approve the rews~on to ordinance 91-133 as written Lesko seconded the mobon The mobon passed unammously 6 UNT PARKING CONTROL PROPOSAL ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AMENDING SECTIONS 18-151 AND 18-152 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS TO DELEGATE THE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE PARKING LAWS TO THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR THE STREETS OR PORTIONS OF STREETS NAMED IN THE FRY STREET SMALL AREA PLAN AS WELL AS ALL STREETS OR PORTIONS OF STREETS PREVIOUSLY DELEGATED AND LISTED IN THIS ORDINANCE, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF PARKING REGULATIONS BY THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS IN THE AREAS DESCRIBED WITHIN THIS ORDINANCE, PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, PROVIDING FOR A SAVINGS CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY ORDAINS SECTION 1 That Section 18-151 and 18-152 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton shall be amended to read as follows Article V. Special Regulations at University of North Texas Sec 18-151 Authonty granted to board of umversity; purposes The govermng board of the University of North Texas is hereby granted and delegated junsdmtlon and control of the parking lanes wathln the street portions described m sectaon 18- 152, which street portions e~ther (1) abut property owned by the state and under the control of the University of North Texas, or (2) are delegated to the Umverslty of North Texas through the Fry Street Small Area Plan, for the following purposes (1) To assign parking spaces and designate parking areas and their use and assess a charge therefor, (2) To prohibit parking as it deems necessary, (3) To remove vehicles parked m violation of its roles and regulations, the laws of the state, or the ordinances of the city, at the expense of the violator, (4) To issue traffic tickets in compliance with the procedure estabhshed by the City of Denton Munlc~pal Court, (5) To issue parking tickets tn compliance with the procedures established by the Umversity of North Texas Police Department, (6) To enforce traffic laws through its commissioned peace officers jointly with city police officers, (7) To enforce parking regulations through ~ts commissioned peace officers and pubhc safety officers (Code 1966, 24-171) State law reference - City delegation of parking regulation authority, V T C A, Education Code 105 93 Sec 18-152 Streets under umversity jurisdiction, parking restrictions (a) The portions of the streets for wtuch the governing board of the Umverslty of North Texas has been delegated junsdmtmn and control pursuant to section 18- 151 are as follows 1 Avenue A, both sides, from H~ckory Street to Mulberry Street, 2 Avenue A, both sides, from Chestnut Street to Pralne Street, 3 Avenue A, both sides, from Highland Street to Eagle Drive, 4 Avenue B, both sides, from Hickory Street to Mulberry Street, 5 Avenue B, both s~des, from Maple Street to Eagle Drive, 6 Avenue C, both sides, from Hickory Street to Eagle Drive, 7 Avenue D, east side, f~om Hickory Street to Sycamore Street, 8 Avenue D, both sides, from H~ghland Street to Eagle Drive, 9 Avenue D, both sides, from Sycamore Street to Chestnut Street, 10 Central Street, both sides, from Highland Street to Maple Street, 11 Chestnut Street, both sides, from Avenue A to Bernard Street, Page 2 of 4 12 Chestnut Street, both s~des, from Avenue C to Avenue E, 13 Edwards Street, both s~des, from Avenue E to Avenue D, 14 Fry Street, both s~des, from Oak Street to Hmkory Street, 15 Hmkory Street, both s~des, from Avenue B to Welch Street, 16 H~ghland Street, both s~des, from Avenue E to Bernard Street, 17 Maple Street, both s~des, from Avenue D to Bernard Street, 18 Mulberry Street, both s~des, from Avenue D to Avenue B, 19 Mulberry Street, both s~des, from Avenue A to Bernard Street, 20 Oak Street, both s~des, from Avenue B to Welch Street, 21 Prame Street, both s~des, fi.om Avenue A to Bernard Street 22 Sycamore Street, both s~des, fi.om Welch Street to Bernard Street, 23 Sycamore Street, both s~des, from Avenue C to Avenue D, 24 Sycamore Street, south s~de, from Avenue E to Avenue D, 25 Welch Street, both s~des, from Mulberry Street to Oak Street (b) However, no parking shall be permitted upon any street portmn described ~n subsectton (a) of th~s section winch is contrary to any prov~slon of the Texas Transportation Code, or to any ordinance pertmmng to any such street po_rtion SECTION 2 That the C~ty Manager, or in his absence, his designee, ~s hereby anthonzed to execute an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Denton and the Umvers~ty of North Texas, substantmlly ~n the form of the attached agreement, to delegate the authority to enfome parlang laws to the Umvermy of North Texas Pohce Department for the streets or port~ons of the streets named m the Fry Street Small Area Plan as well as all streets or portions of streets prewously delegated and hsted in th~s ordinance S]~CTION 3 That tf any section, subsectmn, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or word in this ordinance, or applmatlon thereof to any person or circumstances ts held mvahd by any court of competent junsdmtmn, such holding shall not affect the vahd~ty of the remmmng portions of tins ordinance, and the C~ty Council of the City of Denton, Texas hereby declares it would have enacted such remmnmg port~ons desptte any such mvahd~ty Page 3 of 4 SECTION 4 That save and except as amended hereby, all the provls~ons, sections, subsectaons, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, and phrases of the Code of Ordinances shall remmn in full force and effect SECTION 5 That this orchnance shall become effective immediately upon 1ts passage and approval 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 Page 4 of 4 OF TEXAS § INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT DENTON § Interlocal Agreement is made between the City of Denton, Texas, hereinafter "the City" and the Umvermty of North Texas, hereinafter referred to as "the the effectIve date of the Interlocal Agreement being ,2001 C~ty, through its C~ty Council, hereby delegates to the Umvermty the authority to parkdng of vehicles on the following Denton pubhc streets running through or adjacent to property owned or occupied and controlled by the Umverslty, to wit 1 Avenue A both sides, from Hickory Street to Mulberry Street, 2 Avenue A both sides, from Chestnut Street to Prmne Street, 3 Avenue A both s~des, from H~ghland Street to Eagle Drive, 4 Avenue B both s~des, from Hickory Street to Mulberry Street, 5 Avenue B both s~des, from Maple Street to Eagle Drive, 6 Avenue C both sides, from Hmkory Street to Eagle Drive, 7 Avenue D, east s~de, from Hmko~ Street to Sycamore Street, 8 Avenue D, both s~des, from Highland Street to Eagle Drive, 9 Avenue D, both sides, from Sycamore Street to Chestnut Street, 10 Central Street, both s~des, from Highland Street to Maple Street, 11 Chestnut Street, both sides, from Avenue A to Bernard Street, 12 Chestnut Street, both sides, from Avenue C to Avenue E, 13 Edwards Street, both redes, from Avenue E to Avenue D, 14 Fry Street, both s~des, from Oak Street to Hickory Street, 15 Hmkory Street, both s~des, from Avenue B to Welch Street, 16 H~ghland Street, both sides, from Avenue E to Bernard Street, 17 Maple Street, both sides, from Avenue D to Bernard Street, 18 Mulberry Street, both sides, from Avenue D to Avenue B, Page 1 of 3 19 Mulberry Street, both sides, from Avenue A to Bernard Street, 20 Oak Street, both sides, from Avenue B to Welch Street, 21 Prmne Street, both sides, from Avenue A to Bernard Street 22 Sycamore Street, both sides, from Welch Street to Bernard Street, 23 Sycamore Street, both sides, from Avenue C to Avenue D, 24 Sycamore Street, south side, from Avenue E to Avenue D, 25 Welch Street, both sides, fi'om Mulberry Street to Oak Street On the above streets, the Umvemty is authorized (1) to assign and regulate parking spaces for its use, (2) to charge and collect a fee from its personnel and students for parkang, (3) to prohibit pargang, and (4) to charge and collect a fee for removing vehicles parked in violation of law orchnance or m violation of a role governing the parking of vehicles adopted by the Boards of Regents of the Umvemty The Umverslty agrees to leave existing parkdng meters on Avenue A, Fry Street, and Hickory Street The Umvemty also agrees no changes will be made to the exlslang meters without the agreement of the City It is further agreed that this Interlocal Agreement does not (1) limit the police power of the City of its law enforcement juns&ctlon, (2) render campus peace officer an employee of the City or entafle a campus peace officer to compensation from the City, or (3) restrict the power of the Umverslty under other law to enforce laws, ordman?es, or rules regulatang traffic or parkang This Interlocal Agreement shall be automatically renewable for successive periods of one year unless either party gives s~xty (60) days written notice to termination to the other party prior to the beginning of the renewable term Signed and executed tlus the day of ., 2001, by the appropriate representatives of the City and the University, the effective date of the agreement to be ., 2001 CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY MICHAEL A CONDUFF, CITY MANAGER Page 2 of 3 ATTEST JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM HERBERT L PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS BY ATTEST BY Page 3 of 3 Agenda No ~ Agenda Item _~' ~ AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET I)ate~f~/-~f ~/ AGENDA DATE. June 19, 2001 DEPARTMENT' Planning & Development~l~ep~artment CM/DCM/ACM: Dave Hill, 349-8314 ~"~,~ SUBJECT SP-01-0014 (,4lbertson's Center) Cons]der approval of a resolution approving a Project Plan for approximately 10 8 acres, m a Commercial (C) zoning d~stnct, generally located at the northwest comer of Umvers~ty and Loop 288 A shopping center w~th an Albertson's grocery store, gas station, restaurant and related s~te and access ~mprovements ~s proposed BACKGROUND The apphcant ~s proposing to develop a shopping center consisting of a 62,323 square foot Albertson's grocery store, a 2,029 square foot Convemence Store / Car Wash / Gas Stat]on and a 6,200 square foot Retml / Restaurant and related site improvements (Attachment 2) Development of the s~te ~s subject to the requirements of the ~nter~m regulations for non- residential development (Ordinance No 2000-069) As such, a Project plan ~s reqmred to be submitted £or rewew and approval by C~ty Council ~ The subject property ~s located m a Commercial (C) zomng d~stnct ~ Thirty-four courtesy not~ces were totaled on June 8, 2001 Staff beheves that the proposed development can be conmdered to be cons]stent with the Comprehensive Plan Section E (Comprehensive Plan Consistency) of the ~nter~m regulations require that Project Plans, which do not reqmre the submittal of a Zonmg Plan, be subject to a comprehensive plan consistency evaluation The following factors were taken into account ~ The property ~s located w~thm the "Employment Centers" and "Developed Areas o£ Floodplain" land use designations as identified In the Denton Plan ~ "Employment Centers" are intended to provide locations for a variety of workplaces, mcludmg hm~ted hght manufacturing uses, research and development act~wt~es, corporate faclht]es, offices, and mstltnt]ons Employment centers are also intended to accommodate secondary uses that complement or support the primary workplace uses, such a hotels, restaurants, convemence shopping, and child care ~ Regional Mixed Use Centers, Commumty M~xed Use Centers, and Neighborhood Centers are the preferred location for concentrations of retail, commercial, and commumty services, and dominance of these uses as part of an Employment Center was not enwsloned m the Denton Plan } The Denton Plan does not specifically list grocery stores an appropriate Employment Center land use However, secondary commemlal uses were contemplated ~n these districts, provided they "complement or support" the primary workplace uses A grocery store could be considered a "secondary" use within an Employment Center, as long as workplace uses dominate the area's land use pattern If continued interest In conunermal and retml development is shown m the vicinity, a Denton Plan amendment may be advisable ~' Finally, the current zomng of the property is commercial, and a grocery store is a permitted use wltlun a "C" zonmg district Therefore as required by the Interim Regulations, the Director of Planning and Development has detenmned that the proposed development can be considered to be consistent with the Denton Plan, specifically, the development of the proposed grocery store OPTIONS 1 Approve as submitted 2 Approve with conditions 3 Deny 4 Postpone consideration 5 Table item RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Project Plan, subject to four conditions 1 The drainage plan for the property must be approved by staff as part of the platting process, 2 The traffic impact analysis review and related traffic improvements must be approved by staff as part of the platting process, 3 Staff is authorized to issue bmldlng permits for Parcels 1 and 2A in the future, provided the architecture of the buildings are compatible with the pnnmpal structure, and 4 If,,dunng the review and approval of the dratnage and traffic plans, or dunng the review of the site plans for Parcels 1 and 2A, minor amendments are necessary to facilitate design preferences or mitigate potential negative impacts, staff is authonzed to approve such amendments ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The subject property is not platted and will need to be platted prior to development 2 PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following ~s a chronology of SP-01-006, commonly known as Kroger Expansion Apphcatmn Date May 18, 2001 DRC June 14, 2001 FISCAL INFORMATION Development of th~s property will increase the assessed value of the c~ty, county, and school dmtnct, and will generate sales tax xncome for the mty It will reqmre no short-term pubhc ~mprovements that are the respons~bthty of the mty ATTACIIMENTS 1 Location / Zomng Map 2 Project Plan 3 Draft Resolutmn Prepared By ~jl~l~t~~ ~Development l~spect~ully subrn,l~d . Douglai S Powell, AICP D~rector of Planmng and Development ATTACHMENT1 SP-01-00071 (Albertson's Center) NORTH LOCATION MAP Scale None FRONT ELEVATION ~1~1 ' J r-q- n, q~,~l '-'to ~, 1'- ..... , '-" ""~ PARTIAL PLAN EXTERIOR COLOR SCHEDULE ALBERTSONS ~10 42FH ALBERTSONS, INC ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING A NONRESIDENTIAL PROJECT PLAN FOR A RETAIL/COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, BEING AN APPROXnVIATELY 10 8 ACRE SITE GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF UNIVERSITY AND LOOP 288, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (SP-01-0014) WHEREAS, on March 2, 2000, the City Council adopted Orchnance No 2000-069 winch estabhshed certain nonremdentml ~ntenm regulations (the "Nonremdentlal Interim Regulations"), WHEREAS, the Nonremdentml Intenm Regulations established, among other tinngs, a project plan reqmrement, and WHEREAS, Joe Lancaster, as agent for the owners of the approximately 10 8 acres zoned Commercial (C) ofunplatted land generally located northwest comer of Umvermty and Loop 288, m the city of Denton, Denton County, Texas, has made application for approval of a project plan under the nonremdentml Interim Regulations, a copy ofwhmh m attached hereto as Extuint "A" and made a part hereof by reference (the "ProJect Plan"), and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Project Plan, with the conchtlons tmposed hereto, ffany, meets the requirements of the Nonresldentml Interim Regulations NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES SECTION 1 The ProJect Plan is hereby approved SECTION 2 Tlus resolution shall become effective lmmechately fi:om and after its approval PASSED AND APPROVED flus the day of ,2001 EUL1NE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM HERBERT L PR.O. UTY, C~TY ATTORNEY BY ~/ ~ 8 Page 1 of 1 FRONT ELEVATION " ..... -:::: 2::::::225:: ~ / ~ , ~ ...... ~ PARTIAL PLAN EXTERIOR COLOR SCHEDULE ALBERTSONS glO 42FH ALBERT,SONS, INC A~rlda AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET 0ate ------ ! AGENDA DATE June 19, 2001 DEPARTMENT' Planmng & Development Department CM/DCM/ACM. Dave Hdl, 349-8314 ~ SUBJECT Consider and take action on a request for rehef from the Residential Interim Zoning Regulations, Ordinance 2000-046 for approximately 17 acres generally located 1,000 feet southwest of the intersection of Robinson Road and Pine Hills Lane The property is in a One-faunly dwelling (SF-7) zomng &strict A smgle-famdy subdivision is proposed (RR-01-0006, Braewood at Oakmont, Phase 3) BACKGROUND An application for request for relief from the Residential Interim Regulations has been received (see Attachment 1) Background information regarding the current status of this case is provided tn Attachment 2 Ordinance 2000-046, known as the Residential Interim Regulations, was adopted by City Council on February 1st, 2000 Th~s ordinance contmns standards with which residential development projects must comply until the Code Rewnte project is completed and permanent standards are adopted Ordinances 2000-046 also contmns a separate section that allows apphcants to request relief from the interim regulations, including evaluation criteria to be used by Council Section F Rehef Procedures 1 The applicant may petition the City Council for rehef from these interim development regulations by requesting such rehef in writing 2 The City Council shall not relieve the applicant from the reqmrements of this ordinance, unless the applicant first presents cre&ble evidence from which the City Council can reasonably conclude that the imposition of the resident~al density limitations or other development standards deprives the applicant of a vested property right or deprives the applicant of the economically viable use of his land 3 In deciding whether to grant relief to the applicant, the City Council shall take into consideration the following (a) whether granting relief from the residential density limitations or other development standards contained in these interim development regulations, in the absence of permanent revisions to the City's Land Development Code that implement the provisions of the comprehensive plan jeopardizes the C~ty's best interests in preventing such effects, (b) the suitability of the proposed res~dentml uses in hght of land uses allowed ~n the zoning districts on property adjacent to the proposed site, (c) the impact of the proposed resident~al use on the transportation and other public facilities systems affected by the development, (d) the measures proposed to be taken by the applicant to prevent negative impacts of the proposed use on the neighborhood, 1 (e) the likelihood that sufficient relief will be prowded to the applicant following adoption of the City's Development Code, (0 the total expenditures made ~n connection with the proposed residential development in rehance on prior regulations, ~nclud~ng the costs of mstalhng ~nfrastructure to serve the project, (g) any fees reasonably prod ~n connection with the proposed use, (h) any representations made by the City concerning the project and reasonably rehed upon to the detriment of the applicant 4 The C~ty Council may take the following actions (a) deny the rehef request, (b) grant the rehefrequest, or (c) grant the rehef request subject to conditions consistent w~th the criteria set forth in this secnon 5 Any rehef granted by the C~ty Counml shall be the minimum deviation from ordinance reqmrements necessary to prevent deprivation of a vested property right OPTIONS Councxl may either 1 Deny the request for relief, or 2 Grant the request for relief, or 3 Grant the request for relief, subject to conditions consistent w~th the evaluation criteria set forth ~n the ordinance (and referenced above) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the decision of whether or not to grant the requests for relief should be based on the merits of each mchvldual apphcatlon ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Revww schedules are discussed ~n the attachments PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW Two petitions were reviewed on June 5, 2001 1 The Vintage - approved 2 H~ghland Park & Westena - approved One petition was reviewed on February 20, 2001 1 Oaks ofMontec~to - approved One petition was rewewed on November 28, 2000 1 Good Samaritan V~llage - approved One petition was reviewed on September 26, 2000 1 Longndge Estates - approved 2 One pemlon Was reviewed on August 15, 2000 1 Bellalre North Addlt~on- approved One petmon was rewewed on May 2, 2000 1 Doyle Add~tmn - approved Two peUt~ons were rewewed on April 18, 2000 1 Evers Park - approved 2 Summit Oaks Addition, Phase II - approved Five petitions were reviewed on April 4, 2000 1 Lakewew Ranch - approved 2 Audra Oaks - approved 3 Robinson Oaks - demed 4 Belle Bryan Apartments - approved 5 Behmng Place - approved Two petitions were reviewed on March 7, 2000 1 Shadow Brook Place- approved 2 Beverly Park Estates - approved One petition was reviewed on February 15, 2000 1 Golden Tnangle Joint Venture (Z-99-096) - approved FISCAL INFORMATION The petitions are being processed and brought to Council using existing staff resources ATTACHMENTS 1 Staffreport Respectfully submitted Douglas S Powell, AICP Darector of Planning and Development 3 Attachment 1 WAIVER REQUEST - (RR-01-0006) BRAEWOOD AT OAKMONT, PHASE III STAFF REPORT BACKGROUND' Request Relief from the Res~denbal Interim Regulations (Ordinance No 00-046) to proceed w~th final platbng A s~ngle-fam~ly subd~ws~on ~s proposed Location Generally located 1,000 feet southwest of the Robinson Road and H~lls Lane intersect~on Zomng SF-7 Acreage 5 105 acres Platting The property ~s not final platted Comp Plan Consistency The subject s~te ~s located ~n the Ex~sbng Ne~ghborhoods/Inflll Compat~b~hty d~strlct New development in th~s d~str~ct should respond to ex,sting development w~th compatible land uses, patterns and design standards Staff finds the proposed development consistent w~th the comprehensive plan CONCLUSION Additional Approvals Without Rel,ef W~th Rehef Zoning Plan Not Required Not Required ProJect Plan Not Required Not Required Design Plan Not Required Preliminary Plat Approved Approved F~nal Plat Building Permits ENCLOSURES 1 Zomng Map 2 Appl~cabon RR-01 0003 (The Vintage) ~1~ t~ Prepared By Larry Re~chhart 1 ENCLOSURE1 Phase III . / -- ~ NORTH ZONING MAP RR-01 0003 (The Vintage) Prepared By Larry Remhhart AoBnda N0 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Date AGENDA DATE' June 19, 2001 DEPARTMENT Plan nmg & Development D~part me nt CM/DCM/ACM' Dave Hill, 349-8314 SUBJECT Constder and take action on a request for rehef from the Non-Residential Interim Zomng Regulations, Ordinance 2000-069 for approxtmately 0 2 acres located at 315 W Sycamore Street The property ts zoned Multt-fam~ly res~dentml (MF-1) A Planned Development (PD) zomng d~stnct ~s proposed to allow for a jewelry store (RN-01-0006, 315 W Sycamore) BACKGROUND Ordinance 2000-069, known as the Noares~dentml Intertm Regulations, was adopted by C~ty Councd on March 2nd, 2000 Thls ordinance contmns standards wtth whtch nonresidential development projects must comply until the Code Rewrite project ~s completed and permanent standards are adopted Ordinance 2000-069 also contains a separate section that allows apphcants to request rehef from the ~ntenm regulations, mcluchng evaluation criteria to be used by Counctl 5 Relief reauests a The apphcant may petition the City Council for rehef from these interim development regulatmns by requesting such rehef m writing The request for rehef shall be considered by the C~ty Council m conjunction wtth actmn on the project plan and development apphcatton b The C~ty Cotmc~l shall not reheve the apphcant from the requirements of thts ordmance, unless the apphcant first presents credible ewdence from whtch the City Councd can reasonably conclude that the unposltmn of the nonres~denttal development standards deprives the apphcant of a vested property right or deprives the apphcant of the econonucally viable use of lus land c In demdmg whether to grant rehef to the apphcant, the City Council shall take ~nto consideration the following (l) whether granting rehef from the nonres~denttal standards contamed m these interim development regulations, m the absence of permanent rewslons to the C~ty's Land Development Code that tmplement the prov~smns of the comprehensive plan jeopardh~es the Ctty's best interests ~n preventing such effects, (2) the smtabthty of the proposed nonresidential uses in light of land uses allowed m the zomng thstncts on property adjacent to the proposed site, (3) the tmpact of the proposed nonresidential use on the transportation and other public facfl~ttes systems affected by the development, (4) the measures proposed to be taken by the apphcant to prevent neganve ~mpacts of the proposed use on the surrotmd~ng properties, (5) the hkelthood that sufficient rehef will be provided to the apphcant followmg adopnon of the City's Development Code, (6) the total expenditures made m connection vath the proposed nonrestdentlal development m rehance on prior regulations, tncludmg the costs of mstallmg infrastructure to serve the project, (7) any fees reasonably prod in connection with the proposed use, and 1 (8) any representations made by the C~ty concerning the project and reasonably rehed upon to the demment of the apphcant d The C~ty Council may take the following acttons (1) deny the rehef request, (2) grant the rehef request, or (3) grant the rehef request subject to contht~ons consistent vath the criteria set forth m th~s sectton 6 Minimum relief Any rehef granted by the C~ty Council shall be the nummum devmt~on from orthnance reqmrements necessary to prevent deprtvatmn of a vested property right OPTIONS Council may ~lther 1 D~ny the request for rehef, or 2 Grant the request for rehef, or 3 Grant the request for relief, subject to condmons consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth m the ordinance (and referenced above) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the decision of whether or not to grant the requests for relief should be based on the mertts of each individual application ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Review schedules are discussed in the attachments PRIOR ACtION/REVIEW Two petitions were reviewed on June 5, 2001 1 Sdmc Dnveqn- approved 2 Umvermy Snack Bar- approved One petatlon was reviewed on April 17, 2001 1 Spencer Road Addition- approved One petition Was reviewed on March 3, 2001 1 1808 N Elm - approved One petition was reviewed on February 20, 2001 1 Social Security office - approved One petition was reviewed on October 17, 2000 1 Peterbuflt parkang lot - approved 2 One petition was reviewed on September 15, 2000 1 Bonme Brae Medical Office - approved One petition was reviewed on June 6, 2000 1 CBS Mechamcal - approved One petition was reviewed on May 2, 2000 1 Momson Milling - approved Two petitions were reviewed on April 18, 2000 1 1013 Shady Oaks - approved 2 Victoria Square Phase II - approved Three petitions were reviewed on April 4, 2000 1 Wildwood Inn- approved 2 Cellular One - approved 3 Payne self-storage - denied Three petitions were reviewed on March 21, 2000 1 1508 N Elm (Z-99-083) - approved 2 1513 N Locust (Z-99-084)- approved 3 RN-W Addition (Z-00-003) - approved In addition, an additional 18 staff initiated petitions were granted relief on March 21, 2000 One petmon was rewewed on March 2, 2000 1 Kerestlne property- approved with conditions FISCAL INFORMATION The petitions are being processed and brought to Cotmcfl using existing staff resources Several of the petitions clmm financial harm, an issue that may be evaluated by Council ATTACHMENTS 1 Staff report Respectfully submitted Douglas S Powell, AICP D~rector of Planning and Development 3 Attachment WAIVlER REQUEST- 3t 5 W. SYCAMORE (RN-0t-0006} STAFF REPORT BACKGROUND Request Relief from the Non-Residential Intenm Regulations (Ordinance No 00-069) to rezone to a Planned Development (PD) zomng d~stnct Locabon 315 W Sycamore St (See enclosure 1) Zoning Multiple-Family Dwelhng D~stnct I (MF-1) Acreage 0 20 + acres Platting The property ~s platted Comp Plan Consistency The subject site ~s located ~n the Developed Areas of the Floodplain within the Downtown University Core D~stnct This area ~s ~ntended to have a m~x of educational, residential, retad, office, service, government, cultural and entertainment development It is a place where residents can hve, work, learn, and play ~n the same neighborhood Development w~th~n the Developed Areas of the Floodplain ~s permitted Staff finds the development consistent w~th the intent of the Comprehensive Plan CONCLUSION. Addl~bonal Approvals Without Rehef With Rehef Zomng Plan Not Required Project Plan Not Required Re-zoning * Not Required Prehm~nary Plat u~red Not Required F~nali Plat Not Required Not Required Budd!~ng Permits** · Re-zoning refers to the zomng process used prior to the ~nterlm regulations ENCLOSiJRES 1 Z0n~ng Map 2 Apphcabon RN 01-0006 (315W Sycamore) Prepared By ,Larry Re~chhart ENCLOSURE1 MULBERRY - , I ! NO SCALE ZONING MAP RN-01 0006 (315W Sycamore) _~F'~'~-. ~ ~ Prepared By Larry Remhhart 2 Age~da Item.._~.~ AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Date AGENDA DATE June 19, 2001 DEPARTMENT' Planning & Development Department CM/DCM/ACM. Dave Hill, 349-8314 ~'~ SUBJECT Consider and take action on a request for relief from the Residential lntenm Zoning Regulations, Ordinance 2000-046 for a 5 105 acre property located at 1710 Morse Street The property is in a One- family dwelhng (SF-7) zoning district A Multi-family zomng district is proposed (RR-01-0005, Denton Housing Authority) BACKGROUND An application for request for rehef from the Residential Interim Regulations has been received (see Attachment l) Background information regarding the current status of this case is provided in Attachment 2 Ordinance 2000-046, known as the Residential Interim Regulations, was adopted by City Council on February 1st, 2000 This ordinance contaans standards with which residential development projects must comply until the Code Rewrite project as completed and permanent standards are adopted Ordinances 2000-046 also contmns a separate section that allows applicants to request relief from the interim regulations, including evaluation criteria to be used by Council Section F Relief Procedures 1 The applicant may petation the City Council for relief from these interim development regulations by requesting such relief in writing 2 The City Council shall not relieve the applicant from the requirements of this ordinance, unless the appheant first presents credible evidence from which the City Council can reasonably conclude that the imposition of the residential density hmltaUons or other development standards deprives the applicant of a vested property right or deprives the applicant of the economically viable use of his land 3 In deciding whether to grant relief to the applicant, the City Council shall take into consideration the following (a) whether granting rebef from the residential density hm~tatlons or other development standards contained in these interim development regulations, m the absence of permanent revisions to the City's Land Development Code that implement the provisions of the comprehensive plan jeopardizes the C~ty's best interests in preventing such effects, (b) the smtabihty of the proposed residential uses in bght of land uses allowed in the zoning districts on property ad3acent to the proposed sate, (c) the Impact of the proposed residential use on the transportation and other public facilities systems affected by the development, (d) the measures proposed to be taken by the applicant to prevent negative impacts of the proposed use on the neighborhood, 1 (e) the likelihood that sufficient relief will be provided to the applicant following adoption of the City's Development Code, (f) the total expenditures made m connection with the proposed residential development in rehance on prior regulations, including the costs of installing infrastructure to serve the project, (g) any fees reasonably paid m connection with the proposed use, (h) any representatuons made by the City concerning the project and reasonably relied upon to the detriment of the applicant 4 The City Council may take the following actions (a) deny the relief request, (b) grant the rehef request, or (c) grant the rehef request subject to conditions consistent with the criteria set forth in this section 5 Any relief glmated by the City Council shall be the minimum deviation from ordinance requirements necessary to prevent deprivation of a vested property right OPTIONS Council may either 1 Deny the request for relief, or 2 Grant the request for relief, or 3 Grant the request for relief, subject to conditions consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth m the ordinance (and referenced above) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the decision of whether or not to grant the requests for relief should be based on the merits of each individual application ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Review schedules are discussed in the attachments PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW Two petitions were reviewed on June 5,2001 1 The Vintage - approved 2 Highland Park & Westerm- approved One petition was reviewed on February 20, 2001 1 Oaks ofMonteclto - approved One petition was reviewed on November 28, 2000 1 Good Samaritan Village - approved One petition was reviewed on September 26, 2000 1 Longndge Estates - approved 2 One petmon was rewewed on August 15, 2000 1 Bellmre North Addition- approved One petmon was reviewed on May 2, 2000 1 Doyle Addition- approved Two petmons were reviewed on April 18, 2000 1 Evers Park- approved 2 Summit Oaks Addition, Phase II- approved Five petitions were reviewed on April 4, 2000 1 Lakevlew Ranch- approved 2 Audra Oaks - approved 3 Robinson Oaks - demed 4 Belle Bryan Apartments - approved 5 Behnmg Place - approved Two petitions were reviewed on March 7, 2000 1 Shadow Brook Place - approved 2 Beverly Park Estates - approved One petmon was rewewed on February 15, 2000 1 Golden Triangle Joint Venture (Z-99~096) - approved FISCAL INFORMATION The petitions are being processed and brought to Council using existing staff resources ATTACHMENTS 1 Staff report Respectfully submitted Douglas S Powell, AICP Director of Plarmlng and Development 3 Attachment 1 WAIVER REQUEST - (RR-01-O005) DENTON HOUSING ATHORITY STAFF REPORT BACKGROUND: Request Relief from the Res~denbal Interim Regulations (Ord;nance No 00-046) to proceed w~th a zoning application to rezone the subject s~te from One-family dwelhng (SF-7) zoning d~str~ct to a Mulb-fam~ly (MF-1) zomng d~str~ct Mulbfam~ly affordable housing is proposed Location Generally located on the south s~de of Morse Street west of Woodrow at 1710 Morse Street Zomng SF-7 Acreage 5 105 acres Platting The property ~s not platted Comp Plan Consistency The subject s~te ~s located ~n the Ex~st~ng Nelghborhoods/Infill Compatlb;hty d~str~ct New development ~n th~s d~str~ct should respond to ex~sbng development w~th compabble land uses, patterns and design standards Multi-family development may be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, but Is dependent on the s~te design and architectural treatment proposed CONCLUSION' Add,flonal Approvals Without Rehef With Rehef Zoning Plan Not Required Project Plan Not Required Re-Zoning * Preliminary Plat Flnall Plat Building Permits · R~ zoning refers to the zoning process used prior to the interim regulabons ENCLOS[JRES 1 Zomng Map 2 Apphcabon RR 01-0003 (The Vintage) Prepared By Larry Re~chhart ENCLOSURE1 I $F-7 I NO SCALE ZONING MAP RR 01-0003 (The V~ntage) Prepared By LamJ Re~chhart 2 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AOBnda No. O! - 0 ~ _.~ A~nda item. AGENDA DATE: June 19, 2001 DEPARTMENT' Planning Department DCM' David Hill, 349-8314'~ .y ~ SUBJECT - V-01-0004 (Hdls of Arkie Phase 3) Consider ~d t~c action on a v~cc ~om Section 34-114(17) of thc Code of Ordm~cc, concerning mdewalks for H~lls of ~lc Phase 3 Subd~wmon Thc 171 acre rote ~s located east of the intersection of Ch~pp]ng C~pden Road ~d H~ghway 377 The prope~y xs m Agricultural (A) zomng district A mnglc-f~dy subd~v~mon ~s proposed Thc Plying ~d Zoning Co~ssxon recommends approval of a p~ml v~cc (4-2) w~th condmons BACKGROUND The apphcant is proposing to develop 171 acres into 72 estates residential lots, 2 lots for future non-residential uses, and 1 open space/drainage lot The proposed development is the last phase of an approximately 305 acre development Two previous phases were developed using estate roads and no sidewalk The property is not platted and will need to be platted prior to development The Subchvlmon Regulations require public improvements ~ncludlng sidewalks to be constructed The applicant proposes no sidewalks along local streets based on the small amount of traffic generated by the proposed development and to make the proposed development aesthetically compatible with previous phases OPTIONS 1 Approve as submitted 2 Approve wRh condmons 3 Deny 4 Postpone consideration 5 Table item P&Z SUGGESTED RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zomng Commxss~on recommends approval (4-2) with the following condition 1 Sidewalks shall be provided along both sMes of all local streets except cul-de-sac streets ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Bmld~ng permits can be issued upon the approval of the final plat 1 PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology of V-01-0004, commonly known as Hills of Argyle Phase 3 Subdivision Apphcatlon Date - February 5, 2001 P&Z Date - May 23, 2001 FISCAL INFORMATION Development of this property will ~ncrease the assessed value of the city, county, and school district Development of this property will no reqmre short-term pubhc ~mprovements that are the respons~bahty of the city ATTACHMENTS 1 Planning and Zomng Commission Report, May 23, 2001, V-01-0004 2 Plarmlng and Zomng Commission minutes from May 23, 2001 3 Apphcant's letter Respectfully subm~tted~,, Douglas S Powell, AICP D~rector of Planning and Development Prepared by Deborah %era, ~ Planner I 2 ATTACHMENT 1 I A§enda No ~/. Memo Agenda Item //,~ To Plmanmg end Zonmg Comnusmon Fmm Dawd Salmon, P E Asmstent D~rector of Engineering Date 5/16/01 Re Sidewalk Vanence for Hills of Argyle Addition The former Hammer & Nash Engineering Compeny (now Isbell Engineering), represent]ng the owner of the proposed Hills of Argyle Phase 2 Sub(hv]mon located near the Northeast comer of Hwy 377 end Brush Creek Road, apphed for a vanence of sect]on 34-114(17) of the Code of Ordmmaces concemmg sidewalks The subject sect]on of the ordmmaee requtres that sidewalks be mstalled along Hwy 377 end on both sides of all mtenor streets The apphcent m propusmg to sub&wde the property into 73 large remdent]al lots rengmg from 1 to 3+ acres, two commereml lots facing Hwy 377 end one open space lot The applicant proposes to install sidewalk along Hwy 377, however proposes no sidewalk improvements on the interior of the subdlwmon The appbcent bases the reason for the vanence request on the large cost per lot for the subject improvements eonmdenng the current development proposal The Commission may recommend that flus exact]on var]mace be approved by the City Cotmefl if the following criterion is met (b) Criteria for vanenees from development exact]ons Where the comrmsmon finds that the mapomt]on of eny development exaetton pursuant to these regulat]ons exceeds eny reasonable benefit to the property owner or m so excessive as to const]tute confiscaUon of the tract to be platted, it may recommend approval of var]maces to waive such exaction's, so as to prevent such excess, to the City Council Waiver of developmental exactions shall be approved by the Clt~ Council Staff recommends demal of the var]mace The reqmred interior sidewalk would cost approximately $104,000 or about $1,385 per lot Based on ma average smgle-farmly lot m Dmaton, $1,150 per lot would be average Based on thru, staff recommends that the sidewalk be installed on both redes of the interior street as the cost per lot m not mgmficantly over the average In fact, m some of the larger lot subdlvtmons such as Forrestndge, sidewalks average about $1350 per lot It should be noted, that interior sidewalks may be constructed individually wath each home end would not need to be constructed with the streets In addmon, sidewalks would enable residents to walk outside of the street to get to the reereat]onal open space mad to future uses fronted on Hwy 377 wtueh could be neighborhood service oriented Recommended Motion' I move that we recommend to the C~ty Council denial of the variance of section 34-114 (17) for Hills of Argyle Phase 3 for s~dewalks on interior streets as the cost of mstallmg all the s~dewalks reqmred would not exceed reasonable benefit to the property owners or residents ®P~e2 NORTH V-01-0004 & V-01-0007 (Hills of Argyle Phase 3) LOCATION MAP Scale None 5 / YR FLOOD PLAIN '\, ,~ = LO 64~ COMM© / LIMIT FROM MAP 4 FED APRIL \' ATTACHMENT 2 Page 15 I 1 $1,150 00 to build the sidewalk for that lot When you 2 Tha next item on tbe Agenda m tho Hdls of 2 look at subdivisions such as Forestndge or possibly some 3 Argyla and th~s m individual conmdesat~on and tl~s as 3 sections of Montec~to and look at those lots that hava 4 Phase 3 of a 171-aen~ site It's located east of tha 4 sMewalks, $1,350 00 and m that rang~ m not at all 5 intersection of Highway 377 and Chipping Campdan Road 5 unusual, m not an unusual cost to spend, to put sidewalks 6 The property is an A~neulturul, A, zoning district A 6 on a residentml lot So looking at tlus from a cost 7 75-1ot subdlvisien Is proposed 7 standpoint, staff cannot recommend thc vananca 8 ,And tho first part of this item is Item A,, 8 One last point, I guess, wa would hka to make 9 .:.which is conmdes an exaction vananca for SecU0n, 9 ~s that the subdlwslon docs have an open space 10 34 114(17) of the Coda of Ordinances concerning mdewalks~ 10 recreational lot at the tear and has two potential 11 and that will be presented by Mr Salmon, 11 commercial lots at the front, and it would certainly seem 12 MR SALMON Thank you, Chair, members of tho 12 to us that mdewalks would enable residents to traverse 13 Commission eno thing I would laka to mention this 13 between some possible neighborhood service uses that could 14 evemng, this Is Item A, Item B has linen pulled So after 14 occur on the front m the future and also to some of the 15 conmderat~on of Item A, I think wa'd be going onto Item C 15 recreational uses that will occur in thc open spans lot 16 which DaM Houltmg will be presenting 16 I'll be glad to answer any questions you aught 17 MR RISHEL Thank you, Mr Salmon 17 have I suspect the applicants or therr representatives ! 8 MR REICHHART And we'll clarify that as wa 18 are here this evemng and may have someffung to add 19 get into the approval of the preliminary plat, but we've 19 you'd hke for them to speak 20 worked out anoth~ arrangement with the applicant that 20 MR RISHEL We have soma questions Ms 21 would provlda access to that property and not change the 21 Oourdle 22 configuration of tho layout 22 Ms OOUROIE Thank you I do have a question 23 MR RtaHEL Thank you, Mr Rmchhar~ Mr 23 concerning the sidewalks I'm wondering ~s there any way 24 Salmon, please 24 to do a partial vamanca since that the ones that are on 25 MR SALMON Item A, of course, is a variance 25 the cul de sacs be axcused from the sidewalk and tho main Page 14 Page 16 I of the sidewalk requirements that ar~ m our subdivision 1 roads that thc traffic will be traversing down be the 2 regulations The apphaant m th~s case bas agreed to 2 mdcwalked areas9 To me it's kmd of -- the cul-de-sacs 3 install sidewalks along tho Highway 377 frentago, however, 3 are protected, in my mind, but the main roads aren't, so 4 has asked for a vanenca of installing sidewalks on the 4 Is there any way to offer that out'~ 5 internal street shown on tho plat that we've got on the 5 MR SALMON The Planning & Zoning Commission 6 overhead Tho applicant m subdividing the property into 6 could choose to recommend a partial variance If that 7 73 large remdantlal lots ranging from one to three acres 7 was -- 8 and two commercial lots facing Highway 377 and eno open 8 MS GOURDIE But Is that sometlung that's 9 space lot 9 been done before in the City9 10 Tho applicant bases the reason lot'S'the 10 MR SALMON We have had some cases where even 11 variance re, quest on tho large cost of installing sidewalks 11 staff has recommended similar variances when the lots are 12 on lots that are this large and in a rural setting 12 extramely large So I think there may be soma precedent 13 Because the rationale for the variance is based on the 13 In doing that 14 cost of the public improvement compared with tho type of 14 MS GOURDIE Thank you 15 development and size of development, flus would maka it an 15 MR RISHEL Any other questions9 Any other 16 exaction vananea which is one that you'll be making a 16 questions of staff? Ms Holt 17 recommendataon on to the City Council And tbe exact:on 17 MS HOLT Could you show me whore the open 18 variance criteria is hated in your backup 18 space 19 In this casa staff is going to recommend 19 MR SALMON The open space is back here 20 domal of tho variance Wa'ye calculated that tho 20 I've got it sort of outhncd tn orange It's a large lot 21 interior sidewalks on this subchvlsion would cost in tho 21 In the back It's in a floodplmn area 22 range of $104,000 00 If you break that up per lot, it 22 MR RISHEL Any other questlons of staff9 Is 23 comes out to be about $1,385 00 per lot for the internal 23 the owner or representative here9 And if you'd please 24 side,yolk Wben you look at an averag~ mza lot in the 24 state your name and address9 25 City of l~nton in a subdivision, on average it costs about 25 MR HOLLAND Mr Chou'man, Commissioners, my THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSI¢ Y 23, 2001 Page 13 - Page 16 7 CondenseItTM Page 17 Page 19 ,name is Bflan Holland I'm with Realty Capital MR HOLLAND NO All three phases actually 2 Corporation We're the developer of the subdivision 2 access Phase 1, tf you see, ts hastcally everything 3 Th~s is Jack Dyer with Isbell Engineemng He's our 3 south of thxs orange line here and it connects all the way 4 engmeenng representative 4 over to here, so there's trails And what you don't see 5 One thing about the Hills of Argyle, we am in 5 on thts is the intricate trml system that we do have 6 our third phase on ll~s pro3eet and th~ £xst two phases 6 currently throughout the open space 7 did have a venance for s~dewalk request, and those sit 7 And we've set astde about 100 foot wtde green 8 south of our exisOng thn.d phase and the~ ~s no sidewalk 8 space or trml easement through the center of these center 9 on the street in any of the previous subdivision So to 9 lots where we ant~ctpate on putting a stdewalk down 10 put sidewalk m th~s thud phase is really just kind of a 10 through the mtddle here that will actually rte Into thts 11 it doesn't really conform wath the rest of the 11 stdewalk that runs along thts drainage flume and on back 12 eommumty It's not really a cost cons~deraOon It's 12 mto the common area So there will be internal walkways 13 more of a Just conformance with everything else that's 13 to get people on the back stde through to flus front area, 14 gone on out there 14 as well 15 Also, it's a verf rural - I'm sure many of 15 MS GOURDIE HOW many cul-de-sacs and so 16 you have probably seen the Hills of Argyle It's a thn.ly 16 forth do you have m the first two phases, do you recall? 17 rural community with bar ditches There is no curb and 17 MR HOLLAND I don't know It*s probably 18 gutter So the location of sidewalks ~s also somewhat 18 five or stx cul-de-sacs 19 difficult Wben you have bar ditches that fall du~ectly 19 MS GOURDIE And how many homes are purchased 20 off the side of your road, trying to get a sidewalk then 20 at tius moment~' Are they all built out? 21 onto the property line is basically where you're looking 21 MR. HOLLAND They're all built out All the 22 at trying to put that 22 lots are sold, I should say, and some people have bought 23 So a's not really a cost consideration It's 23 lots holdmg them to build tn the future 24 more just t~ymg to conform wtth what we've done, what the 24 MS GOURDIE I've drtven through that and I 25 Cormmsslco has - what we vaned from m the past, both 25 do fmd the roads to be somewhat nerve-recking because Page 18 Page 20 I the Planning Cormmsston and the City Council and that's I there ~s that steep slope m which you fall down lnt~ the 2 the reason for the vananee 2 drainage area And when I was there with my friend we 3 MR RISHEL MS {~ourdle 3 were looking for homes for her and she was concerned that 4 MS GOURDIE I do have a questton concerning 4 was one of her b~g concerns was that the roads were very 5 the other two phases They're just to the south, ts that 5 rural, very narrow and she had three boys and she would 6 correct, of the property? 6 not have felt comfortable even m these b:g huge lots you 7 MR HOLLAND Yes, ma'am 7 know walking from one place to the other, and that was 8 MS (}OURDIE And how many homes were built tn 8 one of the dra;'~backs that she felt for thc commumty 9 thOse pheses9 9 And being from that perspecUvc, when 1 saw l0 MR HOLLAND'~ I think there's a total of about 10 th:s, I thought well, here's one person who loved what Il 110 lots and it's completely sold out at tlus point Il she saw but sbe had her concern for her famdy foremost 12 MS COUP, DIE DO any of them connect to 377 12 over the esthencs of the area So that's why I'm in this 13 except for one road? 13 mode of, you know, how can we make this work to the 14 MR HOLLAND NO, ma'am 14 benefit of anybody who droves through there and loves what 15 MS GOURDIE None of them9 They're all 15 they see but they're uncomfortable with the roads and the 16 internal roads? 16 way that then' fanuly ~s going to proceed through there 17 MR HOLLAND It connects to Brush Creek on 17 MR HOLLAND And I can apprecmte that The 18 the south 18 first two phases have gone tremendously well, so, I mean 19 MS COUP, DIE okay So there's no internal 19 from a marketing standpoint, it's not a hindrance to us 20 entries off of Htghway 377? 20 ~ns c, oue, om or you don't know that it is 21 MR HOLLAND Right 21 I'm just saying that there's -- right 22 MS COURDIE SO th!.s ts the only one? Okay 22 MR HOLLAND well ~t's growing fast enough 23 Secondly, do any of the other, just the one -- phase one, 23 and -- yeah So obwously, ~t's done fairly well so 24 I guess, tS the only one that accesses the green open 24 we're fairly pleased with everything that's happened 25 spaced area? 25 MS aouaom Thank you THE PLAN-NqNG AND ZONING COMMISSIC Y 23, 2001 Page 17 - Page 20 8 CondtmseltTM Page 21 Page 23 MR HOLLAND Can I answer any other I MR WILLIAMS Yes And then I ask City staff 2 questions? 2 the question I need to ask them at that time, but first -- 3 MR RISHEL MS Holt 3 because one of you guys said one thing and one said 4 MS HOLT DO the other two phases opan up 4 another I'm confused 5 into th~s area on 377 at all? 5 MR HOLLAND Mr Williams, we're requesting 6 MR HOLLAND NO, ma'am 6 the vanence because on the two previous plats that have 7 MS HOLT SO there'S no connection 7 been filed through thc City of Denton, we've gotten 8 MR HOLLAND This ts our only access to 377 8 variances on thc sidewalk issue, so it's somewhat of 9 and then tt winds down and goes south and ties into Brush 9 conformance to keep the whole community looking and l0 Creek l0 conforming basically the same way I MS HOLT okay 11 The other item is is that it is a rural, 12 MR RISHEL commissioners, any other comments 12 rurally designed commumty with -- there is no curb and 13 or questions9 Mr Moreno 13 gutter You have asphalt and then bar ditches that fall 14 MR MORENO Yes, sir Mr Salmon's memo to 14 off the end of the bar thtahes There's really very 15 us says that the reason for the variance request Is based 15 httle room for sidewalks within the right-of-way because 16 on the large cost per lot And what I heard you say is 16 you do have the bar ditches as opposed to storm sewer 17 that's not flue 17 And so those am the two main issues on why we've 18 MR HOLLAND l've never presented that to the 18 requested the variance 19 staff and I don't know if our engmeenng department has 19 MR WILLIAMS $0 it has nothing to do with 20 or not 20 cost~ 21 MR DYER 1 think basically tt was termed as 21 MR HOLL3,ND I mean, cost Is a consideration, 22 an exaction variance based on cost, but there was also in 22 by all means 23 the back of our minds the issue surrounthng the feet that 23 MR WILLIAMS Thank you 24 the previous subthvtslon didn't have any sidewa~ks mtt 24 MR RISHEL commissioners, any other 25 and it was a rural subdivision So the thinking was all 25 questions of the petittoner'~ Thank you, gentlemen Page 22 Page 24 those issues would come up at this time and we would I Ma HOLLAND May I ask a teehmcal quesuon~ 2 probably just discuss them 2 If this variance ~s denied how does that affect the plat 3 MR MORENO okay I'm going to ask a strange 3 moving forward? 4 question, but without sidewalks, where would people walk' 4 MR RISHEL Mr Re~chhart 5 MR HOLLAND Well, that's what my pomt was 5 Ma RElCHI',ART [ don't think we could approve 6 We have a large greenbelt down through the center here 6 the plat without -- I mcan, if the variance is dented the 7 We've got trads and open -- all through the open spaces, 7 plat doesn't show sidewalks It would need to show 8 tf you've been out to the Hills of Argyle, you would see 8 sidewalks So we could either table the ~tem or 9 that we've probably got almost a nule and a half to two 9 d~sapprove it, is the two options, I behove 10 m~l~ of existing trail right now I mean, there's a 10 MR SNYOEI', since this IS an exaction 11 large lake with wallong services around It So throughout 11 variance, it has to go to Council So this would just be 12 thc whole ~bdtvtslon, we have ways to get access for 12 a recommendation here tonight And, m fact, we d~scussed 13 people to walk 13 this this morning at pre-P&Z and I think, Larry, the 14 MR MORENO okay Iguessldldn'thear that 14 pracecelstO lfa'sonaprehmmaryplat to- 15 before Thanks 15 Ma RmCHHART ~t's typically approved on thc 16 MR RISHEL commissioners, any other 16 conthtlon that the variances are approved 17 questions9 Carl Williams 17 Ma SNYDER Approved by C~ty Council So ~n 18 MR WILLIAMS Yeah Pmoueoftheslow 18 effect, lfthcCouncddldn'tapprovelt, you'd have to go 19 Commissioners And when you tell me one thing and 19 onto Council m any event then the result would be bke a 20 somebody says Pm going to do someflung else, I get 20 denial because that condition wouldn't have been met 21 totally confused In other words, are you concerned about 21 Ma NOLt~A~O okay Thank you 22 COSt or esthetics or the way the community looks* Because 22 MR RISHEL staff ~ Salmon, any further 23 I'm hearing too many different answers 23 closing comments that you'd like to make? 24 MR HOLLAND YOUr question ts why we're 24 MR SALMON well, not really I guess the 25 requestttlg the variance') Is that -- 25 only comment I would make, and as Ma' Snyder mentioned a THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSI¢ Y 23, 2001 Page 21 - Page 24 9 CondonscItTM Page 25 Page 27 I httle blt, we basically have two types of variances One I rater-connects so what I envision happening ts that 2 called a physical hardstup variance and thc other one 2 traffic is going to come off 377, :ap down and head into 3 called an e~act~on vanancc An cxection variance mostly 3 the neighborhood or they're be conung off the Brash Creek 4 has to do with a pa~cular improvement either cost~ng too~ 4 Country Club Road 5 much or rooking the development not cost effective or 5 So we have two major entry points and one of 6 possibly being so heavy that it would cause, you know, a 6 them being 377 and I just think for safety's sake that thc 7 utlang of the property 7 sidewalks are necessary on the major internal streets I 8 A physical hardslmp variance, and that's th~ 8 don't sec them necessary on the cul-de-sacs, so to speak, 9 land of variance that the Planning & Zoning Comnussion can 9 to maintain that open rural feel But bern§ that this is 10 grant, is typically a situation wher~ if the apphcant 10 a heavier -- going to be a heavier used subdivision area 11 mad to follow the City roles or subthwslon mgulataons, 11 with major accesses, I just feel that it's ~mportant to 12 it would ba physically anposslbl* to do so Either the 12 have sidewalks available to the residents being that 13 slope is too staep or the shape of the lot doesn't allow 13 they're not going to be as secluded as the other two 14 it or, you lmow, or It'S heavily treed and you're llomg to 14 phases 15 have to cut all the tr~s down or some very unusual 15 So I would like to make a motion for a partial 16 physical situataon that has to do with thc shape or 16 variance of sidewalks, that sidewalks -- or make a 17 topography of the property that makes it almost unpossible 17 recommendation to City Courted that a partial variance be 18 or impossible to complete 18 granted to permit sidewalks -- I don't know how to word 19 So I think that's why we re looking at an 19 this -- to not be put on the cul-de-sac areas but to be in 20 exaction variance here because there's really no physical 20 the major arterials Are they collectors or arterials9 21 reason why you couldn't bmld sidewalks out hero It may 21 Through streets Okay Thank you 22 not necessarily be In k~pmg Wlth thc atmosphare that the 22 MR MORENO I'll second that 23 developer IS trying to create, but that isn't neaessanly 23 MR RISHEL It'S been moved and seconded 24 a physical hardship, at least in staff's looking at tho 24 Any further dtscusston* Ms Apple 25 vananc¢ 25 MS APPLE I'1l be voting against the motion Page 26 Page 28 I MR RISHEL Mr Snyder I only because on these large one to thru-acre lots I 2 MR SNYDER Mr Salmon, can you tell us what 2 ttunk that they do have a concept of how the subdivision 3 type of variances were granted in the two previous phases? 3 and the neighborhood fe~ls I think ~t has a rural 4 Were they exaction variances or hardship variances? 4 atmosphere and I think that sidewalks m one ama of th~s 5 MR SALMON They were exaction variances If 5 project might be a drawback from the overall feel of tlus 6 there arc any other questions, I'll be glad to answer 6 So I'll be voting against the motion 7 them 7 MR RISHEL Mr Wdhams 8 MR RISHEL commissioners, any other 8 MR WILLIAMS [II be voting for thc motion 9 questions? MI' Wtlhams, please 9 in that I don't think that they had a legal reason for a 10 MR WILLIAMS Yes, Mr Salmon What was the 10 variance 11 staff's re~om-rnendation on the previous variances9 11 MR RISHEL The petitioner has asked to speak 12 MR SALMON on the previous variances, staff 12 and I'd lthe to poll the Counmssion to sen what their 13 recommellded that they not be approved 13 pleasure is Thc Commission would hke to give you a 14 MR WILLIAMS Okay Thenkyou 14 mmuta 15 MR RISHEL Conumssloners, any other 15 MR HOLLAND Well wejast want to clanfy 16 commentS, questions, or a motion9 Ms Gourdle 16 your motion to sa: whether sidewalk would be on both sides 17 MS OOURDIE I have several concerns as to 17 of thc major streets or on one s~de or how dees that -- 18 not having sidewalks One being that tins Is the only 18 MS OotalOIl~ ! don't know how it's proposed 19 phase that accesses a major highway and that there ts 19 How was the City -- 20 commercial off that highway which people will be 20 Ma REICHHART Both sides 21 accessing, and there is also open space tn which people 21 MS OOUaDIE Both sides? Okay It would be 22 will be accessing, wluch I feel differentiates tt from the 22 as both sides, please Thank you 23 other two phases winch are internal roads And I see that 23 Ma RISltEL Thank you, Comnussion Any 24 as a very different use I also see that if they all -- 24 further comment? It's bean moved and seconded And I 25 do they all rater-connect9 I'm assuming that each phase 25 presume we wdl please vote The motion comes 4 2 THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSI' i0 kY 23, 2001 Page 25 - Page 28 CondenseltTM Page 291 31 I (COMMISSIONERa APPLE AND RISHEL VOTED tN VarlallC~ iS, one, it'S a large lot, two, we have 2 O~I~OSITION) ~ drainage and trail easement 3 MI~ RISHEL That vail movc us on to the r We typtcally don't get easeme~ts t 4 ~, I~lag B of 4 We g smc~ 5 5 ' have fences 6 Section' 6 obstructlot 7 open flumes 7 of our )ur 8 8 ~ has been lots to have 9 this is but I'll 9 we d~d recommend 10 Bnlsh Creek Road, I 1 10 dental of a sumlar ' two months ago in 11 I want to a 11 this particular case 12 from staff, I beh~'¢, was 12 a a nutshell what ts 13 of y 13 happening on Phas~ 3 'Is recommending approval 14 rccommeildatlon In 14 of the cxactton xanance V-01-0007, to support 15 Also, I 15 the concrete ttpe system 16 16 MR R]SHEL 17 17 MS r m~, rs thc 18 for Phases,1 18 the side of 19 now Th~ front of 19 the flume9 20 tl~ same 20 MR v,e had thscusse, 21 that fi 21 options md, obviously, wc 22 92 to actuall 23 ~yst~n Provlous on Phases 1 and 23 ,l from thc concrete flume But, obx 24 tpproval of the dramag~ vannnc¢ to 2524 that nore spac~ and more loss of treos T'ms 25 allow th~, rostead of an enclosed plpo systom, to put in h~s be~n put forward I pilot channel to serve for f have a ten-foot flat bottom xmh s 2 and 2 and as a tnuI s 3 3 Phase 1 and 2 are that same way 4 Ijonty of the is handled 4 how 5 Driveway c to carry 5 Maybe further 6 the drainage to the other for 6 ptloas t t and, 7 all the ~ or two enclosed pipe 7 certainly, 8 systems on Phase 1 ~ know 8 MS 9 What they're I on Phase 3 ts to use 9 Ws used the k~ds are l0 the concrete flume as, I' Phase 1 and 2 as a 10 trying to get home, the flow or ff they I l hike and b~ke trail common area, along with 11 stop to drily, y get 12 a drainage flume ~t the variance actually 12 caught tn it or somebody g E~ en though it's a 13 apphes to ts from 13 slx-inch curb, can pop themselves 14 cBl-de-sa~, this The a~tua! 's in this 14 up, but people aren't ~p in a 15 partlcula~ criteria fo~ enclosed pipe 15 flow Has flus ever a sttuattot should be 16 system, it can be In an open 16 concerned over9 17 is ten fee~ it also 17 MR ~ell, obviously, 18 that is one of t] 18 r~[tllrcs ~.. 19 section, 19 alternative tc :o get a h~ke and b~ke tnul ( 20 that )f trees 20 ~'ater You also ha%e trngatton 21 have to happon Irt 21 ; their yard, rs going 22 22 , down th~s 23 syst~, and then over th~ top of that) put thctr 23 :'ye looked at a parttcular design to take 2~ trail which would serve as access 24 cans t n'ngat~en water, to try and push marc of the 25 And one of the reasons the staff is supporting 25 the rmddle or to one s~de or the other so people ;rilE PLANNING AND ZON1NG COMMISS] .... '~-Y 2001 Page 29 - Page 32 ATTACHMENT 3 Realty Capital Corporation Bryan L. Holland Developer Etty of Denton Honorable Mayor and C~ty Councg. C/O Deborah Viera, Planning & Dovelopmcnt ~LANNING & DEVELOPMENT Ctty Hall West 221 N Elm Street Denton, Texas ']6201 Re Varmuce Request for the Exclumon of Sidewalks at the H~lls of Argyle - Phase Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members Before you for conmderatmn m a ~muance request for the exclusion of sidewalks v~thln the third ph.~e of The I4,11~ of Argyle C~ty staff has requested that we address ,a letter to your attention det.~mE the reasons for our request They are as follows 1 The N,11s of Argyle m an estate lot subdmmon wth all lots at least one acre and many of the lots as large as two or more acres Generally m low-density "rural" developments such as The I4~.. of Argyle, street side sidewalks are not reqmred In heu of street rode sidewalks, ~e bare constructed an extensive trad system m and around the open space Phese IH ~ he no dff~'erent In the center of Block B, on the back of Lots 1-8, 12, 13, 14, 24-29 and 31 there wall he a very large trad easement W~thm the tra~ easements, we have budgeted funds to construct a curwlmear fooq0ath (appru×~mately 1.745 lineal feet) and extensive landscaping to connect Phase IH to our exi~ open space and trad system. The trml system also extends from the end of Cavendish Lane east apprommately 1,110 feet to the open space Please see the attached ex~mt for reference 2 With the rural design of The ~ of Argyle, the streets w~thm the commumty are also rural m nature Thru means that m heu of curb and gutter, there ~ be large borrow ditches on each side of the street These borrow ditches are wthm the right-of-way and prowde a safe location for md~wduals to traverse as they walk along the streets Thru type of street design, w~th borrow ditches, also makes it difficult to locate a street side mdewallc Thru m due to the fact thet the d~tches are directly adjacent to the street ~mprovement (asphelt) on one side and the property line on the other 1111 South Mare Street, State 200, Grape,'me, Texas 76021 · ($17) 488-4200 .Fax ($17) 424-2448 12 3 When proccssmg Phase I and Phase II of The H,11.~ of Argyle, the Planning Commmslon and C~y Comml.qslon concurred wth our assessment et' the rural nature of The HiI[q of Argyle and granted a vammce to the stclewalk requirement There are no street s~de s~dewalk~ wlthm Phase I and Phase II With Phase HI, ~ are merely trying to conform to the balance of the community The inclusion of internal s~dewalks/trmis ~ provide residents w~thln Phase HI, ease of connectivity and safe passage to the open space and existing trail system. We do not feel that this request is unreasonable or unjustrfied We further beheve that the walking and tra~ system that we have proposed provides excellent access and a much more desirable community T~ank you for your thoughtful consideration of the variance request We respectfully ask for your support of the variance and ~ be in attendance at the commlsslon meeting to address your questions or concerns In the meanttme, ~f you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at (817) 488-4200, extension 104 Bryan L Holland Project Developer CC lhchard Myers - Rlllg of Argyle Montacello, Ltd Mark Denyer - B~l~ of Argyle Monticello, Ltd Jack Dyer - isben Engmecu'mg IPLANNING & DEYELOp~EN~ 1111 South Mare Str~, State 200, Orape~nne, T~xas 76021 * (817) 4884200 *Fax (817) 424-2448 13 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET A~enaa AGENDA DATE: ~une 19, 2001 DEPARTMENT. Plying D~¢nt ~/ DCM: Davzd Hill, 349-8314 SUBJECT - Exactmn V~ce (V-01-0014) Consider approval of cx~tmn v~ccs ~om Scctmn 34-114(5)b, pcnmct~ pawng, of thc Subdivision ~d L~d Development Regulations for Hobson Village The 37 located no.east of ~c zntcrsectmn of Hobson Road ~d FM 1830 Thc propcAy Is m Agricultural (A) zomng d~stnct Co~crcml ~d residential development ~s proposed The Plying ~d Zomng Co~ssmn reco~cnds dcmal (6-0) BACKGROUND The applicant is representing the owner of the proposed Hobson Village Addition located at thc intersection of Hobson Lane and Country Club Road and has requested a variance based on thc large cost for the reqmred improvements in relation to the proposed use These two variances concern improvements along Hobson Lane, which runs along the south side of the proposed development The applicant is proposing no street improvements along Hobson Lane and is requesting the variance for that purpose The applicant has proposed two possible land use scenarios for the proposed development (see Attachment 1) The first, Concept A, would subdivide the subject tract into 67 units including town homes, patio homes and traditional single-family homes This concept also includes a 6 5 community mixed use center, which could contmn retml, office and multffamily uses The second scenario, Concept B, would subdivide that property Into 7 large single-family lots and one 8 9-acre commercial lot It should be noted that the subject property is currently zoned Agricultural (A) and that rezonlng of the entire property would be required in order for the property to be developed as indicated in Concept A For Concept B, only the proposed commercial portion of the property would be required to be rezoned In determining whether to approve an exaction variance concerning the proposed Hobson Village Addition, City Council must determine if the ~mposltlOn of any development exaction pursuant to the City's Subdlwsion and Land Development regulations exceeds any reasonable benefit to the property owner or is so excessive as to constitute confiscation of the tract to be platted The following paragraphs summarize the staff recommendations and reasoning for the variance request Additional information is provided ~n the attached Planning and Zoning Commission staff reports The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 34-114(5), which requires perimeter pawng 0 e curb and gutter) along Hobson Lane Hobson Lane ~s not currently constructed to C~ty standards. Recommendatton/Reasomng Staffrecommends denial of the variance based on Concept A The development would easily generate over 1,000 vehicle trips per day, all of which would use Hobson Lane to travel east or west If this proposed development occurs, it would be the most intense development on Hobsun Lane Staff recommends a partml variance based on Concept B The smallest of the residential lots is 1 76 acres and would have a m~mmum of 200 feet of frontage along Hobson Lane As such, the cost of improvements on a per lot basis far exceeds the average cost of such improvements for an average single family lot in Denton The cost would be approximately $25,000 per lot for the street improvements Staff recommends that perimeter paving be reqmred along the commercial lot, however PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions) The Planmng and Zoning Commmslon recommends demal (6-0) of a variance of Section 34- 114(5), concermng perimeter pawng, of the Code of Ordinances on May 23,2001 The apphcant has appealed the decision of the Planning and Zomng Commms~on to Ctty Council (see Attachment 3) FISCAL INFORMATION Development of thru property will ~ncrease the assessed value of the city, county, and school d~stnct It will reqmre no short-term pubhc ~mprovements that are the responsthfl~ty of the c~ty ATTACHMENTS 1 Planning and Zomng Commlssmn Report, May 23, 2001, V-01-0014 2 Planning and Zomng Commlssmn M~nutes from May 23, 2001 3 Appeal Letter from Apphcant Dated May 30, 2001 Respectfully submitted D~rector of Planmng and Development Thomas B Gray Planner I ATTACHMENT 1 Agenda Item Memo To Planning and Zoning Commission ~ ~ From David Salmon, P E Assistant Director ofEng~neenng (' ~K)~'' Date 5/17/01 Re Perimeter Paving & Sidewalk Variances for Hobson Village Add]non Caner & Burgess representing the owner of the proposed Hobson Village Addition located at the intersection of Hobson Lane and Country Club Lane has applied for variances of section 34-114, (5) and (17) of the Code of Ordinances concermng perimeter paving and sidewalks The subJeCt sections of the ordinance mqmre that Hobson Lane be nnpmved along the frontage of the development and that sidewalks be constructed along the same frontage as well as Country Club Road and Hwy 377. Hobson Lane is not currently constructed to City standards and there is no sidewalk at that location Country Club Road and Hwy 377 are not subject to perimeter paving as they are owned and operated by TXDOT The applicants are proposing two possible land use scenanos The first (Concept A) is to plat the subject tract, winch will contain 67 housing umts including town homes, patio homes and traditional single farmly homes In adcht~on a 6 4 acre community mixed use center m proposed winch could contam uses such as retml, office and multlfamfly The second scenario (Concept B) m to sub(hwde into 7 large mngle-fanuly lots and one 8 9-acre commercial lot The apphcants propose no street or sidewalk nnprovements on Hobson Lane The apphcants base the mason for the variance request on the large cost for the subjeCt improvements based on the proposed use and site plan making these exaction variances The zomng and site plan have not been approved, so it is important to note that m the case of exaction variances, the variance is tted to the use and site plan that is proposed at the t~me of the variance and winch the variance m based on The Commmmon may reCommend that tins exaction variance be approved by the City Comaml if the followmg cntenon is met (b) Criteria for vanances from development exactions Where the commission finds that the imposition of any development exaction pursuant to these regulations exceeds any reasonable benefit to the property owner or xs so excessive as to constitute confiscation of the tract to be platted, it may recommend approval of variances to wmve such exaction's, so as to prevent such excess, to the City Council Waiver of developmental exactions shall be approved by the City Council 3 The pnce the applicants prod for the parcel, or the cost of the proposed bulldmg ~mprovements is not a factor m detemunmg reasonable costs The question is, are the costs associated w~th the public improvement reasonable and consistent with the type of development proposed and the demand for services that will be created9 The reqmred pawng improvements across the frontage on Hobson Lane would cost the applicants approximately $300,000 and sidewalk improvements approximately $32,000 by staffs estimates Hobson Lane is currently a 2-lane rural section road and ~s designated as a Secondary Major Arterial on the City's Mobility Plan Staff recommends demal of the variances based on Concept A The development would easily generate over 1000 vetucle trips per day all using Hobson lane to travel east or west If approved, ~t will be the most mtense development on Hobson Lane There has been some recent variances granted for development across the street, however all lots were large acre resldentaal Forrest Pddge was platted prior to the perimeter paving reqmrernent In addition, the sectaon of road m question is nearly a half-rmle long and begins at the intersection of Countw Club Road It is chfferent than situations where the subject section of road is 200 or 300 feet long m the m~ddle of a block Concermng the sidewalk, staff thinks a s~dewalk ~s necessary m tins location to connect residents to South Lakes Park and the Neighborhood center where there is hkely going to be neighborhood services given the s~ze and density of the development Staffrecommends pamal variances of the perimeter paving and sidewalks for Concept B As the smallest of the residential lots is 1 76 acres and have a nummum of 200 feet of frontage along Hobson Lane, the cost of the subject maprovements on a per lot basis far exceeds the average cost of such improvements for an average smgle-fanuly lot m Denton The cost would be approxmaately $25,000 per lot for street maprovements and $2000 per lot for sidewalks Staff recommends that perimeter paving and sidewalks are required for the commercial lot Th~s would be consistent with the variance granted on the south s~de of Hobson Lane The paving m ttus scenario would cost about $82,000 and sidewalk about $12,000 Recommended Motions' I move that we recommend to the City Council that a variance of section 34-114 (5) be demed for Hobson Village Addition Concept A for penmeter pawng on Hobson Lane as the amount of the nnprovements would reasonably benefit the property owners and residents and that a partial vanance as recommended by staff be approved for Concept B as the full amount of the ~mprovements would exceed reasonable benefit to the property owners and residents I move that we recommend to the City Council that a vanance of section 34-114 (17) be demed for the Hobson Village Adcht~on Concept A for penmeter sidewalks as the amount of the improvements would reasonably benefit the property owners and residents and that a partial variance as recommended by staff be approved for concept B as the full amount of the improvements would exceed reasonable benefit to the property owners and residents · Page 2 4 Hardship Variance Criteria 1 The imposition of any development exaction pursuant to these regulations exceeds any reasonable benefit to the property owner The estimated cost of perimeter paving and sidewalk improvements along Hobson Lane are in excess of $400,000, or approximately $150 per lineal foot Under Concept "A", approximately 2000 hneal feet of Hobson ns adjacent to residential development, accounting for about 80% of the length of Hobson adjacent to the property, or approximately $320,000 of perimeter ~mprovements There are 67 dwelhng umts proposed for the property Dividing $320,000 by 67 y~elds a cost of $4,800 per dwelhng units Th~s is constderably greater than a typical residential cost of perimeter paving and sidewalks Under concept "B", the cost of penmeter paving and sidewalks on Hobson is approximately $46,000 per single-family dwelling unit Lc~- L i~.'-I Concept "A" Hobson Village In the City of Denton, Texas Land Use Data Total Land Axea 27 3 acres Paao Homes 3 6 acres Perimeter R O W 3 0 acres Zoning Data CommumtyMtxedUse General Develop ible Area 6 4 acres ROW I I acres Total Area 7 5 acres Neighborhood Centers Residential 4 Total Area 19 8 acres 6 Concept "B" Hobson Village In the Ctty of Denton, Texas Land Use Data Total Land Area 27 3 acre~ Commercial (Lot 1) 8 9 acres Residential (Lots 2 8) 15 4 acres Typical Lot Size 1 8 acres Carter,,Burgess Perimeter R 0 W 3 0 acres Zomng Data Neighborhood Centers Residentml 2 7 Lots 17 2 acres ATTACHMENT 2 Page 47 I MR RISHEL commlss[ooers, any further I on our Agenda which ~s consider an exaction variance of 2 Of Ms Viers? Would' ~, Ms 2 Section 34-114(5)b of the Code of Ordinances concerning 3 3 perimeter paving And Mr David Salmon will present both 4 VI£RA The staff doesn't have 4 of those 5 5 MR SALMON Thank you, Chaff, members of thc 6 Okay 6 Comnuss~on I've just got a map up here showing the 7 Ms Apple 7 location of the subject tract at the northeast comer of 8 MS I move to 8 Hobson Lane and FMI830, also known as Countxy Club Road 9 plat 9 This particular variance is a hule 10 contingent on the 10 unorthodox in that there really has not been an 11 following condmon ! staff, that 50 feet 11 application yet for zoning or platting and what the 12 of Lot 21, Block C, adl , the proposed drainage and 12 applicant has offend am: two possible development 13 trail easemen{ Lot 31, Block C, to 13 scenarios I guess I wanted to make clear up front that 14 eliminate the 14 these are exactmn variances and as such tl~ variances 15 MR 15 being considered this evemng would be apphcable only for 16 MR 16 the two scenarios that are being attached to them 17 approval not ~ : this site, ts 17 So if the developer comes back and proposes 18 MR g It 18 something either the same or s~mflar to what's being 19 outcome 19 presented this evening then the variances or denial of 20 eIORENO We are approvmg tt~ 20 the variances, whichever occurs, is applicable If a 21 REICHHART Yes 21 variance is granted based on one of the two site plans 22 dS APPLE COOtlgent on the outcome 22 that are presented thru evemng and then for some reason 23 MR MORENO okay 23 five years from now they come in and it's something 24 MR RISHEL And we have a motion Is there 24 completely different then those variances would not be 25 second9 25 applicable for that development We'd be back at ground Page 46 Page 48 I aa~lll~NO And I'll second that ~,,~ 1 zero on this issue 2 ~[g n mo ended 2 So Ijust wanted to make sure that that was 3 Any further ~ further 3 clear up front because we normally dun't present vanaoces 4 co.j~[~lll~StlOnS from ~e uomnussloll~m~[~l~ 4 untd we're already m the zomng or platUng process In 5 please x otc Motion cames 5-1 5 th~s case, thc vanaoces are sort of leading the entire 6 process MR RISHEL In theory, that should bnog us 7 MR RiSHEL Thank you Mr Salines for yom 8 to Item NO 12 on the Agenda And Item No 12 is 8 clanficatmn 9 regardl~ Hobson Village which is a 37 6 acre stte located 9 Ma SALMON Again this evening we're loolang 10 northwest of Hobson and FMI830 The property is an 10 at a perimeter paving and sidew'~k variance, actually two I 1 Agricultural zonmg district And the first part of this 11 var,antes The variance for the penmeter paving would 12 conmderatlon xs oens~der an exaction variance from 12 apply to Hobson Lane Highway 377 and then Country Club 13 Section 34-114(17) of the Code of Ordinances concerning 13 Road are both State l~ghways so our peruneter pawng 14 sidewalks And Mr David Salmon will present for the 14 ordinance would not apply to those, only Hobsoa Laen And 15 staff 15 then the variance for the s~dewalks applies to the enm'e 16 ~,iR SNYDER I just wanted to point out the 16 perimeter of the property which ~ncludes CounU3~ Club Road 17 Commission, m past practice, you do have the option to 17 and H~ghway 377 The apphcant is proposing to prowde 18 thscuss or to consider these two variances together, but 18 City standard roads and s~dewalks on the intoner of the 19 vote on them separately I just wanted to point that out 19 development 20 to you You do have the option rather than handhog them 20 Again, we have two possible land scenarios 21 sepurateIv It's up to you 21 that are being considered along with these variances tbs 22 ~dR R/SHEL Thank you, good counsel 22 evening Concept A has a community m~xed use center along 23 Corarms~ion, what is your preference on this9 Would you 23 the highway on the western edge of the property Then as 24 llke to have them present both of these at the same tune? 24 you move eastward, there's an area of tovmhomes and then 25 Then I wdl read the second part of that, of Item No 12 25 an area of patio homes and then an area of single fanuly THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIC 9 ~ 23, 2001 Page 45 - Page 48 Condens~ItTM Page 49 Page 51 I lots for a total of -- I don't see the total 67 lots or I staff is recommending a purt~al variance in that the 2 living umts m addition to the community mixed-use 2 peruneter pawng and sidewalks would only be reqmred on 3 center 3 the conunereial lot And that would be very consistent 4 Concept B, which ts an alternative, would have 4 with the way the development directly south of here was 5 one lot on the western end, possibly zoned for commercial 5 handled where there were some large acre res~dennal lots 6 uses of almost nine acres And then as you go eastward, 6 but an office lot on the comer In that case, the 7 would provide lurge acre residentml lots fronting on 7 frontage on Hobson Lane was a little bit less on that 8 Hobson Lane And so as we get further along into this, 8 commercial lot so the perimeter paving wasn't reqmred but 9 you'll see that our staff's recommendations and the 9 there was a sidewalk requu'ement on the commercial lot 10 recommended motions are somewhat dependent on whatever 10 So m keeping - m trying to be consistent 11 scenario the developer eventually chooses to go with 11 with the way we've handled other smular types of 12 This ts another one of those variances whia~e 12 developments, staff is recommending the sidewalk on the 13 there was some discussion at the beginning of whether or 13 commercial lot in Concept B 14 not it really was an exaction variance or whether it was a 14 So to clarify it, we're recommending complete 15 physical hardslup vananeas, and we finally landed on 15 denial of the variance for Concept A, wbach is the one 16 exaction The appheent brooght up the fact that the 16 that leoks hkc the one on the overhesd But on Concept B 17 property is unusually long and narrow That doesn't 17 where it's large acre lots, we're recommending a partial 18 necessarily make tt difficult to build the required 18 variance to only require the sidewalks on the commercial 19 improvements Itjustmakesltmoreexpenmve Sothat's 19 lot 20 why we landed on the exaction variance criteria as opposed 20 And we've g~ven you thc eest figures in the 21 to physical hardship 21 backup, you know, the per lot numbers and the total 22 The ,r~qulred paving improvements on the Hobson 22 numbers so you can kind of see where we're coming from on 23 Lane frontage would cost the applicants approximately 23 that I know the applicant's representative is here this 24 $300 000 00 and the sidewalk approximately $32,000 00, and 24 evening I'll be glad to answer any questions you might 25 that's by staff's estimates I think the appheant's 25 have I've provided recommended motions that will Page 50 Page 52 I estimates are somewhat lugher than that Hobson Lane ts 1 probably more succinctly explain what our recommendations 2 currently a two-lane rural section rood It is designated 2 are than what I was able to do here So I'll answer any 3 as a secondary arterial on the City's Moluhty Plan which 3 questions you might have 4 means at some point tn time tt wtll probably be four lanes 4 Ma RISHEL MS Apple 5 w~th a medlun or we have four lanes, two lanes tn each 5 MS APPLE YOU mentioned that Hobson Lane 6 direction vnth a mechan in the center 6 would someday be a four lane road Could you tall me ~n 7 Staff is recommending dental of the vartunce 7 which century? 8 based on Concept A wluch ts the one with the multl-famfl 8 Ma SA[MON well, actually, Hobson Lane is 9 townhouse, patio homes The development would easily 9 one of the rqads that we will probably be considenng when 10 generate over 1,000 trips per day and all of them would b, 10 we do our next Capital Improvements Program and put our 11 using Hobson Lane to travel either east or west And tf 11 next bond program together All of you recall the Teasley 12 such a development were approved, it would be the most 12 Lane comdor study and we've used that from tune to time 13 intense use currently on Hobson Lane The road, I know 13 on different developments 14 one thing that normally comes up tn these cases and the 14 One of thc things that that comdor study 15 apphcant has pointed out is that when we do these 15 ~deanfied is that there ~s gmng to be a need to expand 16 perimeter paving sections, sometmaes you end up w~th jogs 16 Hobson Lane in the future in order to funnel some of the 17 tn the road 17 traffic off o£ Teasley Lane So I think that at least 18 In tlus case, there would be a .lOg m the 18 you'll see a movement by the City to get tt in the next 19 road, most hkely, but considering the section of the 19 bond issue, which is possibly could be as soon as 2002 20 street we're considering tlus evening is almost a half a 20 and I mean the bond issue 21 mile long and it ts at an intersection It's not really 21 MS APPLE That's - bottom hne, though 22 the same as ff it were 200 or 300 feet long and somewhere 22 what year, just rough gueestunate are we talking about 23 tn the middle of the block hke we very often see 23 actually seeing four lanes on Hobson* 24 If we go to Concept B, winch is the one on the 24 MR SALMON Assuming that n makes it rote 25 overhead right now w~th the large acre residential lots, 25 the 2002 bond electaon and that the City has that, that ~ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIO 10 23, 2001 Page 49 - Page 52 Con cnscltTM Page 53 Page 5_= I could be bmlt anytime between 2002 and 2007 because we I I mean, their variance if they are successful in getting 2 typically have a five year bond program 2 a variance, u would only be good if they came in with 3 MS APPLE BI~ause I know now that road, it 3 either A or B 4 Is therearetmteswhare~t'svmuallylmpossthleto 4 M~MORENO tsee Okay Thanks 5 leavc Hobson to get onto 1830 dnnngpartlcularttmesof 5 M~RISHEL MS Holt 6 thc day without really taking your lifo m your hands and 6 MS HOLT Yes I have a concern ',ruth your 7 just going and ! can't ~magme all of this addlHonal 7 recommeadatton For Concept A, you said staff recommend, 8 traffic 8 no varmnce, correct? 9 MR RISHEL Especially If you're going south 9 MR SALMON That's correct [0 MS APPLE Yeah Thank you 10 MS HOLT okay This -- with this conmmmty 11 MR RISHEL Mr Momno 11 mixed usc on thc comer and all of these people tn here 12 MR MORENO Yesh I JUSt want to understand 12 why wouldn't you want to put that in thcre'~ 13 what we're doing We're votmg on cxactaon vananeas for 13 MR. SALMON NO, we*re eecommendmg no 14 two completely different concept plans or I didn't say 14 va:lance meaning that they 15 that right 15 MR. REICHHARW They don't get the variance 16 MR SALMON well proposed 16 They have to braid the sidewalk and the road 17 MR RISHEL YOU said that exactly right 17 MS HOLT okay They have to bulld the 18 MR MORENO Have we ever done that before? 18 s~dewalk Okay Now walt a minute I got myself 19 MR SALMON [ can't recall a amc we've done 19 confused What ! meant to say is this one to me looks 20 this before 20 like we could give them the variance on this one simply 21 MR MORENO ;SO -Imean, dnsls - 21 bceausewevegot all of these sldewalks gomg all through 22 MR RI~ICHHART Tho applicant could probably 22 this development that lead right up to this mixed use So 23 explain why they're dmng this at dns tame As land 23 there are s~dcwalks available m that particular area 24 becomes available, you know, you have to put option money 24 Now, on the other one you smd - to me, this 25 on it, you have to spend so much money to buy the land, 25 would be the one that I would deny totally because of the Page 54 Page 5- I get the engmeertag costs, try to get the rezonmg 1 same reason there are no s~dewalks whatsoever, there's no 2 And at some time, you have to make a 2 way to get down to this commercial or to get up to the 3 detenmnahon the feasibthty, financial fcasibthty of 3 school that s down the road Therefore, tins one would 4 doing a project And part of that is the cost of domg 4 need it I mean I'm kind of confused on those two 5 the development, so I don't want to put words in his moutl: 5 things 6 but before going forward and jumping rote th~s with both 6 Ma. SALMON well, I guess we're looking at 7 feet, you know, they're determ:nmg at what level they 7 costs per lot when we look -- I mean, and sometimes maybe 8 would have to do development to see if it ts going to be 8 we're a little b{t too focused on that, I suppose I 9 financially viable for them '-. 9 mean ~f you look at thc size of thc lots here all being 10 And there's no reason you can't get a variance 10 200 feet w~de and then, ~n fact, one of them being over 11 -- you don't have to have a zenmg apphcatton, you don't 11 500 feet vnde I mean, we re getting up over $2 000 00 per 12 have to have a plat apphcatien m order to get a 12 lot for s~dewalks, wluch Is considerably more than what a 13 variance Obviously, it makes it a lot easier for us to 13 normal home builder would spend putting sidewalks ~n on a 14 look at and say that's exactly what they're doing, but 14 resldentaal lot m Denton 15 that's not a reqalrement of asking for a variance 15 So I guess we're looking at ~t smctly from a 16 MR SALMON well, and the reason that that 16 financial standpoint if you compare it with the usc that 17 works is because the exaction variance ts tied to what's 17 that homeowner Is going to get out of the s~dewalk you 18 being shown along with it So, I mean, I guess the safety 18 know, and compare it wxth the cost of other developments 19 net ts if they come in six months from now with something 19 ! mean, proportaonally the cost is considerably h~gher 20 that doesn't look like either A or B, then they don't have 20 here than it would be In a smaller 21 the variance 21 MS HOLT well if you look at it in other 22 MR MORENO They've got to start all over 22 ways besides cost, what It does to the neighborhood, I 23 again So these really are more than just thai balloons 23 just I mean, I can see why on A that you could use 24 They are enforceable on down the road 24 those other sidewalks through there and not have to put 25 MR SALMON well, tn terms of the variance 25 them along Hobson THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIO ! ! 23, 2001 Page 53 - Page 5: CondcnscltTM ~ Page 57 Page 59 ! MR SALMON Th~ only thing, I mcan, you can I end 2 get through the development There would be internal 2 Mi~ RISHEL CO~$Sloners, any other 3 sidewalks You can get from one end of the d~velopment to 3 questions of stuff or Mr Salmon? Would the petmoner or 4 the other to some extent, although there would probably 4 thc !act~tioner's r~rescntativc hke to present? And 5 stdl be some gaps in order to get over to the commercial 5 please state your name and address 6 or over to South Lakes Pork But, I mean, if you want to 6 MR DONALDSON oecd evening Conumsslon 7 look at it that way, I mean, it's possible that penpl© who 7 Mark Donaldson, 3216 Staghorn hE in Denton I work for 8 live m her~ could walk along the streat sidewalks and 8 Cater Burgess m Dallas First of all, I want to make 9 then come out and just have a short thstanea over to 9 clear that thc intent of the request Is to get a variance 10 either the park and school or over to the commercial I 0 only for those Io~s that am to be used for residential 11 mixed-use 11 purposes, which would be these lo~s and along here So 12 MS HOLT sorenllyyoo lookedat a 12 we're not deahng with the entlre length of thc property 13 basically from a financial? 13 along Hobson 14 MR SALMON We've looked at it th~s way in 14 Th~s was difficult because there are a lot of 15 this cas~ bssed on exactmn criteria 15 unique things about the property that could lead us down 16 Ma RISHEL Auy Other questions, Ms Holt? 16 the road of asking for a variance based on uroque 17 MS HOLT NO Thank you 17 cootheons and the hardship, but, alumately, it boils 18 MR. RISHBL Mr Wdhams has asked to comment 18 down to money And money is important now to us because 19 next and I'm.lust thinking that some of our quostioos may 19 we have to make decisions about the ultimata purchase of 20 b~ answered with tho petit~oner, but Mi' Williams 20 the land based on thc reasonable expectation of what it's 21 MR WILLIAMS The petitioner can't answer my 21 going to cost us 22 question I mxxi a legal quesUco answered My concern 22 And in doing our prelmunary analysis, the 23 is about ll~ Vested Rights Law If va: grant ttus 23 ticket item of $320,000 00 for perimeter paving as 24 variance, will we be bound when they come back for zoning 24 compared to 67 residential lots caught our anootion, so 25 under the Vested Rights Law to have to give th~m zoning7 25 we have submitted a request to get some resolution on Page 58 Page 60 1 MR ¶NYDER NO, we wouldn't because the I that 2 vananca that's being asked for would be ued to one of 2 And in doing so, this ts basically a fair 3 these specific plans What is the property zoned for 3 share request Is the cost that we have estunated 4 right now? 4 compared to the cost or the return reasonable and the 5 MR SALMON Agricultural 5 return probably is mdmated by what other people 6 MR REICHHART Ag 6 typically have to pay for perimeter pavmg'~ We've 7 MR SNYDER ^gncultaral You would not be 7 estimated that tt will be $4,800 00 per lot I never 8 -- this ts just a platting procedure and under the Vested 8 could get this thing centered 9 Right Statute, there's only three~tlungs that I believe 9 And I haven't heard any analysis from Dave as 10 that you can vest One ts lot size One ts bmkhng 10 far as what a typmal or what an average perimeter paving 11 size One ts setbacks, I believe 11 and sidewalk project is and tt might be because there are 12 SO there could be an argument, I suppose, 12 no typicals or average But a typmal property does not 13 Commissioner Wdhams, with respect to thc -- I hadn't 13 have the relationship of the perimeter to the area that 14 thought about that before until you raised it There 14 this property has so that a typical property probably is 15 could be an argument that by granting this variance, that 15 more hkely to be shaped hke this with the perimeter 16 somehow there's vested on thc size of these lets 16 paving requirements along a fairly narrow side and thc 17 MR WILLIAM~ That's what I'm saying In 17 property is fairly deep and you get a much better ratio of 18 other words, when we give this variance, we're approving a 18 perimeter paving to thc yield of the property 19 preliminary plat We are approving a concept plan and we I9 And you could probably use mlpact fees as an 20 haven't gone through the zoning yet We're putting the 20 indicator of what a fair share for perimeter paving might 21 horse before the cart and I don't even know why staff 21 be, as you've scanned around the country, you see impact 22 bought this to us I'm concemed because that should have 22 fees for road tmproveroents from $1,OOO OO to $2,000 00 23 been the first question somebody asked and I'm not a 23 So you're looking at a fair share in this area, then the 24 planner I'rajustacountryboyfromeastTexas ButI 24 dtfference between that and what we have esttmated ls 25 know eo6 mas when I see them because I played defensive 25 basically the exaction that we're asking to be waived THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSI¢ 12 Y 23, 2001 Page 57 - Page 60 CondenseltTM Page 61 Page 63 I We acknowledg~ that thoro wdl have to be I ~mprov~ent m Hobson 2 ~mprov~ m Hobson as we d~op ~ ~ldentml use 2 S~d~a~s a~, a~m, m~tmg As V~cky 3 ~e most hkely ~mpmv~ent ~ul~ will ~ at ~s 3 mthca~, ~ wdl be prow&ng plen~ of m~or 4 m~s~t~on ~ause ~s develop~ ~s only m~ m 4 s~dewa~s and can v~ ~sdy ex.nd ~ose ~n~or ~ ~e ~dem~al and will plal only ~e ~s~dem~al portion ~ sideways ~ ~ ~e p~e~ of o~ develop~ 6 firs~ 6 prop~ along ~ ~ and m the plamng process we 7 ~prov~ents along ~ co--umW m~x~-use 7 can p~sue an air. alive ~man ace.s plan 8 a~ a~ unholy by us m ~e ~ate ~ until 8 But to a c~n d~, ~'~ go~ng ~ be 9 ~'s d~and for ~ dovelopment of ~t ~ A 9 s~dewa~s ~ nowh~ ~ e~W :s mas~ p~nnlng Sou~ 10 scenario may ~ ~e ~an~ng of ~e pmme~ pawng and 10 Lakes Park and has d<~d~ to d~elop ~ w;thout 11 s~d~a~ vanance wl~ ~e condition ~at ~ m~e c~m 11 pla~ng and ~out making p~et~ pawng and s~d~a~ 12 ~mprov~ m ~s ~n~s~t~on w~ ~e con&t~on ~at 12 ~mprov~en~ So ex~n&ng of ~e s~d~a~ ~ ~e ~st 13 ~ prowde le~ ~ and right ~ lan~ and ~t soft of 13 would be a s~d~a~ ~ nowhu~ At such t~me as a 14 ~mg i4 co~umW ~x~-uses a~ wa~an~ out h~ and ~t 15 You have some d~sc~mn We d~dn't s~ any 15 ult~ma~ly developS, ~t's ~ely ~at p~me~ s~dewa~s 16 d~scuss~on about ~at We thdn't s~ any &scuss~on about 16 would go m ~ b~ause frankIy, ~ can afford a 17 how ~s compass to o~ prop~es ~d Dawd touch~ 17 So we wan~ m make you aw~ ~at ~e 18 briefly on what would be ~e outcome fi, m fact, we am 18 exaction variance ou~t to ~ a look at what o~ costs a~ 19 ~u~ ~ m~e ~e ~prov~ents, and I'll go to ~t 19 m ~latmnsh~p ~ ~e fair sh~ cost, wha~vw you may 20 f~rst map ~t he show~ you 20 de~une ~at ~ be And just ask you to be ca~ful flint 21 Bas~caHy b~ause 66 p~cent of ~ fronm~ 21 you m~t get what you ask for m t~s of a pa~mlly 22 of Hobson Road Ms a~dy b~n d~elop~ or pla~ new 22 development Hobson Lane ~ ~ any quest~ons~ 23 d~eIopment w~H only be o~ pon~on of ~s ~et ~at 23 MR ~SHEL ~I~SS1On, any questions of 24 ~'~ m~ m dcvelop~ng right away and ~haps a 24 Donaldson? Ms Holt 25 p~on of ~ ~act across Hobson on ~e sou~ s~do But 25 MS HOLT ~r Donaldson, d~ ~s ~et go Page 62 Page 64 i ~'s no indication ~at ~'~ ~dy to d~elop yet i all ~e way to Sou~ Lak~ P~k? On ~s p~e~, a 2 and you, qm~ h~ally, could have ~at j~ m ~ r~fl 2 d~s 3 for a couple of ~ousand f~t and ~en ~ve ~t ~ back 3 Ma DONAL~ON T~'S some qu~t~on as 4 to ~e ~stmg ~o lane for 500 or 600 f~t ~fo~ ~t 4 wheth~ th~'s an acc~s ~sement or a f~ s~ple 5 m~ts ~ ~s3o 5 prop~ ~at belongs ~ Acme be~n us and ~e park, but 6 I ~ve Mayh~H ~ day and ~t's a case 6 ~ is a 50 f~t stop ~at ~s us~ by Acme BAck for 7 w~ ~e mobile home park ~ mad~ ~w ~ 7 access to ~e~r prop~ I don't know ~at ~t's ev~ 8 pawng ~mprov~, ~ey'~ off c~ and ~e 8 b~n det~n~ wheth~ ~ at.ally own ~t or ~ey have 9 no.bound lane~t~ally looks at ~ sou~bo~d ~ne 9 an ~s~ent w~ ~e C~W But o~ prop~ g~ up to l0 h~d on at 40 md~ an ho~ for a p~ of t~e And for 10 ~at access point 11 ~ose who don't do ~t ~ day, ~t's a hale :f~ 11 Ms HOCT so a's w:thm 50 f~t It's just 12 And w~ a fo~-Ian~ d~wd~ road ~ 12 a hole of Sou~ Lak~ Park~ 13 ex~stmg 22 to 24 f~t of payment ~s h~Hy wh~ ~e 13 MR ~NALDSON Y~ 14 m~an wdl be ultimately We would ~ke o~ ~mprov~ts ~ 14 MS HO~X ~ause on ~s hale map 15 working from ~e n~t of-way towards ~ cen~ of ~e 15 ~ h~, yo~ prop~ g~ all ~e way up ~ ~e park 16 road and ~ would be a consld~able offset ~ And 16 MR DONALDSON Y~h And ~t m~t be, in 17 ~t's not h~ly ~ be ~ ~mprov~ untd ~e C~W ~s 17 fact ~e ~at ~ C~ ~s ~ und~ly~ng own~ of ~at 18 wflhng~do~balancoof~oroad 18 Acmeaccess We don't know ~t We had ~e same 19 So I'~ at ~ co~ of ~t, ~t's about 19 d~scuss~on do~ sou~ so -- I don't ~b~ how ~at was 20 money It's about o~ f~hng ~t o~ est~at~ cos~ 20 wsolv~ 21 am mo~ ~an ~e fair sha~ ~t's usually ~u~ for 21 MS ~OLT okay ~ank you 22 development But ~t's also about s~pmg back and mkmg 22 Ma RISHEL Mr R~c~an 23 a l~k at ~g b~g p~c~ and what you want ~t road to 23 MR REICHH~T ~ Co~lsSlOn~ Wflhams 24 look l~e for a p~od of t~me be~ wh~ ~ develop and 24 brou~t up ~at pmnt about ves~ng, ~ Snyd~ and I thd 25 wh~ a bond packa~ ~s ~ vo~ m ~at a~ows for ~e 25 ~ And I ~ ~ f~l ~at Concur A should not even ~ PLA~G A~ ZO~G CO~SSIO ~3 ' 23, 2001 Page 61 - Page 64 Condens~It m Page 65 Page 6- I be considered at this tLme because it doesn't comply with I pelwalned under the Agricultural zoning, you wouldn t have 2 existing zoning regulations Concept B does It mom 2 tho same problem It would be a similar problem to a much 3 than meets the Agricultural. zonm8 out there But if we 3 lesser degree since it dens comply with existing zomng 4 grunt the variance for Concept A at this tLme, there might 4 MR REICHHART [ don't want to open a can of $ be some ooncem regarding that issue 5 worms, but debating If the Comunssien felt that the 6 MR RISHEL Thank you, Mr Rctchhart Ms 6 arguments were vahd for both regardless of zoning could 7 Gourdie 7 they centht~on an approval based on residential 8 MS GOURDIE DCeS that mean that ltts for 8 development along that section of the road? That ff 9 legal reasons it's being not considered? Y'all are 9 residentml development ss pursued from "X" number of feet 10 pulling tt I guess, since it's a legal issue, it is now 10 from the intersection, you know, going east m that area 11 removed from the -- 11 for residential development, no sidewalks or peruneter 12 MR SNYDER I think that's correct Because 12 paving would be required on Hobson? 13 we, quite frankly, until Commissioner Williams brought it 13 Ma SNVD~ SO you're raising the issue that. 14 up, none of us thought of it And I think he's correct 14 I guess, that even under Concept B 15 that this plan would not comply with the zoning and you 15 Ma aelCltHART It's resldentml 16 would run a risk 16 MR SNYDER BUt It iS, it'S Agricultural It 17 I'm not saying that they would prevail, but 17 can eithex be used for agricultural purposes or 18 you would run a risk that they ceuld argue that they're 18 residential so I'm not understanding why it would be 19 vested on those lots, even though there's no dunensions on 19 necessary to limit It to that since it's consistent wsth 20 those lots They could make the argument so the prudent 20 the current zoning I guess I'm not understanding the 21 thing would be not to act on that until they get a zoning 21 point you're bringing up 22 change 22 MR REICHHART If It'S USed for agricultural 23 MR RISFIEL what is the proper procedure for 23 what triggers the penme~c paving and the sidewalks ss 24 us is to -- 24 any development, and we could say If there's any 25 MR SNYDER JUSt consider the one option 25 residentml development m th~s area, regardless of what Page 66 Page 6a I MR RISHEL Right Thank you, sir I the zonmg is, it could be SF 7 SF 10 Ag, whatever, 2 Commsssson, any further questaoea of the petmoner? 2 regardless of the zomng, tt makes sense that residential 3 MR MOa~NO I have a question for legal 3 development should get a waiver from sidewalks and 4 MR RISHEL Mr Moreno 4 perimeter paving I'm not saying that's the way the 5 MR MO~NO Tell me again why we should not 5 Commission is going to vote but I'm just asking the 6 conssder A but we can cons~dec B 6 question could they put a matron forward with that 7 MIL SNYDI~R Bl~aBse A dens not comply with 7 language9 8 existing zoamg Tho existing zoning, I believe, is 8 MR SNYDER I guess -- I think I rmght be 9 Agricultural and those lots, ff you dunonston them, ff you 9 dense here I'm still not understanding your point I l0 "'scaled them out, those lots are small~ than what will be 10 guess It's Just not -- the light is not cormng off in my 11 allowed under thc existing zoning Whereas, under Concept 11 head at the moment I'm not understundmg what purpose 12 B as I understand Mr Relchhart, those lots would comply 12 that would serve 13 with the slz~ of lots that would be permitted under 13 MR REICHHART All I'm saying is as I look at 14 Agricultural zoning And so If you approve the vunances 14 both of these scenarios, there's two common threads for 15 to Concept A, one could make an argument under the State 15 both of them, the location of the request, the blue 16 law that this would he the first application in the series 16 highlighted areas are the same, almost the same on both 17 of l~'msts for a development that showed lot sizes and 17 areas, and the second common thread is it's residential 18 that they could argue that they're vested for those lot 18 development And that's all I'm saying ts, does it make 19 sizes before the City has actually decided whether that's 19 sense to grant a variance for pernneter paving for 20 an appropriate zoning on the property 20 residential development whether it's five lots or 50 lots9 21 MR MORENO SO woald voting on Concept B be 21 I mean, that's what we're being asked, but regardless of 22 tantamount to approvmg Concept B? 22 what the zoning is 23 Ma s~o~ No, it wunldn't Ithink that 23 MR SNYDER But my point ts the current 24 even under,Concept B they could argue that they're vested 24 zoning is Agricultural so under Agricultural you can 25 as to the lot sizes But since those lot sizes are 25 either do residential or agricultural So I don't TIlE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIO 14 f 23, 2001 Page 65 - Page 68 Condens~ItTM Page 69 Page 71 I understand the point of the condition I guess I just 1 this is an Agricultural piece of property now 'Ihey'm 2 don't understand what the point of that conchtton is But 2 comma forward with tins as an Agricultural pia:e of 3 I think you could, to answer your question, I guess you3 property and lot sizes of an acre plus are perrm'red on 4 could put that centhtton on there 4 Agricultural And I thmk that's what the perspective I'm 5 MR REICHHART My only thought is that they 5 personally going to have to take on ~t ~s that we are 6 could pursue, if they got the variance for Concept B, ~t's 6 currently standing tn the midst of a current zomag and 7 Agricultural, they could build one-acre lots, no pcnmetol 7 anythmg deeper than that would reqmre a zonn:g request 8 paving Whether they got it rezoned to whatever, a PI) 8 change and that would be a whole dfffolent prc~'edure 9 that would allow this multi, the mixed-use development,9 And I also don't know what's gomg to aappen 10 It's still restdeatml and they know they have the 10 with that development plan, ff fins really ts an .rea 11 variance from penmetol paving 11 where there can be a commumty m~xed-use cea.er Is 12 MR SNYDER I'm going to answer the question 12 really supposed to be a neighborhood contel9 So we're 13 tn the short way Yes, you could put that condition on 13 using words that I don't know are even wable ra tins 14 there If the Commission so chose, you could put that 14 moment m time 15 condit~on On thole 15 MR RISHEL Mr Moreno 16 MR RISHEL EXCUse me Ms Gourd~e has a 16 MR MORENO Yes, Mr Chawraan, along_' the 17 quastmn 17 hnes of Ms Gourdt¢'s thanking and reasonmg mere I'm 18 Ma GOURDIE well, go ahead and then I would 18 starting to get very uncomfortable with any furaer 19 hke to comment from my polspecttve 19 eonstdolatton of tins item at all So that's -- I rank 20 MR SALMON well, I was going to add to that 20 we ought to suspend any further d~scusslon on ,hs thng 21 d~scusston is that tf you sunply say residential, that 21 MR RISHEL Mr Wtlhams would hke W speak 22 could include multi-family That has no, I mean, as 22 MR WILLIAMS I have a morton I tinnk wall 23 Comm~sstonol Holt mentioned earlier, one of the things she 23 solve it I move that we recommend to the C~r, Courted 24 was constdenng was the internal street layout and the 24 that the vartanoe of Section 34-114 be domed f~ Hobson 25 ability to get through the development from one end to the 25 Village Addmon, Concept A and B, as we wot_d be Page 70 Page 72 1 other If you simply say resulentml development, then 1 approvm$ a concept plan before the property ~s rezcced 2 that has nothing to do w~th the street internal s~x~et 2 MR RISHI~L IS ther~ a second? 3 layout, and then that may be some -- they may como in w~th 3 MS aouaom second 4 some residential, high deaagy residential development 4 MR RISHEL It's been moved and seconded 5 that doesn't have internal streets 5 there any further discussion or clarification? 6 MR WILLIAMS ! know how to solve th~ whole 6 MR MORENO what will be the effect of this 7 thing is that we can vote it up or down - 7 motion, iVu' Snyder? 8 MS OOURDIE Thank you, because that was my 8 tern. SNYDER The way that motion was worced 9 concern Tho other concern to me is predicting the future 9 it would go onto City Council and then they would rake the 10 of this development To me, we're being asked m choose l0 final decision I l between a dense and a not dense situation And L l i MR MOP, ENO SO a's still a hue 12 personally am having a difficult t~me deciding -- it's 12 Ma St,~YDEa Yes I'm going to add a caren 13 okay for me when it's presented the way they want to do it 13 to that Ma' Rerchhart just informed me The appllczzt 14 and I can make a judgment call based on what's best on 14 would have to appeal it It wouldn't automatically 15 what I know and what I think is best for the area 15 forward 16 BUt to be given two choices, I cannot unblas 16 MR RISHEL If they chose to appeal 17 myself And for that strict reason, I'm not comfortable 17 MR SNYOER YeS 18 voting on tl~s because I'm asked to make a decmon for 18 tar taoaeuo say that again I thdn't 19 them and in my nund, the developer ~s supposed to come 19 understand 20 here vath thmr choices, to work out their money 20 Ma stavDEa the apphcant would have to 21 situation, and have us either yea el nay it But nght 21 appeal 22 now they're telling us, well, look, eyeing ~s based on 22 MR aEm:4~,tmx within 10 days 23 you and I'm not in the least blt comfortable to make th~s 23 Ma MOR£UO The recommendation for den~£ 24 decision lb'st and fore-most, to decide 24 Ma SNYDER Yes 25 Now, the argument has been clarified is that 25 MR MOlmNO nefore this body or before the THE PLANNING AND ZONING CO--SSIr~', ' ' ~Y 23, 2001 Page 69 - Page 72 15 CondonsoItTM , Page 73 I Chamber -- not the chamber, the council? 2 MR SNYDER NO, they would.lust notify the 3 Planning Director that they intend to appeal that 4 decision Because basically what you're doing Is the way 5 our ordinance is worded, the exaction vartonoes are 6 typically only -- only automatically go forward if there's 7 a recommendation for approval And if there's a 8 recommendation for denial, then the applicant has to make 9 an affirmative decision to take it forward to the City I0 Councd 11 MR MORENO okay Thanks 12 MR RISHEL coranussloners, any further 13 clarification needed on this? Does everyone understand 14 the motion? If there's no further discussion, please vote 15 on the motion The motion carnes unanimously, 6-0 I 16 thought that Mr Wllliaras' motion considered A and B 17 MR W1LLIAM$ YeS, both A and B 18 MR RISHEL I could get the -- to repeat that 19 motion if -- 20 MR WILLIAM~ Because A and B was -- 21 MR RISHEL I thought he sa~d that 22 specifically Is that correct, Mr Williams? 23 MR WILLIAMS Yes, A and B 24 MR RISHEL Okay Thank you very much 25 Thank you, Commissioners 2 3 Mi~ RISHEL ! JUSt wanted to make te had 4 work 5 I'm just wonda'~ng ~f a would kkc to 6 take a we advance onto 7 that work 8 Ma Yes 9 Ma We wdl adjourn 10 for - 1 1 MR s~ryDEa I bchcve that work 13 MR RISHEL ~ oar mectmg from 14 hcr~ lo th~ thc meantanc, wc t 5 wdl take a break and ~ -- ~t 16 depends on lock you have 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSI ~ 6 kY 23, 2001 ATTACHMENT 3 Carter :Burgess Dallas TX 75247-4951 Phone 214-638-0145 Metro 972 263 2019 Fax 214-638-0447 www c b corn May 30, 2001 Mr Larry Rmchhart, Assistant Director Planmng and Development City of Denton 201 S Elm Street Denton, TX 76201 SubJect Appeal of Recommendatmn by Planning and Zonmg Commismon Regarding Variance Request from Reqmrements for Perimeter Streets and Sidewalks for proposed Hobson Village development Dear Mr Relchhart Please consider thru appeal to the City Council of the recommendation made by the Planning and Zoning Commasslon at its meeting of May 23, 2001, to deny variances from Sec 34-114 (5), streets, and 34-114 (17), mdewalks, for a proposed development ~n south Denton to be called Hobson Village We believe the Commmmon made the wrong recommendation due to a number of reasons 1 The Commmmon mmtakenly eonmdered the request for the entire length of Hobson Lane, rather than just the remdent~al portion of the development, 2 The Commission d~d not consider any data regarding the "Exaction" or "Reasonable Benefit" characteristic of the required perimeter street and mdewalk improvements, 3 The Commmmon d~d not conmder the "unique character" of the subJeCt property and of Hobson Lane, and 4 The Commission was confused by the posmblhty that granting a variance based on a concept plan not yet submatted to them for conmderatlon would somehow "vest" the developer's right to develop according to the concept plan We beheve the property meets the criteria for an exaction variance that the esttmated costs of pertrneter trnprovements exceed the reasonable benefit to the property The attached analyms presents our rational If you have any questions or need additional information please feel free to call me at 214-638- 01435 or emml at donaldsonmr~c-b com L Mark Donaldson APPEAL RATIONAL At Its meeting of May 23, 2001, the Planmng and Zomng Commission, recommended to deny variances from Sec 34-114 (5), streets, and 34-114 (17), sidewalks, for the proposed residential development in south Denton to be called Hobson Village The appheant beheves the Commission reached the wrong decision due to a number of reasons 1 The Commission mistakenly considered the request for the entire length of Hobson Lane, rather than just the residential port~on of the development, 2 The Comrnlsslon d~d not consider any data regarding the "Exaction" or "Resonable Benefit" characteristic of the required perimeter street and sidewalk ~mprovements, 3 The Commission did not consider the "umque character' of the subject property and of Hobson Lane, and 4 The Commission was confused by the possibility that granting a variance based on a concept plan not yet submitted to them for cons~derataon would somehow "vest" the developer's right to develop according to the concept plan The appheant believes the property meets the criteria for an exaction variance that the estimated costs of perimeter Improvements exceed the reasonable benefit to the property The following analysis presents the rational 1. The Commission mistakenly consider the request for the entire length of Hobson Lane, rather than just the residential portion of the development; The Commission was presented analys~s as if the entire length of Hobson Lane along the southern boundary of the proposed Hobson Lane was to be considered for the variance It is the desire of the applicant to only develop the resldentml portion of the property at th~s time and that is the hmit of the request This changes the extent of expected ~mprovements so that the perimeter Improvements associated with the residential development will not extend to the intersection of Hobson Lane and Country Club Road Th~s ~s important, because it xs at this intersection that improvements are most needed to handle the current flow of traffic The staff report assumed that commercial development at the western end of the property would be a major traffic generator 67 s~ngle-famfly lots are proposed for the resldentml portion of the property Compared to other traffic generators along Hobson Lane, this represents a relatively small impact · It is less than the threshold of traffic generation required to trigger a traffic ~mpact study (1,000 trips per day) m the interim development regulations · Forest Ridge and Montee~to, which access Hobson Lane, have 257 lots 18 · Northbound traffic from Estates of Forest Ridge (203 lots) and Montemto del Sur (116 lots) also use Hobson Lane · South Lake Park is a major traffic generator A large percentage of traffic starts and ends outside the ammedmte area 2. The Commission did not consider any data regarding the "Exaction" characteristic of the required perimeter street and sidewalk improvements; It ~s relatively easy to estamate the cost of proposed perimeter improvements We estimate that perimeter street and sadewalk requirements adjacent to the residential port~on of the proposed development will cost approximately $320,000, or $4,800 for each single-family lot proposed While at may be easy to estimate reqmred amprovement costs, It is d~fficult ~s to measure "reasonable" benefit One way is to consider Road Impact Fees as a reflection of reasonable benefit or fmr share or required amprovement In our experience, for those communities that require the payment of road ~mpact fees, fees representing the fmr share of a developments impact on a thoroughfare system typacally range from $1,000 per single-family lot to as hagh as $2,000 per single-family lot The hagh end of this range is less than half the estimated costs for the resadentlal portaon of Hobson Village Another way would be to compare thas property to other property in the area The attached table documents the relat~onslup of perimeter streets and the number of proposed or platted lots for all ofthesubd~vlsionsconsldered~ntheTeasleyLandCorrtdorStudy An lndmator of perimeter street benefit may be the average or typmal relationship of all other property in South Denton between the penmeter streets and the number of lots within a development · For the subd~wslons within the Comdor Study, there is an average of seven (7) hneal feet of perimeter street for each single-family lot · By comparison, the resadentlal pomon of Hobson Village has 30 lineal feet of perimeter street per s~ngle-famlly lot · The next h~ghest ratios are those of Montemto at 17 lineal feet of perimeter street per lot and Ryan Ranch at 15 hneal feet ofpenmeter street per lot This serves as a good mdmator of the "reasonable benefit" or "fair share" of perimeter improvements for Hobson Village compared to other development m the C~ty At the P & Z meeting, staffandacated that Hobson Lane was beang considered for inclusion an the City of Denton's next capital amprovements plan This is a clear lndacator that the reasonable benefit of improvements to Hobson Lane is to the caty as a whole and not exclusive to the adjacent property owners 19 3. The Commission did not consider the "unique character" of the subject property and of Hobson Lane; and The subject property has approximately 2,000 hneal feet ofresldentlal development adjacent to Hobson Lane while the depth of the property is only about 400 feet Most properties have perimeter street frontage that is considerable less than the depth This is reflected by the perimeter street to lot ratio Hobson Lane is approximately 6,000 feet in length, from Country Club Road to Teasley Lane, and had an average daily volume of traffic of 7,800 trips per day in 2000 The subject property accounts for 17% of the property adjacent to Hobson Lane Estimated traffic from the 67 residential lots of Hobson Lane would be approximately 670 trips per day (10 trips per day per lot) The projected traffic generated from Hobson Village represents 8 percent of the base traffic plus Hobson Village traffic Hobson Lane is nearly fully developed Platted or developed property represents 66% of the property adjacent to Hobson Lane There have been no improvements made to Hobson Lane by previous development Requmng perimeter improvements as Final Plats for the residential portions of Hobson Village will result in a piece-meal road that will in fact represent a hazard of motorists The proposed four-lane divided arterial road could have a median nearly as wide as the existing road Perimeter street improvements made by Hobson Village would require an off- set of up to 24 feet Eastbound traffic on the south lane of new street could be north of the westbound traffic on the existing traffic To build the required transitions at either end of the new road section would extend the perimeter street requirement of Hobson Village a considerable length 2O 4. The Commission was confused by the possibility that granting a variance based on a concept plan not yet submitted to them for consideration would somehow "vest" the developer's right to develop according to the concept plan. At the P & Z meeting, one of the Commissioners op~ned that the variance request was an "end mn" ~n an attempt to vest the concept plan Staffcould not say w~th certainty that approwng the variance subject to development consistent w~th the concept plan would or would not "vest" any development rights Concept Plan "A" was presented as a way of demonstrating the manner ~n whmh the developer would hke to develop the land and the hkely number of lots that could be developed on the property so that "reasonable benefit" could be d~scussed The same thing can be achieved w~thout a plan, simply by taking the proposed res~dentml land area (17 9 acres) t~mes 4 dua (the density cap under the proposed development regulatmns) to calculate the maximum number of resldentml lots allowed in the area (71) The cost of perimeter improvements could then be d~wded by 71 lots rather that 67 as shown on Concept "A" The outcome would be roughly the same the hneal footage of perimeter street per lot (28) would be four trines the average for all development ~n the Teasley Lane Comdor Study) If a member of the Commission was reclined to recommend approval of the variance, ~t could have been worded w~thout reference to a concept plan, as follows Finding that the esttmated cost of requtred pertmeter street and sldewallc tmprovements exceeds any reasonable benefit to the property owner and that the subject property and the configuratwn of Hobson Lane have umque charactertsttcss, I recommend approval of a vartancefrom Secttons 34-114 (5), streets, and 34-114 (17), stdewalk~,for any.future restdenttal development of the subject property that ytelds less than four dwelhng umts per acre, net of pertmeter right-of-way 21 Variance Analysis Hobson Village Variance Analysis Hobson Village Lineal Feet of Perimeter Street to # of Single-Family Lots for Subdivisions in Teasley Lane Corridor Study Subdivision Number of Lineal Feet of Lineal Fcct of Lineal Feet of Single-Family Total Perimeter Local Penmeter Local Penmeter Lots Street Street Street per SF Lot Forest R~dge 157 1,400 1,400 9 Monteclto 90 1,500 1,500 17 Wind River 434 900 (2 If/lot) 0 0 Sundown Ranch 433 1,800 (4) 0 0 Summit Oaks 332 1,200 (4) 0 0 Oakmont II 212 1,200 (6) 1,200 6 Wheeler Ridge 628 7,200 (11) 3,500 6 Teasley Harbor 133 650 (5) 0 0 Stewart H~ghlands 170 1,040 (6) 0 0 Hickory Creek Ranch 213 1,500 (7) 900 4 H~ckory Creek Heights 94 800 (9) 520 6 R~dgemont 74 1,000 1,000 14 Monteclto del Sur 116 1,300 1,300 11 Estates of Forest R~dge 203 1,350 1,350 7 Thistle Hill 129 900 900 7 Chaucer Estates 120 680 680 6 Oaks of Montec~to 232 2,700 2,700 12 R~ver Oaks 677 2,000 2,000 3 Ryan Ranch 275 4,200 4,200 15 TOTAL 4,722 / 3,220 33,320 23,150 7 AVERAGE 249 / 230 1,754 (7) 1654 7 HOBSON VILLAGE 67 2000 2000 30 Data from Teasley Lane Corrtdor Study, Final Report, May, 2000 22 I AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET ,~genda AGENDA DATE: June 19, 2001 DEP~TMENT Plying DepmmCnt ~ DCM. David Hill, 349-8314 SUBJECT - Exaction Vm~c¢ (V-01-0013) Consider approval of ~ Cx~t~on vm~c¢ ~om S~ctlon 34-114(17), mdCwalks, of thC Subdivision ~d L~d DCvelopmCm Regulations for Hobson Village ThC 37 6 acre site ~s located no~t of th~ intersection of Hobson Road ~d FM 1830 ThC prop~y Agncult~al (A) zoning dls~lct Co~erclal ~d residential development is proposed ThC Plying ~d Zomng Co~lsSlon recommends d~mal (6-0) BACKGROUND The appheant ~s representing the owner of the proposed Hobson Village Addition located at the intersection of Hobson Lane and Country Club Road and has requested a variance based on the large cost for the reqmred ~mprovements m relation to the proposed use The variance concerns ~mprovements along Hobson Lane, which runs along the south side o£ the proposed development The appheant m propomng no sidewalk improvements along Hobson Lane and is requesting a variance for that purpose The applicant has proposed two possible land use scenarios for the proposed development (see Attachment 1) The first, Concept A, would sub&wde the subject tract into 67 units including town homes, patio homes and traditional single-family homes Th~s concept also includes a 6 5 community mixed use center, which could contain retail, office and multffamlly uses The second scenario, Concept B, would subd~wde that property ~nto 7 large smgle-famlly lots and one 8 9-acre commercial lot It should be noted that the subject property ~s currently zoned Agricultural (A) and that rezomng of the entire property would be required m order for the property to be developed as in&eared m Concept A For Concept B, only the proposed commercial portion of the property would be required to be rezoned In determlmng whether to approve an exaction variance concerning the proposed Hobson Village Addition, City Council must determine ff the lmpos~t~on of any development exaction pursuant to the City's Sub&ws~on and Land Development regulations exceeds any reasonable benefit to the property owner or m so excessive as to constitute confiscation &the tract to be platted The following paragraphs summarize the staff recommendations and reasomng for the varmnce request Additional mformat~on ~s prowded ~n the attached Planning and Zomng Commission staff reports The appheant is requesting a variance from Section 34-114(17), which requires s~dewalks along Hobson Lane There are currently no sidewalks located along this port~on of Hobson Lane Recomrne~tdatton/Reasonmg Staff recommends demal of the variance based on Concept A The proposed development w~11 contain 67 un,ts, and a s~dewalk is necessary ~n th~s location to connect residents of the proposed development to South Lakes Park to the east and the proposed Conunumty M~xed Use Center to the west Staff recommends a part~al variance based on Concept B, because the proposed development only contains 7 units and because the cost of s~dewalk improvements on a per lot basis far exceeds the average cost of such ~mprovements for an average s~ngle family lot in Denton The cost would be apprommately $2,000 per lot for sidewalks Staff recommends that the apphcant be reqmred to promde sidewalks along the proposed commercial lot PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions) The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial (6-0) of a variance of Section 34- 114(17), eoncermng s~dewalks, of the Code of Ordinances on May 23, 2001 The applicant has appealed the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission to City Council (see Attachment 3) FISCAL INFORMATION Development of this property will increase the assessed value of the city, county, and school district It will reqmre no short-term pubhc improvements that are the responsibility of the city ATTACHMENTS 1 Planmng and Zoning Commlssmn Report, May 23, 2001, V-01-0013 2 Planning and Zomng Commission Minutes from May 23, 2001 3 Appeal Letter from Applicant Dated May 30, 2001 Respectfully submitted Director of Planning and Development Prepared by ~a~IB Gray ATTACH_~NT 1 Agenda No Agenda Item Memo Planning and Zoning Cormmsslon From Dawd Salmon, P E Assistant Director of Engineering Date 5/17/01 Re Perimeter Paving & Sidewalk Vananees for Hobson Village Addmon Carter & Burgess representing the owner of the proposed Hobson Village Addition located at the lntersectmn of Hobson Lane and Counh'y Club Lane has applied for variances of secron 34-114, (5) and (17) of the Code of Ordinances concerning pemneter paving and side,vaT, s The subject sections of the ordinance reqmre that Hobson Lane be unproved along ~e fi.ontage of the development and that sidewalks be constructed along the same fi.ontage as ~ell as Country Chib Road and Hwy 377, Hobson Lane is not currently constmcted to City standards and there is no sidewalk at that location Country Club Road and Hwy 377 are not subject to perimeter paving as they are owned and operated by TXDOT The applicants are proposing two possible land use scenarios The first (Concept A) is to tfiat the subJeCt tract, which will contain 67 housing umts mchidmg town homes, patio homes md traditional smgle firmly homes In adchtlon a 6 4 acre eommumty m~xed use center is proposed winch could enntam uses such as retail, office and multlfamlly The second scenmo (Concept B) is to subdlwde into 7 large smgle-farmly lots and one 8 9-acre commemlal rot The applicants propose no street or sidewalk maprovements on Hobson Lane The applicants base the reason for the variance request on the large cost for the sub. eot improvements based on the proposed use and site plan making these exaction variances 'Ihe zorang and site plan have not been approved, so it is important to note that m the case of exaction variances, the variance is tied to the use and site plan that is proposed at the tmae of the variance and which the variance as based on The ComrmsslOn may recommend that this exaction vananee be approved by the City Council if the following criterion is met (b) Criteria for variances fi.om development exactions Where the comrmss~on finds mt the tmpositmn of any development exaction pursuant to these regulations exceeds my reasonable benefit to the property owner or is so excessive as to constitute corrfisearon of the tract to be platted, it may recommend approval of vanances to ~vmve smh exaction's, so as to prevent such excess, to the City Council Waiver ofdexelopmertal exactions shall be approved by the City Council The price the apphcants pard for the parcel, or the cost of the proposed building maprovements xs not a factor m determining reasonable costs The questxun is, are the costs associated with the pubhc maprovement reasonable and eonsxstent w~th the type of developmem p~,.,~,osed and the demand for servuees that will be created? The requu'ed paving tmprovements across the frontage on Hobson Lane ~ould cost the apphcants approxunately $300,000 and s~dewalk improvements appmxlmat~y 532,000 by staff's estmaates Hobson Lane is currently a 2-lane rural sectmn road and as desagnated as a Secondary Major Arterial on the C~ty's Moblhty Plan Staff recommends demal of the variances based on Concept A The development would easily generate over 1000 vetucle trips per day all using Hobson lane to travel east or west If approved, at vall be the most intense development on Hobson Lane There iaas been some recent variances granted for development across the street, however all lots .ere large acre resxdentml Forrest Radge was platted prior to the perimeter paving reqmremem In additmn, the section of road m questmn xs nearly a half-male long and begins at the mterseet~on of Country Club Road It xs different than satuataons where the subject sectaon ofroacl ~s 200 or 300 feet long m the maddle of a block Concermng the stdewalk, staff thinks a sidewalk xs necessary m flus locatxon to connect restdents to South Lakes Park and the Neighborhood center where there as lhkely going to be neighborhood servxces g~ven the saze anc densaty of the development Staffrecommends paraal variances of the perimeter pawng and sldev~alks for Concept B As the smallest of the resadent~al lots as 1 76 acres and have a mum of 200 f-et of frontage along Hobson Lane, the cost of the subject unprovements on a per lot basxs far e:xeeeds the average cost of such maprovements for an average smgle-famaly lot m Denton 3'he cost would be approxtmately $25,000 per lot for street tmprovements and $2000 per lot for s~dewalks Staff recommends that perimeter paving and sxdewalks are reqmred for the eornmemal lot This would be eonsxstent w~th the variance granted on the south s~de of Hob~on Lane The pawng m flus scenario would cost about $82,000 and sxdewalk about S12,000 Recommended Motions: I move that we recommend to the C~ty Council that a variance of section 34-11¢ (5} be demed for Hobsun Village Addition Concept A for perimeter paving on Hobson Lane as the amount of the tmprovements would reasonably benefit the property owners and res~dmts and that a partml variance as recommended by staffbe approved for Concept B as the full amount of the improvements would exceed reasonable benefit to the property owners and resa~cnts I move that we recommend to the C~ty Council that a variance of section 34-114 (17) be demed for the Hobson Village Additton Concept A for perimeter s~de~valks as the amount of the ~mprovements would reasonably benefit the property owners and residents and that a partaal vanance as recommended by staff be approved for concept B as the ~ amount of the tmpmvements would exceed reasonable benefit to the property owners and residents · Page 2 4 Hardship Variance Criteria 1. The imposition of any development exaction pursuant to these regulations exceeds any reasonable benefit to the property o~vner The esth'nated cost of perimeter paving and sidewalk improvements along Hobson Lane are in excess of $400,000, or approximately $160 per [meal foot Under Concept "A", approximately 2000 lineal feet of Ho~son is adjacent to residential development, accounting for about 80% of the l~ngth of Hobson adjacent to the property, or approximately $320,000 of perimeter ~r~rovements There are/57 dwelling umts proposed for the property D~vidmg $320,000 by 67 y~elds a cost of $4,800 per dwelhng units This is considerably greater tha2 a typical resldenhal cost of perimeter paving and sidewalks Under concept "B", the cost of perimeter paving and sidewalks on Hobson is approximately $45,000 per single-family dwelling unit 5 Concept "A" Hobson Village In the City of Denton, Texas Land Use Data TORSI Land Area 27 3 acres CommerctaI 6 4 acres Residential 17 9 acres Tovm Homes 7 2 acre~ Pat~o Homes 3 6 acres Estate Homes ? 1 acre~ Perimeter R O W 3 0 acres Zoning Data ¢ommamty l~hxed Use General Developable Area 6 4 acres ROW I 1 acres Total Area ? 5 acre~ Ne,ghborhood Centers Residential 4 Pat,o Homes 3 6 acres 21 umts 6 8 dua Total Area 19 8 acres Concept "B" Hobson Village In the Ctty of Denton, Texas Land Uge Data Total Land Area 27 3 acres Commercial (Lot 1) 8 9 acres Resldentml (Lots 2 8) 15 4 acres Average Lot S~ze 2 2 acres Carter==Surgess Perimeter R 0 W Zoning Data ATTACHMENT 2 Page 47 I MR. R.ISHEL. Commissioners, any further I on our Agenda which Is consider an exaction variance of 2 Would Ms 2 Section 34-114(5)b of the Code of Ordinances concerning 3 3 peruneter paving And Mi' David Salmon vall present both 4 ~ The staff deesn't have 4 of those 5 5 MR SALMON Thank you, Chair, meanbers of the 6 Okay 6 Conumsslon I've just got a map up here shawlng thc 7 Ms Apple 7 location of the subject tract at the northeast corner of 8 xl$ I move to 8 Hobsoa Lane and FMlSS0, also known as Countxy Club R~ad 9 prehmmary plat 9 This particular variance is a httla 10 contingent on the panances w~th the 10 unorthodox m that thc~ really has not been an 11 follovaag condmon , staff, that 50 feet I 1 application yet for zoning or platting and what the 12 of Lot 21, Block C, ) the proposed drainage and ! 2 applicant has offered are two possible development 13 trail ¢a.~'~rl~t 13 acenanes I guess I wanted to make clear up front that 14 elumnag ti variance 14 these arc exaction variances and as such thc variances 15 15 bclng considered this evening would bc applmablc only for 16 16 thc two scenarios that arc bcm$ attached to them 17 approx ~, not ~ flus site, It 17 So if the developer comes back and proposes 18 MR. 1 NO, you*re 18 something cltber thc same or slrmlar to what's being 19 19 presented this evening, then thc variances or denial of 20 ~IORENO We are approvlog tt'~ 20 thc variances, whicbevcr occurs, is apphcable If a 21 Yes 21 variance is granted based on one of thc two site plans 22 ,IS APPLE Contlgcnt on the outcome 22 that arc presented th~s evening and then for some reason 23 ~.tR MOREN'O okay 23 flve years from now they come in and it s something 24 ~.~R, RISHEL. And we have a motion Is there 24 completely different then those variances would not be 25 second~ 25 applicable for that development We'd be hack at ground Page 46 Page 48 I ~0 And I'll second that~ I zero on this issue 2 ,,tR. ' mo ended 2 So I just wanted to make attrc that that was 3 Any ftlr'.her ~ fT. her 3 clear up front because we normally don't present variances 4 ~ons trom ti~c Hommtssto't/,'nl~l~#li~li~ 4 until we're already in thc zoning or pla~ng process In 5 please x otc, Motion cames 5-1 5 this case, thc variances arc sort of leading thc entire _ I 6 process , 7 MR RISF, EL. In theory, that should bnng us 7 MR RiSHEL Tbaak you [~ Salmon for your 8 toltem\o 12 on the Agcnda AndltemNo 12ts 8 clarification 9 regarding. Hobsan Village wbach Is a 37 6 acre site located 9 Ma SALMON Again, this cvenm~g we're lookang 10 northv, e~'t of Hobson and FMI $30 The property is an 10 at a per~mctcr paving and sldcw'~lk variance, actunlly two 11 Agnculraral zon!n~ district And the first part of flus 11 variances The variance for thc pcrlmcter paving would 12 consideration ts consider an exaction variance from 12 apply to Hobson Lane Highway 377 and then Country Club 13 Section 34-114(17) of the Code of Ordinances concermng 13 Road arc both State highways so our perimeter paving 14 sldewal~ AndlVir Davld Salmon wtll present for thc 14 ordmanea would not apply to thosc, unlyHobsonLanc And 15 staff 15 than tho vananea for thc sidewalks apphes to thc entire 16 ,,tlc Sx.%'DER. I JUSt wanted to point out the 16 perimeter of the property which includes Country Club Road 17 Corarm--'-uon, m past practice, you do have the option to 17 and Highway 377 The apphcant is propoamg to pro', ida 18 diSCUSS or tO conmder these two variances together, but 18 City standard roads and sidewalks on thc mtcnor of the 19 vote on them separately I just wanted to point that out 19 development 20 to you YOU do ha~e the optxon rather than handhng them 20 Again, wc have two possible land scenarios 21 separate~..', It's up to you 21 that arc bcmg considered along with these variances this 22 XtR. RISHEL- Thank you, good counsel 22 evening Concept A has a community nuxcd-usc oantcr along 23 Cormm~.on, v,4~atlayourprefercncconthls9 Wouldyou 23 thc highway on tho western cdgc of thc prcpcrty Tbenas 24 hke to ha',e them present both of these at the same tune'/ 24 you move eastward, there's an mca of tovnthomes and then 25 Then I ,~.11 r~ad the secand part of that, of Item No 12 25 an arcs of patio homes and then an area of smglc-fanuly THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIO 9. ~r 23, :2001 Page 45 - Page 48 CondcnscltTM Page 49 Page 51 I lots for a total of-- I don't see the total -- 67 lots or I staff ~s mcommendmg a pertial variance m that the 2 hying units in addition to the community nuxed-use 2 peruneter paving and sldewelks would only be mqmmd on 3 center 3 the commercial lot And that would be very consistent 4 Coacept B, wfuoh is an alternative, would have 4 with the way the development dn'ectly south of bore was 5 one lot on th~ western end, possibly zoned for commercial 5 handled whom thoro were some large acm residential lots 6 unesofalmostmueacres And then as you go eastward, 6 but an office lot on the comer fu that case, tbe 7 would provide lar~ acm r~Sldential lots fronting on 7 frontage on Hobsun Lane was a httle b~t less on that 8 Hobsen Lane And so as we get further along into this, 8 commercial lot so the lX~nmeter paving wasn't nxtu~red but 9 you'll see that our staff's recommendations and tho 9 there was a sidewalk requn'ement on the commercml lot l 0 penommended motions sro somewhat dependent on whatever 10 So In keeping -- In trying to be consistent 11 scenario the developer eventually chooses to go with 11 with the way we've handled other smular types of 12 This is another one of those variances wbere 12 developments, staff is recounuendmg the sidewalk on the 13 I~ was some discussion at tho beginning of whether or 13 commercial lot m Concept B 14 not It renlly was an exaction vanance or whether it was a 14 So to clarify it, we'm recommending complete 15 physical hardsh,p variances, and we finally landed on 15 dental of the variance for Concept A, which IS the one 16 exaction The apphcant brought up th~ fact that the 16 that looks like the one on the oveshend But on Concept B 17 property is tmasnally long and narrow That duegn't 17 whore it's large acm lots, we'r~ recommending a partial 1 g no~ssanly make it difficult to budd th~ mqmred 18 vurmnce to only requm~ the sidewalks on the counnercial 19 unproven~nts Itjustmakesltmomexpensive Sothat's 19 lot '~0 why we landed on thn exaction vanunce criteria as opposed 20 And we've g~ven you tbe cost figures in tho 21 to physical hardship 21 backup, you know, the per lot numbers and the total 22 The ~t~quu~d paving lmpmvementa on the Hobson 22 numbers so you can land of see where w¢'m counng from on 23 Lane frontage would cost the applicants approximately 23 that I know the applicant's representative is hem th~s 24 $300 000 00 and the sidewalk approxunately $32,000 00, and 24 evening I'll be glad to answer any questions you m~ght 9_5 that's by staff's estimates I think the apphcant's 25 have I'vn provided recommended motions that pall Page 50 Page 52 I estimates are somewhat lug, her than that Hobson Lane ts I probably mom succinctly explain what our mcommendauons 2 currently a two-lane rural section mad It is destgnated 2 am than what I was able to do here So I'll answer any 3 as a secondluy arterial on the Ctty's Molultty Plan wluoh 3 questions you might have 4 means at some pomt tn ttme tt wtl[ probably be four lanes 4 Ml~ RISHEL MS Apple 5 W'~th a median or we have four lanes, two lanes tn each 5 MS AI'PLE YOU mentioned that Hobson Laue 6 directten with a median tn the center 6 would someday be a four-laue road Could you tell me in 7 Staff Is recommending denial of the variance 7 which century7 8 based on Concept A which Is the one vath the mult~-famtl 8 MR SALMON well, actually, Hobson Lane is 9 townhouse, pat~o homes The development would eastly 9 one of the re. ads than we pall probably be consldenng when 10 generate over 1,000 trips per day and all of them would b~ 10 we do our next Capital Improvements Program and put our 11 using Hobson Lane to travel etther east or west And ff 11 next bond program together All of you recall tbe Tensley 12 such a development were approved, tt would be the most 12 Lane comdor study and we've used that from nme to tune 13 intense use oun'ently on Hobson Lane The roM, I know 13 on thffen~nt developments 14 one flung that normally comes up m these cases and the 14 One of tbe things that that comdor study 15 applicant has pointed otlt Is that when we do these 15 identified is that there is going to be a need to expand 16 permieter paving sections, sometunes you end up wtth jogs 16 Hobson Lann in the futem in order to funnel son~ of the 17 m the road 17 traffic off of Teasley Lane So I ~ak that at least 18 In this case, there would be a jog In the 18 you'll see a movement by the City to get ~t m the: next 19 road, most Ilk. ely, but constdenng the section of the 19 bond issue, which is possibly could be as soon as 2002, 20 street we're consldenng this evening is almost n half a 20 and I mean the bond issue 21 mile long and tt ts at an ratersectton It's not really 21 MS .~I'PLE That'S -- bottom hoe, though, 22 the same as if It were 200 or 300 feet long and somewbero 22 what yenr, .lust rough geesstunate am wx~ tallang about 23 tn the middle of the block l~ke we very often see 23 actually seeing four lanes on Hobson9 24 If we go to Concept B, winch Is the one on the 24 ~ SALMON Assunung that a makes it into 25 overhead right now vath the large acre restdantml lots, 25 the 2002 bond election and that tbe C~ty has that, that TIlE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIO 10 23, 2001 Page 49 - Page 52 Cond~nscltTM Page 53 Page I could be built aaytur~ between 2002 and 2007 I~cause wc I I m~, ~ variance, ~f ~ a~ succ~s~l m ~mng 2 ~cally ~vc a fiv~r bond pro.am 2 a variance, ~t wo~d only ~ 3 MS ~PL~ ~ause I ~OW now ~at r~d, it 3 c~ A or B 4 Is -- ~ ~ ~ w~ it's v~ally ~poss~ble ~ 4 ~ MO~O I S~ Okay ~s 5 ~vc Hobson ~ ~t on~ 1830 d~ng p~cu~r ~ of 5 ~ ~SHEL MS Holt 6 ~ day w~ut ~Uy ~ng yo~ hfo in yo~ ~nds and 6 MS HOLT Y~ I have a conc~ ~ yo~ 7 JUSt going and I can't ~agine all of ~s addl~onal 7 ~o~en~Uon For ~nc~t A, you smd stuff ~o~ 8 ~ffic 8 no vmance, 9 ~ ~SHEL ~a~y if you're going 8OU~ 9 ~ SALMON That's CO~t 10 MS APPLm Y~ ~nk you 10 Ms HOLT okay ~s -- w~ ~s co~um~ 11 ~ ~SHEL ~ Mo~o 11 m~x~ usc on &c com~ and a~ of 12 ~ MO~NO Y~h 13ust want ~ undgsmnd 12 why woul~'t you want ~ put ~at m 13 what ~'m doing Wc'm voting on exaction vananc~ for 13 ~ SALMON NO, wc'm ~o~&ng no 14 ~o complexly d~ff~nt concur plans or -- I d~dn't say 14 variance m~nmg ~t ~ -- 15 ~t n~t 1 ~ ~ REiCH~T ~h~ don't ~ ~c variance 16 MR SALMON well. propos~ 16 ~ ~vc to build ~c sld~a~ and ~ road 17 ~ RISHEL YOU sa~d ~at ~actly n~t 17 ~s HOLT okay ~ ~vc 18 ~MO~NO Havc~cvgdone~atbcfom? i18 sid~a~ Okay Now. wa~ta~nu~ Igc/myself 19 ~ SALMON [ can't ~all a time ~'vc done 19 conf~s~ ~at I m~nt to say Is ~ls one ~ mc looks 20 ~s before 20 hkc wc cofld ~vc ~ ~c v~ancc on ~s one s~ply 21 ~ MO~NO ~ -- I m~n, ~s is -- 21 b~ausc we've got a~ of ~csc s~d~a&s going a~ ~ou~ 22 MR ~ICHH~T T~ apphcant could probably 22 ~s d~clopmcnt ~t l~d n~t up to ~s ~x~-usc 23 ~plam why ~'m doing ~s at ~s Omc As ~nd 23 ~ am sid~a~ available m ~at p~c~ar 24 ~om~ available, you ~ow, you haw ~ put op~on mon~ 24 Now, on ~ o~ one you sa~d -- 2~ on u, you ~vc ~ sp~d so much mon~ ~ buy &~ hnd, 2~ would bc ~ eno ~t I would d~y Page ~4 Page I get ac ~g~n~nng ~sts, t~ to got t~ m~nlng I s~c ~son, ~ ~ no s~d~a~s wham~v~, ~'s no 2 And at some t~e, you have to m~e a 2 way ~ ~t down ~ ~s co~gcml or to get up to 3 ~nnmatton ~c f~lblh~, financtal f~s~bdt~ of 3 sch~l ~at's down ~c road ~fom. ~s one would 4 doing a project And p~ of ~at Is ~e ~st of doing 4 n~ ~t I m~n, l'm ~nd of con~s~ on ~oso ~ ~e dcvelopmmt, so I don't want to put wor~ m hts mouth 5 ~mgs 6 but before going fo~d and lumping ~nto ~s wt~ both 6 ~ SALMO~ WC~, I gU~S ~'m looking at 7 f~ yOU ~OW. ~cy'~ dcte~mng at what level they 7 cos~ pg lot when ~ l~k -- I mmn, and som~ maybe 8 would have to do developm~t to ~ tf it ~s going to be 8 wc'~ a h~Ic bit ~ f~us~ on ~t, I suppose I 9 financtally wable for them ~ 9 m~3 if you l~k at ~e size of ~ lo~ ~, all ~lng 10 And the~'s no ~on you ~n't get a v~an~ 10 200 f~t w~do and ~n m fact, one of ~ bang ov~ 11 "you don't ~ve to haw a ~mng apphcation, you don't 11 500 fret ~de, I mmn, we're ~mng up ov~ $2,000 00 p~ 12 have ~ havoa plat apph~tion m ord~ to ~t a 12 lot for sld~, w~ch is cons~d~ably mom ~n what a 13 v~ Obwously, ~t ~es it a lot ~ for us to 13 no~al home bmld~ wo~d spend pu~mg s~d~s m on a 14 l~k at ~d ~y ~at's exactly what ~ey'~ doing, but 14 ~ld~t~al lot m ~n 15 ~t's not a ~u~t of ~ng for a v~ 15 So I ~s ~'m l~kmg at u s~ctly from a 16 MR ~ALMON well, and ~e ~son ~t ~at 16 financml s~ndpomt ~f you comp~ ~t ~ ~e use ~t 17 works Is ~u~ the exaction v~an~ is tt~ to what's 17 ~at ho~ is going ~ ~t out of ~ s~d~a~, you 18 ~mg ~o~ along ~ it So, I m~n, I guess the safe~ 18 know, and compare a wl~ ~ cost of o~ developm~ 19 net ~s ff th~ ~ m s~x mon~s from now wl~ somet~ng 19 I m~n, pmpo~ona~y ~e cost 20 ~t d~'t look h~ et~g A or B, ~ ~ don't have 20 h~ ~n it would ~ m a 21 ~ V~, 21 MS HOLT W~ If yOU l~k at ~t m o~ 22 MR MOR~O They'vo got to S~ ~1 over 22 ways ~d~ cos~ w~t :t d~ ~ ~e n~borh~, I 23 ~mn So the~ ~Hy m mo~ ~ just ~al balloons 23 just -- I m~n, I can s~ why on A ~t you could use 24 ~ ~ ~fo~blo on do~ ~ r~ 24 ~oso o~ s:d~a~ ~ ~ and not have ~ put 23 MR gALMON Well, ia ~s of tho v~ 23 ~ along Hobson ~ PLA~G A~ ZO~G CO~SSIO 11 23, 2001 Page CondenseltTM Page 57 Page 59 I MR. SALMON The only flung, I mean, yun can I end 2 get through the dcvclopmcat Thc~ would bc internal 2 MR. RISHEL. COmllllSSlon~rs, any otber 3 sidewalks You can get from one end of tho d~vclopmcnt lo 3 questions of staff or Mr Salmon? Would the peutloner or 4 the other to some extoot, although ~ would probably 4 tho petit~oner's representative hk¢ to present? And 5 still be some gaps in order to get over to the commercial 5 plesso state your name and address 6 or over to South Lakes Park But, I mean, if you want to 6 MR DONALDSON Good evening, Comnusslon 7 look at it that way, I mean, it's pessthlo that peopln who 7 Mark Donaldson, 3216 Staghom hem in Denton I work for 8 hva in hem could walk along the slreet sidewalks and 8 Carlar Burgess in Dallas Fa'st of all, I want to make 9 then come out and just have a short distance over to 9 clear that the intent of thc t~xtuest is to get a variance 10 either the park and school or ovar to the commercml 10 only for those lots that are to be used for res~dcntial 11 mixed use 11 purposes, which would be these lots and along hem So 12 MS HOLT SO really you looked at a 12 wa're not deshng with the entae length of tbe property 13 basically from a financial? 13 along Hobsoo 14 MS, SALMON we've looked at it this way in 14 This was difficult because thcne am a lot of 15 this case based on exaction corena 15 umque things about the property that could lend us down 16 MR RISHEL Auy Other questions, Ms Holt? 16 the mad of asking for a variance based on unique 17 MS HOLT NO Thank you 17 cood~ttons and the hardship, but, uhtmately, it boils 18 Mil. RISHEL IVlr Wdhams has asked to comment 18 down to money And money is ortportant now to us because 19 next and I'm just flunking that soma of our questions may 19 we have to make decisions about thc ultmaalo purchase of 20 be answered w~th the petnluner, but Mr Williams 20 the land based on the reasonable expectation of what it's 2 i MR WILLIAMS The petitioner can't answer my 21 going to cost us 22 question I need a legal question answered My concern :22 And in doing our prelmunary analysis thc 23 is about the Vested Rights Law If we ~'ant flus :23 ticket item of $320,000 00 for perimeter paving as 24 variance, will wo bc bound when they como back for zoning 24 compared to 67 residential lots caught our attention, so 25 under thc Vested Rights Law to have to g~ve them zoning? 25 we have submitted a request to get some resolution on Page 58 Page 60 I MR SNYDER NO, WC wouldn't because thc I that 2 vananca that's bemg asked for would be t, ed to one of 2 And tn doing so, this is basically a fair 3 these specific plans What is the property zoned for 3 share request Is the cost that we have estimated 4 right now? 4 compared to the cost or the remm reasonable and the 5 MR gALMON Agricultural 5 return probably ts indicated by what other people 6 MR R£1CHHART Ag 6 typically have to pay for perimeter paving? We've 7 MR SNYDER Agricultural You would not be 7 estimated that it will be $4,800 00 per lot I never 8 -- this ts Just a platting procedure and under the Vested 8 could get flus flung centered 9 Right Statute, there's only threexflungs that I behave x 9 And I haven't heard any analysis from Dave as 10 that you can vest One is lot size One ts building 10 far as what a typical or what an average perimeter paving 11 size one ts setbacks, I believe 11 and sidewalk project ts and tt might be because there are 12 So there could be an argument, I suppose, 12 no typicals or average But a typical property docs not 13 Commissioner Wllhams, with respect to the -- I hadn't 13 have the relationstup of the perimeter to the area that 14 thought about that before until you raised it There 14 flus property has so that a typical property probably is 15 could be an argument that by granting flus variance, that 15 more likely to be shaped hke flus with the perimeter 16 somehow there's vested on the size of these lots 16 paving requirements along a fairly narrow side and the 17 MR WILLIAMS That's what I'm salnng In 17 property Is fairly deep and you get a much better ratio of 18 other words, when we give flus vananca, we're approving a 18 perimeter paving to the yield of the property 19 preliminary plat We are approving a concept plan and v,e 19 And you could probably use unpact fees as an 20 haven't gone through the zoning yet We're putting the 20 mthcator of what a fair share for penmetar paving might 21 horse before the cart and I don't even know why staff 21 be, as you've scanned around the country, you see unpact 22 bought flus to us I'm concerned because that should have 22 fees for road improvements from $1,000 00 to $2,000 00 23 been the lust question somebody asked and I'm not a 23 So you're lookang at a fair share m flus area, then the 24 planner I'm just a country boy from east Texas But I 24 &fferenca between that and what we have estimated is 25 know end runs when I see them because I played defensive 25 basically the exaction that we're asking to be waived THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSI¢ 12 Y 23, 2001 Page 57 - Page 60 CondenseltTM Page 61 Page 63 1 We acknowledge that there vail have to be I unprovement to Hobson 2 improvements to Hohaon as we develop the msldentlal use 2 S:dowalks am, again, interesting As Vlcky 3 The most hkely unprovement reqmred vail be at th~s 3 indicated, we vail be providing plenty of interior 4 m~sect~oo because this developer Is only inter, ted In 4 sidewalks and can very easily extend those interior 5 the r~denttal and will plat only the residential portion 5 sld~',valks to Luther the perimeter of our developed 6 first 6 property along the edge, and at the platting process we 7 Improvemunts along the community mixed use 7 can pursue an alternative pedesman access plan 8 area are unlikely by us in the immediate futu~ until 8 But to a certain degree, they're going to be 9 there'sdemaedforthedevelopmentofthatluea A 9 sidewalks to nowbere Tbe city is master planning South 10 sceaano may be the grunting of the p~.nmeter pawng and 10 Lakes Park and has decided to develop tbere w~thmit 11 sidewalk vanaune with th~ condition that we make certain 11 platlmg and w~thout malong perimeter paving and s~dewalk 12 nnprovements to this mtersention vath tho condition that 12 miprovements So extending of the sidewalk to the east 13 we provide l~fi turn and right turn lanes and that sort of 13 would be a sidewalk to nowhere At such time as a 14 thing 14 commumty nuxed-usea ar~ warrim~:l out here and It is 1 $ You have some discretion We didn't see any 15 ultimately developed, it's hkely that perm~ter sidewalks 16 discussion about that We didn't see any thseusslon about 16 would go m then: because, frankly, they can afford it 17 how this compares to other propefues And David touched 17 So we wanted to make you aware that the 18 bnofiy oo what would be the imtcome If, m fact. we a~ 18 exaction variance ought to be a look at what our costs ar~ 19 reqmi~l to make the improvements, and I'll go to that 19 in relationship to the faa' share cost, whatever you may 20 first map that ho showed you 20 determine that to be And Just ask you to be careful that 21 Basically, because 66 percent of the frontage 21 you m~ght get what you ask for in terms of a part~ally 22 of Hobsen Road has already been develol~l or platted, new 22 development Hobson Lane Are there any queat~oos'~ 23 development will only be our portion of tlas u'act that 23 MR S~SHEL comimsslon, any questions of Mr 24 we're interested in developing right away and perhaps a 24 Donaldsim? Ms Holt 25 perigee of the tract across Hohaon on the south side But 25 Ms HOLT Mr Donaldson, d~e.s th~s tract go Page 62 Page 64 I there's no indication that they're ready to develop yet I aH the way to South Lakes Park? On th~s picture, it 2 and you, quite htarally, could have that jog in the road 2 does 3 for a couple of thousand feet and then have it return back 3 Ms DO";AL~SO~ TI~n~'S some queat~im as to 4 tO the existing two-lane for 500 or 600 feet before it 4 whether there's an access easement or a fee simple 5 meets the ~tS3o 5 property that belongs to Acme between us and the park, but 6 I dinve Msyh~ll ev~'y day and that's a case 6 them is a 50 foot strip that is used by Acme Br~ck for 7 where the mobile home park them made thee. peruaeter 7 access to thee. property I don't know that it's ever 8 paving improvements, thoy'~ off center, and the 8 been determined whether they actually own ~t or they have 9 northbound lan¢~terally looks at the soo'iboond lane 9 an easement vath the City But our property goes up to 10 bead on at 40 miles an hour for a penod of time And for 10 that access point 11 those who don't do ~t every day, it's a hule iffy 11 MS HOLT SO it's wuthm 50 feet It's just 12 And with a four-lane divided read, the 12 a httle of South Lakes Park? 13 ex~stmg 22 to 24 feet of pavement is h~nally where the 13 Ma DONALDSON Yea 14 median will be ultimately W~ would make our impro~emunts 14 MS HOLT Because oo this htlle map that's 15 working from the right-of-way towards the center of the 15 drawn here, your property goes all the way up to the park 16 road and there would be a coosidemble offset the~ And 16 Ma DOI~ALOSO~ Yeah And it rmght be, m 17 ~t's not bkely to be ever improved until the C~ty is 17 fact, true that the City is the underlying owner of that 18 wdhng to do lha balance of the road 18 Acmcacceas We don't know tbet We had the same 19 So I'll -- at the core of It, It's about 19 discussion down south so -- I don't remember hew that was 20 money It's about our feehn$ that our estima~xi costs 20 ~a~olved 21 are mor~ than the faa. shere that's usually v~lim'ed fur 21 MS HOLT okay Thimkyou 22 development But it's also about steppmg beck and telang 22 MamSHEL Mr Re~ckbert 23 a look at tl~ big pictur~ und whet you wunt that reed to 23 Ma mitCHrlAa? After Comimssiooer Wllhams 24 look hke for a pened of tune betva~n when we develop and 24 brought up that point about vesUng, Mr Snyder and I thd 25 when a bond package is ever voted in that allows for the 25 talk And I tlunk we feel that Concept A should not even THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIO 13 ' 23, 2001 Page 61 - Page 64 Condens~ItTM Page 65 Page 6- I be considered at this tune because tt doesn't comply with I p~nmt~d under the Agricultural zomng you wouldn't have 2 existing zoning regulations Concept B docs It more 2 the same problem h would bo a surfllar problem to a much 3 than meets the Agricultural zoning out there But if we 3 lesser dcigcc smcc it docs comply with existing zoning 4 grent tbe vanenoe for Conoept A at flus tune, there rntght 4 t,a,~. M!ICHHART I dnn't want to open a can of 5 be some concern regarding that issue 5 worms, but debating if tho Commission felt that the 6 MIL RISHEL Thenk you, Mr Reichhart Ms 6 argmnents were vahd for both, regardless of zoning could 7 Oourdte 7 they condition an approval based on residential 8 MS GOURI~II~ l~o~s that mean that it's for 8 development along that sectien of the road? That if 9 legal reasons It's being not considered? Y*ull are 9 residenoal development is pursued from "X" number of feet 10 pulling it I guess, since it's a legal issue, it Is now I0 from the intersection, you know, gmng east in that area 11 removed from the -- 11 for residential development, no sidewalks or ponmetcr 12 Mit. SI, a'D£R I flunk that's correct Because 12 paving would be mqmred on Hobson? 13 we, quite frankly, until Commissioner Wllhams brought tt 13 Ma SNYDF. IC SO you're raising the issue that, 14 up, none of us thought of It And I think he's correct 14 I guess, that even under Concept B -- 15 that this plan would not comply with the zoning end you 15 Ma m!ICHHART it'S residential 16 would run a ask 16 MS` SNYDF. R But U Is, it's Agricultural It 17 I'm not saying that they would prev~ul, but 17 can either be used for agricultural purposes or 18 you would run a ask that they could argue that they're 18 residential, so I'm not understanding why it would be 19 vested on those lots, even though thorn's no dtmenmons on 19 necessary to haut it to that since it's consistent with 20 those lots They could make the argument so the prudent 20 the mu'mat zoning I guess I'm not understanding the 21 thing would be not to act on that until they get u zoning 21 point you're bnng~ng up 22 chenge 22 MR REICHHART If it's used for agnculturel 23 MIL RISHEL what ts the proper procedure for 23 what taggers the pgruneter paving and the sidewalks is 24 us Is to -- 24 any development, and we could say if there's any 25 MIL SNYDER JIlst consider the one option 25 residential development in dos area, r~ardless of what Page 66 Page 6, I Ma, lusltnt~ mght Thank you, s~r I the zoning is, it could be SF 7, SF 10 Ag, whatever, 2 Commiss~on, any furtl~ questions of the petitioner? 2 regardless of the zoning, it makes sense that residential 3 Ms. Me.sty t have a question for legal 3 development should get a waiver from sidewalks and 4 Ms` ~usnnL s~r Moreno 4 perimeter paving I'm not saying that's the way the 5 Ma MO~,~O ?ell me again why we should not 5 Commission is going to vote but I'm just asking the 6 consider A but we can consider B 6 question could they put a motion forward with that 7 MS. s'cvn~,c ~caase A does not comply with 7 lunguage9 8 existing zoning Tbe ~xistmg zoning, I believe, is 8 MR SNYDER I guess -- I think I might be 9 Agricultural and tho~lots, if you dimension th~n, if you 9 dense here I'm still not understanding your point I 10 Xscaled them out, those lots are smaller than what will be 10 guess it's just not -- the light is not coming off in my 11 allowed under the existing zoning Whereas, under Concur 11 head at the moment I'm not understendmg what purpo~ 12 B, as I understand Mr Reachhert, those lots would comply 12 that would serve 13 with the size of lots that would be l~Centled under 13 MR REICHHART All I'm saymg is as I look at 14 Agricultural zoning And so if you approve the vanances 14 both of these scenarios, there's two common threads for 15 to Concept A, one could make an argument under the State 15 both of them, the locatton of the request, the blue 16 law that this would be the first application in the sones 16 highlighted areas are the saree, almost the same on both 17 of permits for a development that showed lot sizes and 17 areas, and the second common thread is it's residential 18 that they could argue that they're vested for those lot 18 development And that's all I'm saymg Is, does it make 19 sizes before the City has actually decided whether that's 19 sense to grant a vartence for perimeter paving for 20 an appropriate zoning on the property 20 residential development whether it's five lots or 50 lots'~ 21 MR. ~oa~o' so would voting on Concept B be 21 I mean, that's what we're being asked, but regardless of 22 tantamount ,to approving Concept B? 22 what the zoning is 23 MILs~r~o~'~. ~;o, n wouldn't I flunk that 23 MR SNYDER But my pomt is the current 24 even under Concept B they could argue that ~ey're vested 24 zomng is Agricultural so under Agricultural you can 25 as to the lot s~es But since those lot sizes are 25 etther do residential or agricultural So I don't THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIO tr 23, 2001 Page 65 - Page 14 CondonsoltTM Page 69 Page 71 I understand tho point of the condition I guess I just 1 this ts an Agricultural piece of property now Taey're 2 don't understand what the point of that condition ts But 2 cormng forward with this as an Agricultural ple.:e of 3 I think you,could, to ensw~r your question, I guess you 3 property and lot sizes of an acre plus are penm:red on 4 could put that condition on there 4 Agricultural And I think that's what the perspective I'm 5 MR REICHHART My only thought is that they 5 personally gomg to have to take on it is that ~ are 6 could purst}o, tf they got the variance for Concept B, it's 6 currently standing tn the nudst of a current zen_'ag a~d 7 Agricultural, they could budd one-acre lots, no perimeter 7 anything deeper than that would require a zom-.~g OX:luest 8 paving Whether they got it rezcoed to whatever, a I'D 8 change and that would be a whole different precedure 9 that would allow flus multi, the mixed-use development, 9 And I also don't know what's going to aappen l0 it's still residential and they know they have the l0 wath that development plan, if flus really is an ~ea l I variance from perimeter paving I l where there can be a eommumty mixed-use cea.er Is 12 MR Sl, a'DER I'm going to answer the questmn 12 really supposed to be a neighborhood center'~ So ',,,~'re 13 m the short way Yes, you could put that condition on 13 using words that I don't know are even viable ~a tius 14 there If the Conumsston so chose, you could put that 14 moment tn tune 15 condition ell there 15 MR RISHEL Mr Moreno 16 MR RISHEL EXCUSe me Ms Gourdie has a 16 MR MORENO Yes, ~ Chau'man, along_' the 17 question 17 lines of Ms Gourdte's thmkmg and reasoning uere. I'm 18 MS C~OURDIE Well, go ahead and then I would 18 starting to get very uncomfortable w~th any furaer 19 kke to comment from my perspeattve 19 consideration of this item at all So that's -- I ~ 20 MR, SALMON well, I was going to add to that 20 we ought to suspend any further discussion on ~:us t.~ng 21 discussion is that if you s~mply say residential, that 21 MR RISHEL Mr Wtlhams would hke to speak 22 could include multi-family That has no, I mean, as 22 MR WILLIAMS I have a motion I think 23 Commissioner Holt mentioned earher, one of the things she 23 solve it I move that we recounnend to the CIr. Cotmcfl 24 was constdenng was the internal street layout and the 24 that the variance of Section 34-114 be denied for Hobsen 25 ability to get through the development from one end to the 25 Village Addition, Concept A and B, as we v, ou_d be Page 70 Page 72 I other If you sanply say residential development, then I approving a concept plan before the property is tezcced 2 that has nothing to do with the sm:ct, internal sm:et 2 MR RISHEL ts there a second? 3 layout, and then that may be some -- they may come m with 3 MS OOURDIE second 4 some residential, high density residentml development 4 t, la RISHaL it's been moved and seconded .~ 5 that doesn't have internal streets 5 there any further discussion or ulanficauon? 6 t~l~,wtLLtnlvls ! know how to solve thc whole 6 Ma MORENO what will bo the effect of flus 7 fluag is that we can vote it up or down -- 7 motmn, Mr Snyder? 8 MS oo~i~. Thank you, because that was my 8 MR. SNYDF21 'the way that motion was worn.i. 9 cea~ern The other concern to mo is prethctmg the futu~ 9 it would go onto City Council and then they would m~lee, I0 of flus development To me, we're being asked to choose 10 final decision II betva:enad~nseandauetdeasesituatlon AndI, 11 MR MORENO soit'ssullahveltem? 12 personally am having a difficult time decidmg - it's 12 MR SNYOER Yes I'm going to add a ca~ec 13 okay for me whan lt's preseated tho wey they want to do ~t 13 tothat Mr Re~chharijustmformedme Tbeapphc~t 14 and I can make a judgment call based on what's best on 14 would have to appeal ~t It wouldn't automatically g' 15 what I know and what I flunk is best for the area 15 forward 16 But to be given two choices, I cannot unbias 16 Ma ~iSlt~iL if they chose to appeal it? 17 myself And for that smct reason, I'm not comfortable 17 Ma S~,~YOea Yes 18 voong on this because I'm asked to make a decision for 18 MU Moa~t~o say that again I chdn't 19 them and mlmy annd, the developer is supposed to come 19 understand 20 he~ w~th tbotr choices, to work out thou' money 20 ~a st,,,Yn,~, the apphcant would have to 21 slluauon, and have us either yea or nay it But right 21 appeal 22 now they're tedhng us, well, leak, everything is based on 22 Mi~ REICHHART wlflun 10 days 23 you and I'm not in tl~ least bit comfortabl~ to make flus 23 M~ MOaENO 'fha recommendation for do'ua?' 24 decision, first and foremost, to decide 24 MR aNn/DER. Yes 25 NOW, the argument has been clarified is that 25 MR MORENO B~fore flus body or before the ~ PLANN~IG AND ZONING COIdMISSIr~''* ' ' x.y 23, 2001 Page 69 - Page 72 CondensoltTM Page 73 I Chamber -- not the chamber, the council7 2 MR SNYDER NO, they would just notify thc 3 Plann,ng Director that they intend to appeal that 4 decision Because basically what you're doing Is the way 5 our orthnanc¢ is worded, the exaction variances are 6 typically only -- only automatically go forward if there's 7 a recommendation for approval And if there's a 8 recommendation for denial, then the applicant has to make 9 an affirmative decision to take it forward to the City 10 Council 11 MR MORENO okay Thanks 12 MR RISHEL commissioners, any further 13 clarification needed on tlus? Does everyone understand 14 the motion? If there's no further discussion, please vote 15 on the motion The motion carries unanunously, 6-0 I 16 thought that Mr Williams' motion considered A and B 17 MR WILLIAMS Yes, both A and B 18 MR RISHEL I could get the -- to repeat that 19 motion if-- 20 MR WILLIAMS Because A and B was -- 21 MR RISHEL I thought he smd that 22 specifically Is that correct, Mr Wflhams9 23 MR WILLIAMS Yes, A and B 24 MR RI~HEL okay Thank you very much 25 Thank you, Commissioners I MR. WILLIAMS That was 2 3 MR. RISHEL [ JUSt wanted to make ~ had 4 work 5 would hke to 6 take a v~ advance onto 7 that work 8 ~ YeS 9 Ma adjourn 10 for - 11 MR auYo~ I bcheve that work 14 the meanUme, we 15 break and' .' about u It 16 :lock you have -- 19 20 21 22 23 24 THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSI 16. kY 23, 2001 ATTACHMENT 3 Carte l urgess ~o ~,mbroak ~ Suite 2~o Dallas TX 7524~-495q May 30, 2001 Mr Larry Relchhart, Assistant Director Planmng md Development City of Demon 201 S Elm ,Street Denton, TX 76201 SubJeCt Appeal of Recommendation by Planmng and Zoning Comrmsslon Regarding Variance Request fi.om Requirements for Perimeter Streets and Sidewalks for proposed Hobson Village development Dear Mr Remh_hart Please eon~lder this appeal to the City Council of the recommendation made by the Plann~.g and Zoning Commission at its meeting of May 23, 2001, to deny variances fi.om Sec 34-114 (5), streets, and134-114 (17), sidewalks, for a proposed development in south Denton to b~ celled Hobson Village We believe the Commission made the wrong recommendation due to a number of re. sons 1 The Commission m~stakenly considered the request for the entire length of Hobson Lane, rather than just the residential portion of the development, 2 The Commission did not consider any data regarding the "Exaction" or "Reasonable Benefit" characteristic of the required perimeter street and sidewalk improvements, 3 The Commission did not consider the "umque character" of the subject property and of Hobson Lane, and 4 The Commission was confused by the possibility that granting a variance based on a ~eoncept plan not yet submitted to them for consideration would someho~ "vest" the developer's right to develop aecorthng to the concept plan We believe the property meets the criteria for an exaction variance that the esttmated co. ts of perimeter improvements exceed the reasonable benefit to the property The attached analysis presents our rational If you have any questions or need addmonal Informatmn please feel fi.ce to call me m 214-638- 01435 or emafl at donaldsonmr~c-b corn Mark Donaldson APPEAL RATIONAl. At its meeting of May 23, 2001, the Planmng and Zomng Comnuss~on, recommended to deny variances from See 34-114 (5), streets, and 34-114 (17), sidewalks, for the proposed residential development m south Denton to be called Hobson Village The appheant beheves the Commlssaon reached the wrong dec~slon due to a number o£reasons 1 The Comnnssaon mastakenly consadered the request for the entire length o£ Hobson Lane, rather than just the resadentlal portaon of the development, 2 The Commassaon did not eonsxder any data regarding the "Exaction" or "Resonable Benefit" eharaetenstac of the reqmred perimeter street and sidewalk improvements, 3 The Commlssaon dad not eonsader the "umque character" of the subject property and of Hobson Lane, and 4 The Comrmssaon was confused by the possabihty that granting a variance based on a concept plan not yet submitted to them for consaderataon would somehow "vest" the developer's right to develop according to the concept plan The apphcant beheves the property meets the criteria for an exaction vanance that the estnnated eosts of perlmeter amprovements exeeed the reasonable benefit to the property The following analysas presents the rataonal 1. The Commission mistakenly consider the request for the entire length of Hobson Lane, rather than just the residential portion of the development; The Commission was presented analysis as ffthe entire length of Hobson Lane along the southern boundary of the proposed Hobson Lane was to be considered for the variance It is the desire of the applicant to only develop the residentaal portion of the propert3 at this time and that is the limit of the request This changes the extent of expected improvements so that the perimeter unprovements associated with the resadentaal development will not extend to the antersectaon of Hobson Lane and Country Club Road Thas ~s amportant, because it is at this intersection that ~mprovements are most needed to handle the current flow of traffic The staff report assumed that commercial development at the western end of the property would be a major traffic generator 67 s~ngle-famfly lots are proposed for the residential portion of the property Compared to other traffic generators along Hobson Lane, thas represents a relatively small impact * It as less than the threshold of traffic generataon required to trigger a traffic ampaet study (1,000 trips per day) an the interim development regulataons · Forest Pddge and Montecato, which access Hobson Lane, have 257 lots 18. · Northbound traffic from Estates of Forest Pddge (203 lots) and Montecito del Sur (116 lots) also use Hobson Lane · South Lake Park as a major traffic generator A large percentage of traffic starts and ends outsade the lmmedmte area 2. The Commission did not consider any data regarding the "Exaction" characteristic of the required perimeter street and sidewalk improvements; It as relatively easy to estimate the cost of proposed perimeter improvements We estimate that perimeter street and mdewalk requirements adjacent to the residential portaon of the proposed development wall cost approximately $320,000, or $4,800 for each single-farmly lot proposed Whale it may be easy to estimate required rmpmvement costs, it as difficult as to measure "reasonable"benefit One way is to consider Road Impact Fees as a reflectaon ofreasonable benefit or far share or required improvement In our experience, for those commumtles that require the payment of road ampact fees, fees representing the fair share of a developments ampact on a thoroughfare system typically range fxom S 1,000 per single-family lot to as high as $2,000 per single-family lot The lugh end of this range is less than half the estimated costs for the resadentaal pomon of Hobson Village Another way would be to compare flus property to other property an the area The attached table documents the relatlonslup of perimeter streets and the number of proposed or platted lots for all ofthesub&vlslonsconslderedlntheTeasleyLandCorrldorStudy An lndmator ofpenmeter street benefit may be the average or typmal relationship of all other property In South Denton between the perimeter streets and the number of lots watlun a development · For the subdavlsions within the Comdor Study, there ~s an average of seven (7) hneal feet ofpenmeter street for each single-family lot · By comparison, the resadentlal portaon of Hobson Village has 30 lineal feet of perimeter street per single-family lot · The next hlghest rataos are those of Monteclto at 17 hneal feet of perimeter street per lot and Ryan Ranch at 15 lineal feet of perimeter street per lot Tlus serves as a good andmator of the "reasonable benefit" or "fair share" of penmeter improvements for Hobson Village compared to other development m the City At the P & Z meeting, staffmdlcated that Hobson Lane was being considered for inclusion an the Caty of Denton's next capital amprovements plan Tlus is a clear indicator that the reasonable benefit of improvements to Hobson Lane as to the caty as a ~ hole and not exclusive to the adjacent property owners 19 3. The Commission did not consider the "unique character" of the subject property and of Hobson Lane; and The subject property has apprommately 2,000 hneal feet ofresadent~al development adjacent to Hobson Lane whale the depth of thc property ~s only about 400 feet Most propertaes have penmeter street frontage that ~s considerable less than the depth Thas as reflected by the perimeter street to lot ratao Hobson Lane as apprommately 6,000 feet m length, from Country Club Road to Teasley Lane, and had an average daffy volume of traffic of 7,800 trips per day an 2000 The subject property accounts for 17% of the property adjacent to Hobson Lane Estimated traffic from the 67 resadentaal lots of Hobson Lane would be appmxamately 670 tnps per day (10 trips per day per lot) The projected traffic generated from Hobson Village represents 8 percent of the base traffic plus Hobson Village traffic Hobson Lane is nearly fully developed Platted or developed property represents 66% of the property adjacent to Hobson Lane There have been no amprovements made to Hobson Lane by prewous development Requmng perimeter unprovements as Final Plats for the remdentlal portaons of Hobson Village will result an a paece-meal road that wall ~n fact represent a hazard of motorists The proposed four-lane dlvaded arterial road could have a medaan nearly as w~de as the ex~stlng road Perimeter street amprovements made by Hobson Village would reqmre an off- set of up to 24 feet Eastbound traffic on the south lane of new street could be north of the westbound traffic on the emstmg traffic To bmld the reqmred transmons at either end of the new road seetaon would extend the perimeter street reqmrement of Hobson Village a consaderable length 2O 4. The Commission was confused by the possibility that granting a variance based on a concept plan not yet submitted to them for consideration would somehow "vest" the developer's right to develop according to the concept plan. At the P & Z meeting, one of the Commissioners opined that the variance request was an "end mn" an an attempt to vest the concept plan Staff could not say wath certainty that approwng the variance subject to development consistent with the concept plan would or would not "vest" any development rights Concept Plan "A" was presented as a way of demonstrating the manner ~n which the developer would like to develop the land and the likely number of lots that could be developed on the property so that "reasonable benefif' could be discussed The same thmg can be aclueved w~thout a plan, samply by taking the proposed residential land area (17 9 acres) times 4 dua (the density cap under the proposed development regulations) to calculate the maximum number of residential lots allowed m the area (71) The cost of perimeter improvements could then be d~wded by 71 lots rather that 67 as shown on Concept "A' The outcome would be roughly the same the hneal footage of perimeter street per lot (28) would be four times the average for all development m the Teasley Lane Corridor Study) If a member of the Comnuss~on was lnchned to recommend approval of the variance, ~t could have been worded without reference to a concept plan, as follows Finding that the esttmated cost of requlred pertmeter street and stdewalk tmprovements exceeds any reasonable benefit to the proper~y owner and that the subject property and the configuration of Hobson £ane have untque charactertsttcss, I recommend approval of a variance from Secttons 34-114 (5), streets, and 34-114 (17), stdewalks, for any future restdenttal development of the subject proper~y that y~elds less than four dwelhng untts per acre, net of perimeter rtght-of-way Variance Analysis Hobson Village Variance Analysis Hobson Village Lineal Feet of Perimeter Street to # of Single-Family Lots for Subdivisions in Teasley Lane Corridor Stttdy Subdiv~s~on Number of Lineal Feet of Lineal Feet of Lineal Feet of S~ngle-Famfly Total Perimeter Local Perimeter Local Perimeter Lots Street Street Street per SF Lot Forest Ridge 157 1,400 1,400 9 Montecito 90 1,500 1,500 17 Wind Paver 434 900 (2 If/loO 0 0 Sundown Ranch 433 1,800 (4) 0 0 Surmmt Oaks 332 1,200 (4) 0 0 Oakmont II 212 1,200 (6) 1,200 6 Wheeler Ridge 628 7,200 (11) 3,500 6 Teasley Harbor 133 650 (5) 0 0 Stewart Highlands 170 1,040 (6) 0 0 Hickory CreekRanch 213 1,500 (7) 900 4 Hickory Creek Heights 94 800 (9) 520 6 Rldgemont 74 1,000 1,000 14 Montec~to del Sur 116 1,300 1,300 I 1 Estates of Forest Radge 203 1,350 1,350 7 Thistle Hill 129 900 900 7 Chaucer Estates 120 680 680 6 Oaks of Montecito 232 2,700 2,700 12 River Oaks 677 2,000 2,000 3 Ryan Ranch 275 4,200 4,200 15 TOTAL 4,722 / 3,220 33,320 23,150 7 AVERAGE 249 / 230 1,754 (7) 1654 7 HOBSON VILLAGE 67 2000 2000 30 Data from Teasley Lane Corridor Study, Final Report, May, 2000 22 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE' June 19, 2001 DEPARTMENT City Manager's Office CM Mike Conduff SUBJECT Consider nom~natlons and appointments to the Clty's Boards and Commissions BACKGROUND Each City Council Member is responsible for making nominations for board and commission places assigned to him or her Indiv~dual City Council Members will make nominations to the full City Cotmc~l for the Council's approval or disapproval at the next regular scheduled meeting Council Members making nominations for members to the boards and commissions will consider interested persons on a cltywlde basis The City Council wall make an effort to be inclusive of all segments of the commumty in the board and commission appointment process City Council Members w~ll consider ethmc~ty, gender, soclo-economlc levels, and other factors to ensure a diverse representation of Denton citizens The City Council will take into consideration an individual's qualifications, willingness to serve, and application information in selecting nominations for membership to each board and commission In an effort to ensure maximum citizen participation, City Council Members will continue the general practice of nominating new c~tizens to replace board members who have served three consecutive, full terms on the same board Attached is a list of board and commission members whose terms are expiring this year Council may want to refer to the Boards/Commissions notebook to determine whether or not a member wishes to be reappointed Respectfully submitted City Secretary BOARDS/COMMISSION NOMINATIONS AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARD Dtst Current Member Nommatton Term Councd I Hal Jackson 1999-01 Redmon 2 Rick Woolfolk 1999-01 Fulton 6 Don Smith 1999-01 Burroughs ANIMAL SHELTER ADVISORY COMMITTEE Dlst Current Member Nomination Term Councd 7 Bob Rohr 1999-01 Brock 3 Lynn Stucky 1999-01 Phtlhps 4 Jennifer Walters 1999-01 McNedl CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION D~oSt Current Member Nomination Term Tory Caet~ 1998-01 City Manager COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Dtst Current Member Nomtnatton Term Councd 1 Harry Bell 1999-01 Redmon 2 Pat Colonna 1999-01 Fulton 4 Diane Crew 1999-01 McNedl 6 Peggy Fox 1999-01 Burroughs CONSTRUCTION APPEALS & ADVISORY BOARD Dtst Specialty Current Member Nomination Term Councd 1 General Contractor Bill Redmon 1999-01 Redmon 3 General Conlractor Jay Thomas 1999-01 Phllhps 5 General Contractor Scott Richter 1999-01 Beasley 6 Rep from electrical industry Doug Grantham 1999-01 Burroughs 7 Rep from plumbing industry Frank Cunmngham 1999-01 Brock 2 DENTON HOUSING AUTHORITY Seat Current Member Nomination Term Councd 7 Rosemary Rodnguez 1999-01 Brock 7 Katie Flemmlng 1999-01 Brock 7 Mark Chew 1999-01 Brock HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Dtst Current Member Nomination Term Council 2 Lanelle Blanton 1999-01 Fulton 4 Barry Vermdhon 1999-01 McNe~ll 5 Peggy Capps 1999-01 Beasley 6 John Bmnes 1999-01 Burroughs 1 Steve Boedeker 1999-01 Redmon 3 Steve Johansson 1999-01 Pbalhps HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Dtst Current Member Nommatton Term Councd 4 Audrey Bryant 1999-01 McNelll 5 James McDade 1999-01 Beasley I Mae Nell Shephard 1999-01 Redmon 3 Betty Tombouhan 1999-01 Phillips 5 Peggy Kelly 1999-01 Beasley 6 Kent Miller 1999-01 Burroughs 7 Ehnor Hughes 1999-01 Brock LIBRARY BOARD Dtst Current Member Nomination Term Councd 5 Ken Ferstl 1999-01 Beasley 6 Adrienne Noms 1999-01 Burroughs 2 Carroll Trml 1999-01 Fulton 3 PARKS, ] AND BEAUTIFICATION BOARD Dtst Current Member Nomtnatton Term Councd 5 Don Edwards 1999-01 Beasley 6 Teresa Andress 1999-01 Burroughs 7 Dalton Gregory 1999-01 Brock 1 Gwendolyn Carter 1999-01 Redmon PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Dtst Current Member Nommatton Term Counctl 4 Ehzabeth Gourdle 1999-01 McNedl 7 Susan Apple 1999-01 Brock I Carl Wflhams 1999-01 Redmon 2 Rudy Moreno 1999-01 Fulton PUBLIC ,UTILITIES BOARD Dt6st Current Member ] Nomination Term Councd CharldeanNewell 1997-01 Burroughs TMPA BOARD OF DIRECTORS S~at CurrentMember] Nommatton {Term Councd Sandy Knstoferson 1999-01 ALL TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Dtst Current Member Nomtnatton Term Counctl 3 Marshall Snuth 1999-01 Phillips 4 Mmhael Montmmo 1999-01 McNeill 7 Pat Cheek 1999-01 Brock ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Dtst Current Member Nommatton Term Counctl 3 Greg Mmrhead 1999-01 Plulhps 6 ByronWoods 1999-01 Burroughs 7 John Johnson 1999-01 Brock 4 Dtst , Current Member Nomtnatton Term Counctl 1 Tom Reece 1999-01 Redmon 4 Jon Bergslxom 1999-01 McNedl 0 Grant Jacobson (Alt 1) 1999-01 ALL 0 Janes Kakpamck (AIr 2) 1999-01 ALL 0 David Gumfory (Alt 3) 1999-01 ALL