Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
May 14, 2002 Agenda
AGENDA CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL May 14, 2002 After determining that a quorum is present, the City Council will convene in a Work Session on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 at 4:30 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall, 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas at which the following items will be considered: Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction on amending the 2001-02 operating budget in order to add staff. Requests for clarification of consent agenda items listed on the 0onsent agenda for today's City Council regular meeting of May 14, 2002. Special Called Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas at which he following items will be considered: Pledge of Allegiance A. U.S. Flag B. Texas Flag "Honor the Texas Flag -- I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one and indivisible." PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS 2. Proclamations 3. Recognition of staff accomplishments. CITIZEN REPORTS 4. Karen Morgan regarding Tejas Storytelling Association. 5. Carl Williams regarding glass ceiling and promotion within the City of Denton. 6. Andee Chamberlain regarding curbside recycling program. 7. Jan Dixon representing Keep Denton Beautiful regarding recycling. 8. Nell Yelldell regarding funding for assisted living for the elder and disabled in District 1. 9. Frank Killoran regarding curbside recycling bid. CONSENT AGENDA Each of these items is recommended by the Staff and approval thereof will be strictly on the basis of the Staff recommendations. Approval of the Consent Agenda authorizes the City Manager or his designee to implement each item in accordance with the Staff recommendations. The City Council has received background information and has had an opportunity to raise questions regarding these items prior to consideration. City of Denton City Council Agenda May 14, 2002 Page 2 Listed below are bids, purchase orders, contracts, and other items to be approved under the Consent Agenda (Agenda items 10 - 34). This listing is provided m the Consent Agenda to allow Council Members to discuss or withdraw an item prior to approval of the Consent Agenda. if no items are pulled, Consent Agenda items 10 - 34 below will be approved with one motion. if items are pulled for separate discussion, they will be considered as the in'st items following approval of the Consent Agenda. 10. Consider approval of the minutes of April 2, 2002, April 9, 2002, and April 16, 2002. 11. Consider a request for an exception to the noise ordinance for the purpose of an outdoor music festival known as the Mark Fearing Benefit Concert scheduled for Sunday, May 19, 2002 during the hours of 1 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the North Texas State Fair Grounds. Specifically, the request is for an exception to the hours of operation. 12. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute change order number one to the contract between the City of Denton and Archer Western Contractors, Ltd.; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Ordinance No. 2001-439 - Bid 2734 - Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant Expansion awarded to Archer Western Contractors, Ltd. in the amount of $16,930,000 and change order number one in the amount of $71,852.03 for a total amount of $17,001,852.03). 13. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute change order number two to the Professional Services Agreement (PSA) between the City of Denton and Huitt-Zollars, inc. for Construction Phase Services for the Solid Waste Facilities as set forth in the contract which allows additional services; and providing an effective date (Ordinance No. 2001-375 for PSA 2685 - Professional Services Agreement to Huitt- Zollars, inc., in the total amount of $202,900 (including change order one) and change order number two in the amount not-to-exceed $67,200 for a total of $270,100). 14. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to accept an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Garland to authorize participation in various City of Garland contracts for the purchase of various goods and services; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (File 2849 - interlocal Agreement with the City of Garland, Texas). 15. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Teague Nall and Perkins for the design of Spencer Road (Colorado Blvd. to Loop 288) as set forth in the contract; and providing an effective date (PSA 2815 - Professional Services Agreement for Design of Spencer Road from Colorado Boulevard to Loop 288 awarded to Teague Nall and Perkins for a total amount of $325,630). 16. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with RJN Group, Inc. for engineering services related to the Inflow and Infiltration Study and Rehabilitation for Eastern Pecan and Hickory Creek Drainage Basins; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (PSA 2830 - awarded to RJN Group, inc. in the amount of $407,282). City of Denton City Council Agenda May 14, 2002 Page 3 17. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a public works contract for the construction of the Leatherwood 21" Sanitary Sewer; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2820 - Leatherwood Sanitary Sewer awarded to Patco Utilities, Inc. in the amount of $130,645.65). 18. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a public works contract for the construction of the Demon Storage Yard; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2822 - Denton Storage Yard awarded to Jones and Jeffery Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $249,705). 19. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding an annual public works contract for the acquisition of street and drainage construction projects and micro surfacing of collector or arterial streets; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2823 (Sections 1, 2, 6) - Annual Contracts for Asphalt and Concrete Street Construction, Ultra Flow and RCP Pipe, Box Culverts for Storm Sewers and Micro Surfacing, awarded as listed in Exhibit A of the ordinance). 20. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of storm sewer pipe and box culverts for street and drainage related projects; providing expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2823 (Sections 3, 4, 5) - Annual Contract For Asphalt and Concrete Street Construction, Ultra Flow and RCP Pipe, Box Culverts for Storm Sewers and Micro Surfacing, awarded as listed in Exhibit A of the ordinance). 21. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding an annual contract for the purchase of miscellaneous concrete work; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2824 - Annual Contract Concrete Work awarded to Floyd Smith Concrete inc. in the estimated amount of $1,400,000). 22. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a public works contract for the construction of Cross Timbers Park; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing for an effective date (Bid 2828 - Cross Timbers Park awarded to Dean Electric, inc. dba Dean Construction in the amount of $558,000). 23. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a public works contract for the construction of the Loop 288 30" Waterline; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2833 - Loop 288 30" Waterline awarded to Texas Electric Utility Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1,211,846.73). 24. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding an annual contract for the purchase of Tire Repair and Tire Changing Services; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2806 - Tire Repair and Tire Changing awarded to Pro Tire, inc. in the estimated amount of $40,000). City of Denton City Council Agenda May 14, 2002 Page 4 25. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding an annual contract for the purchase of Printer and Plotter Cartridges and Parts; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2831 - Annual Contract for the Purchase of Printer and Plotter Cartridges and Parts awarded to GDA Micro Technologies, Inc. in the estimated amount of $54,434.90). 26. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of residential curbside recycling and processing services to those Denton residential solid waste customers as determined by the City Council; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Request for Bids No. 2832 - Residential Curbside Recycling and Processing Services; awarded to Trinity Waste Services.) 27. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding an annual price agreement for Concrete Utility Poles; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2836 - Annual Price Agreement for Concrete Utility Poles awarded to Lonestar Prestress Manufacturing, Inc. in the estimated amount of $193,375). 28. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, authorizing the Mayor to execute an Aquatic Center Operations Agreement by and between the City of Denton, Texas and the Denton Independent School District amending an Interlocal Agreement dated May 15, 2001; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date. 29. Consider approval of a resolution by the City of Denton, Texas, authorizing the City Manager to sign and submit to the Department of Housing and Urban Development a 2002 Action Plan for Housing and Community Development with appropriate certifications, as authorized and required by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended and the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, as amended; and providing for an effective date. 30. Consider approval of a resolution of the City of Denton, Texas approving the eligibility of the structures located at 535-A and 535-B S. Locust, Denton, Texas for tax exemption for historically significant sites pursuant to Chapter 10, Article VII Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas; authorizing City Manager to execute a tax exemption certificate; and declaring an effective date. The Historic Landmark Commission recommends approval 6-0. 31. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to sign the First Amendment to that certain Agreement for Professional Legal Services with the Law Offices of Jim Boyle, P.L.L.C. for representation in litigation and proceedings before the Texas Railroad Commission regarding the gas rate for the Spencer Electric Generating Station; increasing the amount of the professional fee; authorizing the expenditure of funds; and providing an effective date. 32. Consider and confirm the re-appointment by the City Manager of Dennis Stephens to the Civil Service Commission. City of Denton City Council Agenda May 14, 2002 Page 5 33. Consider approval of a resolution nominating a member to the North Central Texas Council of Governments 2002-03 Executive Board; and declaring an effective date. 34. Consider approval of tax refunds for the following property taxes: Tax Name Reason Year Amount A B. Wells Fargo for David & Laura Boring Duplicate Payment 2001 $ 916.73 D. Washington Mutual Bank for Jerry & Overpayment 2001 $1,155.93 Carol Knott F. Washington Mutual Bank Erroneous Payment 2001 $ 675.60 H. Marjorie Sue Keele Overpayment 2001 $ 562.97 J. Danny L. Prins Duplicate Payment 2001 $ 780.65 L. HA Denton LLC Value Decrease per Denton 2001 $2,235.06 Central Appraisal District PUBLIC HEARING 35. Hold a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance amending Ordinance 99- 439, regarding a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, from Neighborhood Centers to Community Mixed Use Center and from Employment Centers to Neighborhood Centers. The area for amendment encompasses approximately 70 acres. The site is generally located south of the intersection of Loop 288 at Kings Row. A development containing a variety of single-family, multi-family, retail, office and commercial uses is proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-0). (CAOI-O00O 36. Hold a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 180 acres from Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2), Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4), and Employment Center Industrial (EC-I) zoning districts to Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3), Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4), Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6), Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12), and Community Mixed Use General (CM-G) zoning districts. The property is generally located on either side of Loop 288 north of Mingo Road, south of King's Row, east of Old North Road and west of Cooper Creek Road. A development containing a variety of single-family, multi- family, retail, office and commercial uses is proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (5-1). (Z02-0004) 37. Hold a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 0.8 acres, from a Multiple Family Dwelling District 1 (MF-1) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district. The property is commonly addressed City of Denton City Council Agenda May 14, 2002 Page 6 as 1822, 1828 and 1902 West Oak Street and generally located on the north side of West Oak Street approximately 310 feet east of Bradley Street. The property is being rezoned to bring it in conformance with the Denton Development Code. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (4-2). (Z02-0016) [City initiated rezoning, initially reviewed during the Development Code review process.] 38. Hold a public heating to consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 0.4 acres, from a Multiple Family Dwelling District 1 (MF-1) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district. The property is commonly addressed as 722 West Oak Street and generally located on the north side of West Oak Street between Mounts Avenue and Denton Street. The property is being rezoned to bring it in conformance with the Denton Development Code. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (5-1). (Z02-O01D [City initiated rezoning, initially reviewed during the Development Code review process.] 39. Hold a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance for a Specific Use Permit for approximately 0.7 acres, commonly known as 1911 Virginia Street. The subject property is zoned Employment Center Commercial (EC-C) and is generally located north of Virginia Street and south of Mingo Road. A 120' telecommunications tower is proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-0). (Z02- ooo0 40. Hold a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance amending the Concept Plan for Planned Development 139 (PD-139). The approximately 400-acre site, commonly known as The Vintage, is located east of Interstate 35W along both sides of Vintage Boulevard west of Bonnie Brae. An amendment allowing filling of the floodplain to develop additional single-family dwellings, gas well operations, and amenity centers is proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial for additional residential lots, and approval with conditions to allow gas well operation and amenity center land uses (6-0). (Z01-0048) (The Vintage, Amended Concept Plan) 41. Hold a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 5.0 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential Mixed-Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning district. The property is generally located along the east side of Highway 377, approximately 900 feet north of Chipping Campden Road. A retail development is proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-0). (Z02-0008) (deffi'ies Center) [Property owner initiated rezoning, initially reviewed during the Development Code review process.] 42. Hold a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 3.1 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential Mixed-Use (NRMU) zoning district. The property, commonly known as 711 East Sherman Drive, is generally located along the west side of Sherman Drive approximately 150 feet west of Linwood Drive and Sherman Drive intersection. No development is proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-0). (Z02-0020) [Property owner initiated rezoning, initially reviewed during the Development Code review process.] City of Denton City Council Agenda May 14, 2002 Page 7 43. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 37 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use (NRMU) zoning district. The property is generally located on the west side of Bonnie Brae north of Windsor and south of Riney Road. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) (4-2). (Z02-0007) [Property owner initiated rezoning, initially reviewed during the Development Code review process.] 44. Hold a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 0.52 acres from a Downtown Residential 1 (DR-l) zoning district to a Downtown Residential 2 (DR-2) zoning district. The property is commonly known as 915 Avenue A, 917 Avenue A and 1124 Fannin and is located at the northeast comer of Fannin and Avenue A. An apartment complex is proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-0). (Z02-0015) 45. Hold the First of two public heatings to consider the voluntary annexation and service plan for approximately 345.5 acres of land generally located north of Loop 288, east of Bonnie Brae and west of Locust, in the northern section of the City of Denton ExtratelTitodal Jurisdiction (ETJ). (A02-O00O 46. Hold a public heating to consider adoption of an ordinance creating a Special Sign District on 7.52 acres of land in a Downtown Commercial General (DC-G) zoning district. The site is located on the north side of interstate 35E, approximately 210 feet west of Centre Place and east of Meadow. The proposal is to create a Special Sign District for the entire tract that includes six lots. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0). (SDO2-OOOD ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 47. Consider approval of a resolution of the City of Denton, Texas, authorizing intervention in Gas Utilities Docket 9292 at the Railroad Commission; authorizing participation in a Steering Committee with other cities served by TXU and requiting reimbursement from TXU Lone Star Pipeline of Cities' reasonable rate case expenses; and providing an effective date. 48. New Business This item provides a section for Council Members to suggest items for future agendas or to request information from the City Manager. 49. items from the City Manager A. Notification of upcoming meetings and/or conferences B. Clarification of items on the agenda 50. Possible Continuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. 51. Official Action on Closed Meeting item(s) under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. City of Denton City Council Agenda May 14, 2002 Page 8 CERTIFICATE I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall of the City of Denton, Texas, on the day of ,2002 at o'clock (a.m.) (p.m.) CITY SECRETARY NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS IS ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. THE CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED MEETING. PLEASE CALL THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 349-8309 OR USE TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF (TDD) BY CALLING 1-800- RELAY-TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE SCHEDULED THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE. Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 WS 1 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: May 14, 2002 DEPARTMENT: Finance ACM: Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction on amending the 2001-02 operating budget in order to add staff. BACKGROUND During the budgeting process for the current fiscal year, departments that requested additional staff were required to submit a budget "package". Each package described the need for the addition, the anticipated impact on service level as well as an outline of the costs of salary, benefits, supplies and equipment. Any expenditure reduced or additional revenue produced by the request was identified. Estimated second and third year costs were also included. During budget balancing, all of the packages were analyzed and prioritized based on Council priority, service need and financial impact. There were 42 requested positions that were not included in the current year's budget. As part of the City of Denton Charter, Section 8.08 - Amending the budget states: In case of grave public necessity, emergency expenditures to meet unusual and unforeseen conditions, which could not by diligent thought and attention have been included in the original budget, may be authorized by the affirmative vote of at least five (5) of the members of the Council as an amendment to the original budget. In every case where such an amendment is made, a copy of the ordinance adopting the amendment shall be filed with the City Secretary, published in the next issue of the official newspaper of the city, and attached to the budget originally adopted. FISCAL INFORMATION A budget amendment to allocate funding would require approval of an ordinance and will decrease the funds available for future years as previously reported in the Long-Range Financial Forecast presented to the City Council in February of this year. As you are aware, the estimate for 2002-03 forecast a loss even though it included no pay raises and no additional employees. Agenda Information Sheet May 14, 2002 Page 2 EXHIBITS Overview of Requested but Unfunded Positions Respectfully submitted: Kathy DuBose, Assistant City Manager Fiscal and Municipal Services REQUESTED BUT UNFUNDED POSITIONS FY2001-02 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: Community Development Human Services Coordinator. The Human Services Coordinator works with agencies that receive CDBG and General Fund allocations. Currently, all Community Development administrative costs are paid through federal funds - either CDBG or HOME. The federal government limits administrative costs at 20% for CDBG and 10% for HOME funding. With federal funds continuing to decrease, and administrative costs increasing, our administrative cost for FY2001-02 exceeded the percentages allowed for administrative costs. A supplemental package was submitted to move this position to the General Fund. Since the position was not approved for General Fund, reserve HOME funds were used. As a result, our HOME fund reserve will be depleted this year, and we will be faced with the same dilemma for FY2002-03. Next year federal funds will be less than this year, and administrative costs continue to increase, again putting us over the administrative cost limits. If the position is not funded for next year, we may be forced to eliminate one professional position in order to stay within the federal requirements. As a result, services or programs supported by this position may also have to be cut. ENGINEERING: Secretary. As a result of the consolidation of engineering services from utilities to general government, the number of employees in the department grew from 26 to 44 positions. This included an increase in professional staff of eight engineers and the addition of a surveyor transferred from water utilities. A five-fold growth in professional staff within the department has significantly increased the need for administrative staff support represented by this secretarial position. This need has essentially gone unfulfilled, with the current administrative staff incurring additional overtime and professional staff having to assist with filing, records research, typing and data entry, thus delaying completion of reviews and designs. As a result of this inefficient utilization of professional resources we have experienced a reduced productivity resulting in delays, particularly in the development review arena where a significant level of administrative support could have been utilized and would have resulted in improved efficiencies and productivity. Engineering and survey professionals are averaging 10% of their time (over 1800 man hours) performing administrative duties that would have been handled by the proposed Secretary, at an average $36 per hour (a rate over three times the hourly rate proposed for the Secretary). Engineering Intern. This position was proposed to be an entry-level individual or several individuals, (ideally students enrolled in an engineering curriculum) who would support our field services group on specific projects. This position would be filled by a co-op student looking for practical experience in the civil engineering field. It would rotate through three individuals during the year or bring three individuals onboard during the summer months, depending on the anticipated project needs, for a total of hours equivalent to one full time position. Not funding this position has resulted in delays in current project completion schedules and delayed the initiation of several other critical projects including the sanitary sewer infiltration evaluation effort. The effort anticipated to be undertaken through this position is not something we have been able to absorb through existing personnel and represents an opportunity to accomplish additional projects that have been lost for this fiscal year. A portion of the financial impact to the City for not funding this position can best be reconciled in the cost we are incurring hiring consultants to perform efforts we had anticipated performing with in-house personnel. The City is under a Federal EPA compliance order to address infiltration issues with the sanitary sewer system. Given this constraint, we have a mandate to address the effort or face fines for non-compliance. This position was proposed to help on this project. PARKS & RECREATION: Temporary/Seasonal Position (.31). This position was requested to extend operations at the Civic Center Pool for 9 additional days at the end of summer. This request was driven by the delay of the DISD's start date for the 2002-03 school year, changed as a result of recently passed state legislation. Because this request was not funded, the pool season will not be extended. Field Services Worker III. This position was requested to maintain 16.58 acres of class B (developed) and 118.79 acres of class C (undeveloped) park land and medians added to the department's inventory over the past 2 years. This acreage has been added to the system without the resources to care for it at adopted service levels resulting in reduced service levels. Contract Compliance Administrator. This position was requested to implement a planned multi-department consolidation of contract mowing done by various City departments. The Parks and Recreation Department would assume the responsibility for oversight of contractors and contract administration. The plan, if funded, was designed to increase the acreage to be mowed by contract and provide the community with a single contact for service requests or complaints. The plan was not implemented. Urban Forester. This position was requested to implement a planned multi-department consolidation of tree services, including the administration of an increased level of contract services for tree trimming and emergency tree removal. The position was to be partially underwritten by the Texas Forest Services graM, which was declined by the City Council last fall. Customer Service Rep. - Leisure Services (.5). Requested to convert a ½ time customer service position at the Civic Center to a fulltime position. One or more managers at a higher pay scale must currently replace this part time worker when she is off due to vacation or illness. This practice continues. FACILITIES: Daytime Porter. All cleaning at the City of Denton is done at night, with services provided by a comractor through our Special Projects Division. The Porter position would be responsible for daytime cleaning of areas with high-citizen traffic. Some of these areas include Customer Service, Police, Human Resources, and Engineering lobbies, Municipal Courts, Council Chambers, voting areas in the City Hall basemeN, Civic Cemer, E. F. Library, and associated public conference rooms and restrooms. These high-traffic restrooms need cleaning and disinfecting two or more times during the workday. In all of the dowmown buildings we have emergency cleaning needs such as; spills mischievous restroom disasters, graffiti, nausea accidems, and even flooding from overflowing water sources. All of these interrupt citizen services. The Porter would also provide special cleaning services such as window cleaning for special occasions at City Hall, as well as cleaning outside emries to our buildings, such as smoking entries. The Police Departmem prefers to have their daytime cleaning performed by a full-time staff person, one whom they could perform a background check on, and thereby be allowed imo secured areas. Without this position, the restrooms and public areas do not get any daytime cleaning or special cleaning. If staff or citizens use the Council Chambers, Work Session Room, or Work Session Restroom during the day it will not be cleaned until approximately 9:30 p.m. that night. Any emergency spills or accidents generally wait until a maintenance technician can be pulled off of his scheduled tasks at another building, (i.e., air conditioning, pluming, electrical, general maimenance). The Technician must stop working, pack all tools, and load up their truck and then travel to the site requesting emergency clean up. Presemly, in emergency cases, restrooms or halls are closed umil a Technician arrives or even until that evening when the contracted cleaning crew can complete the necessary cleaning task. Unless it is an emergency cleaning situation, restrooms and public areas are required to wait for the night-contracted person to clean them. Chlorinated bleach, handy wipes, etc. have been distributed to various buildings. Secretarial staff and administrative staff do some cleaning of emergency spills. Maintenance Supervisor. The Supervisor position would be responsible for the day to day maintenance operation of approximately 31 buildings located throughout the City, totaling 560,000 square feet. This is equivalent to 186 houses that are 3,000 square feet each. The Maintenance Division currently has eight (8) technicians who would report directly to this position. The staff of eight (8) technicians is responsible for all aspects of building maintenance including but not limited to general maintenance, electrical, HVAC, plumbing, roofing, painting, security, DDC control, and a 24/7 on-call system. This position would be responsible for the MS Request Work Order System, assignments of the daily workloads, completely run the building security entry/card system, investigation of all security complaints, and reporting associated with building maintenance, cost evaluations of maintenance practices, and longevity of facilities. In addition, this position would be responsible for working with contractors, as needed, for the Maintenance Division, and would be in charge of the 24/7 on-call system. This position would allow the Senior Techs to perform more day-to-day operations, giving them more time to work on equipment, thereby prolonging the life of our fixed assets. Not funding this position will continue to require senior technicians to help with supervising the maintenance group, thereby reducing their needed time in the field working on buildings and equipment. FISCAL AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES LIBRARY: Librarian I - Outreach Services. The Librarian I for Outreach Services will provide library programs and services outside the library to citizens who neither receive nor request library services. Children in childcare are the primary target group for this position. The library will have a presence in schools by taking book talks and library information to individual classrooms. The Librarian I will also provide library participation in community events, school festivals and PTA meetings, as well as participation at Owsley School and the Nelson Center. Part-Time Library Clerks (2) - Adult Services. Two part-time library clerks are needed to work with the circulation staff to shelve all of the adult book titles and keep the shelves read and in order. Due to a lack of staff, individuals completing community service hours do the majority of the shelving. This necessary action results in frequent turnover of individuals performing this task, and as a result, the condition of the shelves do not meet library professional standards. Library Assistant I - South Branch, Adult Services. Currently at the South Branch, all of the clerks work in Circulation Services to meet customer demand. This position would provide assistance to the Adult Services Librarian to help receive and track periodicals and newspapers, maintain order in the periodicals shelves, update reference sets, withdraw books, maintain the vertical file, and assist customers in locating information. Library Clerk - South Branch, Circulation Services. As the South Branch is open seven days a week, an additional library clerk is needed on the "A" shift in the Circulation Services department. This clerk would be responsible for organizing and shelving library materials and providing clerical assistance for the circulation function. This individual would check materials in and out for library customers, issue new and duplicate library cards to customers, organize and shelve materials returned to the branch library, maintain correct order of library materials on the shelves; collect fines for overdue materials or lost materials, and search the shelves for missing materials. Library Clerk - Circulation Services. Clerks from the Cemral Library who were hired to work in Circulation Services are pulled from their regular job duties to perform the courier service each day. This position would free limited staff to help in assisting customers and allow another individual to perform the library courier service. Courier service involves the exchange of materials between Emily Fowler Central Library, South Branch Library, and the book drop at City Hall in the Mall located in Golden Triangle Mall and the new North Branch Library in 2003. Part-Time Clerk - South Branch, Youth Services. The part-time clerk will provide for the Youth Services programs at the South Branch Library. This individual will assist the Children's Librarians during story time manipulating puppets, reading stories, and leading songs. The clerk will assist the Children's librarian with all aspects of the Summer Reading Club, with bulletin board design, producing publicity, and equipmem maintenance. HUMAN RESOURCES: Trainer. The Human Resources Department recognizes the need to provide training for employees giving them the tools to successfully manage, motivate and retain employees. Based on an employee survey requesting more supervisory training, Human Resources will begin the STEP Academy (Supervisory Tools for Effective Performance) certification program on October 1, 2001. This program is designed to provide supervisors with the tools to be effective in their relationships with employees and customers. The position of Trainer has been requested due to the anticipated increase in our training program. We estimate that training hours will increase over 60% from previous years. The position of Trainer for the City of Demon would have the following benefits: · Allow flexibility in training employees in the following ways: o Ability to offer multi-dates for each workshop © Change the days and times of training to accommodate employees' work schedules · Design training programs specifically to municipal government work and more specifically to the City of Demon · Cost savings from this position would be felt throughout the organization by being able to send employees to in-house training programs at minimal or no cost and would also save travel cost since workshops would be offered on-site · This position would also be available to go to departmems and offer specific training in areas where they need help MANAGEMENT & BUDGET: Budget Analyst. Works with departments to assist in revenue and expenditure tracking, budget preparation, and long range forecasting; as well as the development of an improved performance measuremem program. PUBLIC SAFETY AND TRANSPORTATION FIRE DEPARTMENT: Training Chief. Training, as a concept, is admired, aspired to, demanded, and sometimes, like any good thing, taken for granted. The Fire Department currently accomplishes the basic training necessary to maintain all required certifications with an emphasis in safety of our personnel. Based on the City Council's standards for fire protection and minimal fire loss to our citizens along with providing a safe and effective work environment for our firefighters, our current training program continues to meet the basic certification and safety requiremems. However, elective training and specialized training has been minimal at best and certainly not to the degree desired. The lack of a training facility also severely hampers our training program. This position was budgeted in last year's budget to replace the Training Chief who was promoted to Division chief over Support Services two years ago. This position was determined to be necessary to improve our Training Program by providing a full-time training chief with the sole responsibility of training and safety. However, safety has not been negatively impacted by the lack of a Training Chief. The injuries that have occurred on the job in the past three years would have occurred with or without a Training Chief, and as far as can be determined, did not occur because of a lack of training. Division Chief Mike Sessions has spent a great deal of his time on safety issues. New Employee Training. This has been accomplished successfully by the Division Chief over Support Services. Due to the fact the Fire Department has staffed a new truck company, added a fourth firefighter on both quires, and added another from line ambulance at Fire Station #6, the bulk of training monies over the past three years has been spem for training new employees. New employee training academies will be enhanced by a dedicated Training Chief and training facility. Paramedic certification maintenance training - annual requirement = 40 hours Paramedic and EMT basic cominuing education have both been successfully accomplished in the past year due to the contract with Baylor Grapevine. We currently comract with Baylor Medical Cemer of Grapevine for medical comrol and cominuing education for our paramedics (80% of our firefighters) and Emergency Medical Technicians (the other 20%). All paramedics have been provided with the 40 hours of continuing education credits each year in order to maintain their certifications. Both the paramedic and special skills classes are provided to us at a cost of about $18,000 per year, which is included in our comract with Baylor Medical Cemer and does not show up directly in the budget as training. A Training Chief will coordinate the EMS and Fire training requirements. Firefighter certification maintenance training - annual requirement = 24 hours Each firefighter/paramedic is required to receive 24 hours of training each year in order to maimain his/her firefighting certification. This is provided in-house by the Division Chief as time permits, supervised by the Operations Battalion Chief and Fire Captains. In addition, the standard fire service training goal is that all firefighters in the stations receive 20 hours of training per month to maintain their skills in all areas. Although we meet the basic requiremems, in reality, our firefighters are probably not receiving the desired number of hours of firefighting training, especially "live" fire training. This is primarily due to the lack of a dedicated training facility. Once a dedicated training facility is in place, the need for a Training Chief becomes even more critical. However, basic firefighter certification requirements are being successfully maintained at this time. Skills Enhancement Training. This category of training represents a miscellany of courses, seminars, conferences, and training sessions offered by the National Fire Academy, Texas Engineering Extension Service (TEEX), FEMA, TDH, other municipalities, and many more. In some cases, these are available to be taught on-site at the Denton Fire Department, other times, travel and overnight lodging may be required to attend training. A miniscule portion of the Fire Department's budget has been available to be spent for this purpose over the past several years. This is the portion of our training program that will be most enhanced by a Training Chief along with funds to provide more training opportunities for Fire Department employees emphasizing the concept of "train-the-trainer." Fire Inspector. The Fire Department has unsuccessfully budgeted for this position for three years to keep up with growth and the increase of requirements in Fire Prevention. This additional Fire Inspector position is very important to the success of our Fire Prevention Program. As the number of occupancies increase that require inspections and the use of hazardous materials increases, the need for an additional inspector becomes even more critical. The following Fire Department Standard emphasizes the importance of having an adequate number of inspectors for a jurisdiction the size of Demon and shows we are not currently meeting that standard. "The Fire Prevemion Division of the Demon Fire Departmem should be staffed at a level with one (1) full-time Fire Marshal plus one (1) full-time inspector for every 20,000 persons in the City plus one (1) for every fraction over 20,000." Fire prevemion is the portion of the Demon Fire Department that conducts pre- construction plan review, code enforcement, public education, fire cause determination and arson investigation. The Texas Key Rate standard recommended a full time fire marshal with no other duties plus one full time inspector for each major fraction of each additional 20,000 persons. With a currem population of 87,227 people, the City of Demon should have a Fire Marshal and five (5) full time inspectors plus the Fire marshal according to the Texas Key Rate standards. Currently, the Prevention Division has only 4 other employees that are all certified inspectors and often doing other functions besides inspections. FIRE PREVENTION STAFFING LEVELS Demon Fire Departmem (currem) 1 Fire Marshal 1 Assistant Fire Marshal 1 Deputy Fire Marshal 1 Fire Inspector 1 Public Education Officer Texas Key Rate Recommendation for a City the size of Demon 1 Fire Marshal 5 Inspectors National Recommendation for a City the size of Demon 6 Prevemion Staff (1 Prevemion Person for every 15,000 people) Firefighters (3). These positions were to supplemem daily Fire Departmem staffing by adding one firefighter per shift. The position would either add a fourth person to an engine company or fill an empty position caused by an unscheduled leave which would save overtime costs. In addition, when an employee retires, he often leaves an open position for a long period of time umil the hiring and training process can be completed - often more than 9 months. These positions could immediately fill vacant positions, again saving substantial overtime costs and funding shortages. Public Education Officer. The Fire Departmem submitted a federal gram request that included an additional public education officer that would target the Hispanic community both to expand our existing fire education programs and also to develop new programs with local agencies. The match for the City was 30%. The federal governmem did not fund the grant. POLICE DEPARTMENT: Police Officers (7). Funding request for COPS Gram local match for seven police officers and related equipmem, supplies and services. This request was based on the number of officers that were needed to maintain current service delivery level as projected in the Department's current strategic plan, plus one SRO for Touchstone Academy. Additional Civilian Jailer. Requested two jailers and was allocated one. Listed amount requested is for the unfunded position only. Police Legal Advisor. Funding request to provide an attorney for the Police Department that would draft ordinances and review open records requests and subpoenas, search and arrest warrants, policies, contracts and disciplinary actions. Request included furniture, computer, and other equipment and supplies. Additional Secretary. Funding request for a secretary to be assigned to the Office of Professional Standards. This position would assist current staff with accounting tasks related to the Training Academy and Department operating budget, filing, scheduling training, and required reporting to TCLEOSE. Request included furniture, computer and other equipment and supplies. CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Records Clerk - City Secretary. This position was requested to provide support for the City Secretary in the maimaining and filing of official city documems. The City secretary also serves as the official records officer for the city. Since state law mandates that certain municipal records be permanently filed and maintained, the clerk would assist in the maintenance of currem records, imaging and storage of old records, and location and retrieval of vital records when requests are made. UTILITIES STREETS & TRAFFIC OPERATIONS: Signal Technician (2) - Traffic. Two Signal Technician Appremices were requested in last year's budget. This request was due to safety concerns. Safety regulations require us to staff bucket trucks with 2 people. Currently we have only one person in the bucket truck and no protection in case of an accident. Having a technician apprentice would allow for faster setup and repair on signals. Our repairs are mainly in the middle of an intersection and require proper signage and cones. Signal Technician & Apprentice (2) - Traffic. One Signal Technician and one Apprentice position were requested last year to handle the construction of new signals and maintenance of over 100 signals in Denton. These 2 positions would allow us to handle scheduled maintenance instead of the current emergency repairs. Graphics Designer - Traffic. One Graphic Designer was requested to be able to do all of the City's signage internally. DENTON MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC: Meter Reader During the FY02 Budget development process, the Metering Division requested the addition of two meter reader positions. The addition of only one meter reader was granted. The additional position was needed to handle the growth in turn-on/turn-off requests and the increased numbers of meters connected to the DME system. In the past calendar year the number of meter reads was 61,000 higher than the previous year. The average distance to obtain these reads has increased by 2 miles. During the past six months, the Meter Division has experienced a great deal of difficulty maintaining their desired mater read accuracy level. This difficulty is a direct result of their limited staffing. WATER/WASTEWATER/DRAINAGE: None SOLID WASTE: None Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #10 CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 2, 2002 After determining that a quorum was present, the City Council convened in a Special Called Meeting on Tuesday, April 2, 2002 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Brock; Mayor Pro Tem Beasley; Council Members Fulton, McNeill, and Phillips. ABSENT: Council Member Burroughs and Redmon 1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the issuance, sale, and delivery of City of Denton General Obligation Bonds, Series 2002, levying the tax to pay same; approving and authorizing instruments and procedures relating thereto; and providing an effective date. David Medanich, First Southwest Company, stated that the City had maintained a rating at Moody's at AA3 and had an AA- rating at Standards and Poors. He stated that six bids had been received on line. Upon review of the bids, it was determined that the bid from Bank of America at 5.135 percent was the lowest and best bid and recommended that the Council accept that bid. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2002-090 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE, AND DELIVERY OF CITY OF DENTON GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2002, LEVYING THE TAX TO PAY SAME; APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES RELATING THERETO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Beasley motioned, McNeill seconded to accept the Bank of America bid at 5.13569 percent. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Phillips "aye", and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Beasley motioned, McNeill seconded to adopt the ordinance approving the bid of Bank of America. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Phillips "aye", and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carded unanimously. 2. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the issuance, sale, and delivery of City of Denton Certificates of Obligation, Series 2002; approving and authorizing instruments and procedures relating thereto; and providing an effective date. David Medanich, First Southwest Company, stated that there were five on-line bids and one phone bid. After examination of the proposed bids, it was determined that the bid from UBS Paine Webber inc. at 4.985518 was the best and lowest bid and recommended that Council accept that bid. The following ordinance was considered: City of Denton City Council Minutes April 2, 2002 Page 2 NO. 2002-091 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE, AND DELIVERY OF CITY OF DENTON CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION, SERIES 2002; APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES RELATING THERETO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE Beasley motioned, McNeill seconded to accept the bid from UBS Paine Webber, Inc. and to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Phillips "aye", and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Following the completion of the Special Called Meeting, the City Council convened in a Work Session on Tuesday, April 2, 2002 in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall. 1. The Council received a report and held a discussion conceming cable television regulated rate adjustment filing by Charter Communications. John Cabrales, Public Information Officer, stated that the FCC had certified that the City could regulate certain cable rates. Those rates included the basic cable service, equipment, changing tiers and the hourly service charge. Charter had agreed to file for new rates only once per year. The City had received an adjustment filing from the FCC and had one year from that filing date to issue a rate order establishing the maximum permitted rates Charter could charge. Charter had the right to implement these proposed rates on June 1, 2002 until the Council set a new maximum permitted rate. The City would be contracting with C2 Consulting to assist staff with a rate analysis. Council Member Redmon alTived at the meeting. Mayor Brock asked what were the options in regards to the rates and how much control the City had over the rates. Cabrales stated that Council could accept the adjusted rates as filed by Charter, approve a different set of rates, or take no action. Consensus of the Council was to wait for further information from the consultant before making a decision on what action to take in regards to the rates. 2. The Council held a discussion and gave staff direction regarding the City of Denton 2001 Small Area Planning Program Annual Report. Dedra Ragland, Small Area Planning Manager, stated that staff was asking Council to confirm or revise the activities recommended by staff as noted in the agenda materials. Those activities included completing the two small area plans in progress (Downtown Master Plan and Southeast Denton Plan); initiate four small area plans (West Oak, University of North Texas, Fort Worth Drive and Elm Courts) and facilitate neighborhood preservation research activities. It was suggested that the West Oak area and University of North Texas area be done at the same time as they were in the same area of the city. City of Denton City Council Minutes April 2, 2002 Page 3 Consensus of the Council was to continue with the Downtown Master Plan, keep the Southeast Denton Plan on hold until staff received additional requests for the plan, work in conjunction with the UNT and West Oak areas and wait for a request from the Fort Worth Drive area to initiate a plan. 3. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding City of Denton transportation projects. Dave Hill, Assistant City Manager for Development Services, reviewed transportation-related projects for the City of Denton. Issues that Council had raised regarding transportation that uere included in the back-up materials included a progress update of major road improvement projects including the status of partnership projects with Denton County and the Texas Department of Transportation, a request for information regarding dangerous intersections in the City and a request for an update on the Windsor Drive/Loop 288 interchange project. 4. Staff responded to requests for clarification of Consent Agenda items listed on the Consent Agenda for today's City Council regular meeting of April 2, 2002. Following the completion of the Work Session, the Council convened in a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, April 2, 2002 at 5:00 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. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS 2. Mayor Brock presented the following proclamations: National Community Development Week Fair Housing Month Days of Remembrance Sexual Assault Awareness Month 3. Recognition of staff accomplishments. City Manager Conduff presented staff accomplishments to the Council. CONSENT AGENDA McNeill motioned, Beasley seconded to approve the Consent Agenda and accompanying ordinances. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Phillips "aye", Redmon "aye", and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 4. Approved the minutes of March 13 and March 25, 2002. City of Denton City Council Minutes April 2, 2002 Page 4 o Approved tax refunds for the following property taxes: Name Reason Mark Morris & Melissa Franklin Tax Amount Year Overpayment 2001 $ 618.10 American Title Company for David L. Wicker Duplicate Payment Jr. 2001 $ 688.94 F. Metroplex Title for Eric & Ruby Hjelte Duplicate Payment 2001 $ 815.97 H. Healthcare Administration Overpayment 2001 $ 974.14 J. James Renaud Duplicate Payment 2001 $1,666.25 L. Bromley Williams & Lori Moo Duplicate Payment 2001 $ 985.66 N. Commonwealth Title for Danny J. O'Brien Duplicate Payment 2001 $ 677.20 P. Robert Boso Duplicate Payment 2001 $ 542.86 en~ pp ~i~al R. Raymond Abbott Value Decrease per Denton 2001 $ 987.60 Central Appraisal District T. Transamerica Real Estate Tax Service for Paul Jenkins Duplicate Payment 2001 $ 520.82 V. Transamerica Real Estate Tax Service for Duplicate Payment 2001 $ 504.39 Wanda Woodward ~ ~i~R~IEstat~T~ S~i~ mPIiat~P ~nt ~00~ $~08 ~3 eharl~ S~ X. Transamerica Real Estate Tax Se~ice for Duplicate Pa~ent 2001 $ 643.79 Paul & Susan Willenbrock Z. Transamerica Real Estate Tax Service for Duplicate Payment 2001 $ 517.56 Erich Klein 6. NO. 2002-092 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE CITY OF CORINTH FOR THE IMPOUNDMENT AND DISPOSITION OF DOGS City of Denton City Council Minutes April 2, 2002 Page 5 AND CATS AND THE COLLECTION OF FEES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SAID AGREEMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. NO. 2002-093 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE CITY OF AUBREY FOR THE IMPOUNDMENT AND DISPOSITION OF DOGS AND CATS AND THE COLLECTION OF FEES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SAID AGREEMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. NO. 2002-094 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 54" FINISHED TRANSMISSION WATERLINE; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2811 - LAKE RAY ROBERTS 54" WATERLINE AWARDED TO S.J. LOUIS CONSTRUCTION OF TEXAS, LTD., IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,129,855). NO. 2002-095 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS BY WAY OF AN iNTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH TARRANT COUNTY AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF POLICE SEDANS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (FILE 2733 - INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR POLICE SEDANS WITH TARRANT COUNTY, CONTRACT AWARDED TO CLASSIC CHEVROLET IN THE AMOUNT OF $36,618). 10. NO. 2002-096 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR THE LEASE OF LIBRARY BOOKS, A SERVICE AVAILABLE FROM ONLY ONE SOURCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETiTiVE BIDDING; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (FILE 2835 - MCNAUGHTON BOOK SERVICE IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,550). 11. NO. 2002-097 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A 35' AERIAL DEVICE (BUCKET TRUCK); PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BiD 2783 - 35' AERIAL DEVICE AWARDED TO LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, FORD COUNTRY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $62,916). City of Denton City Council Minutes April 2, 2002 Page 6 12. NO. 2002-098 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF (SIX) EACH 12 CUBIC YARD DUMP TRUCKS AND (ONE) HAUL TRUCK TRACTOR; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROViDiNG AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2784 - 12 YD DUMP TRUCKS AND HAUL TRUCK TRACTOR AWARDED TO LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER AS LISTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $447,662). 13. NO. 2002-099 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A HYDRAULIC DETACHABLE GOOSENECK TRAILER; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2785 - HYDRAULIC DETACHABLE GOOSENECK TRAILER AWARDED TO LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, DARR EQUIPMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $32,317). 14. NO. 2002-100 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A CRAWLER DOZER, MOTORGRADER, RUBBER TIRED LOADER AND TRACTOR LOADER BACKHOE; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTiVE DATE (BiD 2786 - EARTH MOVING EQUIPMENT AWARDED TO LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $436,386). 15. NO. 2002-101 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A 6,000 LB. CAPACITY ELECTRIC FORKLIFT; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTiVE DATE (BiD 2800 - 6,000 LB CAPACITY ELECTRIC FORKLIFT AWARDED TO LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, POWR- LiFT CORPORATION, iN THE AMOUNT OF $28,696). 16. NO. 2002-102 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A SELF-LOADiNG 3 REEL TRAILER; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTiVE DATE (BiD 2804 - SELF-LOADiNG 3 REEL TRAILER AWARDED TO LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, OK CHAMPION IN THE AMOUNT OF $106,845). 17. NO. 2002-103 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN iNTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BY City of Denton City Council Minutes April 2, 2002 Page 7 AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AND THE CITY OF KRUM, TEXAS PERTAINING TO THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION BY KRUM AND THE OVERSIZE COST PARTICIPATION BY DENTON FOR THE KRUM GRAVITY FLOW WASTEWATER MA1N; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROViDiNG AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 18. NO. 2002-104 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVING A WHOLESALE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AND THE CITY OF KRUM, TEXAS; WHEREIN DENTON AGREES TO PROVIDE WHOLESALE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SERVICES TO KRUM; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 19. NO. 2002-105 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION UNDER THE NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT TO OBTAIN FUNDING FOR THE 2002 SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM; IF SUCH FUNDING IS GRANTED, THE CITY MANAGER IS AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE THE SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES AND EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH THE DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT AND ALL ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS AND AGREEMENTS, AS REQUIRED; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. CITIZEN REPORTS 20. Chuck Johnston regarding the Development Code. Mr. Johnston was not present at the meeting. 21. Edwin Fulton regarding fees added onto the utility bills. Mr. Fulton stated that he had concerns regarding the fees added to the utility bills. He suggested a minimum fee for vacant properties rather than the same charge for properties that were occupied. Those fees included solid waste, drainage, and other similar fees. 22. Ross Melton regarding the budget, elections, Code Enforcement, the City Attorney's Office and the Planning and Development Department. Mr. Melton stated that he was still having problems with Code Enforcement and felt that the Council was responsible for the continuing problems he was having. He questioned the budget as it related to the City Attorney's office and the Planning and Development Department. City of Denton City Council Minutes April 2, 2002 Page 8 23. Gerard Hudspeth regarding citizen concerns with the City. Mr. Hudspeth was not present. 24. Willie Hudspeth regarding citizen concems with the City. Mr. Hudspeth again expressed his concern that there were no African-Americans or Hispanics in the Fire Department. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mayor Brock left the meeting with a conflict of interest. 25. The Council held a public heating and considered adoption of an ordinance setting a gas utility services rate for electric generation transportation service customers within the City of Denton, Texas; making Findings in accordance with the setting of this rate; providing for the recovery of rate case expenses and the payment of rate consultants; providing for rehearing and reservation of rights; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date. City Attorney Prouty reviewed the history of the case and indicated that TXU had requested 45 minutes to present its case. Spencer had asked for an equal amount of time to speak. He suggested Council decide on a time that was equal for each side. McNeill motioned, Phillips seconded to suspend the Council rules and grant a speaker time of 30 minutes for each side. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Phillips "aye", and Redmon "aye". Motion carded unanimously. The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public heating. The following individuals spoke during the public heating: Autry Warren, 1601 Bryan, Dallas, 75201 Gail Watkins, 816 Congress Avenue #1900, Austin, 78701 John Moeher, 1601 Bryan, Dallas, 76201 Dan Lawton, consultant, presented his findings in reviewing the case. The Mayor Pro Tem closed the public heating. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2002-106 AN ORDINANCE SETTING A GAS UTILITY SERVICES RATE FOR ELECTRIC GENERATION TRANSPORTATION SERVICE CUSTOMERS WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; MAKING FINDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SETTING OF THIS RATE; PROVIDING FOR THE RECOVERY OF RATE CASE EXPENSES AND THE PAYMENT OF RATE CONSULTANTS; PROVIDING FOR REHEARING AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City of Denton City Council Minutes April 2, 2002 Page 9 McNeill motioned, Fulton seconded to set the rate at 2 cents and the surcharge to the ratepayers would be recovered over a 12-month period. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Phillips "aye", and Redmon "aye". Motion carded unanimously. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 26. The Council considered approval of a resolution of the City of Denton, Texas establishing local government sponsor support for the "Land Use / Transportation Joint Venture" transportation grant funding awarded by the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) Regional Transportation Council (RTC); and providing an effective date. The following resolution was considered: NO. R2002-012 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ESTABLISHING LOCAL GOVERNMENT SPONSOR SUPPORT FOR THE "LAND USE / TRANSPORTATION JOINT VENTURE" TRANSPORTATION GRANT FUNDING AWARDED BY THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (NCTCOG) REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL (RTC); AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Fulton motioned, McNeill seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Phillips "aye", and Redmon "aye". Motion carded unanimously. 27. New Business The following items of New Business were suggested by Council Members for future agendas: B. C. D. E. F. G. H. J. Council Member Redmon requested an update on the American Legion Annex. Council Member Redmon requested a report on which fees on the utility bill were regulated and which were not. Council Member McNeill asked for information regarding an incentive program for individual meters on multi-family units. Council Member McNeill asked for information regarding the issue of bedrooms versus multi-family mits around universities. Council Member McNeill asked about the process for the quarterly review of the Development Code. Council Member Phillips asked for consideration of rezoning cases delays of consideration especially D. Allen's property. Council Member Phillips asked about removing smoking near the side door. Council Member Fulton asked about the restoration of the training battalion chief. Council Member Fulton asked about the amount and location issue of handicapped parking for Fry Street Fair Council Member Fulton requested a work session regarding the drainage fee and how much of it was going to federally mandated fees versus how much was going to the city for city projects. City of Denton City Council Minutes April 2, 2002 Page 10 Council Member Fulton asked for information regarding commercial customer leases on a property and how to determine how or if they would be charged for a drainage fee. Council Member Fulton asked if there were provisions to waive the solid waste fee and/or other smaller fees for customers if they brought proof that they were on social security. Council Member Redmon asked for information about benches for LINK routes and in particular where they were and how many. Council Member Redmon asked about carport orientation in front of houses and setbacks. 28. Items from the City Manager City Manager Conduff reminded the Council about the reception for a TIF grant at the library. 29. There was no continuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. 30. There was no official action on Closed Meeting Item(s) under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 9, 2002 After determining that a quorum was present, the City Council convened in a Special Called Meeting on Tuesday, April 9, 2002 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Brock; Mayor Pro Tem Beasley; Council Members Burroughs, McNeill, and Phillips. ABSENT: Council Members Fulton and Redmon 1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the issuance, sale and delivery of City of Denton Utility System Revenue Bonds, Series 2002, and approving and authorizing instruments and procedures relating thereto; and providing an effective date. David Medanich, First Southwest Company, stated that the bids were separated by tax-exempt status and non-tax exempt. Council Member Fulton arrived at the meeting. Medanich recommended that the bid for the bonds be awarded to Morgan, Stanley, Dean Witter with lowest bid. Beasley motioned, Burroughs seconded to award the bid to Morgan, Stanley, Dean Witter. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Phillips "aye", and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carded unanimously. Medanich presented the information for the 2002B series. Seven bids had been received with the lowest bid from Morgan Keegan and Company. Beasley motioned, Burroughs seconded to accept the bid for Morgan Keegan and approve the ordinance for both series. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Phillips "aye", and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carded unanimously. NO. 2002-107 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF CITY OF DENTON UTILITY SYSTEM REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2002, AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES RELAT1NG THERETO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE 2. The Council considered approval of a resolution of the City of Denton, Texas authorizing the City Manager or his designee to sign and transmit the authorization form to the Public Utility Commission of Texas to set the access line rate at the new CPI-Adjusted Maximum rate to be paid to the City by Certificated Telecommunications Providers pursuant to Chapter 283 of the Texas Local Government Code, ("HB 1777"), and providing an effective date. The following resolution was considered: NO. R2002-013 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO SIGN AND TRANSMIT THE City of Denton City Council Minutes April 9, 2002 Page 2 AUTHORIZATION FORM TO THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS TO SET THE ACCESS LINE RATE AT THE NEW CPI-ADJUSTED MAXIMUM RATE TO BE PAID TO THE CITY BY CERTIFICATED TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROVIDERS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 283 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, ("HB 1777"), AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTiVE DATE. Phillips motioned, Burroughs seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Phillips "aye", and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Following the completion of the Special Called Meeting, the City Council convened into a Work Session. 1. The Council received a report and held a discussion with DiSD Youth in Government. Mayor Brock introduced the participants in the DISD Youth in Government program. Following the completion of the Work Session, the Council convened into a Planning Session. PRESENT: Mayor Brock; Mayor Pro Tem Beasley; Council Members Burroughs, Fulton, McNeill, Phillips, and Redmon. ABSENT: None 1. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction regarding the Downtown Master Plan. Dedra Ragland, Small Area Planning Manager, stated that staff and the consultant would provide a brief presentation regarding the Downtown Master Plan. in addition, stakeholders and interested parties would also be making short presentations. Staff was asking Council to determine if the project orientation was appropriate and if additional topics needed to be considered. The goal was to have the plan adopted by September 2002. TIP Development Strategies, Inc. made a presentation on the Denton Downtown Plan. The vision for Downtown Denton included a place to live, work and play; compact and concentrated activities; accessible with a variety of travel options; a variety of things to do; walkable and pedestrian friendly; linked parks and open space; attractive and well designed; and economically viable. The following individuals made presentations on behalf on his/her organizations regarding the Downtown area: Peggy Capps, Historic Landmark Commission Howard Smith, Denton Historical Commission Dixie Stevenson, West Oak Homeowners Association Elyse Ridnour, West Oak Homeowners Association Chuck Carpenter, Denton Chamber of Commerce Christine Gossett, Denton Convention and Visitors Bureau Melissa Glasgow, Denton Economic Department Robert Hughes, Stroud/Pierce Street Neighborhood Association City of Denton City Council Minutes April 9, 2002 Page 3 Rob Bertelson-Main Street Association Michael Whitten-Law Office 218 N. Elm Special Called Meeting of the City of Demon City Council on Tuesday, April 9, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. 1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the reimbursement of reasonable attorney fees, court costs, and legal expenses associated with a successful court challenge of the recall petition of Council Member Raymond Redmon. Council Member Redmon left the meeting with a conflict of interest. Herb Prouty, City Attorney, stated that the Council would need to make two findings in order to approve the resolution. One was to show that there was an interest relative to the entire city rather than a personal interest and the second was that the action by Council Member Redmon was within his scope of a Council Member to challenge the recall petition. The following individuals spoke on the issue: Billy Redmon, 1125 Morse Street, 76205 - favor Carolyn Phillips, 722 Lakey Street, 76205 - opposed Phillips motioned, Fulton seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "nay", Burroughs "nay", Fulton "aye", McNeill "nay", Phillips "aye", and Mayor Brock "nay". Motion failed with a 2-4 vote. 2. The Council held a discussion and gave staff direction regarding the review schedule for the rezoning petition filed by the City of Denton, proposing a change from a MF-1 zoning classification to an NR-3 zoning classification for the property located at 722 West Oak Street. Council Member Phillips stated that the request to postpone by Ms. Allen, owner of the property, had been withdrawn. Upon completion of the special called meeting, the Council returned to the Work Session Room to complete the discussion regarding the Downtown Master Plan. Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the project as presented. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 16, 2002 After determining that a quorum was present, the City Council convened in a Work Session on Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 4:30 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Brock; Mayor Pro Tem Beasley; Council Members Burroughs, Fulton, McNeill, Phillips, and Redmon. ABSENT: None 1. The Council received a report and held a discussion on the City of Denton's current Civil Service hiring and promotional procedures as well as review the history of past Civil Service examinations. Ross Chadwick, Fire Chief, reviewed the Civil Service hiring procedures. Local requirements for Civil Service included cities with a population of 10,000 or more; a paid fire and police department; and the citizens had voted to adopt Civil Service which was done August 10, 1948. Since that date, the fire and police departments had operated under the Civil Service. Civil Service established a 3 member Civil Service Commission by appointment by the City Manager, a Civil Service Director established by the Commission and adoption of local rules by the Commission. Entry level positions required open, competitive and free exams The eligibility list for a beginning position in the fire or police department could be created only as a result of this competitive examination. Challenges of Civil Service included hiring must start with the highest grade, competition with other agencies due to location, compensation, opportunities, 6-month tests and few openings. Overcoming the challenges included better recruiting, fire department diversity task force, more local recruiting and citizen academies. 2. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction regarding the specific creation of a Development Code Citizens Committee, and the formation of citizens committees for other city functions. Dave Hill, Assistant City Manager for Development Services, reviewed the background of the Council request for a work session on the creation of a development code citizens committee and the formation of citizens committees for other city functions. He stated that staff considered the Planning and Zoning Commission to be an existing citizens review committee. The Commission was appointed by Council and was designated 1T City Charter to act as an advisory body to the Council regarding planning and development matters. Staff recommended that a citizens review committee for the development code not be created. The Council could request the commission to address specific issues regarding the code. Council discussed the pros and cons of forming such a committee. Consensus of the Council was to continue with the present direction and not form a committee at this point in time. 3. Requests for clarification of consent agenda items listed on the consent agenda for today's City Council regular meeting of April 16, 2002. Staff responded to Council's requests for clarification of consent agenda items. City of Denton City Council Minutes April 16, 2002 Page 2 Following the completion of the Work Session, the Council convened in a Closed Meeting. 1. The following item was considered in Closed Meeting: A. Consultation with Attomey- Under Tex. Gov't Code §551.071. Discussed and considered proposed settlement, audit, and potential litigation conceming a settlement offer by Verizort To discuss these matters in public would conflict with the duty of the City Attorney's to the City Council under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas. Regular Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 6:30 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. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS 2. Mayor Brock presented the April Yard-of-the-Month Awards to: Jim and Donna Mullen Royce and Betty Hilton Marjorie Cody Stacy, Mike and Gage Weldon Don and Vickie Holt Lorena and Juan Noriega Environmental Education Science and Technology Building-UNT Country Park Apartments 3. Proclamations Mayor Brock presented the following proclamations: National Day of Prayer Drinking Water Week in Denton Cinco de Mayo Week 4. Recognition of staff accomplishments. City Manager Conduffpresented staff accomplishments to the Council. CITIZEN REPORTS 5. Petemia Washington regarding the Southeast Denton Small Area Plan. City of Denton City Council Minutes April 16, 2002 Page 3 Ms. Washington was not present at the meeting. 6. Dessie Goodson regarding public transportation and pay raises. Ms. Goodson was not present at the meeting. 7. Nell Yelldell regarding deceiving the community in District 1 and flood zone area. Ms. Yelldell was not present at the meeting. CONSENT AGENDA Burroughs motioned, McNeill seconded to approve the Consent Agenda and the accompanying ordinances and resolutions. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Phillips "aye", Redmon "aye", and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 8. Approved of the minutes of March 26, 2002. NO. 2002-108 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL LEGAL SERVICES WITH THE LAW OFFICES OF JIM BOYLE, PLLC.; FOR SERVICES PERTAINING TO THE TRAVIS COUNTY LITIGATION INITIATED BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS AND BY RELIANT ENERGY, INC. RELATING TO DENTON MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC AND NUMEROUS OTHER ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION PROVIDERS iN THE STATE OF TEXAS; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; PROVIDING FOR RETROACTIVE APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT; AND PROViDiNG AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 10. NO. 2002-109 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FREESE & NICHOLS, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO RESIDENT REPRESENTATION DURING CONSTRUCTION AND FOR MATERIALS AND DENSITY TESTING REGARDING THE LAKE RAY ROBERTS 54-INCH FINISHED WATER TRANSMISSION PIPELINE AND THE LOOP 288 42-INCH AND 36-INCH WATER TRANSMISSION PIPELINES; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 11. NO. 2002-110 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE WOODROW SUBSTATION SITE WORK, FOUNDATIONS, GROUND GRID, CONDUIT SYSTEM AND FENCE; City of Denton City Council Minutes April 16, 2002 Page 4 PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2821 - WOODROW SUBSTATION SITE WORK, FOUNDATION, GROUND GRID, CONDUIT SYSTEM AND FENCE AWARDED TO LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, CAN-FER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $349,000). 12. NO. 2002-111 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A CONTROL HOUSE FOR THE SPENCER SWITCH YARD; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BiD 2817 - CONTROL HOUSE FOR ELECTRIC SWITCH YARD AWARDED TO LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, ROHN INDUSTRIES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,050). 13. NO. 2002-112 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE SPENCER SWITCH STATION MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT PACKAGE; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BiD 2835 - SPENCER SWITCH MATERIAL PACKAGE AWARDED TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, UTiLiSERVE HIGH VOLTAGE GROUP IN THE AMOUNT OF $236,756.82). 14. NO. 2002-113 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND MCDONALD TRANSIT ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PROVIDE PASSENGER MOTOR CARRIER TRANSIT MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION SERVICES FOR THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 15. NO. 2002-114 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF PRECAST MANHOLES AND PADS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2825 - ANNUAL PRICE AGREEMENT FOR PRECAST MANHOLES AND PADS AWARDED TO LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, BROOKS PRODUCTS, AS LISTED iN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $82,795). 16. NO. 2002-115 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (PSA) WITH TURNER, COLLIE & BRADEN, INC. FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR UNICORN LAKE - IH 35E RAMP REPLACEMENT AS SET FORTH IN THE CONTRACT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTiVE DATE (PSA 2812 - ENGINEERING DESIGN OF UNICORN LAKE City of Denton City Council Minutes April 16, 2002 Page 5 - IH 35E RAMP REPLACEMENT AWARDED TO TURNER, COLLIE, & BRADEN, iNC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $126,314). 17. NO. 2002-116 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (PSA) WITH TEAGUE NALL AND PERKINS, iNC., FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN OF THE MAYHiLL ROAD BRIDGE - PECAN CREEK, AS SET FORTH IN THE CONTRACT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (PSA 2816 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN OF THE MAYHiLL ROAD BRIDGE - PECAN CREEK TO TEAGUE NALL AND PERKINS, INC. FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $125,700). 18. NO. 2002-117 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDER NUMBER ONE TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND HH ARCHITECTS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (ORDINANCE NO. 2001- 115; PSA 2657 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR NORTH BRANCH LIBRARY AWARDED TO HH ARCHITECTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $374,594 AND CHANGE ORDER NUMBER ONE iN THE AMOUNT OF $30,400 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $404,994). 19. NO. R2002-014 A RESOLUTION ALLOW1NG METZLER'S FOOD AND BEVERAGE TO BE THE SOLE PARTICIPANT ALLOWED TO SELL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AT THE CINCO DE MAYO CELEBRATION ON MAY 4, 2002, UPON CERTAIN CONDITIONS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT 1N CONFORMITY WITH THIS RESOLUTION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL. 20. NO. 2002-118 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE A WiRELiNE CROSSING AGREEMENT WITH UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY FOR A WIRELiNE CROSSING LOCATED AT MILE POST 721.180, CHOCTAW SUBDIVISION, CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 21. NO. 2002-119 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON NAMING THE AQUATIC CENTER PROJECT; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City of Denton City Council Minutes April 16, 2002 Page 6 22. NO. 2002-120 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND C2 CONSULTING SERVICES, INC., TO PROVIDE CABLE CONSULTANT SERVICES WITH RESPECT TO CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS CABLE FRANCHISE RENEWAL FiLiNG; RATiFYiNG PRIOR ACTIONS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 23. NO. 2002-121 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND VARNUM, RIDDERING, SCHMIDT, HOWLETT TO PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES WITH RESPECT TO CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS CABLE FRANCHISE RENEWAL FILING AND WORK WITH CABLE CONSORTIUM; COSERV CABLE FRANCHISE APPLICATION; RATIFYING PRIOR ACTIONS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. PUBLIC HEARING 24. The Council held a public heating to receive citizen comments regarding cable television regulated rates. John Cabrales, Public Information Officer, reviewed the provisions of state law relative to what rates the City was able to regulate. The Mayor opened the public heating. The following individuals spoke during the public heating: John Ryan, 2128 Emerson Lane, Denton, 76205 - opposed Carol Ryan, 2128 Emerson Lane, Denton, 76205 - opposed The Mayor closed the public heating. 25. The Council held a public hearing inviting citizens to comment on the City of Denton's 2002 Action Plan for Housing and Community Development. Barbara Stinnett, Chair-Community Development Advisory Committee, presented the funding recommendations of the committee that centered on affordable housing. Wallace Duvall, Chair-Human Services Advisory Committee, presented the funding recommendations of the committee as noted in the agenda back-up materials. The Mayor opened the public heating. The following individuals spoke during the public heating: Mary Gotcher, 1215 Emerson Lane, Denton, 76209 - funding concerns for her program City of Denton City Council Minutes April 16, 2002 Page 7 Missy Dickenson, 419 Northridge, Denton, 76201 - funding concerns for her program Karry Reasor, 8748 Travis Road, Sanger, 76266 - read letter to the Council Suzanne Akins, 1216 Pin Oak Drive, Demon, 76209 - spoke in favor for her program Judith B. Keith, 2101 W. View Trail, Denton, 76207 - funding concerns for her program The Mayor closed the public heating. 26. The Council held a public heating and considered adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 54 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district to Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use (NRMU), Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12), and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning districts. The property was generally located south of Mingo Road and the Union Pacific railroad, east of Mozingo Street, north of Lattimore Street, and north and west of Audra Lane. Single-family, multi-family, and neighborhood office and retail developmem was proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7-0). (Z02-0002) Larry Reichhart, Assistant Director for Planning and Development, stated that the area was in the neighborhood center and rezoning would be consistent with the Plan. The Mayor opened the public heating. Alan Buscel spoke in favor of the proposal. The Mayor closed the public heating. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2002-122 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 3 (NR-3) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE (NRMU), NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE 12 (NRMU-12), AND NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 6 (NR-6) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATIONS AND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR APPROXIMATELY 52 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF MINGO ROAD, EAST OF MOZINGO STREET, NORTH OF LATTIMORE STREET AND NORTH AND EAST OF AUDRA LANE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z02-0002) Phillips motioned, Fulton seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Phillips "aye", Redmon "aye", and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION Mayor Brock left the meeting with a conflict of interest. City of Denton City Council Minutes April 16, 2002 Page 8 27. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute a letter agreement with TXU Gas Distribution agreeing on the form of Notice to be published in the Denton Record-Chronicle notifying Denton ratepayers of the effect of the request for an adjustment of rates by TXU Gas Distribution in the North Texas Metroplex Distribution System rate case; and providing for an effective date. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2002-123 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LETTER AGREEMENT WITH TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION AGREEING ON THE FORM OF NOTICE TO BE PUBLISHED BI THE DENTON RECORD-CHRONICLE NOTIFYING DENTON RATEPAYERS OF THE EFFECT OF THE REQUEST FOR AN ADJUSTMENT OF RATES BY TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION IN THE NORTH TEXAS METROPLEX DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM RATE CASE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Burroughs motioned, McNeill seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Phillips "aye", and Redmon "aye". Motion carded tmanimously. Mayor Brock returned to the meeting. 28. New Business The following items of New Business were suggested by Council for future agendas: Council Member McNeill inquired about the most efficient way to inform staff about future agenda items. Council Member Redmon requested information about slow down humps on streets and signal lights. Council Members Phillips and Fulton asked for information regarding the City's mosquito problem and alternatives for handling the problem. 29. items from the City Manager City Manager Conduff did not have any items for Council. 30. There was no continuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. 31. There was no official action on Closed Meeting item(s) under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. City of Denton City Council Minutes April 16, 2002 Page 9 EULINE BROCK, MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #11 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM: May 14, 2002 City Manager's Office Michael Conduff, City Manager SUBJECT Consider a request for an exception to the noise ordinance for the purpose of an outdoor music festival known as the Mark Fearing Benefit Concert scheduled for Sunday, May 19, 2002 during the hours of 1 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the North Texas State Fair Grounds. Specifically, the request is for an exception to the hours of operation. BACKGROUND Fritz Schwalm is requesting an exception to the noise ordinance for the Mark Fearing Benefit Concert, an outdoor music festival scheduled for Sunday, May 19, 2002 during the hours of 1 p.m. to 7 p.m. at the North Texas State Fair Grounds. As currently planned, Mr. Schwalm's event requires an exception to the noise ordinance for hours of operation. Since the applicant meets the requirements set forth in the ordinance for an outdoor music festival as defined in section 20-1 §3, the event is allowed a maximum sound level of 70 dba when measured from the established event perimeter. As you know, the noise ordinance, amended by ordinance Number 2001-265, declares loudspeakers, amplifiers, and musical instruments above 65 dba a noise nuisance, particularly after 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and anytime on Sunday (Attachment 3). The ordinance does, however, provide that the City Council may make exceptions for sound levels or hours of operation when the public interest is served. The organizers have been informed that should Council approve this request, responsible use of amplified sound is still required by Section 20-1 of the City of Denton Code of Ordinances. In particular, Section 20-1 §4(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. Fritz Schwalm Mark Fearing Benefit Concert May 14, 2002 Page 2 PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions) A noise exception request for the Mark Fearing Benefit Concert was approved on February 19, 2002. The event was canceled due to inclement weather. The request is essentially the same request that was approved in February except you are considering an exception for the hours of 1 p.m. to 8 p.m. rather than the previous 1 p.m. to 7 p.m. FISCAL INFORMATION None. Be/tt3 ~ii~a~ns Director of Management and Public Information Prepared By: Robert Hanna Management Assistant Attachments: 1. Request from Fritz Schwalm 2. Map of the area 3. Noise Ordinance Fritz Schwalm c/o Mark Fearing Benefit Concert 1316 Egan St Denton TX, 76201 April 3, 2002 Robert Hanna Management Assistant 215. E. McKinney Denton, TX 76201 Dear Mr. Hanna: I am requesting an exception to the noise ordinance for the purpose of Mark Fearing's Benefit Concert scheduled for Sunday, May 19th from 1 p.m. to 8 p.m. We are requesting an exception for the hours of operation and for a sound level not to exceed 70 dba. The event will be held at the Fair Hall Complex located the North Texas State Fair and Rodeo grounds in Denton. If you have any questions, please phone me at 940 591-6488 (hm) or during business hours at 972 331- 4333 (wrk.) at your earliest convenience. Thank you for considering this exception to the noise ordinance. Sincerely, Fritz Schwalm, event coordinator 0 0 ~o0 · ~ 0 0'~ ,.~ o Z Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #12 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET May 14, 2002 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Tim Fisher 349-7190 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT An Ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute change order number one to the contract between the City of Denton and Archer Western Contractors, Ltd.; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Ordinance No. 2001-439- Bid 2734 - Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant Expansion awarded to Archer Western Contractors, Ltd. in the amount of $16,930,000 and change order number one in the amount of $71,852.03 for a total amount of $17,001,852.03). CHANGE ORDER NUMBER ONE INFORMATION Council approved the contract for the construction of the Pecan Creek Western Reclamation Plant Expansion on November 27, 2001 in the amount of $16,930,000. Change order number one is required to add 330 linear feet of 36" diameter drain line to drain the 7 acres of new concrete pad being poured for expansion of the compost operation. Estimated cost is $32,179.51. Change order number one also includes removal and replacement of 550 square yards of damaged existing concrete pad at a cost of $39,672.52. Total change order cost is $71,852.03. PRIOR ACTION/VIEW (COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS) The Public Utility Board considered and recommended approval of this change order on April 2, 2002. RECOMMENDATION We recommend change order number one be approved in the amount of $71,852.03 and that the contract be revised to total $17,001,852.03. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., the resident project engineering firm also recommends approval. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Archer Western Contractors, Ltd. Arlington, TX Agenda Information Sheet May 14, 2002 Page 2 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT This change order will not affect the scheduled project completion date of December 2003. FISCAL INFORMATION Change order one will be funded from FY 2002 CIP budget for plant expansion. There $2,070,000 available in this budget. is Attachment 1: Archer Western Proposal 1-AIS-Change Order One PSA 2734 Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDER NUMBER ONE TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND ARCHER WESTERN CONTRACTORS, LTD.; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (ORDINANCE NO. 2001-439- BID 2734 - PECAN CREEK WATER RECLAMATION PLANT EXPANSION AWARDED TO ARCHER WESTERN CONTRACTORS, LTD. IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,930,000 AND CHANGE ORDER NUMBER ONE IN THE AMOUNT OF $71,852.03 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $17,001,852.03). WHEREAS, on November 27, 2001 by Ordinance No. 2001-439, the City awarded a public works contract to Archer Western Contractors, Ltd., in the amount of $16,930,000 for the Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant Expansion Project; WHEREAS, the Staff having recommended, and the City Manager having recommended to the Council that a change order be authorized to amend such contract agreement with respect to the scope of work and an increase in the payment amount, and said change order fees under the proposed contract are fair and reasonable and are consistent with and not higher than the recommended practices and fees published by the professional associations applicable to the Provider's profession and such fees do not exceed the maximum provided by law; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The Change Order No. One, increasing the amount of the contract between the City and Archer Western Contractors, Ltd., which is on file in the office of the Purchasing Agent, in the amount of Seventy One Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Two Dollars and 03/100 ($71,852.03) Dollars, is hereby approved and the expenditure of funds therefore is hereby authorized in accordance with said change order. The total purchase order amount increases to $17,001,852.03. SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2002 ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 3-ORD-Bid 2734 Change Order One Attachment 1 March 15, 2002 Camp Dresses' & McKee, 8,4t0 Wainut Dallas, Texas ~5Z31 A TTN: Greg Hall Resident EnOneer RE: Pecan Creek Wmtm~ Rectarn~on Plant Ex~nsion Pr~ No. 2tE-aoe) D~rMr. H~I: tn reference to tim pricing f.c~ field ohange (xdesl for ~ 38' r~ an~ the fcc al thru ~ ama, Amber ~lbed fo~ the bacidil~ around al! ~ on ere Pecan Creek F~ojecl: 1) Ada 330 lineal foot of 2) Repair existing damaged am'earn in Ule compost area, inciuOlng few attd seal: wa~ $41,029.08 now $39.$72.S2. I=mject Menager CC: A-,E Co'respencie~.e ~)nton, Texas 78208 940/384-0148 (tax) 040~8a--O4b'7 Emal: ipo~a~;~atsngroup.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 APPROVED PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 1, 2002 9:00 A.M. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 After determining that a quorum of the Public Utilities Board of the City of Denton, Texas was present, the Public Utilities Board convened into an Open Meeting on Monday, April 1, 2002 at 9:00 a.m. in the Service Center Training Room, City of Denton Service Center, 901-A Texas Street, Denton, Texas. PRESENT: Dick Norton, George Hopkins, Charldean Newell, Dick Smith, Don White and Bill Cheek EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Mike Conduff, City Manager Howard Martin, Assistant City Manager EXCUSED: Jim Wilson ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION: 9) Consider approval of Change Order No. 1 with Archer Western Contractors, Ltd. for the 21 MGD Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant Expansion Project for the repair of damaged concrete in the existing compost area and the addition of 330 lineal feet of 36-inch diameter drain line, for an amount not to exceed $71,852.03. Arora also presented this item. He explained that Archer Western Contractors, Ltd. (AW) was the low bidder and awarded the contract for the Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant (PCWRP) expansion construction project. During the expansion of the compost facility, it was determined that two separate items require modifications from the original contract with AW. Arora commented that to drain the approximately 7 acres of new concrete pad, a 36-inch diameter pipe is required. In the original contract with AW, the drainpipe was supposed to drain into the Plant Diurnal Storage Basin (DSB). Efficient operation of the plant requires daily use of the DSB. Any flow over the preset rate coming into the plant during the day is diverted to the DSB, and then pumped back into the plant during the night when the flow is below the preset rate. If the 36-inch pipe were to discharge into the DSB, raw sewage would back into the drainpipe because of the low elevation of the drainpipe. To eliminate the problem, DMU is proposing to extend the drainpipe 330 feet to discharge into the wet weather storage facility adjacent to the DSB. The cost estimate to alleviate this problem is $32,179.51 or $97.51 per foot, which compares favorably with -1- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 the per-foot cost of $157 for 36-inch drainpipe in the Schedule of Values submitted by AW. Arora reported that, prior to construction, stockpiled material on top of the existing concrete for the compost facility was moved to facilitate construction. Inspection of the existing concrete indicated that all damaged concrete would have to be replaced prior to pouring new concrete abutting the existing concrete. To accomplish this, 970 lineal feet of the existing concrete is to be saw cut and 550 square yards of the existing concrete is to be demolished and replaced with new concrete. The cost estimate for this portion of the change order is $39,672.52. White asked why the 330 lineal feet of 36-inch drain line was not included when the contract was let. Arora responded by explaining that it was an oversight. Newell moved to approve Item #9, with a second from Cheek. The motion was approved unanimously with a vote of 6-0. -2- Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #13 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET May 14, 2002 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Vance Kemler 349-8444 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT An Ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute change order number two to the Professional Services Agreemem (PSA) between the City of DeNon and Huitt-Zollars, inc. for Construction Phase Services for the Solid Waste Facilities as set forth in the contract which allows additional services; and providing an effective date (Ordinance No. 2001-375 for PSA 2685 - Professional Services Agreement to Huitt-Zollars, Inc., in the total amount of $202,900 (including change order one) and change order number two in the amount not to exceed $67,200 for a total of $270,100. PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT INFORMATION This change order number two for the Professional Services Agreemem 2685 is for the inclusion of a field construction support which was not a part of the original agreement during the construction phase. It is awarded at a not-to-exceed amount, which allows for reimbursable services at the hourly rates established in the original agreemem. Change order number one was in the amount of $4,900 for geo-technical services. The Professional Services Procuremem Act, Chapter 2254 of the Governmem Code requires the selection of a professional service be determined on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications to perform the services at a fair and reasonable price. Huitt-Zollars, inc., was chosen for this project based upon the ranking criteria of the selection committee, and in accordance with RFP 2685 and successful negotiations. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that this modification to Professional Services Agreemem (PSA 2685) to Huitt-Zollars, inc., be approved in the amount not to exceed $67,200. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Huitt-Zollars, inc. Denton, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT It is anticipated that the Notice to Proceed will be issued on or about May 15, 2002. Agenda Information Sheet May 14, 2002 Page 2 FISCAL INFORMATION This Professional Service Agreement will be funded from Solid Waste account 66000200.1360.21130. Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent 1-AIS-PSA 2685 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CHANGE ORDER NUMBER TWO TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (PSA) BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND HUiTT-ZOLLARS, INC.FOR CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES FOR THE SOLID WASTE FACILITIES AS SET FORTH IN THE CONTRACT WHICH ALLOWS ADDITIONAL SERVICES; AND PROViDiNG AN EFFECTIVE DATE (ORDINANCE NO. 2001-375 FOR PSA 2685 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO HUiTT- ZOLLARS, INC. iN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $202,900 (iNCLUDING CHANGE ORDER ONE) AND CHANGE ORDER NUMBER TWO IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $67,200 FOR A TOTAL OF $270,100). WHEREAS, on October 2, 2001 by Ordinance No. 2001-375, the City awarded a Professional Services Agreement to Huitt-Zollars, inc., in the amount orS $198,000 for Professional Services for the design of the Solid Waste Facilities for Preliminary Design Phase, Final Design Phases and Construction Phase; WHEREAS, the Staffhaving recommended, and the City Manager having recommended to the Council that a change order be authorized to amend such contract agreement with respect to the scope of work and an increase in the payment amount, and said change order fees under the proposed contract are fair and reasonable and are consistent with and not higher than the recommended practices and fees published by the professional associations applicable to the Provider's profession and such fees do not exceed the maximum provided by law; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The Change Order No. Two, increasing the amount of the professional services agreement between the City and Huitt-Zollars, inc., which is on file in the office of the Purchasing Agent, in the amount of Sixty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and 0/100 ($67,200) Dollars, is hereby approved and the expenditure of funds therefore is hereby authorized in accordance with said change order. The total purchase order amount increases to $270,100. SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ., 2002 EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 2-ORD-PSA 2685 HUI'IT-ZOLLAB HuITr-ZOLLARS, INC ~ Suite 300 , 500 West 7th St. Mail Unit 23 J Ft. Worth, TX 76102-4773 , 817.3353000 phone ~ 817.429.1291 metra , 817.335.1025 [ax , huitt zolJars.com December 20, 2001 Ms. Christy A. Skirclmk Capital Projects Administrator City of Denton 90lB Texas Street Denton, Texas 76201 DENTON SOLID WASTE FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICES HZI NO. 03-0787.01 Ms. Skirchak: Huitt-Zollars Inc. (HZI) has completed the design of the facilities. As part of our design fees, we will perform the following construction administration activities: 1. Assist in the bid analysis and contracts recommendation. Conduct pre-bid and pre-construction meetings with the city staff. 3. Review construction submittals and shop drawings. HZI will maintain a complete set of all submittals for our file and will, if requested, maintain a duplicate set for the city's record. 4. If necessary, respond to Request for Irfformation (RFIs) and as appropriate provide revised documents for the contractor's use. 5. At our discretion, we will visit the site to maintain an understanding of the status of the progress of the work. 6. Participate in the final project acceptance process. This will include walk through of the pr~ect with the contractor to generate "punch lists", and to review completion of the project scope and punch list items. These activities will take place with the city's representatives for their acceptance and final approval of thc construction. As noted in the proposal for design dated September 13, 2001, additional construction phases services will be necessary. Based on discussions witi~ Mr. Charles Fiedler, P.E., Director of Engineering, HZI is proposing services for the duration of the construction activity. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1. Contract administration. This includes all pay requests reviews and certifications. 2. Weekly owner's construction meetings. Regular site visits to monitor and report construction progress. 4. Part time construction observation. EXHIBIT "B" FORT WORTH HUITT-ZOLLARS, INC. BASIS FOR PROFESSIONAL FEES AND CHARGES April '1, 2000 Projects indicated to be performed on a "Time and Materials" basis will be in,~oiced monthly using actual direct salary cost for the persons working on the project times a multiplier which is an overhead factor, including profit. The current year multiplier is 2.44. The general ranges ot direct salary cost for vadous employees are as follows: Senior Officer, Principal Architect/Engineer VII, VIII, Officer Architect/Engineer IV. V, VI Architect/Engineer I, II, Itl Designer I through Designer Manager CADD Tech I through Supervisor Project Support: Includes Clerical, Computer Systems, Document Control, and Accounting Support $55.00 to $110.00 $35.00 to $ 70.00 $25.00 to $ 50.00 $21.00 to $ 45.00 $21.00 to $ 45.00 $10.00 to $ 35.00 $ 7.00 to $ 28.00 SURVEY CREWS WILL BE INVOICED ON AN HOURLY RATE BASIS: Person Robotic Total Station Crew Person Total Station Crew Person Crew Person Crew Person GPS Crew Person GPS Crew Person GPS Crew $ 75.00 $ 95.OO $115.00 $135.00 $140.00 $160.00 $185.00 HOURLY BILLING RAt'ES EXPERT WITNESS Testimony $260.00 Standby $130.00 Preparation $130.00 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES WILL BE INVOICED AS FOLLOWS: In House Blue Prints In House Photocopies Outside Services Mileage $ 0.20/fi2 $ 0.'1 O/page Cost + 10% $ 0.345/mile HLII-IT-ZOLLABS Ms. Christy A. Skirchak City of Denton December 20, 2001 Page 2 of 2 Additional services, if requested for priming, mailings, travel of other similar activities, ff requested, will be billed at our cost plus ten percent. These services do not include the following, but can be included if requested: Testing or monitoring installation of construction components. Testing activities include geotechnical investigation required for design, construction materials testing and test associated with start-up of I-IVAC or cleO. rical systems (HZI does not have testing capabilities, but can provide sub-contract services for these). Currently, the contract documents places the responsibility of testing on the contractor. Construction staking. This is indicated in the contract documents to be in the contractor's scope. To provide the scope as noted above, we will provide field construction support person and a design professional. The field person will be on site for an average of 16 hours per week. The design professional will be at the site an average of four (4) hours per week. The field person will monitor the contractor's progress and will provide the day-to-day support to help keep the project on track. The design professional will act as the Owner's Representative, to handle the contract administration, conduct owner's meetings and act on me owner's ~half aunng the construction. It Is anticipated that there will !~ ~onm weeks where the mount of time spent on the project will be more or less than the average, but without the city's approval, the average will not be exceeded. The two individuals selected to fill the roles noted above are Mr. Roger Davis and myself. Mr. Davis is currently working at the Lantana Development. He has been with ItZI for a number of years and is very familiar with this type on construction. Thc costs for these services are as follows: Field Support 16 hours/week $1,376 Owner's Representative 4 hours/week $544 At this time we anticipate the duration of construction to be approximately 35 weeks. To meet this duration, with the above weekly cost, we propose a fee of $67,200. We will provide these services on an hourly basis and only bill for actual time in the field or in the role as Owner's Representative. These activities will be tracked separately from our current design contract and billed as a stand-alone contract. ff should have any questions or comments, please call. Sincerely, Charles T. Aldredge, P.E. Vice President/Project Manager H:\proj\03078?01kAdmin\CA proposal 122001 ,doc This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #14 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET May 14, 2002 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Tom Shaw 349-7100 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT An Ordinance authorizing the City Manager to accept an Imerlocal Agreemem with the City of Garland, Texas to authorize participation in various City of Garland contracts for the purchase of various goods and services; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefore; and declaring an effective date (File 2849- Interlocal Agreemem with the City of Garland, Texas). INTERLOCALAGREEMENT INFORMATION The Interlocal Cooperative Act, V.T.C.A. Government Code Chapter 791, authorizes respective participating governments to enter into joint contracts and agreements for the purchase of necessary materials, supplies, and services. Over the past several years, the City of DeNon and other entities have entered into cooperative purchasing agreements that have been highly beneficial to the taxpayers through anticipated savings. The attached agreement is an authorization to participate in contracts awarded by the City of Garland and will remain in effect until terminated by either party. Any acquisition exceeding $25,000 will be presemed to Council for approval, prior to issuing a purchase order. This Imerlocal Agreemem will allow the City of DeNon to milize contracts for supplies and services competitively bid by the City of Garland, Texas. In the past, we have purchased such items as police sedans, tires, corrugated metal pipe, lubricants, oils, road materials and other supplies from similar agreemems. The bid process followed by the City of Garland, Texas meets all State bidding requiremems and bid opportunities are extended to all local suppliers. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT This agreemem is effective upon approval by the City of Garland, Texas and will remain in effect until terminated by either party. RECOMMENDATION We recommend this Imerlocal Agreemem be approved. FISCAL INFORMATION Each acquisition, based on this agreemem, will follow the City of DeNon fiscal verification policy and be charged to the appropriate budget account. Agenda Information Sheet May 14, 2002 Page 2 1-AIS-File 2849 Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent ORDINANCE NO. AN AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF GARLAND, TEXAS TO AUTHORIZE PARTICIAPTION IN VARIOUS CONTRACTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF VARIOUS GOODS AND SERVICES; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (FILE 2849- iNTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF GARLAND, TEXAS). THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the attached agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. SECTION 2. That the City Manager is authorized to expend funds pursuant to the agreement for the purchase of various goods and services. SECTION 3. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2002. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 2-ORD-Interlocal Agreement With Garland COOPERATIVE PURCHASING INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT This Cooperative Purchasing Interlocal Agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into as of the date written below between the City of Garland, Texas ("Garland") and the City of Denton, Texas ("Denton"). WHEREAS, both Garland and Denton have each determined a need for a cooperative agreement to purchase like goods and services to avoid duplicate procurement efforts and obtain the benefits of volume purchasing; and WHEREAS, Garland and Denton are authorized by Section 271.102 of the Local Government Code and Section 791.025 of the Government Code to pursue mutually beneficial and cooperative purchasing programs; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual obligations and benefits contained herein, Garland and Denton agree as follows: SECTION 1. The purpose of this agreement is to provide Garland and Denton with additional purchasing options by satisfying the provisions of Section 791.025 of the Government Code and Section 271.102 of the Local Government Code. SECTION 2. The parties agree that each of the parties shall respectively designate a person to act under the direction of, and on behalf of, the designating party (the "Designated Representative" of the City of Denton shall be Tom Shaw, Purchasing Agent). SECTION 3., At the request of the other party, a party that enters into a contract with a vendor for goods or services (the "First Purchasing Party") shall attempt to obtain the vendor's agreement to offer those goods and services to the other party (the "Second Purchasing Party") for the same price and on the same terms and conditions as have been offered to the First Purchasing Party. If the vendor so agrees, and if the Second Purchasing Party is agreeable to such terms and conditions, the Second Purchasing Party may enter into its own separate contract with the vendor for the purchase of such goods or services. SECTION 4. Unless otherwise agreed between the Designated Representatives, payments for a purchase made by the Second Purchasing Party shall be paid directly to the vendor and not to the First Purchasing Party. The Second Purchasing Party shall have the responsibility of determining whether the vendor has complied with any provisions in its contract with the vendor, including but not limited to those relating to the quality of items and terms of delivery, and shall be responsible for enforcement of its contract against the vendor, including all costs of enforcement. SECTION 5. Garland and Denton agree to keep each other informed of any changes to the rules, regulations, or statutes which affect any purchase arrangement planned or in place between the parties. SECTION 6. This Agreement may be terminated by either party, without cause or penalty, upon not less than thirty days written notice to the other party. SECTION 7'. If any term or provision of this Agreement is held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, the legality, validity or enforceability of the remaining terms or provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby, and in lieu of each such illegal, invalid or unenforceable term or provision, the parties shall endeavor to agree to a legal, valid or enforceable term or provision as similar as possible to the term or provision declared illegal, invalid or unenforceable. SECTION 8. Execution of this agreement does not obligate Garland or Denton to make any purchase, to pay any membership fee or to otherwise or in any manner incur any cost or obligation. SECTION 9. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. EXECUTED this day of ,2002. THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS THE CITY OF GARLAND, TEXAS By: By: Title: Title: COOPERATIVE PURCHASING INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT PAGE 2 This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #15 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET May 14, 2002 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Charles Fiedler 349-8948 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT An Ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Teague Nall and Perkins for the design of Spencer Road (Colorado Blvd. To Loop 288) as set forth in the contract; and providing an effective date (PSA 2815- Professional Services Agreement for Design of Spencer Road from Colorado Boulevard to Loop 288 awarded to Teague Nall and Perkins for a total amount of $325,630). BID INFORMATION This Professional Services Agreement is for the preliminary design, final design, and construction phase services for Spencer Road from Colorado Boulevard to Loop 288. The Professional Services Procurement Act, Chapter 2254 of the government Code requires the selection of a Professional Service be determined on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications to perform the services at a fair and reasonable price. Teague Nall and Perkins was chosen for this project based upon the team's evaluation from the selection criteria published in RFP 2815 and on file in the office of the Purchasing Agent. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that this Professional Services Agreement (PSA) to Teague Nail and Perkins, be approved along with the contract document in the amount of $325,630. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Teague Nail and Perkins Denton, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT It is anticipated that the Notice to Proceed will be issued on or about May 30, 2002. The design phase is scheduled for completion in 27 weeks, or the fourth week in August. Agenda Information Sheet May 14, 2002 Page 2 FISCAL INFORMATION The project will be funded from 2002 Certificates of Obligation account 35005800.1360. Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent 1-AiS-PSA 2815 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (PSA) WiTH TEAGUE NALL AND PERKINS, iNC. FOR THE DESIGN OF SPENCER ROAD (COLORADO BLVD TO LOOP 288) AS SET FORTH IN THE CONTRACT; AND PROViDiNG AN EFFECTIVE DATE (PSA 2815- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN OF SPENCER ROAD FROM COLORADO BOULEVARD TO LOOP 288 AWARDED TO TEAGUE NALL AND PERKINS, iNC. FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $325,630). THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: WHEREAS, The professional services provider (the "Provider) mentioned in this ordinance is being selected as the most highly qualified on the basis of its demonstrated competence and qualifications to perform the proposed professional services; and WHEREAS, The fees under the proposed contract are fair and reasonable and are consistent with and not higher than the recommended practices and fees published by the professional associations applicable to the Provider's profession and such fees do not exceed the maximum provided by law; NOW, THEREFORE, SECTION 1. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into a professional service contract with Teague Nall and Perkins, Inc., to provide professional architectural and related services for the design of Spencer Road from Colorado Boulevard to Loop 288, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. SECTION 2. The City Manager is authorized to expend funds as required by the attached contract. SECTION 3. The findings in the preamble of this ordinance are incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ., 2002. EULiNE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 2-ORD - PSA 2815 Spencer Rd to Loop 288 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the day of ., 2002, by and between the City of Denton, Texas, a Texas municipal corporation, with its principal office at 215 East McKi~mey Street, Denton, Denton County, Texas 76201, hereinafter called "Owner" and Teague Nall and Perkins, with its corporate office at 235 W. Hickory, Suite 100, Denton, Texas 76201 hereinafter called "Design Professional," acting herein, by and through their duly authorized representatives. In consideration of the covenants and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows: SECTION 1 EMPLOYMENT OF DESIGN PROFESSIONAL The Owner hereby contracts with the Design Professional, a licensed Texas architect or engineer, as an independent contractor. The Design Professional hereby agrees to perform the services as described herein and in the Proposal, the General Conditions, and other attachments to this Agreement that are referenced in Section 3, in connection with the Project. The Project shall include, without limitation, Engineering Services for Spencer Road Reconstruction (Colorado Blvd. To Loop 288) - Attachment A, including Exhibits A, B and C Page 1 QSLDD'xDEN02182\Docs\PSA~,Teague Nall Spencer Agreement.doc SECTION 2 COMPENSATION The Owner shall compensate the Design Professional as follows: 2.1 BASIC SERVICES 2.1.1 For Basic, Special, and Reimbursable Services the total compensation shall be $325~630.00. 2.1.2 Progress payments for Basic Services shall be paid in the following amounts for of the total compensation for the Basic Services satisfactorily completed at the end of the following phases of the Project: Preliminary Design Phase Final Design Phase Construction Phase $ 32,775 $163,875 $ 21,850 2.1.3 For Special Services - See Attachment - Exhibit B, Page 2 2.2 ADDITIONAL SERVICES 2.2.1 2.2.2 Compensation for Additional Services see Attachment C, which includes the fee/rate schedule. Compensation for Additional Services of consultants, including additional structural, mechanical and electrical engineering services shall be based on a multiple of 1.10 times the amounts billed to the Design Professional for such additional services. 2.3 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Reimbursable Expenses shall be a multiple of 1.10 times the expenses incurred by the Design Professional, the Design Professional's em- ployees and consultants in the interest of the Project as defined in the General Conditions but not to exceed a total of $ 6,200 without the prior written approval of the Owner. This amount includes the printing of 30 sets of construction plans and contract documents for the purpose of bidding the project. Should the Owner require more than 30 sets of such documents during the bidding phase of the project, all additional sets will be billed at the rate of $2.00 per plan sheet and $0.10 per contract document sheet. Page 2 Q:\LDD\DEN02182\Docs~PSA\Teague Nail Spencer Agreement.doc SECTION 3 ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement includes this executed agreement and the following documents all of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference as if fully set forth herein: 1. City of Denton General Conditions to Agreement for Architectural or Engineering Services. 2. The Design Professional's Proposal - Attachment A 3. Attachments B and C. This Agreement is signed by the parties hereto effective as of the date first above written. CITY OF DENTON ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: BY: MICHAEL A. CONDUFF CITY MANAGER TEAGUE NALL AND PERKINS, INC. DG Office Manager J WITNESS: BY: ~ CITY OF DENTON Page 3 Q:\LDD\DEN02182\DocsLPSA\Teague Nail Spencer Agreement.doc ATTACHMENT 'A' ITEMIZED SCOPE OF SERVICES BASIC SERVICES PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project includes the preliminary analysis and design of a new 4-lane undivided roadway along Spencer Road from Woodrow (Colorado Blvd.) to Loop 288. The scope of Basic Services generally consists of the preparation of detailed plans and specifications for the roadway and associated drainage, signalization, and utility adjustments as needed to clear proposed drainage facilities. Special Services such as actual acquisition of right-of-way parcels, a market study of land values for right-of-way acquisition, a traffic control plan, regulatory permitting, hydraulic analysis and preparation of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), and geotechnical investigations will also be provided, as described in Exhibit 'B'. GENERAL A. Basis for Scope of Services The following assumptions were used by the ENGINEER for the preparation of the scope of Basic Services for this project: The City of Denton has indicated it will provide an aerial topo of the project limits in electronic format. It is our understanding that this topo will be developed with one-foot contour interval accuracy. The ENGINEER will not be responsible for the accuracy of the topo provided. Because the topographic data to be provided will generally be accurate to within +/- one-half foot, OWNER will conduct field surveys to accurately tie topographic features along the project route, including existing curbs, pavement at intersections, driveways, utilities and culverts. Minimal impacts are expected to PEC-3, as the proposed multi-barrel box culvert will easily span the creek. Section 404 permitting for the creek crossing will be based on one Nationwide 14 permit. For purposes of this proposal, it is assumed that the impacts to the streams can be limited to less than 200', which will eliminate the need for a Preconstruction Notification to the Corps of Engineers. Therefore, the 404 permitting effort will consist of notifying the Corps of Engineers after construction is complete. In the event that stream impacts cannot be limited as indicated, preparation of a PCN will be performed at hourly rates as Additional Services. The project will be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Denton Standard Specifications, the Drainage Design Criteria Manual, February 2002 and the Transportation Design Criteria Manual, February 2002. Exhibit A - Page It is the understanding of the ENGINEER that the total budget for construction of this project is $3,000,000. An Opinion of Probable Construction Cost has been prepared and is attached that projects a construction cost of $3,288,690 for the project based on a conceptual alignment and very rough drainage calculations. Additional monitoring of the preliminary quantities will be done by the ENGINEER as the preliminary design progresses, and periodic reports will be made to the CITY to advise of any changes to this cost. If necessary, adjustments to the actual limits of construction will be made at that time to maintain adherence to the budget. The CITY will advise ENGINEER of any costs related to the project that must be included in the project budget other than those shown in this proposal. Right-of-way acquisition will be reqUired along the roadway. Preparation of right- of-way documents will be provided by the CITY, and acquisition efforts will be accomplished by the ENGINEER. A LOMR is anticipated for the PEC-3 crossing, but no Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) is anticipated. The fee shown herein for the LOMR is based on the assumption that the construction is in conformance with the construction plans and hydraulic models. It is assumed that the engineer for the developer of Denton Crossing will prepare the LOMR for the PEC-2 culvert across Spencer Road. Only minor utility relocations will be required on this project. Since there are no existing or proposed sanitary sewer lines in the roadway, the only relocations required will be due to grade conflicts between the proposed storm drainage system and the existing 8" and 18" water lines in Spencer Road, and any vertical grade changes in the existing roadway that might conflict with the grade of these existing water lines. Design Meetings The ENGINEER will meet regularly as needed with the City of Denton staff during the development of the preliminary and final design phases of the project. Project Management, Administration and Coordination The ENGINEER will establish a work program and schedule for each subconsultant, as necessary, at the beginning of each phase of the project. The ENGINEER will be responsible for the coordination, supervision, review and incorporation of work performed by subconsultants. The ENGINEER will prepare exhibits for two (2) public meetings relative to the project, and will assist City staff in conducting these meetings. It is expected that one meeting will be held during the Preliminary Design Phase, and another just prior to the Construction Phase. Exhibit A - Page 2 D. Data Collection The ENGINEER will collect, compile, and evaluate existing data collected from the City of Denton or other entities that provide existing information related to the design of the project. A location map/schematic plan will be provided to the affected utility companies by the ENGINEER. These schematics will be used by the utility companies to show approximate locations of their facilities that are or may be affected by the project. The ENGINEER will make every effort to obtain as-built, record, and/or future plans for the following facilities in the project area including: Culverts Roadway Water Lines Sanitary Sewer Lines Storm Drain Lines Telephone and Cable TV Underground and/or Overhead Lines Electric Underground and/or Overhead Lines Gas Lines Other Utilities Known to Serve the Project Area The ENGINEER will compile the preliminary information obtained above for later use in the field to help surveyors tie existing utility locations. The locations of utilities tied from field surveys will be shown on the paving and drainage plans, as appropriate. The ENGINEER will identify potential utility conflicts and provide this information to utility companies. PRELIMINARY DESIGN PHASE A. Develop Schematic Plans The ENGINEER will develop schematic plans that depict the ultimate 4-lane undivided Spencer Road section and alignment. These schematic plans will consist of the following: Plan view showing the lane configurations and connections to adjacent driveways and streets. Schematic profiles of the ultimate roadway. Typical sections reflecting the proposed profile. B. Determination of Scope of Construction The ENGINEER will prepare an Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for the construction. The ENGINEER will meet with the CITY to establish the final scope of the construction based on the schematic plans and the Opinion of Probable Construction Cost. At this stage the scope of the construction will be adjusted as Exhibit A - Page 3 necessary to accommodate the project budget. Adjustments may include changes in construction materials, revised limits of permanent and temporary construction, or modification of project objectives. The ENGINEER and CITY will agree on a scope of construction and project budget, based on any adjustments as indicated above. The ENGINER will proceed with preparation of construction plans based on the agreed upon scope of construction and budget. However, the ENGINEER will not warrant that bids received for construction of the project, if designed in accordance with the above (and with subsequent agreed upon revisions necessary during design), will not exceed the project budget. FINAL DESIGN PHASE A. Roadway and Storm Drainage Design The ENGINEER will develop a preliminary design of the proposed roadway and drainage improvements for the construction. The preliminary design will include the proposed horizontal and vertical alignments. These plan sheets will be at a 1"=20' scale and contain topographic information, existing and proposed right-of- way lines, existing underground utilities at locations of conflict, locations of driveways, typical sections, roadway baselines, pavement edges, culvert layouts and sections, contours where necessary, limits of structures, limits of retaining walls, if any, drainage structures including pipes, limits of barriers and any other information, necessary for pavement construction. Profiles at 1'=20' horizontal scale and 1"= 4' vertical scale will contain existing ground lines at the proposed profile grade line, limits of structures and profile elevations at 100 foot intervals. Upon completion, the preliminary design will be submitted to the CITY for review. The preliminary design must be approved by the CITY prior to the start of the final design phase. The ENGINEER will prepare cross-sections along the roadway at 100-foot intervals, which will extend to the proposed right-of-way limits. These cross- sections will form the basis for the determination of earthwork quantities. Cut and fill quantities will be computed and tabulated, referencing cross-sections. Cross-sections will be included in the preliminary and final plans. B. Other Roadway Design Elements 1. A project title sheet will be prepared as required and included in the plans. Project Layout sheets will be prepared at a uniform scale which clearly indicate the limits of the entire project and the main construction elements of the project. Roadway typical sections will be prepared for paving sections along the various portions of the project. Roadway horizontal and vertical control and horizontal curve data will be shown on the plans. Exhibit A - Page 4 o Supplementary intersection layout information will be prepared to properly show the relationship between the profiles of intersecting streets, where deemed necessary by the ENGINEER. ° Details will be developed as necessary, including paving, drainage, culvert, utility, and miscellaneous details to describe the various types of construction when the CITY has no pertinent standard details available. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared for the project. The SWPPP plan will describe the implementation of practices to be used to reduce the pollutants to storm water discharges associated with the construction site. Standard City of Denton and NCTCOG details for erosion control will be used as appropriate. Pullboxes and electrical conduit will be shown for future signalization at three intersections. Drainage Plans and Details Drainage area maps will be prepared at a scale of 1"=200', using available City of Denton contour maps. Off-site drainage areas will be depicted at a scale of 1"=400' minimum scale. Cross-culverts and storm drain systems will be located and sub-drainage areas determined. The runoff to each culvert and storm drain system will be calculated in accordance with the City of Denton Drainage Design Criteria Manual, February 2002. Plan/profile sheets will be provided for new culvert and storm drain construction. Any plan and/or design information and related details previously prepared by the engineer for Denton Crossing on PEC-2 will be utilized in these plans to the extent possible. Miscellaneous drainage details will be prepared for any drainage related items, which are not covered by the CITY's standard details. Signing and Pavement Markings The ENGINEER will develop signing and pavement marking layout sheets for the project at an appropriate scale. These layouts will include baselines, pavement edges, right-of-way lines, pictorially depicted signs with their locations, pavement markings and buttons with dimensioning, culverts and other structures which may present a hazard to traffic, and proposed delineators and object markers. Traffic Control Plans The ENGINEER shall prepare a traffic control plan to adequately represent the phasing of the various elements of the construction and to provide for minimal interruption to both citizens and the Contractor during the entire construction process. Preliminary Quantities and Opinion of Probable Cost Exhibit A- Page 5 Ho Ko 1. Project quantities will be calculated and tabulated based upon the preliminary design for inclusion in the bid proposal and the preliminary opinion of probable cost. The ENGINEER's opinion of probable construction costs will be prepared for the entire project using current unit cost data. These opinions of cost will be provided on the basis of ENGINEER's experience and professional judgment, but will not imply any warranty that final bids might not vary from the cost opinions provided, since neither the ENGINEER nor the CITY have any control over market conditions or bidding procedures. Submit Preliminary Plans for Review Submit up to five (5) sets of preliminary plans for CITY review. Submit plans to utility companies for review. Meet with the CITY to review and discuss the results of the preliminary design phase, as necessary. Prepare Final Design Plans 1. Incorporate CITY review comments and directives from the preliminary design plans in the preparation of final construction plans. Calculate Final Quantities and Prepare Final Opinion of Probable Cost 1. Revise the preliminary quantities and opinion of probable costs per changes in the final design and CITY review comments. Prepare Contract Documents and Specifications 1. Compile special provisions necessary for the project. 2. Compile specifications necessary for the project. Any special specifications will also be prepared. The CITY will provide a copy of their standard specifications in digital format, if available. Compile and develop a list of general notes necessary for the project. Prepare complete contract documents and specifications for bidding purposes. Submit Final Plans, Specifications, and Contract Documents for CITY review 1. Submit up to five (5) sets of final bid documents for CITY review and approval. 2. Submit detailed drawings and plans/specifications to appropriate regulatory agency(ies) and utility companies and obtain clearance. 3. Meet with the CITY to review and discuss the results of the final design phase, as necessary. ° Exhibit A - Page Prepare exhibits and materials necessary for submittal to TxDOT for a permit at the Loop 288 intersection. BIDDING & CONTRACT AWARD PHASE A. Advertising ENGINEER will assist the CITY in the advertisement of the project for bid. The CITY shall bear the cost of advertisement. The ENGINEER shall provide all necessary printing of construction plans, specifications and contract documents (up to 30 sets) for use in obtaining bids, awarding contracts, and constructing the project. The CITY shall be responsible for dispersing all plans and specifications from its purchasing department to prospective bidders. ENGINEER will provide technical support to the CITY during the Bidding & Contract Award phase by responding to bidder and CITY questions, reviewing the bids, preparing a bid tabulation, and making a recommendation of award to the CITY. CONSTRUCTION PHASE A. Construction Observation and Contract Administration The ENGINEER will provide limited construction observation and contract administration for the project within the scope of Basic Services as outlined below. Detailed daily construction inspection will be performed by the CITY. Any construction phase services requested by the CITY beyond those described below will be provided as Additional Services. 1. Attend pre-construction conference. 2. Visit the site on an irregular basis as directed by the CITY, up to three visits. 3. Consult and advise the CITY; and prepare routine change orders as required. Review samples, catalog data, schedules, shop drawings, laboratory, shop and mill tests of material and equipment and other data which the Contractor is required to submit, only for conformance with the design concept of the project and compliance with the information given by the Contract Documents; and assemble written guarantees which are required by the Contract Documents. Exhibit A - Page ? SPECIAL SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY ENGINEER Special Services to be provided by the ENGINEER for this Project include: Market Study of Land Values, Acquisition of Right-of-Way Parcels, Geotechnical Investigations, preparation of Traffic Control Plans, preparation of a LOMR for PEC-3, and preparation and submittal of 404 permit documents to the Corps of Engineers. The scope of work for these Special Services is more specifically described as follows: PREPARATION OF DTM AND TOPOGRAPHIC DATA Engineer will prepare a Digital Terrain Model (DTM) for use in developing cross sections and profiles, using electronic files provided by the City. One-foot contour interval topo will also be generated from this DTM. MARKET STUDY OF LAND VALUES Engineer's subconsultant, Kenneth Martin and Associates, will provide a market study of the land values in the project area for the purpose of establishing a fair market value for the right-of-way parcels to be acquired for this project. The results of this study will be discussed with the City prior to preparing and presenting offers to affected property owners for the acquisition of their property for right-of-way. A final report of the parameters and other data used in the study as well as final conclusions regarding property values will be submitted to the City. ACQUISITION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY PARCELS Engineer's subconsultant, Kenneth Martin and Associates, (KMA) will also be responsible for the acquisition of each right-of-way parcel on the project. Based upon the results of the market study of land values, KMA will make recommendations to the City for the proposed settlement/acquisition cost for each right-of-way parcel. From these recommendations, a budget will be established for right-of-way acquisition. The following steps outline the scope of services KMA will follow in acquiring these parcels: a. Initial investigation and contact with landowners, tenants and utility companies along the proposed right-of-way, including the provision of: · survey notices · environmental site inspection notices, if necessary, and · appraisal notices b. Review of engineering surveys and environmental reports. c. Implementation of relocation procedures to relocate tenants, landowners, and utilities along the roadway, only if necessary. d. Produce Right-of-EntryAgreements. Exhibit A - Page 8 e. Negotiation of purchases and donations with landowners. f. Acquisition of insured fee simple or easement interests in all right-of-way parcels. g. Litigation of right-of-way disputes through eminent domain proceedings; and h. Provide periodic oral and written reports and updates to the City describing in detail the status of each parcel. KMA will coordinate efforts with the City of Denton staff and City attorney during condemnation proceedings, and will represent the City throughout the process. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS (Note: Geotechnical Investigations will be performed by a sub-consultant under contract with the ENGINEER. The ENGINEER shall coordinate with the geotechnical consultant and review test reports and recommendations. A copy of the agreement between ENGINEER and CMJ Engineering, Inc. will be provided after approval of this Agreement and made part of this Agreement between CITY and ENGINEER). A. Field Investigation Eleven (11) borings will be taken at regular intervals along the length of the project, generally to a depth of 8'. Four (4) borings will be taken near the proposed PEC-2 and PEC-3 structures, to a depth of approximately 20'. B. Laboratory Analysis and Report Laboratory analysis will include moisture analysis, soil identification, Atterberg limits determinations, unit weight determinations, unconfined compression tests and lime series tests. Boring logs will be provided on all borings, and a report summarizing the findings of the analysis will be prepared. Recommendations will be made for placement of fill material along with guidelines for pavement design. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS Traffic control plans will be prepared at an appropriate scale and will show existing conditions and detours necessary to maintain traffic flow during each phase of the construction. 2. All temporary signs and pavement markings will be identified, along with necessary project sequencing. Traffic control plans will be in accordance with the Texas Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. CORPS OF ENGINEERS 404 PERMIT Data will be compiled both before and after design and construction for submittal to the Corps of Engineers for a Nationwide 14 permit for the PEC-3 crossing. Exhibit A- Page A brief report will be prepared during the preliminary design phase, outlining the nature of the jurisdictional waters and the impacts of the project on these waters. Upon completion of construction, notification will be submitted to the Corps outlining the impacts of the project. For purposes of this proposal, it is assumed that the impacts to the stream (PEC-3) can be limited to less than 200', which will eliminate the need for a Preconstruction Notification to the Corps of Engineers. In the event that the stream impact cannot be limited as indicated, preparation of a PCN will be performed as Additional Services in accordance with the hourly rate schedule in Attachment "C". LETTER OF MAP REVISION (LOMR) Models developed in the Preliminary Design Phase will be compiled and prepared for submittal after an evaluation is made to determine if a LOMR is required on PEC-3. It is assumed that the developer's engineer for the Denton Crossing development will be responsible for preparing the LOMR for PEC-2. 2. A work map and annotated FIRM map will be prepared based on the models. 3. All necessary FEMA forms will be completed. Limited field verification will be conducted to ensure the construction was completed according to the plans and models. In the event that significant variances are discovered during this verification, a more extensive verification may be required, along with additional modeling, to assess the affect of the variances. This additional modeling and field verification will be performed by ENGINEER as Additional Services in accordance with the hourly rate schedule in Attachment "C". Materials for submittal to FEMA will be submitted to CITY for review and processing through FEMA. CITY will pay all necessary FEMA review fees. ITEMS TO BE PROVIDED BY CITY TO THE ENGINEER The CITY or the CITY's designee will provide or make available to, or assist the ENGINEER in obtaining the following services, information and materials upon request: 1. Available past studies, correspondence, materials and mapping relative to the project. 2. Aerial topographic data in electronic format, compatible with AutoCAD R14 or AutoCAD 2000i. 3. Vertical and horizontal control used for the aerial survey. 4. Copies of construction plans and plats for developed property adjacent to the project. Exhibit A- Page ]0 Assistance in obtaining data from third party sources which is available to the CITY at no cost to the ENGINEER. Current City of Denton Standard Details, Specifications and/or Contract Document data, such as required prevailing wage rates. Design Field Surveys, right-of-way research, and preparation of right-of-way documents for acquisition by ENGINEER's subconsultant. (Under this arrangement, ENGINEER shall not be held responsible for the accuracy and/or quality of these design surveys nor the right-of- way documents prepared by the CITY. Likewise, the design surveys shall be provided to the ENGINEER in AutoCAD LDD format, and all data points must be provided in a comparable format. Design surveys shall include adequate labeling of all data points as well as all line work, which must be completed and ready for immediate design use by the ENGINEER. Should the ENGINEER find any errors or omissions in the digital design surveys, the project schedule requirements shall be suspended, upon ENGINEER's notification of such errors and/or omissions to CITY, until such time that such errors and/or omissions have been corrected by the CITY). PROJECT SCHEDULE Preliminary Design Phase Complete within 6 weeks of receipt from CITY of design field surveys (contingent upon qualifications of Item 7 above) Final Design Phase - Preliminary Plans (90%) Complete within 16 weeks of CITY approval of preliminary design (schematics) Final Design Phase - Final Plans Complete within 4 weeks of CITY approval of Preliminary Plans (includes 2 weeks of CITY review prior to completion of final Bid Documents) Construction Phase Will proceed with construction This schedule assumes an orderly progression of the ENGINEER's services. Delays beyond the control of the ENGINEER may be cause for extension of this period of service. If CITY has requested significant modifications or changes in the general scope, extent or character of the Project, the time of performance of ENGINEER's services shall be adjusted equitably. Exhibit A - Page ATTACHMENT 'B' SCHEDULE OF FEES A. BASIC SERVICES: For work performed by the ENGINEER within the scope identified in EXHIBIT A, Itemized Scope of Services, the ENGINEER will be reimbursed as described below: 1. Labor The following fixed fees shall be paid to the ENGINEER for labor involved in the various items of work within the scope of Basic Services identified in EXHIBIT A: PRELIMINARY DESIGN PHASE FINAL DESIGN PHASE CONSTRUCTION PHASE Subtotal (Labor) Direct Expenses Direct Expenses such as printing, $ 32,775 $163,875 $ 21,850 $ 218,500 reproductions, automobile mileage, delivery/courier services, etc. will be reimbursed to the ENGINEER at his direct invoice expense plus 10% with a not-to-exceed amount of: $ 6,200 Total Fee for Basic Services TOTAL (BASIC SERVICES) $ 224,700 Exhibit B- Page ! B. SPECIAL SERVICES: Work performed by the ENGINEER outside the scope of Basic Services identified in EXHIBIT A, Itemized Scope of Services, shall be considered Special Services, as identified in EXHIBIT A, Special Services to be Provided by Engineer. The ENGINEER will be reimbursed for Special Services as described below: 1. Labor The following fixed fees shall be paid to the ENGINEER for labor involved in the various items of work within the scope of Special Services identified in EXHIBIT A: Preparation of DTM & Topo Acquisition of R-O-W Parcels (Services Only)* (Max. 23 parcels @ not-to-exceed amount of $ 3,000/parcel) Geotechnical Investigations Traffic Control Plans COE 404 Permit Coordination Letter of Map Revision (PEC-3) $ 1,800 $ 69,000 $ 10,230 $ 6,400 $ 1,500 $ 12,000 TOTAL (SPECIAL SERVICES) $ 100,930 * Includes market study of land values. Progress payments for these Special Services shall be paid to the Engineer by the City on a monthly basis based on the estimated percentage (%) of the total work effort completed during that month less any payments for previously invoiced services. C. ADDITIONAL SERVICES: Work performed by the ENGINEER outside that scope identified in EXHIBIT A, Scope of Basic Services, shall be considered Additional Services. No Additional Services are anticipated for this project, except for property appraisals as indicated below. The ENGINEER will be reimbursed for Additional Services, should they be requested, as described below: 1. Labor ENGINEER shall be reimbursed on the basis of negotiated fees for each item of service provided, as mutually agreed to by the ENGINEER and CITY; or labor of personnel employed by the ENGINEER will be reimbursed on an hourly basis in accordance with EXHIBIT C, Standard Rate Schedule. Individual appraisals Exhibit B- Page 2 necessary for right-of-way acquisition will be performed at a Fixed Fee of $1,950 per parcel. Direct Expenses Direct Expenses such as printing, reproductions, automobile mileage, delivery/courier services, etc. will be reimbursed to the ENGINEER at his direct invoice expense. SUMMARY OF FEES: 1. Basic Services Labor $ 218,500 Direct Reimbursable Expenses $ 6,200 TOTAL (BASIC SERVICES) Special Services Labor $100,930 TOTAL (SPECIAL SERVICES) Additional Services Labor $ To Be Determined Direct Expenses $ To Be Determined TOTAL (ADDITIONAL SERVICES) $.To Be Determined Total Fees for Project TOTAL FEES $ 224,70O $100,930 $ 325,630 Exhibit B- Page 3 ATTACHMENT 'C' TEAGUE NALL AND PERKINS, INC. Standard Rate Schedule for Reimbursable/Multiplier Contracts Effective January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002* Engineering / Technical From To Principal $125 $175 Project Manager $100 $120 IT Manager $75 $90 Senior Engineer $80 $120 Engineer $65 $95 Graduate Engineer $60 $90 Senior Designer $65 $115 Designer $50 $70 Landscape Architect / Planner $75 $85 CAD Technician $45 $75 Intern Technician $35 $50 Clerical $40 $60 Resident Project Representative $40 $55 Surveying Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Survey Office Manager R.P.L.S. Senior Survey Technician Junior Survey Technician 2-Person Field Crew w/Equipment 3-Person 4-Person 2-Person 3-Person 1 -Person 2-Person 3-Person Field Crew w/Equipment Field Crew w/Equipment G.P.S. Crew w/Equipment G.P.S. Crew w/Equipment Robotic Crew w/Equipment Robotic Crew w/Equipment Robotic Crew w/Equipment Direct Cost Reimbursables $100 $85 $65 $55 $85 $100 $120 $120 $140 $85 $95 $115 Photocopies $0.1 O/page $0.20/page $2.00/page Plots $1.00/page $2.001page $2.00/page $4.00/page $4.00/page Blueline Prints $2.00/page Sepias $4.00/page Mileage $0.361mile letter and legal size bond paper, B&W 11" x 17" size bond paper, B&W 22" x 34" and larger bond paper or vellum, B&W 11" x 17" size bond paper, B&W 11" x 17" size bond paper, color 22"x34" and larger bond paper or vellum, B&W 22"x34" and larger bond paper or vellum, color 22"x34" and larger mylar or acetate, B&W all sizes all sizes mylar or acetate film All Subcontracted and outsourced services billed at actual cost plus 10% * Rates shown are for calendar year 2002 and are subject to change in subsequent years. Q:\LDD\DEN02182\Docs\PSA\02162attC.doc GENERAL CONDITIONS TO AGREEMENT FOR ARCHITECTURAL OR ENGINEERING SERVICES ARTICLE I. ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S RESPONSIBILITIES 1.1 The Architect or Engineer's services consist o£those services Ibr the Project (as defined in thc agreement (the "Agreement") and proposal (the "Proposal") to which these General Conditions are attached) performed by the Architect or Engineer (hereinagter called the "Design Professional") or Design Professional's employees and consultants as enumerated in Articles 2 and 3 of these General Conditions as modified by the Agreement and Proposal (the "Services"). 1.2 The Design Professional will perform all Services as an independent contractor to the prevailing professional standards consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the same profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions, including reasonable, informed judgments and prompt timely actions (the "Degree of Care"). The Services shall be performed as expeditiously as is consistent ~vith the Degree of Care necessary for the orderly progress of the Project. Upon request of the Owner, the Design Professional shall submit for the Owner's approval a schedule for the performance of the Services which may be adjusted as the Project proceeds, and shall include allowances for periods of time required for the Owner's review and for approval of submissions by authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. Time limits established by this schedule and approved by the Owner shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Design Professional or Owner, and any adjustments to this schedule shall be mutually acceptable to both parties. ARTICLE 2. SCOPE OF BASIC SERVICES 2.1 BASIC SERVICES DEFINED The Design Professional's Basic Services consist of those described in Sections 2.2 through 2.6 of these General Conditions and include without limitation normal structural, civil, mechanical and electrical engineering services and any other engineering services necessary to produce a complete and accurate set of Construction Documents, as described by and required in Section 2.4_ The Basic Services may be modified by the Agreement. 2.2 SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE (S~ Exhibit A for further Clarification) :2.2.1 The Design Professional, in consultation with the Owner, shall develop a written program for the Project to ascertain O~vner's needs and to establish the requirements lbr the Project. 2.2.2 The Design Professional shall provide a preliminary evaluation of the Owner's program, construction schedule and construction budget requirements, each in terms of the other, subject to the limitations set forth in Subsection 5.2.1. 2.2.3 The Design Professional shall review with the Owner alternative approaches to design and construction of the Project. 2.2.4 Based on the mutually agreed-upon program, schedule and construction budget requirements, the Design Professional shall prepare, for approval by the Owner, Schematic Design Documents consisting of drawings and other documents illustrating the scale and relationship of Project components. The Schenmtic Design shall contemplate compliance with all applicable laws, statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2.2.5 The Design Professional shall submit to the Owner a preliminary detailed estimate of Construction Cost based on current area, volume or other unit costs and which indicates the cost of each category of work involved in constructing the Project and establishes an elapsed time factor Ibr the period of time from the commencement to the completion of construction. 2.3 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE (See Exhibit A for further Clarification) 2.3.1 Based on the approved Schematic Design Documents and any adjustments authorized by the Owner in the program, sche- dule or construction budget, the Design Professional shall prepare for approval by the Owner, Design Development Documents consisting of drawings and other documents to fix and describe the size and character of the Project as to architectural, structural, mechanical and electrical systems, materials and such other elements as may be appropriate, which shall comply with all applicable laws, statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. Notwithstanding Owner's approval of the documents, Design Protkssional warrants that the Documents and specifications will be sufficient and adequate to fulfill the purposes of the Project. 2.3.2 The Design Professional shall advise the Owner of any adjustments to the preliminary estimate of Construction Cost in a further Detailed Statement as described in Section 2.2.5. 2.4 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PHASE (S¢~ Exhibit A for further Definition and Clarification) 2.4.1 Based on the approved Design Development Documents and any further adjustments in the scope or quality of the Project or in the construction budget authorized by the Owner, the Design Professional shall prepare, for approval by the Owner, Construction Documents consisting of Drawings and Specifications setting forth in detail requirements for the construction of the Project, which shall comply with all applicable laws, statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2.4.2 The Design Professional shall assist the Owner in the preparation of the necessary bidding or procurement information, bidding or procurement forms, the Conditions of the contract, and the form of Agreement between the Owner and contractor. Page 4 QSLDD~DEN02182XDocsLPSA\Teague Nail Spencer Agreement~doc 2.4.3 The Design Professional shall advise the Owner of any adjustments to previous preliminary estimates of Construction Cost indicated by changes in requirements or general market conditions. 2.4.4 Ihe Design Professional shall assist the Ow~er in connection with the Owner's responsibility for filing documents required for the approval of governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. 2.5 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PROCUREMENT 2.5.1 The Design Professional, following the Owner's approval of the Construction Documents and of the latest preliminary detailed estimate of Construction Cost, shall assist the Owner in procuring a construction contract for the Project through any procurement method that is legally applicable to the Project including without limitation, the competitive sealed bidding process. Although the Owner ~vill consider the advice of the Design Professional, the award of the construction contract is at the sole discretion of the Owner. 2.5.2 If the construction contract amount tbr the Project exceeds the total construction cost of the Project as set forth in the approved Detailed Statement of Probable Construction Costs oftbe Project submitted by thc Design Professional, then the Design Professional, at its sole cost and expense, will revise the Construction Documents as may be required by the Owner to reduce or modify the quantity or quality of the work so that the total construction cost of thc Project will not exceed the total construction cost set forth in the approved Detailed Statement of Probable Construction Costs. 2.6 CONSTRUCTION PHASE - ADMINISTRATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 2.6.1 The Design Professional's responsibility to provide Basic Services for the Construction Phase under this Agreement commences with the award of the Contract for Construction and terminates at the issuance to the Owner of the final Certificate for Payment, unless extended under the terms of Subsection 8.3.2. 2.6.2 The Design Professional shall provide detailed administration of the Contract for Construction as set forth below. For design professionals the administration shall also be in accordance with AIA document A201, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, current as of the date of the Agreement, unless otherwise provided in the Agreement. For engineers the administration shall also be in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction by the North Central Texas Council of Governments, current as of the date of the Agreement, unless otherwise provided in the Agreement. 2.6.3 Construction Phase duties, responsibilities and limitations of authority of the Design Professional shall not be reslricted, modified or extended without written agreement oftbe Owner and Design Professional. 2.6.4 The Design Professional shall be a representative of and shall advise and consult with the Owner (1) during construction, and (2) at the Owner's direction fi'om time to time during the correction, or warranty period described in the Contract for Construction. The Design Professional shall have authority to act on behalf of the Owner only to the extent provided in the Agreement and these General Conditions, unless otherwise modified by written instrument. 2.6.5 The Design Professional shall inspect the construction site at least two times a week, regardless of whether construction is in progress, to become familiar with the progress and quality of the work completed and to determine if the work is being performed in a manner indicating that the work when completed will be in accordance with the Contract Documents. Design Professional shall provide Owner a written report subsequent to each on-site visit. On the basis of on-site observations the Design Professional shall keep the Owner informed of the progress and quality of the work, and shall exercise the Degree of Care and diligence in discovering and promptly reporting to the Owner any defects or deficiencies in the work of Contractor or any subcontractors. The Design Professional represents that he will follow Degree of Care in performing all Services under the Agreement. The Design Professional shall promptly correct any defective designs or specifications fumished by the Design Professional at no cost to the Owner. The Owner's approval, acceptance, use of or payment for all or any part of the Design Professional's Services hereunder or of the Project itself shall in no way alter the Design Professional's obligations or the Owner's rights hereunder. (S~e Exhibit A wrier elarifies and slates actual site visit requirements.) 2.6.6 The Design Professional shall not have control over or charge of and shall not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the work. The Design Professional shall not be responsible for the Contractor's schedules or failure to carry out the work in accordance with the Contract Documents except insofar as such failure may result from Design Professional's negligent acts or omissions. The Design Professional shall not have control over or charge of acts or omissions of the Contractor, Subcontractors, or their agents or employees, or of any other persons performing portions of the work. 2.6.7 The Design Professional shall at all times have access ~ the work wherever it is in preparation or progress. 2.6.8 Except as may otherwise be provided in the Contract Documents or when direct communications have been specially authorized, the Owner and Contractor shall communicate through the Design Professional. Communications by and with the Design Professional's consultants shall be through the Design Professional. 2.6.9 Based on the Design Professional's observations at the site of the work and evaluations of the Contractor's Applications for Payment, the Design Professional shall review and certify the amounts due the Contractor. Page 5 Q:\LDD\DEN02182\Docs\PSA\Teague Nail Spencer Agreement.doc 2.6.10 The Design Professional's certification for payment shall constitute a representation to the Owner, based on the Design Professional's observations at the site as provided in Subsection 2.6.5 and on the data comprising the Contractor's Application for Payment, that the work has progressed to the point indicated and that the quality of the Work is in accordance with the Contract Documents. The foregoing representations am subject to minor deviations from the Contract Documents correctable prior to completion and to specific qualifications expressed by the Design Professional. The issuance of a Certificate for Payment shall further constitute a representation that the Contractor is entitled to payment in the amount certified. However, the issuance of a Certificate for Payment shall not be a representation that the Design Professional has (1) reviewed construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or (2) ascertained how or for what purpose the Contractor has used money previously paid on account of the Contract Sum. (Omit 2~6,I0 Not Applieable for this Agreemen0 The Design Professional will assist with any questions in ~to the iten~ in 2.6.10. 2.6.11 The Design Professional shall have the responsibility and authority to reject work which does not conibrm to the Contract Documents. Whenever the Design Professional considers it necessary or advisable for implementation of the intent of the Contract Documents, the Design Professional will have authority to require additional inspection or testing of the work in accordance with the provisions of the Contract Documents, whether or not such Work is fabricated, installed or completed. However, neither this authority of the Design Professional nor a decision made in good frith either to exercise or not exercise such authority shall give rise to a duty or responsibility of the Design Professional to the Contractor, Subcontractors, material and equipment suppliers, their agents or employees or other persons performing portions of the work. 2.6.12 The Design Professional shall review and appro',e or take other appropriate action upon Contractor's submittals such as Shop Drawings, Product Data and Samples for the purpose of (1) determining compliance with applicable laws, statutes, ordinances and codes; and (2) determining whether or not the work, when completed, will be in compliance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. The Design Professional shall act with such reasonable promptness to cause no delay in the work or in the construction of the Owner or of separate contractors, while allowing sufficient time in the Design Professional's professional judgment to permit adequate review. Review of such submittals is not conducted for the purpose of determining the accuracy and completeness of other details such as dimensions and quantities or for substantiating instructions for installahon or performance of equipment or systems designed by the Contractor, all of which remain the responsibility of the Contractor to the extent required by the Contract Documents. The Design Professional's review' shall not constitute approval of safety precautions or, unless otherwise specifically stated by the Design Professional, of construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures. The Design Professional's approval of a specific item shall not indicate approval of an assembly of which the item is a component. When professional certification of performance characteristics of materials, systems or equipment is required by the Contract Documents, the Design Professional shall be entitled to rely upon such certification to establish that the materials, systems or equipment will meet the performance criteria required by the Contract Documents. 2.6.13 The Design Professional shall prepare Change Orders and Construction Change Directives, with supporting documentation and data if deemed necessary by the Design Professional as provided in Subsections 3.1.1 and 3.3.3, for the Owner's approval and execution in accordance with the Contract Documents, and may authorize minor changes in the work not involving an adjustment in the Contract Sum or an extension of the Contract Time which are not inconsistent with the intent of the Contract Documents. 2.6.14 On behalf of the Owner, the Design Professional shall conduct inspections to detem~ine the dates of Substantial Completion and Final Completion, and if requested by the Owner shall issue Certificates of Substantial and Final Completion. The Design Professional will receive and review written guarantees and related documents required by the Contract for Construction to be assembled by the Contractor and shall issue a final certificate for Payment upon compliance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. 2.6.15 The Design Professional shall interpret and provide recommendations on matters concerning performance of the Owner and Contractor under the requirements of the Contract Documents on written request of either the Owner or Contractor. The Design Professional's response to such requests shall be made with reasonable promptness and within any time limits agreed upon. Omit this paragraph 2.6.15 2.6.16 Interpretations and decisions of the Design Professional shall be consistent with the intent of and reasonably inferable from the Contract Documents and shall be in writing or in the form of drawings. When making such interpretations and initial decisions, the Design Professional shall endeavor to secure faithful performance by both Owner and Contractor, and shall not be liable for results or interpretations or decisions so rendered in good faith in accordance with all the provisions of this Agreement and in the absence of negligence. 2.6.17 The Design Professional shall render written decisions within a reasonable time on all claims, disputes or other matters in question between the Owner and Contractor relating to the execution or progress of the work as provided in the Contract Documents. 2.6.18 The Design Professional (1) shall render services under the Agreement in accordance with the Degree of Care; (2) will reimburse the Owner for all damages caused by the defective designs the Design Professional prepares; and (3) by acknowledging payment by the Owner of any fees due, shall not be released from any rights the Owner may have under the Agreement or diminish any of the Design Professional's obligations thereunder. Page 6 Q:\LDD'ff)EN02182\Docs~PSA\Teague Nall Spencer Agreement.doc 2.6.19 The Design Professional shall provide the Owner with a digi*al coPy and one set ofreP~Ueible prints showing all significant changes to the Construction Documents during the Construction Phase. The reproducible prints will be based on information provided to the Design Professional by others. ARTICLE 3. ADDITIONAL SERVICES 3.1 GENERAL 3.1.1 The services described in this Article 3 are not included in Basic Services unless so identified in the Agreement or Proposal, and they shall be paid tbr by the Owner as provided in the Agreen~ent, in addition to the compensation for Basic Services. The sm'ices described under Sections 3.2 and 3.4 shall only be provided if authorized or confirmed in ~witing by the Owner. If services described under Contingent Additional Services in Section 3.3 are required due to circumstances beyond the Design Professional's control, the Design Professional shall notify the Owner in writing and shall not commence such additional services until it receives written approval from the Owner to proceed. If the O~vner indicates in writing that all or part of such Contingent Additional Services are not required, the Design Professional shall have no obligation to provide those services. Owner will be responsible for compensating the Design Professional for Contingent Additional Services only if they are not required due to the negligence or fault of Design Professional. 3.2 PROJECT REPRESENTATION BEYOND BASIC SERVICES 3.2.1 If more extensive representation at the site than is described in Subsection 2.6.5 is required, the Design Professional shall provide one or more Project Representatives to assist in carrying out such additional on-site responsibilities. 3.2.2 Project Representatives shall be selected, employed and directed by the Design Professional, and the Design Professional shall be compensated therefore as agreed by the Owner and Design Professional. 3.3 CONTINGENT ADDITIONAL SERVICES 3.3.1 Making material revisions in Drawings, Specifications or other documents when such revisions are: 1. inconsistent with approvals or instructions previously given by the Owner, including revisions made necessary by adjustments in the Owner's program or Project budget; 2. required by the enactment or revision of codes, laws or regulations subsequent to the preparation of such documents, or 3. due to changes required as a result of the Owner's failure to render decision in a timely manner. 3.3.2 Providing services required because of significant changes in the Project including, but not limited to, size, quality, complexity, or the Owner's schedule, except for services required under Subsection 2.5.2. 3.3.3 Preparing Drawings, Specifications and other documentation and supporting data, and providing other services in connection with Change Orders and Construction Change Directives. 3.3.4 Providing consultation conceming replacement of work damaged by tiro or other cause during construction, and fur- nishing services required in connection with the replacement of such work. 3.3.5 Providing services made necessaw by the default of the Contractor, by major defects or deficiencies in the work of the Contractor, or by failure of performance of either the Owner or Contractor under the Contract for Construction. 3.3.6 Providing services in evaluating an extensive number of claims submitted by the Contractor or others in connection with the work. 3.3.7 Providing services in connection with a public hearing, arbitration proceeding or legal proceeding except where the Design Professional is party thereto. 3.3.8 Providing services in addition to those required by Article 2 for preparing documents for altemate, separate or sequential bids or providing services in connection with bidding or construction prior to the completion oftbe Construction Documents Phase. 3.3.9 Notwithstanding anything contained in the Agreement, Proposal or these General Conditions to the contrmy, all services described in this Article 3 that are caused or necessitated in whole or in part due to the negligent act or omission of the Design Professional shall be performed by the Design Professional as a part of the Basic Services under the Agreement with no additional compensation above and beyond the compensation due the Design Professional for the Basic Services. The intervening or concurrent negligence of the Owner shall not limit the Design Professional's obligations under this Subsection 3.3.9. Page 7 Q:\LDD\DEN02182\Docs~PSA\league Nall Spencer Agreement.doc 3.4 OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES' 3.4.1 Providing financial feasibility or other special studies. 3.4.2 Providing planning surveys, site evaluations or comparative studies of prospective sites. 3.4.3 Providing special surveys, environmental studies and submissions required for approvals of governmental auth- orities or others having jurisdiction over the Project. 3.4.4 Providing services relative to future facilities, systems and equipment. 3.4.5 Providing services to investigate existing conditions or facilities or to make measured drawings thereof. 3.4.6 Providing services to verify the accuracy of drawings or other information furnished by the Owner. 3.4.7 Providing coordination of construction performed by separate contractors or by the Owner's own forces and coordination of services required in connection with construction performed and equipment supplied by the Owner. 3.4.8 Providing detailed quantity surveys or inventories of material, equipment and labor. 3.4.9 Providing analyses of operating and maintenance costs. 3.4.10 Making investigations, inventories of materials or equipment, or valuations and detailed appraisals of existing facilities. 3.4.12 Providing assistance in the utilization of equipment or systems such as testing, adjusting and balancing, preparation of operation and maintenance manuals, training personnel for operation and maintenance and consultation during opera- tion. 3.4.13 Providing interior design and similar services required for or in connection with the selection, procurement or installation of furniture, furnishings and related equipment. 3.4.14 Providing services other than as provided in Section 2.6.4, aller issuance to the Owner of the final Certificate for Payment and expiration of the Warranty period of the Contract for Construction. 3.4.15 Providing services of consultants for other than architectural, civil, structural, mechanical and electrical engineering portions of the Project provided as a part of Basic Services. 3.4.16 Providing any other services not otherwise included in this Agreement or not customarily furnished in accordance with generally accepted architectural practice. 3.4.17 Preparing a set of reproducible record drawings in addition to those required by Subsection 2.619, showing significant changes in the work made during construction based on marked-up prints, drawings and other data furnished by the Contractor to the Design Professional. 3.4.18 NotWithstanding anything contained in the Agreement, Proposal or these General Conditions to the contrary, all services described in this Article 3 that are caused or necessitated in whole or in pan due to the negligent act or omission of the Design Professional shall be performed by the Design Professional as a part of the Basic Services under the Agreement with no additional compensation above and beyond the compensation due the Design Professional for the Basic Services. The intervening or concurrent negligence of the Owner shall not limit the Design Professional's obligations under this Subsection 3.4. [ 8. ARTICLE 4. OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES 4.1 The Owner shall consult with the Design Professional regarding requirements for the Project, including (1) the Owner's objectives, (2) schedule and design constraints and criteria, including space requirements and relationships, flexibility, expendability, special equipment, systems and site requirements, as more specifically described in Subsection 2.2.1. 4.2 The Owner shall establish and update an overall budget for the Project, including the Construction Cost, the Owner's other costs and reasonable contingencies related to all of these costs. 4.3 If requested by the Design Professional, the Owner shall furnish evidence that financial arrangements have been made to fulfill the Owner's obligations under this Agreement. 4.4 The Owner shall designate a representative authorized to act on the Owner's behalf with respect to the Project. The Owner or such authorized representative shall render decisions in a timely manner pertaining to documents submitted by the Design Prot~:ssional in order to avoid unreasonable delay in the orderly and sequential progress of the Design Professional's services. Page 8 Q:\LDD\DEN02 182\DocsLPSAWeague Nall Spencer Agreement.doc 4.5 Where applicable, the Owner shall furnish surveys describing physical characteristics, legal limitations and utility locations for the site of the Project, and a written legal description of the site. The surveys and legal inlbrmation shall include, as applicable, grades and lines of streets, alleys, pavements and adjoining property and structures; adjacent drainage; rights-of-way, restrictions, easements, encroachments, zoning, deed restrictions, boundaries and contours of the site; locations, dimensions and necessary data pertaining to existing buildings, other improvements and trees; and information concerning available utility services and lines, both public and private, above and below grade, including inverts and depths. All the intbrmation on the survey shall be reikrenced to a project benchmark. 4.6 Where applicable, the Owner shall furnish the services ofgeotechnical engineers when such services are requested by the Design Professional. Such services may include but are not limited to test borings, test pits, determinations of soil bearing values, percolation tests, evaluations of hazardous materials, ground corrosion and resistivity tests, including necessary operations ibr anticipating sub-soil conditions, with reports and appropriate professional recommendations. 4.6.1 The Owner shall furnish the services of other consultants when such services are reasonably required by the scope of the Project and are requested by the Design Professional and are not retained by the Design Professional as part of its Basic Services or Additional Services. 4.7 When not a part of the Additional Services, the Owner shall fumish structural, mechanical, chemical, air and water pollution tests, tests of hazardous materials, and other laboratory and environmental tests, inspections and reports required by law or the Contract Documents. 4.8 The Owner shall fumish all legal, accounting and insurance counseling serv'ices as may be necessary at any time for the Project, including auditing services the Owner may require to verify the Contractor's Applications 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 services, information, surveys and reports required by Owner under Sections 4.5 through 4.8 shall be fumished at the Owner's expense, and the Design Professional shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness thereof in the absence of any negligence on the part of the Design Professional. 4.10 The Owner shall give prompt written notice to the Design Professional if the Owner becomes aware of any thult or defect in the Project or nonconlbrmance with the Contract Documents. 4.11 Design Professional shall propose language for certificates or certifications to be requested of the Design Professional or Design Professional's consultants and shall submit such to the Owner tbr review and approval at least fourteen (14) days prior to execution. The Owner agrees not to request certifications that would require knowledge or services beyond the scope of the Agreement. ARTICLE 5. CONSTRUCTION COST 5.1 CONSTRUCTION COST DEFINED 5.1.1 The Construction Cost shall be the total cost or estimated cost to the Owner of all elements of the Project designed or specified by the Design Professional. 5.1.2 The Construction Cost shall include the cost at current market rates of labor and materials furnished by the Owner and equipment designed, specified, selected or specially provided for by the Design Professional, plus a reasonable allowance for the Contractor's overhead and profit. In addition, a reasonable allowance for contingencies shall be included for market conditions at the time of bidding and for changes in the work during construction. 5.1.3 Construction Cost docs not include the compensation of the Design Professional and Design Professional's consultants, the costs of the land, rights-of-way, financing or other costs which are the responsibility of the Owner as provided in Article 4. 5.2 RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONSTRUCTION COST 5.2.1 Evaluations of the Owner's Project budget, preliminary estimates of Construction Cost and detailed estimates of Construction Cost prepared by the Design Professional represent thc Design Professional's best judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. It is recognized, however, that neither the Design Professional nor thc Owner has control over the cost of labor, materials or equipment, over the Contractor's methods of determining bid prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions. Accordingly, the Design Professional cannot and does not warrant or represent that bids or cost proposals will not vary from the Owner's Project budget or from any estimate of Construction Cost or evaluation prepared or agreed to by the Design Professional. (See Exhibit A) 5.2.2 No fixed limit of Construction Cost shall be established as a condition of the Agreement by the furnishing, proposal or establishment of a Project budget, unless such fixed limit has been agreed upon in writing and signed by the parties thereto. If such a fixed limit has been established, the Design Professional shall be permitted to include contingencies for design, bidding and price escalation, to determine what materials, equipment, component systems and types of construction are to be included in the Contract Documents, to make reasonable adjustments in the scope of the Project and to include in Page 9 Q:\LDD\DEN02182\DocsLPSA\Teague Nail Spencer Agreement.doc the Contract Documents alternate bids to adjust the Construction Cost to the fixed limit. Fixed limits, if any, shall bc increased in the amount of an increase in the Contract Sum occurring after execution of the Contract for Construction. 5.2.3 If the Procurement Phase has not commenced within 90 days after the Design Professional submits the Construction Documents to the Owner, any Project budget or fixed limit of Construction Cost shall be adjusted to reflect changes in the general level of prices in the construction industry between the date of submission of the Construction Documents to the Owner and the date on which proposals are sought. ARTICLE 6. OWNERSHIP AND USE OF DOCUMENTS 6.1 The Drawings, Specifications and other documents prepared by the Design Professional for this Project are instruments of the Design Professional's service and shall become the property of the Owner upon termination or completion of the Agreement. The Design Professional is entitled to retain copies of all such documents. Such documents am intended only be applicable to this Project, and Owner's use of such documents in other projects shall be at Ox~mer's sole risk and expense. In the event the Owner uses any of the information or materials developed pursuant to the Agreement in another project or for other purposes than are specified in the Agreement, the Design Professional is re]eased from any and all liability relating to their use in that project. 6.2 Submission or distribution of documents to meet official regulatory requirements or for similar purposes in connection with the Project is not to be construed as publication in derogation of the Design Professional's reserved rights. ARTICLE 7. TERMINATION, SUSPENSION OR ABANDONMENT 7.1 The Design Professional may terminate the Agreement upon not less than thirty days written notice should the Owner fail substantially to perform in accordance with the terms of the Agreement through no fault of the Design Professional. Oxvner may terminate the Agreement or any phase thereof with or without cause upon thirty (30) days prior xwitten notice to the Design Professional. All work and labor being performed under the Agreement shall cease immediately upon Design Professional's receipt of such notice. Before the end of the thirty (30) day period, Design Professional shall invoice the Owner for all work it satisfactorily performed prior to the receipt of such notice. No amount shall be due for lost or anticipated profits. All plans, field surveys, and other data related to the Project shall become property of the Owner upon termination of the Agreement and shall be promptly delivered to the Owner in a reasonably organized form. Should Owner subsequently contract with a new Design Professional tbr continuation of services on the Project, Design Professional shall cooperate in providing information. 7.2 If the Project is suspended by the Owner for more than 30 consecutive days, the Design Professional shall be compensated for services satisfactorily performed prior to notice of such suspension. When the Project is resumed, the Design Professional's compensation shall be equitably adjusted to provide for expenses incmred in the interruption and resumption of the Design Professional's services. 7.3 The Agreement may be temqinated by the Owner upon not less than seven days written notice to the Design Professional in the event that the Project is permanently abandoned, lfthe Project is abandoned by the Owner for more than 90 consecutive days, the Design Professional or the Owner may terminate the Agreement by giving written notice. 7.4 Failure of the Owner to make payments to the Design Professional for work satisfactorily completed in accordance with the Agreement shall be considered substantial nonperformance and cause for termination. 7.5 lfthe Owner fails to make payment to Design Professional within thirty (30) days of receipt ora statement for services properly and satisfactorily perlbrmed, the Design Professional may, upon seven days written notice to the Owner, suspend performance of services under the Agreement. 7.6 In the event of termination not the fault of the Design Professional, the Design Professional shall be compensated for services properly and satisfactorily performed prior to termination. ARTICLE 8. PAYMENTS TO THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL 8.1 DIRECT PERSONNEL EXPENSE 8.1.1 Direct Personnel Expense is defined as the direct salaries of the Design Professional's personnel engaged on the Project and the portion of the cost of their mandatory and customary contributions and benefits related thereto, such as employment taxes and other statutory employee benefits, insurance, sick leave, holidays, vacations, pensions and similar contributions and benefits. 8.2 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Page 10 Q:\LDD\DEN02182\DocsLPSA\league Nall Spencer Agreement.doc 8.2.1 Reimbursable Expenses are in addition to compensation for Basic and Additional Services and include expenses incurred by the Design Professional and Design Professional's employees and consultants in the interest of the Project, as identified in the following Clauses. 8.2.1.1 Expense of transportation in connection with the Project; expenses in connection with authorized out-of-town travel; long-distance communications; and fees paid for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the Pro- ject. 8.2.1.2 Expense of reproductions (except the reproduction of the sets of documents referenced in Subsection 2.6.19), postage and handling of Drawings, Specifications and other documents. 8.2.1.3 If authorized in advance by the Owner, expense of overtime work requiring higher than regular rates. 8.2.1.4 Expense of renderings, models and mock-ups requested by the Owner. 8.2.1.5 Expense of computer-aided design and drafting equipment time when used in connection with the Project. 8.2.1.6 Other expenses that are approved in advance in writing by the Owner. 8.3 PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF BASIC SERVICES 8.3.1 Payments for Basic Services shall be made monthly and, where applicable, shall be in proportion to services performed within each phase of service, on the basis set forth in Section 2 of the Agreement and the schedule of work. 8.3.2 If and to the extent that the time initially established in the Agreement is exceeded or extended through no fault of the Design Professional, compensation for any services rendered during the additional period of time shall be computed in the manner set forth in Section 2 of the Agreement. 8.3.3 When compensation is based on a percentage of Construction Cost and any portions of the Project are deleted or othe~vise not constructed, compensation for those portions of the Project shall be payable to the extent services are per- /brmed on those portions, in accordance with the schedule set forth in Section 2 of the Agreement based on (1) the lowest bona fide bid or (2) if no such bid or proposal is received, the most recent preliminary estimate of Construction Cost or detailed estimate of Consn'uction Cost for such portions of the Project. 8.4 PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF ADDFI'IONAL SERVICES 8.4.1 Payments on account of the Design Professional's Additional Services and for Reimbursable Expenses shall be made monthly within 30 days atter the presentation to the Owner of the Design Professional's statement of services rendered or expenses incurred. 8.5 PAYMENTS WITHHELD No deductions shall be made from the Design Professional's compensation on account of penalty, liquidated damages or other sums withheld from payments to contractors, or on account of the cost of changes in the work other than those for which the Design Professional is responsible. 8.6 DESIGN PROFESSIONAL'S ACCOUNTING RECORDS Design Professional shall make available to Owner or Owner's authorized representative records of Reimbursable Expenses and expenses pertaining to Additional Services and services performed on the basis of a multiple of Direct Personnel Expense for inspection and copying during regular business hours for three years after the date of the final Certificate of Payment, or until any litigation related to the Project is final, whichever date is later. ARTICLE 9. INDEMNITY 9.1 The Design Professional shall indemnify and save and hold harmless the Owner and its officers, agents, and employees l'¥om and against any and all liability, claims, demands, damages, losses, and expenses, including, but not limited to court costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred by the Owner, and including, without limitation, damages for bodily and personal injury, death and property damage, resulting from the negligent acts or omissions of the Design Professional or its officers, shareholders, agents, or employees in the execution, operation, or performance of the Agreement. 9.2 Nothing herein shall be construed to create a liability to any person who is not a party to the Agreement, and nothing herein shall waive any of the parties' defenses, both at law or equity, to any claim, cause of action, or litigation filed by anyone not a party to the Agreement, including the defense of governmental immunity, which defenses are hereby expressly reserved. ARTICLE 10. INSURANCE During the performance of the Services under the Agreement, Design Professional shall maintain the following insurance with an insurance company licensed to do business in the State of Texas by the State Insurance Commission or any successor agency that has a rating with Best Rate Carriers of at least an A- or above: Page 11 Q:\LDD\DEN02182\Docs~PSA\Teague Nail Spencer Agreement.doc 10.1 Comprehensive General Liability Insurance with bodily injury limits of not less than $1,000,000 for each occurrence and not less than $1,000,000 in the aggregate, and with property damage limits of not less than $100,000 for each occurrence and not less than SI 00,000 in the aggregate. 10.2 Automobile Liability Insurance with bodily injury limits of not less than $500,000 for each person and not less than $500,000 for each accident, and with property damage limits of not less than $100,000 for each accident. 10.3 Worker's Compensation Insurance in accordance with statutory requirements, and Employers' Liability Insurance with limits of not less than $100,000 for each accident including occupational disease. 10.4 Professional Liability Insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000 annual aggregate. 10.5 The Design Professional shall furnish insurance certificates or insurance policies to the Owner evidencing insurance in compliance with this Article 10 at the time of the execution of the Agreement. The General Liability and Automobile Liability insurance policies shall name the Owner as an additional insured, the Workers' Compensation policy shall contain a waiver of subrogation in favor of the Owner, and each policy shall contain a provision that such insurance shall not be canceled or modified without thirty (30) days' prior written notice to Owner and Design Professional. In such event, the Design Professional shall, prior to the effective date of the change or cancellation, furnish Owner with substitute certificates of insurance meeting the requirements of this Article 10. ARTICLE 11. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 11.1 The Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Texas. Venue of any suit or cause of action under the Agreement shall lie exclusively in Denton County, Texas. 11.2 The Owner and Design Professional, respectively, bind themselves, their partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to the other party to this Agreement and to the partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives of such other party with respect to all covenants of this Agreement. The Design Prolkssional shall not assign its interests in the Agreement without the wTitten consent of the Owner. 11.3 The term Agreement as used herein includes the executed Agreement, the Proposal, these General Conditions and other attachments referenced in Section 3 of the Agreement which together represent the entire and integrated agreement between the Owner and Design Professional and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. The Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both Owner and Design Professional. When interpreting the Agreement the executed Agreement, Proposal, these General Conditions and the other attachments referenced in Section 3 of the Agreement shall to the extent that is reasonably possible be read so as to harmonize the provisions. However, should the provisions of these documents be in conflict so that they can not be reasonably harmonized, such documents shall be given priority in the following order: 1. The executed Agreement 2. Attachments referenced in Section 3 of the Agreement other than the Proposal 3. These General Provisions 4. The Proposal 11.4 Nothing contained in the Agreement shall create a contractual relationship with or a cause of action in favor of a third party against either the Owner or Design Professional. 11.5 Upon receipt of prior whtten approval of Owner, the Design Professional shall have the right to include representations of the design of the Project, including photographs of the extehor and interior, among the Design Professional's promotional and professional materials. The Design Professional's materials shall not include the Or, reef's confidential or proPrietary information if the Owner has previously advised the Design Professional in writing of the specific information considered by the Owner to be confidential or proprietary. The Owner shall provide professional credit for the Design Professional on the construction sign and in the promotional materials for the Project. 11.6 Approval by the Owner shall not constitute, nor be deemed a release of the responsibility and liability of the Design Professional, its employees, associates, agents, subcontractors, and subconsultants for the accuracy and competency of their designs or other work; nor shall such approval be deemed to be an assumption of such responsibility by the Owner for any defect in the design or other work prepared by the Design Professional, its employees, subcontractors, agents, and consultants. 11.7 All notices, communications, and reports required or permitted under the Agreement shall be personally delivered or mailed to the respective parties by depositing same in the United States mail to the address shown below signature block on the Agreement, certified mail, return receipt requested, unless otherwise specified herein. All notices shall be deemed effective upon receipt by the party to whom such notice is given, or within three (3) days after mailing. Page 12 Q:\LDD~,DEN02182XDocs\PSA\Teague Nall Spencer Agreement.doc 11.8 If any provision of the Agreement is found or deemed by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, it shall be considered severable from thc remainder of the Agreement and shall not cause the remainder to be invalid or unenforceable. In such event, thc parties shall reform the Agreement to replace such stricken provision with a valid and enforceable provision which comes as close as possible to expressing the intention of the stricken provision. 11.9 The Design Professional shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances applicable to the work covered hereunder as they may now read or hereinafter be amended. 11.10 In performing the Services required hereunder, the Design Professional shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry, age, or physical handicap. 11.11 The captions of the Agreement are for informational purposes only, and shall not in any way affect the substantive terms or conditions of the Agreement. Page 13 Q:\LDD\DEN02182\Docs\PSA\Teague Nail Spencer Agreement.doc Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #16 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET May 14, 2002 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Charles Fiedler 349-8948 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of DeNon, Texas authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreemem with RJN Group, inc. for Engineering Services pertaining to the inflow/infiltration Study and Rehabilitation for the Eastern Pecan and Hickory Creek Drainage Basins; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (PSA 2830- awarded to RJN Group, inc. in the amount of $407,282). BID INFORMATION This Professional Services Agreemem is for the design study for Rehabilitation to Eastern Pecan and Hickory Creek Drainage Basins. The scope of services includes, but is not limited to the provision of additional field inspection information through closed-circuit televised inspection (CTV), dyed water flooding, consolidation of existing field inspection information, engineering analysis, and the production of a comprehensive source defects analysis with prioritized rehabilitation recommendations. The Professional Services Procuremem Act, Chapter 2254 of the Governmem Code requires the selection of a professional service be determined on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications to perform the services at a fair and reasonable price. RNJ Group, inc., was chosen for this project based upon the evaluation team's criteria as addressed in RFP 2830 on file in the office of the Purchasing Agem. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that this Professional Services Agreemem (PSA 2830) be awarded to RJN Group, inc. as per the contract document, in the amount of $407,282. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS RJN Group, Inc. Dallas, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT It is anticipated that the Notice to Proceed will be issued on or about May 30, 2002, with the project completion on or before the last week in June 2004. Agenda Information Sheet May 14, 2002 Page 2 FISCAL INFORMATION This project will be funded from CIP funds approved for the 2001-2002 year, account 64003800 in the amount of $407,282. Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent 1-AiS-PSA 2830 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH RJN GROUP, INC., FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES PERTAINING TO THE INFILTRATION/INFLOW STUDY AND REHABILITATION FOR THE EASTERN PECAN CREEK AND HICKORY CREEK DRAINAGE BASINS; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council deems it in the public interest to engage the firm of RJN Group, Inc., a Corporation, of Dallas, Texas ("RJN"), to provide professional engineering services to the City pertaining to the infiltration/inflow study and rehabilitation for the Eastern Pecan Creek and Hickory Creek Drainage Basins; and WHEREAS, the City staffhas reported to the City Council that there is a substantial need for the above-described professional services, and that limited City staff cannot adequately perform the services and tasks with its own personnel; and WHEREAS, Chapter 2254 of the Texas Government Code, known as the "Professional Services Procurement Act", generally provides that a City may not select a provider of professional services on the basis of competitive bids, but must select the provider on the basis of demonstrated competence, knowledge, and qualifications, and for a fair and reasonable price; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the professional services, as set forth in the Professional Services Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1: That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a Professional Services Agreement with RJN Group, Inc., of Dallas, Texas, for professional engineering services pertaining to the infiltration/inflow study and rehabilitation for Eastern Pecan and Hickory Creek Drainage Basins, in substantially the form of the Professional Services Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herewith by reference. SECTION 2: That the award of this Agreement by the City is on the basis of the demonstrated competence, knowledge, and qualifications of RJN and the ability of RJN to perform the professional services needed by the City for a fair and reasonable price. SECTION 3: That the expenditure of funds as provided in the attached Professional Services Agreement is hereby authorized. SECTION 4: That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of .,2002. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY By: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY By: / S :\Our Documents\Ordinances\02\RJN Group-2002-PSA-lnfillration and Inflow Study-Drainage Basins ord.doc 2 STATE OF TEXAS CouNTy OF DENTON' PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THE INFILTRATION/INFLOW STUDY AND REHABILITATION FOR EASTERN PECAN AND HICKORY CREEK DRAINAGE BASINS THIS AGREEIvlENT is made and entered into as of the __ day of 2002, by and between the City of Denton, Texas, a Texas Municipal Corporation, with its principal offices at 215 East McKinney Street, Denton, Texas 76201 (hereafter "OWNER")and RJN Group, Inc., an Illinois corporation, with its offices at 12160 Abrams Road, Suite 200, Dallas, Texas 75243 (hereafter "CONSULTANT'); the parties acting herein, by and through their duly-authorized representatives and officers. WlTNESSETH, that in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, agreements herein, and in consideration of the premises, the parties hereto do mutually AGREE as follows: ARTiCLE I EMPLOYMENT OF CONSULTANT The OWNER hereby contracts with CONSULTANT, as an indeperdent contractor, and the CONSULTANT hereby agrees to perform the services herein in connection with the Project as stated in the Articles to follow, with dih'gence and in accordance with the professional standards customarily obtained for such services in the State of Texas. The professional services set forth herein are in connection with the following described project (the "Project"): Professional mgineering services pertaining to the Infiltration/Inflow Study and Rehabilitation for Eastern Pecan and Hickory Creek Drainage Basins. ARTiCLE II SCOPE OF SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall peffolm the following Basic Services in a professional A. To perform those professional services as set forth in the Scope of Service - I/I Study and Rehabilitation for Eastern Pecan and Hickory Creek Drainage Basins project for the City of Denton, prepared by CONSULTANT for OWNER; which document is attached hereto as Exhibit" A," and is incorporated herein by reference; which document is also comprised of and includes Exhibit"B" - Schedule of Costs and Exhibit "C" - Certificate of Insurance. B. If there is any conflict, or ff any conflict arises between the terms of this Agreement and Exhibit(s) "A", "B" or "C" attached to this Agreement, the terms and conditiom of this Agreement shall control over the terms and conditions of the Exhibit(s). Page 1-of 11 ARTICLE Iii ADDITIONAL SERVICES Any additional services to be performed by the CONSULTANT, if authorized by the OWNER, which are not included as Basic Services in the above-described Scope of Services, set forth m provided by Article II above, shall be later agreed-upon by OWNER and CONSULTANT, who shall determine, in writing, the scope of such additional services, the amount of compensation for such additional services, and other essential terms pertaining to the provision of such additional services by the CONSULTANT. ARTICLE IV PERIOD OF SERVICE This Agreement shall become effective upon its execution by the OWNER and the CONSULTANT, and upon the issuance of a notice to proceed by the OWNER, and shall remain in force and effect for the period that may reasonably be required for the completion of the Project, including Additional Services, if any, and any required extensions approved by the OWNER. This Agreement may be sooner terminated in accordance with the provisions hereof. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall make all reasonable efforts to complete the services set forth herein as expeditiously as possible and to meet the schedule reasonably established by the OWNER, acting through its City Manager or his designee. ARTICLE V COMPENSATION A. COMPENSATION TERMS: "Subcontract Expense" is defined as those expenses, if any, incun'ed by CONSULTANT in the employment of others in outside firms, for services in the area of professional engineering, or related services. Any subcontractor or mb-consultant billing reasonably incurred by the CONSULTANT in connection with the Project shall be invoiced to OWNER at the actual cost plus ten percent. "Direct Non-Labor Expense" is defined as that expense, based upon actual cost, for any out-of-pocket expense reasonably incurred by the CONSULTANT in the peffonnmce of this Agreement for long distance telephone charges, telecopy charges, messenger services, printing and reproduction expenses, om-of-pocket expenses for purchased computer time, prudently incurred travel expenses related to the work on the Project, and similar incidental expenses incurred in connection with the Project. B. BILLING AND PAYMENT: For and in consideration of the professional services to be performed by the CONSULTANT herein, the OWNER agrees to pay CONSULTANT, based upon the satisfactory completion Page 2 of 11 of the Basic Services tasks set forth in the Scope of Services as shown in Article II above; as follows: CONSULTANT shall perform its work on this Project in accordance with the provisions of those tasks which are described and as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herewith by reference. CONSULTANT shall bill from time sheets, on a once-monthly basis, in minimum 1/4 hour or smaller time inct~nnents, at the hourly B'flling Rates or as othenvise provided. For and in consideration of the professional services to be performed by the CONSULTANT herein, the OWNER agrees to pay, at an hourly rate shown in Exhibit "B" which is incorporated herewith by reference, a total fee, including reimbursement for direct non-labor expenses and for its subcontractor expense, an mount not to exceed $407,282.00. Partial payments to the CONSULTANT will be made monthly in accordance with the statements reflecting the actual completion of the Basic Services, rendered to and approved by the OWNER through its City Manager or his designee. However, under no circumstances shall any monthly statement for services exceed the value of the work performed at the time a statement is rendered. The OWNER may withhold the final ten (10%) percent of the above not-to-exceed amount until satisfactory completion of the Project by the CONSULTANT. Nothing contained in this Article shall require the OWNER to pay for any work which is unsatisfactory as reasonably determined by the City Manager or his designee, or which is not submitted by CONSULTANT to the OWNER i~ compliance with the terms of this Agreement. The OWNER shall not be required to make any payments to the CONSULTANT at any time when the CONSULTANT is in default under this Agreement. It is specifically undemtood and agreed that the CONSULTANT shall not be authorized to undertake any work pursuant to this Agreement which would require additional payments by the OWNER for any charge, expense or reimbursement above *.he not-to- exceed amount as stated hereinabove, without fa'st having obtained the prior written authorization t~om the OWNER. CONSULTANT shall not proceed to perform any services to be later provided for under Article m "^ddifio~ Se~ces" without fm obt~ning prior written authorization from the OWNER. C. ADDITIONAL SERVICES: For additional services authorized in writing by the OWNER in Article III hereinabove, CONSULTANT shall be paid based on a to-be-agreed-upon Schedule of Charges. Payments for additional services shall be due and payable upon submission by the CONSULTANT, and shall be in accordance with Article V.B. hereinabove. Statements for Basic Services and any Additional Services shall be submitted to OWNER no more frequently than once monthly. D. PAYMENT: If the OWNER fails to make payments due the CONSULTANT for services and expenses within forty-five (45) days aRer receipt of the CONSULTANT'S undisputed statement thereof, the amounts due the CONSULTANT will be increased by the rote of one Page 3 of 11 percent (1%) per month from and ager the said forty-fifth (45th) day, and in addition, thereafter, the CONSULTANT may, after giving ten (10) days written notice to the OWNER, suspend services under this Agreement until the CONSULTANT has been paid in full for all amounts then due and owing, and not disputed by OWNER, for services, expenses and charges. Provided, however, nothing herein shall require the OWNER to pay the late charge of one percent (1%) per month as set forth herein, if the OWNER reasonably determines that the CONSULTANTs work is unsatisfactory, in accordance with Article V.B. of this Agreement, and OWNER has notified CONSULTANT of that fact in writing. ARTICLE VI OBSERVATION AND REVIEW OF THE WORK The CONSULTANT will exercise reasonable care and due diligence in discovering and promptly reporting to the OWNER any defects or deficiencies in the work of the CONSULTANT or any of its subcontractors or sub-consultants. ARTICLE VIi OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS All documents prepared or furnished by the CONSULTANT (and CONSULTANT% subcontractors or subconsultants) pursuant to this Agreement are insmmaents of service and shall become the property of the OWNER upon the tennination of this Agreement. The CONSULTANT is entitled to retain copies of all such documents. The documents prepared and furnished by the CONSULTANT are intended only to be applicable to this Project and OWNER'S use of these documents in other projects shall be at OWNER'S sole risk and expense. In the event the OWNER uses the Agreement in mother project or for other purposes than specified herein any of the information or materials developed pursuant to this Agreement, CONSULTANT is released fi'om any and all liability relating to their use in that project. ARTICLE VIII INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CONSULTANT shall provide services to OWNER as an independent contractor, not as an employee of the OWNER CONSULTANT shall not have or claim any right arising fxom employee status. ARTICLE IX INDEMNITY AGREEMENT The CONSULTANT shall indemnify and save and hold harmless the OWNER and its officials, officers, agents, attorneys and employees from and against any and all liability, claims, demands, damages, losses and expenses, including but not limited to court costs and reasonable attorney fees incuned by the OWNER, and including without limitation damages for bodily and personal injury, death, or property damage, resulting from the negligent acts or omissions of the CONSULTANT or its officers, shareholders, agents, subcontractors, subconsultants, attorneys, and/or employees in the execution, operation, or performance of this Agreement. Page 4 of 11 Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create a liability to any person who is not a party to this Agreement and nothing herein shall waive any of the party's defenses, both at law or equity, to any claim, cause of action or litigation filed by anyone not a party to this Agreement, including the defense of governmental immunity, which defenses are hereby expressly reserved. ARTICLE X INSURANCE During the performance of the Services under this Ag~reement, CONSULTANT shall maintain the following insurance wifla an iustaance company licensed to do business in the State of Texas by the State Insurance Board or any successor agency, that has a rating with A. M. Best Rate Carders of at least an "A-" or above: A. Comprehensive General Liability Instmm~ with bodily injury limits of not less than $1,000,000 for each occurrence and not less than $1,000,000 in the aggregate; and with property damage limits of not less than $100,000 for each occmrence, and not tess than $100,000 in the aggregate. B. Automobile Liability Insurance with bodily injury limits of not less than $500,000 for each person and not less than $500,000 for each accident; and with property damage limits for not less than $I00,000 for each accident. C. Workers Compensation Insurance in accordance with statutory requirements and Employers Liability Insurance with limits of not less than $100,000 for each accident. D. Professional Liability Instaance with limits of not less than $1,000,000 annual aggregate. CONSULTANT shall furnish insurance certificates or insanance policies to the OWNER to evidence such insurance coverage. The insurance policies shall name the OWNER as an additional insured on all such policies to the extent that is legally possible, and shall contain a provision that such insurance shall not be cancelled or modified without at least thirty 00) days prior written notice to OWNER and CONSULTANT. in such event, the CONSULTANT shall, prior to the effective date of the change or cancellation of coverage, deliver copies of any such substitute policies, furnishing at least the same policy limits and coverage, to OWNER. ARTICLE XI ARBITRATION AND ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION The parties may agree to settle any disputes under this Agreement by submitting the dispute to arbitration or other means of alternate dispute resolution such as mediation. No arbitration or alt.mate dispute resolution arising out of or relating to, this Agreement involving Page 5 of 11 one party's disagreement, may include the other party to the disagreement without the others approval. ARTICLE XII TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT A_ Notwithstanding any other provision of this Atgeement, either pan3t may terminate this Agreement by providing thirty (30) days advance written notice to the other party. B. This Agreement may alternatively be terminated in whole or in part in the event of either party ~y failing to fiflfilt its obligations under ~ Agreement. No such ~umination will be effected unless the other party is given (1) written notice (delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested) of intent to terminate and setting froth the reasons specifying the nonperformance or other reason(s), and not less than thirty (30) calendar days to cure the failure; and (2) an opportunity for consaflmtion with the terminating patty prior to tennimtion. C. If this Agreement is terminated prior to completion of the services to be provided hereunder, CONSULTANT shall immediately cease all services upon receipt of the written notice of terraination from OWNER, and shall render a final bill for services to the OWNER within twenty (20) days after the date of termination. The OWNER shall pay CONSULTANT for all services properly rendered and satisfactorily performed, and for reimbursable expenses prior to notice of termination being received by CONSULTANT, in accordance with Article V. of this Agreement. Should the OWNER subsequently contract with a new consultant for the continuation of services on the Project, CONSULTANT shall cooperate in providing information to the OWNER and to the new consultant; If applicable, OWNER shall allow CONSULTANT a reasonable time to transition and to mm over the Project to a new consultant. CONSULTANT shall tttm over all documents prepared or furnished by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement to the OWNER on or before the date of termination, but may maintain copies of such documents for its files. ARTICLE XIII RESPONSIBILITY FOR CLAIMS AND LIABILITIES Approval of the work by the OWNER shall not constitute, nor be deemed a release of the responsibility and liability of the CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, and sub-consultants for the accuracy and competency of their designs or other work performed pursuant to this Agreement; nor shall such approval by the OWNER be deemed as an assumption of such responsibility by the OWNER for any defect in the design or other work prepared by the CONSULTANT, its principals, officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, and sub-consultants. Page 6 of 11 ARTICLE X1V NOTICES Ail notices, communicati°ns, and reports required or permitted under this Agreement shall be pe~onally delivered to; or telecopied to; or mailed to thc respective parties by depositing same in the United States mail at the addresses shown below, postage prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, unless othem4se specified herein: To CONSULTANT: To OWNER: KIN Group, Inc. Attm JeffPlymal¢ 12160 Abrams Road, Suite 200 Dallas, Texas 75243 Fax: (972) 437-2707 City of Denton, Texas City Manager 215 East McKinney Denton, Texas 76201 Fax: (940) 349-8596 All notices given under this Agreement shall be effective llI~n their actllal receipt by thc party to whom such notice is given. ARTICLE XV ENTIRE AGREEMENT This ~ent consisting of eleven (11) pages and three O) Exhibit(s) constitutes the complete and final expression of the agreement of the parties and is intended as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of their agreements, and supersedes all prior contemporaneous offers, promises, representations, negotiations, discussions, communications, understandings, and agreements which may have been made in comection with the subject matter of this Agreement. ARTICLE XVI SEVERABILTY ff any provision of this Agreement is found or deemed by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, it shall be considered severable from the remainder of this Agreement, and shall not cause the remainder to be invalid or unenforceable. In such event, the parties shall reform this Agreement, to the extent reasonably possible, to replace such stricken provision with a valid and enforceable provision which comes as close as possible to expressing the original intentions of the parties ~g any such stricken provision. ARTICLE XVII COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS The CONSULTANT shall comply with all federal, state, local laws, roles, regulations, and ordinances applicable to the work performed by CONSULTANT hereunder, as they may now read or as thoy may heveafber be amended. Page 7 ofll ARTICLE XVIlI DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED In perforating the services required hereunder, the CONSULTANT shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry, age, or physical handicap. ARTICLE XIX PERSONNEL A. CONSULTANT represents that it has or will secure at its own expense all personnel required to perform all the services required under this Agreement. Such personnel shall not be employees or officers of, nor have any contmcttml relations with the OWNER. CONSULTANT shall immediately inform the OWNER in writing of any conflict of-interest or potential conflict ef interest that CONSULTANT may discover, or which may arise during the team of this Agreement. B. All services required hereunder will be performed by CONSULTANT or under its direct super'om All personnel engaged in performing the work provided for in lhis Agreement, shall be qualified, and shall be authorized and permitted under state and local laws to perform such services. ARTICLE XX ASSIGNABILITY The CONSULTANT shall not assign any. interest in this Agreement and shall not transfer any intexest in this Agreement (whether by assignment, novation or othenvise) without the prior written consent of the OWNER. CONSULTANT shall further promptly notify OWNER in writing of any change of its name as well as of any significant change in its corporate structure, its business address, its operations, or regarding its solvency. ARTICLE XXi MODIFICATION No waiver or modification of this Agreement or of any covenant, condition, Un, ration herein contained shall be valid unless in writing and duly executed by the party to be charged therewith. No evidence of any waiver or modification shall be offered or received in evidence in any proceeding arising l~tween the parties hereto arising out of, or affe~ing this Agreement, or the fights or obligations of the parties hereunder, unless such waiver or modification is in writing, duly executed. The parties ftm~ agree that the provisions of this Article will not be waived mfless as herein set forth. Page 8 of t 1 ARTICLE XXI] MISCELLANEOUS A. The following Exhibits are attached to, incorporated herewith by reference, and are made a part of this Agreement for all purposes pertinent: Exlffoit"A" - Scope of Services. Exhibit "B"- Schedule of Costs. Extu'bit "C" - Insurance. CONSULTANT agrees that OWNER shall, until the expiration of four (4) years after the final payment made by OWNER under this Agleement, have access to and the right to examine any directly pertinent books, documents, papers and records of the CONSULTANT involving transactions relating to this Agreement. CONSULTANT agrees that OWNER shall have access during normal working hours to all necessary CONSULTANT facilities and shall be provided adequate and appropriate working space in order to conduct examinations or audits in compliance with this Article. OWNER shall give CONSULTANT reasonable advance notice of all intended examinations or audits. C. Venue of any suit or cause of action under this Agreement shall lie exclusively in Denton County, Texas. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Slate of Texas. D. For purposes of this Agreement, the parties agree that the Project Principal shall be Hugh Kelso, Principal, and the key persons who will perform most of the work as the Project Team, include the Project Manager, Tom Hah/s, P.E., under, and in accordance with this Agreement, shall be as specifically identified and set foflh in the organizational chart included in ~ March 28, 2002 proposal submitted in response to Request for Proposal No. 2830. This Agreement has been entered into with the understanding, expectation, and the OWNER's reliance, that the above-stated employees of CONSULTANT shall perform all or a significant portion of the work on the Project. Any proposed changes regarding the change of the Project Manager or other key personnel, requested by CONSULTANT, respecting one or more of the above-stated employees, shall be subject to the approval of the OWNER, which approval the OWNER shall not unreasonably withhold. Nothing herein shall limit CONSULTANT from using other qualified and competent members of its finn to perform the other incidental services required herein, under its supervision or control. E. CONSULTANT shall commence, carry on, and complete its work on the Project with all applicable dispatch, and in a sound, economical, efficient manner, and in accordance with the provisions hereof in accomplishing the Project, CONSULTANT shall take such steps as are appropriate to ensure that the work involved is properly coordinated with any related work being carded on by the OWNER. F. The OWNER shall assist the CONSULTANT by placing at the CONSULTANT's disposal ali available information pertinent to the Project, including previous reports, any other data relative to the Project and arranging for the access to, and make all provisions for the Page 9 of 11 CONSULTANT to enter in or upon, public and private property as required for the CONSULTANT to perform professional services under this Agreement. OWNER and CONSULTANT agree that CONSULTANT is entitled to rely upon information furnished to it by OWNER without the need for further inquiry or investigation into such information. G. The captions of this Agreement are for informational purposes only and shall not in any way affect the substantive terms or conditions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the OWNER, the City of Denton, Texas has executed this Agreement in four (4) original counterparts, by and through its duly authorized City Manager, and CONSULTANT has executed this Agreement by and through its duly authorized undersigned officer on this the __ day of ,200 CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS A Texas Municipal Corporation MICHAEL A. CONDUFF CITY MANAGER ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY Page 10 of 11 "CONSULTANT" RJN Group, Inc. An Illinois Co~poration Je~PI ~ymale, Project Manager elso, Principal S~\Our Doeumen~Contracts~02\Generic Professional Services Agreement-2002 ! MSC.doe Page 11 ofll EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICE Ill Study and Rehabilitation for Eastern Pecan and Hickory Creek Drainage Basins PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Denton intends to complete rehabilitation and system improvements for the sanitary sewer collection systems in the Eastern Pecan and Hickory Creek drainage basins. The scope of services under this agreement includes the provision of additional field inspection information through closed-circuit televised inspection (CCTV), dyed water flooding, consolidation of existing field inspection information, engineering analysis, production of a comprehensive source defects analysis with prioritized rehabilitation recommendations, the production of engineering design documents and the provision of related construction administrative services. 1) Pro}ect Administration A. Meetings Before the project starts, a kiek-offmeeting shall be held with all team members, including sub-consultants and the City of Denton team members. Meetings shall be performed monthly throughout the entire project and minutes shall be distributed by the CONSULTANT. The meetings shall provide a status of the project objectives in relation to deliverables and achieving scheduled milestones. The number of meetings assumed under this scope is identified in the Schedule of Costs. Any meetings beyond this amount shall require approval by the CITY. B. Work Plan The CONSULTANT SHALL provide at the onset of the project a detailed work plan to describe activities, procedures, communication meam, and quality control measures to be followed throughout the project. The work plan shall further identify key milestones, deliverables, project personnel and their roles. The work plan shall be updated as necessary to reflect any changes or modifications needed to reach to project objectives. C. Quality Control The CONSULTANT shall establish a quality control program throughout the project. The components of the quality control program shall be identified in the work plan. D. Project Scheduling/Tracking The project schedule is provided at the end of Exhibit A. The schedule shall be updated for the regularly scheduled project status meetings, or as needed to convey the project status to the CITY. Project tracking shall also include any additional tables or schedules necessary to manage sub components of the work tasks. 4/ls/z0m A (1) EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICE UI Study and Rehabilitation for Eastern Pecan and Hickory Creek Drainage Basins E. Pre-Design Work Conference A meeting shall be held to initiate the design phase and to discuss the planning and design criteria, work program and schedule, procedures of communication, confirm the level of compensation, evaluate any additional survey requirements, assignments of personnel, and any other matters that may have direct or indirect effects upon the completion and results of this project. Other work and review conferences shall be scheduled throughout the progress of the project development, as shown on the Time/Task Schedule. F. Coordination Routine communication shall be provided by means of email, phone, faxes, or mailed documents. The CITY and CONSULTANT shall designate project representatives through which all communication should be conducted. The CITY may elect to have other staff members notified at specific phases of the project. G. Public Relations The CONSULTANT shall coordinate with the CITY representative to develop newsletters, notices and other documents needed to convey the purpose and goals of the field testing procedures. The CITY shall distribute copies, if necessary. The CONSULTANT shall obtain approval for access to private property where required to perform the field services. In the event that access is not obtained, the CONSULTANT shall notify the CITY for assistance. Source Defect Ana!Fsis The field inspection services and engineering analysis activities to follow shall be performed by basin; Eastern Pecan and Hickory Creek shall be performed as two separate projects and include the following tasks for each: A. Cleaning and Internal TV Inspection Based upon previous smoke testing results and visual pipe inspections, specific line segments have been prioritized for further investigation. Closed circuit televised inspection shall be provided to further pinpoint major sources of inflow and infiltration (I/I), define their magnitude, and determine the most appropriate and feasible method of rehabilitation. Cleaning activities shall be provided to facilitate the televised inspection. The rates quoted for cleaning services are based upon three passes with jet cleaner. In the event that additional cleaning or root cutting is necessary, the CONSULTANT shall notify the CITY and obtain approval to perform heavy cleaning. Root cutting is included in the heavy cleaning rates. Experienced field technicians shall observe the television monitor while TV is in progress and record data during the inspection. Both I/I defects and maintenance defects shalI be recorded. Data collected during TV inspection shall be entered into (2) EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICE FI Study and Rehabilitation for Eastern Pecan and Hickory Creek Drainage Basins the WinCan soft-ware, which shall provide the ability to capture video and photo images in order to link them with the video inspection logs. The CONSULTANT shall incorporate the existing TV inspection tapes into their analysis. The existing tapes account for nearly 8,000 l.f. of sewer inspection. All captured data, including the footage provided by the City, shall be provided to the CITY in MPEG format on CD-ROM along with the VI-IS tapes. Compensation shall be based upon the actual footage cleaned and televised. Should the camera be unable to pass, the contractor shall set up at the adjoining manhole, which will be considered a "reverse set-up". By-pass pumping shall bo provided at the rates identified in the Schedule of Costs. CONSULTANT shall obtain prior approval for these activities. Remote cleaning and TV rotes shall apply for segments where difficult access exists or where the contractor must use all terrain vehicles to access the sites. B. Dyed Water Flooding Specific inflow sources shall be identified by means of dyed water flooding of storm sewer sections and suspected overflows, stream sections, ditch sections, and pending areas. Field test data shall be input into a computerized data management system and C. Selection of Rehabilitation Methods At thc conclusion of thc televised inspection and dye testing activities, all field collected data including previous smoke testing and manhole inspection results and the CITY provided TV data, shall be used to develop a comprehensive rehabilitation strategy. The strategy shall include the evaluation of each type ofdafect, a rehabilitation method, and the costs associated with thc improvement based on local contractor bid schedules. Rehabilitation methods that shall be evaluated for Ill removal shall include repairs for manholes, sewer mains and interceptors, and laterals. In addition, routing options shall be considered for those segments that are on private property where open cut may prove impractical. The CONSULTANT shall develop a manhole rehabilitation matrix in order to categorize the nature of the repairs by type. Main line and interceptor rehabilitation methods shall include conventional open cut and trenchless technologies. Lateral repairs include replacement, point repairs with emphasis on lateral to main connections, trenchless methods, and cleanout repairs. Material and life expectancy of rehabilitation shall be considered in the evaluation. Further, migration of Ill to downstream defects shall be considered which may include thc consideration of clay dams. (3) EXItIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICE I/I Study and Rehabilitation for Eastern Pecan and Hickory Creek Drainage Basins D. System Capacity Requirements The CONSULTANT shall also consider capacity requirements during the rehabilitation strategy development based on information and design flows provided by the CITY. Rehabilitation alternatives may include upsizing the lines where practical and cost effective. E. Final Report and Deliverables The CONSULTANT shall provide a comprehensive prioritized source defect analysis to include the field observations, conclusions, and rehabilitation recommendations. The analysis shall incorporate the existing source defect analysis produced from the smoke testing, manhole inspection and CCTV activities. A rehabilitation method and estimated cost of repair shall be provided for each defect. The defects shall be ranked according to their VI contribution and structural deficiency against the cost of repair. Defects shall then be categorized by sub-basin, defect method, manhole versus line defect, private versus public defect, and maintenance defects. Five (5) copies of the draft and final report will be delivered and three appendices of supporting field docmnentation will be provided to include: · Comprehensive, consolidated source defect analysis with summary tables categorized by type, method, priority and cost, all at a minimum as described in the CITY Request for Proposal No. 2830. · Prioritized rehabilitation plan for each defect including recommendations and improvement alternatives. · Prioritized source defect rehabilitation plan for manholes and point repairs to be performed by CITY. · Computerized project database of alt defects in Microsoft compatible format in hardcopy and on CD-ROM. · Field investigation reports and logs. · Comprehensive maps of observed defects and recommended rehabilitation methods on CITY provided GIS maps suitable for linking the data. · Project CD in MPEG format with catalogued televised inspection data and .jpeg still images of observed defects. · Televised inspection video tapes as specified in CITY'S Request For Proposal No. 2830. · Project CD including the final report. The CONSULTANT shall provide a presentation to the CITY staffwith a summary of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations. (4) EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICE I/I Study and Rehabilitation for Eastern Pecan and Hickory Creek Drainage Basins Basic Services - Design The engineering design services to follow shall be performed by basin; Eastern Pecan and Hickory Creek shall be performed as two separate projects (two sets of construction plans and specifications) and include the following tasks for each: A. Conceptual Design 1) Obtain from the CITY, electronic or hardcopy files containing all available pertinent sUrVey data including easements, street right-of-way widths, existing pavement, utilities and drainage systems, benchmark elevations, and other data that may be useful in considering the alignment, location, final design, and construction of the proposed improvement. Generation of necessary data required for design that is not readily available from the CITY is the sole responsibility of the CONSULTANT. 2) Determine, from a field reconnaissance of the project area the construction methed for each replacement line. 3) The replacement utilities will generally be in the same location as the existing utilities and shall include consideration of the following: (a) Access for fire, police, and other emergency vehicles (b) Maintenance for service during construction (c) Access for property owners to their respective driveways (d) Minimum inconvenience to adjacent property owners Present brief conceptual design report, which shall include cost projections and recommendations to the CITY. This report shall address location of utilities within the right-of-way and additional right-of-way/easement requirements. The report shall be submitted at the thirty percent (30%) completion stage in a meeting with the CITY. 5) Upon the approval of the conceptual design, proceed with preparing the plan sheets for design (CAD), at the direction of the CITY. Plan and profile sheets shall be done in 1"=40' scale unless otherwise agreed to for congested areas. B. Preliminary Design 1) Obtain survey data required based on the preferred alignment determined in the conceptual design phase. 2) Prepare layouts of proposed piping improvements and other related appurtenances. (5) EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICE I/I Study and Rehabilitation for Eastern Pecan and Hickory Creek Drainage Basins 3) Investigate and resolve conflicts with existing utility (water, sewer, drainage, gas, telephone, and electric) locations, depths, etc. 4) Prepare preliminary "Opinion of Probable Construction Costs." 5) Prepare preliminary work on: (a) Standard specifications (b) Special conditions (c) Proposal, bid schedule, and contract documents Specifications may be based on CONSULTANT's or CITY's specifications to be determined and agreed upon by CITY representative. 6) Field verify preliminary drawings and specifications. 7) Submit a minimum of five (5) copies of the preliminary plans and three (3) copies of the preliminary specifications to the CITY for review. This submittal shall be at the ninety percent (90%) completion stage and shall include all pertinent sheets. 8) Meet with the CITY to discuss review comments on preliminary design before proceeding with final design. Based on review comments from the CITY, submit full-size plans that will be forwarded by the CONSULTANT to the utility companies for review and comment. 10) Identify the extent of any temporary or permanent easements or right-of-way required. Provide information for the preparation of documents required for fight-of-way acquisition, as necessary. C. Final Design 1) Prepare construction plans to address comments of the CITY, the utility companies, and other agencies from the preliminary design reviews. Finalize the design of the sewer lines and other pertinent items. Complete plan set shall include: (a) Cover Sheet (b) Control Sheet (c) Index and Location Map (d) General Notes, Legends, Symbols & Abbreviations (e) Plan and Profile Sheets (f) Required Details 2) Develop any necessary additional design details. 4/t 8/2002 A (6) EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICE i/I Study and Rehabilitation for Eastern Pecan and Hickory Creek Drainage Basins 3) Prepare final quantity of materials. 4) Prepare final "Opinion of Probable Construction Costs." 5) Submit five (5) copies of the pre-final plans and specifications to the CITY for final review, discussions, and comment. This submittal shall be at the ninety percent (90%) completion stage and shall include all sheets in full-size (22"x34") format. 6) Provide updated plans for the utility companies, if necessary. 7) CONSULTANT shall identify in the construction documents that traffic - control plans are to be provided by the CONTRACTOR. 8) Meet with the CITY to discuss final review comments prior to preparing bid package. 9) Revise finals plans to address review comments from the CITY and other agencies affected by the project. 10) Prepare final bid schedule, special conditions, technical specifications, proposal, and contract documents. 1 I)Revise final "Opinion of Probable Construction Costs," if necessary. I2) Present ten (I0) sets of the final documents for the bidding phase to the CITY for approval. This submittal shall be at the 100% completion stage and must include a full size (22"x34") reproducible set of plans as well as the complete bid documents. D. Summary of Design Deliverables Final deliverables will include the following: · Conceptual design report · Preliminary design drawings and documents Final design plans, profile sheets and documents Project layout control showing pertinent survey data on the plan/profile sheets and ali pertinent construction notes Final horizontal and vertical utility locations on the plan/profile sheets Final special design considerations and locations of appurtenances ~2002 A(7) EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICE Iii Study and Rehabilitation for Eastern Pecan and Hickory Creek Drainage Basins Finalize conduit plan/profile -- Identify locations of all conflicts - Adjust horizontal and vertical alignment to optimize hydraulics, eliminate conflicts and, maximize utility clearance · Final plan/profile for the wastewater rehabilitation, other utility relocations and adjustments, and identify special considerations and methods · Pipe material specification based on design criteria, soil types and embedment requirements · Coordination plans to maintain continuous service for all utility and service lines · Construction plans (blue line and reproducible black mylars) and corresponding bid specifications as directed by the CITY. Provide original copies of approved easements, field notes, and all pertinent documentations. · Provide ten (10) sets of fmal plans, specifications, and bid item take-offs for the preliminary contract bid package development. 4) Basic Services- Construction Assistance Construction services to follow shall be performed by basin; Eastern Pecan and Hickory Creek shall be bid and performed as two separate projects and include the following tasks for each: A. Advertising and Receiving Bids 1) The CITY shall advertise for the bids based upon a legal notice provided by the CONSULTANT. 2) All plans, specifications, and bidding documents shall be distributed from the CITY's Purchasing office from requests received by the bidders and suppliers. 3) Address any questions raised by the bidders and issue addenda though the CITY's Purchasing department, as necessary. B. Pre-Construction Meeting Meet with the CITY, thc Contractor~, and other interested parties to discuss the total work program and schedule, procedla'es of communication, special problems, coordination with others, additional surveys, field testing and inspection, assignment of personnel, and any other matters that may have a direct or indirect effect upon the completion and results &this improvement program. 1) Based on information provided by the CITY, prepare Record Drawing of the sewer lines and other improvements as shown on the engineering plans, showing that the layout of the line and grade of all public improvements is in 4/18/21102 ^ (8) EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICE I/I Study and Rehabilitation for Eastern Pecan and Hickory Creek Drainage Basins accordance with the construction plans and all changes made in the plans during construction, containing each sheet a Record Drawing stamp bearing the signature of the Engineer and the date. 2) CONSULTANT shall also furnish an electronic copy of the final engineering plans in AutoCAD format. Summary of Construction Assistance Deliverables · Record drawings based on information provided by the CITY. · Final engineering plans in AUTOCAD format. 5) Special Services A. Vertical and Horizontal Survey The following survey data shall bc obtained and applied in the development of construction drawings. 1) Existing above-ground utility appurtenances, structures, trees, curbs, pavements, fences, property comers, block comers, points of curvature (PCs), points of tangents (PTs), and points of intersection (Pis), etc. as necessary for the design of the project. 2) Top of operating nuts and flags set by utility companies shall be tied to control. 3) Existing manhole invert and dm elevations. Where there is only one (1) gravity flow structure within the limits of the survey, the next adjacent structure upstream and downstream shall be surveyed, and the flow line elevations shall bo provided. 4) $) Existing pavement type. Provide location and elevation of underground utilities or structures as marked by utility companies and as shown on record drawings. Coordinate with franchise utility companies to have subsurface lines marked for field location. All curb lines, driveways, building comers, fences, ditches, sidewalks, and other above ground features shall be located as necessary for the design of the project. Nattwal ground elevations and top of curb elevations every fifty feet along the proposed centerline and a minimum of 25 feet to each side of the centerline or R.O.W to R.O.W., and all grade breaks shall be surveyed. 41t 8/2002 A (9) EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICE Study and Rehabilitation for Eastern Pecan and Hickory Creek Drainage Basins 8) Spot elevations as required to facilitate the generation of one foot contours shall be collected. B. Easements The CONSULTANT shall request easement research from the CITY where easements may exist and 'are needed to support the improvements. In the event that easements must be created, the CONSULTANT shall provide the legal description to the CITY. Easements may include any right of access easements, temporary and permanent easements. CITY shall secure right of entry with assistance from CONSULTANT as necessary. CONSULTANT shall perform property research for cases where the CITY is unable to provide the necessary information. The nmnber of easements assumed within this scope is identified in the Schedule of Costs. C. Permits The CONSULTANT shall identify permits needed to facilitate the rehabilitation and construction improvements. Permits include those needed from state and local transportation authorities, raikoad authorities, and 404 permits. The number of permits assumed within this scope is identified in the Schedule of Costs. Any additional permits beyond this amount shall require prior written approval from the CITY. 6) PROJECT SCHEDULE The Time/Task Schedule to follow is based on receipt of a Notice to Proceed on May 15, 2002. It is the responsibility of the CONSULTANT to review this schedule and adhere to it or request, in writing, additional time be added to specific tasks for specific reasons. Final completion dates as specified in the Administrative Order, shall be adhered to for each basin. 411812002 A (10) EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICE ill Study and Rehabilitation for Eastern Pecan and Hickory Creek Drainage Basins 7) ~4DDITIONAL CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES 1) 2) 3) 5) 7) s) Designate a person to act as CITYTS representative with respect to the services to be rendered under this AGREEMENT. Such person shall have complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret and define CITY'S policies and decisions with respect to CONSULTANT'S services for the PROJECT. Provide all criteria and full information as to CITY'S requirements for the PROJECT, including design objectives and constraints, space, capacity and · performance requirements, flexibility and expandability, and any budgetary limitations; and furnish copies of all design and construction standards and specifications, which CITY will require to be included in the PROJECT. Place at CONSULTANT'S disposal all available pertinent information including previous reports and any other data relative to design or construction of the PROJECT. Make available to CONSULTANT, as required for performance of CONSULTANT'S Basic Services, the following: (a) Data prepared by or services of others, including without limitations previous sewer system reports and wastewater flow records and other special data or consultations not covered in CONSULTANT'S services; all of which CONSULTANT may rely upon in performing his services. In the event CONSULTANT is unable to secure access, the CITY shall arrange for access to and make all provisions for CONSULTANT to enter upon public and private property as required for CONSULTANT to perform services under this AGREEMENT. Examine all studics, reports, sketches, Drawings, Specifications, proposals, and other documents presented by CONSULTANT, obtain advice of an attorney, insurance counsclor and other consultants as CITY deems appropriate for such cxamination and render in writing decisions pertaining thereto within a reasonable time so as not to delay thc services of CONSULTANT. Furnish approvals and permits for all governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the PROJECT and such approvals and consents from others as may be necessary for completion of the PROJECT. Provide such accounting, independent cost estimating, and insurance counseling services as may be required for the PROJECT, such legal services as CITY may 12) 9) 10) 13) 14) EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICE III Study and Rehabilitation for Eastern Pecan and Hickory Creek Drainage Basins require or CONSULTANT may reasonably request with regard to legal issues pertaining to the PROJECT. Give prompt written notice to CONSULTANT whenever CITY observes or otherwise becomes aware of any development that affects the scope or timing of CONSULTANT'S services, or any defect or nonconformance in the work of any Contractor. Provide water meters and water to perform the cleaning and dye flooding activities, as necessary. Provide design flows for lines where capacity evaluation should be considered in the design. Perform manhole and point repairs. CONSULTANT's scope does not include efforts to produce design documents or specifications for the manhole and point repair activities beyond detailed maps of locations, tables and a database of observed defects, priority rankings, rehabilitation recommendations, etc. Point repairs as required to retrieve trapped cameras. Obtain easements based upon the legal descriptions provided by the CONSULTANT. 15) Provide research of property ownership as requested by CONSULTANT. 16) Perform bid advertisement based on legal notice provided by CONSULTANT. 17) Provide all costs associated with the Additional City Responsibilities described herein. 18) Provide a GIS map in digital format suitable for CONSULTANT to link defect data and rehabilitation recommendations to produce thematic maps. (13) EXHIBIT "B" SCHEDULE OF COSTS Activity 1. Project Administation 2. Source Defect Analysis Project Management TV/Cleaning (standard, accessible) 6"-12" t5"-18" 21 "-27" 30"-39" TV/Cleaning (heavy, accessible) 6"-12" 15"-18" 2t"-27" 30"-39" TV/Cleaning (standard, remote) 6"-12" 15"-18" 21 "-27" 30"-39" TV/Cleaning (Heavy, remote) 6"-12" 15"-18" 21"-27" 30"-39" Bypass Pumping (6" and 12" pumps} (see Exhibit "B1" for rates) Reverse Set-ups Dyed Water Flooding Data Management Source Defect Analysis/Reporting 3. Basic Services . Design 4. Basic Services - Bidding Assistance 5. Special Services Geotechnical Survey Vertical and Horizontal Survey Easements Units Rate Total L.S. $29,650 $29,650 $4,976 53,783 $2.12 $114,020 2,723 $2.34 $6,372 11,573 $2.86 $33,099 10,804 $2.86 $30,899 785 $4.23 $3,321 4,911 $5.36 $26,323 3,143 $8.99 $28,256 3,559 $2.52 $8,969 415 $3.07 $1,274 1,957 $6.11 $11,957 3,618 $3.49 $12,627 190 $5.34 $1,015 952 $12.32 $11,729 1,587 $14.02 $22,250 L.S. 10,000 $10,000 20 227 $4,540 25 $275 $6,875 L.S. $21,660 $21,660 L.S. $17,472 $17,472 SubtotalSourceDefectAnalysis $377,632 (To be negotiated prior to design) (To be negotiated prior to design) (To be negotiated prior to design) (To be negotiated prior to design) (To be negotiated prior to design) (To be negotiated prior to design) Subtotal Special Services CONTRACT TOTAL $0 $407,282 B(1) EXHIBIT "B-I" (SUPPLEMENT TO ATTACHMENT "B") SUMMARY OF ASSUMPTIONS FOR COST DEVELOPMENT Assumptions: Project Administration includes sixteen (16) monthly status meetings from project startup through final design. 2, TV/Cleaning rates include tape review and selective field observation time. 26 pement (25,990 LF) of the sewer lines are estimated to require heavy cleaning. Cleaning for pipe diameters between 30"- 39" is assumed to require heavy cleaning. Remote cleaning and TV is defined as any location greater than 200 feet from an accessible point, Television inspection rates without cleaning required are based on the following. Rates include tape review and selective field observation time: Accessible 6"-18" - $1.26/LF 21 ~- 27" - $1.43/LF 30" - 39" - $'1.89/LF Remote 6"-18" - $1.78/LF 21 "-39" - $3.21/LF Bypass pumping estimates are based on the following rates: 6" bypass pumping setup 6" bypass pumping per hour 12" bypass' pumping setup 12" bypass pumping per hour - $1,438/EA $145/HR $1,783/EA $175/HR All data from the previous manhole inspection and smoke testing will be provided to RJN in an MS Access database. Compensation and invoicing for Lump Sum items shall be based on the percent completed for each task. Compensation and invoicing for unit rate items shall be based on the number of units completed at the unit rates specified. Television inspection without cleaning and bypass pumping shall be based on the number of units completed at the unit rates specified. (1) EXHIBIT "B-2" (SUPPLEMENT TO ATTACHMENT "B") HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE Employee Classification Houdy Rate Project Director Project Manager - Project Engineer Field Manager Data Processing/CAD Technician Field Supervisor Office Technician/Clerical 128.00 115.00 90.00 75.00 65.00 50.00 45.00 B-2 (1) ACE)RD. Mack and Parker, Inc. 55 E. Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL 60604 (Barbara Fritz 312-279-4618) ~J N Group, Inc. 200 W. Front Street Wheaten, iL 60187 Attention; Ms. Katrina Genore 7 " LIABILITY INSURANCE CERTIFICATE OF ~LY A~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~T~A~E ~L~ ~ ~TE ~ ~TA~, ~ OR ~ A~ ~GE A~Y ~O~:MENL TERM OR ~ON~0N OF ANY (;ONTRA~ O~ ~ ~ ~TH RE~ TO ~ ~ ~R~F~TE ~Y ~ ~U~ 0R ~ ~%2~. ..... ~.--. .... '-- ~- ~~~~, .... ~ ........... A ~~ 2025'~29480 07/01/01 07/01/02 ~~_. ~1,000,000 ~a~_~ si,000,000 ~~ ~2,0 0 0,0~ ~.%~e~~s~m: _~s~~ ~1,000,000 D ~e~ ~2025~29530 Te~s 07/01/01 07/01/02 ~~ 'l, 000,000 A X ~ 2025429527 07/01/01 07/01/02 ....~~T~ ................ ~~ NO~ Appli6~ble ~ ~~ ~ }3.o00.000 ~ ~10000 D ~, Professional PEC0009841 ..... 08/15/01 07261/02 Sz,ooo, 0oo Per Claim ~ Pollution $1,000,000 Aggregate L~abiltty ............. $25,000 City of Denton, A Texas Municipal Co~oration is named ao Additional Insured on the' ~eneral li~ility, but solely as respects th~ work bein9 performed ~d/O~ 'supervised by the Na~d Insured in co~ection with ~he County of Denton I/I Study and Reh~ilita:ion for gastern Pecan and ~icko~ Drainage Basins Project City of Denton Attention: Frank G. Payne P.E. City Hall East 801 E. Hickory - Suite B Denton, TX T6205 1 2 3 4 5 6 DRAFT PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 6, 2002 8:30 A.M. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 After determining that a quorum of the Public Utilities Board of the City of Denton, Texas was present, the Public Utilities Board convened into an Open Meeting on Monday, May 6, 2002 at 8:30 a.m. in the Service Center Training Room, City of Denton Service Center, 901-A Texas Street, Denton, Texas. PRESENT: Dick Norton, George Hopkins, Charldean Newell, Dick Smith, Jim Wilson, Don White and Bill Cheek EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Mike Conduff, City Manager Howard Martin, Assistant City Manager CONSENT AGENDA 7) Consider approval of the Professional Services Agreement with RJN Group, Inc. for engineering services related to Infiltration/Inflow corrections for the Eastern Pecan and Hickory Creek Basins for an amount not to exceed $407,282. Board Member Jim Wilson moved to approve the Professional Services Agreement with RJN Group, Inc., with a second from Board Member Bill Cheek. The motion was approved unanimously with a vote of 7-0. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION: 2) Consider approval of the Public Utilities Board meeting minutes off a) April 15, 2002 Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #17 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET May 14, 2002 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Charles Fiedler 349-8948 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT An Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a public works contract for the construction of the Leatherwood 21" Sanitary Sewer, Denton, TX; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2820 Leatherwood Sanitary Sewer awarded to PATCO Utilities, Inc., in the amount of $130,645.65). BID INFORMATION This bid is for the construction of approximately 1,631' of 21" sanitary sewer line to replace an existing 10" sewer line currently serving the Hwy 2181 corridor. The existing Leatherwood sewer line is a 10" diameter pipe. This sewer line is at the downstream end of the collection system for the high growth Hwy 2181 corridor. Several major developments are proposed and under construction along Hwy 2181. The developer of the Hickory Creek Ranch, which is located along Hickory Creek Road, had constructed a 15" sewer line with city oversize participation to connect to the existing 10" Leatherwood sewer line. This 15" sewer line will carry the wastewater load from the proposed developments in the Hwy 2181 corridor. To carry the increased wastewater load, the 2,631 feet of the remaining existing 10" line up to the Hickory Creek Lift Station will be replaced with a 21" diameter sewer line. RECOMMENDATION We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, PATCO Utilities, Inc. in the amount of $130,645.65. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS PATCO Utilities, Inc. Irving, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT It is anticipated that the Notice to Proceed will be issued on or about June 1, 2002. Estimated completion date is the third week of August 2002, or 84 days from the notice to proceed. Agenda Information Sheet May 14, 2002 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT This project will be funded from FY 2002 CIP Bond Fund account 64002500. Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet 1-AIS-Bid 2820 Leather~vood Sewer Line ATTACHMENT 1 BID # 2820 Date: 4/16/02 LEATHERWOOD SEWER LINE DIG ASSURED CALHAR M-CO CONST. UTILITIES Principle Place of Business: Dallas, TX Melissa, TX N.R Hills,TX Dallas, TX Farmers Branch. TX TOTAL BASE BID $152,876.05 $163,368.70 $196,554.05 $256,199.60 $153,428.00 BID BOND YES YES YES YES YES 2 DESCRIPTION VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR JOHN BURNS PATCO UTILITIES, DICKERSON BDF Principle Place of Business: Lewisville,TX Grand Prairie, TX Celina, TX Valley View, TX TOTAL BASE BID $156,875.00 $130,645.65 $168,674.00 $136,916.00 BID BOND YES YES YES YES 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LEATHERWOOD 21" SANITARY SEWER; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2820-LEATHERWOOD 21" SANITARY SEWER AWARDED TO PATCO UTILITIES, INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $130,645.65). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the construction of public works or improvements in accordance with the procedures of STATE law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has received and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the construction of the public works or improvements described in the bid invitation, bid proposals and plans and specifications therein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the following competitive bids for the construction of public works or improvements, as described in the "Bid Invitations", "Bid Proposals" or plans and specifications on file in the Office of the City's Purchasing Agent filed according to the bid number assigned hereto, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids: BID NUMBER CONTRACTOR AMOUNT 2820 Leatherwood 21" Sanitary Sewer $130,645.65 SECTION 2. That the acceptance and approval of the above competitive bids shall not constitute a contract between the City and the person submitting the bid for construction of such public works or improvements herein accepted and approved, until such person shall comply with all requirements specified in the Notice to Bidders including the timely execution of a written contract and furnishing of performance and payment bonds, and insurance certificate after notification of the award of the bid. SECTION 3. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute all necessary written contracts for the performance of the construction of the public works or improvements in accordance with the bids accepted and approved herein, provided that such contracts are made in accordance with the Notice to Bidders and Bid Proposals, and documents relating thereto specifying the terms, conditions, plans and specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained therein. SECTION 4. That upon acceptance and approval of the above competitive bids and the execution of contracts for the public works and improvements as authorized herein, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds in the manner and in the amount as specified in such approved bids and authorized contracts executed pursuant thereto. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of .,2002 EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 3-ORD- BID 2820 Leathelwvood 21" Sanitaxy Sexver 1 2 3 4 5 6 DRAFT PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 6, 2002 8:30 A.M. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 After determining that a quorum of the Public Utilities Board of the City of Denton, Texas was present, the Public Utilities Board convened into an Open Meeting on Monday, May 6, 2002 at 8:30 a.m. in the Service Center Training Room, City of Denton Service Center, 901-A Texas Street, Denton, Texas. PRESENT: Dick Norton, George Hopkins, Charldean Newell, Dick Smith, Jim Wilson, Don White and Bill Cheek EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Mike Conduff, City Manager Howard Martin, Assistant City Manager CONSENT AGENDA 4) Consider approval of Bid No. 2820 from Patco Utilities of Grand Prairie, Texas for construction of the 21-inch Leatherwood Sewer Line for an amount not to exceed $130,646. Board Member Jim Wilson moved to approve Bid No. 2820 from Patco Utilities, with a second from Board Member Bill Cheek. The motion was approved unanimously with a vote of 7-0. Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #18 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET May 14, 2002 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Jim Coulter 349-7194 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT An Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a public works contract for the construction of the Denton Storage Yard; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing for an effective date (Bid 2822- DeNon Storage Yard awarded to Jones and Jeffery Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $249,705). BID INFORMATION The City of DeNon Service Cemer houses all Water, Wastewater and Drainage Field Services functions. Currently storage for field service departments is limited to minimal space within the service cemer and a hodgepodge of "temporary portable" buildings located along northeast portion of the drainage channel that flows through the complex. Gravel, sand and soil are all stored loose, along the southwest side of the drainage channel. To improve storage conditions, improve appearance of the service center and most importantly to meet the requirements of EPA Storm Water Phase II regulations that will go into effect in March 2003, it became necessary to relocate the current storage area. The proposed storage yard will be located along the railroad tracks, directly across Willis Street. The new facility will allow Water, Wastewater, and Drainage to eliminate all temporary storage buildings and store other items that have previously been exposed to the elements, in a protected environmem. In addition, the runoff from the storage bins for sand, soil and gravel will drain through a filter to meet the EPA Storm Water Phase II criteria prior to entering the drainage channel along Mingo Road PRIOR ACTION/VIEW (COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS) The Public Utility Board considered this project and recommended approval on May 6, 2002. RECOMMENDATION We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, Jones and Jeffery Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $249,705. Agenda Information Sheet May 14, 2002 Page 2 PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Jones and Jeffery Construction Company, Inc. Denton, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT The construction is scheduled to be complete in 135 working days after notice to proceed or approximately the last week of November 2003. FISCAL INFORMATION In FY 2002, $185,000 was budgeted for construction of this project. The additional $65,000 needed for this project will be funded from the capital construction reserve. Funding will be charged to project account number 63003501. Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet 1-AIS-Bid 2822 Denton Storage Yard ATTACHMENT 1 BID # 2822 Date: 3/21/02 DENTON STORAGE YARD DBR Floyd Smith Construction Jones & Jeffrey Concrete Principle Place of Business: Denton, TX Denton, TX Denton, TX 1 Total Base Bide $305,660 $249,705 $262,125 2 Bid Bond YES YES YES 3 Days to Complete 135 Days 135 Days 135 Days ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DENTON STORAGE YARD; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2822- DENTON STORAGE YARD AWARDED TO JONES AND JEFFERY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $249,705). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the construction of public works or improvements in accordance with the procedures of STATE law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has received and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the construction of the public works or improvements described in the bid invitation, bid proposals and plans and specifications therein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the following competitive bids for the construction of public works or improvements, as described in the "Bid Invitations", "Bid Proposals" or plans and specifications on file in the Office of the City's Purchasing Agent filed according to the bid number assigned hereto, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids: BID NUMBER CONTRACTOR AMOUNT Jones and Jeffery Construction Company, Inc. 2822 $249,705 SECTION 2. That the acceptance and approval of the above competitive bids shall not constitute a contract between the City and the person submitting the bid for construction of such public works or improvements herein accepted and approved, until such person shall comply with all requirements specified in the Notice to Bidders including the timely execution of a written contract and furnishing of performance and payment bonds, and insurance certificate after notification of the award of the bid. SECTION 3. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute all necessary written contracts for the performance of the construction of the public works or improvements in accordance with the bids accepted and approved herein, provided that such contracts are made in accordance with the Notice to Bidders and Bid Proposals, and documents relating thereto specifying the terms, conditions, plans and specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained therein. SECTION 4. That upon acceptance and approval of the above competitive bids and the execution of contracts for the public works and improvements as authorized herein, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds in the manner and in the amount as specified in such approved bids and authorized contracts executed pursuant thereto. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of .,2002 EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 3-ORD- BID 2822 Denton Storage Yaxd This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #19 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: May 14, 2002 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Jerry Clark 349-7107 ACM: Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT An Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding an annual public works contract for the acquisition of street and drainage construction projects and micro surfacing of collector or arterial streets; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2823 (Sections 1, 2, 6) - Annual Contracts for Asphalt and Concrete Street Construction, Ultra Flow and RCP Pipe, Box Culverts for Storm Sewers and Micro Surfacing, awarded as listed in Exhibit A of the ordinance). BID INFORMATION The listed sections (1, 2 & 6) of this annual contract allow street projects up to $250,000 to be constructed by the awarded contractors in a shorter time frame for both asphalt and concrete streets with various specifications for sections or templates. This contract also allows the City of DeNon to proceed as needed with the microsealing of higher traffic city streets (collector, arterials, etc.) much like the slurry seal contract used last year to seal residential streets. Each of the annual contract sections allows the City of DeNon to get more projects on the ground in an expedited manner by combining the bid process imo one annual activity. Projects estimated to exceed $250,000 will be competitively bid omside this contract agreemem. RECOMMENDATION We recommend this contract be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder for each section as listed on Exhibit A of the ordinance. Concrete Street Section - awarded to Jagoe Public Co. This bid award is based on estimated quantities and several pavemem sections; actual use is estimated to be $300,000 - $500,000. Asphalt Street Section - awarded to Jagoe Public Co. This bid award is based on estimated quantities and several pavement sections. Actual use is estimated to be around $750,000 - $1,000,000. Micro Surfacing of Asphalt Streets Section - awarded to Viking Construction, Inc. in the annual estimated amount of $380,000. Agenda Information Sheet May 14, 2002 Page 2 PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Jagoe Public Co. Viking Construction, Inc. Denton, TX Georgetown, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT This is an annual contract and will be in effect through May 15, 2003. Schedules for individual projects will be determined as notice to proceed letters are issued. FISCAL INFORMATION Projects associated with this agreement will be funded from bond sales, certificates of obligation, CIP funds and or appropriate budget accounts. Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet Items 1,2 & 6 1-AIS-Bid 2823 Annual Contract for Asphalt and Concrete Z ul '-r 0 I.- Z ul 'h- I.- Z ul 'h- I.- Z ul I.- Z '-r 0 I.- 0 Z '-r 0 I.- Z '-r 0 I.- Z '-r 0 I.- ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING AN ANNUAL PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF STREET AND DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AND MICRO SURFACING OF COLLECTOR OR ARTERIAL STREETS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROViDiNG AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2823- ANNUAL CONTRACTS FOR ASPHALT AND CONCRETE STREET CONSTRUCTION, ULTRA FLOW AND RCP PIPE, BOX CULVERTS FOR STORM SEWERS AND MICRO SURFACING, AWARDED AS LISTED iN EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of STATE law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the materials, equipment, supplies or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" on file in the office of the City Purchasing Agent, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: BID ITEM NUMBER NO VENDOR AMOUNT 2823 Concrete Street Section Jagoe Public Co. Exhibit A 2823 Asphalt Street Section Jagoe Public Co. Exhibit A 2823 Micro Surfacing of Asphalt Viking Construction, Inc. Exhibit A Streets Section SECTION 2. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids for such items and agrees to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the terms, specifications, standards, quantities and for the specified sums contained in the Bid invitations, Bid Proposals, and related documents. SECTION 3. That should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items and of the submitted bids wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the acceptance, approval, and awarding of the bids, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby authorized to execute the written contract which shall be attached hereto; provided that the written contract is in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained in the Bid Proposal and related documents herein approved and accepted. SECTION 4. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount and in accordance with the approved bids or pursuant to a written contract made pursuant thereto as authorized herein. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this __ day of ,2002. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 3-ORD-BID 2823 Annual Contract for Asphalt & Concrete Sections EXHIBIT A BID 2823 ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR ASPHALT & CONCRETE STREET SECTIONS JAGOE PUBLIC Principal Place of Business DENTON, TX 1 CONCRETE STREET SECTIONS lA 24' STREET 6" THICK ~ ) SY $ 43.65 lB 24' STREET 6" THICK z ) SY $ 26.80 2A 31' STREET 6" THICK ) SY $ 52.00 2B 31' STREET 6" THICK z ) SY $ 32.00 3A 34' STREET 6" THICK ) SY $ 51.90 3B 34' STEET 6" THICK z ) SY $ 32.10 4A 41' STREET 7" THICK ) SY $ 55.00 4B 41' STREET 7" THICK z ) SY $ 34.00 5A 45' STREET 7" THICK ) SY $ 55.00 5B 45' STREET 7" THICK z ) SY $ 34.00 1/2 4 LANE DIVIDED 25' B/B 8' ) SY $ 50.00 6A THICK 1/2 4 LANE DIVIDED 25' B/B 8' z 6B THICK ) SY $ 34.00 7 INTEGRAL CONCRETE CURB WITH FIBERS ] ~ LF $ 10.00 15"CONCRETE EDGE RESTAINT for ESTATE ] ~ LF $ 12.00 8 ROADS 9 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY WITH FIBERS SY $ 36.00 10 4" CONCRETE SIDEWALK WITH FIBERS SY $ 33.00 11 10' DRAINAGE INLET-10' TRANSITION TO CURBI EA $ 2,500.00 UPSTEAM AND 5' DOWNSTREAM, 0'-6' Depth 15' DRAINAGE INLET-10' TRANSITION I 12 UPSTEAM AND 5' TRANSITION TO CURB I EA $ 3,800.00 DOWNSTREAM 0'-6' Depth 20' DRAINAGE INLET-10' TRANSITION I 13 UPSTEAM AND 5' TRANSITION TO CURB I EA $ 4,500.00 DOWNSTREAM, 0'-6' Depth EA $ 2,250.00 14 5 X 5 JUNCTION BOXES 0'-6' FOR STORM SEWER EA $ 380.00 15 Adjust Mm'~holes amd Valves EA $ 450.00 16 Subgrade Stabilization 6" i SY $ 3.50 17 Subgrade Stabilization 12" i SY $ 4.00 18 Lime for Subgrade Stabilization PH Series TN $ 88.00 EXHIBIT A BID 2823 ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR ASPHALT & CONCRETE STREET SECTIONS JAGOE PUBLIC DENTON, TX 19 Cement for Subgrade Stabilization Atterberg Limits 512 TN $ 90.00 20 P~oje;ts u;to ~i;07;;~--------~ - --- ---- ---- __B~ing to the 2000 MUTCD,I I $ 1,500.00 21 P~oje;i gre~ter tha~ki00,;00 bu~ i;s~ tham $2~;,0;;- ' LB~ing to the 2000 MUTCD,I I · S $ 3,000.00 22 Street Project Value - i iii iiiiTwo Ye~ub'and D°llarb~ I I ........ $ 100.00 24'STREET 6" THICK-12" EDGE RESTRAINT lA BOTH SIDES 2 0 SY $ 20.00 lB 24'STREET 6" THICK-12" EDGE RESTRAINT I 4 0 SY $ 17.30 2A BOTH SIDES 2 0 SY $ 13.50 31' STREET-6" THICK 2B 31' STREET-6" THICK 4 0 SY $ 11.35 2C 2"PG 76-22 BINDER FOR 31', STREET, 4" PG 64-22 I 4 0 SY $ 12.00 3A BASE 4 0 SY $ 13.50 34' STREET - 6" THICK 3B 34' STREET - 6" THICK 2 0 SY $ 11.35 4A 41' STREET- 8" THICK 3 0 SY $ 15.34 4B 41' STREET- 8" THICK 4 0 SY $ 14.88 5A 45' STREET- 8" THICK 2 0 SY $ 17.00 5B 45' STREET- 8" THICK 4 0 SY $ 14.85 5C 2"PG 76-22 BINDERFOR45' STREET 6"THICK I 4 0 SY $ 15.50 6 7ASE PG 64-22 2 0 SY $ 21.00 V2 4 LANE DIVIDED 25' B/B, 10" THICK 6B F2 4 LANE DIVIDED 25' B/B, 10" THICK 4 0 LF $ 18.94 6C 2" PG 76-22 BINDERFOR 1/2 4 LANE DIVIDED 25'I 4 0 LF $ 20.00 7 B/B 8" THICKBASE PG 64-22 1 5 LF $ 9.75 24' CONCRETE CURB WITH FIBERS 8 15" CONCRETE EDGE RESTRAINT FOR ESTATE I 1 5 LF $ 9.30 9 ROADS WITH FIBERS ~ ~ SY $ 34.00 6' CONCRETE DRIVEWAY WITH FIBERS 10 4' CONCRETE SIDEWALK WITH FIBERS ~ SY $ 32.00 11 10' DRAINAGE INLET-10" TRANSITION TO CURB EA $ 2,200.00 UPSTREAM & 5 DOWNSTREAM, 0 -6 DEPTH EXHIBIT A BID 2823 ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR ASPHALT & CONCRETE STREET SECTIONS i~ JAGOE PUBLIC ! Principal Place of Business I ~ DENTON, TX 15' DRAIN INLET-10" TRAN UPSTREAM & 5" / 12 TRAN TO DSTREAM 0'-6 DEPTH / I EA $ 3,300.00 ,3 2~,0,;~5~¢ITNo'¢~2%0,%~,D~Sp~E*~ / ' E^ * 4,000.00 14 5S'E~V~'RJUNCTION BOXES / 0'-6' FOR STORM / I EA $ 1,750.00 15 ADJUST MANHOLES & VALVES ] EA $ 400.00 16 SUBGRADE STABILIZATION-6" ] SY $ 3.50 17 SUBGRADE STABILIZATION- 12" ] ] SY $ 4.00 ,8 ~IE%[ORS~O~ESTA~ILI~ATION-PH / ' ~ ~ aS.00 / CEMENT FOR SUBGRADE STABILIZATION - / 19 ATTERBERG LiMiTS / 90.00 20A BARRICADING FOR PROJECT ACCORDING TO / THE 2000 MUTCD$100,000-city ] LS $ 1,500.00 1 20B BARRICADING FOR PROJECT ACCORDING TO / I LS $ 3 000 00 THE 2000 MUTCD$100,000-tdot / I -~ ' ' I I 2lA BARRICADING FOR PROJECT ACCORDING TO / I LS $ 3 000 00 THE 2000 MUTCD GREATER$100,000-City / I -~ ' ' / I BARRICADING FOR PROJECT ACCORDING TO / i 6,ooo.oo 22 Two Year Maintenance Bond per ,Thousand Dollars I I $1,000 $100.00 of Street Project Value / I ...... 6 MICRO-SURFACING / SY $2.50 1 This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #20 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET May 14, 2002 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Jerry Clark 349-7107 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services~ SUBJECT An Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of storm sewer pipe and box culverts for street and drainage related projects; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2823 (Sections 3, 4, 5) - Annual Contracts for Asphalt and Concrete Street Construction, Ultra Flow and RCP Pipe, Box Culverts for Storm Sewers and Micro Surfacing, awarded as listed in Exhibit A of the ordinance). BID INFORMATION This bid is for the annual contract to supply reinforced concrete pipe, precast concrete box culverts and aluminized corrugated metal pipe for storm sewer drainage projects used in conjunction with Bid 2823 Sections 1, 2, & 6. Sections 3, 4, & 5 are for supplies only and Sections 1, 2, & 6 are for street section construction. The combination creates an annual contract for street construction and drainage improvements under $250,000 per project to be completed in an expedited manner. RECOMMENDATION We recommend bid items 3, 4, & 5 be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder as listed: Section 3- Reinforced Concrete Storm Sewer Pipe- awarded to Hanson Pipe and Products, Inc. in the annual estimated amount of $750,000. Section 4- Precast Concrete Box Culverts- awarded to Hanson Pipe and Products, Inc. in the annual estimated amount of $890,000. Section 5- Aluminized Metal Pipe- awarded to Contech Construction Products, Inc. in the annual estimated amount of $175,000 PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Hanson Pipe and Products, Inc. Grand Prairie, TX Contech Construction Products Irving, TX Agenda Information Sheet May 14, 2002 Page 2 ESTIMATED SCHEDI. JLE OF PROJECT This is an annual contract and will be in effect through May 15, 2003. Schedules for individual orders will be determined as notice to proceed letters are issued. FISCAL INFORMATION Projects associated with this agreement will be funded from bond sales, certificates of obligation, CIP funds and or appropriate budget accounts. Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet Items 3, 4 & 5 1-AIS-Bid 2823 Sections 3, 4 & 5 Z ul '-r 0 I.- Z ul 'h- I.- Z ul 'h- I.- Z ul I.- Z '-r 0 I.- 0 Z '-r 0 I.- Z '-r 0 I.- Z '-r 0 I.- ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF STORM SEWER PIPE AND BOX CULVERTS FOR STREET AND DRAINAGE RELATED PROJECTS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROViDiNG AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BiD 2823- (SECTIONS 3,4,5) ANNUAL CONTRACTS FOR ASPHALT AND CONCRETE STREET CONSTRUCTION, ULTRA FLOW AND RCP PIPE, BOX CULVERTS FOR STORM SEWERS AND MICRO SURFACING, AWARDED AS LISTED IN EXHIBIT A OF THE ORDINANCE). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of STATE law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the materials, equipment, supplies or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" on file in the office of the City Purchasing Agent, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: BID ITEM NUMBER NO VENDOR AMOUNT 2823 Section 3- Reinforced Concrete Storm Sewer Pipe Hanson Pipe and Products, Inc. Exhibit A 2823 Section 4-Precast Concrete Box Culve~s Hanson Pipe and Products, Inc. Exhibit A 2823 Section 5- Aluminized Metal Pipe Viking Construction, Inc. Exhibit A SECTION 2. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids for such items and agrees to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the terms, specifications, standards, quantities and for the specified sums contained in the Bid invitations, Bid Proposals, and related documents. SECTION 3. That should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items and of the submitted bids wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the acceptance, approval, and awarding of the bids, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby authorized to execute the written contract which shall be attached hereto; provided that the written contract is in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained in the Bid Proposal and related documents herein approved and accepted. SECTION 4. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount and in accordance with the approved bids or pursuant to a written contract made pursuant thereto as authorized herein. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this __ day of ,2002. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 3-ORD-BID 2823 Sections 3, 4, & 5 EXHIBIT A BID 2823 ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR ASPHALT & CONCRETE STREET SECTIONS 4/11/02 HANSON Principal Place of Business GRAND PRAIRIE,TX CLASS 2 RCP-ASTMC-1433-SEE APPROVALS PROCESS IN SPECS - 15" RCP $ 11.50 18" RCP $ 12.54 21" RCP $ 15.51 24" RCP $ 18.70 30" RCP $ 26.56 36" RCP $ 36.13 42" RCP $ 51.20 48" RCP $ 63.10 54" RCP $ 84.15 60" RCP $ 99.88 CLASS 3 RCP - 15" RCP $ 11.05 18" RCP $ 12.54 21" RCP $ 15.51 24" RCP $ 18.70 30" RCP $ 26.56 36" RCP $ 38.04 42" RCP $ 53.98 48" RCP $ 66.09 54" RCP $ 88.40 60" RCP $ 104.76 FOR CLASS 4 RCP - 15" RCP $ 11.69 18" RCP $ 13.81 21" RCP $ 18.05 24" RCP $ 23.38 30" RCP $ 31.87 36" RCP $ 44.84 42" RCP $ 64.81 48" RCP $ 95.62 54" RCP $ 132.18 EXHIBIT A BID 2823 ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR ASPHALT & CONCRETE STREET SECTIONS 4/11/02 ~ ~ CONTECH HANSON Principal Place of Business~ B W i IRVING, TX GRAND PRAIRIE,TX ~o,,~ /// ~ ~.o~ "°~'~'""~~""°"/// ~ ,o~.~ ¢,~,,.o~ /// ~ =o~.¢~ ,o,~,~o~ /// ~ ~o~.~o EXHIBIT A BID 2823 ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR ASPHALT & CONCRETE STREET SECTIONS 4/11/02 CONTECH HANSON Principal Place of Business I IRVING, TX GRAND PRAIRIE,TX 9' X 5' BOX CULVERT 500 LF $ 252.68 9' X 9' BOX CULVERT 500 LF $ 214.78 10' X 5' BOX CULVERT 500 LF $ 302.40 FORULTRAFLOW(UF)-IS"UFi OOOl Vl 8.9 18" UF 1000 LF $ 10.07 21" UF 1000 LF $ 12.05 Addendum # 1 I I I YES Addendum # 2 I I I YES Addendum # 3 I I I YES Addendum # 4 I I I YES This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #21 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET May 14, 2002 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Jerry Clark 349-7107 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT An Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding an annual contract for the purchase of miscellaneous concrete work; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2824- Annual Contract Concrete Work awarded to Floyd Smith Concrete Inc. in the estimated amount of $1,400,000. BID INFORMATION This bid is for the annual contract to provide miscellaneous concrete related repair and small construction projects. Quantities are estimated and may vary according to the needs of the City. Price structure in most cases is designed to maintain an annual cost and allow for quantity discounts. This contract is utilized by all field crews for concrete repairs, curb/gutter work, ADA ramps, sidewalk replacement, driveway repairs, culvert head walls inlet rebuild, etc. Prices include all clean up work, safety barricading, materials, and supervision. RECOMMENDATION We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder Floyd Smith Concrete, Inc. as listed in the attached ordinance Exhibit A in the estimated amount of $1,400,000. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Floyd Smith Concrete, Inc. Denton, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT Delivery will be determined by the individual project. However, initial response is to be accomplished within three days from notification. FISCAL INFORMATION These projects will be funded from appropriate bond, CIP and/or budget accounts. Information Sheet May 14, 2002 Page 2 Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet 1-AIS-Bid 2824 Annual Contract Concrete Work Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Z ill W [-- W Z 0 Z 0 Z Z t- Z ill W [-- W Z 0 Z 0 Z Z Z ill W W Z 0 Z 0 Z Z Z ill 0 W W Z 0 Z 0 Z Z Z ill W W Z 0 Z 0 Z Z Z ill W W Z 0 Z 0 Z Z Z ill W W Z 0 Z 0 Z Z Z >- ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING AN ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE WORK; PROViDiNG FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROViDiNG AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2824- ANNUAL CONTRACT CONCRETE WORK AWARDED TO FLOYD SMITH CONCRETE, INC. IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $1,400,000). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of STATE law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the materials, equipment, supplies or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" on file in the office of the City Purchasing Agent, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: BID ITEM NUMBER NO VENDOR AMOUNT 2824 All Floyd Smith Concrete, inc. Exhibit A SECTION 2. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids for such items and agrees to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the terms, specifications, standards, quantities and for the specified sums contained in the Bid invitations, Bid Proposals, and related documents. SECTION 3. That should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items and of the submitted bids wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the acceptance, approval, and awarding of the bids, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby authorized to execute the written contract which shall be attached hereto; provided that the written contract is in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained in the Bid Proposal and related documents herein approved and accepted. SECTION 4. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount and in accordance with the approved bids or pursuant to a written contract made pursuant thereto as authorized herein. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this __ day of ,2002. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: BY: 3-ORD-BID 2824 Annual Contract Concrete EXHIBIT A BID #2824 ANNUAL CONTRACT CONCRETE WORK CONCRETE SECTION 8.2.1 DOWEL-ON INTEGRAL (WITH 1 LF $7.00 FIBERS) 8.2-A CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER A. 0' TO 250' 2876 LF $8.35 B. 250' TO 1000' 1162 LF $8.35 C. 1001' - UP 8320 LF $7.60 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER (WITH 8.2-A. 1 FIBERS) A. 0' TO 250' 2876 LF $8.85 B. 251' TO 1000' 1162 LF $8.85 C. 1001' TO 5000 5000 LF $8.10 D. 5001 - UP 5000 LF $8.10 8.2.A-2.1 30" SURMOUTABLE CURB/FILTERS 100 LF $11.85 8.3.1 6" CONCRETE/DRIVEWAY/FIBERS A. 0 TO 50 SQ. YARDS 2000 SY $32.85 B. 51 TO 100 SQUARE YARDS 1000 SY $32.85 C. 101 TO 500 SQUARE YARDS 1000 SY $31.60 8.3-A.1 4" CONCRETE SIDEWALK/FIBERS A. 0 TO 50 SQ. YARDS 100 SY $29.70 B. 51 TO 100 SQUARE YARDS 100 SY $29.70 C. 101 TO 500 SQUARE YARDS 50 SY $28.70 D. 501 TO 1000 SQUARE YARDS 50 SY $27.50 4" CONCRETE SIDEWALK BEHIND 8.3-A.2 DRIVEWAY A. 0 TO 50 SQ. YARDS 100 SY $28.80 B. 51 TO 100 SQUARE YARDS 100 SY $28.80 EXHIBIT A C. 101 TO 500 SQUARE YARDS 50 SY $27.80 D. 501 TO 1000 SQUARE YARDS 50 SY $27.80 8.4 CONCRETE MEDIANS 1 SY $27.00 8.6 CONCRETE STEPS 10 SF $10.50 CONCRETE RIP-RAP AND DRAINAGE 8.15 5000 SY $31.00 FLUMES SP-1 SAW CUT (EXISTING ASPHALT) 500 LF $1.50 SP-2 SAW CUT (EXISTING CONCRETE) 625 LF $3.00 SP-3 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (CLASS A) 500 CY $365.00 CONCRETE FOR LIGHT STANDARD SP-4 0-50 CY $365.00 BASES CONCRETE FOR TRAFFICE SP-6A 2 EA $365.00 CONTROLLER BOX CONCRETE PADS FOR SPAN SP-7 5 SY $36.00 SHELTERS SP-8 WATER SERVICE ADJUSTMENTS 10 EA $250.00 MISC. SPRINKLER SYSTEM SP-9 10 LS $250.00 ADJUSTMENTS TOTAL ~VV~l%[J UI- I I-lib Idll~ VVILL Idb Id~bbl~ ON BIDS OF ESTIMATED ¢)1 IANTITIF~ 2.11.5 RNG AND COVER (INLETS 24" 25 EA $2OO.OO LOCKING 124C) 3-A REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT 180 SY $16.20 REMOVE CONCRETE CURB & 3-B 1000 LF $6.00 GU~-~ER REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY & 3-C 1000 SY $16.20 SIDEWALK 3.3 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION 500 CY $12.00 3.7 COMPACTED FILL/EMBARKMENT 500 SY $20.00 3.9 SOD 500 SY $7.50 2' ASPHALT PAVE (TYPE D PATCH 5.7-B 500 SY $75.00 MATERIAL C. 101 TO 500 SQUARE YARDS 1000 SY $0 4' CONCRETE FLATWORK 5.8-A-2 (COLORED/TEXTURED) EXHIBIT A A. 0 TO 100 SQUARE YARDS 559 SY $65.00 B. 101 TO 500 SQUARE YARDS 1000 SY $62.00 C. 501 TO UP 1000 SY $60.00 6" CONCRETE PAVEMENT (RADIUS, 5.8-A ETC. WITH FIBERS A. 0 TO 50 SQUARE YARDS 1000 SY $32.85 B. 51 TO 100 SQUARE YARDS 1000 SY $32.85 C. 101 TO 500 SQUARE YARDS 1490 SY $31.60 D. 500 TO 1000 SQUARE YARDS 2500 SY $29.25 8" CONCRETE PAVEMENT (RADIUS, 5.8-B.1 ETC. WITH FIBERS) A. 0 TO 50 SQUARE YARDS 10 SY $37.80 B. 51 TO 100 SQUARE YARDS 10 SY $37.80 C. 101 TO 500 SQUARE YARDS 500 SY $36.35 6.2.10C ONE SACK CONCRETE BACKFILL 0-500 CY $49.50 6.7.2-A ADJUST MANHOLE & INLETS 10 EA $550.00 7.4.5-1 TYPE A HEADWALLS (15" to 36" PER 10 LS $1,050.00 PIPE) 7.4.5-1A TYPE A HEADWALLS (39" TO 72" PER 10 LS $3,150.00 PIPE) 7.4.5-2 TYPE B HEADWALLS (15" TO 36" PER 10 LS $1,150.00 PIPE) 7.4.5-2A TYPE B HEADWALLS (39" TO 72" PER 10 LS $3,250.00 PIPE) 7.6.A-1 4' ID MANHOLE (0 TO 6" DEPTH) 10 EA $1,300.00 7.6.A-1(1) EXTRA DEPTH 1 VF $100.00 5'X 5" JUNCTION BOX (0' TO 6" 7.6.A-2 20 EA $1,600.00 DEPTH) 7.6.A-2 (1) EXTRA DEPTH 1 VF $100.00 7.6.A-5 10' INLET (0' TO 6' DEPTH) 10 EA $1,850.00 7.6.A-5 EXTRA DEPTH 1 VF $150.00 (1) 7.6.A-6 15' INLET (0' TO 6' DEPTH) 10 EA $2,750.00 7.6.A- EXTRA DEPTH 1 VF $300.00 6(1) REBUILT INLET (REMOVE & 7.6.A-7 REPLACE TOP EXHIBIT A A. 4' INLET 10 EA $700.00 B. 6' INLET 5 EA $750.00 C. 8" INLET 5 EA $800.00 D. 10' INLET 1 EA $850.00 7.6.A-8 REBUILT EXISTING INLET (SPECIAL) A. 4' INLET 1 EA $1,500.00 B. 6' INLET 1 EA $1,600.00 C. 8' INLET 1 EA $1,800.00 D. 10' INLET 1 EA $2,000.00 8.1 BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS & 43 LS $275.00 DETOURS 8.2 DOWEL-ON INTEGRAL CURB 259 LF $6.00 8.3 WHEEL CHAIR RAMP A. WHEEL CHAIR RAMP (ALL WITH 1 EA $700.00 PAINT & GROOVE) DIRECT B. WHEEL CHAIR RAMP FLAIR 1 EA $830.00 C. WHEEL CHAIR RAMP SPECIAL 1 EA $830.00 This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #22 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET May 14, 2002 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Janet Simpson 349-8274 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT An Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a public works contract for the construction of Cross Timbers Park, Denton, TX; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing for an effective date (Bid 2828 - Cross Timbers Park awarded to Dean Electric, inc. dba Dean Construction in the amount of $558,000.) BID INFORMATION This bid is for the construction of Cross Timbers Park. The park will be located on Hickory Creek Road, west of McNair Elementary School. The base bid includes construction of two playgrounds, an outdoor classroom, practice soccer field, multipurpose court, concrete hike and bike trails, sand volleyball area and a 10' x 60' pedestrian bridge over Fletcher's Branch. Alternate 1 allows for construction of a hike and bike trail from Clear River Lane to Seven Oaks Lane. RECOMMENDATION We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, Dean Electric, inc. dba Dean Construction, in the amount of $535,000 plus Alternate 1 in the amount of $23,000 for a total award of $558,000. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Dean Electric, Inc. dba Dean Construction Cedar Hill, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT It is anticipated that the Notice to Proceed will be issued on or about June 1, 2002. Estimated completion date is approximately the first week of August 2002. Agenda Information Sheet May 14, 2002 Page 2 FISCAL INFORMATION This park construction project will be funded from account 40003500.1360.40100. The source of funding includes 2000 Bond Program Park Dedication and Development funds, a $500,000 matching grant from Texas Parks and Wildlife and private donations from the community. Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet 1-AIS-Bid 2828 ATTACHMENT 1 BID 2828 CROSS TIMERS PARK Date: 4/9/02 North Star Durrett Rebcon JMC Calhar Sprinkle & G.Scaping Construction Sprout Principle Place of Business: Fort Worth, TX Manvel, TX Dallas, TX McKinney, TX Melissa, TX Roanoke, TX N.R. Hills, TX I Total Base Bid $679,000 $562,275 $778,000 $615,000 $615,000 $654,615 $589,400 2 TOTAL ALTERNATE # 1 $30,000 $34,800 $44,000 $32,925 $35,550 $26,760 $24,600 3 Completion Days 200 DAYS 160 DAYS 210 DAYS 120 DAYS 120 DAYS 160 DAYS 200 DAYS Reliable Dean Electric Jonmar JDC Senecar- ,~nav=n~ M.A. Vinson Inc. Principle Place of Business: Dallas, TX Wylie, TX Denton, TX Arlington, TX Fort Worth, TX Cedar Hill, TX I Total Base Bid $632,200 $644,400 $629,000 $644,450 $752,981 $535,000 2 TOTAL ALTERNATE # 1 $15,000 $24,400 $22,000 $23,500 $36,000 $23,000 3 Completion Days 150 DAYS 210 DAYS 180 DAYS 175 DAYS 270 DAYS 120 DAYS ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CROSS TIMBERS PARK; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2828- CROSS TIMBERS PARK AWARDED TO DEAN ELECTRIC, iNC. DBA DEAN CONSTRUCTION 1N THE AMOUNT OF $558,000). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the construction of public works or improvements in accordance with the procedures of STATE law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has received and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the construction of the public works or improvements described in the bid invitation, bid proposals and plans and specifications therein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the following competitive bids for the construction of public works or improvements, as described in the "Bid invitations", "Bid Proposals" or plans and specifications on file in the Office of the City's Purchasing Agent filed according to the bid number assigned hereto, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids: BID NUMBER CONTRACTOR AMOUNT Dean Electric, Inc. dba Dean Cosnstruction 2828 $558,000 SECTION 2. That the acceptance and approval of the above competitive bids shall not constitute a contract between the City and the person submitting the bid for construction of such public works or improvements herein accepted and approved, until such person shall comply with all requirements specified in the Notice to Bidders including the timely execution of a written contract and furnishing of performance and payment bonds, and insurance certificate after notification of the award of the bid. SECTION 3. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute all necessary written contracts for the performance of the construction of the public works or improvements in accordance with the bids accepted and approved herein, provided that such contracts are made in accordance with the Notice to Bidders and Bid Proposals, and documents relating thereto specifying the terms, conditions, plans and specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained therein. SECTION 4. That upon acceptance and approval of the above competitive bids and the execution of contracts for the public works and improvements as authorized herein, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds in the manner and in the amount as specified in such approved bids and authorized contracts executed pursuant thereto. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of .,2002 EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 3-ORD- BID 2828 Cross Timbers This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #23 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET May 14, 2002 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Jim Coulter 349-7194 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT An Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a public works contract for the construction of the Loop 288 30" Waterline; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2833- Loop 288 30" Waterline awarded to Texas Electric Utility Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1,211,846.73). BID INFORMATION The Loop 288 Water Line project (see Exhibit I) consists of approximately 12,474 linear feet of 30 inch water line paralleling Loop 288 from University Drive north, and west to Sherman Drive to connect to the 54 inch transmission line from the Lake Ray Roberts Water Treatment Plant (WTP). This water transmission line is a major componem in the connection of the new 54 inch line and the new WTP to the City's distribmion system. There was one bid item that was included as an additive alternate to install fiber optic cable and appurtenances provided by Demon Municipal Electric (DME) along the pipeline alignmem. Texas Electric Utility Construction, Inc. has offered to install this cable and its appurtenances for a lump sum amount of $61,119.74. DME has agreed to pay for this installation, and staff is recommending that this alternative bid item be included in the bid award, resulting in a total contract amount of $1,211,846.73. PRIOR ACTION/VIEW (COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS) The Public Utility Board considered this project and recommended approval on May 6, 2002. RECOMMENDATION We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, Texas Electric Utility Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1,211,846.73. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Texas Electric Utility Construction, Inc. Sherman, TX Agenda Information Sheet May 14, 2002 Page 2 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT The project is scheduled to begin in June 2002 and be completed by the first week of January 2003. FISCAL INFORMATION A total of $1,483,000 was included in the CIP for the construction of the 30" Loop 288 Water Line. Funding will come from project account 63000400. Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet Attachment 2: Site Map 1-AIS-Bid 2833 Loop 288 Water Line w W ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LOOP 288 30" WATERLINE; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2833- LOOP 288 30" WATERLINE AWARDED TO TEXAS ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,211,846.73). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the construction of public works or improvements in accordance with the procedures of STATE law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has received and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the construction of the public works or improvements described in the bid invitation, bid proposals and plans and specifications therein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the following competitive bids for the construction of public works or improvements, as described in the "Bid Invitations", "Bid Proposals" or plans and specifications on file in the Office of the City's Purchasing Agent filed according to the bid number assigned hereto, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids: BID NUMBER CONTRACTOR AMOUNT 2833 Texas Electric Utility Construction, Inc. $1,211,846.73 SECTION 2. That the acceptance and approval of the above competitive bids shall not constitute a contract between the City and the person submitting the bid for construction of such public works or improvements herein accepted and approved, until such person shall comply with all requirements specified in the Notice to Bidders including the timely execution of a written contract and furnishing of performance and payment bonds, and insurance certificate after notification of the award of the bid. SECTION 3. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute all necessary written contracts for the performance of the construction of the public works or improvements in accordance with the bids accepted and approved herein, provided that such contracts are made in accordance with the Notice to Bidders and Bid Proposals, and documents relating thereto specifying the terms, conditions, plans and specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained therein. SECTION 4. That upon acceptance and approval of the above competitive bids and the execution of contracts for the public works and improvements as authorized herein, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds in the manner and in the amount as specified in such approved bids and authorized contracts executed pursuant thereto. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of .,2002 EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 3-ORD- BID 2833 Loop 288 30" Waterline Attachment,.2 30' $ILVER DOME M.H.P. N.T.S. ROY ~ w HARVEST HILL POND LAUREL'v/OOD APTS EXHIBIT I LOOP 288 WATER LINE 1 2 3 4 5 6 DRAFT PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 6, 2002 8:30 A.M. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 After determining that a quorum of the Public Utilities Board of the City of Denton, Texas was present, the Public Utilities Board convened into an Open Meeting on Monday, May 6, 2002 at 8:30 a.m. in the Service Center Training Room, City of Denton Service Center, 901-A Texas Street, Denton, Texas. PRESENT: Dick Norton, George Hopkins, Charldean Newell, Dick Smith, Jim Wilson, Don White and Bill Cheek EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Mike Conduff, City Manager Howard Martin, Assistant City Manager CONSENT AGENDA 6) Consider approval of Bid No. 2833 to Texas Electric Utility Construction, Inc. for the construction of the Loop 288 Water Line Project, in an amount not to exceed $1,211,846.73. Board Member Jim Wilson moved to approve Bid No. 2833 to Texas Electric Utility Construction, Inc., with a second from Board Member Bill Cheek. The motion was approved unanimously with a vote of 7-0. This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #24 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET May 14, 2002 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Cary Tower 349-8424 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT An Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding an annual contract for the purchase of Tire Repair and Tire Changing Services; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2806- Tire Repair and Tire Changing awarded to Pro Tire, Inc. in the estimated amount of $40,000). BID INFORMATION This bid is for the contract to provide tire repair, tire changing and on site (roadside) flat repair for the City of Demon fleet. The contract will be administered through the Fleet Services Division. RECOMMENDATION We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, Pro Tire, Inc., as listed on Attachment A to the ordinance. The estimated annual expenditure is $40,000. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Pro Tire, Inc. Denton, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT This is an annual contract and will remain in effect through May 15, 2003. Roadside service is to be dispatched within 30 minutes of notice, 24 hours per day. FISCAL INFORMATION The services provided will be funded from the motor pool maimenance budget and charged back to the individual vehicle as a cost of operation. Agenda Information Sheet May 14, 2002 Page 2 Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet 1-AIS-Bid 2806 Tire Repair and Changing Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent ATTACHMENT 1 BID#: 2806 Date: 2/28/02 TIRE REPAIR AND TIRE CHANGING Principle Place of Business: DENTON, TX SERVICE CALL ANYWHERE WITHIN DENTON 1 1 CITY LIMITS $20.00/$45.00 AFTER HOURS SERVICE CALL ANYWHERE $65.00 2 1 WITHIN DENTON CITY LIMITS COST OF TIRE REPAIR ON ROAD (SMALL TIRES) $15.00 3 1 COST OF TIRE REPAIR ON ROAD (LARGE TIRES) $17.50 see attached 4 1 COST OF REMOVING AND REPLACING (SMALL $15.00 5 1 TIRES) COST OF REMOVING AND REPLACING (LARGE $17.50 see attached 6 1 TIRES) COST OF FRONT-END ALIGNMENT ON SITE $89.00 7 1 COST OF INSPECTION OF TIRES ON CITY OF $85.00 8 1 DENTON VEHICLES & EQUIPMENT 9 1 COST OF LARGE TIRE RE-TREADS $120.00 COST OF REMOVING & DISPOSING USED TIRES 10 1 see attached MISC. PARTS - PERCENTAGE OF JOBBER'S LIST PRICE (INCLUDE A COPY OF THE LIST) 11 % DELIVERY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING AN ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF TIRE REPAIR AND TIRE CHANGING SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2806- TIRE REPAIR AND TIRE CHANGING AWARDED TO PRO TIRE, INC. IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $40,000). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of STATE law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the materials, equipment, supplies or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" on file in the office of the City Purchasing Agent, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: BID ITEM NUMBER NUMBER VENDOR AMOUNT 2806 1-11 Pro Tire, inc. Exhibit A SECTION 2. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids for such items and agrees to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the terms, specifications, standards, quantities and for the specified sums contained in the Bid invitations, Bid Proposals, and related documents. SECTION 3. That should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items and of the submitted bids wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the acceptance, approval, and awarding of the bids, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby authorized to execute the written contract which shall be attached hereto; provided that the written contract is in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained in the Bid Proposal and related documents herein approved and accepted. SECTION 4. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount and in accordance with the approved bids or pursuant to a written contract made pursuant thereto as authorized herein. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this __ day of ,2002. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 3-ORD-BID 2806 Tire Repair a~d Cha~ging EXHIBIT A BID#: 2806 Date: 2/28/02 TIRE REPAIR AND TIRE CHANGING Principle Place of Business: DENTON, TX SERVICE CALL ANYWHERE WITHIN DENTON 1 1 CITY LIMITS $20.00/$45.00 AFTER HOURS SERVICE CALL ANYWHERE $65.00 2 1 WITHIN DENTON CITY LIMITS COST OF TIRE REPAIR ON ROAD (SMALL TIRES) $15.00 3 1 COST OF TIRE REPAIR ON ROAD (LARGE TIRES) $17.50 see attached 4 1 COST OF REMOVING AND REPLACING (SMALL $15.00 5 1 TIRES) COST OF REMOVING AND REPLACING (LARGE $17.50 see attached 6 1 TIRES) COST OF FRONT-END ALIGNMENT ON SITE $89.00 7 1 COST OF INSPECTION OF TIRES ON CITY OF $85.00 8 1 DENTON VEHICLES & EQUIPMENT 9 1 COST OF LARGE TIRE RE-TREADS $120.00 COST OF REMOVING & DISPOSING USED TIRES 10 1 see attach ed MISC. PARTS - PERCENTAGE OF JOBBER'S LIST PRICE (INCLUDE A COPY OF THE LIST) 11 % DELIVERY Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #25 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET May 14, 2002 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Tom Shaw 349-7100 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT An Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding an annual contract for the purchase of Primer and Plotter Cartridges and Parts; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2831-Annual Contract for the Purchase of Primer and Plotter Cartridges and Parts awarded to GDA Micro Technologies, Inc. in the estimated amount of $54,434,90). BID INFORMATION This bid is for the annual contract to supply various printer and plotter cartridges and miscellaneous parts. These items are utilized throughout City operations and are carded in the warehouse stock for easy access. RECOMMENDATION We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder GDA Micro Technologies, Inc. as listed on Attachment A to the ordinance. Estimated annual expenditures equal $54,434.90. The lower price offered by Custom Computers ($170.70 difference on the overall bid) failed to meet required delivery schedules. We are also recommending no award for items 72-74. These are sole source Xerox products. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS GDA Micro Technologies, Inc. Arlington, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT This is an annual contract and will be in effect through May 15, 2003. Items can be delivered within 3 to 5 days from receipt of an order. FISCAL INFORMATION Orders will be funded from the Warehouse Working Capital Account 800001 and charged to the appropriate budget as they are placed in service. Agenda Information Sheet May 15, 2002 Page 2 Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet 1-AIS-Bid 2831 Printer and Plotter Cartridges Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent ATTACHMENT 1 BID #2831 PRINTER & PLOTTER CARTRIDGES & PARTS Date: 4/9/02 CUSTOM GDA INFORMATIO PANTE' COMPUTERS N SERVICES SOURCE Hauppage, Arlington Dallas Addison Arlington NY 1 205-79-669 CART INK FOR EPSON PRINTERT003011 BLACK 10 PK $ 232.80 $ 235.70 $ 237.90 $ 233.90 $ 245.00 2 205-79-670 CART. INK FOR EPSON PRINTERT005011 COLOR 10 PK $ 2?9.90 $ 285.10 $ 28?.80 $ 295.50 $ 290.00 4 205-79-679 CART. INKFORHP2000CHPC4842AYELLOW 10 PK $ 264.40 $ 267.90 $ 270.00 $ 271.50 $ 280.00 5 205-79-676 CART. INK FOR HP 2000CHPC4844A BLACK 10 PK $ 264.40 $ 267.90 $ 270.00 $ 271.50 $ 270.00 6 205-79-651 INKCART, COLOR FOR HP DESK500 10 EA $ 250.80 $ 251.?0 $ 256.20 $ 25?.60 $ 260.00 7 205-79-650 INKCART, BLACK HP DESKJET500 40 EA $ 966.80 $ 9?9.60 $ 98?.20 $ 1,002.40 $ 1,000.00 8 205-79-656 INK CART. FOR DESKJET 600&660 30 EA $ 725.10 $ 734.70 $ 740.40 $ 744.30 $ 750.00 9 205-79-652 INKCART FOR PAINTJETXL300 10 EA $ ]?6.]0 $ ]?8.30 $ ]?9.?0 $ ]80.?0 $ ]90.00 10 205-79-655 INKCART FOR PAINTJETXL300 5 EA $ 98.20 $ 99.50 $ 100.25 $ 100.80 $ 105.00 11 205-79-654 INKCART FOR PAINTJETXL300 5 EA $ 98.20 $ 99.50 $ 100.25 $ 100.80 $ 105.00 12 205-79-653 INKCART FOR PAINTJETXL300 5 EA $ 98.20 $ 99.50 $ 100.25 $ 100.80 $ 105.00 13 205-79-658 INK CART. DESKJET 1200/650C 20 EA $ 483.40 $ 489.80 $ 498.40 $ 501.20 $ 520.00 14 205-79-659 INKCART. FOR DESKJET 1200 10 EA $ 250.80 $ 254.20 $ 256.20 $ 257.60 $ 270.00 15 205-79-660 INK CART. FOR DESKJET 1200 10 EA $ 250.80 $ 254.20 $ 256.20 $ 25?.60 $ 2?0.00 16 205-79-661 INKCART. FOR DESKJET 1200 10 EA $ 250.80 $ 254.20 $ 256.20 $ 257.60 $ 270.00 17 205-79-666 CART. INK FOR 850 COLOR 10 EA $ 250.80 $ 251.70 $ 255.80 $ 25?.60 $ 260.00 18 205-79-665 CART. INK FOR 850 & 1600 20 EA $ 483.40 $ 489.80 $ 493.60 $ 496.20 $ 520.00 19 205-79-657 INKCART. FOR DESKJET 600&660 10 EA $ 250.10 $ 251.?0 $ 253.60 $ 25?.60 $ 260.00 20 205-79-662 INK CART FOR DESKJET 650C 5 EA $ 125.40 $ 127.10 $ 128.10 $ 128.80 $ 135.00 21 205-79-663 INK CART FOR DESKJET 650C 5 EA $ 125.40 $ 127.10 $ 128.10 $ 128.80 $ 135.00 22 205-79-664 INK CART FOR DESKJET 650C 5 EA $ 125.40 $ 127.10 $ 128.10 $ 128.80 $ 135.00 23 205-79-681 CART. INK FOR HP 932C DESK,.IETHP6578DCOLOR 5 EA $ 135.60 $ 137.40 $ 139.45 $ 139.25 $ 140.00 24 015-25-006 LASERJET4L 80 EA $ 5,984.00 $ 5,940.00 $ 6,110.40 $ 6,143.20 $ 6,080.00 25 015-25-012 TONER CARTRIDGE /LASER JET III 10 EA $ 970.20 $ 963.10 $ 981.40 $ 996.10 $ 960.00 26 015-25-010 TONER HP LASER JET II & LDPlll 5 BX $ 406.55 $ 403.55 $ 415.15 $ 417.35 $ 410.00 27 015-25-005 LASERJET4,4M,4P,5,5M,5N 10 EA $ ??1.80 $ ?69.00 $ 791.00 $ ?8?.50 $ ?90.00 28 205-79-667 CART. HP DESK JET 10 EA $ 271.20 $ 272.10 $ 2?6.90 $ 2?8.50 $ 280.00 29 015-25-061 COLLECTION KIT COLORJET5/5M 10 EA $ 223.10 $ 221.50 $ 227.80 $ 229.10 $ 230.00 30 015-25-002 LASERJET5P,5MP PRINTER 5 EA $ 330.55 $ 328.15 $ 33?.55 $ 339.35 $ 345.00 31 015-25-024 TONER FOR HP LASERJET5J 5 EA $ 250.15 $ 248.40 $ 255.50 $ 256.85 $ 265.00 32 015-25-019 LASERJET5SI,5SI MX 5 EA $ 704.25 $ 701.65 $ 721.80 $ 707.50 $ 700.00 33 015-25-060 COATING KIT COLORJET5/5M 5 EA $ 216.40 $ 214.80 $ 220.95 $ 222.15 $ 230.00 34 015-25-063 DEVELOPER, COLOJET 5/5M BLACK 5 EA $ 781.05 $ 775.35 $ 797.65 $ 801.85 $ 800.00 35 015-25-062 DEVELOPER, COLOJET5/5M COLOR 5 EA $ 2,228.05 $ 2,211.95 $ 2,2?3.25 $ 2,28?.50 $ 2,245.00 36 015-25-067 DRUM, COLORJET5/5M 5 EA $ 1,372.70 $ 1,362.75 $ 1,401.95 $ 1,409.30 $ 1,405.00 37 015-25-064 BELT TRANS., COLORJET5/5M 5 EA $ ?33.?0 $ ?28.40 $ ?49.30 $ ?53.25 $ ?60.00 38 015-25-065 FUSER, COLORJET5/5M 5 EA $ 1,042.95 $ 1,033.75 $ 1,063.50 $ 1,069.10 $ 1,105.00 39 015-25-066 FUSER, COLORJET5/5M 5 EA $ 1,071.00 $ 1,085.80 $ 1,063.50 $ 1,069.10 $ 1,130.00 40 205-79-675 TONER FOR4000N PRINTER 25 EA $ 2,5?2.?5 $ 2,563.00 $ 2,636.?5 $ 2,650.?5 $ 2,625.00 41 015-25-068 TONER, HP8500BLACK 25 EA $ 2,305.25 $ 2,288.50 $ 2,354.25 $ 2,366.75 $ 2,350.00 42 015-25-069 TONER, HP8500 CYAN 10 EA $ 1,432.30 $ 1,424.00 $ 1,462.80 $ 1,470.00 $ 1,430.00 43 015-25-070 TONER, HP8500MAGENTA 10 EA $ 1,432.30 $ 1,424.00 $ 1,462.80 $ 1,470.00 $ 1,430.00 44 015-25-071 TONER, HP8500YELLOW 10 EA $ 1,432.30 $ 1,424.00 $ 1,462.80 $ 1,470.00 $ 1,430.00 ATTACHMENT 1 BID #2831 PRINTER & PLOTTER CARTRIDGES & PARTS Date: 4/9/02 CUSTOM GDA INFORMATIO PANTE' COMPUTERS N SERVICES SOURCE 45 015-25-072 DRUM KIT HP8500 5 EA $ 636.25 $ 63].60 $ 649.?5 $ 640.00 $ 630.00 46 015-25-073 TONER KIT FOR HP8500 5 EA $ ],636.55 $ ],624.?0 $ ],67].00 $ ],680.20 $ ],650.00 47 015-25-074 FUSERKITFORHP8500 5 EA $ ],322.OO $ ],3]2.4O $ ],35O.]5 $ ],35?.25 $ ],345.OO 48 205-79-671 CART. INK FOR HP4500 PRINTER 20 PK $ ],389.20 $ ],3?9.20 $ ],4]8.80 $ ],426.40 $ ],440.00 49 205-79-672 CART. INK FOR HP4500 PRINTER 10 PK $ ],008.20 $ ],000.g0 $ ],029.60 $ ],035.00 $ ],020.00 50 205-79-673 CART. INK FOR HP4500 PRINTER 10 PK $ ],008.20 $ ],000.g0 $ ],029.60 $ ],035.00 $ ],020.00 51 205-79-674 CART. INK FOR HP4500 PRINTER 10 PK $ ],008.20 $ ],000.g0 $ ],029.60 $ ],035.00 $ ],020.00 53 205-79-677 CART. INK FOR HP 2000C 15 PK $ 396.60 $ 40].85 $ 405.00 $ 40?.25 $ 420.00 54 205-79-678 CART. INK FOR HP 2000C 15 PK $ 396.60 $ 40].85 $ 405.00 $ 40?.25 $ 420.00 55 205-79-687 CARTRIDGE FOR970 CXI PTR 10 EA $ 27].20 $ 2?4.80 $ 2?6.30 $ 2?8.50 $ 2?5.00 56 205-79-682 CART INK FOR 800 PRINTER 5 EA $ ]]5.25 $ ]]5.?0 $ ]]?.?0 $ ]]8.35 $ ]20.00 57 015-25-151 TONER FOR HP PRINTER4100 5 EA $ 5]6.40 $ 5]2.60 $ 52?.35 $ 530.]5 $ 520.00 58 015-25-057 TONER, COLORJET5/5M CYAN 5 EA $ ]62.30 $ ]6].]0 $ ]65.?0 $ ]66.60 $ ]?5.00 59 015-25-059 TONER, COLORJET 5/5M YELLOW 5 EA $ ]62.30 $ ]6].]0 $ ]65.?0 $ ]66.60 $ ]?5.00 60 015-25-058 TONER, COLORJET 5/5M MAGENTA 5 EA $ ]62.30 $ ]6].]0 $ ]65.?0 $ ]66.60 $ ]?5.00 61 015-25-056 TONER, COLORJET5/5M BLACK 5 EA $ 42.05 $ 33.55 $ 34.50 $ 34.?0 $ 55.00 62 015-25-013 TONER CARTRIDGE-LASER PRINTER 5 EA $ ],040.]0 $ ],35].30 $ 980.20 $ 952.]0 $ 935.00 63 015-25-018 LEXMARK LASER JET PRINTER 25 EA $ 4,258.25 $ 4,242.00 $ 4,032.25 $ 3,922.25 $ 3,8?5.00 64 205-79-685 CYAN INK CART.- BROTHER PTR 5 EA $ 3?.05 $ 26.05 $ 2?.65 $ 2?.?5 $ 40.00 65 205-79-686 MAGENTA INK CART-BROTHER PTR 5 EA $ 3?.05 $ 26.05 $ 2?.65 $ 26.40 $ 40.00 66 205-79-688 BLACK INK CART. FOR BROTHER PT 5 EA $ 69.05 $ 6?.]0 $ ?0.50 $ 6?.95 $ 85.00 67 205-79-689 CYAN CART.-9200 BROTHER PTR 5 EA $ 46.55 $ 38.55 $ 40.50 $ 39.05 $ 55.00 68 205-79-690 MAGENTA CART -9200 BROTHER PTR 5 EA $ 46.55 $ 38.55 $ 40.50 $ 39.05 $ 55.00 69 205-79-691 YELLOW CART.- 9200 BROTHER PTR 5 EA $ 46.55 $ 38.55 $ 40.50 $ 39.05 $ 55.00 70 205-79-683 BLACK INK CART BROTHER MFC PRT 5 EA $ 56.95 $ 48.50 $ 50.95 $ 49.]5 $ 65.00 71 205-79-684 YELLOW INK CART.-BROTHER PTR 5 EA $ 3?.05 $ 26.05 $ 2?.65 $ 26.40 $ 40.00 76 205-79-692 INK CART. FOR5000 PLOTTER 10 EA $ ],62?.90 $ ],649.40 $ ],662.50 $ ],6?].30 $ ],6g0.00 77 205-79-693 INK CART. FOR5000 PLOTTER 10 EA $ ],62?.90 $ ],649.40 $ ],662.50 $ ],6?].30 $ ],6g0.00 78 205-79-694 INK CART. FOR5000 PLOTTER 10 EA $ ],62?.90 $ ],649.40 $ ],662.50 $ ],6?].30 $ ],6g0.00 79 205-79-697 CYAN INK CARTRIDGE FOR755CM 10 EA $ 250.80 $ 254.20 $ 256.20 $ 25?.60 $ 2?0.00 80 205-79-698 MAGENTA INK CART. FOR755CM 10 EA $ 250.80 $ 254.20 $ 256.20 $ 25?.60 $ 2?0.00 81 205-79-699 YELLOW INKCART. FOR755CM 10 EA $ 250.80 $ 254.20 $ 256.20 $ 25?.60 $ 2?0.00 TOTALS I$ 54,264.20 J $54,434.90 [$ 54,926.60 [ $55,026.75 t $55,070.00 1' 2 3 4 5 * vendor does not meet specifications ATTACHMENT 1 BID #2831 PRINTER & PLOTTER CARTRIDGES & PARTS COMPUTER APPROACH SOURCE LASER Fletcher, OH Dallas Austin Carrollton Arlington 1 205-79-669 CART INK FOR EPSON PRINTERT003011 BLACK 10 PK $ 283.60 $ 236.90 $ 260.00 $ 269.]0 $ 27].?0 2 205-79-670 CART. INK FOR EPSON PRINTERT005011 COLOR 10 PK $ 278.20 $ 286.50 $ 320.00 $ 325.40 $ 320.00 4 205-79-679 CART. ~NKFOR HP2000CHPC4842AYELLOW 10 PK $ 267.00 $ 273.60 $ 270.00 $ 301.20 5 205-79-676 CART. ~NK FORHP2000CHPC4844ABLACK 10 PK $ 267.00 $ 273.60 $ 270.00 $ 301.20 6 205-79-651 INKCART, COLOR FOR HP DESK500 10 EA $ 253.30 $ 259.50 $ 260.00 $ 283.00 $ 286.90 7 205-79-650 INKCART, BLACK HPDESKJET500 40 EA $ 985.60 $ 1,010.40 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,096.00 $ 1,100.00 8 205-79-656 INK CART. FOR DESKJET 600&660 30 EA $ ?39.20 $ ?50.00 $ ?50.00 $ 8?3.00 $ 825.00 9 205-79-652 INKCART FOR PAINTJETXL300 10 EA $ 183.20 $ 182.20 $ 190.00 $ 213.50 $ 205.30 10 205-79-655 INKCART FOR PAINTJETXL300 5 EA $ 102.20 $ 101.60 $ 125.00 $ 112.25 $ 114.50 11 205-79-654 INKCART FOR PAINTJETXL300 5 EA $ 102.20 $ 101.60 $ 125.00 $ 112.25 $ 114.50 12 205-79-653 INKCART FOR PAINTJETXL300 5 EA $ 102.20 $ 101.60 $ 125.00 $ 112.25 $ 114.50 13 205-79-658 INKCART. DESKJET 1200/650C 20 EA $ 492.80 $ 505.20 $ 500.00 $ 551.80 $ 552.00 14 205-79-659 INKCART. FOR DESKJET 1200 10 EA $ 253.30 $ 259.50 $ 260.00 $ 286.50 $ 285.00 15 205-79-660 INK CART. FOR DESKJET 1200 10 EA $ 253.30 $ 259.50 $ 260.00 $ 286.50 $ 285.00 16 205-79-661 INKCART. FOR DESKJET 1200 10 EA $ 253.30 $ 259.50 $ 260.00 $ 286.50 $ 285.00 17 205-79-666 CART. INK FOR 850 COLOR 10 EA $ 253.30 $ 259.50 $ 260.00 $ 286.50 $ 286.00 18 205-79-665 CART. INK FOR 850 & 1600 20 EA $ 492.80 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 551.00 $ 552.00 19 205-79-657 INKCART. FOR DESKJET 600&660 10 EA $ 253.30 $ 259.50 $ 260.00 $ 283.00 $ 283.?0 20 205-79-662 INK CART FOR DESKJET 650C 5 EA $ 197.90 $ 129.75 $ 130.00 $ 142.95 $ 144.75 21 205-79-663 INK CART FOR DESKJET 650C 5 EA $ 130.75 $ 129.75 $ 130.00 $ 142.95 $ 144.75 22 205-79-664 INK CART FOR DESKJET 650C 5 EA $ 126.65 $ 129.75 $ 130.00 $ 142.95 $ 144.75 23 205-79-681 CART. INK FOR HP 9326 DESK,JETHP6578DCOLOR 5 EA $ 136.65 $ 140.30 $ 140.00 $ 154.45 24 015-25-006 LASERJET4L 80 EA $ 6,631.20 $ 6,184.80 $ 6,720.00 $ 6,783.20 $ 6,800.00 25 015-25-012 TONER CARTRIDGE /LASER JET III 10 EA $ 979.50 $ 1,002.90 $ 990.00 $ 1,099.90 $ 1,108.10 26 015-25-010 TONER HP LASER JET II & LDPlll 5 BX $ 410.40 $ 420.20 $ 415.00 $ 460.?5 $ 464.30 27 015-25-005 LASERJET4,4M,4P,5,5M,5N 10 EA $ ?82.00 $ 800.?0 $ ?90.00 $ 8??.90 $ 884.60 28 205-79-667 CART. HP DESKJET 10 EA $ 2?3.80 $ 280.?0 $ 280.00 $ 305.90 $ 309.80 29 015-25-061 COLLECTION KIT COLORJET 5/5M 10 EA $ 232.50 $ 230.80 $ 230.00 $ 257.90 $ 263.10 30 015-25-002 LASER JET 5P,5MP PRINTER 5 EA $ 333.?0 $ 341.60 $ 340.00 $ 3?4.?5 $ 3??.45 31 015-25-024 TONER FOR HP LASERJET5J 5 EA $ 252.60 $ 258.60 $ 255.00 $ 283.75 $ 285.70 32 015-25-019 LASERJET5SI,5SI MX 5 EA $ 713.55 $ 730.60 $ 725.00 $ 801.25 $ 828.00 33 015-25-060 COATING KIT COLORJET 5/5M 5 EA $ 225.55 $ 223.?0 $ 220.00 $ 24?.?5 $ 258.00 34 015-25-063 DEVELOPER, COLOJET5/5M BLACK 5 EA $ 814.10 $ 807.70 $ 795.00 $ 889.55 $ 921.15 35 015-25-062 DEVELOPER, COLOJET5/5M COLOR 5 EA $ 2,322.50 $ 2,304.30 $ 2,2?2.50 $ 2,53?.60 $ 2,62?.?5 36 015-25-067 DRUM, COLORJET5/5M 5 EA $ 1,430.85 $ 1,419.70 $ 1,415.00 $ 1,571.10 $ 1,636.70 37 015-25-064 BELT TRANS., COLORJET 5/5M 5 EA $ 764.80 $ 758.75 $ 748.75 $ 839.80 $ 874.80 38 015-25-065 FUSER, COLORJET5/5M 5 EA $ 1,085.45 $ 1,076.95 $ 1,076.50 $ 1,186.00 $ 1,241.55 39 015-25-066 FUSER, COLORJET5/5M 5 EA $ 1,085.45 $ 1,076.95 $ 1,145.00 40 205-79-675 TONER FOR4000N PRINTER 25 EA $ 2,606.50 $ 2,668.75 $ 2,650.00 $ 2,940.75 $ 2,925.00 41 015-25-068 TONER, HP8500BLACK 25 EA $ 2,327.25 $ 2,384.25 $ 2,350.00 $ 2,638.50 $ 2,689.50 42 015-25-069 TONER, HP8500CYAN 10 EA $ 1,446.00 $ 1,481.30 $ 1,470.00 $ 1,639.50 $ 1,671.00 43 015-25-070 TONER, HP8500MAGENTA 10 EA $ 1,446.00 $ 1,481.30 $ 1,470.00 $ 1,639.50 $ 1,671.00 44 015-25-071 TONER, HP8500YELLOW 10 EA $ 1,446.00 $ 1,481.30 $ 1,470.00 $ 1,639.50 $ 1,671.00 ATTACHMENT 1 BID #2831 PRINTER & PLOTTER CARTRIDGES & PARTS COMPUTER APPROACH SOURCE LASER 45 015-25-072 DRUM KIT HP8500 5 EA $ 663.20 $ 65?.95 $ 650.00 $ ?24.65 $ ?42.30 46 015-25-073 TONER KIT FOR HP8500 5 EA $ ],?09.00 $ ],692.55 $ ],669.25 $ ],863.90 $ ],909.30 47 015-25-074 FUSERKITFORHP8500 5 EA $ ],3?8.00 $ ],36?.]5 $ ],34?.00 $ ],505.60 $ ],559.]0 48 205-79-671 CART. INK FOR HP4500 PRINTER 20 PK $ 1,402.60 $ 1,436.80 $ 1,420.00 $ 1,582.40 $ 1,620.80 49 205-79-672 CART. INK FORHP4500 PRINTER 10 PK $ 1,017.80 $ 1,042.60 $ 1,030.00 $ 1,148.30 $ 1,176.20 50 205-79-673 CART. INK FORHP4500 PRINTER 10 PK $ 1,017.80 $ 1,042.60 $ 1,030.00 $ 1,148.30 $ 1,176.20 51 205-79-674 CART. INK FORHP4500 PRINTER 10 PK $ 1,017.80 $ 1,042.60 $ 1,030.00 $ 1,148.30 $ 1,176.20 53 205-79-677 CART. INK FOR HP 2000C 15 PK $ 400.50 $ 410.25 $ 420.00 $ 451.80 $ 467.70 54 205-79-678 CART. INKFOR HP2000C 15 PK $ 400.50 $ 410.25 $ 420.00 $ 451.80 $ 46?.?0 55 205-79-687 CARTRIDGE FOR970 CXI PTR 10 EA $ 2?3.80 $ 280.?0 $ 280.00 $ 308.90 $ 309.80 56 205-79-682 CART INK FOR 800 PRINTER 5 EA $ 116.35 $ 119.20 $ 120.00 $ 130.00 $ 134.45 57 015-25-151 TONER FOR HP PRINTER4100 5 EA $ 521.30 $ 533.75 $ 530.00 $ 588.15 $ 589.75 58 015-25-057 TONER, COLORJET5/5M CYAN 5 EA $ 163.80 $ 167.80 $ 170.00 $ 184.80 $ 191.35 59 015-25-059 TONER, COLORJET5/5M YELLOW 5 EA $ 163.80 $ 167.80 $ 170.00 $ 184.80 $ 191.35 60 015-25-058 TONER, COLORJET5/5M MAGENTA 5 EA $ 163.80 $ 167.80 $ 170.00 $ 184.80 $ 191.35 61 015-25-056 TONER, COLORJET5/5M BLACK 5 EA $ 34.15 $ 34.95 $ 40.00 $ 38.?5 $ 39.80 62 015-25-013 TONER CARTRIDGE-LASERPRINTER 5 EA $ 936.25 $ 964.00 $ 1,020.00 $ 1,182.70 $ 1,233.05 63 015-25-018 LEXMARK LASER JET PRINTER 25 EA $ 3,852.00 $ 3,966.25 $ 4,186.25 $ 4,841.25 $ 5,047.25 64 205-79-685 CYAN INK CART.- BROTHER PTR 5 EA $ 27.30 $ 27.55 $ 30.75 $ 30.50 $ 32.60 65 205-79-686 MAGENTA INK CART-BROTHER PTR 5 EA $ 2?.30 $ 26.20 $ 30.?5 $ 30.50 $ 32.60 66 205-79-688 BLACK INK CART. FOR BROTHER PT 5 EA $ 70.35 $ 67.45 $ 80.00 $ 78.55 $ 84.00 67 205-79-689 CYAN CART.-9200 BROTHER PTR 5 EA $ 40.80 $ 38.?5 $ 45.00 $ 45.20 $ 48.30 68 205-79-690 MAGENTA CART-9200 BROTHER PTR 5 EA $ 40.80 $ 38.?5 $ 45.00 $ 45.20 $ 48.30 69 205-79-691 YELLOW CART.- 9200 BROTHER PTR 5 EA $ 40.80 $ 38.?5 $ 45.00 $ 45.20 $ 48.30 70 205-79-683 BLACK INK CART BROTHER MFC PRT 5 EA $ 50.90 $ 48.?0 $ 65.00 $ 56.80 $ 60.?5 71 205-79-684 YELLOW INK CART.-BROTHER PTR 5 EA $ 27.30 $ 26.20 $ 30.75 $ 30.50 $ 32.60 76 205-79-692 INK CART. FOR5000 PLOTTER 10 EA $ 1,696.90 $ 1,684.40 $ 1,664.00 $ 1,854.00 $ 1,899.20 77 205-79-693 INK CART. FOR5000 PLOTTER 10 EA $ 1,696.90 $ 1,684.40 $ 1,664.00 $ 1,854.00 $ 1,899.20 78 205-79-694 INK CART. FOR5000 PLOTTER 10 EA $ 1,696.90 $ 1,684.40 $ 1,664.00 $ 1,854.00 $ 1,899.20 79 205-79-697 CYAN INK CARTRIDGE FOR755 CM 10 EA $ 253.30 $ 259.50 $ 260.00 $ 286.50 $ 289.50 80 205-79-698 MAGENTA INKCART. FOR755CM 10 EA $ 253.30 $ 259.50 $ 260.00 $ 286.50 $ 289.50 81 205-79-699 YELLOW INKCART. FOR 755CM 10 EA $ 253.30 $ 259.50 $ 260.00 $ 286.50 $ 289.50 TOTALS L $55,426.051 [ 1 1 I 6 7 8 9 10 ATTACHMENT 1 BID #2831 PRINTER & PLOTTER CARTRIDGES & PARTS Grand Richardson Prairie 1 205-79-669 CART INK FOR EPSON PRINTERT003011 BLACK 10 PK $ 2?8.00 $ 282.50 2 205-79-670 CART. INK FOR EPSON PRINTERT005011 COLOR 10 PK $ 336.10 $ 349.50 4 205-79-679 CART. INK FOR HP 2000CHPC4842A YELLOW 10 PK $ 3]9.00 $ 3]2.50 5 205-79-676 CART. INK FOR HP 20006HPC4844A BLACK 10 PK $ 319.00 $ 312.50 6 205-79-651 INKCART, COLOR FOR HP DESK500 10 EA $ 293.40 $ 285.00 7 205-79-650 INKCART, BLACK HP DESKJET 500 40 EA $ 1,130.80 $ 1,090.00 8 205-79-656 INK CART. FOR DESKJET 600&660 30 EA $ 848.10 $ 855.00 9 205-79-652 INKCART FOR PAINTJETXL300 10 EA $ 210.10 $ 220.00 10 205-79-655 INKCART FOR PAINTJETXL300 5 EA $ 117.15 $ 124.75 11 205-79-654 INKCART FOR PAINTJETXL300 5 EA $ 117.15 $ 124.75 12 205-79-653 INKCART FOR PAINTJETXL300 5 EA $ 117.15 $ 124.75 13 205-79-658 INK CART. DESKJET 1200/650C 20 EA $ 565.40 $ 579.00 14 205-79-659 INKCART. FOR DESKJET 1200 10 EA $ 296.20 $ 295.00 15 205-79-660 INK CART. FOR DESKJET 1200 10 EA $ 296.20 $ 295.00 16 205-79-661 INKCART. FOR DESKJET 1200 10 EA $ 296.20 $ 295.00 17 205-79-666 CART. INK FOR 850 COLOR 10 EA $ 293.40 $ 297.50 18 205-79-665 CART. INK FOR 850 & 1600 20 EA $ 570.80 $ 570.00 19 205-79-657 INKCART. FOR DESKJET 600&660 10 EA $ 293.40 $ 315.00 20 205-79-662 INK CART FOR DESKJET 650C 5 EA $ 148.10 $ 159.75 21 205-79-663 INK CART FOR DESKJET 650C 5 EA $ 148.10 $ 159.75 22 205-79-664 INK CART FOR DESKJET 650C 5 EA $ 148.10 $ 159.75 23 205-79-681 CART. INK FOR HP 9326 DESKJETHP6578DCOLOR 5 EA $ 161.85 $ 162.50 24 015-25-006 LASERJET4L 80 EA $ ?,298.40 $ ?,060.00 25 015-25-012 TONER CARTRIDGE /LASER JET III 10 EA $ 1,183.40 $ 1,092.50 26 015-25-010 TONER HP LASER JET II & LDPlll 5 BX $ 495.85 $ 487.50 27 015-25-005 LASERJET4,4M,4P,5,5M,5N 10 EA $ 944.80 $ 882.50 28 205-79-667 CART. HP DESKJET 10 EA $ 3]?.50 $ 335.00 29 015-25-061 COLLECTION KIT COLORJET 5/5M 10 EA $ 391.50 $ 335.00 30 015-25-002 LASERJET5P,5MP PRINTER 5 EA $ 403.15 $ 386.25 31 015-25-024 TONER FOR HP LASERJET5J 5 EA $ 305.15 $ 312.50 32 015-25-019 LASERJET5SI,5SI MX 5 EA $ 861.85 $ 811.25 33 015-25-060 COATING KIT COLORJET 5/5M 5 EA $ 263.90 $ 286.25 34 015-25-063 DEVELOPER, COLOJET 5/5M BLACK 5 EA $ 942.35 $ 966.25 35 015-25-062 DEVELOPER, COLOJET5/5M COLOR 5 EA $ 2,688.20 $ 2,634.?5 36 015-25-067 DRUM, COLORJET5/5M 5 EA $ 1,674.40 $ 1,707.50 37 015-25-064 BELT TRANS., COLORJET5/5M 5 EA $ 894.90 $ 896.25 38 015-25-065 FUSER, COLORJET5/5M 5 EA $ 1,270.15 $ 1,288.25 39 015-25-066 FUSER, COLORJET5/5M 5 EA $ 1,288.25 40 205-79-675 TONER FOR4000N PRINTER 25 EA $ 3,149.25 $ 3,098.?5 41 015-25-068 TONER, HP8500BLACK 25 EA $ 2,751.25 $ 2,893.75 42 015-25-069 TONER, HP8500 CYAN 10 EA $ 1,709.50 $ 1,792.50 43 015-25-070 TONER, HP8500MAGENTA 10 EA $ 1,709.50 $ 1,792.50 44 015-25-071 TONER, HP8500YELLOW 10 EA $ 1,709.50 $ 1,792.50 ATTACHMENT 1 BID #2831 PRINTER & PLOTTER CARTRIDGES & PARTS 45 015-25-072 DRUM KIT HP8500 5 EA $ ?55.00 $ 781.25 46 015-25-073 TONER KIT FOR HP8500 5 EA $ 1,953.25 $ 2,162.50 47 015-25-074 FUSERKITFORHP8500 5 EA $ 1,595.00 $ 1,649.75 48 205-79-671 CART. INK FOR HP4500 PRINTER 20 PK $ 1,658.00 $ 1,685.00 49 205-79-672 CART. INKFOR HP4500 PRINTER 10 PK $ 1,203.20 $ 1,239.50 50 205-79-673 CART. INK FOR HP4500 PRINTER 10 PK $ 1,203.20 $ 1,239.50 51 205-79-674 CART. INK FOR HP4500 PRINTER 10 PK $ 1,203.20 $ 1,239.50 53 205-79-677 CART. INK FOR HP 2000C 15 PK $ 478.50 $ 494.25 54 205-79-678 CART. INKFORHP2000C 15 PK $ 4?8.50 $ 494.25 55 205-79-687 CARTRIDGE FOR970 CXI PTR 10 EA $ 323.?0 $ 325.00 56 205-79-682 CART INK FOR 800 PRINTER 5 EA $ 137.55 $ 146.25 57 015-25-151 TONER FOR HP PRINTER4100 5 EA $ 629.85 $ 638.25 58 015-25-057 TONER, COLORJET5/5M CYAN 5 EA $ 195.75 $ 212.50 59 015-25-059 TONER, COLORJET 5/5M YELLOW 5 EA $ 195.75 $ 212.50 60 015-25-058 TONER, COLORJET5/5M MAGENTA 5 EA $ 195.75 $ 212.50 61 015-25-056 TONER, COLORJET5/5M BLACK 5 EA $ 40.75 $ 49.75 62 015-25-013 TONERCARTRIDGE-LASER PRINTER 5 EA $ 1,261.45 $ 1,071.25 63 015-25-018 LEXMARK LASER JET PRINTER 25 EA $ 5,163.50 $ 4,098.75 64 205-79-685 CYAN INK CART.- BROTHER PTR 5 EA $ 33.35 $ 37.50 65 205-79-686 MAGENTA INK CART-BROTHER PTR 5 EA $ 33.35 $ 37.50 66 205-79-688 BLACK INK CART. FOR BROTHER PT 5 EA $ 85.90 $ ]0?.50 67 205-79-689 CYAN CART.-9200 BROTHER PTR 5 EA $ 49.40 $ 5?.50 68 205-79-690 MAGENTA CART -9200 BROTHER PTR 5 EA $ 49.40 $ 5?.50 69 205-79-691 YELLOW CART.- 9200 BROTHER PTR 5 EA $ 49.40 $ 5?.50 70 205-79-683 BLACK INK CART BROTHER MFC PRT 5 EA $ 62.15 $ 62.50 71 205-79-684 YELLOW INK CART.-BROTHER PTR 5 EA $ 33.35 $ 37.50 76 205-79-692 INKCART. FOR 5000 PLOTTER 10 EA $ 1,942.90 $ 1,792.50 77 205-79-693 INK CART. FOR 5000 PLOTTER 10 EA $ 1,942.90 $ 1,792.50 78 205-79-694 INK CART. FOR 5000 PLOTTER 10 EA $ 1,942.90 $ 1,792.50 79 205-79-697 CYAN INK CARTRIDGE FOR 755 CM 10 EA $ 296.20 $ 332.50 80 205-79-698 MAGENTA INKCART. FOR 755CM 10 EA $ 296.20 $ 332.50 81 205-79-699 YELLOW INKCART. FOR 755CM 10 EA $ 296.20 $ 332.50 TOTALS [$64,053.70 1 $64,2,,.75 I 11 12 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING AN ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF PRINTER AND PLOTTER CARTRIDGES AND PARTS; PROViDiNG FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROViDiNG AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2831- ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF PRINTER AND PLOTTER CARTRIDGES AND PARTS AWARDED TO GDA MICRO TECHNOLOGIES, INC. IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $54,434,90). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of STATE law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the materials, equipment, supplies or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" on file in the office of the City Purchasing Agent, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: BID ITEM NUMBER NO VENDOR AMOUNT 2831 1-81 GDA Micro Technologies, Inc. Exhibit A SECTION 2. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids for such items and agrees to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the terms, specifications, standards, quantities and for the specified sums contained in the Bid invitations, Bid Proposals, and related documents. SECTION 3. That should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items and of the submitted bids wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the acceptance, approval, and awarding of the bids, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby authorized to execute the written contract which shall be attached hereto; provided that the written contract is in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained in the Bid Proposal and related documents herein approved and accepted. SECTION 4. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount and in accordance with the approved bids or pursuant to a written contract made pursuant thereto as authorized herein. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this __ day of ,2002. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 3-ORD-BID 2831 Printer and Plotter Caxtridges EXHIBIT A BID #2831 PRINTER & PLOTTER CARTRIDGES & PARTS Date: 4/9/02 Arlington 1 205-79-669 CART INK FOR EPSON PRINTERT003011 BLACK 10 PK $ 235.70 2 205-79-670 CART. INK FOR EPSON PRINTERT005011 COLOR 10 PK $ 285.10 4 205-79-679 CART. INK FOR HP 2000CHPC4842AYELLOW 10 PK $ 267.90 5 205-79-676 CART. INK FOR HP 2000CHPC4844A BLACK 10 PK $ 267.90 6 205-79-651 INKCART, COLOR FOR HP DESK 500 10 EA $ 251.70 7 205-79-650 INKCART, BLACK HP DESKJET 500 40 EA $ 979.60 8 205-79-656 INK CART. FOR DESKJET 600&660 30 EA $ ?34.?0 9 205-79-652 INKCART FOR PAINTJETXL300 10 EA $ 178.30 10 205-79-655 INKCART FOR PAINTJETXL300 5 EA $ 99.50 11 205-79-654 INKCART FOR PAINTJETXL300 5 EA $ 99.50 12 205-79-653 INKCART FOR PAINTJETXL300 5 EA $ 99.50 13 205-79-658 INK CART. DESKJET 1200/6500 20 EA $ 489.80 14 205-79-659 INK CART. FOR DESKJET 1200 10 EA $ 254.20 15 205-79-660 INKCART. FOR DESKJET 1200 10 EA $ 254.20 16 205-79-661 INK CART. FOR DESKJET 1200 10 EA $ 254.20 17 205-79-666 CART. INK FOR 850 COLOR 10 EA $ 251.70 18 205-79-665 CART. INK FOR 850 & 1600 20 EA $ 489.80 19 205-79-657 INKCART. FOR DESKJET 600&660 10 EA $ 251.70 20 205-79-662 INK CART FOR DESKJET 650C 5 EA $ 127.10 21 205-79-663 INK CART FOR DESKJET 650C 5 EA $ 127.10 22 205-79-664 INK CART FOR DESKJET 650C 5 EA $ 127.10 23 205-79-681 CART. INK FOR HP 932C DESKJETHP6578DCOLOR 5 EA $ 137.40 24 015-25-006 LASERJET4L 80 EA $ 5,940.00 25 015-25-012 TONER CARTRIDGE /LASER JET III 10 EA $ 963.10 26 015-25-010 TONER HP LASER JET II & LDPlll 5 BX $ 403.55 27 015-25-005 LASERJET4,4M,4P,5,5M,5N 10 EA $ ?69.00 28 205-79-667 CART. HP DESK JET 10 EA $ 272.10 29 015-25-061 COLLECTION KIT COLORJET 5/5M 10 EA $ 221.50 30 015-25-002 LASERJET5P,5MP PRINTER 5 EA $ 328.15 31 015-25-024 TONER FOR HP LASER JET 5J 5 EA $ 248.40 32 015-25-019 LASER JET 5SI,5SI MX 5 EA $ ?0].65 33 015-25-060 COATING KIT COLORJET5/5M 5 EA $ 2]4.80 34 015-25-063 DEVELOPER, COLOJET5/5M BLACK 5 EA $ ??5.35 35 015-25-062 DEVELOPER, COLOJET 5/5M COLOR 5 EA $ 2,211.95 36 015-25-067 DRUM, COLORJET 5/5M 5 EA $ 1,362.75 37 015-25-064 BELT TRANS., COLORJET 5/5M 5 EA $ ?28.40 38 015-25-065 FUSER, COLORJET 5/5M 5 EA $ 1,033.75 39 015-25-066 FUSER, COLORJET 5/5M 5 EA $ 1,085.80 40 205-79-675 TONER FOR 4000N PRINTER 25 EA $ 2,563.00 41 015-25-068 TONER, HP8500 BLACK 25 EA $ 2,288.50 42 015-25-069 TONER, HP8500 CYAN 10 EA $ 1,424.00 43 015-25-070 TONER, HP8500 MAGENTA 10 EA $ 1,424.00 44 015-25-071 TONER, HP8500 YELLOW 10 EA $ 1,424.00 EXHIBIT A BID #2831 PRINTER & PLOTTER CARTRIDGES & PARTS Date: 4/9/02 45 015-25-072 DRUM KIT HP8500 5 EA $ 631.60 46 015-25-073 TONER KIT FOR HP8500 5 EA $ 1,624.70 47 015-25-074 FUSER KIT FOR HP8500 5 EA $ 1,312.40 48 205-79-671 CART. INK FOR HP4500 PRINTER 20 PK $ 1,379.20 49 205-79-672 CART. INK FOR HP4500 PRINTER 10 PK $ 1,000.80 50 205-79-673 CART. INK FOR HP4500 PRINTER 10 PK $ 1,000.80 51 205-79-674 CART. INK FOR HP4500 PRINTER 10 PK $ 1,000.80 53 205-79-677 CART. INK FOR HP 2000C 15 PK $ 401.85 54 205-79-678 CART. INK FOR HP 2000C 15 PK $ 401.85 55 205-79-687 CARTRIDGE FOR 970 CXI PTR 10 EA $ 2?4.80 56 205-79-682 CART INK FOR 800 PRINTER 5 EA $ 115.70 57 015-25-151 TONER FOR HP PRINTER 4100 5 EA $ 512.60 58 015-25-057 TONER, COLORJET 5/5M CYAN 5 EA $ 161.10 59 015-25-059 TONER, COLORJET 5/5M YELLOW 5 EA $ 161.10 60 015-25-058 TONER, COLORJET 5/5M MAGENTA 5 EA $ 161.10 61 015-25-056 TONER, COLORJET5/5M BLACK 5 EA $ 33.55 62 015-25-013 TONER CARTRIDGE-LASER PRINTER 5 EA $ 1,351.30 63 015-25-018 LEXMARK LASER JET PRINTER 25 EA $ 4,242.00 64 205-79-685 CYAN INK CART.- BROTHER PTR 5 EA $ 26.05 65 205-79-686 MAGENTA INK CART-BROTHER PTR 5 EA $ 26.05 66 205-79-688 BLACK INK CART. FOR BROTHER PT 5 EA $ 67.10 67 205-79-689 CYAN CART.-9200 BROTHER PTR 5 EA $ 38.55 68 205-79-690 MAGENTA CART -9200 BROTHER PTR 5 EA $ 38.55 69 205-79-691 YELLOW CART.- 9200 BROTHER PTR 5 EA $ 38.55 70 205-79-683 BLACK INK CART BROTHER MFC PRT 5 EA $ 48.50 71 205-79-684 YELLOW INK CART.-BROTHER PTR 5 EA $ 26.05 76 205-79-692 INK CART. FOR 5000 PLOTTER 10 EA $ 1,649.40 77 205-79-693 INK CART. FOR 5000 PLOTTER 10 EA $ 1,649.40 78 205-79-694 INK CART. FOR 5000 PLOTTER 10 EA $ 1,649.40 79 205-79-697 CYAN INK CARTRIDGE FOR 755 OM 10 EA $ 254.20 80 205-79-698 MAGENTA INK CART. FOR 7550M 10 EA $ 254.20 81 205-79-699 YELLOW INK CART. FOR 7550M 10 EA $ 254.20 TOTALS [ $ 54,434.90 Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #26 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET May 14, 2002 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Vance Kemler 349-8444 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services~~i~ SUBJECT An Ordinance of the City of DeNon, Texas accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of residemial curbside recycling and processing services to those DeNon residemial solid waste customers as determined by the City Council; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Request for Bids No. 2832- Residemial Curbside Recycling and Processing services; awarded to Trinity Waste Services. BID INFORMATION This best value based bid is for the acquisition of Residemial Curbside and Processing Services. The service is summarized as being a method for waste diversion from the landfill imo the stream of reusable materials. It is a citywide curbside service performed once per week in conjunction with regular residemial waste collection. Recycling comainers and or carts will be supplied by the City of DeNon and extra carts will be available. Materials collected include all classes of paper, cardboard, aluminum, steel, tin cans, glass bottles, jugs and all plastic bottles, jugs and jars. A few public drop-off sites will cominue to operate to support multi-family and commercial recycling. The City advertised the request for bids as being awarded on best value based on the selection criteria comained in the request for bids. We received three bids. The bid from Abitibi Consolidated did not meet minimum qualifications as they did not demonstrate that they have a minimum of five years experience in recycling materials collection and processing comparable in scope to the services to be provided. Thus we recommend that their bid be rejected. The proposed ordinance makes such a finding. The committee evaluated Trinity Waste Services bid to offer the City the best value based on the selection criteria. The final ranking evaluation is attached. Trinity Waste Services and the City will provide initial program implememation information. In addition, Trinity Waste Services will provide ongoing support for the City's public education program as well as a strong community presence. PRIOR ACTION APPROVAL The Public Utility Board will consider this proposal on May 6, 2002 and Council will be advised of their recommendation. RECOMMENDATION We recommend this recycling service contract be awarded to Trinity Waste Services as the lowest responsible bidder based upon a best value evaluation of the published criteria. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Trinity Waste Services Fort Worth, TX Agenda Information Sheet May 14, 2002 Page 2 FISCAL INFORMATION Funding for this service will be provided from a recycling service fee paid for by participants in the program. Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Evaluation Criteria Listing Attachment 2: Tabulation Sheet 1-AIS-File 2832 Residential CurbsideRrecycling ATTACHMENT 1 EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR BEST VALUE BID AWARD Evaluation Areas Cost Implementation and Operation Plan Customer Service Plan Recyclable materials Sales Program Company Experience and performance Client Satisfaction Processing Site Capabilities and Performance Tabulation of Cost (72.50%) Trinity Waste Services Community Waste Disposal Abiti Weighting Value 72.50% 10.00% 5.00% 5.00% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 100.00% 1.47/month 1.58/month Did not meet minimum qualification Criteria. ATTACHMENT 2 BID # 2832 Date: 4/11/02 CURBSIDE RECYCLING & PROCESSING SERVICES DISPOSAL Principle Place of Business: ST. LOUIS, MO FORT WORTH, TX DALLAS, TX TOTAL BASE BID $1.20 $1.47 $1.58 1 ALT. # 1 $1.20 $1.72 $1.68 2 CASHIERS BID BOND YES YES 3 CHECK ADDENDUM # 1 YES YES YES ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BEST VALUE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL CURBSiDE RECYCLING AND PROCESSING SERVICES TO THOSE DENTON RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE CUSTOMERS AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROViDiNG AN EFFECTIVE DATE (REQUEST FOR BiDS NO. 2832 - RESiDENTiAL CURBSiDE RECYCLING AND PROCESSING SERVICES; AWARDED TO TRINITY WASTE SERVICES.) WHEREAS, the City has heretofore solicited, received and tabulated competitive best value bids, as well as alternate bids, for the purchase of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of State law and the City of Denton, Texas ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee of the City with authority, have reviewed and recommended that the herein described bids are the best value bids for the materials, equipment, supplies or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore based on the selection criteria set forth in the requests for bids; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds the bid of Abitibi Consolidated, inc.does not meet the minimum qualifications requirements set forth in the request for bids, and is therefore rejected; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The findings and conclusions set forth in the preamble of this ordinance are incorporated within the body of the ordinance. SECTION 2. That the numbered option in the following numbered bids for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" on file in the office of the City Purchasing Agent, is hereby accepted and approved as being the best value bid for such items: BID NUMBER SERVICE VENDOR AMOUNT 2832 Base Bid - Residential Curbside Trinity Waste Services $1.47* Recycling and Processing Services 2832 Recyclables - Payment Schedule** (**City also accepts Bidder's Recyclables - Payment Schedule; City may sell certain recyclables to Bidder from time-to-time as specified therein) *Collection of residential curbside recycling and processing services based on one day per week, selected by Bidder; amount shown is per customer, per month; exclusive of City container/contract administration fee. SECTION 3. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids for such items and agrees to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the terms, specifications, standards, quantities and for the specified sums contained in the Bid Invitations, Bid Proposals, and related documents. SECTION 4. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute any and all necessary written contracts for the performance of the services in accordance with the bids accepted and approved herein, provided that such contracts are made in accordance with and relating to the items specified in Section 1, which written contract(s) shall be attached hereto; provided that the written contract is in accordance with the above Request to Submit Bids, Bid Proposals, and documents relating thereto specifying the terms, conditions, plans and specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained therein. SECTION 5. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount and in accordance with the approved bids or pursuant to a written contract made pursuant thereto as authorized herein. SECTION 6. and approval. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage PASSED AND APPROVED this day of ,2002. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR By: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: S :(Our Documents\Ordinances\02(Residential Recycling and Processing Bid No. 2833Ord.doc Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 DRAFT PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 6, 2002 8:30 A.M. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 After determining that a quorum of the Public Utilities Board of the City of Denton, Texas was present, the Public Utilities Board convened into an Open Meeting on Monday, May 6, 2002 at 8:30 a.m. in the Service Center Training Room, City of Denton Service Center, 901-A Texas Street, Denton, Texas. PRESENT: Dick Norton, George Hopkins, Charldean Newell, Dick Smith, Jim Wilson, Don White and Bill Cheek EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Mike Conduff, City Manager Howard Martin, Assistant City Manager ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 10) Receive a report, hold a discussion, and consider approval of the staff's recommendation to award Bid No. 2832, Residential Curbside Recycling and Processing Services, to Trinity Waste Services. Vance Kemler, Director of Solid Waste, presented this report. On April 15, 2002 staff provided the Public Utilities Board (PUB) with a summary update of the residential curbside recycling proposals, and a projected implementation schedule. The bidders provided responses to provide curbside recycling and processing services to all citizens receiving residential solid waste service. Additionally, bidders had the option to respond to an alternate bid to provide curbside recycling collection and processing services in which senior citizens could request exemption from the service and fee. Kemler indicated that if the Board approves awarding the contract to Trinity Waste Services, some drop-off centers would still be available for commercial and multi-family recycling services. Collection frequency would be once a week to coincide with solid waste pick-up. Both bins and carts will be available. The vendors indicated that they would also accept the recyclables from the drop-off centers. The vendor will provide $32,000 to initiate the public education effort in the first year and $22,000 the second year. Board Member Charldean Newell asked if the paper recyclables would include bound books. Kemler said that he did not think it would be a problem as long as the number of bound books was minimal. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1 Kemler reported that the contract term would be five (5) years resulting in a reduction of 2 monthly fees. The City of Denton would have the option to renew the contract twice at 3 two-year intervals. Trinity Waste Services submitted a bid to provide basic service 4 collection for $1.47 per month. CWD submitted a bid for $1.58 per month. Abitibi 5 submitted a price of $1.20 per month, but did not meet the qualifications, in Alternate Bid #1 the vendor had the option to submit a price for Senior Citizens who choose not to participate in the program. Ultimately, staff discovered that neither state law nor the charter would allow free service to Senior Citizens or to those individuals receiving Social Security. Newell asked if the fee would depend on the customer preference of the bin or the cart. Kemler indicated there was no difference in price between the two. Board Member Jim Wilson asked if Denton Municipal Utilities could reduce the fee for Senior Citizens. Martin responded that staff had performed a survey of seventeen cities. He indicated that only four offered a discount for recycling. He reported that the City of Gainesville provided free solid waste services to those individuals receiving Social Security and SSi. Board Member George Hopkins, in referring to the disqualification of Abitibi, asked that staff provide a legal opinion regarding the City's right to waive bid requirements or to disqualify bidders. Kemler explained that the legal department was aware of the disqualification. He also explained that the bid specifications required the vendor to have five years experience collecting and processing recyclables in an environment comparable in scope and size to our community. Abitibi had five years experience, but only in the business community. Following the bid opening DMU sent the company a request for information asking them to provide residential curbside recycling service experience anywhere in the United States. Abitibi responded by stating that they had collected and processed recyclables for more than 200,000 residents in San Antonio, Texas and processed recyclables in Pheonix, Arizona. Subsequent research of Abitibi's experience statement indicated that the collection claim was untrue. Newell suggested that the recycling pickup schedule be included in the solid waste schedule calendar. Board Member White moved to approve awarding Bid No. 2832, for Residential Curbside Recycling and Processing Services, to Trinity Waste Services, with a second from Newell. The bid was approved unanimously by a vote of 7-0. Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #27 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET May 14, 2002 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Sharon Mays 349-8487 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT An Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding an annual price agreement for the purchase of Concrete Utility Poles; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2836- Annual Price Agreement for Concrete Utility Poles awarded to Lonestar Prestress Manufacturing, Inc. in the estimated amount of $193,375). BID INFORMATION This bid is for the annual contract to supply concrete utility poles with exposed river rock aggregate. Denton Municipal Electric will utilize these items in the maintenance and construction of the electric distribution system. They will also be available to subdivision developers as an alternative to aluminum or wood poles. RECOMMENDATION We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, Lonestar Prestress Manufacturing, Inc. as listed on the attached ordinance Exhibit A. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Lonestar Prestress Manufacturing, Inc. Houston, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT Listed items will be ordered as needed and can be delivered within 45 days of receipt of an order. FISCAL INFORMATION As items are ordered, they will be charged to the appropriate work order or budget account number. Agenda Information Sheet May 14, 2002 Page 3 Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet 1-AIS-Bid 2836 Concrete Utility Poles Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Z W 0 0 Z Z Z ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING AN ANNUAL PRICE AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF CONCRETE UTILITY POLES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2836- ANNUAL PRICE AGREEMENT FOR CONCRETE UTILITY POLES AWARDED TO LONESTAR PRESTRESS MANUFACTURING, iNC. iN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $193,375). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of STATE law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the materials, equipment, supplies or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" on file in the office of the City Purchasing Agent, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: BID ITEM NUMBER NO VENDOR AMOUNT 2836 All Lonestar Prestress Manufacturing, Inc. Exhibit A SECTION 2. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids for such items and agrees to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the terms, specifications, standards, quantities and for the specified sums contained in the Bid invitations, Bid Proposals, and related documents. SECTION 3. That should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items and of the submitted bids wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the acceptance, approval, and awarding of the bids, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby authorized to execute the written contract which shall be attached hereto; provided that the written contract is in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained in the Bid Proposal and related documents herein approved and accepted. SECTION 4. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount and in accordance with the approved bids or pursuant to a written contract made pursuant thereto as authorized herein. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this __ day of ,2002. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 3-ORD-BID 2836 Concrete Utility EXHIBIT A BID #2836 ANNUAL PRICE AGREEMENT FOR CONCRETE UTILITY POLES Principle Place of Business: HOUSTON,TX SERVICE POLES 1 2 Pole, concrete, brown, service, 24'-900 lbs minimum breaking load 2 ft below the tip. $350.00 2 10 Pole, concrete, brown, service, 30' - 1180 lbs minimum 2 ft below the tip. $418.00 3 1 Pole, concrete, brown, service, 35'- 1240 lbs minimum breaking $490.00 load 2ft below the tip. 4 LIGHT DUTY 5 5 Pole, concrete, brown, service, 35'-2950 lbs minimum breaking load $515.00 2 ft below the tip. 6 10 Pole, concrete, brown, service, 40'-2780 lbs minimum breaking load $602.00 2 ft below the tip. 7 30 Pole, concrete, brown, service, 45'-2670 lbs minimum breaking load $715.00 2 ft below the tip. 8 10 Pole, concrete, brown, service, 50'-2670 lbs minimum breaking load $805.00 2 ft below the tip. 9 2 Pole, concrete, brown, service, 55'-3500 lbs minimum breaking load $925.00 2 ft below the tip. HEAVY DUTY 1 2 Pole, concrete, brown, service, 35'-5350 lbs minimum breaking load $600.00 2 ft below the tip. 2 4 Pole, concrete, brown, service, 40'-5090 lbs minimum breaking load $705.00 2 ft below the tip. 3 30 Pole, concrete, brown, service, 45'-4880 lbs minimum breaking load $825.00 2 ft below the tip. 4 30 Pole, concrete, brown, service, 50'-4710 lbs minimum breaking load $945.00 2 ft below the tip. 5 10 Pole, concrete, brown, service, 55'-4590 lbs minimum breaking load 2 ft below the tip. $1,145.00 6 2 Pole, concrete, brown, service,2 ft below60'-4470the tip.lbs minimum breaking load $1,320.00 *SHIPPING $425.00 *ADDITIONAL 11/16 IN HOLES BEYOND 16 $3.00 COMPLETION DATE Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #28 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: May 14, 2002 Planning & Development Dave Hill, 349-8314 SUBJECT Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of DeNon, Texas, authorizing the Mayor to execute an Aquatic CeNer Operations AgreemeN by and between the City of DeNon, Texas and the DeNon Independent School District amending an Interlocal Agreement dated May 15, 2001; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND On May 15, 2001, the City Council approved an INerlocal AgreemeN between the City of DeNon and the Denton Independent School District related to the design and construction of an aquatic center. The design phase is near completion and the construction phase is projected to begin in May 2002. The Operations Agreement will amend the Interlocal Agreement to include the post-construction relationship between the City and DISD. The agreemeN reflects the needs of DISD to provide a facility to serve its studeNs participating in swim team and other instructional swimming. The needs of the City to provide a facility to its citizens for leisure, recreational, educational and therapeutic programs are also satisfied. At the same time, the facility is unique in that its goal is to generate revenue to offset the operational and maiNenance costs of the facility. The following is a brief summary of the major poiNs addressed in the agreemeN. Project Operation and Management The City of DeNon will be the managing partner of the Aquatic CeNer (indoor & outdoor). This will include the direct oversight of all programming, scheduling, fiscal operations, personnel, and maiNenance. A Natatorium Committee will be formed, made up of represeNatives of both City and DISD staff and one independeN member, to develop an annual schedule and time allocation for the indoor pool. The committee will also develop usage polices, procedures, rules and regulations for the indoor pool, prior to the opening of the facility. The outdoor aquatic facilities are iNended for City of DeNon activities open to the general public. The natatorium (indoor pools) will be used by DISD for swim team meets, practices and evens, and for Learn to Swim programs. The facilities will be available at all other times to provide programs and services to the community, and to generate revenue in order to offset operation and maintenance costs. As managing partner, the City of DeNon will be responsible for the maiNenance of the Aquatic CeNer. This includes daily trash and litter pickup, repair and maiNenance of the exterior ground and landscaping, buildings, permaneN structures, lighting, sidewalks, parking areas and pool equipmeN. Project Costs and Revenues: Any revenue generated at the facility, except for specific DISD evens, will be used to offset the operating deficit of the Aquatic CeNer. Any revenue remaining, after annual operating expenses are met, will be retained by the City of DeNon to be held in reserve for capital maiNenance and future project expansions associated with the Aquatic CeNer. The Director of the Parks and Recreation DepartmeN will be responsible for setting fees for the facility, except for DISD evens. The City Council, through the annual budget process will have the opportunity to review proposed revenues and expenditures for the facility. At the end of the City of DeNon's fiscal year, the City will determine if there is a net profit or loss. If there is a deficit, DISD will reimburse the City for 50% of the deficit. Non-routine capital maintenance, such as structural repairs, replacement of major systems, etc., will be funded oNside of the revenue generated by the Aquatic CeNer through other sources deemed appropriate by the City and DISD. If the non-roNine capital expense is related only to the oNdoor aquatic facilities, the City will be solely responsible for the funding, and if the expense is related only to the natatorium, DISD will be solely responsible for the funding. Books and Records The City of DeNon will prepare a full and accurate book of accounts reflecting the condition of the business and finances of the Aquatic CeNer, and shall prepare a statemeN of operations and a statement of financial operations annually. A copy of the reports will be sent to DISD within 60 days of the end of the City's fiscal year. Term The term of the agreement is 50 years. OPTIONS The City Council may: 1. Approve the ordinance, accepting the terms of the Operations AgreemeN. Approval allows staff to proceed with preparation of budget documents for the first year of operation, developing policies and procedures in conjunction with DISD staff, and preparing programming plans for the aquatic ceNer facility; Deny approval of the ordinance. Denial of the ordinance would delay the actions stated above; Request amendments to the negotiated agreement. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the ordinance establishing an Operations AgreemeN with DISD as an amendment to the Interlocal Agreement. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The following is the proposed completion schedule for the Aquatic CeNer project: May 2 Open Bids May 14 Establish GuaraNeed Maximum Price (School Board Meeting) Construction is expected to begin May 2002 PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW At their March 25, 2002, the Parks, Recreation and Beautification Board voted unanimously in support of the Operations Agreement (see Exhibit C). The DISD Board of Trustees is expected to consider approval of this agreement on May 14th. FISCAL INFORMATION Exhibit A of the Operations Agreement is a preliminary estimate of operations and maintenance costs, based on a typical full 12-month calendar year of operation. Currently, the Parks and Recreation Department is recommending this budget be established as a cost center in the Recreation Fund budget. Staff is in the process of developing the 2002-03 fiscal year budget, which will be presented to the City Council for consideration during the budget process. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Ordinance Operations Agreement Parks, Recreation and Beautification Board Minutes for March 25, 2002 Prepared By: ? Janet Simpson, Assistant Director Parks and Recreation Department Respectfully submitted: Ed Hodney, Director Parks and Recreation Department ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AQUATIC CENTER OPERATIONS AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AND THE DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT AMENDING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT DATED MAY 15, 2001; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Denton ("CITY") and DeNon Independem School District ("DISD") have previously emered imo an Imerlocal Agreemem dated May 15 2001 (the "Interlocal Agreemem") to provide for the construction, maimenance and operation of an Aquatic Center consisting of a natatorium, an outdoor swimming pool, related aquatic facilities, and infrastructure necessary to serve said facilities (the"Aquatic Cemer"); and WHEREAS, THE CITY and DISD desire to enter into an Aquatic Center Operations Agreement which amends the Interlocal Agreement to provide for the maintenance, management, operation, and usage of the Aquatic Center after it is constructed, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the "Operations Agreemem"); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Operations Agreement is in the public imerest, NOW, THEREFOR, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The Mayor, or in her absence the Mayor Pro Tem, is hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, the Operations Agreemem. SECTION 2. The expenditure of funds as set forth in the Operations Agreement is hereby authorized. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2002. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR By: S:\Our Documents\Ordinances\02LAquatic Center Operations Agrmt.doc APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: S:\Our Documents\Ordinances\02~Aquatic Center Operations Agrmt.doc AQUATIC CENTER OPERATIONS AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT (hereinafter "DISD"), organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas, and the CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, a TexasMunicipal Corporation (hereinafter "CITY"), acting by and through, and under the authority of their respective governing bodies; and WHEREAS, DISD and CITY have heretofore entered into that certain Interlocal Agreement dated May 15, 2001 to provide for tie construction of an Aquatic Center (the "Interlocal Agreement"); and WHEREAS, DISD and CITY have entered into this agreement in order to amend the Interlocal Agreement to provide for the maintenance, management, operation, and usage of the Aquatic Center (the "Operations Agreement" or "Agreement"); and WHEREAS, DISD and CITY are local governmental entities both of whom have the authority to perform the services set forth in this Operations Agreement individually and who mutually desire to enter into this Operations Agreement, which is authorized by Chapter 791 of the Texas Government Code (Vernon 1994), Section 45.109 of the Texas Education Code, and Chapter 332 of the Texas Local Government Code, in order to maximize the benefits derived from each taxpayer dollar; and WHEREAS, DISD and CITY desire to pool their resources, avoid unnecessary or duplicitous expense, and take advantage of maximizing economies of scale, resulting in cost savings to their respective taxpayers; and WHEREAS, the DISD and CITY agree that all payments made in connection with the governmental functions provided for by this Agreement shall be made from current revenues available to the paying party and the payments received are adequate and fairly compensate the parties for the services performed; and WHEREAS, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, now contained in Chapter 791 of the Texas Government Code (Vernon 1994), authorizes the DISD and CITY to enter into this Agreement for the purpose of achieving the governmental functions and pra, iding the services represented by this collective, cooperative undertaking. NOW THEREFORE, the DISD and CITY, for and inconsideration of the premises and the mutual covenants set forth herein do hereby AGREE as follows: Denton Independent School District & City of Denton Operation & Maintenance Agreement Page 1 ARTICLE I INCORPORATION OF PREAMBLES All matters and recitations stated in the preamble of this Agreement are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference into the provisions of this Agreement for all purposes. ARTICLE II PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is, as described in the preamble, is to evidence the agreement of the DISD and CITY to provide for the operation, management, maintenance, and usage of the Aquatic Center as defined in the Interlocal Agreement. ARTICLE III TERM The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date on which all parties hereto have executed this Agreement (the "Effective Date") and shall continue until terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Interlocal Agreement. ARTICLE IV DEFINITIONS The following terms shall have the meanings provided in the Interlocal Agreement and as amended as set forth below: includes fl~e operation, nlanagenlent, nlaintenance m~d usage of fl~e Aquatic Center ARTICLE V PROJECT OPERATION 5.1 Project Operation and Management Subject to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement, the City will be the managing partner of the Aquatic Center. This includes the direct oversight of programming, scheduling, fiscal operations, personnel, and the operation and maintenance of Aquatic Center. 5.2 Natatorium Committee. The Natatorium Committee (the "Committee") shall consist of five members. Two members shall be employees of the CITY appointed by the City Manager or his/her designee, and two members shall be employees of the DISD appointed by the Superintendent of Schools of the DISD. The fifth member shall be appointed by the mutual consent of the City Manager and Superintendent of Schools. The Committee shall not be responsible for the day to day operations of the Natatorium orthe management and operation of the Natatorium, but shall be responsible for setting usage policies and procedures for the implementation of the allocation of usage of the Natatorium between the CITY and DISD. In Denton Independent School District & City of Denton Operation & Maintenance Agreement Page 2 setting such allocation of usage policies the Committee shall be subject to the Usage Polices set forth in Section 5.3 below. The Committee shall meet as needed, and will develop an annual schedule and time allocation for the Natatorium. Deviations from or additions to the annual schedule during the course of the year is an operational function affecting the annual operating budget. Therefore such deviations and additions are under the control of and must be approved by the City as the managing partner of the Aquatic Center. Prior to the openig of the Aquatic Center, the Committee will meet and develop usage policies, procedures, rules and regulations that balance the needs of both the CITY and DISD. 5.3 Usage Policies. following requirements: The Aquatic Center shall be operated in accordance with the 5.3.1 The Outdoor Aquatic Facilities are intended for CITY activities open to the general public in accordance with such policies and procedures as may be adopted by the CITY. 5.3.2 The Committee's schedule of use of the Natatorium shall allowfor flexibility for the student day and the school calendar. 5.3.3 DISD is granted the right to use the Natatorium during the DISD school year (first day of school through last day of school) and at such other times sanctioned by the DISD for swim team meets, practices, swimming lessons and events. The DISD swim program may in the future be expanded to include such uses as Middle School UIL swim team programs or Learn To Swim School Curriculums. After the annual schedule and time allocation is set by lhe Natatorium Committee, reasonable requests for additional hours for the swim team or other DISD sponsored activities must be approved by the CITY. 5.3.4 During periods of joint use of the Natatorium by CITY and DISD the Committee will provide for rules and procedures that will allow the DISD to maintain its statutory duties to protect students during school operation or school sponsored events as provided under Sections 37.105 and 37.124 of the Texas Education Code. 5.3.5 The schedule and time allocation must balance DISD's need to serve its students and meeting the goals of the Business Plan. The CITY will be allowed the opportunity to provide programs and services to the community, and to generate revenue in order to offset operation and maintenancecosts. 5.3.6 DISD may host swim meets provided any direct costs associated with hosting the event shall be paid by DISD. "Direct costs" shall mean those costs for providing officials or other personnel (excluding DISD employees) required by the UIL forhosting said meets. DISD shall reimburse CITY for direct costs incurred by CITY, if any, to staff swim meets such as lifeguards, building attendants, etc. These costs will be scheduled and approved prior to the event by DISD and the CITY. DISD may utilizeall parts of the Natatorium and surrounding grounds, including classrooms, multipurpose rooms, etc. Denton Independent School District & City of Denton Operation & Maintenance Agreement Page 3 and available parking at no charge for DISD sponsored events. DISD shall be responsible for storage of all equipment/materials, etc. used for the faciliation of all DISD sponsored events at the conclusion of each event. This may include but not be limited to lane lines, timing mechanisms, tables, chairs, etc. 5.3.7 The CITY shall not be responsible for any interrupted or canceled use of the Natatorium due to circumstances beyond its control including but not limited to mechanical failure, weather, act of God, or other natural disasters. The CITY shall provide alternative days or portions thereof in the event of interruption of use due to such circumstances if DISD deems it necessary to complete DISD sponsored activities. 5.3.8 When using the Natatorium, DISD's use includes access to and use of the Natatorium, classrooms, multi-purpose rooms, parking areas, and other areas that are associated with the particular DISD event or use, at no additional charge above the cost allocation provided for in Section 6.2 and the Direct Charges provided for in Subsection 5.3.7. 5.3.9 CITY and DISD shall be entitled to use each others timing systems, equipment, and furnishings at the Aquatic Center, subject to the provisions of 5.5.2. 5.3.10 The use of the Natatorium must at all times be in compliance with applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations pertaining thereto. 5.3.11 No alcoholic beverages shall be sold, consumed, or possessed in or at the Aquatic Center or on property surrounding the Aquatic Center that is owned by DISD or the CITY. 5.4 Other DISD Use: DISD may, subject to availability, and upon payment of applicable fees, use the Outdoor Aquatic Facilities for DISD functions or events or utilize CITY staffing and administration for DISD functions or events at the Aquatic Center. 5.5 Project Maintenance. 5.5.1 After completion of construction of the Project, notwithstanding each party's ownership interest in the Project, the CITY, as managing partner, shall be responsible for the direct operation and maintenance of the Project Note: The CITY shall operate and maintain the Aquatic Center in such a manner so as to ensure the continued safe operation of the facilities. The CITY shall be responsible for the daily pickup of trash and litter on the exterior grounds. The CITY shall be responsible for the repair and maintenance of the exterior grounds and landscaping for the Project Site, including but not limited to, all landscaped open areas, plants, shrubbery, trees, grass areas, picnic areas or rest areas, and irrigation systems. The CITY shall be responsible for the repair and maintenance of all improvements located on the Project, including but not tmited to all buildings, permanent structures, lighting, sidewalks and any other paved or improved area. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner at all times. The Denton Independent School District & City of Denton Operation & Maintenance Agreement Page 4 exterior grounds shall be kept free of trash, litter, weeds, and aher material or plants not a part of the landscaping. All plant material shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition as is appropriate for the season of the year. 5.5.2 Notwithstanding the above, DISD shall be responsible for the repair of any damage, other than ordinary wear and tear, to the Aquatic Center, equipment and furnishings directly attributed to DISD's use, including its patrons, invitees, officials, agents, and/or representatives. CITY shall be responsible for the repair of any damage other than ordinary wear and tear, to the Aquatic Center, equipment and furnishings directly attributed to CITY's use, including its patrons, invitees, officials, agents, and/or representatives. ARTICLE VI PROJECT COSTS AND REVENUES 6.1 Aquatic Center Revenue. Subject to the provisions of this Section 6.1, the CITY shall be entitled to retain all income and revenue generated by the Aquatic Center except for revenues raised by booster groups for competitive aquatic programs or revenues generated from aDISD competitive aquatic program event. Any revenue exceeding direct costs will be used to offset the operating costs of the Aquatic Center. Revenue from the operation and use of the Aquatic Center will be used to offset the operating deficit, if any, of the Aquatic Center. All revenues over expenses, if any, shall be retained by the CITY to be held in reserve for routine capital maintenance. The reserve may also be used for future project expansions associated with the Aquatic Center to be used at the sole discretion of the CITY. The Director of the Parks and Recreation Department will be responsible for setting all fees at the Aquatic Center, except for DISD supervised events. 6.2 Aquatic Center Costs. 6.2.1 Subject to the provisions of this 6.2, lhe CITY is responsible for the ongoing maintenance and operational costs of the Aquatic Center. Attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A" is a preliminary estimate of operations and maintenance costs (the "Preliminary Cost Estimate") based on the Business Plan which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "B" (the "Business Plan"). The Preliminary Cost Estimate is based on a typical full 12 calendar month year of operation. At the end of the CITY's fiscal year (Septanber 30), the CITY will determine if there is a net profit or loss. If there is a deficit, the CITY will provide DISD with written notice of such deficit within 90 days after the end of the CITY's fiscal year (December 31). DISD will reimburse the CITY for 50% of the deficit within 30 days after the beginning of DISD's next fiscal year (June 30). 6.2.2 The CITY will include in the annual operating budget for the Aquatic Center, funding for minor repairs and maintenance of equipment and facilities. Rotfine capital Denton Independent School District & City of Denton Operation & Maintenance Agreement Page 5 maintenance, such as recirculation and filtration systems, landscape replacement, etc., will be funded from reserves of any revenues (over expenses) available at the end of the fiscal year. Non-routine capital maintenance, such as structuralrepairs, replacement of HVAC systems, etc. will be funded outside of revenue generated by the Aquatic Center through other financing sources deemed appropriate by the CITY and DISD. If the no~q routine capital maintenance is related only to the outdoor aqtatic facilities, the CITY will be solely responsible for the funding. If the nol~routine capital maintenance is related only to the natatorium, DISD will be solely responsible for the funding. ARTICLE VII NAMING OF FACILITIES The CITY is authorized to name the Outdoor Aquatic Facilities and DISD is authorized to name the Natatorium. The naming of the Aquatic Center shall be approved by the CITY and DISD. ARTICLE VIII MISCELLANEOUS 7.1 Alterations: No party shall make any alterations to the Project without the prior written consent of the other party. Notwithstanding, neither party shall be required to obtain the other party's consent to perform such party's required maintenance hereunder. 7.2 Books and Records: The City Manager shall cause to be prepared full and accurate books of accounts reflecting the condition of the business and finances of the Project (the "Project Records"). DISD shall have access to Project Records and shall be entitled to examine the same during normal business hours At the end of each fiscal year, the City Manager shall cause to be prepared a statement of operations and a statement of financial operations (using generally accepted accounting principles) for the year. A preliminary statement of operations shall be provided to the DISD no later than 60 days following the last day of the prior fiscal year. The final statement of operations shall be provided to DISD within 10 days after it is completed. 7.3 Joint Continued Use: Upon expiration of the fifty (50) yearterm, DISD and CITY may enter into a mutually acceptable agreement regarding the terms and conditions for the continued joint use and operation of the Aquatic Center. 7.4 All other terms and conditions of the Interlocal Agreement not amended or revised this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Denton Independent School District has caused this Interlocal Operations Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized President of the Board of Denton Independent School District & City of Denton Operation & Maintenance Agreement Page 6 Trustees; and the City of Denton, Texas has caused this Interlocal Operations Agreement to be execmed by its duly authorized Mayor on this the day of ,2002. DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT By: Rick Wolfolk President of the Board of Trustees ATTEST: By: Jean B. Schaake, Member of the Board of Trustees CITY OF DENTON By: Euline Brock, Mayor ATTEST: By: Jennifer Walters, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Denton Independent School District & City of Denton Operation & Maintenance Agreement Page 7 5.9 Proforma Projection DRAFT Denton Aquatics Complex Proforma Projection II II II Natatorium II ATTENDANCE II II Day Use Resident II Regular II 290311 Child II 1,30311 Senior II 43511 Day Use Non-Resident II II Regular II 2,54211 Child II 1,45211 Senior II 48411 Block Pricing II 8,18611 Annual Pass Resident II 1,93911 Annual Pass NonResident II 48411 Instructions/Lessons II 872 Instructions/Lessons NR II 31011 Exercise/Therapy II 1,204 II Exemise/Therapy NR II 37511 Camps/Day Care II II Birthday Parties II 4,50011 Special Events II 5,16211 II 32,151 II SALES II II Day Use Resident II Per Cap II Regular II 5.95 17,2731l Child II 3.95 5,14711 Senior II 3.95 1,71811 Day Use Non-Resident II Regular II 7.95 20,20911 Child II 5.95 8,63911 Senior II 5,95 2,88011 Block Pricing II 18,7501l Annual Pass Resident II 50.00 24,23811 Annual Pass Non-Resident II 80.00 9,68011 Instructions/Lessons II 40.00 34,88011 Instructions/Lessons Non-Resident II 50.00 15,5OOll Exemise/Therapy II 45.00 54,18Oll Exercise/Therapy Non-Resident II 55.00 20,62511 Camps/Day Care II 100.00 Oll Birthday Package II 11.00 49,50o11 Special Events/Groups Package II 10.00 51,62011 Gate Subtotal: II 334,83911 II II Food and Catering II 0.59 18,8401l Retail II Oll Rentals II 0.12 3,76811 Sponsorship II 5,000 II Waterpark Per Cap 6.95 4.95 4.95 8.95 6.95 6.95 70.OO 80.00 35.00 40.00 100.00 11.00 10.00 1.52 0.15 0.25 II II II II 1909011 533811 35611 II 1584511 458211 38211 2,23Olj 7,13511 5,35211 II II 53511 17811 89211 4,46011 11,14911 77,52411 II II 132,67611 26,42311 1,76211 II 141,81311 31,84511 2,65511 6,00011 124,86311 107,04011 011 011 18,72511 7,12011 89,20011 49,06011 111,49011 850,671 II II 129,201 II 1,o7511 21,24211 16,oooll Combined II Totals II II II 25,78711 8,43411 1,02811 II 20,74611 7,09711 1,o2811 lO,41611 11,o1311 6,64411 1,16311 38711 2,o8311 69411 89211 8,96011 16,31111 122,6831l II II 149,9441l 31,56911 3,479ll II 162,o231l 40,48211 5,53511 24,75011 149,1OOll 116,73011 34,89011 15,48011 72,9051l 27,76011 89,20011 98,56011 163,11011 1,185,51611 II 148,0421J 1,o7211 25,01811 21,00011 24 Gross Sales: II COST OF SALES II Food and Catering II Retail II Rental II Cost of Sales: II GROSS PROFIT II II OPERATING EXPENSES II Personnel-Full II Personnel-Part-time II Advertising II Dues/Subscriptions II Medical Supplies II Office Supplies/Repair II Pool Supplies II Postage II Printing II Repair/Maintenance II Special Events II Park Supplies/Trash Removal II Telephone II Training II Travel/Entertainment II Uniforms II Utilities II Operating Expense: II Net Operating Income: II % of Gross Sales: II 362,44711 II 7,91311 Oll 56511 8,47811 353,96911 II II 208,84511 lO2,4o911 lO,OOOll 25011 1,OOOll 2,00011 50,00011 1,OOOll 2,00011 27,50011 lO,OOOll 5,00011 3,00011 2,OOOll 1,OOOll 1,5OOll 225,oooll 652,50411 (298,535)11 -82.37%11 1,o18,78811 II 54,26511 83711 3,18611 58,28811 960,50011 II II 174,13811 149,58611 35,00011 25011 1,5ooll 4,00011 6o,oooll 3,00011 7,oooll 60,00011 35,00011 6,00011 5,00011 2,50011 1,oooll 3,oooll 90,00011 636,97411 323,52611 31.76°/o II 1,381,24811 II 62,17711 83611 3,75311 66,76611 1,314,48211 II II 382,9831J 251,99511 45,00011 50o11 2,50011 6,00011 11 o,ooo II 4,00011 9,00011 87,50011 45,00011 11,OOOll 8,OOOll 4,50011 2,00011 4,50011 315,OOOll 1,289,47811 25,00411 1.81%11 DRAFT 25 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview The City of Denton, Texas and the Denton Independent School District will join together to provide the community with a much needed aquatic recreation complex that will serve the educational and training needs of the District and the recreational leisure time needs for the City. This collaborative effort has resulted in the development of a premium indoor aquatic center and multi-purpose building (the "Natatorium") and a unique and entertaining outdoor water recreation facility (the "Aquatic Park"). The two facilities, to be developed and operated as one entity (the "Denton Aquatic Complex"), will benefit from a number of efficiencies and synergies that will likely insure the operational and financial success of the Complex. The Natatorium will operate on a year-round basis while the Aquatic Park will be open approximately 110 days in the late spring through early fall. Attendance The Aquatic Complex will be operated by the Denton Department of Parks, Recreation and Beautification. The Complex will employ approximately five on a year-round, permanent basis. At peak operating periods, the Complex will employ as many as 63 ~. sonal~.~art time staff. square foot NatatoriUm has both ecempetitive and ~ rooms; tll~eoretical to e~tract over facility has Annual attendance ng aq le outd~'iJ~f capacity of 2,300 at any one point in ti~. Park is projected at 85,0 2 Financial The Complex is forecasted to operate on a breakeven basis, which includes a positive balance to be used for contingency or future capital expansion. The goal is to provide the best possible facility and programs at the Complex at the lowest cost to the community. Limits of Financial Information The operating revenues and expenditures in this document are forecasts and should not be construed as actual future costs/profits. The forecasts apply to the first full year of operations only. All financial statements and other financial data are un-audited and for management purposes only. The estimated performance of the proposed Complex is based on an evaluation of the present economy of the area. Horizon does not take into account or make provision for any economic changes. As in all studies of this type, the estimated operating results are based on competent and efficient management and presume no significant change in the competitive position of the subject attractions in the immediate market area, except as set forth in this report. The estimates are subject to uncertainty and variation. The estimates have been conscientiously prepared on the basis of available information and Horizon's in the industry. This report is an estimate. It has been primarily prepared for your use to assist in determining the market feasibility of the project. Neither our name, nor the material submitted may be included in any prospectus, press release, offering or representation in connection with the sale of securities or participation interests to other parties without our prior written consent. This report may not be disassembled or rearranged in any matter that would allow for presentation of only a portion of the report. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 DENTON CITY COUNCIL ADVISORY BOARD CITY OF DENTON STAFF INTRODUCTION 2.0 DENTON AQUATIC COMPLEX - SCOPE OF PROJECT 2.1 Management Standards Of Care 2.2 Denton Natatorium Features and Amenities 2.3 Denton Aquatic Park Features and Amenities '2.4 Projected Capacity 3.0 AVAILABLE MARKETS 4.0 PROGRAMMING 4.1 Natatorium Programming 4.2 Aquatic Park Programming 5.0 FINANCIAL DATA 5.1 Natatorium Operational Considerations 5.2 Natatorium Revenue Sources 5.3 Natatorium Pricing Plan 5.4 Aquatic Park Operational Considerations 5.5 Aquatic Park Revenue Sources 5~6 Aquatic Park Pricing Plan 5.7 Operations Expenses 5.8 Assumptions 5.9 Proforma Projections 6.0 SALES & MARKETING 7.0 STAFFING & EMPLOYMENT 7.1 Staff Structure 7.2 Organizational Chart 7.3 Job Descriptions - Core Management Team 8.0 EXECUTIVE PROFILE 8.1 Aquatic Design Group 8.2 Whitewater West Industries, Ltd. 8.3 Horizon Amusement Group, Inc. ADDENDUM A: SCHEDULE ADDENDUM B: PICTURES AND MAPS 4 CITY COUNCIL Euline Brock ................................................................................... Mayor Bob Montgomery ........................................................................ At Large Mark Burroughs ......................................................................... At-Large Raymond Redmon ..................................................................... District I Jane Fulton ................................................................................ District 2 Michael Phillips .......................................................................... District 3 Perry McNeil .............................................................................. District 4 Michael A. Conduff. ............................................................. City Manager PARKS, RECREATION & BEAUTIFICATION BOARD & CITY STAFF The Parks, Recreation and Beautification Board act in an advisory capacity to the City Council. Board meetings are held once a month and are open to the public. These meetings offer citizens the opportunity of direct involvement with the Parks and Recreation Department's decision- making process and assist in conveying community needs. Teresa Andress Cassandra Berry Dale Yeatts Brandon Barnes ADVISORY BOARD Geri Aschenbrenner Don Edwards Dalton Gregory CITY STAFF Ed Hodney ................................................... Parks & Recreation Director Janet Simpson ............................. Parks & Recreation Assistant Director John Whitmore ................................. Superintendent of Leisure Services 1.0 "...recreation Denton-style is not just the relaxed passage of time, It's an active art form!" INTRODUCTION The City of Denton and the Denton Independent School District are participating in a cooperative effort to provide the Denton community with a state-of-the-art aquatic recreation complex. An interlocal agreement has been executed between the City of Denton and the Denton Independent School District that establishes organizational roles in the development and construction of the aquatics complex. An operations agreement has been negotiated that affirms the City as the managing partner with responsibility for the completed project's business operations. The Denton Aquatic Complex will provide training and exercise for the students of the District while at the same time fulfilling a huge need in the community for quality family recreation and entertainment. The Complex also will serve as an alternative fitness venue for the people of the Denton area. It is the desire of both the City and the District to provide the people they serve in a fiscally responsible and prudent manner. A Ri.qht Size Approach From an historical perspective, the traditional municipal aquatic center with a competitive-style swimming pool or diving well requires a substantial subsidy from the community, oftentimes several hundred thousand dollars per year. At the other end of the aquatic recreation spectrum is the commercially successful water amusement parks, similar to Wet N' Wild, Raging Waters and nearly one hundred others that generally are very profitable. The Denton Aquatic Complex is a "right-size" family aquatic center thoughtfully designed with a varied mix of attractions and amenities. The Complex can be a source of recreation, pride and enjoyment without being a financial drain on the community. The challenge for the City of Denton and the DISD is to provide important educational and recreational opportunities at the Complex without operating at an annual operating deficit. The "right size" approach that the City and DISD have chosen means the proper mix of attractions, programs, cost controls and marketing efforts at the Complex will most likely insure a subsidy will not be required. The following represents the operational and financial considerations for the project. The Business Plan is based on the design development program that was prepared by Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc. The project design represents the collective efforts of Schrickel, Rollins, VLK Architects, Aquatic Design Group, Horizon Amusement Group, and WhiteWater West, with substantial input from the City of Denton and the Denton Independent School District officials. 2.0 DENTON AQUATIC COMPLEX - SCOPE OF PROJECT The Denton Aquatic Complex will be a multi-use facility combining state- of-the-art competition and recreational aquatic facilities with entertaining water attractions. The complex will have a broad appeal to the community. The end result is a unique recreational facility that if properly managed will be a popular and financial success for the Denton community. The two key elements of the complex are the Denton Natatorium and Denton Aquatic Park. Following is a description of the features of each entity: The Denton Natatorium The two-story, 36,000 square feet Natatorium features will include: · A 25-yard by 25-meter pool · A 1,835 square foot instructional pool with small waterslide · Seating for 200 spectators · Class rooms and offices · Food service · Support facilities such as storage, lockers, showers, Denton Aquatic Park The outdoor aquatic center encompasses approximately three acres and includes: · Two serpentine slides 3 1~ stories high · Continuous river · Toddlers' pool · Volleyball · Outdoor food service · Shaded corporate picnic area · Support facilities · Ticket sales/support · Retail and sundry carts 2.1 Management Standards of Care The Denton Aquatic Complex will create a signature water recreation attraction that provides a fun, safe and wholesome experience for the community. Guests to the Complex can expect to receive the highest levels of service while being made to feel welcome and appreciated. The Complex will focus on high standards in the areas of safety, maintenance and guest service. Management and staff will strive to operate 2.2 the Complex with service expectations that will set it apart from similar aquatic facilities in North Texas. It is the goal of Management to operate the Complex in a manner that will be a source of pride and trust for the Community. The Denton Natatorium Features and Amenities The 36,000 square foot Natatorium sits at the top of the hill, rising 41 feet high. It will be seen from many miles away. Because of the profile of the building and the numerous activities and events occurring in the building, the Natatorium will be an icon for the community and for the region. The primary purpose of the Denton Natatorium is to meet the growing aquatic needs of the community through additional aquatic education and recreational facilities and programs. For the District, the Natatorium will be used to support the Physical Education and Athletic Departments by providing comprehensive programming designed to complement the educational mission of DISD. The Natatorium will be used extensively in the physical education curriculum and will be the venue for swim meets and other school-related aquatic competitions and events. For the Denton community, the Natatorium will serve as a gathering spot and recreation venue for the region. The Natatorium will provide on a year- round basis a venue for quality educational and leisure time experiences. These experiences will have a wide range of participatory and passive activities for all persons regardless of age, color, sex, skill level, abilities, or sport/activity interest, especially during the winter months. Additionally, the Natatorium is a convenient, safe and affordable location for activities such as Grad Night, school reward outings, senior-citizen outings, family reunions, birthday parties, "dive-in" movies, corporate outings and many other special events. Natatorium Features Competition Pool The centerpiece of the Natatorium is the 25-yard by 25-meter pool designed for competition and recreation. The primary appeal of the indoor pool for the general public will be to those interested in learn-to-swim programs, swim team practices/competitions, recreation swim and water therapy. The predominant use of the competition for the Denton Independent School District will be for training, teaching and recreation of students as well as for local and regional aquatic interscholastic competitions. ]0 Because the competition pool is indoors and not subject to weather conditions it can operate on a year-round basis and conceivably could be open 24-hours per day. In reality, it will operate based on demand and is projected to be open 12-16 hours per day. Recreation Poo/ The four foot deep, heated instructional pool will have approximately 1,835 surface square feet of water with a uniform depth of four feet. It will serve as a warm-up pool for swim meet competitors; will be a key part of the aquatics exercise program, provide a shallow water area for swimming lessons and serve as a recreation element for the general public (when not otherwise booked). The pool will include a 20-foot high water slide, a stepped entry area where toddlers may interact with swim toys, an area accommodating approximately 25 participants for water aerobics and exercise or for over 120 for public swimming. Guest Amenities Locker/Changing RoomsBMale and female locker and changing rooms designated exclusively for Denton School District use; similar, but separate facilities are designated for the general public. Showers/Restrooms--Male and female facilities designated exclusively for DISD use; similar, but separate facilities are designated for the general public. Meeting Rooms/Storage roomsBOne large meeting room and storage area designated exclusively for DISD; one large meeting room is designated for the City of Denton needs. Following is a complete list of the rooms. · Classroom · DISD Coach's office · Manager's office · Bleacher seating for 200 spectators (2nd floor) 2.3 Denton Aquatic Park Features and Amenities The Denton Aquatic Park, the outdoor recreation section of the Complex, will be open from May to September. When combined with the Natatorium, the two become a powerful, unique and enjoyable recreational experience for the region. ]! The Aquatic Park will include many of the most popular attractions in the water recreation industry. The attractions are designed to appeal to all ages and interests and will be specifically selected to stimulate repeat visitors. Serpentine Slides Each of the two body slides has its own personality and appeal. Utilizing the same tower as the speed slide, the 30-foot high slides are each approximately 250 feet long and will drop into a shallow pool. Riders must be a minimum of 48". Continuous River The 736-foot long continuous river will be one of the most popular attractions at the Aquatic Park. The 12-foot wide, three foot deep continuous river can accommodate as many as 600 guests at one time. The gentle current takes guests on a mellow ride in their own inner tube around the oval shaped channel. Waterfalls and geysers are incorporated into the meandering river to further enhance guest enjoyment. Activity Pool This area has an Aqua Play "water jungle gym" which includes a variety of water contraptions housed on a multi-level deck connected by stairs, cargo nets and rope ladders. Explorers in the 2-10 years old age group will enjoy the interactive play with levers, wheels, pull chains, and sprayers. This zero-entry pool will house water buckets, mini-slides, fountains and "gadgets" in an 18' inch deep pool for the little tots. Corporate Picnic Area A key revenue opportunity for the complex is the business generated from catering to corporate and other groups. The Aquatic Park will feature two shaded pavilions each accommodating 250 seated-guests. The complex will cater a prescribed menu to the groups who use the pavilions. The Aquatic Park will provide a "turn-key" picnic package to its guests, which includes food, activities, lawn games, dancing and clean-up. The shaded, highly landscaped picnic area will be ideal for school outings, corporate picnics, birthdays and all other groups gathering. 2.3 Projected Capacity Natatorium Capacity ]2 With its pools, meeting rooms, classrooms, bleachers and support facilities, the 36,000 square foot Natatorium has a theoretical capacity of 650 guests at a single point in time ("frozen" capacity). Realistically, because of the need to program and schedule activities that do not conflict or overlap, the anticipated capacity is 600. Aquatic Park Capacity Following are projected capacities for the water attractions: Continuous River Slide Complex Activity Pool Corporate Area Shade/lounge/grass seating 6OO 2OO 2OO 50O 75O Total Frozen Capacity 2,250 Assuming the Aquatic Park will achieve its goal of 85,000 guests for the 110- day operating season, the average daily attendance of the park will be 772 over an eight-hour operating day. Aquatic Complex Combined Capacity It will be a rare circumstance when both the Natatorium and the Aquatic Park will achieve peak capacity simultaneously. Nevertheless, should this situation arise, it is projected the number of people that could be accommodated at any one time at the Complex is 3,300-3,500 at one time. 13 3.0 AVAILABLE MARKETS The Natatorium will draw primarily from its primary market, the area within a 15- mile radius of the Complex. According to the feasibility study conducted by William L. Haralson & Associates in 1998, there are approximately 250,000-residents within a 15- mile radius of the project. If current growth rates are applied to this number then the market area could hold a population as high as 300,000 people by opening day. This area will primarily be the target zone for both the Natatorium and Aquatic Park. In addition, there is a student population of 27,000 at the University of North Texas and 3,500 at Texas Women's University, Denton. Each campus is approximately 15 minutes from the aquatic center. There are another 200,000 residents in the secondary market, the area in the15-25 miles radius surrounding the complex. Within the primary and secondary market areas for the Complex the constituencies include every type of youth, school, church or corporate group; local swim clubs, training and certification programs for all ages and skill levels; senior citizen programs, and recreational therapy for those requiring physical therapy. Both the Natatorium and Aquatic Park will serve the following constituencies within their primary and secondary markets. Denton Independent School District Neighboring School Districts Local and Regional Junior Colleges and Colleges Community Centers and Associations Parks and Recreation and Youth Organizations Seniors Water Polo Teams Synchronized Swimming Neighborhood Associations Birthday Parties Stay-at-Home Moms/tots Aquatic Therapy Community Corporate and Group Outings In addition to the available markets listed above, the Aquatic Park will heavily solicit to those in the following market segments: Children 2-11 years Teens 12-17 years Corporate groups Parents 30-49 years Youth groups Birthday groups 14 4.0 PROGRAMMING 4.1 The Natatorium Programs The major areas for programming at the indoor Natatorium will include instruction, recreation, physical education, competitions, therapy and rehabilitation and Masters swimming. Following is a breakdown of programs that could be considered: Instructional · Varsity Swim Team · Varsity Diving · DISD Physical Education and Swimming and Diving Programs · Learn to swim programs and certification for school age children · Learn to swim programs for general population by age group and levels · Lifeguard training and certification · Water safety · Snorkeling/scuba instruction · American Red Cross water safety training · National Pool and Waterpark lifeguard training program · Beginner Instruction Recreational · Lap Swimming · Recreation Swim · Aerobics/Aquacize · Senior Swim · Water Walking · Water. Volleyball · Water polo · Senior Olympics/Seniorcize · Open Swim Camps/Da¥care · One Week Aquatic Safety Camp · One Week Aquatic Skills Camp Block Pricing- Competitive/Youth Pro,grams · Swim Team Practice · Swim Clubs · Swim Meets · Synchronized Swimming · Water Polo 15 Exercise / Therapy · Injury Rehabilitation · Arthritis Water Exercise · Hospital Physical Therapy Special Events / Group Picnic Packa.qe · Dive-In Movies · Private Company Parties · High School and College Buyouts · Senior Citizen Beach Bash · Mom and Tot's Day Out · Special Olympics · Winter Theme Parties Birthday Parties · The Natatorium will serve the region as a safe, fun and convenient location to host birthday parties for elementary and middle school age children. The Natatorium will be the place where members of the community can brush-up on existing aquatic skills, learn new skills and where they will be provided with year round exercise opportunities. The Natatorium will be one of the few places in the greater Denton area where people can escape the winter weather, a distinct and important marketing and revenue opportunity. 4.2 Aquatic Park Programs Unlike the Natatorium, the Aquatic Park will not be programmed based. The essence of the Aquatic Park is to provide an entertaining, unstructured, safe, recreational experience for guests of all ages and interests. Nevertheless, during specific times of the day or week the park will be available for programs designed for certain segments of the community. These programs might include: · Water walking (lazy river) · Physical therapy and rehabilitation · Group events · Birthday parties · Family nights and barbecues · Summer and Inter-session camps 5.0 FINANCIAL DATA 5.1 Natatorium Operational Considerations Operating Days: The Natatorium will be open every day of the year with the exception of designated holidays and off-season maintenance periods. The Natatorium has been designed so that in the cool months the community may use it for exercise and recreation while in the hot months it can provide a respite from the heat for the Aquatic Park visitors while still being utilized for established programs. Operating Hours: The Natatorium will open at 6am and remain open until 10pm Monday- Saturday and from noon to 8pm on Sunday. These suggested hours will remain flexible and will be adjusted to meet demand and programming schedules, such as instructional, swim team uses, block times, etc. Admission Pricing: The Natatorium will be an affordable and enjoyable experience for everyone in the greater Denton community, no matter their financial means. There are a variety of programs, activities and events with special pricing for both City of Denton residents and non-residents. The programming, events and hours of availability at the Natatorium will be carefully planned and considered to insure all groups have as much use as possible in order to fulfill the purpose for which the facility was built. A projected operating and programming schedule is represented in Addendum A. 5.2 Natatorium Revenue Sources Total first year revenue is estimated to exceed expenses. Revenue is categorized from the following sources: Ticket Cateqories: Regular Admission Child Admission Under 2 years Seniors Resident Non-resident 48" or higher Under 48" Free 60 years or older Must reside within the Denton City limits. Those who reside outside the City of Denton 17 Day Use--This admission program allows use of the Natatorium for a single day. Total first full year revenue is estimated at over $50,000, Block Pricing--Use of the facility by organizations or groups for aquatic events or other activities that are closed to the general public. Pricing will vary depending on resident status and whether groups are charitable or for- profit organizations. Revenue in the first full year is expected to exceed $18,000. Annual Pass--Unlimited use of the facility for one year during designated public usage periods. First year revenue is estimated in excess of $33,000. Instructional--Six-lesson packages for public learn-to-swim programs, training, and all other aquatic instructional programs. Total first year revenue is estimated at over $50,000. Exercise/Therapy --Monthly fees for exercise and therapy programs. Total first year revenue is estimated at over $74,000. Birthday Packages--use of the Natatorium, use of party rooms, party favors, and hostess. Offer 3 package options to allow parents the opportunity to do more or less depending on their budget and time availability. Total first full year revenue is estimated at over $49,000. Special Events/Group Packages Natatorium use for events like Grad Night; Dive-in movies; Friday Night Swims; school and company outings. Total first full year revenue is estimated at over $5~ ~ Food/Catering, Rentals and Sponsorship $27,000 for the first full year. at over Natatorium Sources of Revenue Food/Catering Rentals/Sponsorship Special Events Day Use Block Birthday Parties Annual Pass Instructions/Lessons Exercise/Therapy 5.3 Natatorium Pricing Plan Ticket Type Day Use Resident Regular Child Senior Admission Price Attendance $5.95 $3.95 $3.95 2,903 1,303 435 Day Use Non-Resident Regular Child Senior $7.95 $5.95 $5.95 2,542 1,452 484 Block Pricing Annual Pass Resident Annual Pass Non-Resident Instruction/Lessons Instruction/Lessons Non-Resident Exemise/Therapy Exemise/Therapy Non-Resident Birthday Special Events $50.00 $80.00 $40.00 $50.00 $45.00 $55.00 $11.00 $1o.oo 8,186 1,939 484 872 310 1,204 375 4,500 5,162 32,151 5.4 Aquatic Park Operational Considerations O~eratin(~ Days: The Aquatic Park will be open approximately 110 days per year. The Aquatic Park will be open on weekends in May and September and open daily from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Operating Hours: The Aquatic Park's regular hours will be 10:30am to 7:00pm. operate additional hours for special events and programming. vary as situations and opportunities arise. The park will Hours will Admission and Pricing: The Aquatic Park will have attractions, which appeal to a broad segment of the community. All demographic, economic and age groups will enjoy and want to experience the unique, diverse attractions. There are a variety of programs, activities, events and ticket offerings for both City of Denton residents and non-residents. The programming and events at the Aquatic Park will be carefully planned and considered to insure all groups have as much use as possible in order to fulfill the purpose for which the facility was built. 5.5 Aquatic Park Revenue Sources Total first year revenue is estimated at over $1,018,000. Revenue is categorized from the following sources: Ticket Categories: Regular Admission Child Admission Under 2 years Seniors Resident Non-resident 48" or higher Under 48" Free 60 years or older Must reside within the limits of the City of Denton Those who reside outside the City of Denton Day Use--This admission program allows use of the Aquatic Park for a single day. Total first year revenue is estimated in excess of $330,000. Block Pricing--Use of the facility by organizations or groups for aquatic events or other activities that are closed to the general public. Total first full year revenue is estimated at over $6,000. 2O Annual Pass--Unlimited use of the facility for one year during designated public usage periods. Total first full year revenue is estimated at $230,000. Exercise/Therapy --Monthly fees for exercise and therapy programs. Total first full year revenue is estimated at approximately $25,000. Camps/Day Care--One week learning camps for school-age children. Total first full year revenue is estimated at almost $90,000. Birthday Packages--use of the Aquatic Park, party favors, and hostess. Would not include the use of the Natatorium party mom(s). Offer 3 package options to allow parents the opportunity to do more or less depending on their budget and time availability. Total first full year revenue is estimated at over $49,000. Special Events/Group Picnic Packages--Aquatic Park use for events include Grad Night; Dive-in movies; Friday Night Swims; school and company outings. Total first year revenue is estimated at $111,400. Food/Catering, Retail, Rentals and Sponsorship Revenues are estimated to be close to $170,000 for the first year. Aquatic Park Sources of Revenue Food/Cate ri n g/R eta i I Rentals/Sponsorshi P Special Events Day Use Birthday Exercise/Th~ Block Camps/Day Care Annual Pass 5.6 Aquatic Park Pricing Plan Ticket Type Admission Price Attendance Day Use Resident Regular $6.95 19,090 Child $4.95 5,338 Senior $4.95 356 Day Use Non-Resident Regular $8.95 15,845 Child $6.95 4,582 Senior $6.95 382 Block Pricing Annual Pass Resident Annual Pass Nonresident Exercise/Therapy Resident Exercise/Therapy Nonresident Camps/Day Care Birthday Parties Special Events 2,230 $7O.OO 7,135 $8O.OO 5,352 $35.00 535 $4O.00 178 $100.00 892 $11.00 4,460 $10.00 11,149 77,524 5.7 Operations Expenses Operations Expenses are estimates only. A Proforma Projection is detailed in Section 5.9 with projections of operations expenses for the Natatorium and the Aquatic Park. Pereonnel Full --- Includes salary, tax and benefit expense for five employees that will be the core management team for the Park and grounds on a year-round basis. Seasonal --- Includes wage and tax expense for part-time employees that may be on staff for all or part of the year. This will encompass all of the employees except for the core management team. Advertising --- Includes costs for radio, television, cable, newspaper, direct and other mediums advertising the Aquatic Complex. Insurance --- Includes expenses for minor guests injuries, medical reimbursements and minor settlement payouts. 22 Medical Supplies --- Basic medical kit supplies including bandages, gauze etc. to attend to minor guest injuries. Pool Supplies --- Pool chemicals, pool cleaning and maintenance supplies. Printing / Postage --- Annual pass printing, cash control supplies, brochure, employee manuals, advertising posters/coupons, marketing mailings. Repair/Maintenance --- Includes all supplies and tools to repair and maintain all areas of the building and groups within the Complex. Special Events --- Expenses related to special days events such as Grad Nite, dive-in movies, Christian Family Day, etc. Park Supplies / Trash Removal --- Restroom and janitorial supplies and the fee for trash removal. Telephone / Office Supplies / Dues --- Includes all subscriptions & dues. Training--Ongoing in-service training of seasonal and permanent staff. Travel-Auto reimbursement; reimbursement of travel to trade/industry events. Uniforms-Employee uniforms. Utilities --- Water, gas and electric. 5.8 Assumptions Projected revenues and expenses are estimated based on reasonable assumptions extrapolated from similar aquatic facilities and the William L. Haralson feasibility study. Operating costs were projected accounting for labor, utility and other variable operating costs. Although based on historical empirical data, there is no assurance that costs will not exceed projected levels or that revenue will be as projected. Revenue projections are assumptions extrapolated in a similar manner. There is a key assumption that a marketing plan will be adopted and implemented at least six months prior to opening the facility. 5.9 Proforma Projection DRAFT Denton Aquatics Complex Proforma Projection ATTENDANCE Day Use Resident Regular Child Senior Day Use Non-Resident Regular Child Senior Block Pricing Annual Pass Resident Annual Pass NonResident Instructions/Lessons Instructions/Lessons NR Exercise/Therapy Exercise/Therapy NR Camps/Day Care Birthday Parties Special Events Natatorium SALES II Day Use Resident II Per Cap Regular II 5.95 Child II 3.95 Senior IJ 3.95 Day Use Non-Resident II Regular II 7.95 Child II 5.95 Senior IJ 5.95 Block Pricing II Annual Pass Resident IJ 50.00 Annual Pass Non-Resident II 80.00 Instructions/Lessons II 40.00 Instructions/Lessons Non-Resident II 50.00 Exemise/Therapy II 45.00 Exercise/Therapy Non-Resident II 55.00 Camps/Day Care II 100.00 Birthday Package II 11.00 Special Events/Groups Package II 10.00 Gate Subtotal: II II Food and Catering II 0.59 Retail II Rentals II 0.12 Sponsorship II II II II II 29o31l 1,3o311 43511 II 2,54211 1,45211 48411 8,186Jl 1,93911 48411 87211 31011 1,2o411 37511 II 4,50011 5,16211 32,151 II II II 17,27311 5,14711 1,71811 II 20,20911 8,639ll 2,88011 18,75Oll 24,238ll 9,68011 34,88011 15,5OOll 54,18011 20,62511 011 49,50011 51,62011 334,83911 II 18,84oll oll 3,76811 5,OOOll Waterpark Per Cap 6.95 4.95 4.95 8.95 6.95 6.95 70.00 80.00 35.00 40.00 100.00 11.00 10.00 1.52 0.15 0.25 II Combined II II Totals II II II 1909011 25,78711 533811 8,43411 35611 1,02811 II II 1584511 20,74611 458211 7,09711 38211 1,028Jl 2,2301J 10,41611 7,13511 11,01311 5,35211 6,64411 II 1,1631l II 38711 53511 2,08311 17811 69411 89211 89211 4,46011 8,96011 11,14911 16,31111 77,52411 II II 132,6761l 26,42311 1,76211 II 141,81311 31,84511 2,85511 6,00011 124,86311 lO7,O4Oll oll Oll 18,72511 7,12Oll 89,20011 49,06011 111,49011 850,671 II II 129,201 II 1,07511 21,24211 16,00011 122,68311 II II 149,94411 31,56911 3,4791l II 162,02311 40,48211 5,53511 24,75011 149,10011 116,73011 34,89011 15,48011 72,90511 27,76011 89,20011 98,56011 163,1 lOll 1,185,51611 II 148,0421l 1,67211 25,01811 21,00011 24 Gross Sales: COST OF SALES Food and Catering Retail II Rental Cost of Sales: II GROSS PROFIT II II OPERATING EXPENSES II Personnel-Full II Personnel-Part-time II Advertising II Dues/Subscriptions II Medical Supplies II Office Supplies/Repair II Pool Supplies II Postage II Printing II Repair/Maintenance II Special Events Park Supplies/'rrash Removal II Telephone II Training II Travel/Entertainment Uniforms II Utilities II Operating Expense: II Net Operating Income: II % of Gross Sales: II 362,44711 II 7,91311 Oll 56511 8,47811 353,96911 II II 208,84511 lO2,4o911 40,00011 25011 1,OOOll 2,00011 50,00011 1,OOOll 2,00011 27,50011 40,00011 5,00011 3,OOOll 2,OOOll 1,OOOll 4,50011 225,oooll 652,50411 (298,535) 11 -82.37%11 DRAFT 1,o18,78811 II 54,26511 83711 3,186,11 58,28811 960,50011 II II 174,13811 149,58611 35,00011 25011 1,5OOll 4,00011 6o,oooll 3,00011 7,00011 6o,oooll 35,00011 6,00011 5,00011 2,50011 1,OOOll 3,00011 90,00011 636,97411 323,52611 31.76%11 1,381,24811 II 62,17711 83611 3,75311 66,76611 1,314,48211 II II 382,98311 251,99511 45,00011 50011 2,50011 6,00011 110,00011 4,00011 9,00011 87,50011 45,00011 11,OOOll 8,00011 4,50011 2,00011 4,50011 315,OOOll 1,289,4781l 25,00411 1.81%11 25 6.0 SALES AND MARKETING Marketing: The Denton Aquatic Complex will fulfill a significant need in the community by providing a safe, enjoyable and exciting place to be entertained that is unlike any other in the area. To insure the facility receives maximum exposure and to insure the park meets its attendance and financial goals, the Aquatic Complex will employ a variety of advertising, sales and marketing techniques. Among the tools will be: Season Pass Promotion Joint Marketing Partnerships Corporate Sponsorships Media Promotions Direct Mail Corporate Picnics School Outings Church/Organization Events Youth Trips Family Nights Birthday Parties Private Buy-outs Swim Club Exchanges Clinics Dive-In Movies Horizon will prepare a marketing and sales calendar for Phase II of its assignment. Special events, promotions and group sales activities will be put in place so as to maximize exposure, excitement and ultimately usage (sales). Additional Revenue Opportunities Following are possible revenue sources that might be considered by the City of Denton and the Denton Independent School District as they contemplate the economics of the Complex. Corporate Sponsorship--Sponsorship fees are commonly paid by corporations or foundations for the right to name an attraction, building, stadium, arona, etc. The Denton Aquatic Complex has elements such as the Natatorium, the Aquatic Park and other attractions, buildings or meeting rooms which might prove attractive to the right business, trust or individual. A comprehensive marketing plan encompassing advertising, sales, promotions, publicity and direct mail will be designed to achieve the attendance goals. 7.0 STAFFING & EMPLOYMENT Because the Denton Aquatic Complex is open on a year-round basis several key positions will be full-time management or support jobs. As a result there is the opportunity to attract and employ quality staff that otherwise might not be available in a seasonal environment. The Complex will employ seven full-time staff including an Aquatics Manager, Aquatic Specialist, Administrative Assistant, Aquatic Engineer, Custodian and two grounds crew. Generally speaking, these individuals will split their time equally between the two facilities. At peak staffing (July of each year) there will be as many as 63 employees at the park that are considered seasonal staff. At the lowest staffing period of the year (January) the Complex will employee approximately 31 part time employees. 7.1 Denton Aquatic Complex Staff Structure Because of the cost savings and synergies of the dual operation of the indoor and outdoor parks, it would be beneficial to establish one staff to run both the water park features and the competitive facility. As shown in the organization chart that follows, Horizon recommends a facility director be responsible for the entire complex. This will accomplish several objectives. With one manager supervising the complex, duplication of training and manpower will be minimized. With one person in charge of the financial and operational aspects of the complex, accountability and lines of communication and authority will be clear. Moreover, overstaffing or understaffing of the respective waterpark or indoor aquatic center will be less likely because the facility director will have the overview of proper staffing levels. This plan necessitates a budget, which delineates the indoor aquatic center and the waterpark as separate cost and profit centers. The following sample staff outline and sample job descriptions are based upon the one staff premise. STAFF OUTLINE Aquatics Manager Aquatics Specialist Aquatics Engineer Administrative Assistant 27 7.2 Organizational Chart 7.3 Job Descriptions - Core Management Team Position Title: Aquatics Manager Number of Supervised Positions: 35-50 Immediate Subordinates: Aquatics Specialist, Aquatics Engineer Administrative Assistant and Summary: Responsible for the direction and management of all aspects of the Denton Aquatic Complex. Essential Functions: 1. Oversee the Denton Aquatic Complex including, but not limited to, the direction and philosophy of the program, staff training, purchasing, staff hiring and training, development and enforcement of the budget, facility schedules, special events, develop and enforce a policy handbook, coordinate all staff communications including regular meetings, facility cleanliness and health department code compliance and annual staff evaluations and safety audits. 2. Establish and oversee all Procedures, Policies and Standards of Care for the Complex. 3. Coordinate with the DISD and the City of Denton representatives for all events and programming. 4. Organize and maintain inventory lists of all equipment. 5. Coordinate regular staff development clinics and meetings. 6. Coordinate all aquatics outreach efforts to the community. 7. Represent the facility at all selected professional functions. 8. Coordinate regular facility, equipment maintenance, and staff schedules. 9. Perform other various duties as assigned. Conditions: · Function in a sports/recreational multi-use facility · Prolonged standing/walking · Prolonged exposure to the sun · Non-traditional hours, including evenings, weekends, holidays and on-call Tools and Equipment: · Standard office equipment: telephone, fax, PC and software systems · PA system · Pool operations equipment · Pool testing equipment and chemical auditing procedures · Life-guarding equipment · Commercialvideo equipment · Colorado Timing Equipment Minimum Qualifications: American Red Cross Life-guarding · College Degree in Recreation, Education, Coaching or Business emphasis preferred · Knowledge of technical side of competitive aquatics · Knowledge of technical side of aquatic management · Five years experience in aquatic facility management · Certified Pool Operator (CPO) or Aquatic Facility Operator (AFO) certificate · Excellent written and oral communication skills · Experience with mechanical pool equipment · Certified Water Safety Instructor Salary Range: $51,147 to $68,182 Position Reports to: Recreation Superintendent, Leisure Services 3O Position Title: Aquatics Specialist (Instructional/Exercise/DISD Programs) Number of Supervised Positions: 35-50 Immediate Subordinates: Instructors, Coaches & Lifeguards Summary: Assist the Manager with all aquatic functions assigned. Develop and supervise all instructional programs including, but not limited to, staff training and schedules, lesson programs, water exercise programs, day care lessons, and all special programs deemed appropriate. Generate and coordinate all programming of events for the Denton Aquatic Complex. Essential Functions: 1. Establish Procedures, Policies and Standards of Care within the Programs areas. 2. Assist the Aquatics Manager in all duties as assigned including, but not limited to, managing the complex in the Manager's absence, scheduling, planning and coordinating all events and programs. Program operations of the Denton Aquatic Complex including the staffing and communications necessary to run the programs. Assist the Manager with the budget and submit budgeting plans for programming and events. Direct regular customer surveys of all events and programs. Represent the facility and staff in professional settings as approved by the Manager. Responsible for developing and modeling leadership for all staff. Perform other various duties as assigned. 5. 6. 7. 8. Conditions: · Function in a sports/recreational multi-use facility · Prolonged standing/walking · Prolonged exposure to the sun · Non-traditional hours, including evenings, weekends, holidays and on-call Tools and Equipment: · Standard office equipment: telephone, fax, PC and software systems · PA system · Pool operations equipment · Pool testing equipment and chemical auditing procedures · Life-guarding equipment · Commercial video equipment · Colorado Timing Equipment Minimum Qualifications: · Three years experience in running, marketing and developing aquatic sports events · Marketing experience in recreational programs · American Red Cross Life-guarding Instructor · College Degree · Knowledge of technical side of competitive aquatics · Knowledge of technical side of aquatic management · Two years experience in aquatic facility management · Certified Pool Operator (CPO) or Aquatic Facility Operator (AFO) certificate · Excellent written and oral communication skills · Experience with mechanical pool equipment · Certified Water Safety Instructor Salary Range: $45,656 - $60,881 Position Reports to: Aquatics Manager Position Title: Administrative Assistant (Admissions, Retail Sales, Corporate Sponsorships, Rentals, Grants, Marketing & Cash Control) Number of Supervised Positions: 35-50 Immediate Subordinates: Retail, Food Service, Cash Control & Marketing staff Summary: Under general supervision, is responsible for maintaining the safe, efficient and profitable operation of the Denton Aquatic Complex's gift shop, food service units, catering, rentals and tickets sales. Assist the Manager with all aquatic functions assigned. Essential Functions: 1. Establish Procedures, Policies and Standards of Care within the Admissions, Retail, Rentals, Marketing and Cash Control areas. 2. Select, order and maintain inventory, pricing and policies regarding the in- park revenue sources. 3. Prevent potential accident situations by eliminating hazards and hazardous behavior. Train and oversee staff at each revenue center. Educate users about the revenue services. Assist in organizing and conducting staff audits of revenue services. Assist in maintaining the Aquatic Complex's revenue areas in a safe and sanitary condition. Provide event support and supervision at the discretion of the management team. Assist in the maintenance and care of the facility. Prepare reports as needed or directed by the Aquatics Manager. Ensure all appropriate health department policies are met. Support instructional programs as needed. Assist the Manager with all special events. Perform other various duties as assigned. 5. 6. 7. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Conditions: Function in a sports/recreational multi-use facility · Prolonged standing/walking · Prolonged exposure to the sun · Non-traditional hours, including evenings, weekends, holidays and on-call Tools and Equipment: · Standard office equipment: telephone, fax, PC and software systems · PA system · Cash register · Food preparation equipment · Cash receipt equipment · Commercial video equipment 33 Minimum Qualifications: · Retail and food service experience · Excellent written and oral communication skills · Supervisory experience preferred · Concession experience preferred · Staff training and evaluation experience. Salary Range: $32,490 - $43,326 Position Reports to: Aquatics Manager 34 Position Title: Aquatics Engineer Number of Supervised Positions: 5 - 10 Immediate Subordinates: Pool Maintenance, Janitorial and Landscape staff Summary: Under general supervision, is responsible for maintaining the safe and efficient operation of the pools and grounds. Essential Functions: 1. Establish Procedures, Policies and Standards of Care for maintenance, janitorial and landscaping. 2. Maintain the integrity of the pools and their related equipment. 3. Regularly test and evaluate equipment's performance against established standards. Ensure all policies and procedures regarding pool maintenance and equipment is followed. Provide training as required. Maintain the grounds so they are safe for staff and guests. Prevent potential accident situations by eliminating hazards and hazardous behavior. Train and oversee staff. Prepare reports as needed or directed by the Aquatics Manager. Perform other various duties as assigned. 9. 10. Conditions: · Function in a sports/recreational multi-use facility · Prolonged standing/walking · Prolonged exposure to the sun. · Customer service related functions · Non-traditional hours, including evenings, weekends, holidays and on-call Tools and Equipment: · Pool, Mechanical, Electrical and Landscape equipment · Standard office equipment: telephone, fax, PC and software systems · PA system · Commercial video equipment Minimum Qualifications: · Experience with pool and mechanical equipment · Electrical experience · Experience with grounds maintenance and related equipment · Excellent written and oral communication skills · Supervisory experience preferred Salary Range: $45,656 - $60,881 Position Reports to: Aquatics Manager 35 8.0 EXECUTIVE PROFILE 8.1 AQUATIC DESIGN GROUP Aquatic Design Group is one of the pro-imminent names in the aquatic engineering field. Aquatic Design Group provides complete architectural, structural, mechanical and electrical design services for each aquatic program element within a designated project. ADG is experienced in competitive, recreation and leisure swimming pools; resort hotel swimming pools and water features; water park and amusement park water rides and attractions; and fountains and decorative water features such as lakes, streams, cascades and waterfalls. Its experience in developing municipal pools, both indoor and outdoors, numbers in the hundreds. 8.2 WHITEWATER WEST INDUSTRIES, LTD. 8.3 WHITEWATER WEST Industries Ltd. is the largest and most experienced builder of aquatic attractions in the world. The company offers the industry's largest selection of water park products including; body-slides, inner-tube rides, family raft rides, thrill rides, wave equipment, FlowriderTM, AquaPlayTM Systems and Kid's Play elements. Whitewater is based in Richmond BC with regional offices in the United States, Europe, Asia and South America. The firm has been in business since 1981 and employs over 200 people. 11883 Silver Cliff Way HORIZON AMUSEMENT GROUP, INC. Gold River, CA 95670 916) 635-8430 HorizonFamily @ attb£ com HORIZON AMUSEMENT GROUP, INC. is a California-based theme, amusement, water park and family entertainment development and management company that provides turnkey management services from planning, designing, construction to training financial, operating and marketing management. The Company's principals have built and operated moro aquatic parks than any other company of its kind. Here is a partial list of past projects/clients: Worlds of Fun Kansas City, MO Oceans of Fun Kansas City, MO %'aterworld USA Sacramento, CA X,Vaterworld/Phoenix Glcndalc, AZ awaiian \¥atcrs ~ The Island of Big Surf ahu, HI ~,,~ Tempe, AZ ~ California State Fair ~ ~ ~ Paradise Island Sacramento, CA ~** ' Sacramento, CA t Wild YVater Adventures Ragkng Waters Clovis CA ..a~ , Salt Lake City, UT H & H Ranch Houston, TX Wild YVatcrs Bqing, China 36 ADDENDUM A Schedule The proposed Natatorium Event Schedule included in the due diligence is for forecasting purposes only. The programming schedule is a best estimate based upon professional expertise. The hours of operation are from 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM daily, five (5) days a week Monday through Friday, Saturday 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM, forty-eight (48) weeks per year. Four (4') schedules have been developed: School Year Schedule (September 1 throu.qh May 31) Mondays through Fridays 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM 9:45 AM to 11:00 AM 11:30 AM to 1:00 PM 2:00 PM to 3:30 PM 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM Masters Swim Program Rent to other school districts - swim teams Varsity Swim Team Therapy Sessions for other sports High School PE Swimming/Diving Elementary Swim LeSson Program Middle School Swim Program Outdoor Education High School PE Swimming/Diving Masters Swim Program Open Lap Swim for Adults Aqua-Aerobics Varsity Diving Team Therapy Sessions for other sports Rent to other school districts - swim teams Rent Club Swim Programs Swim Lessons Rent Club Diving Programs Aqua-Aerobics Masters Swim Program Open Lap Swim 37 8:00 PM to 9:00 PM Saturday 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 12:00 PM to 5:00 PM Water Polo Scuba Lessons Red Cross Programs Synchronized Swimming Rent Club Swim Program Master Swim Programs Rent Club Diving Program Swim Lessons Open Swim / Parties Summer (June 1 through August 31) Monday through Friday 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 12:00 PM to 4:00 PM 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM 8:00 PM to 9:00 PM Masters Swim Programs Rent Club Swim Program Summer League Swim Team Rent Diving Program Swim Lessons Aqua-Aerobics Open Swim Day Care Camps Rent Club Swim Programs Summer League Swim Team Rent Diving Programs Masters Swim Programs Swim Lessons Aqua-Aerobics Water Polo Synchronized Swimming Scuba Lessons Red Cross Programs 38 Saturday 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM 12:00 PM to 5:00 PM Open Lab Swim Rent Club Swim Program Master Swim Programs Rent Club Diving Program Swim Lessons Open Swim / Parties Lane Usage and A va#ability The total swimming lanes available in the set up of the pool is 10 lanes. Consideration must be given to pool depth and the diving area when scheduling programs. Two lanes (#1 and #2) are available in the shallow end (4 to 5 feet) of the pool. Four lanes are used for diving activities when scheduled. During diving and shallow end pool scheduled programs there will be 4 lanes available for other use. Lane availability is based upon the schedule outlined in this memorandum. This schedule does not take into consideration day-to-day fluctuations or schedule changes, such as cancellations, time/day gaps between program sessions or inability to initiate program(s). Additional space may be available due to schedule/program variance. ADDENDUM B City of Denton Map & Artist Renderings: De~to~ Aquatics Par~ Elm Fo~k Trail Mllm 40 EXHIB·T C Parks, Recreation and Beautification Meeting March 25, 2002 City Hall Conference Room Members present: Don Edwards, Dalton Gregory, Geri Aschenbrenner, Dale Yeatts, Brandon Barnes, and Cassandra Berry. Members absent: Teresa Andress. Staff present: Bob Tickner, Emerson Vorel, Ed Hodney, Janet Simpson, Janie McLeod, and Jim Mays. Chairman Don Edwards called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. AWARDS AND RECOGNITION. Emerson Vorel introduced Jim Mays who was recently promoted to Program Area Manager for the Parks Operations division. Emerson also said that the department won a Texas Parks and Recreation Society (TRAPS) State award for the City Scapers program. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Dale Yeatts made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 25th meeting and Geri Aschenbrenner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimous. ACTION ITEMS Consider approval resolution allowing Metzler's Food and Beverage to sell alcoholic beverages at the Cinco de Mayo Celebrate'on on May 4, 2002. Janet Simpson introduced Nicole Vazquez, chairperson of the Cinco de Mayo committee. Janet said that each year a representative from the committee makes a request of the Board to recommend to City Council approval for the sale of alcoholic beverages at the event. She said that there would be an increase in security as a precautionary factor and not because of any previous problems. Nicole asked for a multi-year contract for the sale of alcoholic beverages at Cinco de Mayo so they wouldn't need to come before the Board each year. Ed said that more information would be needed before a contract could be arranged and that staff would bring the topic back to the Board with more information. Ed asked that Janet and Nicole work on the requested contract together. ACTION: Dalton made a motion to approve the request recommend to City Council to approve the sale alcoholic beverages at the Cinco de Mayo event on May 4th. Brandon seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Dalton asked why the Arts Festival is not required to make requests to Council to sale alcoholic beverages at their event. He said that consistency is important when dealing with the various events that sell alcohol. Ed assured the Board that there is consistency and no discrimination between organizations. Ed added that the Art Festival has an ongoing contract with the City through its funding with hotel/motel tax and deals primarily with the CMO rather than the Parks Department. Ed said that a more formal multi-year policy for selling alcoholic beverages in the Civic Center Park would need to be developed and presented to City Council for approval. Consider a request d~hom City of Denton Electric Engineering Department to construct an electric line across the~ontage of Mack Park. Bob said that the City's Electric Engineering Departmem has requested the use of park land for the purpose of relocating an electric transmission line to service a section of the city near Mack Park. Bob said there be no major impact on currem park operation s or programs. Bob added that the lines will be placed underground and wouldn't change the use of the park. The Departrnem would be compensated for the use of the park land and the Funds would be used to improve the park. ACTION: Dale Yeatts made a motion to approve the request to lay electrical lines at the entryway of Mack Park on McKinney Street. Geri Aschenbrenner seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Receive a report and make a recommendation on the naming of the aquatic center. Brandon Barnes, chair of the Aquatic Naming Committee, presented the committee's report. Brandon said that the process for the naming was the committee members researched and brainstormed a list of possible names. The committee then prioritized the names. Staff concurred with the naming committee that the name given first priority was marketable. ACTION: Brandon Barnes made a motion to recommend "Water Works Park" to City Council as the name of the water park subject to review of the marketing firm. Geri Aschenbrenner seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Aquatic Center Operation Agreement. Janet said the Parks and Recreation Departmem (PARD) and DeNon Independem School District (DISD) staff have completed a draft Operations Agreemem, and are in the process of finalizing minor details in the documem. The Operations Agreemem will be a binding agreemem approved by both the City Council and the DISD School Board and will provide for the maimenance and operation of the Aquatic Facilities once construction is completed. This agreement is an addendum to the Interlocal Agreement, which was approved in May 2001, and covered the design and construction of the project. Dalton Gregory had to leave to attend another meeting. ACTION: Dale Yeatts made a motion to approve the operations agreement and Brandon Barnes seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. DIRECTOR' S REPORT Project Status Report. Ed said he would respond to any questions regarding the report. were no questions. There Keep Denton Report. There were no questions or comments regarding the report. OTHER ITEMS Brandon asked about the status of the sign for the Mabel Craven tennis center at Avondale Park. Emerson said that options are being considered and a recommendation should be ready soon. Ed said that Cathy Avery would contact Brandon to provide more information. Ed distributed a letter from the North Texas Woman's Soccer Association requesting a location to play soccer. Ed said he would copy the Board with his response. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #29 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION May 14, 2002 Planning & Developmem Dave Hill, 349-8314 SHEET SUBJECT Consider approval of a resolution by the City of Demon, Texas, authorizing the City Manager to sign and submit to the Departmem of Housing and Urban Developmem a 2002 Action Plan for Housing and Community Development with appropriate certifications, as authorized and required by the Housing and Community Developmem Act of 1974, as amended, and the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, as amended; and providing for an effective date. BACKGROUND The 2002 Action Plan represems the second year in the City's five-year Consolidated Plan strategy and serves as the city's application for Community Developmem Block Gram (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships program funding. In 2000, using a process with extensive input from citizens and local nonprofit organizations, staff developed Demon's 2000 - 2005 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development. The Consolidated Plan is a five-year strategy detailing housing, social service and public works projects benefiting low and moderate-income households and neighborhoods. Annual action plans are developed based on the strategies outlined in the Consolidated Plan. Public hearings requesting citizen input regarding the use of CDBG and HOME funds were held in November and December (2001). Application availability was also advertised in November and December. Staff held application workshops in January 2002. CDAC and HSAC held funding hearings during February and March. Each committee developed a set of funding recommendations to presem to City Council. Staff has developed these recommendations imo the 2002 Action Plan for Council review. Page 7 of the 2002 Action Plan provides a list of the activities recommended for 2002 funding. A public hearing was held at the City Council meeting on April 16. Several individuals commemed on proposed funding activities. A summary of commems from the public hearing and other commems made during the required 30-day commem period are included on pages 49 - 52 of the 2002 Action Plan. Please refer to your 2002 Action Plan for additional information. The plan comains a copy of the proposed plan, minutes from advisory committee meetings, minutes from public hearings and citizen commems. OPTIONS · Approve the 2002 Action Plan for Housing and Community Development · Request revisions to the proposed 2002 Action Plan activities prior to final acceptance. · Provide guidance to advisory committees and ask for reconsideration or restructuring of 2002 Action Plan funding proposals. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Advisory Committee and Human Services recommend approval of the proposed activities in the 2002 Action Plan. Advisory Committee ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Public comment period April 1 through April 30 Action Plan public hearing April 16 City Council considers approval of Action Plan May 14 Submission of Action Plan to HUD June 1 Environmental review process May 14 through July 20 Release of funds by HUD August 4 Project initiation August 5 PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW Community Development Advisory Committee members developed recommendations for allocation of CDBG funds for housing and nonprofit facility improvements. The Human Services Committee members developed recommendations for the use of $169,283 in CDBG funds for human service activities. This is the maximum amount of CDBG funds that can be used for human services under federal regulations. HSAC also recommended that $280,392 from the City's General Fund be allocated to human services agencies. Though the 2002 Action Plan indicates that the HSAC is recommending use of general fund dollars, approval of the 2002 Action Plan does not approve HSAC's General Fund recommendations. Human Services Advisory Committee recommendations for the General Fund budget will be included in the normal budgetary process. FISCAL INFORMATION All projects and programs approved under the 2002 Action Plan are funded with CDBG and HOME funds. No general fund dollars are included in the proposed plan. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2. 2002 Action Plan Prepared By: Respectfully submitted: Barbara Ross Community Development Administrator Linda Ratliff Director for Economic Development S:\Our Documents\Resolutions\02\Comm. Dev. 2002 Action Plan Res.doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AND SUBMIT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT A 2002 ACTION PLAN FOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WITH APPROPRIATE CERTIFICATIONS, AS AUTHORIZED AND REQUIRED BY THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974, AS AMENDED AND THE NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACT OF 1990, AS AMENDED; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas, is concerned with the developmem of viable urban communities, including decent housing, a suitable living environmem and expanded economic opportunities; and WHEREAS, the City of DeNon, Texas, has a special concern for persons of low and moderate income; and WHEREAS, the City of DeNon, Texas, as a CDBG entitlement City and a Home participating jurisdiction, has prepared, through a citizen participation process, a program for utilizing its 2002-year entitlement funds and program income in the approximate amount of $1,818,097; and WHEREAS, citizen participation requiremems, including the holding of public hearings, have been met; and WHEREAS, the Community Developmem Act of 1974 and the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 require an application and appropriate certifications included in the Consolidated Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, authorizes the City Manager to sign and submit to the Department of Housing and Urban Development a 2002 Action Plan and appropriate certifications for emitlemem funds under the Housing and Community Developmem Act of 1974, as amended and the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, as amended. SECTION 2. That the City Council of the City of Demon, Texas, authorizes the Community Development Administrator to handle all fiscal and administrative matters related to the application, the Action Plan and the certifications. SECTION 3. That the City Secretary is hereby authorized to furnish copies of this resolution to all interested parties. SECTION 4. That this resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. S:\Our Documents\Resolutions\02\Comm. Dev. 2002 Action Plan Res.doc PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2002. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Page 2 CITY OF DENTON 1-YEAR ACTION PLAN 2002 Program year Housing Park Facilities Public Improvements Human Services for housing and community development Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development Presented to Denton City Council on April 16, 2002 www.cityofdenton.com ADA/EOE/ADEA TABLE OF CONTENTS mo Summary of Action Plan 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 2. Funding Summary .................................................................................................... 2 3. Local Match ............................................................................................................. 2 4. Citizen Participation ................................................................................................. 2 B. Funding Sources 1. Summary .................................................................................................................. 3 2. SF-424 Application - CDBG Funds .......................................................................... 5 3. SF-424 Application - HOME Funds .......................................................................... 6 C. Projects/Activities 1. Summary .................................................................................................................. 7 1. CPD Listing of CDBG and HOME Proposed Projects .............................................. 8 2. Other Resources Available ...................................................................................... 26 D. CP Strategies and Proposed Projects ............................................................................ 27 mo Go 1. Housing Strategies ................................................................................................. 27 2. Continuum of Care Strategies ................................................................................. 28 3. Lead-Based Paint Strategies ................................................................................... 32 4. Human Services Strategies ..................................................................................... 32 5. Infrastructure & Public Facilities Strategies ............................................................. 33 6. Demolition Strategies ............................................................................................. 33 7. Anti-Poverty & Economic Development Strategies ................................................. 34 Proposed Project Map .................................................................................................. 35 Other Program Requirements 1. HOME - Forms of Investment ................................................................................ 36 2. HOME - Tenant-Based Rental Assistance .............................................................. 36 3. Monitoring Standards and Procedures ................................................................... 37 4. Institutional Structure ............................................................................................. 38 Certifications ................................................................................................................ 39 Minutes A. Minutes from Public Hearings (11/29/01, 12/3/01, 4/16/02) .................................... 44 B. Minutes from 30-day Comment Period ................................................................... 52 C. Minutes from the Community Development Advisory Committee Meetings ............ 54 D. Minutes from the Human Services Advisory Committee Meetings ..........................71 SUMMARY INTRODUCTION This documem serves as the City of Demon's 2002 Action Plan for the Community Developmem Block Gram (CDBG) and HOME Investmem Partnership (HOME) Programs. In accordance with 24 CFR Part 91.220 of Title I of the Housing and Community Developmem Act of 1974, as amended, the City of Demon is required to submit a One-Year Action Plan to the U.S. Departmem of Housing and Urban Developmem. The plan outlines the specific projects and services that will be funded during the 2002 program year to address Demon's strategies stated in the 2000-2004 Consolidated Plan. Demon's 2000 Consolidated Plan describes the city's strategies and resources for the next five years creating a stronger link between the needs in the city, strategies and available resources. Based on the needs analysis of the City of Demon, the following five year strategies were idemified in 2002 year and are reaffirmed this year: Housing Strategies: Assistance to Renters, Owners, and Homebuyers and the Production of Affordable Units; Continuum of Care Strategies: Prevention, Outreach, Intake, Assessment & Referral, Housing Services (Emergency Shelter, Transitional Housing, Permanem Housing w and w/o Supportive Services), and Support Services; Lead-Based Paint Strategies: Education and Reduction of Lead-Based Paint Hazardous to Owners and Homebuyers; Human Services Strategies: Developmem of additional childcare, Improvemem of health care services, Cominue work with Cominuum of Care Planning Committee, Case Coordination and Information Referral, Support of growth strategy in community and Continued allocation support to meet urgent needs; Infrastructure Improvement Strategies: Improvements to Streets, Sidewalks and Water/Sewer lines, Drainage Improvemems, Rehabilitation and Expansion of Public Facilities, Park Improvements and Demolition of Substandard Structures; Anti-Poverty & Economic Development Strategy: Support Training and Employment Activities, Expand Education Opportunities, Support of Section 3 goals, and Support of Start-up and expansion industry. Page 1 FUNDING SUMMARY The City of Demon is curremly an emitlemem city for the Community Developmem Block Gram and HOME Investment Partnership Programs. The City of Denton's 2002 CDBG allocation is $1,128,554 (includes $19,777 in 2001 CDBG reallocated funds). The HOME allocation is $575,000. A total of $60,000 in program income is projected for the 2002 program year. SF-424 applications for Community Development Block Grant and the HOME Partnership Investment Program funds are on page 5 and 6, respectively. The HOME program also requires a local match. LOCAL MATCH The City of Demon's local match for the HOME program is $129,375. The HOME program requires a participating jurisdiction to provide a 25% match of the federal HOME funds. The 25% match of federal HOME funds excludes administrative allowances of 10%. The City of Demon will provide the match from a variety of sources including the following: Federal Home Loan Bank funds awarded to the City of Demon and the Demon Affordable Housing Corporation (DAHC) for home ownership assistance and home improvemem. Demon County Housing Finance Corporation and other non-federal funding awarded to Demon Affordable Housing Corporation and City of Demon. City of Denton Impact Fee Grant Awards used to pay required impact fees on HOME eligible projects. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION To ensure citizen participation in the 2002 Action Plan process, the city followed its Citizen Participation Plan. Public hearings were held November 29, 2001 and December 3, 2001. The public hearings updated citizens on the status of currem programs and activities and asked how the citizens how they felt the 2002 funds should be spem. At least one of the public hearings was held within a low and moderate-income neighborhood. Information on the public hearing was developed in English and Spanish and mailed out to neighborhood associations; service agencies and beneficiaries; city council, Human Services Committee (HSC) and Community Developmem Advisory Committee (CDAC) members; churches; contractors; participating lenders; citizens who attended previous public hearings; and imerested citizens. Notices were also placed on the Community Bulletin Board - local cable station and in the Denton Record-Chronicle. Page 2 After the Action Plan was drafted, advertisemems were placed in the Demon Record-Chronicle summarizing the plan and announcing to the public where the Action Plan was available for review, and the process for submitting commems to the City of Demon. The advertisemems also included information on the upcoming public hearing. Notices were also included in the quarterly Community Developmem Newsletter that is mailed to all agencies, applicams, Realtors, participating lenders, committees, and city employees. All commems received from the public were addressed before submitting the plan to the U.S. Departmem of Housing and Urban Development. To ensure citizen participation at all stages of the 2002 Action Plan process, one public hearing will be scheduled on April 16, 2002 during a City Council Meeting to give citizens the opportunity to commem on the 2002 proposed projects and activities. See Appendix H on page 44 for minutes of the public hearings and responses to the commems. 2002 FUNDING SOURCES Emitlemem Gram (Includes Reallocated Funds) CDBG $1,128,554 ESG $0 HOME $575,000 HOPWA $0 Total $1,703,554 Prior Years' Program Income Not Previously Programmed Or Reported CDBG $0 ESG $0 HOME $0 HOPWA $0 Total $0 Reprogrammed Prior Years' Funds CDBG ESG HOME HOPWA Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Estimated Program Income CDBG Loan Repaymems HOME Loan Repayments Total $27,000 $33,000 $60,000 Section 108 Loan Guaramee Fund $0 Total Funding Sources $1,763,554 Page 3 Other Funding Sources Local Contributions Conventional Loans - DAHC Denton County Housing Finance Corp. City of Demon Funds FHLB of Dallas Local Grants to Subrecipients Program Income to Subrecipients Special Events United Way of Demon County Denton County Homebuyer Funds U.S. Department of HUD State of Texas FEMA Ryan White Care Act Total Submitted Proposed Projects Totals Un-Submitted Proposed Projects Totals $567,952 $2,127,523 $25,000 $313,442 $185,000 $65,405 $588,297 $42,000 $252,872 $25,000 $105,000 $43,000 $10,300 $8,000 $38,000 $4,568,188 $1,765,968 $0 Page 4 Application for Federel Assistance 40aCl. e R~l~ecl by ~e~er~ 7~5~4 8[ae ~li~lton I~enfifi~r Suite Ben[o~ C:.ounl~ If~: Con~imatio¢ .¢ F~ere~ ~mesl;ic A~¢s1~r,ce Numl;en: Number: 14.218 ,~-Jetan~ Tittle:: Co~muni~ De~h~pm~t Bt~c~ ~r~![ '2~ ¢ Dentem Te~ Stad~ ~e I E~ Name ~ F~! ~: O,$ De~. of ~u~n~ & U~ban ~elo~n~nt 15. Esbm~.ed Fu~n~n~: f P~ram I~rne Review ~$: Program not =ore, ad !7 is t~ Ap¢iceni De4im~len Any Fedem!l ~ Page 5 Application for Federal Assistance 30~ R~ived by- Sta~e 756£005!4 7560035~ 4 Ty~, of Type: ~,0 ~,~;~0g of Federal Oom~sfi~ Ass,isl~nce ~mbe¢: ¢a:~1~9 Number:: i4-Z:3!~ ~rnmuni4y ~e~t Oiv~fon (940) hame ,~ Fe~al ~: U,$, ~pL ~f H;~USi~ & Y:rba~ H~si~ rehab~n~ a~sistanc~ [e CHDO, horneow~er~ip ~stsla~ce a,~ pr~mm edmins~rallion OB~I/~2 I 07~1Y03 ! 8, E~li~led F~r~din9 a., Faciaral $576,000 $0 ~ St-a~e S0 em Oihe~ f. Pr~ram ~ncome 9, To~l $ ~8,,0D0 13,4 ~, 13,4 Rewiew Status: Pr~r~ FI~ rl;XY~e[rt~d $7. Is ~he ~pl~ Delinquent o,n A.q~' Federal NO 1',El. To ~l~e ~st oI~ kno,~tedge ~nd ~ie¢,, ~ ! ~a i~ this ~l¢~l;ioWpreap¢~[on ~ t~e en~ ~rre;-,t. ~h~ ~n~ ~s bacon duly a~tlofi~ (~) ~94)307 Ci[? dm Si~a~re o~ ~lho¢i~ed Rcpre~nt~l~ive e, [;~ Page 6 2002 PROJECTS/ACTIVITIES SUMMARY The City of Demon's total federal funding for 2002 is $1,763,554. Program funds have been allocated to an array of projects and activities to benefit low and moderate-income households. Each project is described in detail from pages 8 to 25 and is arranged by project number. See the following list of CDBG and HOME proposed projects and activities for their assigned project and page number: Page # Project Name CDBG HOME Project # 8 Adult Day Care of North Texas $5,733 $0 8 9 AiDS Services-Nutrition $15,000 $0 9 10 CDBG Administration $231,100 $0 1 11 DAHC (AHOP Program) $0 $150,000 2 12 DCCD School Playground Project $17,000 $0 3 13 Family Health Care, inc. $30,000 $0 10 14 Heritage Oaks Project $60,000 $0 16 15 HOME Administration $0 $60,800 5 16 Home improvemem Program $109,499 $311,386 6 17 Homebuyer Assistance Program $487,672 $3,446 7 18 HOPE, inc. $30,000 $0 11 19 imerfaith Ministries $17,250 $0 12 20 Minor Repair Program $81,000 $0 4 21 PARD: ASAS/TRAC $17,000 $0 13 21 PARD: King's Kids Day Kamp $19,800 $0 14 23 PARD: Owsley Summer $19,500 $0 15 24 Salvation Army $15,000 $0 18 25 Special Needs TBRA $0 $82,368 17 Total Funding Allocated to Projects $1,155,554 $608,000 Funding Available ($1,155,554) ($608,000) Funds $0 $0 Unprogrammed Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 g Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 o~ c~ Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 OTHER RESOURCES AVAILABLE Also, during the 2002 program year, the City of Denton plans to undertake additional activities/programs to address local objectives and strategies using City of Denton General Fund dollars. The Human Services Advisory Committee has recommended funding the following human services program, it is recommended that these activities be funded through the Denton's general fund budget. City Council will consider approval of the following recommendations in September 2002. Category / Agency General Funds Other Funds Aging Services RSVP $7,400 $311,150 SPAN, inc. $29,000 $2,303,597 Fairhaven Retirement Home $7,500 $443,618 Emergency Services: Community Food Center $3,000 $37,300 Special Needs Services Adult Day Care of North Texas $3,267 $188,688 Riding Unlimited $ 825 $141,275 Youth, Children & Family Services Children's Advocacy Center $10,000 $452,000 Court Appointed Special Advocates, Denton Co. $8,000 $289,252 Denton Christian Preschool $30,000 $204,562 Denton City Co. Day School $35,000 $321,850 Denton County Friends of the Family $36,000 $1,622,061 Denton Co. MHMR (SIERRA Program) $9,000 $0 Denton Family Resource Center $7,650 $123,585 Fred Moore Day Nursery School $39,000 $259,098 Owsley Community School - Education $14,750 $19,000 Owsley Community School - After School Care $13,000 $0 Sickle Cell Disease Assoc. $4,500 $302,000 Information & Referral HelpNET $22,500 $50,025 Total Page 26 STRATEGIES & PROPOSED PROJECTS The City of DeNon's 2002 funding has been allocated to programs and activities that meet objectives stated in Denton's five-year strategic plan. Following is the list of the five-year strategies and proposed outcomes stated in the Consolidated Plan and proposed projects and activities that will be undertaken to meet those strategies. 5-yr Consolidated Plan 5-yr Consolidated Plan 1-yr Action Plan Strategy Outcome Measures Proposed Activities RENTAL HOUSING STRATEGIES increase the number of units of 1)No net loss in the number of Support of DeNon renal assistance available to DeNon units of assistance available from Housing Authority and citizens. DHA. 2) Collaborative efforts Special Needs TenaN between DHA and the City of Based ReNal Assistance Denton to increase available rental subsidies. Encourage the developmeN of self- initial program objectives would be HOPE, inc. sufficiency programs that move to move 3 to 5 households per year Interfaith Ministries households off renal subsidies, off renal assistance or other public assistance programs, approximately 20 households over the five-year period. Encourage and support the Rehabilitation of 4 to 5 rental units Residual Funds from the rehabilitation of substandard units in per year. Approximately 25 units ReNal Rehabilitation the city. over the five-year period. Program Encourage and support the Production of 50 additional DeNon Affordable construction of additional affordable affordable renal units each year, Housing Corp. and City rental units. 250 over the five-year period, of Denton's Impact Fee Grant Waivers Encourage and assist low-income See Homeownership strategy Homebuyer Assistance renters in Denton to become Program and Denton homeowners. Affordable Housing Corp. - Affordable Housing Opportunity Program Page 27 OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING STRATEGIES Educate the community regarding Attendance at classes by 10 Home Improvement budgeting, home maiNenance, homeowners each year of the five- Program, Homebuyer saving for major repairs and home year period for a total of 50 Assistance Program and cleaning practices, homeowners. Homeownership classes Assist low and moderate-income Average of 15 emergency repairs Minor Repair Program households with emergency housing each year of the five-year period repairs and weatherization, for a total of 75 repairs. Encourage low and moderate- Average of 7 units will be brought Home ImprovemeN income homeowners to maiNain up to City of DeNon building code Program their units up to curreN City of standards on an annual basis. This DeNon code standards, will include renovated and reconstructed units. Approximately 35 loans will be provided over the five-year period HOMEOWNERSHIP & PRODUCTION OF AFFORDABLE UNITS Educate community regarding 150-200 households participating Homebuyer Assistance homeownership opportunities and in homeownership classes each Program and responsibilities, year of the five-year period. Homeownership classes Encourage homeownership among Move 60 Denton renter households Homebuyer Assistance DeNon's low and moderate-income to homeownership each year of the Program and DAHC's reNer households, five-year period. Affordable Housing Opportunity Program Encourage and support production Construction of an average of 15 Denton Affordable of affordable units, units per year over the five-year Housing Corp. period for an estimated total of 75 new units. CONTINUUM OF CARE STRATEGIES - PREVENTION Decrease the number of persons By the third year, provide Consumer Credit evicted from renal units or education to 100% of households Counseling, Homebuyer defaulting on mortgages, receiving housing assistance. Assistance Program, DAHC's AHOP program, HOPE Inc. and Homeownership classes. Support funding targeted toward Fund an additional $50,000.00 in INerfaith Ministries, assistance with renal and Nility combined renal and Nility HOPE Inc., Salvation deposits, deposits. Army, AIDS Services of North Texas Page 28 Support the DeNon Housing Funding partnerships will be Support of DeNon Authority's requests for increased developed with the local housing Housing Authority subsidies and Section 8 renal authority in order to provide assistance vouchers, and increase additional subsidies and affordable the number of vouchers allocated to housing units. residents. CONTINUUM OF CARE STRATEGIES - OUTREACH Increased coordination of available Add at least 15 organizations to HelpNET, and services to make access to services the existing service coordination Continuum of Care more efficient and to address gaps system. Planning Committee in services. insure that agencies serving Train staff from participating HelpNET and CoNinuum homeless hh's are educated on agencies on the service of Care Planning available services and taking part in coordination system. Committee the coordinated efforts. Coordinate funding partnerships to Partnerships will be created to Continuum of Care better provide coordinated services increase funding by 50% for Planning Committee and to foster collaborative efforts, services provided to homeless households. CONTINUUM OF CARE STRATEGIES - INTAKE, ASSESSMENT & REFERRAL Improve intake, assessment and Add an additional 15 agencies to HelpNET and Continuum referral to expedite provision of the service coordination system of Care Planning assistance, and provide a central repository of Committee information for improved coordination and iNake. improve iNake, assessmeN and Add an additional 15 agencies to HelpNET and CoNinuum referral to expedite provision of the existing service coordination of Care Planning assistance, system and link each of these Committee agencies with existing database. CONTINUUM OF CARE STRATEGIES - HOUSING SERVICES - EMERGENCY SHELTER Facilitate the development of Develop and open an emergency Continuum of Care increased shelter space for families shelter by June 2005. Planning Committee and pregnant women. Work with existing agencies and Increase assistance to families Continuum of Care public officials to determine needing shelter for 5 days to 30 Planning Committee alternative methods to assist days. Investigate bringing short- households who have exceeded term family units to the available shelter tenure, community. Page 29 Investigate an emergency shelter for Determine whether a youth shelter Continuum of Care youth and the legal ramifications of should be created in DeNon and Planning Committee such a shelter, investigate funding sources, legal barriers, and poteNial providers. CONTINUUM OF CARE STRATEGIES - HOUSING SERVICES - TRANSITIONAL HOUSING Increase transitional housing for Assist a minimum of 20 additional HOPE, Inc. homeless households with special families over the five years. 75% needs, of total homeless families receiving transitional housing will come from target special needs population. Develop affordable transitional An additional 20 transitional HOPE, Inc., Denton housing units for homeless housing units will be developed Affordable Housing households, through the join effort. Corp., DeNon County Friends of the Family CONTINUUM OF CARE STRATEGIES - HOUSING SERVICES - PERMANENT HOUSING W/O SUPPORTIVE SERVICES Support and advocate for local Committee representatives will Continuum of Care public policies to support affordable make at least 3 preseNations per Planning Committee housing and land acquisition, year to city officials, local electorate and community leaders regarding affordable housing. CoNinue to develop affordable Construct or develop of an average DeNon Affordable housing and more appropriate of 25 units per year over the five- Housing Corp., housing for homeless households, year period for an estimated total Homebuyer Assistance of 125 new units. Program and Christian Community Action CONTINUUM OF CARE STRATEGIES - HOUSING SERVICES - PERMANENT HOUSING W/SUPPORTIVE SERVICES Continue to develop permanent Create at least 15 new permanent Denton Affordable supportive housing units for supportive housing units for Housing Corp., AIDS homeless households with special homeless households with special Services of North Texas needs, needs, and Denton County MHMR. Page 30 CONTINUUM OF CARE STRATEGIES - SUPPORT SERVICES Continue expansion of service An additional 15 service providers HelpNET and Continuum coordination and collaboration will be added to the service of Care Planning among providers to assist clients coordination computer network, Committee toward maintaining self-sufficiency, including a minimum of 5 in Lewisville. Expand affordable, quality daycare Additional childcare slots for Fred Moore Day Nursery, for homeless households, homeless households will be City County Day School, available. Denton Christian Preschool and Child Care Management System and Friends of the Family Promote affordable health care and An increase in public-private Continuum of Care health education for uninsured and partnerships will take place. Planning Committee and underinsured homeless households. Human Service Advisory Committee. Advocate for improved The Continuum of Care Committee Continuum of Care transportation to meet the needs of will make recommendations to Planning Committee homeless households public officials for improvement in transportation system. LEAD-BASED PAINT STRATEGIES Educate owners/first-time 150 -200 households participating Home Improvement, homebuyers on hazards and safe in the successful homeownership Minor Repair and handling of lead-based paint, workshops each year of the five- Homebuyer Assistance year period. Programs Reduce Lead-Based Paint Hazards Average of 50 units annually will Home Improvement, residential units, receive lead-based paint reduction Minor Repair and work and clearances. Homebuyer Assistance Programs Page 31 HUMAN SERVICES STRATEGIES Explore various options for the Evidence of additional child care Human Services Advisory development of additional childcare opportunities; Implementation of Committee, United Way, available to low-income households, voucher program or increase in CCMS, Fred Moore Day current assistance levels; and School, Denton Christian Number of public-private Preschool, North Central collaborations that take place. Texas Workforce Board and City County Day Nursery Improve health care services Number of public-private Human Services Advisory available to low-income households, collaborations that take place. Committee, Family Information describing Health Care, United Way, effectiveness of the program in CHIP Coalition, Health Denton and Denton County Communities Task Force Positive response from local and Flow Foundation physicians and an increase in physician providing services to Medicaid-eligible households. HSAC to work with the CoMinuum Not Applicable. CoMinuum of Care of Care Planning Committee to Planning Committee focus on programs benefiting persons who are homeless or poteMially homeless Discuss and implemeM a strategy to Not Applicable. HelpNET and Human expand the curreM system of case Services Advisory coordination and ceMralize Committee information among service providers including bM not limited to - emergency financial services, housing services and health care. Support a growth strategy that Not Applicable. City of DeMon and includes human services as an Human Services Advisory esseMial part of the community's Committee infrastructure. During the five-year period, HSAC will recommend moving to a human services general fund set aside that is at least 1% of the total general fund budget. Page 32 Continue allocation of scare AIDS Services, Denton County MHMR, Fairhaven resources to meet urgent Homemaker Services, Family Health Center, HOPE Inc., community needs as identified interfaith Ministries, PARD: ASAS/TRAC scholarships - through a community assessment Owsley Summer Playground Program - King's Kids Day process. Kamp, RSVP, SPAN inc., Community Food Center, Salvation Army, Court Appointed Special Advocates, Denton City County Day Nursery, Denton County Friends oFthe Family, Denton Family Resource Center, Fred Moore Day Nursery School, Sickle Cell Disease Assoc., Denton Christian Preschool, Adult Day Care, HelpNET, Adult Day Care of North Texas, Children's Advocacy Center, Owsley Community School and Riding Unlimited INFRASTRUCTURE & PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITIES STRATEGIES Street paving and repaying, 21,000 square yards of paving Not applicable this year. installation of curb and gutter, and/or repaying completed. Installation oFnew sidewalks and Installation o1'2,325 square yards Not applicable this year. replacement sidewalks, oF new sidewalks. Installation oF water and sewer Installation of 200 feet of new Not applicable this year. lines. Connection of residential sewer and 2,000 feet of new water units to services, lines over the 5-year period. Installation of drainage Eight to ten residential properties Not applicable this year. improvements removing residential no longer designated as being in areas from floodplain, the flood plain. Rehabilitation and expansion of improvements to 2 or more public Denton City County Day public services facilities, service facilities that enhance School improvements services to low/mod clientele, and Heritage Oaks Project improve and/or expand park improvements to 2 park facilities Not applicable this year. facilities including open space, by 2005. playground and other recreational Facilities. DEMOLITION STRATEGIES Continue to demolish substandard To demolish 35 structures during Continuation of buildings to improve the appearance the five-year period. Demolition Program with and safety of neighborhoods. Residual Funds Page 33 ANTI-POVERTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES Support training and expand Observe a measurable increase in Support to North Texas training and employment activities the number of poverty and low- Human Resource Group targeted to poverty and very low- income households who achieve income households, self-sufficiency. Expand educational opportunities Feedback indicating information HOPE Inc., Denton for those seeking transitional was disseminated. 25-35 hh (over Affordable Housing housing or other housing support 5 years) in transitional prog receive Corp., and Support of services, counseling services. Consumer Credit Counseling Encourage support of Section 3 Over the five-year period 25+ Not applicable this year. goals by local contractors, individuals hired for projects by private contractors. Encourage start-up and expansion Loan assistance to 25 Continuation of Small of micro/cottage industries microbusinesses over the five-year Business Program with supporting very low-income hhs. period, residual funds. Page 34 2002 PROPOSED PROJECT MAP With Minority Concentrated areas by Census Tracts Denton, Texas ] I UI'IIVER~ITY I}R ~q lB By Cer~,.w Tract~ r~[ 20 - $0% ~4~ - 100% 2002 Projects and Activities 1 Adult Day Care of North Texas 2. AIDS Services of North Texas 3. Demon City County Day School ProJect 4. Family Health Care, Inc. 5. Heritage Oaks Retirement ProJect 6. PARD: Kings Kids Day Camp 7. PARD: Owsley Summer Playground 8. Salvation Army Communi _ty-Wide Activities · DAHC - Affordable Housing Program · CDBG and HOME Administration · Home Improvement Program · Homebuyer Assistance Program · HOPE, Inc. · Imerfaith Ministries · Minor Repair Program · PARD: ASAS Scholarships · Special Needs Tenam-Based Remal Assistance Page 35 OTHER PROGRAM SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS HOME PROGRAM FORMS OF INVESTMENT The City of DeNon, through the Homebuyers Assistance (HAP) will provide subsidies to low-income homebuyers. Under each program the maximum HOME subsidy will be $14,900. This amount includes all investment that enables the family to purchase the unit. This sets up a 5, 10 or 15-year recapture period for all homebuyers. The subsidy is provided as a 5, 10 or 15 year deferred forgivable loan. The borrower agrees to occupy the property as his/her primary residence for the term of the loan from the execution date of the promissory note and deed of trust. The borrower must also agree to pay all mortgage payments, taxes and other assessments on the property in a timely manner. In the event the borrower complies with the terms of the promissory note, deed of trust, and the HAP Program, the City of DeNon agrees to release the maker of the note from paymeN of the loan. Upon the borrower's failure to carry out the agreement and program requirements the entire amount of the loan will be due and payable in full immediately from net proceeds*. Recaptured funds from the HAP Program will be used to assist other first-time homebuyers. Funding agreemeNs and/or coNracts with community housing developmeN corporations and/or subrecipieNs will include a requiremeN that the organization comply with HOME regulations in regard to coNinued affordability of assisted units. There are no other forms of investmeN that are not described in §92.205(b) by the City of DeNon. *Net proceeds - defined as the sale price minus loan repaymeN and closing costs. TENANT BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE The City ofDeNon's TenaN-Based ReNal Assistance Program (TBRA) has been developed to assist very low-income households in obtaining safe, sanitary housing. According to the 2000 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development, 54% ofreNers are very low income. The Plan also states that there are 491 very low-income households on waiting lists for Section 8 subsidies or subsidized housing units. The elderly population in DeNon has increased by 29% since 1980. About 40% of the elderly in DeNon are reNers. More than 65% have incomes at or below 50% of the area median income. Housing studies indicate that there is adequate housing for middle and upper income elderly. However, service providers state a need for additional housing that is within the reach of low and very low-income elderly. Support services, designed to allow the elderly to remain independeN, are needed as a supplement to the housing assistance. Page 36 Information provided by citizens at a December 1997 public hearing indicated a need for renal assistance targeted to persons with disabilities. Citizens noted that there was no assistance available and that the waiting list for Section 8 assistance was extremely long. The information discussed in the 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan concerning the need for affordable renal housing for the elderly and citizen requests for assistance for persons with disabilities has led the City of DeNon to adopt a TenaN Selection Policy. This policy will be used to determine appropriate participaNs under the City's TenaN-Based ReNal Assistance program. TBRA is an esseNial elemeN of DeNon's Consolidated Plan and will serve to expand the supply of affordable, deceN, safe and sanitary housing for very low-income households. MONITORING STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES The City of DeNon will complete an annual comparison of the objectives stated in the 5-year Consolidated Plan with actual accomplishmeNs. Based on the comparison the City of DeNon will consider making any changes or updates to the 5-year Consolidated Plan. The City of DeNon provides CDBG, HOME and General funds to several non-profits agencies and departments providing supportive services. The City's Human Services Coordinator monitors agencies on a daily basis. Each year agency staff is provided with training on financial procedures and data collection. Agency staff is provided with appropriate Federal guidelines and OMB circulars to ensure that they have access to pertineN information. Agencies are required to provide quarterly beneficiary and financial reports. A year-end report is required to detail annual expenditures, beneficiary information, funding sources and major accomplishmeNs. Each year, the Human Services Coordinator completes a risk analysis based on established criteria. On-site monitoring visit are completed on all "high risk" organizations. The on-site monitoring includes a review of clieN files, financial and accouNing records, and procuremeN procedures. IndependeN audits are also submitted and reviewed by the City staff. A similar process is also followed to monitor the DeNon Affordable Housing Corporation, a certified CHDO. The City's Community DevelopmeN Administrator with the help of the Coordinator monitors the CHDO on a regular basis to ensure that the non-profit is meeting HOME regulations. Programs and projects carried oN by the City are monitored daily. Staff maiNains checklists on individual projects to ensure that all required procedures have been completed. The Housing Rehabilitation Staff maiNains records on all rehabilitation projects. The Community DevelopmeN Coordinator maiNains records for the Homebuyer Assistance Program and the Administrator maiNains records on public infrastructure projects. The Administrator reviews and certifies all applications prior to provision of assistance. A year-end report that details expenditures, revenue, beneficiary information and major accomplishmeNs is also required from all City programs and projects. Page 37 INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE The City of Denton's 2000 - 2005 Action Plan notes four "gaps" in organizational structure that hinder effective housing and social services delivery. These gaps include the following with the City's efforts to ameliorate these conditions during the coming year: 1. More effective coordination among Continuum of Care agencies. Community Development will continue to work with the newly formed Denton Homeless Coalition. This group was formed through the effort to create a joint Continuum of Care plan between the cities of Denton and Lewisville. The Denton County Homeless Coalition will use staff members from the City of Denton and Lewisville to facilitate planning and implementation of homeless service activities. Four agencies serving homeless in the area and the City of Denton collaborated on an application for an Emergency Shelter Grant from the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. The application was awarded approximately $50,000 for homeless services in the Denton area. With City staff from Denton and Lewisville acting as facilitators, homeless providers will continue to meet to discuss services and plan for the future. 2. Initiation of advocacy efforts and strategic planning by housing providers. Local housing providers will continue to be encouraged to participate in Continuum of Care program efforts. The Denton Affordable Housing Corporation, Habitat for Humanity and the Denton Housing Authority are active participants. The City has provided support for a HUD COPC renewal grant by the University of North Texas. If funded, the City of Denton and UNT plan to facilitate development of a housing advocacy organization. If the grant is not funded, the City will determine what other actions may be taken to facilitate the development of this type of organization. Recently the Denton Housing Coalition has begun meeting and is developing a short-range advocacy strategy. 3. Lack of involvement by private developers and builders in the affordable housing production system. Additional actions to help improve in the areas described in the 2000 - 2005 Consolidated Plan will continue over the next four years. These will include talking with local home building groups regarding the construction of affordable housing. 4. Lack of experience by private contractors in lead hazard reduction and lack of funding to complete projects. The Community Development housing staff plans to provide local contractors with information on lead-based paint training available in the area and encourage their attendance. Also, the City of Denton has partnered with the City of Fort Worth on a HUD Lead Hazard Control Grant application. The application included a request for funding to complete lead hazard control work on existing housing units. Funds for contractor training were also requested. Page 38 CERTIFICATIONS In accorda~ace with the applicable statutes and the regulations governing the consolidated plan regulations, the jurisdiction certifies that: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing -- The jurisdiction will affirmatively further fair housing, which means it will conduct analysis of impediments to fair housing choice within the jurisdiction, take appropriate actions to overcome the effects ofa~ay impediments identified through that analysis, and maintain records reflecting that analysis and actions in this regard. Anti-displacement and Relocation Plan -- It will comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as axnended, a~ad implementing regulations at 49 CFR 24; and it has in effect and is following a residential antidisplacement and relocation assistance plan required under section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, in connection with any activity assisted with funding under the CDBG or HOME programs. Drug Free Workplace -- It will or will continue to provide a drug-free workplace by: Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use ora controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition; 2. Establishing an ongoing drug-free awaxeness program to inform employees about - (a) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; (b) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace; (c) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, a~ad employee assista~ace prograxns; and (d) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace; Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the gram be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph 1; Notifying the employee in the statement required by paxagraph 1 that, as a condition of employment under the gram, the employee will - (a) Abide by the terms of the statement; and (b) Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction for a violation ora criminal drug statute occurring in the workplace no later than five calendar days after such conviction; Notifying the agency in writing, within ten calendax days after receiving notice under subparagraph 4(b) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction. Employers of convicted employees must provide notice, including position title, to every grant officer or other designee on whose grant activity the convicted employee was working, unless the Federal agency has designated a central point for the receipt of such notices. Notice shall include the identification number(s) of each affected grant; Talcing one of the following actions, within 30 calendar days of receiving notice under subparagraph 4(b), with respect to any employee who is so convicted - (a) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination, consistent with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; or (b) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation prograxn approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency; Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Page 39 Anti-Lobbying -- To the best of the jurisdictioffs knowledge a~ad belief: No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of it, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence a~a officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or a~a employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement; If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to a~ay person for influencing or attempting to influence a~a officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loa~a, or cooperative agreement, it will complete and submit Sta~adard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its inslructions; and It will require that the language of paragraph (n) of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify a~ad disclose accordingly. Authority of Jurisdiction -- The consolidated pla~a is authorized under State and local law (as applicable) a~ad the jurisdiction possesses the legal authority to carry out the programs for which it is seeking funding, in accordance with applicable HUD regulations. Consistency with Plan -- The housing activities to be undertaken with CDBG, HOME, ESG, aaad HOPWA funds ate consistent with the strategic plan. Section 3 -- It will comply with section 3 of the Housing a~ad Urban Development Act of 1968, and implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 135. Signature of Authorizing Official Date Denton City Manager Title of Authorized Official Specific CDBG Certifications The Entitlement Community certifies that: Citizen Participation -- It is in full compliance a~ad following a detailed citizen participation plan that satisfies the requirements o1'24 CFR 91.105. Community Development Plan -- Its consolidated housing and community development pla~a identifies community development and housing needs and specifies both short-term a~ad long-term community development objectives that provide decent housing, expand economic opportunities primarily for persons of low and moderate income. (See CFR 24 570.2 and CFR 24 part 570.) Following a Plan -- It is following a current consolidated plan (or Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) that has been approved by HUD. Use of Funds -- It has complied with the following criteria: Maximum Feasible Priority. With respect to activities expected to be assisted with CDBG funds, it certifies that it has developed its Action Plan so as to give maximum feasible priority to activities that benefit low and moderate income families or aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight. The Action Pla~a may also include activities which the grantee certifies are designed to meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community, and other financial resources are not available); Page 40 Overall Benefit. The aggregate use of CDBG funds including section 108 guaranteed loans during program year(s) 2002 (a period specified by the grantee consisting of one, two, or three specific consecutive program years), shall principally benefit persons of low and moderate income in a manner that ensures that at least 70 percent of the mnount is expended for activities that benefit such persons during the designated period; Special Assessments. It will not attempt to recover aaay capital costs of public improvements assisted with CDBG funds including Section 108 loan guaranteed funds by assessing any amount against properties owned and occupied by persons of low a~ad moderate income, including any fee charged or assessment made as a condition of obtaining access to such public improvements. However, if CDBG funds are used to pay the proportion of a fee or assessment that relates to the capital costs of public improvements (assisted in paxt with CDBG funds) financed from other revenue sources, an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements fina~aced by a source other than CDBG funds. The jurisdiction will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted with CDBG funds, including Section 108, unless CDBG funds are used to pay the proportion of fee or assessment attributable to the capital costs of public improvements financed from other revenue sources. In this case, an assessment or chatge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements f'manced by a source other than CDBG funds. Also, in the case of properties owned and occupied by moderate-income (not low- income) fmnilies, an assessment or charge may be made against the property for public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds if the jurisdiction certifies that it lacks CDBG funds to cover the assessment. Excessive Force -- It has adopted and is enforcing: A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such non-violent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction; Compliance With Anti-discrimination Laws -- The gram will be conducted a~ad administered in conformity with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 2000d), the Fair Housing Act (42 USC 3601-3619), and implementing regulations. Lead-Based Paint -- Its notification, inspection, testing and abatement procedures concerning lead-based paint will comply with the requirements of 24 CFR § 570.608; Compliance with Laws -- It will comply with applicable laws. Signature of Authorizing Official Date Denton City Manager Title of Authorized Official Page 41 Specific HOME Certifications The HOME participating jurisdiction certifies that: Tenant Based Rental Assistance -- If the participating jurisdiction intends to provide tenant-based rental assistance: The use of HOME funds for tenant-based rental assistance is a~a essential element of the participating jurisdiction's consolidated plan for expanding the supply, affordability, a~ad availability of decent, safe, sanitary, a~ad affordable housing. Eligible Activities and Costs -- It is using and will use HOME funds for eligible activities and costs, as described in 24 CFR § 92.205 through 92.209 and that it is not using and will not use HOME funds for prohibited activities, as described in § 92.214. Appropriate Financial Assistance -- Before committing a~ay funds to a project, it will evaluate the project in accordance with the guidelines that it adopts for this purpose and will not invest any more HOME funds in combination with other Federal assistance than is necessary to provide affordable housing. Signature of Authorizing Official Date Denton City Manager Tire of Authorized Official APPENDIX TO CERTIFICATIONS INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING LOBBYING AND DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE REQUIREMENTS: A. Lobbying Certification This certification is a material representation of fact upon which relia~ace was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. B. Drug-Free Workplace Certification 1. By signing and/or submitting this application or grant agreement, the grantee is providing the certification. The certification is a material representation of fact upon which relia~ace is placed when the agency awards the grant. If it is later determined that the grantee knowingly rendered a false certification, or otherwise violates the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act, HUD, in addition to any other remedies available to the Federal Government, may take action authorized under the Drug-Free Workplace Act. For grantees other than individuals, Altemate I applies. (This is the information to which jurisdictions certify). 4. For grantees who are individuals, Alternate II applies. (Not applicable jurisdictions.) Workplaces under grants, for grantees other than individuals, need not be identified on the certification. If known, they may be identified in the grant application. If the grantee does not identify the workplaces at the time of application, or upon award, if there is no application, the grantee must keep the identity of the workplace(s) on file in its office and make the information available for Federal inspection. Failure to identify all known workplaces constitutes a violation of the grantee's drug-free workplace requirements. Workplace identifications must include the actual address of buildings (or parts of buildings) or other sites where work under the grant takes place. Categorical descriptions may be used (e.g., all vehicles ora mass transit authority or State highway department while in operation, State employees in each local unemployment office, performers in concert halls or radio stations). Page 42 7. If the workplace identified to the agency chaaages during the performaaace of the gram, the gramee shall inform the agency of the change(s), if it previously identified the workplaces in question (see paxagraph five). 8. The grantee may insert in the space provided below the site(s) for the performaaace of work done in connection with the specific grant: Place of Performance (Street address, city, county, state, zip code) Community Development Office, 100 West Oak, Suite 208, Denton City aaad County Texas 76201 Check __ if there are workplaces on file that are not identified here; The certification with regard to the drug-free workplace required by 24 CFR part 24, subpart F. Definitions of terms in the Nonprocurement Suspension and Debarment common rule aaad Drug-Free Workplace common rule apply to this certification. Grantees' attention is called, in particular, to the following definitions from these rules: "Controlled substance" meaaas a controlled substance in Schedules I through V of the Controlled Substaaaces Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and as further defined by regulation (21 CFR 1308.11 through 1308.15); "Conviction" means a finding of guilt (including a plea of nolo contendere) or imposition of sentence, or both, by any judicial body chaxged with the responsibility to determine violations of the Federal or State criminal drug statutes; "Criminal drug statute" means a Federal or non-Federal criminal statute involving the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, use, or possession of any controlled substance; "Employee" means the employee of a grantee directly engaged in the performaaace of work under a grant, including: (i) All "direct chaxge" employees; (ii) all "indirect charge" employees unless their impact or involvement is insignificant to the performance of the grant; and (iii) temporary personnel and consultants who are directly engaged in the performance of work under the gram aaad who are on the grantee's payroll. This definition does not include workers not on the payroll of the grantee (e.g., volunteers, even if used to meet a matching requirement; consultants or independent contractors not on the grantee's payroll; or employees of subrecipients or subcontractors in covered workplaces). Page 43 Public Hearing November 29, 2001 Denia Recreation Center Attendees: Jane Burda Provo, Executive Director, Denton Affordable Housing Corporation Sheila Gianniny, DeNon Affordable Housing Corporation Committee Members Present: Peggy Fox Edward Touraine Staff Present: Alma Espino, Program Specialist Barbara Ross, CD Administrator Jane Provo from the DeNon Affordable Housing Corporation indicated that they felt more CDBG funds should be targeted to areas where affordable housing projects were ongoing. This would make a stronger impact. DAHC staff also stated that more funds should go to housing programs including renal housing, reconstruction and renovation. There should be less emphasis on public improvemeNs. Installation of sidewalks in the neighborhood north of McKinney Street, west of Mulkey was discussed. Ms. Ross indicated that purchase of right of way in the neighborhood might make a sidewalk project too costly for the CDBG program. Peggy Fox asked if DAHC landscaped their units after completion of construction. She noted that the unit on the comer of Wood and Hickory needed landscaping. Jane Provo stated that most new construction by DAHC is renal and they do landscape on those projects. She added that they iNended to landscape the Wood St unit. She also explained to committee members and staff that the unit is being used in conjunction with HOPE's Transitional Housing Program. Ms. Fox asked if DAHC attempts to get feedback from neighborhoods before they do new programs in the area. Ms. Provo indicated that they did this through their annual meetings. She also noted that DAHC's renal units and transitional housing units are spread throughout the community and are not conceNrated in one neighborhood. Ms. Gianniny stated that many persons are in need of renal assistance, particularly those with disabilities. The public hearing was adjourned. Page 44 Community Development Public Hearing December 3, 2001 Martin Luther King Jr. Center Community Developmem Advisory Committee Members Presem: Peggy Fox, Edward Touraine, Jorge Urbina Community Developmem Staff Presem: Nancy Baker, Alma Espino, Dan Leal, Barbara Ross Barbara Ross, Community Developmem Administrator, opened the hearing and introduced staff. Ross also introduced the Community Developmem Advisory Committee members who were in attendance, Peggy Fox, Edward Touraine and Jorge Urbina. Ms Ms. Ross asked the citizens presem to complete a Community Networking Needs Assessment survey. She stated that these surveys would be used to assist the Community Network Project Leadership Team to make decisions about the services that will be offered through the gram they have recemly been awarded. Attendees divided imo three groups and discussed community needs. The following are commems from each group. GROUP A Facilitator - Dan Leal, Human Services Coordinator John Clay - Stated that side street going out to Dallas Drive where the old cement plant used to be needs repaving. We believe Mr. Clay was referring to Duncan Street. Mr. Clay was informed that Duncan Street was due to be repaved within the next two months. Carolyn Phillips, 722 Lakey Street - · Indicated that high interest loans were a problem for SE Denton residents. She suggested that a program be created to partner lenders with cliems who have poor credit. The program could assist persons with poor credit to improve their credit ratings and allow them to gain affordable housing. One on one assistance and training should be provided to persons with poor credit. The assistance and training would assist those individuals with poor credit to meet the requiremems of housing programs. An incemive program should be put in place to allow persons with poor credit to receive homeownership opportunities even if their credit rating was poor. If cliems comply with program requiremems, then they would be eligible for a home ownership programs. She noted that when people are turned down for assistance, word spreads around the community. · Commemed that there is a need for single family housing in SE Demon. · More outreach is needed from the Texas Workforce Commission. Page 45 · Computer classes are needed for SE DeNon resideNs. She felt people would take advaNage of computer classes if outreach efforts were made and if the computer classes were readily available. · Ms. Phillips requested that SEDNA receive a summary of the commeNs from the public hearing. She requested a follow-up be done on how the commeNs or concerns were addressed. Peterina Washington, 618 E Prairie Street - · Stated that the loss of the Boys & Girls Club program in SE DeNon had caused a gap in services for youth in SE DeNon. She suggested the City purchase some property and build a Boys & Girls Club in SE DeNon. · Stated that more affordable housing opportunities are needed for persons in SE DeNon. · CommeNed that C.D.B.G. programs do not have a good reputation in the community because of all the paperwork that is required and because program applicaNs often receive conflicting information from staff. She said C.D.B.G. programs are not user friendly. She recommended easier accessibility to services and education on program requiremeNs and procedures. · She said Community DevelopmeN should help program participaNs improve their credit so that they can qualify for assistance. Edward Touraine, 2815 Glenwood Ln · Suggested more outreach and education is needed about Community DevelopmeN programs such as emergency repair, homebuyers' assistance program, etc. People need more education about program requirements. · Suggested that there might be an outside organization that can help households to improve their credit. Consumer Credit Counseling was meNioned as an agency that can provide such assistance. The group then had a general discussion about the best way to disseminate information in the community. Churches are more selective about what information to give out. Mr. Touraine suggested participation by Community DevelopmeN staff at the Juneteenth Celebration and other community evens. (Community DevelopmeN staffhad a booth and provided information at the 2001 JuNeenth Celebration). GROUP B Facilitator - Nancy Baker, Housing Programs Manager Susan Grimes, 1116 ~AWilson Street: · Expressed a need for first time homebuyer assistance. Kendra Winters, Heritage Oaks, 2501 N Bell Ave: · Stated the need for funding to make capital improvements at Heritage Oaks to replace retaining walls and improve parking lot. Page 46 Richard Black: · Stated that Wilson Street needs to be re-paved and expressed an interest in the Rental Rehabilitation program. The names of four low-income persons in need of home improvement assistance were provided to staff. These individuals will be contacted and interviewed to determine type of assistance needed. GROUP C Facilitator - Alma Espino, Program Specialist Charlye Heggins, 422 Audra Ln: · Stated a concern about single family rental units on the corner of Bradshaw and Sycamore that should be demolished or renovated. She noted they could qualify for the subsidized housing program if they were in better condition. Staff mentioned the Rental Rehab program and the problem that the owner must take the initiative to renovate the units. · Fred Moore Park needs a swimming pool · A housing unit behind Mill Street and the Fred Moore School needs to be demolished. · Need social socials services - Elderly Homemaker Services - SPAN cancelled program due to lack of funds. · Commented that she is concerned about the future of Adult Day Care of North Texas and noted they may need more assistance than they are currently receiving. · Noted that a friend who lives on Smith Street was having a noise problem due to a new metal barn-like building that was built, it is keeping her awake at night with sounds. Ruby Cole, PO Box 1743: · Noted that the pool had been promised for years. · Stated that there is a vacant lot on Maddox where people are dumping lots on garbage on property. · Commented that there may still be some drainage problems on Robertson Street. · Asked when the American Legion expansion project would be started. · Need for health and medical care for older persons who work but have no insurance and can't afford it but they are not old enough to receive Medicare - they usually go without any medical care until the situation requires emergency room care. · Asked what disabled services were offered. Staff advised her of the Minor Repair and HiP/ORP programs that provide ADA improvements. Luther McDade, 921 Johnson Street: · Stated that he has a problem with 2 houses on Johnson St. and junk. · He asked that burnout on industrial be demolished. The lots have 25 or 30 cars, weeds Page 47 · Noted another housing unit on Industrial where the owner has built lots of small buildings plus a garage that is partially in the street. · Johnson Street needs everything - paving, etc. Betty Kimble, 809 Lakey Street: · Stated that assistance to persons with bad credit. Staff mentioned the assistance provided by Consumer Credit Counseling Services and advised her of the issues that arise when CCCS cannot help due to debts exceeding income. Peggy Fox, 203 S Wood St. · Asked whether the Community Development Division building any new affordable housing like on Robertson St. Staff explained that there may be a program designed to acquire vacant, abandoned properties for housing projects. · Stated that she supported landscaping with new homes. Page 48 Public Hearing Comments April 16, 2002 City Council Regular Meeting Mary Gotcher of 1215 Emerson Lane is the Director of Memal Health Services for DeNon County MHMR. Ms. Gotcher commemed that the Adolescent Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) was targeted to teens and preteens at high risk for substance abuse. She stated that ASAP is a prevention, intervention, education and case management program. Ms. Gotcher introduced Vanessa Sims and explained that Ms. Sims works with the cliems in the community. She added that there are also group sessions available and that ASAP provides referrals to in-patiem care and other needed programs. Ms. Gotcher added that kids who use drugs may mm imo adults that are addicted. She expressed her concern that ASAP was not recommended for funding and asked City Council to consider funding for the program. Missy Dickenson of 419 Northridge is the Assistant Director of REACH. She stated that REACH provides services to persons with disabilities. She asked City Council to consider funding their Adjustment to Disability program. Ms. Dickenson stated that the funding would provide a licensed support counselor and two sessions per week for persons who are dealing with a disability. She stated that the counselor had a disability himself and that was one of the reasons why the program was so successful. She noted that they address many differem issues during these sessions. Ms. Dickenson commemed that the group has been successful over the past few years and has benefited the emire community by helping to educate the community on disability issues. She asked City Council to show their support for the disabled community and consider funding the program. Karry Reasor of 8748 Travis Road in Sanger addressed the Council. She asked to read a letter imo the record. Ms. Reasor stated that Charlotte Stewart, executive director of REACH, had to go out of town and asked her to present these comments. Ms. Reasor stated that she is on the REACH Board of Directors and also works with the agency's public relations committee and with other organizations. She idemified herself as a newly differemly-abled person. She noted that Thomas Schenk is the counselor for the Adjustment to Disability program. Ms. Reasor also read another letter that stated the City's funding was vital to the program. Group attendance has improved to six persons per group and the hope is that it will go to eight persons per group or a cost of $25 per person. She noted that the program is successful because it covers emotional, spiritual and physical issues. Ms. Reasor said it is vital to cominue funding the program because it helps the cliems adjust to living with a disability, reduces the risk of suicide, and encourages socialization. Cliems could not be served as well through any other program. Ms. Reasor also stated that the transportation provided through the City is helpful in getting these individuals to the sessions. Suzanne Aikens of 1216 Pin Oak stated that she had two letters that she would like to read. One was on her behalf and the other was on behalf of a friend. She noted that both are consumers of the services provided by REACH. She indicated that City Council should fund the Adjustment to Disability program. She has attended the program for the past three years. She commended Mr. Schenk for his counseling ability. Ms. Aikens noted that it offers a safe secure place to share feelings, get feedback and the perspectives of others. She stated that this opens the door to personal Page 49 growth and day-to-day coping. She stated that she used to think her situation was unique but now knows it is not. Ms. Aikens asked the City Council to consider funding for REACH. She also stated she had a letter from Lorraine Platt of 1021 Mayhill Drive to present. She stated that Ms. Platt also asks for City Council to consider funding REACH. Ms. Platt's letter stated that she could say anything to Mr. Schenk and he would listen. He gives the participating individuals information on resources they may need. Mr. Schenck understands because he also has a disability. Ms. Platt's letter stated that the group helps her to feel better knowing that she is not alone in some of the obstacles she faces. Dr. Judith B. Keith of 2101 WesWiew Trail is the execNive director of the Cumberland Presbyterian Children's Home. She stated that the Cumberland Presbyterian Children's Home respects the hard work and competence of the Human Services Advisory Committee. She commended the City for funding social services and for the opportunity to apply. Dr. Keith described the transitional program for which funds were requested. The program provides shelter and support to families with children that are homeless, at risk of homelessness or at risk of not being able to care for the children. She stated that Cumberland does draw financial support from people across the couNry. She noted that it was difficult to justify asking for financial support from those oNside DeNon if there is no support from Denton. Dr. Keith stated the organization needs to leverage funds from the City of DeNon to receive funding from others across the country. She said she hoped for a partnership with the City of DeNon to expand the existing program. She added that it was not her iNeN to try to change this year' s decision. She merely waned to bring a message of awareness of these needs. Dr. Keith said the agency hoped to pave the way for new partnerships, both public and private. She stated that they would be back next year. Page 50 Minutes from 30-day Comment Period April 1 - April 30, 2002 April 3, 2002 Mr. Bill Drybread, Executive Director Denton County MHMR Center Phone Message 1 (in response to the Adolescem Substance Abuse Program not being recommended for funding) - This sends a hugely bad signal to the community from the City that the funds would no longer be used to prevent substance abuse by adolescents. If we are looking toward the future, the recommendation to not fund the program is a huge mistake on the part of the committee. Even though the $9,000 is not that much money, it sends a bad signal. Advocacy groups and the Board of Directors will be up in arms. There may be a ground swell of anger in the face of the growing problems with children and adolescems. Phone Message 2 (in response to the Adolescem Substance Abuse Program not being recommended for funding) - Mr. Drybread requested staff send the names of the people who are on the human services advisory committee and the names of the city staff liaisons to the committee. April 4, 2002 Ms. Melanie Barry, Executive Director DeNon County Substance Abuse Coalition E-mail message to City of DeNon comacts and community leaders regarding the DeNon County Adolescem Substance Abuse Program not being recommended for funding - The purpose of this e-mail is to request: if you are a resident of the City of Denton that you contact the City of Demon Council members and let each of them know that you are a supporter of the Denton County MHMR Adolescent Substance Abuse Program and want to be sure that the $9,000 funding request is approved. Although the $9,000 requested is importam to keep the currem services, having funds provided from the City of DeNon provides critical power of leveraging of dollars from additional funding sources outside of the City's funds. Ms. Barry encouraged those she e-mailed that live outside of DeNon to comact city residems who can pass the message on to City Council. Ms. Barry encouraged those on the e-mail list to act to ensure that the services remain as resources to youth. April 5, 2002 Ms. Betty Tomboulian, DeNon residem 1502 Seminole Avenue E-mail message sent to Human Services Coordinator in support of funding the Adolescent Substance Abuse Program of Denton County MHMR - Having been a parent of a teenager engaged in substance abuse in 1999 and framically seeking treatmem, I can speak personally of the need for Page 51 professionals willing and qualified to treat mental health needs of teenagers in Denton County. I have Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance, and even with insurance, finding providers was quite difficult. Since the launching of the ASAP program, there is a counselor available, if on a somewhat limited basis. Regarding the number of City of Denton clients treated by ASAP last year, (I recall it being 17 teens), if you're the parent of one of the 17 teens treated, I imagine the program is of critical importance in your household. April 8, 2002 Ms. Tammy Atkinson, Executive Director Boys & Girls Clubs of The Golden Triangle Phone conversation in response to the Boys & Girls Clubs of Denton County not being recommended for funding of its after school program in the Owsley neighborhood - Please reconsider funding the Boys & Girls Clubs of Denton County after school program due to the agency's new administration, new organization and a new outlook. The Boys & Girls Clubs is the number one youth serving organization in America. The Executive Director has been with the organization for ten years and has an excellent track record. April 24, 2002 Ms. Tammy Atkinson, Executive Director Boys & Girls Clubs of the Golden Triangle E-mail received that included a letter that was to be read at the City Council meeting on April 16, 2002. Following are excerpts from the letter - The Boys & Girls Clubs of the Golden Triangle first and foremost extends their sincerest appreciation to this council, both past and present for their unending support, financially, spiritually, and most importantly conceptually. Boys & Girls Clubs of The Golden Triangle has presented its application for funding to this city council for the continued operation of the Owsley facility. Although other avenues certainly exist for the expenditure of these applied for funds for part-time, completing services, the Boys & Girls Clubs stands ready to continue our full-time, proven, professionally staffed service to the kids in our communities. Considering the impact of dollars, the better use of funding, the readily apparent benefit suggests continued funding of Boys & Girls Club services. Page 52 Minutes Community Development Advisory Committee January 30, 2002 Members Present: Pat Colonna, Sondra Ferstl, Hank Dickenson, Barbara Stinnett, Edward Touraine, Members Absent: Harry Bell, Peggy Fox, Jorge Urbina (with notification) Staff Present: Luisa Rodriguez-Garcia - CD Coordinator, Barbara Ross - CD Administrator The meeting was called at 11:05 am. Barbara Ross informed the CDAC members that Mary Alice Moreno had resigned from the committee. Ms. Ross explained the application review process and asked members if they had any suggestions for changes to the process. Members agreed that they would prefer to use a ranking process similar to what had been used in previous years. Luisa Rodriguez-Garcia provided information on the amoum of Community Developmem Block Gram (CDBG) and Home Investmem Partnership (HOME) program funding that was available for allocation to housing and public improvemems. Ed Touraine and Hank Dickenson asked how the percemages for administration and human services are calculated. Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia responded that CDBG administration totaled 20% of the grant allocation. Human services activities are capped at 15% of the allocation. The HOME program limits administration to 10% of the allocation. Staff pointed out that they currently use the maximum allowed for administration and that some salaries must come from program budgets. Ms. Ross stated that staff would be making a budget request to have some salary expenses paid from the general fund. She stated that Community Developmem was lucky to have long-term employees who are knowledgeable about the grams and programs. However, salaries rise along with tenure and the CDBG and HOME grams have not increased. CDBG funds and the administration cap have decreased this year. Ms. Ross stated that some general fund money would reduce salary costs that come out of the programs or that might cause the need for a reduction in staff. Residual HOME administration funds are being used to pay staff costs this year. Only a small amoum of prior year HOME administration funds that could be used to support salaries remains in the budget. Ed Touraine poimed out that if all administration funds were paid by through the general fund then the $231,000 in administration dollars could be spem on programs. Ms. Ross said they might work on that for the future but right now they were looking at only one salary. Ms. Ferstl asked staff to talk about the reallocated funds. Ms. Ross stated that these funds are those that are not accepted by other localities in the Metroplex that are eligible for the CDBG programs. In the past, Carrollton, Irving and Richardson chose not to participate and the reallocation amount Page 53 given to DeNon was much higher. Now Carrollton and Irving participate and so these funds are leftovers from what Richardson tums down. Therefore, the amouN of reallocated funds received by the City of DeNon has dropped significaNly over the past two years. Ms. Ross also noted that the total CDBG formula allocation has gone down due to an increasing number of eNitlemeN communities that are sharing the pie and the set asides "pork barrel project dollars" that Congress includes in the programs. She indicated that the committee might wan to consider signing a letter to Congressional representatives requesting an increase in the CDBG and HOME allocations for 2003. Ms. Colonna stated that she would also be willing to sign a letter asking City Council to take staff salaries from City revenue. Ms. Colonna indicated that she felt Community DevelopmeN staff received many complimeNs regarding the wonderful one-to-one work that is done. She stated that she found it difficult to believe that individuals at the public hearing stated that they were not aware of some programs. She felt like staff did a good job of getting information out about the programs. Ms. Ross stated that staff would be working through the regular budget process and would be working on getting assistance through small incremeNs over a number of years. Ms. Stinnett asked if salaries paid from the general fund could be taken back. Ms. Ross said that could happen but that once you're in the system you're included in the annual budget projection. Ms. Ross asked if there were any suggestions for changes to the process. She noted that Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia could put together a ranking form. Members indicated that they would like to use a ranking form similar to last year's. Ms. Colonna and Ms. Stinnett stated that they felt the ranking forms showed how the members all appeared to be on the "same wave length" when it came to the type of projects that should be supported. Mr. Dickenson asked if they heard one or multiple speakers per meeting. Ms. Stinnett indicated that it would be several speakers and that there would be an opportunity for members to ask questions. Ms. Colonna commeNed that there was an individual last year and that there were none making a request this year. Members discussed the Inman Sewer project that was recommended last year based on the request from a citizen. Ms. Ross reminded the members that the Water/Wastewater Department prepared the application. Ms. Stinnett explained to Mr. Dickenson that some projects had to be completed in phases because there was not sufficient funding to complete them during a single year. Ms. Ross stated that she would provide some information to Mr. Dickenson regarding projects that had been funded in the last few years to give him some background on previous committee recommendations. Ms. Colonna commeNed that Ed Touraine drove around and looked at the sites last year. She added that she iNended to do that this year. Ms. Ross said staff would provide some information on reconstructs and rehabs that have been completed or were in progress. Members discussed the preseNations and how long each organization's should have. Mr. Touraine stated that 15 minutes should be plenty of time for the presentations. Ms. Ferstl stated that she felt they would only need three meetings rather than four. Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia talked with members about what times they would be available to meet. Members set up February 13, 20 and 27 for the meetings. Ms. Ross noted that the recommendations would be published in April and that Barbara Stinnett would be asked to go to City Council in April to discuss the committee's recommendations. Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia indicated that the Mulkey Street Repaving project might not be eligible. She Page 54 is working with Engineering to ensure that the project service area is correct. Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia stated that the service area marked on the original application would make the project ineligible. Mr. Touraine asked why some of the projects that were not recommended for funding last year were not brought back. He specifically mentioned the sidewalks on Lattimore, Mulkey and Mozingo. Ms. Ross stated that perhaps it is in the Capital Improvements Plan. Ms. Colonna agreed with Mr. Touraine's concerns about the need for these projects. Ms. Ross stated that the application went out to all City departments. Ms. Ross also indicated they she would be providing the committee with information on activities that staff attends to get the word out about Community Development programs. Ms. Colonna mentioned that she might be able to volunteer some time to provide CD information at local events. Ms. Stinnett stated that she was surprised that a citizen had commented that when people are turned down for assistance word spreads throughout the community. Ms. Ross explained that the home improvement program is a loan program. They require participants to go to Consumer Credit Counseling to review their financial situation. If it appears that they do not sufficient monthly income to repay a loan or if they are currently having difficulty paying their bills, they will not be assisted until they can pay off some bills or get their credit under control. Ms. Ross indicated that the CD loan should not be another "burden" on a family's finances. Staff asks these households to work on their credit for at least a six-month period before the program will assist them. Ms. Colonna mentioned the citizen's comment that a pool had been promised to the neighborhood. Perhaps it is possible to get a neighborhood pool through Parks and Recreation or a partnership with the school district. Ms. Ross said staff would be working to see if SEDNA might want to work with Consumer Credit Counseling Services to work more intensively with families. Ms. Colonna noted that Community Development had increased their homebuyer classes to one per month. Ms. Stinnett asked about the public hearing comment regarding computer education. She asked if MLK had any computers or classes. Ms. Ross said the Library has received a Community Networking grant from the State and that several locations would receive computers and training would be provided. She added that MLK would be one of the permanent sites for training. The meeting was adjourned. Page 55 Minutes Community Development Advisory Committee February 13, 2002 Members Present: Barbara Stinnett - Chair, Ed Touraine - Vice Chair, Harry Bell, Pat Colonna, Hank Dickenson, Sondra Ferstl, Peggy Fox, Jorge Urbina Staff Present: Luisa Rodriguez-Garcia - CD Coordinator, Barbara Ross - CD Administrator Barbara Stinnett called the meeting to order at 1:20 pm Luisa Rodriguez-Garcia provided members with a ranking sheet to use when evaluating the applications for funding. She also provided a review of the eligibility of the capital improvement project proposals received by staff. Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia stated that as a result of the evaluation measuring the percentage of low and moderate-income households in the service area, the Mulkey Street Repaving is not eligible for funding. The Paisley Street Repave and Fred Moore Park reforestation are eligible. Carolyn Berry, director of City County Day School introduced herself. She indicated that Bob Tickner might join her if he is available. Ms. Berry stated that the school wanted to put a fence around the playgrounds. She noted that the current fence is several different heights and does not adequately protect the children. Ms. Berry said that the vinyl-coated fencing she is planning on installing offers some additional safety factors that chain link does not. Ms. Berry did add that she would accept chain link if the City was not able to fund the coated fencing. She also stated that the fencing would improve the look of the neighborhood and it is more difficult to climb. Ms. Berry noted that juveniles and adults from the area sometimes climb the fence and use the facility over the weekend. They leave trash and other items in the playground area. Ms. Berry stated that she had obtained two estimates for the fencing. Barbara Stinnett asked if there was any other funding that could cover a portion of this. Ms. Berry said she would look for other sources or do the chain link. Ms. Stinnett asked if the $17,000 would complete the entire installation. Ms. Berry responded that it would. She also mentioned that the new fence would help with programming. They would be able to use the two playground areas at different times and with more than one class. Mr. Urbina asked if the fencing could be replaced in phases if there was a problem providing all the funding at once. He stated that perhaps there were specific problems in certain areas of the existing fence that could be replaced first. Ms. Berry said she really can't answer that but noted that Fred Moore Day Nursery School has it on just one side. Ms. Ferstl asked if she had gotten a bid for a plain chain link fence. Ms. Berry indicated that she had not. Mr. Touraine asked if this would be replacement of posts and everything. Ms. Berry indicated that it would. Mr. Touraine stated that an 8' fence on the side where the houses are would seem appropriate. Ms. Berry discussed some problems they've had with college students in the area and their activities. Mr. Touraine asked if the playground would be enlarged. Ms. Berry indicated that they were already out to the property's edge and could not enlarge the playground any further. Mr. Bell asked how much they were asking for the fence. Ms. Page 56 Berry stated it would be $17,000. Mr. Bell asked if there was any other funding for this project. Ms. Berry she said that they did not have any additional money currently but that they could try to write some additional grams. Mr. Urbina asked if it could be funded in phases. Ms. Berry indicated that they could do it in phases if necessary. Ms. Fox asked if the board is active in fund raising. Ms. Bell discussed the school's fund raising efforts including the board's annual giving campaign and selling cookie dough. Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia asked if this was extra money to use on projects such as the fence. Ms. Berry said yes, that is how they use the proceeds from their fundraising efforts. Ms. Ross brought up the repairs that are almost complete with last year's funding. Ms. Berry reviewed those improvemems. Ms. Ross stated that staff would see if there was any funding left from last year's grant to complete the playground fence improvements. Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia explained what usually happens if there is funding left after annual projects have been completed. Members cominued to discuss the possibility of using funding from the 2001 budget to complete the fence project. Kendra Wimers, Heritage Oaks manager introduced herself. The CDAC members imroduced themselves. Ms. Stinnett asked Ms. Winters to review her request. Ms. Winters showed committee members some photographs of the retaining wall problems at the Heritage Oaks complex. She noted that Heritage Oaks is a federally subsidized housing complex for elderly persons 62 and over. Ms. Wimers discussed the decay of the facility at Heritage Oaks. She added that a lot of the residems had memioned these problems to her. Ms. Wimers discussed that the drainage problems on the property had contributed to the retaining wall deterioration. She stated that staff and residents worry that a strong rain will wash away the retaining walls. Ms. Winters stated that replacement of the retaining walls could be done in phases or all at once. Ms. Wimers stated that the second project for which they are requesting funds are the parking areas. The parking lots have cracked and some residems have fallen. Some sidewalk work was done that took care of problems with broken sidewalks but the parking lot is still a problem. Ms. Stinnett noted that Heritage Oaks is part of the Denton Housing Authority. She commented that with the construction of the new administration building she was unsure as to why some funding wasn't available to make these improvemems. Ms. Winters stated that all the funds used to operate Heritage Oaks are given to them by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Ms. Winters stated that they send their rents to the Austin Affordable Housing Corporation and then Chase Bank, their bondholder, sends money to Heritage Oaks. Chase Bank funds the operating budget. Ms. Winters stated that DHA funds are separated. She added that it was the Section 8 voucher program that paid for the new administration building. Ms. Wimers stated that DHA had the money. They had been saving it. She commemed that whatever they do at Heritage Oaks has to come out of their Heritage Oaks budget and that is based upon their HUD requirements. Ms. Stinnett asked what the organization does when they have significant maintenance needs like this. Ms. Winters stated that with their bonds they had set up an extraordinary maintenance fund for repairs and things like that. She stated that it has to be maintained at a certain level and her understanding from the recent statements that she's seen from that account is that they are not able to access funds at this time because they used it for drainage projects a year or two ago and it no longer has sufficiem funds. Ms. Ross asked if they used those funds for a drainage project at Heritage Oaks. Ms. Wimers indicated that this was correct. Mr. Touraine asked if they would overlay the parking lot or tear it out and repave it. Ms. Winters stated that the funding that she was requesting would overlay it. It would include a new base. Mr. Urbina asked if they could come back with some information regarding what their critical areas would cost. Page 57 He continued if she could give them information on how much the critical areas would cost for both the parking lot and the retaining wall that would help the committee. Ms. Colonna asked if they would continue to have drainage problems even after the work is completed. Ms. Winters explained that they would replace them with railroad ties and the contractor that they had talked to said the wooden railroad ties would hold up better than concrete in an area with drainage problems. Mr. Dickenson asked if the new retaining walls would basically be new railroad ties. Mr. Winters indicated this is what it would be. Ms. Stinnett said this would be something that would need to be replaced every 20 years. She also asked if any other engineers come out to see if there was something permanent that could be done. Ms. Winters indicated that the former CEO of DHA had some studies done and that it would be very expensive to do anything permanent. Ms. Colonna commented that the housing was really attractive to seniors. They are modest but the folks living there really enjoy it. Ms. Stinnett said that she was just looking for a solution that would last. Ms. Fox asked if HUD cited them for these problems. Ms. Winters stated that they did not get cited but that they gave them a timeline to complete the work. Ms. Winters said she contacted him to see what they could access from their extraordinary maintenance fund but noted that there is nothing to access there. Ms. Ross asked again if there were no funds that could be accessed from their maintenance accounts. She pointed out that it is sometimes better when the City doesn't fund the entire project and they see some participation from the organization requesting funds. Ms. Fox asked what would happen if this work is not done. Ms. Winters stated that they could do it out of their budget but it would take a lot longer, probably a couple of years if they did it out of their contract maintenance budget. This budget is for all maintenance. Mr. Urbina reiterated that it would be good if Heritage Oaks could allocate some funding from their budget. Ms. Ross asked about the budget. She said she noted that it was just a budget for Heritage Oaks not DHA. Ms. Ross pointed out that the budget did not appear to include all salaries or costs. Ms. Winters explained that a portion of the maintenance manager's and the CEO's salary comes from their budget. Ms. Ross asked for clarification that this meant that part of DHA's director's salary and the maintenance manager for DHA receive partial payment from the rental income of Heritage Oaks. Ms. Winters stated that this was correct. Ms. Ross asked Ms. Winters to clarify whether or not the new administration building had already been paid for. Ms. Winters stated that it had been financed and would be paid for with revenues from the Section 8 program and revenues from the new developments. Ms. Winters stated that the Denton Housing Development Corporation is over Heritage Oaks and that they have an agreement with the Denton Housing Authority to be the administrator of Heritage Oaks. Ms. Colonna asked if the residents could now use the community room facility in the evenings. Ms. Winters stated that it is open only on Thursday evenings. It is not open for them to use to play cards or watch TV during the rest of the week. Ms. Colonna asked if there was a reason why it is not open in the evenings. Ms. Winters responded that they have no personnel to monitor the use of the facility at night. It is open during the day from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. She stated that she stays on Thursday nights and plays games with the residents. The members thanked Ms. Winters for her presentation. Ms. Fox asked if DHA still had an interim director and whether they were going outside to advertise for a new one. Ms. Ross stated it is her understanding that they are going to advertise nationally though they may still choose a local person. Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia stated that she had understood that Heritage Oaks was a DHA facility. Ms. Ross stated that in reality it is, that they created a non-profit to handle the bond issuance. She added that she thought the DHA board was also over the nonprofit. Ms. Colonna commented that the elderly residents should be able to use the community room at any time. Ms. Stinnett asked if CDBG had Page 5 8 funded a drainage project a few years ago. Ms. Ross responded that it was a roof project. Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia stated that in 1989 Heritage Oaks received $88,000 for a roof project. Members discussed DHA's financial structure and noted that it was difficult to understand. Dan Leal, Human Services Coordinator, provided the presemation for the Tenam-Based Remal Assistance Program. Mr. Leal explained that the TBRA program was previously administered by Fairhaven. They received about $87,000 to administer and implemem the program for two years. The Community Developmem Division is requesting to do the administration of the program. Mr. Leal stated that this is not because Fairhaven has done a poor job. They have done an excellem job. Mr. Leal noted that the switch would save administration funding. The emire amount being requested will be used for rem subsidies. Mr. Leal explained how the program would work and that it would serve both people who are elderly and persons with disabilities. Mr. Leal noted that the CD staff is also familiar with agencies that can provide services to these households. Mr. Leal reviewed the eligibility criteria for the program including that the participams be homeless, in danger ofhomelessness or paying a high percemage of their income for housing. He noted that the City does not feel that it would be duplicating services. Mr. Leal stated that City staff felt that we have some good experience with the program. Ms. Ross added that one of the things that CD staff has noticed is that Fairhaven residems cominue to be the primary recipiems of the assistance. She stated that initially, the assistance was given just to Fairhaven. Then it was determined that this did not meet the HOME program guidelines which states tenams must be allowed to choose their unit. Ms. Ross stated that Fairhaven was asked to market the program citywide and that they have tried to do this. It would probably be better for the City to manage the program and ensure that it was marketed and that Fairhaven residems are eligible but are not the primary persons receiving assistance. Mr. Leal stated that those curremly on assistance at Fairhaven would not be taken off. He noted that City staff could market to a more diverse group of people. Ms. Ferstl asked if cliems are eligible to be assisted after the two-year period. Mr. Leal explained that staff looks at the income level each year. Income requiremems are 50% of AMI and below and that households could cominue to receive assistance it if they cominue to qualify. Mr. Urbina stated that some agencies could possibly do a better job of leveraging the funding. He asked if there are there other nonprofits that are already working with housing that could add to this. Mr. Leal stated that this was possible. He noted that the City could show that TBRA is being provided this could help to bring in additional Cominuum of Care funds. Mr. Leal stated that recemly $732,000 in Cominuum of Care funding came to AIDS Services to serve those impacted by AIDS who are homeless. Mr. Urbina said some agencies have specifically looked at filling that niche and is there a way that we could look at this program and coordinate how it is being allocated to these agencies. Ms. Ross explained that some TBRA assistance is provided to the Demon Affordable Housing Corporation because some of the persons with disabilities are living in their units and that these rems are less expensive than market rate rems. She added that under the HOME program and TBRA the residem selects their own unit. Mr. Leal stated that the tenam has portability, they can move to a new unit. Ms. Stinnett asked if social security income and any retiremem is included income. Mr. Leal said yes. Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia they can be either elderly or disabled, they don't have to be both. Mr. Leal explained that there have been some elderly who were are disabled that were housed at Fairhaven. Mr. Dickenson stated that all recipiems are required to put in 30% of their income. Mr. Leal stated that this was correct and that there is a minimum of $25. Jorge Urbina asked if the agencies could break down their proposed projects imo phases in next Page 59 year's application. Ms. Ross stated that this could be included as a part of the application. Members discussed when to mm in the ranking forms. Ms. Ross suggested that they might want to email their results in to Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia. Emerson Vorel from the City's Parks and Recreation provided information on the Parks Department proposal for the reforestation for Fred Moore Park. He noted that the funding would provide the trees and an automated irrigation system for the new trees. Mr. Vorel stated that some of the trees at the park have reached their full maturity and started to decay. Some have become dangerous and need to come down. Ms. Stinnett asked if the total amount was for the trees. Mr. Vorel stated that Parks would plant 15, 3-inch caliper trees and irrigate them. Ms. Colonna asked what was the cost of the irrigation system alone. Mr. Vorel responded $2,900. Mr. Urbina asked if there were any way to expand the irrigation system to prolong the life of other trees in the park. Mr. Vorel indicated that Fred Moore is a Class B park and this means it is not irrigated. He stated that if it were permanently irrigated that citizens near other neighborhood parks would also want irrigation. The City could not afford the cost of the water to irrigate these parks. Ms. Stinnett asked how long they would continue the irrigation of the trees. Mr. Vorel indicated that it would be about three years. Ms. Colonna asked that since the neighborhood had expressed a concern was it possible that the neighborhood gardening club might be able to help. She added that she thought the gardening club might be fairly active. Ms. Stinnett mentioned the master gardeners association. Ms. Ross indicated that she would attempt to contact these organizations and ask about the availability of trees. Mr. Touraine asked what type of trees would be planted. Mr. Vorel stated that some burr oak, red oak, pecan etc - native trees. Ms. Ferstl asked if you don't have funds in the Parks budget to do this. Mr. Vorel stated that Parks has some funding. Ms. Ferstl stated that she was surprised that they were asking for CDBG funds rather than taking this from the Parks budget. Mr. Vorel stated that they were always looking for supplemental funding. Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia asked what Parks would do if no CDBG funding is available. Mr. Vorel stated that Parks would plant some trees but not as many and they won't have irrigation for the trees. Ms. Stinnett stated that they'd be throwing money away if the trees weren't irrigated. Mr. Vorel stated that the costs are greatly reduced because some of the irrigation equipment is already there and staff could provide the labor. Mr. Touraine commented that if you put 15 trees in the park, there wouldn't be a lot of open space left. Mr. Vorel stated that Parks is going by what they've heard from the community. He added that he didn't believe 15 trees would be too much at Fred Moore Park. Mr. Urbina said some tree loss would continue. Ms. Ross stated that there are several projects that were not included as "previously funded by CDBG" in the PARD application. She noted that the committee has funded a lot of Parks projects in the area. Members discussed doing Parks projects in other neighborhoods. David Salmon, assistant director of Engineering, presented the Paisley Street Repaving request. Mr. Salmon stated that they originally submitted two projects and then it was determined that Mulkey St. did not meet the income eligibility criteria. He noted that the Paisley project covered the distance between Mulkey and Ruddell. It serves the neighborhood along Paisley and the area south of the service center. He stated that the paving was very poor and that it is not currently on any paving list. The street department said that for a little over $101,000 they could mill off the existing pavement and repave. Mr. Salmon stated that $3,000 would be used to pay design costs. There will also be some spot repairs to curbs and gutters. Mr. Touraine noted that there are some areas that don't have curb and gutter. He asked Mr. Salmon if they were going to replace those. Mr. Salmon Page 60 indicated that spots would be repaired but no new curb and gutter would be installed. Mr. Touraine asked since Paisley is a major thoroughfare from the Service Center with large trucks moving through there, would the 6" paving going to hold up. Mr. Salmon stated that the current pavement is probably less than six inches because of the age of the street. Six inches is the current standard for a collector street and that is how Paisley is categorized. Ms. Stinnett asked why is Paisley not included in the City's maintenance budget. Mr. Salmon stated that the worst streets on the list come first. He added that what is happening is that someone at a public meeting mentioned Wilson Street. This street needs a less expensive facelift and the street department can repair that with a micro seal. Mr. Salmon noted that on Paisley the pavement is so deteriorated that it must be repaved. Ms. Stinnett stated then this is too expensive to include in the City's budget. She noted that it appears this entire length of street needs to be done at the same time. Mr. Salmon stated that sometimes they present projects that can be split up but it wouldn't work well to split Paisley up. Ms. Stinnett asked if Engineering could come up with the money from their budget. Mr. Salmon said he couldn't speak for the street department but it would probably be very difficult. He noted that they might be able to come up with a small amount to assist in the project. Mr. Urbina asked if the City currently looking at including something like this in the CIP in the next couple of years. Mr. Salmon stated that in the past bond elections they always attempt to get $100,000 to $250,000 in repaving funds. This is spent on the street on the repaving list. Mr. Salmon explained the two repaving lists that the City maintains and the type of work that is done under each. Ms. Stinnett asked about the missing curb and gutter. Mr. Salmon noted that he did not believe the budget amount included that. He would check and could include an amount if it is not included. Mr. Salmon stated that perhaps the street department might be able to do the curb and gutter. Mr. Urbina noted that the individuals who own and want to develop those properties might take on those expenses. Members discussed other improvements that may be needed in the Paisley/Crawford/Ruddell area. Ms. Stinnett asked if there were any corrections to the January 30 minutes. Ms. Ferstl stated that at the beginning of that meeting Ms. Ross told them about the resignation of Mary Alice Moreno and that this was not included in the minutes. Ms. Ross said that would be added. Ed Touraine moved approval of the minutes. Hank Dickenson seconded the motion. The minutes of January 30, 2002 were approved with one correction. Ms. Stinnett asked for corrections to the November 14, 2001 minutes. No corrections were requested. Peggy Fox moved approval. Pat Colonna seconded the motion. The November 14th minutes were approved as written. The meeting adjourned at 2:55 pm. Page 61 Minutes Community Development Advisory Committee February 20, 2002 Members Presem: Members Absem: Staff Present: Barbara Stinnett - Chair, Sondra Ferstl, Ed Touraine, Jorge Urbina, Hank Dickenson, Peggy Fox, Pat Colonna Harry Bell Luisa Rodriguez-Garcia, Barbara Ross Jane Provo, execmive director of the Demon Affordable Housing Corporation, provided a summary of the mission of the organization. She noted that the agency is requesting $150,000 for their first time homebuyer program. This program is called the Affordable Housing Opportunity Program (AHOP). Ms. Provo stated that they plan to substantially increase the number of units available to first time homebuyers. She added that staff has already acquired more homes in the first four months of this fiscal year than in all of last year. Ms. Provo stated she was unsure as to why there are more homes available in an affordable range this year than in previous years. She noted that they are aborn to acquire their 14th home and they plan to do 30 units this year. Ms. Provo described the program - acquisition, rehabilitation and sale to low and/or moderate-income persons. She noted that though the program is carried om in other communities in Demon County, City of Demon dollars are only spent in Denton. Ms. Provo stated that AHOP's primary focus is the structural and primary systems in the homes bm she added that they also do cosmetic work on the units. Ms. Provo stated that DAHC does not sell "fixer-uppers." She stated that they also have some Federal Home Loan Bank funds that defray costs to the new homebuyer. Ms. Provo stated that DAHC attempt to focus on households that are at 50% of the area median income and below. She added that this income group constitutes 40% of their buyers. The average sales price is $74,000 to $75,000. The average renovation cost is $15,000. Ms. Provo noted that they are about to acquire their 40th home in Demon. They have acquired 94 in Demon County. Of the request for $150,000, $80,000 is for acquisition, $50,000 is for renovation and $20,000 is for down paymem and closing costs and some gap financing. Peggy Fox stated that in the past they have given a list of the most recently acquired homes and could they provide an updated list to the committee. Ms. Provo stated she would be happy to provide that information. She noted that their goal is to continue to focus on infill. Ms. Stinnett asked how long DAHC's waiting list was. Ms. Provo stated that they have a continual flow. There is no waiting list but they keep a list of interested persons and send information out to them. Ms. Stinnett asked how long it takes for someone to get a home. Ms. Provo explained that it can go pretty fast if they have already visited a lender and have found or can quickly find a home to meet their needs. Ms. Stinnett asked if DAHC did any educational training with the prospective homebuyers. Ms. Provo stated that there probably is a need. They send om the City's schedule for homebuyer training and they encourage people to go through that. It is not currently a requirement bm they certainly feel that it is importam. Jorge Urbina explained to the committee that there is a housing coalition that is active and that they have begun some collaborative projects. He noted that Page 62 DAHC and other agencies are curremly working on a project to help victims of domestic violence. Ms. Provo stated that over the last few years there has been a healthy collaboration on the part of local housing agencies. Ms. Stinnett asked about the rate of default on these projects. Ms. Provo stated that they have never had one in the City limits but have had a couple outside the City limits. Ed Touraine stated that on the map enclosed with DAHC's application there are only two houses that are west of Locust. He asked the reason for this. Ms. Provo stated the only reason for that would be the availability. She noted that most of the homes they purchase are HUD foreclosures. She added that they are able to purchase these homes at a discoum. It is based on where DAHC can find homes for sale that can be renovated and made affordable. Mr. Dickenson asked what percemage of the families take advamage of the sweat equity part of the program. Ms. Provo indicated that it was not many and part of the reason is because DAHC still owns the unit umil the family gets a mortgage loan and therefore they may do labor that cannot be reimbursed. She added that if the improvemem requires skilled labor such as plumbing or mechanical, they homebuyer usually cannot complete it. Ms. Provo stated that DAHC's insurance company was also concerned about these individuals being out on the work site. Ms. Provo expressed her appreciation to the committee for previous funding DAHC has received. She noted that funds are recycled imo the program. Mr. Touraine asked about salaries. Ms. Ross poimed out that the $99,000 was only for salaries related to AHOP. The other salary amoums were paid from other sources. Alma Espino, community developmem program specialist, presemed information on the Home Improvement Loan program and Optional Reconstruction program. Ms. Espino passed out photographs of a project completed under the program. She described the problems associated with the original house and why it was demolished. A new unit was built. Ms. Stinnett asked where the family moved. Ms. Espino stated they were able to find an apartment that was willing to rent to them for only a few months. The program requires that the families relocate themselves. Ms. Espino indicated loans are provided based on a sliding scale. Some of the loan is payable and a portion is forgivable. The more your earnings, the more you will pay back to the program. Mr. Touraine asked what happens if an individual's salary increases after you get the loan. What happens to the loan? Ms. Espino indicated that the loan remains the same. She gave an example of a woman who paid back her loan early after she received some additional funding. Ms. Ross added that in a way you would be "punishing" families for working to increase their earnings. The program supports families improving their lifestyles. Ms. Colonna poimed out that the families must remain in the unit for a certain period of time. Mr. Urbina asked if the residency period was based on the loan amount. Ms. Espino explained the loan terms - 20 years for reconstruction, 5, 10 or 15 for a rehabilitation. She explained how the loan program works. Mr. Urbina asked if there are any third party funds involved in each project. Ms. Espino memioned that the City has received Federal Home Loan Bank funds to help defray the loan amoum for very low-income households. Ms. Ross memioned that the City also requested and received funding from the DeNon County Housing Finance Corporation funding to support the program. Ms. Espino also memioned the lead hazard control grant. Ms. Ferstl asked her to explain the target area map. Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia noted that the mapping software would not print all of the street names. Ms. Espino explained that the older DeNon neighborhoods are in the target area. Ms. Ross discussed the targeting of neighborhoods. Mr. Urbina asked what monitoring means. Ms. Espino stated that she monitors to ensure that the program participants are paying taxes and insurance. Ms. Stinnett asked if there is ever a default. Ms. Espino stated that they do have defaults but that they work with families to obtain payments. Page 63 Ms. Espino explained how they work with problem payers. Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia stated that she would do a map by hand to provide to the committee members. Ms. Ross explained the concept of targeting existing neighborhoods rather than working on units that were in commercial areas or isolated areas. Gordon Meredith, resideNial housing specialist, described the Minor Repair program. He indicated that the name has changed. Mr. Meredith explained that the program was previously the "Emergency Repair" program. Mr. Meredith stated that since Title X (lead rules) there is a strict rule regarding what is emergency repair and they waned to avoid that we were trying to subvert the Title X regulations. He stated that they are asking $81,000 for the program this year. An additional $9,000 comes from the ALERT program. Mr. Meredith explained that the increased funding was needed because more people are using the program and the level of repair has gone from $3,000 to $5,000 per unit. He explained that the ALERT program will provide $300,000 to the City of DeNon and this can be used for lead-reduction work. Mr. Meredith provided information regarding how the program's funding has been speN. He noted that 2/3rds of the funding was speN in CT 212 and 206.02 (an area directly north of SE DeNon). This is older housing stock that need emergency repairs. Mr. Urbina asked if there was recovery of money back iNo the fund. Mr. Meredith stated that this is an outright grant. Mr. Touraine asked if there is a list of contractors that they can use. Mr. Meredith stated that staff has a list of coNractors in various areas that are used for these jobs. Mr. Dickenson asked if the homeowner makes the coNact with the coNractor. Mr. Meredith said that on some occasions that happens but usually staff would set up the bidding process for the homeowner. Mr. Urbina stated that the minority community is wondering why we don't have any minority coNractors. Mr. Meredith stated that there has been some success in finding minority contractors in carpentry areas but there are not many in the licensed trades. Much of the minor repair work falls iNo the licensed category. He commeNed that the outreach for the program has worked very well and that many households are tapping iNo this resource. Ms. Colonna stated that last year the committee was warned that the funding might be used up and it evideNly has been. Mr. Urbina asked if they track anything besides the census tracts. Mr. Meredith said they track ethnicity but not age. Ms. Ross presented information about the new Infill Housing Construction Program. She noted that the program was carried out a few years ago. That program targeted city-owned properties. Ms. Ross stated that staff was able to acquire two properties owned by the City on Windsor. Two units were built on these lots and sold to low and moderate-income homebuyers. She stated that after those two lots, the City purchased two lots in Southeast Denton and built two brick units. Ms. Ross commeNed that staff has received complimeNs from neighborhood resideNs regarding these two units. She stated that the program attempted to do infill housing and to serve very low-income households. She added that the City provided some very deep subsidies on these units to make them affordable. One unit was sold to a single mother with two children. It was sold for under $70,000. Ms. Ross stated that staff is working with SE Denton neighborhood on their plan. They have discussed the issue of infill housing and the resideNs would like to see some housing developmeN in their neighborhood. Ms. Ross said she and Dedra Ragland, small area planner, have discussed setting up a standard for the construction of the units under the City's program. The resideNs would be asked what type of units they wan developed in the neighborhood. If the neighborhood wans 50% or 75% brick, three-bedroom, two-baths etc., this is what the program would do. Ms. Page 64 Ross commeNed that this would require a deep subsidy and that the program could not be self- supporting. Staff would coNinue to look for funding from other sources. One possible source would be the Section 108 loan guarantee program. Ms. Ross commented that the only reason they stopped doing the program was because Ted Benavides, city manager at the time the program was active, did not wan the City doing housing developmeN. Ms. Ferstl asked what was the definition of infill housing. Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia explained that this would not be developmeN of a previously unused large tract of land but building housing in existing neighborhoods where there were vacant lots. Ms. Ross noted that lots could be acquired through foreclosure or simple purchase. She commeNed that a program has been developed to acquire vacaN, abandoned properties and either give them to nonprofits or allow the City to use them in a new construction program. She noted that Mary Horn, tax assessor-collector at the time, did not support the program. Staff felt that they needed neighborhood support before approaching the County Commissioners. This program could be incorporated iNo the Infill New Construction Program. Mr. Dickenson asked whether this would mean tearing down a house on a lot. Ms. Ross responded that if the house was vacaN, it could be tom down. Ms. Ross commeNed that with both DAHC and the City doing new construction perhaps they could get more volume out there. Mr. Urbina asked besides DAHC, Habitat and the City who else was doing new construction. Mr. Touraine meNioned the DeNon Housing Authority. Mr. Urbina indicated that this would not be single-family. Mr. Urbina stated that the Housing Coalition was attempting to pull in some of the land that was previously purchased by the DeNon Housing Authority. Ms. Fox asked for clarification regarding the land owned by DHA. Mr. Urbina stated that the land was not approved for rezoning. It is zoned for single family. He indicated that it might be difficult to build an affordable home. Ms. Ferstl asked staff if they felt it would cost $100,000 to build a new home. Ms. Ross indicated that construction costs would be around $80,000 or so for construction and $15,000 for acquisition. She meNioned that they built the two on Robertson for $78,000 and $70,000 or so. Ms. Rodriguez- Garcia noted that staff is coNinuously getting calls asking why the City is not building any more units like those on Robertson. Members continued to discuss the new construction program. Ms. Luisa Rodriguez-Garcia, community developmeN coordinator, described the City's Homebuyer Assistance Program. She noted that the program provides assistance to households that are able to get a mortgage loan. The family may have difficulty saving for down paymeN and closing costs and the program will assist them with that. The maximum sales price is $87,500 that is a slight increase over last year's limit. Local realtors and lenders have asked that it be increased significaNly but staff did not feel comfortable increasing the limit by too much. As of this date assistance has been provided to 338 households. The average sales price is approximately $75,000. She stated that more gap funds are being provided because there are so few affordable units available. Ms. Rodriguez stated that CD is asking for $491,150. The increase is mainly because of rising staff costs. She stated that for every dollar that the City puts in the ratio of mortgage funding to City dollars would be 8 to 1. With the funds requested, the City will leverage approximately $4 million. Households put in $1,000 to $2,000 of their own funds for down paymeN and closing costs. Ms. Rodriguez stated that the program usually runs out of money in May or June. Then families must wait until the new funding is available. Ms. Ferstl asked if a certain percentage must come from CDBG. Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia indicated that this was correct - administrative costs usually come from CDBG. Ms. Ferstl asked if the administration costs would go down if the program did not receive all the funding requested. Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia stated that there might be a slight decrease Page 65 in administration but not much. Ms. Ross poimed out that the staff costs associated with the program do not pay for all the staff time spem on the program. It represems only a portion of staff time. She also stated that if they receive any money for salaries from the general fund, there would probably be some reductions in salary costs coming from the programs. Mr. Touraine asked why there were so few blacks participating in the program. Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia stated that at one time a committee member indicated that many African-Americans in the community have been here long- term and the homes they own are usually passed down to younger members of the family. Many of the new low-income families in the community are Hispanic. Staff cominues to market the program to the minority community. Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia indicated that staff was working with the SE DeNon neighborhood to look at providing some more imensive credit counseling. Mr. Urbina commended staff and the Homebuyer Assistance Program. He stated that the community was well aware of the program and that the outreach done by the staff was excellem. Members discussed completing their ranking sheets. Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia asked that the ranking sheets be returned to her by Friday the 22nd. The meeting was adjourned at 2:35 pm. Page 66 Minutes Community Development Advisory Committee February 27, 2002 Members Present: Staff Present: Barbara Stinnett - Chair, Ed Touraine - Vice Chair, Harry Bell, Pat Colonna, Hank Dickenson, Sondra Ferstl, Peggy Fox, Jorge Urbina Luisa Rodriguez-Garcia - CD Coordinator, Barbara Ross - CD Administrator Barbara Stinnett called the meeting to order at 1:20 pm Members discussed their project/program rankings. They agreed that the Fred Moore Reforestation project would not be recommended for funding. Pat Colonna commeNed that she felt there could be a way to get water to any trees that were planted. She suggested some group might volunteer to keep them watered. Ms. Fox noted that it could provide some incentive for someone to get involved. Mr. Urbina stated that his consideration of this project included that CDBG has been very generous to Parks and Recreation and the Fred Moore Park facility. Mr. Touraine stated that he felt that the park's free space was pretty well taken up and that 15 trees would take all the open space. Ms. Ferstl noted that Paisley Street was not ranked as a "5" (highest priority) by any CDAC member. Ms. Colonna stated that she felt the City should pave streets. Ms. Stinnett asked if Kendra WiNers of Heritage Oaks commeNed that the retaining wall/parking lot project could be split up. Ms. Ferstl commeNed that it was split up $45,000 and $60,000. Mr. Urbina stated that he had asked for additional numbers. Ms. Ross commeNed that Ms. WiNers called and stated that she had no other breakdown to give the committee. She noted that Ms. WiNers added that Heritage Oaks would take anything the City would give them and use it on their priorities. Ms. Stinnett stated that if they were given $50,000 it would have to be spent on the work requested. Ms. Ross stated that the contract with the Denton Housing Authority would state specifically what the funds are to be speN on. Mr. Urbina asked how far the funding stretched if they wen down the ranking sheet with the housing programs that have been ranked first. Ms. Ferstl indicated that if you include the DeNon Affordable Housing Corporation's eNire request, you run out of funding with Heritage Oaks. Some is available for a portion of the Heritage Oaks project. Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia set up the funding chart showing full funding for the priority housing programs. Ms. Ross indicated that this is the system that the committee has used in the past - drop off those they don't want to fund and then start from the top priorities and work their way down. Mr. Urbina asked how much funding was left from the City County Day Nursery School project. Ms. Ross indicated that it was $2,700. She noted that normally on projects that have small amounts of money left over the funding is used to support another project they may need more than was Page 67 originally included in the budget. Also, residual funds often go iNo the homebuyer assistance, home improvemeN and minor repair programs. Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia reviewed the funding recommendations thus far. If the following programs are funded at the full amouN requested - homebuyer assistance, minor housing repair, home improvemeN, tenaN-based renal assistance for special needs, DeNon City County Day School fence, and the DeNon Affordable Housing Corporation (DAHC) - then $59,968 is left. Ms. Stinnett suggested funding DAHC at $86,250. This is the community housing developmeN organization (CHDO) set-aside amouN under the HOME program. Mr. Dickenson asked if this is what has been done in the past. Members stated that they had recommended only the minimum in past years. Ms. Ross commented that in '95 and '96 some administration costs were funded since DAHC was a new agency. This was to help them build capacity. Ms. Stinnett reminded the committee that Paisley Street could not be split into more than one project. Mr. Urbina stated that he did not understand why Heritage Oaks could not ask their developer for funds for additional repairs and include this as part of their overall obligation. Ms. Ross stated that her understanding was that the Denton Housing Authority created a non-profit organization that was used to float the bonds to finance the building of Heritage Oaks. Ms. Ross stated that she thought the bonds were paid off and that is part of what she did not understand regarding Ms. WiNers's preseNation. Ms. Ross stated that perhaps an additional bond issuance provided funds for repairs. She asked Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia to comment on the DHA board meeting that she attended the previous Friday. Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia stated that they mentioned that whenever something couldn't be funded for Heritage Oaks, they would put it through Section 8. Ms. Ross stated that staff noted that this was a little bit differeN from the way it was described to the committee. Ms. Ross noted however that Heritage Oaks is probably supposed to be a stand-alone complex with rents and Section 8 assistance paymeNs paying for maiNenance and repairs but since it is low-income housing, it may not be sufficient. Ms. Ferstl suggested that the committee recommend funding Heritage Oaks at $50,000 and put the balance of funding in DAHC. Mr. Dickenson noted that this would be above what DAHC had requested. Ms. Ferstl stated that she did not think Heritage Oaks should be fully funded since it ranks below DAHC. Mr. Urbina meNioned the previous funds speN on roof repair. Members commeNed that this was quite some time ago. Mr. Urbina suggested that they add the $9,000 remaining to Heritage Oaks. Ms. Fox suggested that the committee recommend giving Heritage Oaks enough funding to do either the parking lot repair or the retaining wall work. Mr. Urbina asked if Ms. WiNers stated what the priority was. Members agreed the retaining wall work seemed to be the priority. Members agreed to take $32.00 from the Homebuyers Assistance Program. This would allow Heritage Oaks to receive $60,000 for the retaining wall repair. Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia reviewed the recommendations as follows: Page 68 · Homebuyers Assistance $491,118 · Minor Repair $81,000 · Home Improvement Loan $420,885 · Tenant-Based Rental $82,368 · Denton City County Fence $17,000 · Denton Affordable Housing $150,000 · Heritage Oaks $60,000 Mr. Dickenson noted that a major difference this year was that DAHC was receiving their total request rather than the required amount. Mr. Urbina also noted that they were not funding the new Infill Housing Construction program. Ms. Ross stated that this would give staff time to work on the program and how it fits imo various neighborhood plans including SE Demon's. Ms. Colonna noted that DAHC and Habitat for Humanity do new housing construction. Mr. Urbina noted that the infill program duplicates somewhat but it would be nice to see what the City could do. Ms. Ross stated that she felt duplication was not a problem when there was so much need in the community. She added that DAHC has some City funds for new construction that were not expended for more than a year and staff was concerned. Ms. Ross stated that they are being used for new construction. Ms. Stinnett asked why the funds were not used. Ms. Ross noted that DAHC was very busy with several remal projects that were much needed. She commemed that DAHC was doing a wonderful job on these projects but were not able to work on any new construction. Ms. Colonna stated that last year, DAHC had some bad press and they seem to have come back from that. Ms. Ross noted that the City had asked DAHC to take on the program but had also discussed taking the program back. Ms. Ross noted that the City provides approximately $20,000 impact fee grams to non-profits for new housing developmem. Ms. Ross commemed on the possible use of Section 108 loan guaramee funds for new housing construction. Ms. Rodriguez-Garcia provided the members with a prim out of their draft recommendations. Mr. Urbina stated that he has asked Habitat to consider requesting CDBG funds for their program. He commemed that the families assisted by Habitat are very low income. Ms. Ross stated that she thought Jill Grozev, Executive Director of Habitat, was completing an application but it was never submitted. Members continued to discuss Habitat. Mr. Urbina commended the Community Developmem staff on the City-managed programs. Ms. Ross stated that Dan Leal was just working with the auditor from the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs regarding the Emergency Shelter Gram program. Mr. Urbina moved that the draft recommendations for use of CDBG and HOME funds to be presemed to City Council. Ms. Colonna seconded the motion. CDAC members unanimously approved the recommendations. Ms. Ross stated that she would comact the members to inform them of the dates for City Council review and approval. The meeting was adjourned. Page 69 Human Services Advisory Committee Official Minutes October 23, 2001 Members Presem: Members Absem: Staff Present: Carol Bounds, Carol Brantley, Wallace Duvall, Peggy Kelly, Elinor Hughes, James McDade, Teri Rheault, Betty Tomboulian Carl Williams Dr. Bettye Myers, Caleb O'Rear Dan Leal and Barbara Ross The Human Services Advisory Committee meeting was called to order at 6:35 pm. The Human Services Advisory Committee (HSAC) and staff introduced themselves. Carl Williams took the oath of office. Peggy Kelly moved the minutes of September 17 be approved as written. Teri Rheault seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously. Dan Leal asked members for nominations for HSAC chair. Elinor Hughes nominated Dr. Wallace Duvall. Carol BraMley seconded the motion. Dr. Duvall was unanimously elected as committee chair. Dan Leal took nominations for HSAC vice-chair. Carol Bounds nominated Teri Rheault. Peggy Kelly seconded the motion. Teri Rheault was unanimously elected as vice-chair. Members reviewed the application and scoring sheet for FY 2002-2003 funding. Ms. Kelly noted that the subcommittee made a change on the scoring sheet adding a committee member evaluation and changing the existing scoring capability to only 90 poims. The subjective "committee member evaluation" would provide the additional 10 poims. Ms. Kelly poimed out that some agencies have excellent grant writers and may get good scores because of that. She stated that this was a chance to boost agencies based on committee members' subjective opinion of their program. Ms. Kelly reviewed the areas where poims were reduced to accommodate the additional category. Mr. Leal noted that there was a compromise regarding Dr. Myers' commem that some applications may not merit being scored if they did not meet the committee's criteria for funding. A section was added at the top of the scoring sheet: "Application meets committee's funding criteria" - yes or no. If the member does not want to score the agency application, then they can check NO and don't have to score it. Ms. Rheault pointed out the application requires the support of the agency's Board of Directors and that the Board President must sign off on page 1 of the application. Dan Leal Page 70 pointed out areas in the application that did not change and discussed why not. Ms. Kelly stated that there needed to be a correction regarding 3a and b. She said that V:a page would be enough for "a" and leave "b" out of the parenthetical statement. Mr. Leal stated that he received some correspondence from Mr. Williams asking for information on the ethnic and gender make-up of the agencies' Boards of Directors, client base, staff and volunteers. Mr. Williams stated that he saw nothing about the ethnic make-up of the clients. Ms. Kelly said that the information is on the City's beneficiary report. Mr. Williams stated that it was not requested in the application and it should be. Members pointed out that this information is requested on page 14 of the application. Ms. Tomboulian noted that Friends of the Family does not require this information. Mr. Leal pointed out that all the agencies the City funds provide the ethnic breakdown of clients. He also noted that some agencies don't report income information such as RSVP, the Denton Family Resource Center, etc based on their mission. However, staff is working with each of the agencies to have them all report income information. Mr. Leal suggested that the question regarding staff racial make-up could come under section V.A.2. Members suggested that it be included in the existing question. Ms. Bounds suggested that the application include the "mixed" category from the census. Mr. Leal stated that he would check the census and get that information. Members agreed to leave the wording of the "mixed" category and the question about staff make-up to Mr. Leal. Members discussed whether they should ask the same question of volunteers. Mr. Leal will incorporate this into the application under V.A.3. Mr. Leal commented that application trainings will be provided for the agencies on December 4 and 6. Mr. Leal reviewed the changes to the application. He asked for other changes from the members. Ms. Kelly asked for a correction to the budget sheet to take out the "omit" areas. Ms. Kelly noted that VII B. should say during the "current" contract year and the next year dates are incorrect. She also noted on the scoring sheet that the upper case letters should be changed to lower case. Only the beginning of the line would have the capital letters. Ms. Kelly noted that she would like to have more points in the budget section of the application. She noted that they could only take away two points if they had findings on their audit or material weaknesses. Dr. Duvall suggested that they take some away from the 10 points for subjective committee opinion. Ms. Bounds felt that budget is an important factor. Mr. Williams said that some of the items on the scoring sheet cannot be measured such as "coordinates with providers to maximize program effectiveness." Mr. Williams discussed clients being assisted by a continuum of care and suggested agencies by scored by measuring the number of referrals. Ms. Kelly pointed out that the scoring sheet follows the application. Ms. Kelly asked if they could list the service providers they work with and explain how you coordinate with them. Ms. Ross pointed out that agencies are able to provide additional information upon the committee members' request. Ms. Rheault felt like that could be a 5 points question instead of 10 points. Mr. Williams agreed. Page 71 Ms. Kelly explained why the budget information was set up in this way. Ms. Tomboulian pointed out that agencies weren't reporting to staff and this was a way to show them that this was important. Ms. Kelly mentioned that staff reviews these on a monthly basis and there is time for the agencies to improve in these areas so, this is why it was not scored so highly. Ms. Tomboulian discussed why the budget information was set up. Mr. Leal explained how a "risk analysis" has been developed to determine which agencies receive a formal monitoring visit. A copy of the formal monitoring letter would be included if they were monitored. He suggested that HSAC might want to get some information regarding how staff monitors the agencies. Ms. Kelly stated that this helps because the committee knows that staff has been monitoring the agencies and if there were problems, staff could inform committee members. Ms. Bounds asked if there is an evaluation of the budget to determine the amount of funding agencies spend on staff compared to how much is spent on client services. Ms. Kelly noted that some agencies like RSVP use more funds for administration because volunteers are not paid. Ms. Tomboulian stated that staff salaries are included in the application. Mr. Leal suggested giving 6 or 5 points on material weaknesses. Ms. Bounds suggested that some agencies have a lower staff to client ratio because their clients may require more attention. Ms. Ross stated that some staff costs are not always administrative but often project or program-related. Mr. Leal noted that the committee had seven points to play with. Ms. Kelly suggested taking one point off each category. Mr. Williams suggested that the 10 points be discretionary. Ms. Kelly stated it is discretionary. Mr. Leal reviewed the points on the scoring sheet. Dr. Duvall stated that he did not feel points should be taken away from other categories and given to the subjective area. Ms. Hughes stated that she felt it should not be quite so subjective but should be more objective. She commented that they should be able to say if it is a good application but it is not something that the City should fund. Ms. Rheault felt that Ms. Hughes was saying the same thing but not using the term "feel." Ms. Hughes noted that if the program does not meet a community need then it is a worthless application. Ms. Kelly stated the subjective comments were made after the scoring sheet was completed last year. Ms. Hughes suggested that a scoring question be asked "the amount of money requested is appropriate for the services provided." She suggested the question go under the budget category. Ms. Bounds stated that in the end you really make a personal feeling about who is more deserving. The question suggested by Ms. Hughes gives some type of tabulation to see which applications have the most support. Dr. Duvall stated that this would come out in other parts of the scoring sheet. Other members disagreed. Ms. Hughes felt perhaps they were asking the wrong question. Mr. Williams stated that the scoring needed to be stricter. He said the best way to spend taxpayer's money is that all funds are spent on the client and volunteers provide the service. Mr. Williams stated that he grades things on the way they're supposed to be. Mr. Williams moved that the ten- point question be moved up to the budget section and reworded. Ms. Hughes stated it should read something like "budget request amount is appropriate for services provided." Members discussed the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion. Ms. Rheault made a motion to change the scoring in sections 3 & 4 to make up the difference for the additional ten points. Ms. Hughes Page 72 noted that program design is crucial and that this should have more poims rather than just one more than material weakness. If you don't have a community need that is urgem and a program design that meets that need then the program probably does not merit funding. Ms. Rheault amended the motion to put material weakness back to five points and program design to eight points. Mr. Leal again reviewed the revised scoring sheet poims breakdown. Mr. Williams asked about percentage of Denton residents served. He wanted to switch the number of points for maximize program effectiveness with the number of points for percentage of Denton residents served. Mr. Leal pointed out that agencies were not getting paid for non-Denton residents. Ms. Ross explained why the question regarding percemage of DeNon residems was included in the application. Dr. Duvall asked about the next meeting. Members agreed to meet January 22, at 6:30 pm. Monitoring will be discussed and meetings will be scheduled for funding deliberations. Members discussed the agency visits. Mr. Leal reviewed the visit schedule, and members discussed the importance of making sure each visit was attended. The meeting was adjourned. Page 73 Human Services Advisory Committee Official Minutes January 22, 2002 Members Presem: Elinor Hughes, Betty Tomboulian, Peggy Kelly, Dr. Bettye Myers, James McDade, Carol Bramley, Dr. Wallace Duvall, Members Not Presem: Carol Bounds, Caleb O'Rear, Teri Rheault, Carl Williams Staff Present: Dan Leal Dr. Wallace Duvall, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Dr. Duvall asked the committee members if they had reviewed the minutes of the October 23, 2001 meeting. Peggy Kelly made a motion to approve the minutes as written. James McDade seconded the motion. The October 23 minutes were approved unanimously with no changes. Dan Leal gave a presemation explaining how the Community Developmem Division monitors human services agencies under contract with the City of Demon. Mr. Leal asked committee members to refer to the handout "City of Demon Human Services Monitoring" which he had prepared for the meeting. The purpose of the presentation was to explain to committee members what is expected of human service agencies that are funded by the City of Demon. Mr. Leal said the Community Developmem Division has the same reporting expectations for agencies that receive federal Community Developmem Block Gram funds and for agencies that receive City of Denton general funds. Mr. Leal explained that each agency enters into a contract with the City of Demon that explains requiremems set forth by the city. He said each comract is very detailed for the protection of the City and so that agencies understand reporting requiremems and are accoumable for the funding received from the City of Demon. Mr. Leal said each contract includes a work statement that is based upon the language used by the agencies in their funding applications. Each work statement also includes outcome measures so that agencies show measurable progress in service delivery. He said the outcome measures and work statements might also include expectations suggested by the Human Services Advisory Committee. Mr. Leal said each contract includes a contract budget, which is Exhibit B. The contract budget is derived from the funding applications submitted by the agencies. Mr. Leal said the comract fiscal year begins October 1 and concludes September 30. He said each agency must submit quarterly reports to the Community Developmem office within 15 working days after the previous quarter has expired. Mr. Leal said each agency must complete a quarterly beneficiary report. Agencies are asked to provide information on number of persons assisted, number of households assisted, cliem income by category, cliem race/ethnicity, number of females heads of household, and number of persons with disabilities. Mr. Leal distributed a chart to the committee that shows the income limits and Page 74 categories. Mr. Leal said agencies must also submit quarterly financial reports. He said most agencies do monthly financial reports for their board meetings. Mr. Leal said he expects a profit and loss statement and a balance sheet from each agency. He explained that some agencies provide better financial reports than others. However, having a balance sheet and profit and loss statement gives staff a better idea of how agencies are doing from month to month. The balance sheet shows how much funds are available to the agencies in terms of checking accouNs, savings accouNs and other assets. He said agencies must also submit Board minutes every three months. Mr. Leal reads over all Board minutes submitted by agencies. This allows staff to know what is going on with each agency on an ongoing basis, if there are questions after reading over Board minutes, he calls or sends correspondence to the Executive Director. The agency directors are happy to reply to Community DevelopmeN questions. All quarterly reports are kept on file for each agency. Mr. Leal coNinued by discussing reports that are due annually. He began by discussing annual audits. Mr. Leal said he reviews agency audits looking for material weaknesses and iNemal coNrol problems. He also looks at audited statements to take an in depth look at the agency's financial situation. He said agencies are required to submit proof of premise liability insurance that names the City of DeNon as an additional insured. Mr. Leal said agencies submit a year-end beneficiary report that includes the same information that is included in the quarterly reports, information from the year- end reports is submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Mr. Leal explained that he has constaN coNact with the agencies funded by the City of DeNon. He said he conducts an informal visit with each agency at least once a year. The informal visits are for the purpose of seeing the agencies provide their services in person, informal visits include conversation with staff and may include technical assistance. Mr. Leal reviewed the risk analysis for agency monitoring. The risk analysis was designed to determine which agencies needed a formal monitoring visit. Mr. Leal said just because an agency had a formal monitoring visit didn't mean it was doing a bad job. For example, programs that are in their first three years of funding receive a formal monitoring visit. He cited other reasons that necessitate a formal monitoring visit including financial difficulties and being delinqueN in submitting reports. He said eleven agencies received formal monitoring visits last fiscal year. Mr. Leal said the City of DeNon Senior Grants Accountant accompanied him on six of the monitoring visits. The CPA wen on visits with agencies where Community DevelopmeN staff had fiscal concerns. The Senior Grants Accountant provided her own financial report to go with the Human Services Coordinator's monitoring letter. The monitoring letter from the Human Services Coordinator includes an analysis of agency contract compliance, programming and financial practices. Ms. Kelly asked Mr. Leal if he required a formal audit for the Community Food Room even though Page 75 it has such a small budget and no paid staff. Mr. Leal said the Community Food Room has been able to get a formal audit completed for free with the assistance of a business class from Texas Woman's University. A university professor, who is a CPA, oversaw the audit. Dr. Bettye Myers said she is aware of two instances where agencies had received clean audits bM were on the verge of bankruptcy. Dr. Myers said one or two accounting firms are doing most of the non-profit audits. She said she sees this as a problem. She said agencies spend a lot of money on conducting formal audits. Mr. Leal said having a clean audit doesn't mean an agency is doing well f'mancially. Dr. Myers asked what the City requires at a minimum from the agencies. Mr. Leal responded that the City requires a formal independeM audit. Dr. Duvall moved to the next item on the agenda. The Committee discussed whether or not it wanted to hear presentations from each agency. Ms. Brantley said she didn't think the committee could make good decisions unless it had a chance to meet with the agencies in person. She said it would be helpful to the new people on the committee to meet with the agencies. She said it would be good to be able to ask questions of the agencies that committee members wouldn't think of when reading the applications. Dr. Duvall said visiting the agencies in person is more beneficially. Ms. Kelly agreed. Ms. Hughes said there are new six agencies that the committee has not had the opportunity to visit. She said that all agencies should be visited in order to be fair. Committee members commeMed on the number of agencies each of them has visited. Ms. Kelly asked aboM Our Daily Bread and how it could be eligible for funding withoM being its own 501C3. Mr. Leal said Our Daily Bread had received discretionary funds from one of the City Council members. The organization was informed aboM the Human Services Advisory Committee's application process. Mr. Leal said Our Daily Bread was requesting funding under St. Andrew Presbyterian Church's 501 C3. Dr. Myers asked if religious programs could be funded. Mr. Leal said religious social service activities were eligible for funding through C.D.B.G. as long as there was no proselytizing by the organization. Organizations could receive funding through C.D.B.G. if they were not making participating in religious activities a condition of receiving services. Our Daily Bread does not require participation in religious activities. The committee continued discussion about whether or not it would meet with the agencies in person. Dr. Myers brought up the example of how the Denton Benefit League handles agency presentations. She said the Denton Benefit League asks the agencies for a ten-minute presentation, and it is a very comfortable process. The DeMon Benefit League asks the agencies 1 .) what will result from funding the program, 2.) what difference will the program make to the community, and 3.) to prioritize what part of the request is in most need of funding if all of the request cannot be funded. Ms. Tomboulian discussed how the committee had redesigned the application to take some of the Page 76 emphasis offthe quality of speakers. Ms. Kelly said the applications have improved so that the committee did not have so many questions about the proposal. She suggested the prospective meetings with the agencies did not include questions about the applications. The Committee agreed to have ten-minute presemations with the agencies and ask the three questions suggested by Dr. Myers. The committee agreed to meet with the agencies over the course of three nights. The Committee also asked that program beneficiaries not attend the meetings and to limit the number of presenters to one or two agency representatives at the most. Mr. Leal said committee members should receive their funding application packets by February 1. He said funding recommendations need to be made by the middle of March. The Committee agreed to meet with the agencies on February 4, 11, and 18. The Committee agreed to hear from eight agencies on Monday, February 4. The rest of the agency presentations will be split between February 11 and 18. The meetings will begin at 5:30 p.m. each evening and will be held at the City of Demon Human Resources Conference Room, located at 601 E. Hickory, Suite A. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:35 p.m. Page 77 Human Services Advisory Committee Official Minutes February 4, 2002 Members Present: Elinor Hughes, Peggy Kelly, Teri Rheault, Carol Bounds, Dr. Wallace Duvall, Dr. Bettye Myers, Carol Bramley, James McDade, Betty Tomboulian and Carl Williams. Staff Presem: Dan Leal, Human Services Coordinator; Barbara Ross, CD Administrator Vice-Chair Teri Rheault called the meeting to order at 5:32 pm. Ms. Rheault and Dan Leal reminded committee members that they are hearing presemations from the organizations requesting funds. Ms. Rheault asked Andre Villareal to make a presemation on behalf of Adult Day Care of North Texas. Mr. Villareal gave the address of the facility at 3809 Camelot. He noted that their goal was to serve Demon County with day activity and health services for elderly and disabled. Mr. Villareal stated that they are the only adult day care in Demon County and are filling a need for this type of service. There are families who warn to maimain the family unit and keep their disabled adult child or elderly parent at home and not in an institutional setting. Adult Day Care is able to meet that need. Mr. Villareal stated the services provided including snacks, daily activities, nursing, and a noon meal. Teri Rheault asked how they would use the funding if they received less than what they requested. Mr. Villareal noted that they receive $13.03 per unit of service from the State and this is supposed to include all services - meals and health care. (Most cliem's day at Adult Day Care of North Texas usually coums for two units of service). The City of Demon's funding would be used to support the actual cost of those services that is really $38.00 per day. Ms. Rheault asked if there were any questions. Bettye Myers asked if the funds would be spem on a specific program or were they just used to subsidize the Medicaid paymems. Mr. Villareal said that there are some private pay patiems but the low-income households cannot afford to pay the $38.00 per day that is the actual cost of care. This money will go to fund the difference between the $26.06 for a day of service and the $38.00. Dr. Myers asked if they hoped to move to a larger facility. Mr. Villareal stated that they are currently serving 19 persons and can only hold up to 25. He noted that by the time they get to 25 they would need a larger facility. Carol Brantley arrived at this time. Carol Bounds asked if the money the City gives only assists those from Demon. Mr. Villareal and Dan Leal stated that this was correct. Peggy Kelly noted that there are no minority cliems at this time. She asked Mr. Villareal to respond to the commem. Mr. Villareal said they do have one minority that curremly attends the day care and will soon be assisting another individual who is a minority. Ms. Kelly asked if it was difficult to market it to minorities. Wallace Duvall arrived at this time. Mr. Villareal stated that it isn't difficult to market Adult Day Care, but he is not sure what the reluctance may be - perhaps cultural, the "we take care of our own" memality. Ms. Rheault noted that she did not see a lot of disabled minorities out in the community. She was not certain why since she felt that there were disabled persons who were minorities in the Demon community. Dr. Myers asked what percentage the private pay clients are from Denton. Mr. Villareal stated that 50% of clients are from Page 78 DeNon and two of those are private pay. Betty Tomboulian came in at this time. Mr. Leal made an announcemem regarding the documems he had provided the committee members. He said the packet included information that had been left out of the first nine applications by agencies. Amy Docteur and Kathy Schaeffer from the Parks and Recreation Department introduced themselves. Dr. Myers asked specifically how the funding would be used. Ms. Docteur stated that $2,564 would be used for the Therapeutic Recreation Activity Club (TRAC) to provide scholarships to two participams. The balance of the funds would provide 25 scholarships for low-income families at any of the 11 After School Action Program school sites. The presenters were asked how they advertise that scholarships are available. Ms. Schaeffer said that they send out notices to those who have attended in previous years explaining the scholarship program. She added that school counselors are aware of the scholarships and that information is included in PARD newsletters. Dr. Duvall asked what the difference the program would make in the community. Ms. Docteur said that the TRAC program will help children ages 6 - 22 to have an imerest in physical activity. She noted that this was a problem with children who have a disability. Ms. Schaeffer said the kids that attend the After School Action Site (ASAS) program would not go home to an empty house, engage in recreational activities, have role models, etc. Dr. Duvall asked what would happen is they didn't receive full funding. Ms. Docteur stated that she would only be able to give one scholarship. Ms. Schaeffer said they would either provide half scholarships or fewer scholarships. Ms. Kelly asked if the therapeutic education was for children. Ms. Docteur stated that this was to help people make healthier choices it was available to individuals from ages 6 - 22. She noted that this was the age range mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Dr. Myers asked if they bring all the children to one site. Ms. Docteur stated that they currently have one site at the North Lakes Recreation Cemer. Ms. Ross commemed that PARD had previously had some scholarships available from other sources and asked if these were no longer available. Ms. Schaeffer stated that in the past if they had money left over in the program, it could be used for scholarships. However, costs have been increasing and they no longer have money left over that is available for scholarships. Ms. Rheault asked why the Parks Foundation money not used for scholarships. They indicated that these funds were not available to their programs. There was some discussion regarding whether the Parks Foundation funding should or could be available for ASAS and TRAC scholarships. Dr. Duvall asked Dan Leal to talk with PARD officials and determine whether the Parks Foundation funding could be used for scholarships for the TRAC and ASAS programs. Dr. Myers suggested they talk with John Whitmore. Committee members complimemed Ms. Schaeffer and Ms. Docteur on their programs. Representatives from AIDS Services of North Texas arrived and introduced themselves. Dr. Ron Aldridge, Executive Director, introduced himself and Ms. Susan Stambaugh, the agency's dietician. Dr. Myers asked them to explain how they were going to use the $15,000 requested for food. Dr. Aldridge thanked the committee for funding the program last year. Ms. Stambaugh explained that most of the funds for the nutrition program had previously come from Ryan White funding. She noted that people with AIDS are living much longer and therefore the agency is assisting people for a much longer period of time. The Ryan White funding is now going mostly to prevention and yet, they still need food assistance for people and now they need it for a longer period of time. Ms. Page 79 Stambaugh stated that they do deliver groceries and that the program is only supposed to be supplememing what the individual purchases. She noted that they give them only two pounds of meat per week. She noted that the program has a nutrition coordinator. Ms. Stambaugh also explained to the committee why these individuals need good nutrition. She stated that the cliems need more calories than persons withom AIDS. Carol Bounds asked what difference the program would make in the community. Ms. Stambaugh stated that there are more people coming in and getting treatment. Good nutrition keeps people well for a longer period of time. It allows access to food to more people and they will have better care as a result. Carol Bramley asked how a reduced amoum of funding would be used. Ms. Stambaugh responded that if the money were reduced it would decrease the number of people that can be provided with nutrition assistance. She also stated she would probably have to cm om some foods - she'll have to determine which foods they must have and there may be no funding to give them the foods that would go with the high protein foods. Ms. Stambaugh noted that she is able to use a test to zero in on what each individual's nutritional needs are. Ms. Hughes stated that people seem to like to give food rather than money. She asked if AIDS Services has thought of strategies to get churches to give peanut butter or other items they may need to fill the pamry. Carl Williams arrived at this time. Ms. Stambaugh stated that they have done food drives bm still need funding to buy specific items. Ms. Stambaugh stated that they do a really good job of price shopping. Ms. Kelly asked if they are providing food for cliems and their families. Ms. Stambaugh noted that though they only provide individuals with food, they are certain that some are using it to feed the family as well. Mr. Aldridge imroduced Shannon Ratliff, director ofprevemion and outreach. Ms. Myers asked what the money would go for in terms of testing. Ms. Ratliff explained that funds would be used to purchase OraSure tests, which are oral swab tests, which are safer for cliems and staff. She explained the cost of the tests and its advantages. Ms. Ratliff stated that coming in and asking for the test is sometimes scary and so, this type of testing would make it more comfortable for people to come in. She noted that the Flow Foundation has given funding for 333 tests. The numbers of cliems being tested has skyrocketed. Dr. Aldridge reiterated that the fastest growing populations being newly infected are adolescems and women. He noted as a result of this, everyone warns to get tested. Ms. Bounds asked what difference the program would make in the community. Ms. Ratliff stated that if the client finds out that they're positive they may not infect someone else. If they don't know their status, they may infect others. Ms. Bounds asked if there were other organizations providing this service. Ms. Ratliff stated that ExHale Services of Tarrant County MHMR would perform an HIV test if the client has a substance abuse history. The SAVE program at UNT provides prevention services, but they use AIDS Services of North Texas to provide the testing. Ms. Tomboulian asked if a teenager wanted the test and if the agency were out of the free tests, would the individual have to pay to be tested. Ms. Ratliff stated that they never turn anyone down. If they didn't have a test, AIDS Services would send them to the Demon County Health Department. Dr. Myers asked why AIDS Services of North Texas tests were less expensive. Ms. Ratliff stated that they must test through the state lab and though it is less expensive, it takes longer. Carl Williams asked if there were any other groups that were at high risk and what type of outreach the agency did. Ms. Ratliff indicated that minorities were at high risk. She stated that AIDS Services of North Texas was doing a program this week at MLK and will provide free testing. She noted that they did outreach to all groups. Ms. Bramley asked how a reduced amoum of funding would be used. Ms. Ratliff stated any amount would help the citizens. Any one person they can Page 80 help would be good. She noted that they would do referrals to other agencies if they needed to. Carol Brantley asked if the testing was confirmatory or presumptive. Ms. Ratliff stated that it was confirmatory. Dr. Duvall asked if the $15.00 rate was negotiated. Dr. Aldridge stated that it was. Dr. Myers suggested that the TWU and UNT health cemers might be approached for a donation. Ms. Ratliff stated that Peggy Fogle has asked for funding assistance for the tests from Texas Woman's University and has been turned down by the administration. Ms. Bounds asked what percem of the service population are studems. Ms. Ratliff said that this proposal included only City of Denton residents. Tammy Atkinson, execmive director for the Boys and Girls Clubs, and Vic Burgess, board chair introduced themselves. Dr. Myers asked Ms. Atkinson to explain how they intend to use the $15,000 requested. Ms. Atkinson said that it would pay the salary of the professional staff working with the kids. The balance of the funds would be used to pay for other expenses - $500 for supplies and $500 for transportation to take the kids on field trips. Ms. Bounds asked what difference the service would make in the community. Ms. Atkinson stated that the Boys and Girls Club is helping to keep kids off the streets, give them role models, help with homework, and provide memoring. She noted that Boys & Girls Club staff members are often the only ones who have time to spend with the youth. Judge Vic Burgess added that the agency works on character developmem to help take them in the right direction. Ms. Atkinson stated that Mr. Burgess was an alumnus of the program. Mr. Williams asked what Ms. Atkinson meant by "prevemative". Ms. Atkinson explained that they were talking aborn preveming them from violence, drugs and basically from going down the wrong road. Mr. Williams asked if they were planning to expand their program. Ms. Atkinson indicated that they had merged with Carrollton and Farmers Branch. Mr. Burgess stated that they are looking at providing services again in Fred Moore High School and also at the Optimist Club in North Demon. He noted that the Boys & Girls Club is trying to be more fiscally responsible. Mr. Burgess stated that the agency is building a foundation for the future. This won't happen overnight. Mr. Williams asked if there was a gang intervention program. Mr. Burgess stated they had some training for the volunteers and administrative people to provide help in this area. Ms. Tomboulian asked about how they are going to go into the north part of Denton. Mr. Burgess noted that they had determined that this is an area with imervemion needs. He noted that they would soon be getting back imo omreach. He added that the national organization will help local Boys & Girls Clubs to maintain their programs but they expect you to do outreach. Carol Brantley asked if the emire amoum requested could not be funded how would a reduced amoum of funding be used. Ms. Atkinson stated they would have to find other methods of funding the programs. She stated they would write grams, do anything and everything to find the additional funding. Elinor Hughes stated she wanted to know what the average daily attendance was at each site and what age group the Boys and Girls Club was serving. Dan Leal stated he would find om this information and provide it to the committee. Tammy Herrera and Estella Jimenez representing Camp Fire USA introduced themselves. Dr. Myers asked how the agency planned to use the funding requested. Mr. Herrera stated they were going to use the funding for 1 V:staff members and supplies. Ms. Bounds asked what difference their program will make in the community. Ms. Herrera stated that the program would provide a safe after school program for teenagers in the Owsley community. She stated that they were going to teach the Page 81 teenagers to be leaders. Ms. Herrrera pulled out a teddy bear and explained that the teens come in and do their homework. She noted that staff keeps close comact with their teachers. They call the program "prime time." This is the time of the day when many teens get into trouble. She added that they teach them to look at their environment in a different way. Ms. Herrera talked about some of the activities the studems participated in that helped others. The kids provided bears for the kids at Cook's Children's Hospital. She noted that they are building kids instead of repairing adults. Ms. Bramley asked what they would do if they received a reduced amoum of funding. Ms. Herrera indicated that they had reduced their request as much as possible. She told committee members that participams would also sell candy and that they would seek out other funding. She noted that they planned to hold the program one way or another. Ms. Kelly asked if they had worked with the Boys and Girls Club and make sure there is no duplication. Ms. Herrera noted that they work together. Camp Fire USA provides programming at the Owsley Community Cemer to Boys & Girls Club participants two days per week. Sherri Gideon and Janie McCleod of CASA made their presemation. Dr. Myers asked if this total amount was to go for the executive director's salary. Ms. Gideon stated that it would. She also noted that they receive money from the Colony, Flower Mound, Lewisville and a couple of large grants from the state of Texas. Ms. Gideon indicated that CASA attempts to get more of the administration funding from cities so that other sources could go to services. Ms. Tomboulian asked what the executive director's salary was. Ms. Gideon stated it was $44,000. Ms. Bounds asked how their services made a difference in the community. Ms. Gideon stated that the organization is helping to imervene in the lives of children who have been victims. Children who have a CASA on their case stay in foster care for a shorter period of time. Ms. Brantley asked them what they would do with a reduced amoum of funding. Ms. Gideon stated that CASA of Demon County has received the same amoum of funding from the City of Demon each of the four years it has applied for funds. Approximately 45% of the persons served are City of Demon residems. She noted that the City of Lewisville funds CASA at the same level as Demon and yet only 30% of the cliems are Lewisville resident. Ms. Gideon noted that Denton' s amount of funding is a constant question from other communities when they see how many cliems from Demon are served by the agency. Ms. Kelly explained that Denton has a much larger number of service agencies that request and are granted funding from the City. She added that she would venture to say Demon provides more funding social services than the other cities memioned. Ms. Bounds asked why there are more children served from Denton. Ms. Gideon stated that she did not know. Ms. Ross stated that it might relate to the larger number of low-income families in Demon. Mr. Williams asked how an increase in a salary would have an impact on the community. Ms. Gideon stated that it is not an increase. She noted that the salary would help the agency to maimain a balanced budget. Dr. Myers asked about board ethnicity. Ms. Gideon stated that they have good represemation based on the ethnicity of the clients. She noted that they were getting some Hispanic representatives on the board. Jane Graham, executive director of the Children's Advocacy Center of Denton County, introduced herself. Dr. Myers asked how the agency planned to use the funding requested - $17,000. Ms. Graham noted that it would be used to pay for salary expenses, insurance and benefits for staff members providing direct services to Demon cliems. Ms. Bounds asked what differences their services would make in the community. Ms. Graham indicated that abuse affects juvenile criminality and adult criminality. The Children's Advocacy Cemer reduces the trauma for children who have to Page 82 go through the system. The agency promotes emotional healing through comprehensive counseling services, information is shared producing stronger criminal cases Ms. Brantley asked what they would do if they received a reduced amount? Ms. Graham stated that they would attempt to find funding elsewhere and do additional fund raising activities. Dr. Myers asked how she would explain the difference between CASA and the Advocacy Cemer. Ms. Graham explained that CASA is involved in the civil case and the Advocacy Cemer is involved in the criminal case. CASA is involved in recommending the best placemem for the child. She noted that CASA joins in the multidisciplinary team that works on each case. Ms. Tomboulian stated that one difference is that the Children's Advocacy Cemer tapes the imerview to make sure the child doesn't have to relive the experience. The Children's Advocacy Cemer is involved in the criminal case. Mr. Williams asked what emotional healing and comprehensive programs means. Ms. Graham stated that they provide healing by providing counseling. Mr. Williams asked how he would know an emotionally healed child if she/he were walking down the street. Ms. Graham stated that it would be difficult to determine. The outcome might be years down the road. Ms. Graham added that abused kids and the non-offending caregivers are offered counseling whenever they need it. if it were needed in the future after a long period of time without counseling, it would be available to them again. The counseling is ongoing and there is group counseling and individual counseling. Ms. Hughes asked why their income levels are broader this year. Ms. Graham said they have seen more low-income families than they had in the past. She noted that in the past they were not tracking income very well. Ms. Kelly commemed that she noted that about 20% of the families served are from Demon and she knows that the Children's Advocacy Cemer would like to see funds provided in a proportional manner. Ms. Kelly commemed on the larger number of agencies that come to the City of Denton for funding than come to other communities. Ed Ellis, treasurer, with the Community Food Cemer introduced himself. Dr. Myers asked how the funding requested would be used. She noted that the funding was going to be used for utilities and asked Mr. Ellis to explain the costs. Mr. Ellis stated that in the past, they just brought the bill imo the CD Office and it was paid. Now, they pay the bill and then request a reimbursemem from the City. Mr. Ellis reviewed the amoum of funding used by the agency for utilities. Dr. Myers was concerned that their utility costs may be increasing. Ms. Bounds asked what difference the program will make in the community. He noted that the churches bring the food and if the Community Food Center were not there to distribute the food this service would stop. Dan Leal stated that their cupboards were bare before Christmas, but the agency was able to get food and serve those who needed it. Ms. Bramley asked what would happen if they received a reduced amoum of funding. Mr. Ellis said that would mean that funds would have to go to utilities rather than groceries for families. Dr. Duvall indicated that the HSAC appreciated the work done by the Community Food Cemer. Mr. Leal noted that he was unsure whether $3,000 would pay all their utility costs next year. Dr. Duvall stated that they possibly had other funding sources that could pay for any additional costs. Ms. Bounds asked if the committee could give an agency more than what was requested. Members agreed that they could and have done this in the past. Dr. Duvall asked about changes to the process. Ms. Hughes asked if the first question could be changed to include the second question rather than asking them what they are going to do with the money. Dr. Myers pointed out that in some applications it is not clear how they are going to use the funds. Mr. Williams stated his concerns about the City paying to increase the salaries of agency Page 83 personnel. Ms. Kelly poimed out that the funding for salaries must come from somewhere and that many funding sources prohibit the use of funds for administrative salaries. Funds must be used for project-related expenses. Mr. Williams stated that most programs provide up to 15% for administrative expenses. He felt the expenditures should go to assist the clients. Ms. Tomboulian stated that you need a competent person to administer the program, or it might not be successful. She noted that last year the Children's Advocacy Cemer was not given full funding because the agency was requesting to fund an increase in the executive director's salary that was already somewhat higher than those of other agency directors. Members cominued to discuss the issue of paying for salaries. Ms. Rheault asked what the actual salary was for the executive director of Camp Fire. She noted that the range said $70,000 to $150,000. Mr. Leal stated he would get this information for the committee. Ms. Bounds asked Mr. Leal whether the agencies do a good job of using and managing their funds. Mr. Leal suggested that the members review the monitoring reports for those agencies that were monitored during the past year. He added that he provided the monitoring reports for the Boys and Girls Clubs and Adult Day Care in handouts because they were not included in those agencies' applications. Ms. Bounds suggested members try to assess how many employees are needed in the various areas. Ms. Tomboulian and Mr. Leal stated that some agencies may seem staff heavy, but it depends on the kind of service that is being delivered. Dr. Myers asked what the difference was between the Boys and Girls Club program and the Camp Fire program at Owsley. Ms. Rheault felt that one dealt with troubled teens as opposed to providing after school care for kids. Mr. Leal stated that the programs were very similar. Camp Fire is at Owsley twice per week right now. They receive some United Way funding. James McDade stated that they actually received very little in United Way funding. Mr. Leal poimed out that in this application they are targeting teens. Mr. McDade pointed out that there are two other groups coming in that want to carry out similar programs in Owsley. Mr. Williams stated that he was concerned about an emerging gang problem in DeNon and yet the city seems to have its head in the sand. He noted that the Ft. Worth Boys and Girls Club runs a gang intervention program. Mr. Leal said there is a gang intervention program run by the Denton Police Department. Ms. Bounds asked why Owsley has some many programs serving the area. Ms. Kelly stated it was because they had nothing for so long. Mr. Leal also pointed out that Greg Hedges of the Denton Police Department has done a lot for the neighborhood, and he has recruited several organizations to assist with programming in the neighborhood. Ms. Kelly stated that there were two applications on the last night that perhaps the committee would choose not to hear since they don't appear to be suitable for funding. She noted that St. Andrew Church of God's application to provide day care services was not complete. Ms. Kelly also noted that the "Training for Excellence" was not appropriate for funding. Mr. McDade stated that he felt St. Andrew's application was not complete. Mr. Williams agreed. Members agreed to make a decision next week whether to allow these organizations to make a presentation. Mr. McDade asked if the City would fund for equipmem like the dolls requested by one agency. Mr. Page 84 Leal and Ms. Ross explained that equipment purchased with CDBG funds does not belong to the agency. It belongs to the City, and staff has to track it for its "useful life." Staff has asked HSAC in the past to fund equipment using general funds so it won't have to be tracked. She mentioned that staff is still tracking equipment for a couple of activities. Ms. Tomboulian provided some additional information about the proposed day care center at St. Andrews Church of God. Mr. McDade noted that his church started a childcare but started it with contributions from the church membership. Mr. Williams stated that he felt the committee should not review the applications from agencies that cannot complete the required document. Mr. Leal reviewed the schedule with members. Members discussed the starting time and agreed to begin the meetings at 6:00 p.m. rather than 5:30 p.m. Peggy Kelly moved to approve the minutes of the meeting held on January 22, 2002. Carol Brantley seconded the motion. The minutes were approved with no corrections. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:50 p.m. Page 85 Human Services Advisory Committee Official Minutes February 11, 2002 Members Present: Elinor Hughes, Peggy Kelly, Teri Rheault, Carol Bounds, Dr. Wallace Duvall, Carol Brantley, James McDade, Betty Tomboulian and Carl Williams. Members Absem: Dr. Bettye Myers Staff Present: Dan Leal, Human Services Coordinator; Barbara Ross, CD Administrator Chairperson, Dr. Wallace Duvall, called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. Dan Leal described the additional information provided to committee members regarding some of the applicams. Carol Bounds asked whether they are able to fund agencies that don't necessarily serve low and moderate- income households. Members discussed that those services may have to be funded from the general fund. Dr. Judy Keith, Executive Director of the Cumberland Presbyterian Children's Home, introduced herself. James McDade asked Dr. Keith to summarize the program for which they are requesting funds. Dr. Keith stated that in recem years the Cumberland Children's Home has started working with families in addition to the children that stay at Cumberland Children's home. She stated that they are looking at a family-based approach to encourage and assist the families so that they may raise their own children. Dr. Keith stated that they send a team of two social workers into the home to assess the situation. She said they try to keep those families together. The social work position for which they are requesting funds will provide in-home services. The new single parem program allows Cumberland to take in both the parem and the children. They are moved imo one of the cottages on the property. Cumberland provides employment counseling to attempt to get the families back on their own feet. They also assist with health care, education and other services. This is aside from the basic children's residemial care componem that has always been offered. Teri Rheault asked what difference this program would make in the community. Dr. Keith said that the program would give the single parem an opportunity to be independem. She noted that this is a unique service in the community. City funding will allow for expansion of the existing program. The social worker will also provide "after care." Ms. Kelly asked what they would do if they only received a portion of the funds requested. Ms. Keith stated that they would hire as much ora social worker as possible. She added that the individual would not have to have a social work degree. Less funding would mean they would hire a part-time person. Ms. Kelly noted that most of their board members are not from DeNon. She inquired as to whether Cumberland could have a DeNon- based advisory board for this program that could meet more than twice per year. Dr. Keith noted that there are six Denton citizens on the board are very active and that they would be very open to setting up an advisory committee for this program. Carl Williams commemed that the board was not ethnically diverse. He also asked what she meant by the term "after care." Dr. Keith stated that after the family leaves the residential program they continue to receive services for up to two years. Page 86 Mr. Williams asked what their case managemem standards are. Dr. Keith stated that they were developing the standards for case managemem. The routine set up involves how many phone calls and home visits are made. Mr. Williams asked if what she was saying was that there were no standards curremly used by the facility. Dr. Keith indicated that this was correct. Ms. Bounds asked how long they had been serving the four families. Dr. Keith stated that they began serving them in September. Judith Royal, Executive Director, and Jane Moynagh, volumeer and former Board member, from the DeNon Christian Preschool imroduced themselves. Mr. McDade asked them to summarize the program for which they are requesting funds. Ms. Royal said that last year they used the funds to start a fifth class to help fill the need for more childcare and early childhood education in DeNon. The classroom was added in September. The children get transportation, meals, medical and diagnostic screening. DeNon Christian Preschool would like to cominue the program for another year. This would allow the children from this year's new three-year-old class to cominue to receive childcare as four year olds. Ms. Rheault asked how this program benefits the community. Ms. Moynagh stated that this program attempts to address the needs of the whole family. The parents receive pareming classes. Ms. Moynagh noted that they have helped to relieve the burden off other agencies by working with these families. She commemed that the program makes them better parems. Ms. Kelly stated how limited funding curremly is and asked what the preschool would do if they received a reduced amoum of funding. Ms. Royal stated that these funds provide a teacher's salary and other support staff to keep this program going. She stated that the agency would be forced to secure the rest of the funding from another source if it were available. She noted that she was uncertain as to where they would get the additional funds. They seem to have asked every organization for funding. Ms. Moynagh stated that they have a difficult time finding bilingual staff and that they have hired one for this program. Ms. Royal stated that their salaries are not up to the level of other organizations including the school district so it is therefore difficult to hire and retain quality personnel. Elinor Hughes asked if the parems have been involved with or referred to the DeNon Family Resource Cemer. Ms. Royal indicated that they did refer families to the DFRC especially for their counseling services. Ms. Moynagh stated that because they have the children for two years, the families really trust Denton Christian Preschool, and they don't always trust the individuals working in other organizations. Carolyn Berry, Executive Director and Bob Tickner, Board member, with the DeNon City County Day School imroduced themselves. James McDade asked them to summarize the program for which they were requesting funds. Ms. Berry stated that they were asking for support with the salary of teachers. She noted that they have 66 children enrolled in the school. Carol Bounds asked where the facility was located. Ms. Berry provided the information that they are located at 1603 Paisley and explained how to find the school. Ms. Berry noted that they serve breakfast, lunch and two snacks. She discussed their curriculum. Ms. Rheault asked what difference their program would make in the community. Ms. Berry noted that they are one of only two cemers that provide day care on a sliding scale. These funds allow the agency to keep their fees at a reasonable rate. Ms. Kelly commemed about the limited amount of funding that is available through the City and asked Ms. Berry what they would do if the agency didn't receive everything that was requested. Ms. Berry stated that they would have to consider raising fees to cover these costs. Ms. Rheault asked if these were new teachers. Ms. Berry stated that these are existing teachers. Ms. Berry stated that they Page 87 were getting $10,000 in funding from the County for the first time. Mr. Williams noted that they have no Hispanic board members. Ms. Berry indicated that they do now as Cirilo Pedroza, was just asked to join the board. Mr. Williams also noted that the percemage of minority board members does not match the percentage of minorities in the service population. Ms. Berry and Mr. Tickner indicated that they were always looking for board members. Mr. Leal commemed that the population might have just recemly changed recemly due to a change in programming. He asked Ms. Berry to explain that change. Ms. Berry stated that now they have one English as a second language classroom. This is a new program that has just begun. Ms. Ross noted that CDBG funds are being spem to improve the facility. Work being completed includes new flooring, additional insulation and a new HVAC system. The Community Developmem Advisory Committee recommended the funding for improvemems for the currem fiscal year. At this time, Dan Leal provided the committee with answers to the questions asked by members after the last meeting. He stated that Denton City County Day School's 2002 expenditures showed $10,000 under "program fee supplements" but this money is not in the 2003 budget. This is the Denton County money, and DCCDS doesn't anticipate receiving the funds again. It helps to offset costs for clients who do not live in the City of Denton. Ms. Kelly asked if the school is going to apply for the funds again. Mr. Leal stated he would find out. Mr. Leal stated that there were some concerns from committee members regarding MHMR's past audit. He noted that he has provided a copy of MHMR's letter to the auditors in response to the audit. Mr. Leal stated that they responded to all concerns in the audit. He added that the agency seems to be recovering from past financial problems. Ms. Kelly commented that MHMR did not include their monitoring letter. She added that she did not appreciate it when agencies that are requested to include monitoring information do not include it in their applications. Ms. Kelly asked why Adult Day Care's expenses for the coming year are so much lower than the previous budget year. Mr. Leal stated that he would get this information for the committee. Dawn Tawwater, Director of Development, Friends of the Family introduced herself. James McDade asked her to summarize the program for which they are requesting funds. Ms. Tawwater stated that Friends of the Family is requesting funds for the direct services that they provide to victims of sexual assault, relationship violence and FOF' s child and adolescem program. Ms. Tawwater noted that these children are secondary or direct victims of family violence. Friends of the Family offers safe shelter, counseling, advocacy and support. Ms. Rheault asked how their program would impact the community. Ms. Tawwater stated that these services would become available at a local level. She stated that if the service were not available in DeNon, the closest place they could be served would be Grand Prairie or Oak Cliff. She noted there would be a big gap in services for this particular population. Ms. Kelly asked what the agency would do if they received less than the requested amount of funding. Ms. Tawwater noted that Friends of the Family would spread out whatever funding they received as much as possible and then attempt to find additional funds. Ms. Rheault stated that it appeared the funds were not going imo anything specific and asked if this was correct. Ms. Tawwater stated that these funds would go into direct services for victims of sexual assault and relationship violence. Melissa Eckstein with DeNon County MHMR introduced herself and stated she would be talking Page 88 aboM the AdolesceM Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) first. James McDade asked Ms. Eckstein to summarize the program for which the agency is requesting funds. The AdolesceM Substance Abuse Program does oMreach to 13 to 17 year old adolesceMs in the City of DeMon. The program allows staff to go iMo the schools and iMo the community to provide information aboM substance abuse. MHMR also provides individual and group counseling. Ms. Rheault asked how the ASAP program would benefit the community. Ms. Eckstein stated that substance abuse is a problem, and there are not many services provided in this area for adolesceMs. She noted that Vanessa Simms does a lot of education with pareMs and other adults in the community including churches, the judges and others. Ms. Kelly asked what they would do if they received less than the requested amouM of funding. Ms. Eckstein stated that a reduction in funding would limit the amouM of oMreach that could be done. CurreMly, Ms. Sims goes oM to the schools, community and iMo the homes. Ms. Hughes asked if less would be speM on travel or exactly how this would affect outreach. Ms. Eckstein stated that Ms. Simms provides a lot of handouts and the travel expenses would have to be decreased as well. Ms. Kelly asked that she clarify her application response on oMcomes. Ms. Kelly asked how many people are in the program and how well it is working performing. Ms. Eckstein stated that they lost their staff member, and it took six months for her to find another staff member. She noted that they did oMreach bM they were not able to do individual and group counseling. Ms. Kelly asked if there was another time when they did not have a staff member. Ms. Eckstein replied there was only the six-month period she spoke of. Mr. Leal noted that last year the agency served 38 students. Currently, there are four clients being served by the program from Denton. Ms. Eckstein stated that Ms. Simms just started two groups, but Ms. Eckstein could not say how many youth were attending the group sessions. She noted that Ms. Simms basically had to start the program from scratch because of the six months between staff members. Mr. Williams asked for a measurable definition of oMreach. Ms. Eckstein stated that it is being able to give information on substance abuse to the community. Mr. Williams asked if she could do outreach on the phone. She stated that was correct, but it was also important to give out the pamphlets. Mr. Williams asked aboM the diversity of the board. Mr. Leal stated that the Board is appointed by the County Commissioners. Ms. Eckstein noted that she has three African Americans and an Asian on her staff, and their psychiatrist is from India. Ms. Tomboulian stated that three years ago she had an adolesceM that was in need. She asked if this is a program where a mother who needs help with a child who is oM of control could bring that child in. Ms. Eckstein stated DeMon County MHMR would assist that type of family. James McDade asked Ms. Eckstein to summarize the SIERRA program. The SIERRA Program is used to provide services to individuals in the criminal justice system who have meMal illnesses bM are not in MHMR's priority population. The program offers oMreach, group counseling and case managemeM. The program helps these individuals link with resources in the community. Sometimes it can be confirmed by their participation in the program that they are priority population. Priority population includes individuals with major depression, bipolar disorder (manic depression), schizophrenia and persons whose Global AssessmeM of Functioning (GAF) score is 50 or below. SIERRA staff assists clients with receiving an intake appointment with Denton County MHMR staff. If SIERRA clieMs are determined to meet priority population then they can receive services under the traditional programs. Ms. Rheault asked how their program would impact the community. Ms. Eckstein noted that the recidivism rate is reduced. Folks coming oM of prison have a difficult time accessing resources. Ms. Kelly asked what they would do if they received less than the requested Page 89 amouM of funding. She noted they had requested a considerable increase. Ms. Eckstein stated that MHMR is putting a lot iMo this position. Funding in the past did not even pay for half of this position. A reduction in funding will affect availability of staff. Ms. Eckstein noted that she had cM a service coordination position to fund SIERRA. She noted that MHMR would have to evaluate whether that was something they would continue to do. Ms. Eckstein noted that the staff member' s assistance numbers have gone up. Mr. Leal stated there was an error in the application. On page 11, the application stated they served four clieMs during the last fiscal year bM DeMon County MHMR actually served 31 SIERRA clieMs. Ms. Kelly asked Ms. Eckstein if she would commeM regarding which program would be a priority. Ms. Eckstein noted that sometimes adults have more advocates than children. Ms. Hughes commented that this question is what the committee must deal with. Ms. Eckstein stated that she was glad she didn't have to make that decision. Mr. Leal asked her to explain the continuity of services that SIERRA provides. Ms. Eckstein stated that they've had this program for several years and there is quite a bit of networking that did not take place before the program existed. Ms. Eckstein meMioned specifically support with medications. She noted that there are a lot of people who are left oM of the priority population group that need these services. She stated that there is no other program that does what the SIERRA program does. Mr. Williams asked what the casework management standards are. Ms. Eckstein stated that they use old case management by at least one face-to-face visit per month. Dr. Duvall asked if MHMR's funds come from the State or from the County. Ms. Eckstein stated that only a very small amount comes form the County - approximately 90% comes from the State. Mr. Leal said the county usually provides DeMon County MHMR between $350,000 and $400,00 annually. This is less than 3% of DeMon County MHMR's total funding. Donna Miller, Board PresideM, and Sue Dansby, volunteer coach, for the DeMon Dynamos Special Olympics iMroduced themselves. James McDade asked them to summarize the program for which they are requesting funds. Ms. Miller stated that curreMly they provide five sports to over 70 athletes. The Denton Dynamos is totally volunteer-based. They participate in local area competitions. Ms. Rheault asked how their program would change the community. Ms. Miller stated that it helps the athletes become more productive citizens. They learn "real life" skills including working as a team and interacting with their peers. Stress and anger management are also part of what they learn while in the program. Ms. Miller stated that often these athletes are told only what they can't do. The Denton Dynamos is their chance to be successful at something. Ms. Miller also noted it helps in community acceptance. Friendships often develop and employers see these individuals and often hire them. Ms. Kelly asked what they would do if they received less than the requested amouM of funding. Ms. Miller noted that they would be appreciative of any amouM and would disperse it where they could to help the athletes participate in as many eveMs as possible. Ms. Kelly noted the bank statemeMs indicated that their deposits and checks were only aboM half of what they showed in the budget. She felt this indicated that a lot of cash did not go to the bank and some expenditures were not paid from the bank account. Ms. Kelly noted that this would mean they were operating on cash basis. Ms. Miller stated that this was not the case. She noted that the state games were a major part of their costs. Ms. Kelly stated there is no audit and it appears there is no eMity that oversees the organization. Ms. Miller said the area Special Olympics and the State reviews their finances. Dr. Duvall asked why they included the statemeMs in their application. Ms. Miller responded that she felt that was the best way to provide the requested information. Ms. Hughes asked if they received feedback from the State. Ms. Miller stated that they did not. Ms. Page 90 Hughes indicated that something back from the State would be helpful. Mr. Leal stated that they don't have a formal funding source. If they receive City of Demon funds, then would be required to have an audit. Ms. Dansby stated that at monthly meetings they are provided with a balance sheet and this could be included in future applications. Mr. Williams stated that he was concerned about the lack of diversity in the programs and on the board of directors. Ms. Miller stated that they do not turn anyone away who wants to participate or serve on the board. Mr. Williams indicated he felt this was not a sufficient response to the lack of diversity. Ms. Miller stated that most of what they do is fundraising and have little time for anything else. Mr. Williams read the statistics from their application and stated that this concerns him very much. Mr. Leal added that there are some cultural barriers that exist. Mr. Williams stated he felt this was a myth. Ms. Rheault disagreed. Ms. Ross offered to put information in the Community Development newsletter regarding the program. It was noted that the newsletter were out to members of the minority community. Kristen Hardy-Price, Executive Director, of Fairhaven Retiremem Home imroduced herself. James McDade asked Ms. Hardy-Price to summarize the program for which they are requesting funds. Ms. Hardy-Price stated that the homemaker program provides housekeeping services for residems. She stated that the service includes housekeeping tasks such as vacuuming, sweeping, cleaning toilets and cleaning showers. Ms. Hardy-Price noted that the average residem's age at Fairhaven is 84. The service helps to extend the client's stay in an independent living situation. Ms. Rheault asked how their program would change the community. Ms. Hardy-Price stated that the program postpones the need for citizens to go imo a nursing home, imo their child's home or other care situations. Ms. Kelly asked what they would do if they received less than the requested amoum of funding. Ms. Hardy-Price stated they would consider increasing the residem's portion. Curremly the residem pays only $1.75 per hour. They may also solicit funding from other sources to get the additional funding. Ms. Kelly explained why that question is asked. Mr. Williams stated that he noted that they have mostly whites at the facility, no blacks and one Hispanic. He commemed that the projection was to have two blacks in the coming year. He asked why the residems didn't match the minority population in the City. Ms. Hardy-Price noted that they have an affirmative marketing plan that they carry out. She stated that she has observed that often African Americans want to live where there are other African Americans live. She noted that the location is not conducive to attracting minority residems because it is in a predominamly white neighborhood and is quite a distance from the predominately minority areas of Demon. She added that there is not much Fairhaven can do about their location. Ms. Hardy-Price stated that they would continue to work to attract minorities to the facility. Mr. Williams asked if they have gone to the African-American churches. Ms. Hardy-Price indicated that they have. This is part of their marketing plan. She stated that they do and that they have an African American on the board. Dan Leal asked if she asked people from other ethnic groups to tour the facility. Ms. Hardy-Price stated that they have had a few walking tours. There is probably a greater percemage of Hispanics on these walking tours. Ms. Ross asked what was the racial make-up of Fairoaks. Ms. Hardy-Price indicated it was more diverse. Ms. Ross commented that this was part of the reason Fairoaks was constructed. They felt its proximity to the minority community would make it more attractive to minorities. Ms. Hardy- Price also noted that Fairoaks was a 202 project that meam all the rems were subsidized based on a household income. Only some of the rems at Fairhaven are subsidized. Fairhaven is for people who need more assistance. Fairoaks does not provide all of the services that are available at Fairhaven. Ms. Bounds asked if they were located on North Bell. Ms. Hardy-Price stated that they were. Ms. Page 91 Bounds asked if both Fairhaven and Fairoaks were the same type of facility. Ms. Hardy-Price explained that Fairhaven is all under one roof and Fairoaks is primarily one-bedroom apartmems. Ms. Kelly asked if they had considered bringing a group from a black church to get familiar with the facility. Ms. Hardy-Price said that Betty Kimble has visited and they have worked with her to try to bridge the diversity gap. Mr. Williams suggested that she work with the local African American churches. Mr. McDade asked if Pecan Place was a part of Fairhaven. Ms. Hardy-Price stated that it was part of the DeNon Housing Authority. Ms. Tomboulian asked the cost of the facilities. Ms. Hardy-Price stated that the larger room is $792 per month and this includes three meals per day and utilities. The smaller room is $744 per month also including meals and utilities. It was noted that they do not provide nursing care. Ms. Hardy-Price stated that Fairhaven is considering turning some of the units to assisted living. Patrice Capan, Executive Director of Family Health Care, introduced herself. James McDade asked her to summarize the program for which they are requesting funds. Ms. Capan stated that they have been in service for 14 years. She stated that the program would serve non-Medicaid eligible women who need prenatal care. She noted that they are usually not US citizens. Financially, these women would qualify for Medicaid but they are not eligible. These women would not be able to obtain prenatal care without these services. Family Health Care subcomracts with North Texas Community Clinics. NTCC is accepting reduced fees. NTCC has four nurse practitioners that are bilingual and culturally sensitive to these women that are mostly Hispanic. There is a bilingual social worker that does initial imake. The bilingual social worker checks to determine whether there are domestic violence issues. Transportation is an issue for many of the women so the clinic is on the trolley route. Women are able to do their lab and their sonogram on site. Ms. Capan stated that they try to minimize the hassle for the women so they will comply with the medications and the visits. Approximately 120 women from the City of DeNon received care from this program last year. Ms. Capan stated that last year was the first year they were able to continue the program for the entire year. High-risk cliems are able to see Dr. Morris. The funds they are requesting are only for prenatal care. Ms. Capan noted that the babies are US citizens. Ms. Rheault asked how their program would change the community. Ms. Capan stated that the program would improve the health of the community. She gave statistics on the improvemem in low birth weight babies in DeNon County. A baby in ICU costs approximately $200,000 in care. Ms. Kelly thanked Ms. Capan for not asking for an increase. Ms. Kelly asked what they would do if they received less than the requested amoum of funding. Ms. Capan stated that they would just have to watch the money carefully. The money would be limited and the co pay helps offset the cost. They may have to curtail imake imo the program. Ms. Kelly asked when the clinic cease to be a part of Columbia Health. Ms. Capan responded that this was in January 2001. In October of last year, Dr. Morris became the sole owner of North Texas Community Clinic. She noted that this had been wonderful! Ms. Brantley stated that she felt this was the biggest bargain that the City gets. Joyce Rogers, Executive Director, and Melissa Masters, the four-year old teacher from Fred Moore Day Nursery School imroduced themselves. They serve children six weeks to five years old. To be eligible for childcare services, parems must be working and/or going to school. Fred Moore serves three meals a day. Ms. Rogers also noted that they provide a full day of balanced activities. Ms. Rogers noted they have five funding sources. They are on the govemmem food program. They also have parem fees that support the agency. Ms. Rheault asked what difference the service makes in Page 92 the community. Ms. Rogers stated that Fred Moore provides quality childcare at a reduced cost. Some of the children would not be in very safe situations if they were not in the program. Ms Kelly asked if the City were not able to fund the eNire program what would they do. Ms. Rogers stated that they would work more on fund raising. She also stated that they could increase enrollmeN but noted that this measure would be a last resort. Mr. McDade asked if they are still on a sliding scale fee schedule. Ms. Rogers indicated that they are and the fee schedule was based on household size. Mr. Leal asked her to explain how DeNon City County Day School and Fred Moore Day Nursery School differ. Ms. Rogers stated that the main difference is the ages served. DeNon City County Day School serves children from two years of age to five and a half. Fred Moore Day Nursery School provides the only infaN care that is available on a sliding scale. Ms. Tomboulian asked about their fee for infaN care. Ms. Rogers and Ms. Masters stated that it is $78.00 per week. Mr. McDade asked if there was a waiting list. Ms. Rogers indicated that they have over 100 on their infant care waiting list. Ms. Kelly asked what the infant capacity was. Ms. Rogers stated that they just moved to 10 and are working on 12. Ms. Bounds asked if prospective pareNs get on the waiting list before they're even expecting. Ms. Rogers stated that is what she encourages. Ms. Masters stated that the babies stay with the school as they move up in age. Dr. Duvall asked if they were going to expand their capacity. Ms Rogers stated that this would require adding to the building but that they have plenty of property to do this. Ms. Rogers stated that they are lucky in that they have staff members who have been there for several years. The cook has been there for more than 30 years. Lauren Johnson and Cassandra Smith of the Girl Scouts iNroduced themselves. James McDade asked them to summarize the program for which they are requesting funds. Ms. Johnson stated that the "Decisions for Your Life/Baby Think it Over" is a program that will be conducted in the community ceNers showing girls the responsibility of taking care of a baby if they have one at an early age. She stated that it was a teen pregnancy prevention program. Ms. Rheault asked how their program would change the community. Ms. Johnson stated that the have done a lot of research regarding teen pregnancy. Teen pregnancy costs on a national basis are very high. She noted that they feel this program can assist in lowering the rate of teenage pregnancies at a local level. Ms. Kelly asked what they would do if they received less than the requested amount of funding. Ms. Johnson stated that the request would serve 200 girls. This would pay for the facility and the equipmeN. There are differeN kinds of teaching aids (babies) available and they are very expensive. They have looked iNo other funding sources. Ms Hughes asks how you get a girl iNerested in participating. Ms. Smith stated that once they see the babies they are interested in how they work. Ms. Johnson added that they have done these in school districts. This program will be carried out in the community ceNers. Dr. Duvall asked if they have these babies on display so that the committee members could see them. He also asked if the girls take them home. Ms. Johnson indicated that the girls do sometimes take them home. Ms. Tomboulian asked if the program would go out to the high schools. Ms. Johnson said in the past they have taken them out to the schools. Ms. Tomboulian asked if they were relocating. Ms. Johnson stated that they have done the program briefly at Owsley and MLK and that wish to do it on a larger scale. Mr. Leal asked if they tracked the success rate in other areas and/or did they do a follow-up. Ms. Johnson stated that this is why they wan to do the program here in Denton. They feel they can track the success better. Ms. Ross asked why they haven't been able to track outcomes in Sherman. Ms. Smith indicated staff changes made it a problem. Mr. Williams stated that they targeted 200 girls and asked why they weren't targeting Page 93 boys. He also asked what type of marketing plan they have. Ms. Smith stated that since they use the community centers, they know the members of the community. They also use newspapers and flyers. They target girls because they are the Girl Scouts. Mr. McDade stated that the Girl Scouts are in a five-county area. Mr. Williams explained why he felt they should target boys. Ms. Tomboulian stated that in their materials do they offer girls information regarding how to handle boys who want an inappropriate relationship. They indicated that they did have this type of material. Ms. Bounds asked if there is a $7.00 registration fee. Ms Johnson said it would be underwritten under this program. Lance Johnson, Executive Director, and Zachary Tucker, Board President, for HelpNET, introduced themselves. James McDade asked them to summarize the program for which they are requesting funds. Mr. Johnson indicated that they are requesting funding for two programs. The first one is the central application point. HelpNET has increased services by 213% over the past year. They are also requesting funding for the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). Mr. Johnson noted that it was a requirement for CDBG funds and other funding sources to assist the homeless. He stated the HMIS is an extension of what they're doing now, but it will take a lot more time to fully develop the system. Ms. Rheault asked how their program would change the community. Mr. Johnson responded that the central application point is a big help to clients and to agencies. Clients only have call one place to get assistance. They can also be upfront with clients regarding services that are available. HelpNET attempts to assist these families in other areas to free up their cash. The HMIS will make a difference in terms of hard dollars. Mr. Johnson stated that more federal dollars would come into Denton through the SuperNOFA (homeless funding from HUD) and other grants. Ms. Kelly noted that they were asking for quite an increase. Ms. Kelly asked what they would do if they received less than the requested amount of funding. Mr. Johnson stated that they would have to do the best they can with what they get. He noted that the work that they do also benefits the agencies. Emergency assistance agencies do not take near the volume of phone calls that they used to take. Many of the agencies would need to hire an additional staff member to answer the phone. Mr. Johnson indicated that HelpNET's staff time is stretched as far as it can go. Other funds are pretty scarce. Ms. Kelly noted that they did not submit an audit. Mr. Johnson responded that they are a small agency with a small budget, and they do an audit every other year. He stated that they were in the process of putting together an audit for 2001 and that the audits for 2001 and 2002 would probably be done together. Mr. Williams stated that he looked at his resume and he asked if this is a religious-based program. Mr. Johnson stated it was not, but the agency does receive funds from churches. Mr. Johnson explained that the program has grown out of an old program from the Denton Baptist Association and that Denton Baptist Association provides the office space. Ms. Kelly asked if they were a United Way affiliate. Mr. Johnson stated that they are only now eligible to apply. Dr. Duvall indicated to Mr. Johnson that some small agencies get a free audit done by classes from the universities. Members discussed the homeless count that is to take place tomorrow night. Barbara Atkins, Executive Director of HOPE Inc., introduced herself. James McDade asked her to summarize the program for which HOPE is requesting funds. Ms. Atkins stated that the purpose of HOPE is to assist families that are homeless or potentially homeless. She stated that the funding requested would support two of their programs, the 30-90 day assistance program and the 12-24 month transitional housing program. Ms. Atkins discussed how the program helps families move Page 94 toward self-reliance. She stated that the case managemem approach is very imensive. HOPE is taking 100-150 calls per month for families that feel they're moving toward a housing crisis. They provide education in life skills, employmem, budgeting, and provide financial assistance in the form of rem, childcare, etc. Ms. Rheault asked how their program would change the community. Ms. Atkins stated that they are working in a cooperative relationship with Friends of the Family and the Demon Affordable Housing Corporation (DAHC). A family in crisis now has another option rather than returning to an abusive situation after their short-term shelter time is over. This assistance will allow these families to get back to independem living. Ms. Kelly asked what they would do if they received less than the requested amoum of funding. Ms. Atkins stated that the last survey in the City of Demon showed that many households were paying more than 50% of their income in rem. This means they are at risk ofhomelessness. She also stated that this is a high priority area in the City's Cominuum of Care. Peggy Kelly asked what would they do if they received less funding than requested. Ms. Atkins indicated that they asked for a little bit of an increase because they feel it is necessary for the committee to see that there has been an increase in the need in this area. If they receive decreased funding it will mean decreased funding in other areas. She stated that HOPE's grams require match and the City's money is used as match and as a show of community support. Ms. Atkins stated that the cooperative agreement with DAHC helps them to spend less money on housing. Mr. Williams stated that the ethnic breakdown of the cliems was missing. Dan Leal noted that it was missing and that he will get that information to the committee. He noted that they served 44 persons in the 30-90 day program. Of the 44 persons, 27 were Caucasian, 6 were Hispanic and nine were African-American. Mr. Leal also gave the demographic information for the Transitional Housing Program. Mr. Williams asked about the marketing. Ms. Atkins stated that they are in cooperation with those that refer - DHA, HelpNET, etc. They work with the school system and with employers and a large number of landlords. Jorge Urbina, Board member, and Condell Garden, Executive Director of Imerfaith Ministries, imroduced themselves. James McDade asked them to summarize the program for which they are requesting funds. Ms. Garden stated that they are requesting funds for the emergency utility fund. This goes to families who have experienced a crisis situation where they are unable to pay their monthly utility bill. The program sets up a priority system and first priority goes to those that are elderly, on some type of medical life support and those with small children in their household. She noted that this is not a program geared to people who are chronically unable to pay their bills. Ms. Garden stated that the households may only ask for assistance once every six months. If they ask every six months it may be considered a chronic problem. Ms. Garden indicated that they work closely with HelpNET. HelpNET sets the appoimmems and does the initial screening of cliems. She noted that they are able to assist people in one to two days. Interfaith is proud of this response time. Ms. Rheault asked how their program would change the community. Ms. Garden stated that last year Imerfaith kept 1635 families from having their utilities cut off. She added that they also look at the other things going on in the family. They attempt to help them in those areas as well. They focus on lifestyle choices and try to help each family make the right choices. Ms. Garden said that this gives the program a tremendous impact on the community. Ms. Garden gave an example of a woman assisted by the agency. Mr. Urbina memioned their coordination with the City's Plus One program. Ms. Kelly asked what they would do if they received less than the requested amoum of funding. Ms. Garden stated they might have to assist fewer people or give a smaller amoum of assistance. Dr. Duvall asked if the Plus One was from the City and TXU Gas. Ms. Garden stated Page 95 they only get money from the City not CoServe or TXU. Mr. Urbina mentioned some problems receiving money from the City's Plus One fund but added that these were being resolved. Members discussed setting up a meeting to develop their recommendations for funding. Members agreed to meet on March 18. Mr. Leal asked members to turn in their scoring sheets by February 25 at 5:00 pm. Ms. Hughes commented that the committee needed a better process to guide them in the development of funding recommendations. She noted that all the agencies requesting funds had excellent programs, and she was uncertain where they would cut. Committee members agreed that all the programs would benefit the community and that the decision regarding which programs should not be funded will be difficult. Members agreed that they would use existing scoring sheets to assist in developing their recommendations. Ms. Tomboulian stated that the committee should recommend increasing the funding in the budget. She noted that it had not increased in the last few years. Ms. Ross pointed out that the Human Services budget had increased significantly in the last two years and that they would bring that information for the committee. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 pm. Page 96 Official Minutes Human Services Advisory Committee February 18, 2002 Members Presem: Elinor Hughes, Peggy Kelly, James McDade, Dr. Wallace Duvall- Chair, Dr. Bettye Myers, Carol Bramley, Carol Bounds, Betty Tomboulian. Members Absem with Notification: Carl Williams, Teri Rheault Staff Present: Dan Leal, Barbara Ross Ken Washington, center supervisor, and Robbie Johnson, recreation specialist, of the MLK Center's Kings' Kids Day Kamp program imroduced themselves. Carol Bramley asked if they would summarize the program for which they are requesting funds. Ms. Johnson stated that the Kings' Kids Day Kamp that has been active since 1994. She stated that the summer camp serve approximately 80 kids, ages six to 11. The kids are divided imo four groups of 20 kids. One coordinator and four leaders staffthe program. The camp begins the week school gets om to the second week in August and lasts approximately eleven weeks. Ms. Johnson commemed that the kids take field trips to Dallas, Ft Worth, and Arlington. Campers also take field trips to the library and to UNT for cultural activities. She noted that parents pay for the field trips. Ms. Johnson stated that funding from the Community Developmem Block Gram is used primarily for personnel and van remal. Ms. Hughes asked what difference this program would make in the community. Ms. Johnson said it is the only program in the community. Ms. Johnson stated that last year the YMCA was there, bm Kings Kids still served more children. Withom the program at the MLK Cemer, kids would be either at home or on the street. Mr. Washington said the Boys and Girls Clubs would not be providing services in the area this summer. He projects an increase in the number of kids attempting to enroll in the Kings Kids program. Dr. Myers asked if the committee couldn't recommend funding for the emire amount what would their priorities be. Ms. Johnson said that personnel would be the top priority and van remals are the second. She noted that parems might have to pay more for the service than in the past. Ms. Johnson stated that the reason they were requesting an increase in funding is because personnel costs have risen and also the costs of reining vans has increased. Dr. Myers asked why the MLK staff felt that the City had not funded this program through a supplemental budget request in the past. Ms. Johnson stated that this was before her time. Dr. Myers asked why this program wouldn't be a budget priority. Mr. Washington stated that supplemental packages can be submitted, but it all goes to the budget office. If they feel it is a priority, it might be funded. He stated you submit the package, and it is om of your hands. Ms. Hughes asked if City Council has inpm imo priorities. Ms. Ross noted that in the past they have prioritized and would use that information when looking at supplememal packages. She added that she wasn't sure how that worked. Dr.. Myers thought that it was interesting that they don't even qualify as a priority to get vans from PARD. Ms. Johnson explained that the other City camps have many more children than MLK, and Kings' Kids has had the funds from the grant to pay for vans. Ms. Kelly asked what they pay per week. Ms. Johnson stated that they don't pay by the week bm pay $30, $50, up to $125 for the emire summer. Mr. Washington stated that to keep quality Page 97 personnel they must have competitive rates with those of other camps in the area and those of other cities. Ms. Hughes asked how much they are paying staff. Ms. Johnson stated that the camp coordinator is at $9.31 and camp leaders get $8.40 per hour. Dr. Myers asked why PARD is not paying for the drug testing. Ms. Johnson stated that since the drug testing is for this program, it has to come out of this budget. Mr. McDade asked if they had approached the churches in the neighborhood to see if they could rem or borrow the church vans. Ms. Johnson stated they had not asked. Mr. Washington stated that there was probably some liability issues there that the City would not be able to cover. Penny Wootton and Sharon Vaughn of Living Choices of North Texas imroduced themselves. Ms. Brantley asked if they would summarize the program for which they were requesting funds. Ms. Wootton stated that the program was to be a resource in the community that will facilitate in the presentation of abstinence curriculum in the school district. Ms. Wootton stated that they felt like the best lifestyle was abstinence until marriage. It is taught through eight lessons in the public classroom. Ms. Hughes asked what impact their program will have on the community. Ms. Wootton indicated that this should be seen in reduced teen pregnancy rates and health problems related to sexually transmitted diseases. Dr. Myers asked what their priority would be if they did not receive the entire amount requested. Ms. Vaughn and Ms. Wootton indicated that the priority would be funding the workbooks. The grant request includes assistance with paying the salary of the program coordinator. Ms. Vaughn indicated that the first year they were given $10,000 from a grant to pay for the workbooks but that would not be received again. Volunteer presenters are used in the classroom. Dr. Myers asked why the school district was not paying this cost. Ms. Vaughn stated that Theresa Grant's budget for health programs for the entire school district was $10,000. Ms. Kelly asked if it was a pilot program last year and what were the results. Ms. Wootton stated that it was too early to tell, but that the kid's minds are being changed. Ms. Wootton indicated that they are flexible and will work with the schools on scheduling. Ms. Bounds asked if they are in any other schools besides Strickland. Ms. Wooten stated that they are at all campuses including the high schools. Dr Myers asked what classes the curriculum is being taught. Ms. Wootton indicated that at the high schools it is taught in the health classes and at the middle school it is in the 7th Grade Science classes. Dr. Myers asked about follow-ups to see if past groups have changed their attitudes. Ms. Vaughn indicated that they have not but could do that after this year. Ms. Hughes asked if they had applied for other grants. Ms. Wootton mentioned a grant they had applied for. Ms. Hughes mentioned the Flow Foundation. Ms. Kelly stated that they appear to be expecting that contributions and special event revenues are going to increase significantly. She is asking how they would accomplish this. Ms. Vaughn stated that this year they have exceeded their budget, and these funds come from individual donors. Greg Hedges and Peggy Heinkel-Wolfe of the Owsley Community School introduced themselves. Carol Bramley asked them to summarize the program for which they are requesting funds. Mr. Hedges stated that the funding would provide a part-time staff person to manage programming. The rest is for a specific person to assist with the music and language programs. He stated that the music programs are designed for 4th and 5th graders. It is a preparation program for the band program in the public schools. Mr. Hedges noted that there were a lot of kids falling through the cracks in the school programs without instruments, music lessons, etc. Two children have been in the mainstream program for two years, and they've been very successful. AmeriCorps Vista has funded the program Page 98 coordinator position and that funding will not cominue this year. This is why they are applying for these funds. Ms. Hughes asked how the funding given to the Owsley Community Cemer impacts the community. Mr. Hedges noted that the cemer is already there. He stated that they provide literacy classes for adults at no cost. Many of the children could not get assistance from their parents because some are illiterate. Two classes have graduated from their GED and ESL instruction. Mr. Hedges indicated that they hope a better lifestyle will be created for these families and that the children will be better served by the education system. The Owsley Community School programs have made a drastic change already, but funding is needed to cominue the program. He stated that the Owsley Community School is a fairly new agency with a 501C3 but that they have been doing these programs since 1998. Dr. Myers asked if the committee couldn't fund the total amount requested, how would they prioritize the request. Mr. Hedges stated that the most important was the staff person. He noted he was unsure where he would come up with the funding for the staff person if they do not receive the gram. He feels that he will be able to come up with permanem funding in the near future and that this is a one-time request. Dr. Duvall asked what age they served. Dr. Duvall said he thought it was 4th and 5th graders. Mr. Hedges stated that that was the music program but that they also provide literacy classes for adults. Dr. Duvall pointed out that UNT provides the music program. Mr. Hedges stated that UNT studems come and help teach the program, but they do not manage the program. Ms. Heinkel-Wolfe noted that this was indeed the case. She stated that she was with the University when the program just began but that UNT was not interested in maintaining an inventory of instruments. She said it was a labor of love, but the idea was that the program belongs in the community. Dr. Duvall asked if DISD provides free instruments. Mr. Hedges indicated that they do not. Ms. Tomboulian stated that the students would have to rent the instrument. Dr. Myers commented on their success in the area and asked how they feel about all the other organizations that want to provide services in Owsley. Mr. Hedges stated that the networking is great, and you really get more bang for your buck if you have several organizations providing assistance. Ms. Kelly asked if they run their adult programs in the summer. Mr. Hedges indicated that both the children's and adult programs run year round. Cirilo Pedroza, manager of Denia Recreation Cemer introduced himself. Carol Brantley asked him to summarize the program for which they are requesting funds. Mr. Pedroza stated that he has been with the City for ten years and on his first day, the Owsley Services Coalition held a block party in the Owsley neighborhood. He stated that his responsibility in helping to provide services to the area was to develop the summer playground program. It was a response to the need in the area. He noted that this is a low to very-low income neighborhood. The families would not be able to afford the City programs. He stated that he came to ask for CDBG funds in 1992 and received funds to do the program. Mr. Pedroza stated that the program is an 11-week summer playground program for kids ages six to 12. He noted they have a playground supervisor and two leaders who work with the program. Mr. Pedroza stated that they use the Owsley Community Cemer in the morning to do activities, arts and crafts, etc. The program also participates in the free lunch program. In the afternoon, program staff takes them on field trips to get them out of the neighborhood. Mr. Pedroza stated that the funds are partially used to rent vans to take these children places. Mr. Pedroza handed out some budget information to the committee members. He noted that last year the Boys and Girls Club provided three staff members, and they had a van so they did not have to rem one. Without the Boys and Girls Club, there would have been some problems. With reduced funding, they would only be able to do activities in the neighborhood. On Fridays the participams were to the Page 99 movies or ice-skating or to do some activity. He noted that last summer they served 89 kids. He commeNed that they might be able to do a half-day program. Mr. Pedroza stated that the kids would have nothing to do for the remainder of the day. He noted that sometimes the kids get iNo trouble when they are unattended. Often single mothers leave the older kids to watch the younger kids. If it were a half-day program, the kids would be on their own for the rest of the day. Ms. Kelly asked if more kids come only for special evens. Mr. Pedroza indicated that they must attend a certain number of days to participate in the field trip. He noted that with the building available they make them stay unless they have parent permission to let them leave early. Dr. Myers asked where the lunch comes from. Mr. Pedroza stated that Parks and Recreation runs the summer lunch program. Ms. Kelly complimeNed the program and how it has improved. Ms. Myers asked if they have ever asked the school district to use their vans. Mr. Pedroza noted that they would have to pay a driver to sit in the vehicle while the kids did their activities. Dr. Myers asked if they have ever considered applying for a van from the Benefit League. Mr. Pedroza indicated they would have to look to Greg Hedges to do something like that since the Owsley Community School has a 501C3 application. Ms. Kelly asked aborn City funds that are used for the program. Mr. Pedroza stated that the City doesn't charge for swimming, and they also pay for some staff salaries that aren't reimbursed by the graN. Missy Dickenson, assistaN director of REACH of Demon, iNroduced herself. Carol Bramley asked her to summarize the program for which the agency was requesting funds. Ms. Dickenson stated that it is the "AdjustmeN to Disability Program" for which they are requesting funds. She stated that the program is a support group that is facilitated by a licensed professional counselor. The support group is held twice a month. Ms. Dickenson provided some information on the qualifications of the counselor who would be handling the sessions. Ms. Hughes asked how Demon would be differeN as a result of the programming. Ms. Dickenson stated that they've done this for about three years. Some participaNs have coNinually attended it, and some have only attended for a while. The program helps these individuals to become independeN. Ms. Dickenson noted that the participaN share a lot of the same frustrations. They are able to go out iNo the community, and show people that they can do these activities. They can go out alone or with family and no longer feel that it is an embarrassmeN. She gave an example of someone who wen shopping on the square and even helped to educate a shop owner regarding a change to the aisle that would allow them to get around better. Ms. Dickenson stated that Demon is getting used to seeing persons with disabilities in the community. Dr. Myers asked how they would prioritize if the City could not provide the amouN of funds requested. Ms. Dickenson stated that the fees go directly to the counselor. He charges $200 per hour. She noted that it was importaN to have two sessions per month any gains may be lost if the sessions are not on a regular basis. Dr. Myers asked if all 17 come for both monthly sessions. Ms. Dickenson stated that they usually do. Dr. Duvall asked if they were group or individual sessions. Ms. Dickenson stated that they are group. Dr. Duvall asked if the facilitator has an MS or MD. Ms. Dickenson replied that he has a MS. Dr. Myers asked why they haven't worked through TWU. Ms. Dickenson stated that they did not have a good response from TWU when they asked for assistance approximately two years ago. Ms. Myers stated that she should coNinue to come back because staffhas changed, and she might get a differeN answer. Members discussed whether REACH could go to City Council directly for funding as they did this past year. They also discussed the $200 fee that goes to the counselor/facilitator. Page 100 Fran Moore and Salty Rishel of the Demon Family Resource Cemer imroduced themselves. Ms. Bramley asked them to summarize the program for which they are requesting funds. Ms. Moore stated that they are asking for $10,000 to help with funding for the program coordinator' s position. This individual coordinates programming and oversight of every program that DFRC has. Funds are leveraged through the use of the work this individual does in the amount of $28,803 (IRS value). Ms. Hughes asked how Demon is better as a result of DFRC being here. Ms. Moore indicated that she has seen so many families who have benefited from the programming. She memioned specifically expectant mothers who get information on community resources that are available to them. Fifty women have graduated from the prenatal program. She noted the advamages that these women have as a result of participating in the program. Ms. Moore stated that they provide support groups after the delivery. Dr. Myers asked what they would do if they did not get all the requested funding. Mr. Rischel stated that they were trying to mm this imo a full-time position bm if they didn't get funding, it could cominue to be part-time. Ms. Kelly asked aborn the "other grams" listed on DFRC's budget. Ms. Moore provided information on funding sources. Ms Kelly asked if they received the projected $26,000 in comribmions. Ms. Moore stated that they did, and she reviewed the sources of that funding. Dr. Myers asked what they amicipate in terms of growth. Ms. Moore noted that last year they served approximately 900 persons. It already looks as if they will be serving 100 persons per month so, 1200 per year. In terms of staff she noted that they had been very lucky to have bilingual persons available. Ms. Kelly stated that there was no audit. Ms. Moore indicated that they have reviews bm not an audit and added that the reason for that is money. Dr. Myers asked how they didn't have to have one with United Way. Ms. Moore stated it was because their budget was so small. Dr. Myers suggested that they ask the United Way for funds to do an audit. Members thanked the presemers. Mr. Rishel thanked the committee. Mr. Leal provided some information on Adult Day Care's budget. He also noted that HOPE, Inc. packet did not include some pages that belonged in their applications. Mr. Leal stated that St. Andrews Church also provided some additional information. He noted that the accoumam's review letter for the Denton Family Resource Center was also in the committee packets. Mary Gwinner and Sharon Sampson, represematives from Riding Unlimited imroduced themselves. Carol Brantley asked them to summarize the program. Ms. Gwinner stated that they were requesting scholarships for three riders to participate in equine therapy. She explained "equine therapy." Riders range from age two to age 81 with a variety of disabilities and a variety of needs. This program serves them recreationally, socially, and educationally. They learn sequencing and memory skills. Ms. Gwinner noted an autistic rider that has been riding for nine months and is now making eye comact and is communicating (not speaking) with his volumeers. Ms. Sampson stated that Riding Unlimited provides a sliding scale fee structure. Ms. Hughes asked what difference this program will make in the community. Ms. Sampson stated that it helps to improve the participam's imeraction with their siblings and other members of the family. Now they have their own activity, and they are also getting a physical benefit. This makes a person more capable of acting independemly. Many parems have expressed this. It also helps them relate to their peers at school. Dr. Myers asked if they couldn't get the entire amount what their priority is. Ms. Sampson stated that there are several phases of funding that they could divide this imo. Ms. Bounds asked aborn the amoum of the riding fee. Ms. Sampson stated it was $275 for 12 weeks. Page 101 Diana Corona and Pat Moore of RSVP introduced themselves. Ms. Bramley asked the representatives to summarize their program. Ms. Corona stated that RSVP provides support to area nonprofits and link 55 and over volumeers to specific requests from local agencies. She noted that they have about 900 volunteers servicing 89 agencies. She commented that the Denton volunteers provided 70,618 hours of service. Ms. Corona explained the impact of these services in the City of Denton. 56% of the total volunteer base - 511 volunteers are in the City of Denton. The volunteers provide a substantial savings to the City of Denton. She stated that they are promoting Denton as a community that takes great pride and care of its residems. Ms. Corona stated that they have some programs that they carry out independently of other organizations. She mentioned the Elm Fork Education Cemer, Community Leadership Seminar and the latest one is "Rockin Readers." Under "Rockin Readers" volunteers go into the schools and read to kindergarten and first graders. Ms. Moore stated that she was able to put a human touch on the program. Ms. Moore talked about Dorothy Damico and her experience with a young reader. She also talked about Ethylen Davis who is helping TWU modernize the DBase of their alumni records. Ms. Hughes stated that they appeared to have answered the second question already but they could make additional commems. Ms. Corona commemed that she did not know what the city would do without volumeers. Dr. Myers asked what the organization would do if they received less money than requested. Ms. Corona stated that she feels that sometimes that have underestimated their impact on the community. She noted that they had been at the previous dollar amount for some time. Ms. Corona stated that this is why she brought Ms. Moore so that they could see the person that works with all these people. She is doing the job of two staff people. They will cominue their efforts to fund that position but would like the full amount. Dr. Myers stated that they should be commended for what they have done in the community. Dr. Myers suggested that they use the "community" of Demon rather than the City of Demon because some people see that as city govemmem. Debbie Webb and Kathy Davis, representing New Generation Child Care, were the next presenters. Ms. Brantley asked the representatives to summarize their program. Ms. Webb stated that the program is for working parems and their children. She noted that they would also provide before and after school care. They will provide tutorial assistance for the children. She noted that they are trying to get the children into a warm environment. Ms. Davis stated that they want to address the fact that no child is too young to learn. Ms. Hughes asked what impact the program will have in the area. Ms. Webb stated it would keep the children off the street. Dr. Myers asked what the organization will do if they received less money than requested. Ms. Webb stated that any amount of money would help provide quality staff. Ms. Webb indicated that they would serve children from 18 months to 12 years old. Dr. Myers asked how they would interface with Fred Moore or Denton City County Day Care. Ms. Webb stated that she was not familiar with those organizations. Ms. Tomboulian asked if they would be set up on a sliding scale fee. Ms. Webb indicated that they would but that all parems would pay something. Ms. Tomboulian also asked about Fred Moore and City County's services. Ms. Webb indicated that the other day cares are not meeting all the needs of the community. Ms. Davis indicated that Fred Moore had a lengthy waiting list. Dr. Duvall asked if they curremly had a license. Ms. Webb stated that they are in the process of obtaining a license. Dr. Duvall asked how they are related to St. Andrew's Church. Ms. Webb indicated that the day care is in the church, but they will be paying rem at $3,500 per month. Dr. Duvall asked if they've talked with the United Way about their day care initiative. Ms. Webb indicated that the in home day cares sponsored by the United Way have such a low provider to child ratio that it is not making a big Page 102 impact on the community. Ms. Hughes indicated that $3,500 per month in rem seemed to be a significam cost. Ms. Webb indicated that they would be using the church milities. Ms. Ross asked if the church would consider a break on the rent for the first two years to help them get started. Ms. Davis and Ms. Webb indicated that they were unsure as to that possibility. Dr. Myers asked if they were members of the church. They indicated that they were. Members thanked the presemers. Captain Glenn Queener of the Salvation Army imroduced himself. Ms. Brantley asked him to summarize the program for which the agency was requesting funds. Captain Queener stated that they provide the only true homeless shelter in Demon County. He noted that even some persons in Dallas County come to their shelter because they do such a good job and it is such a nice shelter. In August 2001, the agency provided 330 total nights of care. In January 2002, they provided 779 nights of care. This indicates a substamial increase in the use of the shelter. Captain Queener stated that the recem homeless coum showed that within the City limits of Demon there were 130 homeless. Of those, 57 needed emergency shelter. He noted that they sometimes have to put people on mats, bm it is better than sleeping omside. The funds they are requesting will help pay the shelter director and their cook. He noted that it would not totally fund the salaries but would help. Captain Queener described the duties of the shelter manager and the cook. Captain Queener described the types of services provided and what they require of those who use the shelter. Ms. Hughes asked how the program impacts the community. Captain Queener stated that the immediate impact is that they will have a place to stay and some help so they can feel good aborn themselves. He noted that the Salvation Army begins trying to build their self-esteem. In the long term, people will become a comribming member of society because they get this assistance. More people will be able to reach self-sufficiency. Dr. Myers asked what the organization will do if they received less money than requested. Captain Queener stated that the most important would be to continue to fund the shelter manager. Ms. Kelly asked if they have people who come in for the evening meal bm do not stay. Captain Queener said they do. He noted that their cook is very good. The cook is able to prepare good meals for 55 cents a plate. Dr. Myers asked him to talk about the transitional shelter program. Captain Queener stated that it takes clients from the shelter to an apartment in less than 90 days. He provided some additional information aborn the transitional program, which started just a few months ago. The Salvation Army sets aside a few beds for transitional shelter clients. Pearl Jones of the Sickle Cell Disease Association introduced herself. Ms. Bramley asked her to summarize the program. Ms. Jones stated that they have decided not to concentrate on a single program. They call these community omreach programs and have formulated the program imo three components - public education, screening and testing, and genetic counseling. Ms. Jones stated that they have to give people education before they will understand why they need genetic counseling. Ms. Jones stated then they move to screening and testing. The basic questions they ask is "do you know your sickle cell status?" Genetic counseling speaks to the impact that this will have on the family. Ms. Jones noted that they use a holistic approach. Ms. Jones indicated that not just any organization could provide this service. Education is valuable. Ms. Hughes asked how the program impacts the community. Ms. Jones stated that they are concerned aborn morbidity and mortality issues. She stated they were attempting to decrease the risks associated with the disease. She stated that new mothers need folic acid information, etc. They work with those organizations that are working to reduce the high risk factors. She noted that many of the genetic health issues could be prevemed. Our job is not to tell people not to have children bm to educate them so they may make Page 103 the right choice. Dr. Myers asked what the organization will do if they received less money than requested. What would be their priority? Ms. Jones indicated that all of the componems are important. She noted that they would make a concerted effort to hone in on each area. She stated she wouldn't tell the committee that if we don't get the funds, they wouldn't do the program. Ms. Jones gave an example of their program the "slime game." She also discussed a pareming handbook that includes signs for parents to look for. Dr. Myers asked if someone had the test at age 12 or 13 is that a lifetime test? Ms. Jones indicated that it was. Dr. Dzandu came in at this time and provided some additional information to the committee about sickle cell disease and educating the public about the disease. Ericka Lissberger of SPAN introduced herself. Ms. Bramley asked the represematives to summarize the program for which they are requesting funds. Ms. Lissberger stated that they are asking for nutrition money for congregate meals at the senior center and the elder center at the American Legion Hall. Ms. Lissberger noted the funding was also to assist in the meals that are delivered. She stated that SPAN is asking for $32,000. They project that their meal numbers are going up to about 30,000 meals. Ms. Lissberger stated that this time they're also asking for help with salaries ($3000) rather than just funding for the meals. She noted that the budget provided is the total agency budget, and she realized that this does not provide good information to the committee about the meals program since the budget also includes transportation grants. Ms. Lissberger reviewed the services offered by SPAN. Ms. Hughes asked how this program would impact Demon. Ms. Lissberger stated it was the nutrition aspect and the socialization aspect of being with your peers and visiting. She noted that the delivery program is especially helpful. The homebound elderly look forward to the visit by the volumeer, and staff can see if there are any problems at the home or with the individual. She noted that they have almost 500 volunteers in Demon County. Dr. Myers asked what the organization will do if they received less money than requested. How would they prioritize. Ms. Lissberger stated that they would use the funds as necessary and then put people on a waiting list for home-delivered meals and perhaps a cap on the congregate meals. She noted that SPAN really needs that help from the City. Novalia Williams of Training for Excellence introduced herself. Ms. Bramley asked Ms. Williams to summarize her program. Ms. Williams stated that this is a program that helps people who have a bad credit rating and need help to become homeowners. She noted that they would educate a total of 48 persons over the year, four groups of twelve with three-months of training. Ms. Williams explained the program. Ms. Williams stated she had spoken with Ken Washington and Carolyn Phillips, and they have heard the voices in the community say they need this service. Ms. Hughes asked how their program would affect the community. Ms. Williams stated that Demon would be better as a result of this program. Dr. Myers asked what the organization will do if they received less money than requested. She asked how they would prioritize needs. Ms. Williams stated that they would obtain volumeers to get the help. Rather than having four 90-day programs, it might have to be reduced by two. Ms. Kelly referred to the organization's by-laws and stated that she noted that the founder could not be removed. Ms. Kelly asked who the founder was. Ms. Williams indicated that she was the founder. Ms. Kelly noted that the structure was very unusual putting a lot of power in the hands of the chair and the co-chair. She stated that ordinarily the director is hired and fired by the board. Ms. Myers asked why she didn't carry out these programs for profit. She noted that they were a non-profit and that is how they handled these programs. Page 104 Elinor Hughes asked if there is any consensus that there are some agencies that cannot be funded or did not qualify for funding. Members agreed not to fund Training for Excellence. Mr. Leal suggested that they wait for the other committee members before they make other decisions. Dr. Myers stated that her policy would be that if she were on the board of an organization, she would not mm in a funding sheet. Members agreed that this would be an appropriate policy for all members. Members also agreed that staff would throw out the highest and lowest score for each agency and average the rest. Dr. Myers said she did not score some of the applications because she felt they did not meet the committee's funding criteria. Committee members discussed how staff should average scores if there were some applications that were not scored at all by the committee. Mr. Leal suggested that he average the actual scores for those agencies and then indicate how many committee members said that particular program did not meet the criteria for funding. Committee members decided instead to go ahead and score all of the applications even if the committee member felt it did not meet the criteria for funding. In that case, the high and low score would still be thrown out. Committee members could discuss if they did not think a particular program qualified for funding at the deliberation meeting. Mr. Leal reminded the committee members that scoring sheets were due to the Community Development office by 5:00 p.m. on February 25. Mr. Leal will average the scores and send them back to the committee at least one week before the deliberation meeting. The next Human Services Advisory Committee meeting will be held on March 18 at 6:00 p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room located at 100 West Oak, Suite 208. The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:20 p.m. Page 105 Unofficial Minutes Human Services Advisory Committee Meeting March 18, 2002 Members Present: Carol Bounds, Carol Brantley, Dr. Wallace Duvall - Chairperson, Elinor Hughes, Peggy Kelly, James McDade, Dr. Bettye Myers, Teri Rheault - Vice Chair, Betty Tomboulian Members Absent: Carl Williams Staff Present: Dan Leal - Human Services Coordinator; Barbara Ross - CD Administrator Dr. Wallace Duvall called the meeting to order at 6:15 pm. He brought the committee's attention to the agency requests. He also suggested that the committee review the scoring sheet showing how the members scored each agency. Dr. Duvall pointed out some of the lower scores at the bottom of the scoring sheet. Dan Leal explained the "0" scoring line that showed which agencies received a "0" from at least one committee member. Dr. Myers asked about the "O's" and what they meant. Ms. Kelly also asked about the "0" line. Mr. Leal explained how an agency received a "0." If a committee member wished not to score an agency because the committee member felt the agency did not meet the funding criteria or if the member put a "0" on the scoring sheet, the agency received a "0." Mr. Leal explained that the final column showed which agencies were or were not recommended for funding last year. He reviewed whether those agencies with $0 for last year were new applicants or were not funded last year. Dr. Duvall suggested that the committee drop off agencies at the bottom of the scoring sheet that received the lowest scores. Peggy Kelly moved that they be dropped off. The members agreed that starting with Riding Unlimited they should be dropped off. Carol Bounds thought it should be dropped if it was below 80%. Ms. Hughes stated that there are some agencies that were funded before above that line. James McDade seconded the motion. Six members voted to accept the motion. Two disagreed. Ms. Tomboulian said the committee should eliminate the bottom six rather than eight. Dr. Duvall asked about this consideration. Ms. Rheault stated she would have a problem dropping Adult Day Care. It was stated that this is not what was being recommended. Members agreed to drop the bottom six programs. Mr. Leal explained the amounts requested by applicants and the amounts received by agencies last year. Ms. Hughes asked if you have two projects from a single agency is that considered a single monitoring visit. Ms. Ross explained that each program must be monitored separately in terms of payments and beneficiaries and whether the program meets its objectives. Ms. Hughes pointed out that there are some things that are agency relevant - there would just be one audit, board of directors, etc. Ms. Ross agreed that some items would require a single check for both programs but the amount of work on a monthly basis is based on the number of programs. Ms. Tomboulian asked the committee if an agency was funded last year would this necessarily be a Page 106 criterion for funding this year. Dr. Myers stated that she considers each agency to have a "0" budget and is judged on this year's application and its merits. Ms. Kelly stated that she felt that if they weren't funded last year it's a bit of a negative. Ms. Hughes asked if they were more or less in agreemem that they couldn't go up on the agencies funding amoums from last year? She added that if another agency is funded that they would not be able to give more funding. Ms. Kelly stated that she agreed. Ms. Bounds stated that her frustration is that some applications are developed by large organizations where she is uncertain as to whether they really need the funding. Some of the gram applications were written beautifully, and it would have been difficult to score those any other way bm wonderfully. Ms. Bounds added that she thought they had to look hard at those who really need the funds and this is the only place they can get it, rather than funding those that have large amounts of funding and higher paid employees. Ms. Kelly poimed om that you can't penalize a program for being successful. Dr. Duvall stated that there are agencies that have more opportunity to raise funds. Ms. Hughes commented on the scoring system. Dr. Duvall suggested that they consider changes to the scoring system at a later date. Ms. Hughes suggested the committee look at those agencies that are scored in the top 25 and were funded last year and see if they warn to change their funding from last year. Members agreed to start with the top scoring applications and determine funding amounts. It was recommended that Demon Christian Preschool receive $30,000.00. It was recommended that Interfaith Ministries receive $17,250. Ms. Hughes noted that the increase was to pay utilities. No administration is requested. Mr. Leal said that a small portion of the request was for administration. Members discussed using other strategies to increase funding for mility assistance. Dr. Myers suggested that they fund Fred Moore Day Nursery at last year's level but give them more if it is available. She noted they were looking at providing more low cost infant care. Ms. Tomboulian noted that the increase was to pay the increased cost of staff health insurance. Members agreed to consider additional funding. It was recommended that Demon City County Day School and the Community Food Cemer be funded at last year's level. Dr. Myers also suggested that the committee consider an increase for City County Day School if funds are available. Dr. Duvall asked members if they wished to fund RSVP at last year's level. Ms. Hughes indicated that she would like to provide the agency with an increase. Ms. Kelly also noted that they receive a small amount and when the agencies were cut by 10% that really hurt. She also noted that they have a fairly large staff. Ms. Rheault stated that she felt that the services provided by RSVP were not urgently needed. Ms. Kelly stated that Ms. Corona indicated that Lewisville pays the total cost for their coordinator and Denton does not. Ms. Kelly noted that they serve all the agencies in the community. Ms. Rheault noted that there were many agencies that were not given assistance by RSVP. Members agreed to leave the funding at last year's level. Ms. Kelly responded to Ms. Rheault's concern aborn "urgem needs" by noting that "quality of life" is also important and that she hoped the committee didn't spend all the funds on emergency needs. Ms. Ross asked if they felt more of the community's funds were spem on the elderly or children and youth. Dr. Myers stated that we don't spend nearly as much on the elderly. Page 107 Dr. Duvall asked about CASA of Denton County. Dr. Myers stated she felt there was a lot of State and Federal funds for the agency. Ms. Tomboulian stated that she felt that if the committee doesn't fund it, City Council would probably fund it. Ms. Kelly stated that she was not sure of that. Ms. Ross commeNed that HSAC might not wan to base decisions on what they feel Council might do. She noted that there might be some new Council members who would consider these recommendations. Ms. Tomboulian noted that the funds were to be used for the executive director's salary. She commeNed that last year the committee did not fund the Children's Advocacy CeNer due to the high salary of the executive director. Members discussed the difficulty agencies have in finding money for administrative salary. Members agreed that the salary was reasonable. Members agreed to recommend the same amouN for CASA as they received last year. Members discussed King's Kids Day Camp. Dr. Myers stated that she was concerned. She felt that the Parks Department has a better chance of finding funds to do these programs. Ms. Hughes poiNed out that the City playground and childcare programs are fee-based and that this funding is used to provide scholarships. She asked how the City decides where to stop providing scholarships with so many in need. Ms. Ross stated it was first come, first served. Dr. Myers suggested that two, six-week programs would help more kids than one full summer program. Ms. Tomboulian asked if the PARD program and Fred Moore after school programs were the only programs in the area. Mr. Leal meNioned that DHA had a small program for the resideNs of the Phoenix. He also stated that there was no longer a summer program at Fred Moore High School. Mr. McDade stated that the program should be left as a full summer program. He noted that churches in the area could help with transportation. Members discussed the insurance issue. Various individuals stated that short term insurance was available for church vans if that was necessary. Members agreed to leave the funding for the King's Kids program at last year's level. Members discussed funding for the Sickle Cell Disease Association. Carol Bounds stated that this program didn't seem to take care of people as other programs do. Dr. Myers stated that their main thrust appears to be testing and education. Ms. Kelly confirmed with Mr. Leal that he felt comfortable that their beneficiary information was accurate. He noted that they provided four households with genetic counseling but many more with screening and education services. Ms. Bounds asked how many families they take care of in DeNon. Mr. Leal stated that the Sickle Cell Foundation provided education to 670 resideNs, screening to 830 resideNs (questions to determine risk), testing to 83 resideNs and genetic counseling to four resideNs. Ms. Bounds asked that a question mark be included next to the funding amount for the organization. Members agreed to recommend $15,000 for the Salvation Army, which was also last year's request and funding amouN. Committee members also recommended that Family Health Care be funded again at last year's level of $30,000. Members discussed the funding for the Owsley Summer Playground program and other programs. Dr. Myers commeNed that she was not sure that field trips should be funded. Ms. Kelly asked about transportation. Mr. Leal pointed out that last year the Boys and Girls Club provided a bus that was purchased from SPAN, which saved money that would have been used for vans. Ms. Hughes pointed out that the committee needs to discuss all the Owsley programs at one time because if some programs were funded and not others there could be a shortage of services. Ms. Hughes poiNed out Page 108 that if the Boys and Girls Club program is not funded then it may affect other programs in the area. Members coNinued to discuss the Owsley neighborhood and the Boys and Girls Club programming. Ms. Kelly and Dr. Myers asked if the Boys and Girls Club provided services to Owsley in the fall of 2001. Mr. Leal indicated that they did and that they worked closely with the Owsley Community School to provide services. Members agreed to put a question mark on the Owsley Summer Program to see if additional funding was warraNed based on their recommendations regarding the Boys and Girls Club. It was recommended that HOPE, Inc. receive the same allocation as last year - $30,000. Members also recommended that HelpNET be funded last year's level of $22,500. Members discussed AIDS Services of North Texas. It was determined that their nutrition program would also be funded at last year's level of $15,000. Ms. Bounds noted that the executive director of AIDS Services was put in place to bring in funding. Ms. Kelly stated that these are DeNon resideNs that are receiving food and nutrition assistance. Members agreed to recommend funding of $36,000 for DeNon County Friends of the Family. Members noted that the After School Action Site and TRAC programs were asking for a significaN increase. Ms. Kelly stated that the committee should stick with last year's funding level. Ms. Hughes noted that the funding wen to provide scholarships for children. She stated that if there weren't sufficieN scholarships, the children would stay home or alone or be in other non-desirable situations. Members agreed to recommend funding at last year' s level of $17,000. The Owsley Community School was discussed. Dr. Myers suggested that the committee not recommend funding. Ms. Kelly stated that she was impressed with the fact that Greg Hedges stated he only needed funding for one year and that he would not come back in subsequeN years. Ms. Bounds stated that they were ranked low but that she was impressed with the services they offered. Dr. Myers stated that she felt organizations want to provide services in Owsley because the committee funds programs there. She noted that she would like to see a comprehensive program for the area. She added that DISD has ESL program that could serve the area. Mr. McDade commeNed that the cultural background of families in the area does not encourage their participation in programs with people they don't know well. Ms. Hughes suggested a comprehensive program of services be developed. Members discussed the idea of putting forth a request for proposals from organizations that wish to serve the Owsley area. She noted that she is more concerned with after school care than ESL for adults. Ms. Rheault said that ESL classes help pareNs to find jobs where they can afford after school care. Dr. Myers stated she would also like them to coordinate with DISD. Members agreed to include funding of $14,750 and include a question mark so that they can discuss it again when they discuss additional funding for the Owsley area. Members discussed the transitional program provided by the Cumberland Children's Home. Dr. Myers stated that she felt it was a good program and there were private resources to fund it. Ms. Rheault also commeNed that HOPE provides those services and it seems like a duplication of services. Mr. Leal stated that families assisted by HOPE meet the definition of homeless or are poteNially homeless. Cumberland Children's Home serves families regardless of their homeless status. Cumberland Children's Home is attempting to keep the family intact. Members agreed not Page 109 to fund the program. Members discussed Denton County MHMR's Sierra program. Ms. Brantley pointed out some information in the monitoring letter regarding the number of persons served by the program. Ms. Kelly pointed out that they assisted 31 persons. Mr. Leal provided the committee with information on the Sierra program. Ms. Hughes asked what other sources were used to fund the program. Mr. Leal indicated that the funding is supplemented. Mr. Leal explained the purpose of the Sierra program. He noted that MHMR's traditional programs could serve SIERRA clients that are later identified as being in the priority population, but the SIERRA program serves individuals that do not meet priority population. Ms. Hughes asked how they managed last year by only receiving $9,000. Ms. Tomboulian noted that you could not tell what the salaries of MHMR employees were based on the information they gave. Members discussed how MHMR might fund the SIERRA program if the committee only recommended $9,000. Ms. Rheault noted that agencies did not clearly show how programs that were not fully funded by the City were funded through other sources. Ms. Hughes stated that members need to know what other funding is involved in these programs. Members agreed to set aside $9,000 for funding of the SIERRA program. Members discussed the Denton Family Resource Center's request. Ms. Kelly stated that she had some concerns. She noted that almost the entire board has resigned in the last month. She also indicated that she contacted a board member who had resigned. The former board member stated that he and the others resigned because they were asked to. The two remaining board members stayed to help reconstitute the board of directors for the agency. Ms. Kelly indicated that some of the conflicts were because the board members were not doing enough fund raising. She also stated that DFRC did not pay their payroll taxes over the past year and are now having to pay those back to the Federal government. The director has not taken a salary for the last three months. Dr. Myers stated that this information was in the minutes of the agency's board meeting. Ms. Kelly stated that the member she talked with stated he did not get sufficient financial information from the director. Mr. Leal referred members to his memorandum that contained information on agencies that were monitored last year, including DFRC. Ms. Rheault stated that she felt the agency didn't seem very steady. Ms. Kelly stated that she was surprised that they have been funded this long without an audit. Dr. Myers stated that they are living on grants and when you don't get them you're in trouble. She noted that there was very little effort by the board members to raise funds. Ms. Kelly noted that in the monitoring letter there was an indication that DFRC did not provide sufficient financial reports to the City. Dr. Myers said that the executive committee of the United Way board met with the DFRC board about two weeks ago to discuss these matters. Members continued to discuss the Denton Family Resource Center. Ms. Tomboulian stated that the application states the funds would be used for the program coordinator's salary. Members discussed the various funding sources for the agency. Dr. Duvall and Dr. Myers complimented Fran Moore and the work of the Denton Family Resource Center. Ms. Hughes explained that she was looking for information related to the visioning process that the City went through. She indicated that what the visioning committee requested was exactly what the DFRC was doing. Ms. Rheault stated that it did not just appear that they were having funding problems but there are also some reporting and other management-related issues. Mr. Leal stated that he believes they need some assistance developing their financial reports. He indicated that he did not feel it would be difficult for the DFRC to get assistance in this area. Ms. Bounds stated that she felt the real question was regarding HSAC's responsibility in this area. Ms. Hughes commented that if the agency is weak, that the money might not be spent. Members Page 110 discussed the availability ofunspeN funding for reallocation. Members agreed to recommend funding at last year's level. Mr. McDade noted that the Boys and Girls Club was not given the benefit of the doubt but that DFRC is being given assistance even though they have financial difficulties. Members discussed that they did reallocate some funding for Boys and Girls Clubs to continue programming in the past. The members discussed funding Fairhaven's homemaker program providing housekeeping services for residents. Dr. Duvall noted that he was not aware of other nursing homes that don't take care of their housekeeping. Other members noted that this was not a nursing home facility. It is a retirement home and residents are expected to maintain their own units. Ms. Ross indicated that the service was an attempt to help the more frail elderly remain in the retiremeN facility rather than going to nursing care. Members agreed to fund Fairhaven Homemaker services at last year's level. Discussion regarding the Children's Advocacy CeNer of DeNon County began with an explanation that the organization had changed the focus of its application. Ms. Tomboulian noted that they were requesting funding for direct care staff salaries. Dr. Myers indicated that last year's request was for an increase in the executive director's salary. Mr. McDade stated that he recommended not funding the agency. Ms. Kelly stated that they would go directly to City Council if they were not recommended for funding. Ms. Bounds stated she did not understand that when agencies ask for funding and the committee tums them down but, if they know how to word it and not ask for salaries, they can get funding. Ms. Kelly stated that she felt the Children's Advocacy CeNer funding sources would be more likely to fund salaries than resources from other agencies. Mr. Leal poiNed out that some of the agencies that provide counseling and "staff intensive" services must ask for salaries. Members coNinued to discuss the Children's Advocacy CeNer and whether they waned to recommend funding for the agency. Mr. McDade indicated that this application was just a re- phrasing of what was requested last year. He noted that even though salaries are going up around Denton, he still felt this one was excessive. Ms. Hughes pointed out that AIDS Services had an executive director salary that was $70,000. Mr. McDade noted that he voted against that too. Ms. Kelly poiNed out that they probably look at County salaries rather than those of social service agencies. They are probably on the same level as the County. Ms. Bounds noted that they were cut last year and asked how they managed without the funding last year. She wondered whether the committee was really looking at their need. Members reviewed the financial information submitted by the agency. Members agreed to recommend funding of $10,000 for the Children's Advocacy Center of Denton County. Members agreed not to fund AIDS Services Outreach program. They noted that they wanted to fund the nutrition program but not the outreach program. Members discussed Adult Day Care of North Texas. Mr. Leal stated that some HSAC members were concerned about the number of DeNon resideNs served by the facility. He noted that eight Denton residents were now being served. Five Denton clients are receiving financial assistance. Ms. Kelly asked if they had funding left over from last year. They discussed whether funding could be carried over from the current year into next year. Ms. Ross indicated that if they had significant funding left, it was possible to carry it over but that staff felt this should not become a common practice. Members agreed to fund Adult Day Care at $9,000 with the understanding that funds Page 111 could be carried over from the previous year if the $9,000 ran out before the end of the coNract year. Members discussed funding for the Boys and Girls Club and MHMR's AdolesceN Substance Abuse Program. Members agreed not to recommend funding for either program. Members agreed to fund Riding Unlimited at the requested $875.00 amouN. Ms. Kelly poiNed out that it would add an agency that would need to be monitored for only $875. Members agreed to recommend that Riding Unlimited be funded. The HSAC voted not to recommend funding for the Camp Fire Girls. Members reviewed their recommendations. Ms. Bounds recommended that additional funding be allocated to the Owsley Summer Playground programs. Ms. Tomboulian stated that they might also wan to look back at DeNon Christian Preschool, Fred Moore Day School and City County Day School. Ms. Hughes asked if the Boys and Girls Club application showed how much were for summer programs and how much was for after school. She was concerned that the committee was trying to put together a program for the area without sufficient planning. Members discussed whether they could take additional time to address the issue. Ms. Ross explained that the CDBG recommendations had to be ready by the end of the month to put the Action Plan out for public commeN. Final decisions on general fund recommendations could be delayed a bit. Ms. Tomboulian noted that there were sufficieN dollars to fund the Boys and Girls Club. Ms. Kelly suggested giving the full amouN to the summer playground program they could provide the services for the neighborhood. This would mean Boys and Girls Club would not need to be funded. This would take the budget to approximately $435,000. Ms. Hughes noted that the field trips are necessary because it gets so hot in the summer. Ms. Bounds made a suggestion as to how the members might increase the funding to the Owsley programs by providing funding requested by the Boys and Girls Club to the Owsley Summer Playground program. This would provide funding for vans for field trips, etc. Dr. Myers suggested that they receive more funding than the requested amount. Ms. Rheault pointed out that other agencies were marked for possible increases. Committee members discussed other ideas regarding how to fund services in the Owsley area. Mr. Leal provided members with some financial information regarding the previous costs associated with provision of after school care in the Owsley neighborhood. Members agreed to provide $19,500 to the Owsley Summer Playground program and $13,000 in additional funding to the Owsley Community School to provide after school programming. Committee members reviewed the amount of funding that had been recommended thus far. The amouN of recommended funding totaled $448,675. Committee members looked at the programs that had been recommended for funding at last year's level but that the committee had was considering for a slight increase. Dr. Myers recommended that the committee consider adding $1,000 to Fred Moore Day Nursery School's recommended amouN. Committee members agreed to recommend $39,000.00 for Fred Moore Day Nursery School. Page 112 Following is a list of the Human Services Advisory Committee's final recommendations. Adult Day Care of North Texas After School Action Site/TRAC AIDS Services of North Texas (Nutrition) AIDS Services of North Texas (Testing) Boys & Girls Clubs of Demon County Camp Fire USA CASA of DeNon County Children's Advocacy Cemer of DeNon County Community Food Cemer Cumberland Children's Home $ DeNon Christian Preschool DeNon City County Day School Friends of the Family DeNon County MHMR - ASAP Denton County MHMR - SIERRA Denton Dynamos Fairhaven Retiremem Home Family Health Care Fred Moore Day Nursery School Cross Timbers Girl Scouts HelpNET of the Greater DeNon Area HOPE, Inc. Imerfaith Ministries King's Kids Day Kamp Living Choices / Woman to Woman Owsley Community School - Adult Education Owsley Summer Playground REACH DeNon Family Resource Cemer Riding Unlimited Retired Senior Volunteer Program St. Andrew Church of God Salvation Army Sickle Cell Disease Association SPAN (Elderly Meals Program) Training for Excellence Owsley Community School - After School Program $ 9,000.00 $17,000.00 $15,000.00 $ o $ o $ o $ 8,000.00 $10,000.00 $ 3,000.00 0 $ 30,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 36,000.00 $ o $ 9,000.00 $ o $ 7,500.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 39,000.00 $ o $ 22,500.00 $ 30,000.00 $17,250.00 $19,800.00 $ o $14,750.00 $19,500.00 $ o $ 7,650.00 $ 825.00 $ 7,400.00 $ o $15,000.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 29,000.00 $ o $13,000.00 Total Amoum Recommended $449,675.00 The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:40 p.m. Page 113 This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #30 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: May 14, 2002 Economic Development/Main Street Dave Hill, 349-8314 SUBJECT Consider approval of a resolution of the City of Denton, Texas, approving the eligibility of the structures located at 535-A and 535-B S. Locust, Denton, Texas, for tax exemption for historically significant sites pursuant to Chapter 10, Article VII Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas; authorizing City Manager to execute a tax exemption certificate; and declaring an effective date. (Historic Landmark Commission recommends approval 6-0). BACKGROUND On April 28, 1998, the Denton City Council passed ordinance #98-116 which amended Chapter 10 "Finance and taxation" of the code of ordinances of the city. This ordinance added article VII which provides that the city may abate increases in the assessed value of historically significant sites for tax purposes as a result of appropriate repair and renovations in the downtown commercial district of the city of Denton. The purpose of this tax abatement is to provide tax incentives to bring downtown buildings into compliance with the Property Appearance Guidelines. This abatement "freezes" the tax City of Denton tax portion of property taxes at the pre-renovation value for a ten-year period. It applies to the structure and the land reasonably necessary for access to, and use of, the historic structure. To be eligible for the abatement, the following requirements must be met: · Buildings 50 years old or older within the established target area · Exterior rehab over $20,000 or 25% of the most recent tax valuation of building, whichever is less (with roof repair constituting no more than 50% of the total repairs) and · Rehabilitation plans are pre-approved by the Historic Landmark Commission for compliance with the Property Appearance Guidelines The review process is as follows: · Review of construction plans and verification of completion will be done by Historic Landmark Commission · City Council must approve the tax abatement Virgil Strange, owner of ITEC Steel, 1020 Shady Oaks, purchased the Old Denton Hospital, at 525 S. Locust, in August 2001. City Council granted tax exemption status to that property on December 18, 2001. 535A and 535 B S. Locust are the other buildings located on the Old Denton Hospital site. Mr. Strange is in the process of rehabilitating all three buildings. Mr. and Mrs. Strange have had experience in renovating historic buildings. In 1992 they purchased and renovated the Leticia Rosenberg Women's Home in Galveston. As a result of their efforts, the building is now listed on the National Register of Historic Places. OPTIONS 1. Approve the resolution, graining the tax abatemem 2. Deny approval, resulting in no tax abatement. RECOMMENDATION The Historic Landmark Commission recommends approval (6-0) ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The project is expected to be completed by July 2002. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The Historic Landmark Commission has reviewed all records provided by the owner regarding 535 A and 535 B S. Locust and found that they have complied with the preliminary requiremems set forth in ordinance #98-116 to receive tax abatement. On February 18, 2002, the Denton Historic Landmark Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of this tax abatemem to the DeNon City Council. Upon completion of the project, HLC will verify the completed work to ensure the applicam has met all the requiremems. This last review of HLC is necessary in order for the applicant to receive the abatement. FISCAL INFORMATION The exact financial impact is impossible to predict. However, for each $10,000 in resulting increase in value, the property owner would receive $54.82 in abatemem from the City. County and school taxes are not affected. The properties are curremly appraised at $61,303. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2. Application for Historic Structure Property Tax Abatemem 3. Copy of tax certificate 4. Excerpt from the minutes of the HLC meeting, September 10, 2001 Prepared By: Julie Glover Denton Main Street Program Manager Respectfully submitted: Linda Ratliff Director of Economic Development RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVING THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE STRUCTURES LOCATED AT 535-A AND 535-B S. LOCUST, DENTON, TEXAS FOR TAX EXEMPTION FOR HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT SITES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE VII CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A TAX EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City has a policy to grant a partial tax exemption for historically significant sites as established by Chapter 10 "Finance and Taxation", Article VII of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas; and WHEREAS, the property located at 535-A and 535-B S. Locust, Denton, Texas meets the requirements of a historically significant site since it is a commercial or residential structure, 50 years old or older, and is within the boundaries of the Downtown Commercial District as defined in Sec. 10-131 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas; and WHEREAS, the owner has met all requirements for eligibility for the tax exemption; and WHEREAS, the Historical Landmark Commission has unanimously recommended the approval of the exemption at its meeting of February 18, 2002; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1: That the structures located at 535-A and 535-B S. Locust, Denton, Texas has met all the requirements of Chapter 10, Article VII of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas as amended by Ordinance 98-116 and is eligible for the tax exemption for historically significant sites. SECTION 2: That the City Manager is hereby author/zed to execute a tax exemption certificate upon verification of completion of repairs and renovation for the property located at 535-A and 535-B S. Locust, Denton, Texas. SECTION 3: The exemption shall only apply to the historic structure and the land reasonably necessary for access to, and use thereof, by abating any increase in the assessed value for ad valorem tax purposes in excess of the assessed value of the property for the tax year immediately prior to the renovation, for a period of ten years following the completion of the renovation. SECTION 4: That this resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of .,2002 EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY F:~sharedkiepflLGL\Our Documents\02kResolutions~histofic structure tax exemption 535 S. Locust.doc .]an 2~ I]2 Ci~: ll~p j. v. b~ran~e · 01/24/02 TI{Il 10' 13 FAX 940 a498518 DENTON ~AINST~EET Appticnliom for FGstorlc Structure Property Tax Abatcmcnt ~lrom the City of Denton, Te. xa.g (For pml~rty located within the Dowz~a Commcxcial Di,~trict as provid0d for by c4W ordinmac, e 9g-116.) ~ooz7~ Date of original construction of building Tax Valuation (effective prior m slan date or' rchabfl~tauon proj¢cO Start date of rehabilitation E~ compl;zion dar~ I r~rfify tl~ I am ti~ legal o~er of the aforomoadoned property. [ artcs't that thc iM'ormation ]islet above is truc and compI~l~ ~o the best of my knowl~ge. I attest that this prolaC. Xty me,'ts the cligibilJiy rcqu~.~ts for ar~ abatement of taxes as providod for by thc City Ordinmtc~ 98-116, ms follows; !. T~ property is Ioc. at~l wifl~ &c l~o4ar~ of~e D~mwn ~ S~t Co~a~ 2. The ~op~ ~ a~ I~ 50 y~s ~ 3. T~ ~ co~ of ~c ~iUmfi~ pmjcc~ w~ =q~ or ~ 25% ~ ~ mo~ ~t ~e~d ad ~o~ tax ~ua~on ~c ~e or $20,~ w~er is less. Roof r~ or z~laccm~t may ~p~e no mom · e ~m ~shold ~t ~isa~ ~ qu~ ~ tax a. .A t~ ~ca~ shrug ~at all ~s duc u~v thc pm~ h~C ~at ~aid iS atml~ m ~s 5. A p~s~ Ii,rig M1 &~a uric plann~ ~bili~fi~n ~11 ~ su~iucd to r~ ~st~c P~ou ~ for ~view ~ ~ton ~st~c ~ C~ion for ~mp~ wi~ ~ P~c~ ~c~ ~i~s. I mb~t ~ a~eement for a ~ca~ of Appropriateness f~r ~y ~rior ma~o~s to ~¢ ~ f~ ae d~on ~iM ~riM dufi~ vhich tb~ ~ abatemen~ is ~ ~; fi. 1 au~zc ~= CiU Mana~ or ~si~c, ~c ~dmark ~m~ion~s ~d cl~d offi~ to visit ~ Feb gl g~ 1 1: g4a '~CCT fl R0027148 DA'i'E 01/31/2002 MAR J. V. S%ran~e ~403o3~/~9 ~-~ RECEIPT YF~ 2001 46838 MARY HORN. DENTON COUNTY P O BOX 1249 DENTONx TX 76202 (940) 349-3500 ............................... PROPERTY DESCRIPTION .......................... AGOE % PRESTON, BLOCK 2, LOT 2(W38' OF S64'), 5.1 PROP TYPE-FtF1 219///AB759 C05 ACRS- LOCATION- 535 -537 S LOCUST TOWN- 9,238 ...................................... MONIES ................................. TAXING ENTITY EXEMPTIONS GRANTED: NONE TAX R. ATE TAX LEVY DEN~'ON COUNTY .................... 25193 154.44 DENTON IND SCH DIST ................... 1.85400 1,136.56 CHECK 9 1074 PAID 1 , 291 . 00 * TREMONT PROPERTIES LTD P 0 BOX 117 DENTON TX 76202 OWNER NAME: TREMONT PROP LTD R0027148 2001 46838 ** THIS IS A PAID RECEIPT ** Feb O1 02 11: 0Sa ~. v. S~ran~e ~u~ ~ ~. ~ DATE: ACCOUNT: OWNER: PAF, CE L ADDF~EE, S; EXEMPTION CODES: LAWSUIT: BKRPTCY: 1/31/2002 R27148 TREMONT PROP LTD 0000535 LOCUST 00537 ORIGINAL RECEIPT S ST LEGAL: JAGOE & PRESTON, BLOCK 2, LOT 2(W38' OF S64'), 5.112191/IAB7 59 PIDN: 02714800000 ACRES: 0 RECEIPT #: 59211 CHECK #: 1073 DEPOSIT #: 200201312724-2001/CCLAVOIE " TAXABLE TAX RATE PENALTY & 'YEAR TAXING ENTITIES VALUE PER $100 PAY TYPE DATE PAID BASE TAX PAID INTEREST PAID 2001 CITY OF DENTON 61,303 0,548150 L 01/31/2002 336.03 0.00 AMOUNT TENDERED 336.03 AMOUNT PAID BASE TAX 336.03 0.00 TOTAL PAID 336.03j PAYER; TREMONT PROP LTD 1012 SHADY OAKS DR DENTON TX 7620G-7937 REMAINING AMOUNT DUE AS OF 1/31/2002 $0.00 CITY OF DENTON DENTON 601 E HICKORY SUITE G DENTON, TX 76205 (940) 34,9-8319 ACCOUNT: R27148 OWNER:TREMONT PROP LTD 02714800000 ** * THIS IS A RECEIPT TREMONT PROP LTD 1012 SHADY OAKS DR DENTON TX 76205-7937 REMAINING AMOUNT DUE AS OF 1/31/2002 $0.00 Feb 01 02 11:0~ ~CC? # R00~019B ~3~I?? ¥~k~ ~001 1757G0 DATE 01/31/2002 M~.R MARY HORN. DENTON CO~ P O BOX 1249 DENTON, TX 76202 (940) 349-3500 ............................... PROPERTY DESCRIPTION .......................... JAGOE & PRESTON, BLOCK 2, LOT 1,2(N42' AND E62'),3 PROP TYPE-F1F1 ,4,5,6, 1-6/219///AB 759 C05 ACRS- LOCATION- S2S S LOCUST TOWN- L.~D- 206~750 IMP- 9~t$~2 ~G- - TAXING ENTITY EXEMPTIONS GRANTED: NONE 'TAX-LEVY------- SENTON COUNTY .................... 2S~93 .7S9.~0 D£NTON IND SCH DIST ................... !.85400 5,587.81 CHECK # 1074 PAID 6.3.47.11 * TREMONT PROPERTIES LTD P O BOX 117 DENTON TX 76202 OWNER NikME: TREMONT PROP LTD R0040198 2001175760 THIS IS A PAID RECEIPT Minutes Historic Landmark Commission February 18, 2002 A regular meeting of the Historic Landmark Commission of the City of DeNon was held in the City Hall Conference Room, located at 215 East McKinney, on Monday, February 18, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. Members Present: Peggy Capps, Ann Hatch, Mildred Hawk, Bob Montgomery, Peggy Norton, and Rod Reeves Staff Members: Julie Glover, Main Street Manager; Catherine Morello, Main Street Marketing Specialist; and Tiffany Wilkinson, Main Street Assistant Also Attending: Eddie Martin, City of Denton Legal Department; Charles Stafford, property owner; Betty Vondracek, architect; Randy Boyd, property owner; and Sara Harvey, Ellen Ralph and Elise Ridenour, members of the West Oak Street Area Homeowners Association I. Call to order Chairperson Peggy Capps called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. ii. Consider approval of minutes from the regular meeting of December 10, 2001. Peggy Norton made a motion to approve the minutes of December 10, 2001. The motion was seconded by Ann Hatch and carried unanimously. iii. Review application for Historic Structure Property Tax Abatement for 535 A & B S. Locust and make recommendation to City Council. Tax abatemem for 525 S. Locust (old DeNon Hospital) was previously grained by the Commission. Currem tax abatemem request is for ancillary buildings located on the same property. The owner plans to renovate the buildings to their original condition. Ann Hatch made a motion to accept the application. The motion was seconded by Rod Reeves and carried unanimously. iV. Hold a public hearing and take action on a Certificate of Appropriateness for 1018 W. Oak (repaint roof, repair and repaint siding, repair windows and doors, repair and replace trim, 3-story addition, add 3-car garage, off-street drive and parking on the side; additional plans will be available at the meeting). Peggy Capps opened the public hearing. Exterior repairs to the existing building will include repaiming the roof, repairing and repaiming siding, repairing windows and doors, and repairing and replacing trim. A 3-story addition with breakfast room, master bath and attic and a 3-car garage with playroom and laundry are proposed in the back. An off-street drive and parking on the side are also proposed. Staff recommended approval. Charles Stafford and Betty Vondracek discussed the proposed repairs and additions and answered questions from the Commissioners. Bob Montgomery made a motion to accept the certificate as proposed. The motion was seconded by Mildred Hawk and carried unanimously. W. Hold a public hearing and take action on a Certificate of Appropriateness for 1004 W. Hickory (repair metal roof, repaint same color, remove and repair rotten wood). Peggy Capps opened the public hearing. Homeowner began exterior repairs prior to filing certificate. Appearance of building should not be changed. No action was taken as the street name was incorrect on the agenda. Wt. Hold a public hearing and take action on a Certificate of Appropriateness for 1023 W. Oak (repaint wood trim using same shade as original paint, old paint scraped off and new paint applied). Peggy Capps opened the public hearing. Homeowner completed exterior repairs prior to filing certificate. Staff recommended approval. Randy Boyd discussed the completed repairs. Mildred Hawk made a motion to accept the certificate. The motion was seconded by Ann Hatch and carried unanimously. Wtt. Receive Preservation Officer's report · The Certified Local Government program has granted $4,210 to update Framework for the Future. · Julie requested input from the Commissioners on what buildings to include in a historic walking tour brochure. Bob Montgomery volunteered for the ad hoc committee. · Mark Sandel resigned from the Commission as he no longer lives within city limits of Denton. · The downtown Capital Improvement Project has been completed. A celebration of the Square improvements will be held Tuesday, March 5 at 11:30 a.m. · Julie is scheduled to talk about the conservation district ordinance at the Planning and Zoning work session on February 26. · Dr. Bullet Lowry, former chairperson of the Commission, passed away. Wttt. Future agenda items · Sara Harvey, Ellen Ralph and Elise Ridenour, members of the West Oak Street Area Homeowners Association, reported their efforts toward establishing a conservation or historic district in their neighborhood. · Mildred Hawk would like to have historic markers placed on all the "red brick buildings." IX. Adjourn Peggy Capps adjourned the meeting at 6:10 p.m. Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #31 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET May 14, 2002 Legal Department Herb Prouty, City Attorney SUBJECT: Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to sign the First Amendment to that certain Agreement for B:ofessional Legal Services with the Law Offices of Jim Boyle, P.L.L.C. for representation in litigation and proceedings before the Texas Railroad Commission regarding the gas rate for the Spencer Electric Generating Station; increasing the amount of the professional fee; authorizing the expenditure of funds; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND: On December 13, 2001 you received a complaint from Spencer Station Generating Company, L.P. (docketed as Complaint 2001-1) claiming the rates TXU Gas Distribution and TXU Lone Star Pipeline ("TXU") were proposing to charge the Spencer Electric Generating Station were unreasonable and discriminatory. On December 18, 2001 you passed Ordinance No. 2001-482. In that ordinance you issued a temporary order requking TXU to continue to supply gas to the Spencer Station under the current contract, which expired on December 31, 2001, until you set a rate or the parties agreed upon a rate. That ordinance also authorized the City Manager to hire Jim Boyle and Diversiqed Utility Consultants to assist City staff with this complex case. In January 2002, in accordance with the ordinance, the Law Offices of Jim Boyle entered into a contract with the City to undertake these legal services for a not-to-exceed amount of $25,000. On January 2, 2002, Spencer Generating Station ("Spencer") filed a lawsuit to enjoin TXU from charging a higher rate and violating the ordinance. The City intervened in this lawsuit. TXU appealed the ordinance to the Texas Railroad Commission. We have had a number of hearings and a mediation session regarding this matter. As a result of the several cases pending before different regulatory authorities and in district court, it was necessary for the Law Offices of Jim Boyle and Diversified Utility Consultants to undertake more work than the original estimated fee would cover. Under Tex. Util. Code §103.022(b), we believe these expenses are reimbursable by TXU. We have submitted all of these invoices to TXU seeking reimbursement. We believe TXU hould pay these invoices as the reasonable cost of the services of the consultants engaged in these ratemaking proceedings. In the event TXU fails to pay or disputes these charges, we are seeking authorization at this time for an additional $20,000, whida would bring the total not-to-exceed figure to $45,000. Jim Boyle believes this additional amount will be sufficient to conclude the proceedings before the Railroad Commission and those pending in the 211h District Court. OPTIONS: 1. Pass the ordinance authorizing the First Amendment to the Agreement for Professional Legal Services. 2. Do not pass the ordinance. S:\Our Docmments~Miscellaneous\02\agenda infbrmarion sheer boyle amendment.doc RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that you pass the ordinance. Both the Law Offices of Jim Boyle and Diversified Utility Consultants have dore excellent work in this litigation and in the rate case proceedings regarding this complaint. Their efforts resulted in injunctive relief that prohibited TXU from charging a fee in excess of a fee Spencer felt was reasonable. They have also protected Ordinance No. 2001-482 from a successful legal challenge by TXU. FISCAL INFORMATION: If TXU reimburses the expenses of the Law Offices of Jim Boyle, there will be no fiscal impact. If TXU resists the payment of these fees and is successful, the additional $20,000 will be paid from the risk retention fund. Respectfully submitted, Herb Prouty, City Attorney .... Page 2 S:\Our DocmmentshMiscellaneous\02\agenda infbrmarion sheer boyle amendment.doc S 5Our DocumentsSOrdinances\02\boyle amendment.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL LEGAL SERVICES WITH THE LAW OFFICES OF JIM BOYLE, P.L.L.C. FOR REPRESENTATION IN LITIGATION AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TEXAS RAILROAD COMMISSION REGARDING THE GAS RATE FOR THE SPENCER ELECTRIC GENERATING STATION; INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF THE PROFESSIONAL FEE; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on January 30, 2002 the City of DeNon eNered iNo an AgreemeN for Professional Legal Services with the Law Offices of Jim Boyle, P.L.L.C. (the "AgreemeN") as a result of the City Council's authorization in Ordinance No. 2001-482 to assist the consultant and the City Attorney in the investigation into the rates TXU Gas Distribution and TXU Lone Star Pipeline were proposing to charge Spencer Station Generating Company, L.P. ("Spencer") initiated by Complain No. 2001-1; and WHEREAS, since the City Council's employmeN of the consultant, Spencer filed litigation concerning this matter in the 211th District Court of Denton County, Cause No. 2002- 30001-211, in which the City of DeNon iNervened and TXU appealed the ordinance to the Texas Railroad Commission in GUD Docket No. 9263; and WHEREAS, the AgreemeN called for a not-to-exceed fee of $25,000, and due to the litigation and proceedings before the Railroad Commission, it is necessary to increase the amount of this fee; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute an amendment to that certain AgreemeN for Professional Legal Services between the City of DeNon and the Law Offices of Jim Boyle, P.L.L.C. to provide legal services with regard to the gas Nility rate for the Spencer Generating Station in substantially the form of the attached First Amendment. SECTION 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to make the expenditures and take the actions authorized in the attached First Amendment. SECTION 3. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2002. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY Page 2 S:\Our Doculnems\Comracts\02\boyle first amei/dment.doc STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DENTON FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL LEGAL SERVICES THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THAT AGREEMENT made and emered imo the 30th day of January, 2002, ("Base Agreemem") by and between the Law Office of Jim Boyle, PLLC, with Jim Boyle having full authority to execute that Agreemem, 1005 Congress, Suite 550, Austin, Texas 78701, hereinafter referred to as "Consultant", and the City of DeNon, Texas, a Texas Municipal Corporation, 215 East McKinney, Denton, Texas 76201, hereinafter referred to as "City." WITNESSETH SECTION 1. That Section III.A. "Compensation and Method of Payment" of the Base Agreemem is hereby amended to read as follows: III. Compensation and Method of Payment: For and in consideration of the professional services to be performed by Consultant herein, City agrees to pay a total fee, including reimbursement for out- of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with this agreement, not to exceed $45,OOO. SECTION 2. That save and except as amended hereby, all the remaining sections, paragraphs, semences, clauses, and phrases of the Base Agreemem shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of DeNon, Texas has caused this First Amendmem to be executed by its duly authorized City Manager; and Consultant has executed in four original counterparts on this the day of ,2002. CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY By: Michael A. Conduff, City Manager By: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: CONSULTANT: THE LAW OFFICES OF JIM BOYLE By: Page 2 Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #32 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: SUBJECT May 14, 2002 Human Resources Kath7 DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services Consider and confirm the re-appointment by the City Manager of Dennis Stephens to the Civil Service Commission. BACKGROUND Dennis Stephen's term expires in May of 2002; however, he is eligible to serve another term. In compliance with Chapter 143.006 (b) of the Texas Local Government Code, the municipality's chief executive (City Manager) shall appoint a member to serve a three-year term and the governing body (City Council) shall confirm this appointment. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager has elected to re-appoint Dennis Stephens, Executive Director of Human Resources for Denton Independent School District, to the Civil Service Commission. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW There has been no prior action or review on this agenda item. FISCAL INFORMATION This item has no fiscal impact. Respectfully submitted: Carla J. Romine Director of Human Resources This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #33 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM: May 14, 2002 City Manager's Office Mike Conduff, City Manager SUBJECT Consider approval of a resolution nominating a member to the North Central Texas Council of Governments 2002-2003 Executive Board; and declaring an effective date. BACKGROUND The North Central Texas Council of Governments has requested recommendations for Executive Board positions from member governments. The North Central Texas Council of Governments assists local governments in planning for common needs, cooperating for mutual benefit and coordinating for sound regional development. As Mayor Brock is known for her service on several regional boards, her service on the NCTCOG Executive Board would be very beneficial to the City of Denton. Respectfully submitted: Jennifer Walters City Secretary S:\Our Documents\Resolutions\02\NCTCOG Executive Board.doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION NOMINATING A MEMBER TO THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT'S 2002-2003 EXECUTIVE BOARD; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the North Central Texas Council of Governments is a voluntary assodation of local governments established to assist local governments in planning for common needs, cooperating for mutual benefit, and coordinating for sound regional development; and WHEREAS, the North Central Texas Council of Governments Executive Boardis the policy approval body for all North Central Texas Council of Government activities and is supported by technical, study, and policy development committees; WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas wishes to nominate its Mayor as a member to said Board; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1. The City of Denton, Texas hereby nominates Mayor Euline Brock as a member to the North Central Texas Council of Government's 2002-2003 Executive Board SECTION 2. That this resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2002. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #34 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET May 14, 2002 Fiscal Operations, Tax Department Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT Consider approval of tax refunds for the following property taxes: Name A. First State Bank for Norman Johnson B. Wells Fargo for David & Laura Boring C. Mark & Andrea Wallace D. Washington Mutual Bank for Jerry & Carol Knott E. Wells Fargo for Samuel & Tauvia Grissom F. Washington Mutual Bank G. Wells Fargo for Daryn Briggs H. Marjorie Sue Keele I. Walter C. Ray Trust ETAL J. Danny L. Prins K. Denton Tara Partnership L. HA Denton LLC Reason Tax Year Amount Duplicate Payment Duplicate Payment Duplicate Payment 2001 2001 2001 Overpayment 2001 Duplicate Payment Erroneous Payment 2001 2001 Overpayment 2001 Overpayment 2001 Overpayment 2001 Duplicate Payment 2001 Value Decrease per 2001 Denton Central Appraisal District Value Decrease per 2001 Denton Central Appraisal District $861.94 916.73 540.22 1,155.93 506.06 675.60 571.96 562.97 600.00 780.65 649.12 2,235.06 BACKGROUND Chapter 31.11 of'the Texas Property Tax Code requires the approval of'the governing body of' the taxing unit for refunds in excess of` $500.00. These accounts fall under Chapter 31.11. FISCAL INFORMATION The total tax overpayment revenue fund would be reduced by $10,056.24. Respectfully submitted: Diana G. Ortiz Director of` Fiscal Operations Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #35 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: May 14, 2002 Planning Department Dave Hill, 349-8314 ?};~' SUBJECT - CA01-0001 (Windsor Oaks) Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance amending Ordinance 99-439, regarding a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, from Neighborhood Centers to Community Mixed Use Center and from Employment Centers to Neighborhood Centers. The area for amendment encompasses approximately 70 acres. The site is generally located south of the intersection of Loop 288 at Kings Row. A development containing a variety of single-family, multifamily, retail, office and commercial uses is proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-0). BACKGROUND Applicant: Ed Wolski Denton, TX The applicant is requesting to amend the Comprehensive Plan by changing approximately 40 acres of Neighborhood Centers land use designation to Community Mixed Use land use designation and approximately 30 acres of Employment Centers land use designation to Neighborhood Centers land use designation. The 30-acre comprehensive plan amendment area is part of a larger area that the applicant is proposing to develop. The applicant owns approximately 215 acres of land on either side of Loop 288 between Mingo Road and King's Row. The applicant has also submitted a zoning application in which he is proposing a development containing a variety of single-family, multifamily, commercial and retail uses. The zoning case (Z02-0004) is being processed concurrently with the comprehensive plan amendment. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Deny. 3. Postpone consideration. 4. Table item. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-0). ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Zoning changes to this property are under consideration concurrently with this Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. The subject property is not platted. A final plat is required prior to the issuance of any building permits. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW Application Date October 30, 2001 P&Z Date December 19, 2001 February 27, 2002 March 13, 2002 April 10, 2002 Neighborhood Meetings January 17, 2002 -'[ March 5, 2002j(Refer to Attachment 4 of case Z02-0004) ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Maps 3. Property Owner Responses 4. Mixed Use Neighborhood Example 5. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, December 19, 2001 6. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, February 27, 2002 7. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, March 13, 2002 8. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, April 10, 2002 9. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ordinance Prepared by: Stephen Cook, AICP Planner II for Respectfully submitted: Douglas S. Powell, AICP Director of Planning and Development ATTACHMENT 1 Staff Analysis Summary_ of Comprehensive Plan Amendmem The applicant is requesting that approximately 70 acres of a total of 243.91 acre proposed master plan amend the comprehensive plan in two distinct areas. The first area changes approximately 40 acres from Neighborhood Cemers to Community Mixed Use Cemers surrounding the proposed imerchange of Loop 288 and the extension of Windsor Road. The second area encompasses approximately 30 acres of Employmem Cemer to change to Neighborhood Center. Existing Condition of Property_ Property History. February 20, 2002 - The subject property was placed in the Neighborhood Cemers 2, Neighborhood Cemers 4 and Employmem Cemers industrial zoning districts and land use classifications. This site was previously zoned as Agricultural, Single-Family-7, and Single-Family-10 under the 1969 zoning ordinance. Adjacem zoning. North: NR-3, NR-4 South: EC-i, iC-E East: NR-3 West: Outside the city limits Comprehensive Plan Analysis Change to Community Mixed Use Center - The focus of the Community Mixed Use Activity Center contains the shopping, services, recreation, employment and institutional facilities that are required and supported by the surrounding community. There is indeed a lack of commercial facilities serving the surrounding neighborhoods. The DeNon Plan idemified the imersections of Loop 288 and Sherman and the imersection of Loop 288 and Locust as the Community Cemers to service these areas, in addition to those areas, the imersection of Loop 288 and University will have uses similar to a Community Mixed Use Cemer (proposed Albertson's Cemer). Land uses within the Community Mixed Use cemer should be oriemed / sized to the surrounding neighborhoods and be populated by retail establishments geared towards a condensed market area of the surrounding neighborhoods, rather than a "big box" retail which may draw from the emire city. The comprehensive plan recommends store sizes to be less than 100,000 square feet, which still allows for a grocery store. The area designated for change is larger than the recommended acreage for a Community Mixed Use cemer of 30 acres. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that developmem within the Community Mixed- Use Cemer incorporate vertically mixed uses where retail may be on the lower level and office space / leased residemial may exist on the upper stories. Land uses should not be "strip cemers" along either the proposed Windsor Drive or along Loop 288. The nature of the surrounding existing and proposed neighborhood dictates that any uses located within should be designed to be pedestrian and transit-oriented. The plan states as a goals and strategies: Organization of Commercial Land Uses · To provide for reasonable amounts and distribution of various types of commercial land use in attractive and well-located settings. · To provide for commercial activities in planned activity or neighborhood centers, rather than on scattered sites or highway strips. · To develop activity centers where commercial uses, professional offices, and public facilities are located near residential development, while providing safe and convenient pedestrian access. · To maintain, intensify, and/or expand existing commercial areas, where appropriate, while removing commercial uses from, and stopping intrusions into, areas not appropriate for commercial use. · To locate neighborhood-oriented, commercial activities conveniently to dwelling units in order to minimize the need for frequent automobile trips for everyday household needs. · To encourage the location of daycare centers, housing, churches, social clubs, and other quasi-public uses within or adjacent to activity centers in order to share publicfacilities and help establish these areas as focal points. · As commercial areas are developed, redeveloped, or expanded, the provision of multiple-use activity centers, as identified in the plan, is developed in lieu of development as single-function shopping areas. · Commercial activity or neighborhood centers are thepreferred location for retail, commercial, and community services and encroachment of these uses into other areas is discouraged. · Commercial development occurs only in activity centers that are appropriate to its service and trade area and that are compatible with adjacent existing and proposed land uses and with existing and programmed public services and facilities. · Service-commercial establishments locate in appropriate activity centers, rather than at haphazardly chosen locations that contribute to the formation of strip or spot commercial development. · The location and size of neighborhood centers areas relate to the character and needs of the specific residential development these centers are intended to serve. (Commercial Land Use Goals, pp 45-46.) Activity centers are integrated with surrounding streets and uses, where appropriate, by means of landscaping, berms, fencing, and the siting of structures. Facades, architectural screening (walls, fences, parapets, etc.) and a unified landscape treatment is consistent and creates an identifiable activity center. (Commercial Land Use Design Strategies, p · It is the desire of the residents of Denton to organize industrial and employment land use districts so as to minimize conflicts with adjoining land uses and to most efficiently utilize the existing transportation systems. (Primary Industrial Land Use Principles. p. 49) The comprehensive plan calls for a variety of housing types and densities within the neighborhood centers. Pure residential areas, regardless of density should have pedestrian connectivity to small-scale neighborhood service uses such as coffee shops, bookstores, childcare facilities or civic uses such as parks, recreation centers or schools. Neighborhood densities should decrease in concentric areas away from a mixed-use center. By co-locating higher density housing with commercial areas, this enables residents choosing this type of housing to have pedestrian access to daily trips and it creates convenient nodes for transit service. Change to Neighborhood Center - The employment center in this location was placed to buffer future neighborhoods from incompatible industrial uses along the rail corridor to US 380. Employment center uses may range from office buildings to light assembly manufacturing types of uses. Sites within employment centers could be designed within a campus environment. For this area to change to a neighborhood center, there should be adequate land use buffering from the industrial uses along Mingo Road and the railroad corridor. The comprehensive plan implies that industrial areas should be protected from encroachment of residential areas just as residential areas should be protected from incompatible uses. While this area may have rail access, the existing road network would have to be greatly improved to handle large-scale light manufacturing or office complex uses within this area. Development Review Analysis Transportation Transportation policies within the comprehensive plan dictate that development shall use access management practices (internal street network, limited curb cuts) to make the investment in the roadway infrastructure as cost efficient as possible. Additionally, development should provide transportation facilities and services to promote and accommodate growth and change in activity centers, neighborhoods, and industrial centers. Seek to provide transit services and walking and bicycling opportunities so that activity centers and neighborhoods will minimize single occupant vehicle travel. Internal connectivity should be maintained to provide permeability of the road network. Urban Design For any new development, the design of public/private space must be considered. Community mixed use centers and the mixed-use areas of neighborhood centers are not only locations of commerce, but they are to be places of identity. Elements of site design, architecture and connectivity can bring a sense of place to commercial development. Oriented towards a market of local residents, privately owned commercial space can be designed to incorporate open areas, outdoor seating, public art and walkways that are used as a public spot for impromptu gatherings and becomes a place to go and stay, rather than a place to only shop and leave. STAFF FINDINGS The amount of land attributed to each type of land use was originally designed to accommodate the amoum of population growth as projected in the comprehensive plan. If approved, a net increase of 39 acres of neighborhood cemer will be created, an increase of approximately 32 acres of community mixed-use cemer and a loss of approximately 72 acres of employment center will occur. Proposed Community Mixed Use Center - The DeNon Plan calls for Community Mixed Use Cemers to be a maximum of 30 acres in size with connection to surrounding road network and neighborhoods. With the eventual extension of Windsor Drive and its grade separation from Loop 288, this imersection will become a major access poim for the surrounding neighborhoods. The size of the proposed Community Mixed Use Cemer is approximately 40 acres. Staff cominues to have a concern that the size (30+ acres) of the proposed amendmem may be too large given the proximity to the other Community Cemers along Loop 288 and the future developmem at Loop 288 and University. Proposed Neighborhood Center - Neighborhood cemers should be created surrounding Community Mixed Use Cemers. The request for more residemial areas throughout this area is appropriate with the developmem of a connective and permeable road and pedestrian network. Design and uses along the southern edge of the developmem along the existing Employmem Cemer should be buffered. Consideration should be given to limiting the amoum of the proposed reduction in order to buffer the existing industrial uses along Mingo. ATTACHMENT 2 Maps NORTH Location Map Scale: None NORTH Land Use Map Scale: None ATTACHMENT 3 Property Owner Responses Property Owner Name In favor Comments and Address /opposed* Bryan K. Tolbert Opposed None 2533 E Windsor Drive Randall Saren 2529 Hillview Ct Opposed None Bill Rainey In Favor None 2894 Cooper Creek Rd I have grave concern about where Windsor and Old North will be extended to. The Kings Row signal should not be removed. Nothing Majorie Nelson Opposed other than single-family residential should be allowed other than right along and focusing on the loop. I oppose this area for business, it will lower my property value and James M Barham Opposed increase traffic through an otherwise quiet neighborhood. I would be 2564 Quail Ridge in favor of building homes not apartments or stores. My main concern would be opening La Paloma into this neighborhood. John A. Calabrese 2525 Hillview Ct Opposed None Warren Rhoades 3420 Hillview St Opposed None Dorothy Tamplen Opposed None 2532 La Paloma Patrica Banfield 3005 Mistywood Ln Opposed None Community Mixed Use Centers should be located at or near the intersections of primary arterial or greater roads. The current land use plan has located Community Mixed use centers only at or near intersections of primary arterial roads. Neighborhood Centers allow a mix of uses that serve the immediate and surrounding neighborhoods at a scale consistent with neighborhood development. Neighborhood Center development can Mark Donaldson work to reduce overall traffic in and around a neighborhood. 32'16 Staghom Cir Opposed Community Mixed Use Centers allow a mix of uses that is not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. It will increase the amount of traffic in the neighborhood. The land use plan should be maintained in this area. The Employment Center area serves as a buffer or transitional area between the industrial center south of Mingo and the land that has Neighborhood Center designation to the north. Employment Center should be reduced, perhaps to a line that represents Fishtrap Rd extended. Clayton Byrom Neutral None 2869 Cooper Creek Tonya Tivn Opposed Have major concerns about Windsor and closing of Kings Row. 39'10 Deerforest Kenneth Keeton 2537 E Windsor Opposed Too many multi-family homes to close to my home. We are opposed to any development other than SF-'10s. We have Saran & Stan Pogue Opposed no desire for commercial or retail development. We do not want 34'16 Hillview mixed use development. Do not have enough information. The density is horrific, way high. Wayne Allen Opposed Some things looked ok. The only neighborhood meeting did not 254'1 Windsor mention multi-family. James Matlock 2534 Craig Ln Opposed None *A copy of the original notice can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 ATTACHMENT 4 Mixed Use Neighborhood Example Not to Scale ATTACHMENT 5 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes December 19, 2001 15. Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, from Neighborhood Centers to Community Mixed Use Center and from Employment Centers to Neighborhood Centers. The area for amendment encompasses approximately 110 acres and is generally located on either side of Loop 288 north of Mingo Road, south of King's Row, east of Old North Road and west of Cooper Creek Road. A planned development containing a variety of single family, multifamily, retail, office and commercial uses is proposed. (CA01-0001 Windsor Oaks, Stephen Cook) Motion by Joe Mulroy and seconded by Bob Powell to continue the Public Hearing to the P&Z meeting on January 23, 2002. *Discussion of item is included in the Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 242 - 300). Motion carries 6-0 CondcnscltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 241 properties. They're all -- our property is 40 acres. The one next to us is seven 7 and then we own another piece that's 12, and a 20-acre, and then the rest of them are all acreage. So this is definitely different on this side of what exists currently on that side of Bonnie Brae. So I just wanted to express my concerns and, barring more information on my part, I'll just reserve anything else until the next meeting. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Ms. Page 243 retail, office, and commercial uses is proposed. And Mr. Cook will present on Item No. 15. MR. COOK: Mr. Commissioner. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: can I just make a survey of the Commissioners and make sure they're still all awake. I see they are. Thank you, sir. MR. COOK: Mr. Chair, Co~mnissioners, good morning. Again, I'm Stephen Cook. I'm a planner with the City of Denton Planning Depamnent. I'll be addressing Wilkes. Let me see if there's any Commissioners that have any questions. Commissioners, any questions of Ms. Wilkes? Thank you very much. MS. WILKES: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Once again, this is a public hearing regarding Item No. 13 on our Agenda. Anyone who would like to speak either for or against this item, would you come forward at this time. Anyone for or against Item No. 13 and/or 14, as we have put them forth at this point in time? Seeing no one further that would like to speak, we are going to continue this item to a date certain, and that date certain would be January 23rd. And I will -- we will continue it at this time. Any further questions, Commissioners? Seeing no further questions, we'll move onto Item No. 15 and Item No. 16 on our Agenda. Being Itmn No. 15 and Item No. 16 Page 242 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Comprehensive Plan amenchnent portion of this. Mr. Gray will be addressing the zoning portion of this item. The Comprehensive Plan is an organic document. It was adopted in 1999. But that does not mcan that this is plan is set in stone. So, therefore, there are opportunities for our developers and our public to come in and present their ideas on changing that Comprehensive Plan, changing the ideas of the way the City wants to grow in the future. So to that end, public involvement is important. And I do appreciate that we do have several members of the public who have been with us for the expire evening and are willing to speak concerning this item. And so I would hope that that input is in consideration for whatever staff is approving on the -- or staff is considering on this Agenda item. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And that means that your presentation will be very short, right? Page 244 1 2 relate closely, I'll read through both of those and we 3 · will open both of those at the same time. Item No. 15 4 is hold a public hearing and consider making a 5 recommendation to the City Council regarding a 6 Comprehensive Plan amenchnent from a Neighborhood Center to 7 a Conunercial -- to a Conununity Mixed Use Center, and from 8 an Employment Center to a Neighborhood Center. The area 9 for amendments encompass approximately 110 acres and is 10 located generally on either side of Loop 288, north of 11 Mingo Road, and south of Kings Row, east of Old North Road 12 and west of Cooper Creek Road. A Planned Development 13 containing a variety of single-family, muki-family, 14 retail, office, and cormncrcial uses is proposed. 15 Item No. 16 is hold a public hearing and 16 consider making a recmmnendation to the City Council 17 regarding thc rczoning of approximately 244 acres from 18 Agricultural, A to One-Family zoning district, SF-lO, 19 One-Family Dwelling considered SF-7(C) zoning district to 20 a Planned Development, eD zoning district, as well as a 21 concept plan zoning plan for that purpose. The property 22 is generally located on either side of Loop 288, north of 23 Mingo Road, south of Kings Row, cast of Old North Road, 24 and west of Cooper Creek Road. A Planned Development 25 containing a variety of single-family, multi-family, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. COOK: Yes, sir, absolutely. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. MR. COOK: Right nOW, yOU have received additional cormnents that we have received since the backup was presented for a total of 14 opposed, one in favor, and one in neutral. And on that map, on this area here -- well, because of the scale, is that the opposed are housing units surrounding this piece of property. The one in neutral is outside thc City limits and adjacent to this property. And the one in favor is outside the City limits and adjacent to this property. The analysis for this Comprehensive Plan amendment is in your backup. I'm just going to briefly smnmarize that for you. Currently, the Comprehensive Plan, as it states today, has this area to the north as a Neighborhood Center, this area here as an Employment Center, which is again basically on arms of office in a large campus-type setting with some very light manufacturing available into it. It is proposed for this area in the Neighborhood Center for a node to be a Community Mixed Use Center. A node at this location allows access to retail from surrounding neighborhoods. Oh, sorry, excuse me, I apologize. Allows access to retail from the surrounding neighborhoods. It is PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19TH, 2001 Page 241 - Page 244 CondcnseltTM Page 245 1 currently proposed as about 35 acres. In the 2 Comprehensive Plan, we have kind of set a guideline for 3 about 30 acres for a Community Mixed Use node. 4 One of the things that we had noticed is 5 that this area right into the south, kind of a tag part, 6 is in the plan as submitted as Tract 18. Staff feels that 7 that area would probably be beginning a type of strip 8 development along Loop 288 that we would probably not be 9 in favor of. 10 The other area for consideration for 11 changing from the Comprehensive Plan would be a decrease, 12 a significant decrease in intensity from the Employment 13 Center to a Neighborhood Center. One of the things that 14 the plan does state is that we want to not only protect 15 our existing neighborhoods from encroaching industrial, 16 but we also want to protect our industrial from 17 encroaching neighborhoods, because the thing is we want to 18 be able to continue businesses without having new future 19 neighborhoods that would come in and complain about noise 20 and other kinds of things. And so we do have a 21 significant amount of industrial uses to the south here, 22 in addition to existing and industrial areas just on the 23 north side of the railroad tracts and along Mingo Road 24 here. So it would possibly be that staff would probably 25 look at and like to work with the developer on some Page 246 buffering from this Neighborhood Center to thc Employment 1 2 Center and Industrial Centers to the south. 3 The applicant is here to address any 4 further questions that you might have and that is our 5 presentation at this moment. 6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: xhank you, Mr. Cook. 7 I'm going to go ahead and open up No. 16, also. Mr. 8 Gray will present and then we'll have the petitioners. 9 MR. GRAY: Thank you and good morning. 10 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: That's an operative 11 word, good morning. 12 MR. ORAY: I don't know if the docucam can 13 get this entire document. What you have before you is the 14 zoning plan concq~t plan that is being proposed by the 15 applicant. This is being submitted in hand with the 16 Comprehensive Plan amendment because the zoning the 17 applicant is proposing reflects also the Comprehensive 18 Plan changes. 19 Just very briefly I'll just outline the 20 major aspects of the development that the applicant is 21 proposing. We have 244 acres on both sides of Loop 288. 22 A key component of this would be thc future extension of !23 Windsor Road across Loop 288 and that is where the 24 applicant is proposing his comanunity area. He proposes 25 community areas here, single-family on the periphery out Page 247 1 here and here, and then multi-family tracts here, here, 2 here, here, and here, then down here, a more intense 3 commercial tract along Mingo. 4 I have passed out some additional responses 5 that we have received from neighbors since last week's 6 packet. Currently, the opposition we have amounts to, I 7 think, 2.3 percent of the land area within 200 feet. And 8 I think that the map Stephen showed is basically the same 9 opposition map that's for this case. 10 Staff is not making any sort of 11 recommendation on this zoning plan tonight. There are two 12 reasons for that. The main reason is that the information 13 we have regarding engineering is still incomplete at this 14 point. There are some unresolved issues with the traffic 15 impact analysis. We're currently determining the capacity 16 of a sewer line going out there because we're not sure we 17 have sufficient capacity for the existing sewer system to 18 handle the type of development the applicant is proposing. 19 And another issue that staff has or concern 20 that we have is the amount of multi-family the applicant 21 is proposing. The applicant is proposing five tracts of 22 multi-family located here, here, here, here, and here. 23 That is about 76 acres of multi-family at just about or 24 under 18 units per acre, which come out to 1,352 units of 25 multi-family. That, frankly, gives us a bit of concern Page 248 1 because that is an awfully large amount of multi-family 2 and we just don't know if that much multi-family is 3 appropriate in this area. 4 Otherwise, staff has no further comments at 5 this time and I'll be happy to answer any questions. 6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Commissioner Roy. 7 COMMISSIONER ROY: I think I understand 8 this but let me ask the question. The drawing we have 9 shows an outline, a dotted outline of the entire site and 10 there's two cross hatched areas. So they're just 11 proposing a change at the cross hatched areas and the rest 12 of the site will remain Neighborhood Center. 13 MR. GRAY: I guess I'm curious as to which 14 map you're looking at. 15 MR. REICHHART: Regarding the -- 16 COMMISSIONER ROY: That Mr. Cook was 17 showing, what's in our backup. 18 MR. REICHHART: Regarding the Comprehensive 19 Plan, that's correct. 20 COMMISSIONER ROY: Okay. Another question, 21 I had the signal from someone, I thought from staff, that 22 City Council's guidance to staff was that we would not -- 23 they would not consider any changes to the Comprehensive 24 Plan at this time. And if that's the case, why are we 25 discussing this at this time? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19TH, 2001 Page 245 - Page 248 CondenseltTM Page 249 1 MR. REICHHART: The direction from Council 2 was that we would not consider Comprehensive Plan changes 3 that were a result of proposed zoning changes. With the 4 mapping issues associated with the D~velopment Code, there 5 are people, and this is an example, I don't know if it's 6 correct, but could have been in a Neighborhood Center 7 category and they wanted an Employment or an Industrial 8 zoning classification. That request would require a 9 Comprehensive Plan change. It does not preclude the 10 applicant from bringing forward a Comprehensive Plan 11 change on their own. What we're not going to be 12 considering is City-initiated Comprehensive Plan changes 13 as a result of the Code, with the exception of the ten 14 that were bought forward last week. But the applicant can 15 bring a Comp Plan amendment forward as he has. 16 COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you. 17 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further 18 questions, Commissioners? Thank you, Mr. Gray. 19 MR. OR~Y: Thank you. 20 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: we have opened both 21 15 and 16 on our Agenda. Is the petitioner for Item 22 No. 15 here and would like to present? And I re-mention 23 the fact that we are going to be continuing this. And in 24 the efforts of striking brevity, that you're going to be 25 representing, we would appreciate it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 250 MR. WELTIE: Planning and Zoning Con'unission, my nm2e is Bob Weltie. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And, Mr. Weltie, you will be presenting on both 15 and 16; is that correct? MR. WELTIE: I will. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you now. MR. WELTIE: My address is 5207 McKinney Avenue, Dallas, Texas, 75205. I am Dr. Wolski's architect 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 251 developments. The property to our east is basically farm land or open land. Our property, again, for those of you who have not had an opportunity to sec this site, this is, in my opinion, perhaps the prettiest site Denton has to offer right now. It's covered with large oak trees. It is our intention to preserve those trees and this plan certainly does that. To the south of the property, again, south of Mingo Road there is what I would call some heavy industrial uses. To the north of industrial, there's some vacant -- well, there's a church, some vacant tracts that are zoned very Light Industrial. Our plan is certainly to buffer all the single-family from our site with single-family to a size and a density comparable of their existing densities. This tract is an SF-4 tract. This tract is an SF-4 tract. This tract is actually an SF-3 tract. These three tracts are SF-6 tracts. Again, there's a natural buffer to what I would call the southwest of our site in this greenbelt. I have walked the site nmuerous times and I will tell you you can stand on the site at this point and not see any of the single-family homes through that thick growth. The green areas shown are the multi-family tracts we are proposing here, here, and three additional Page 252 1 tracts over here. As you were told, the approximate area 2 of those multi-family tracts is about 76 acres at a 3 density just under 18 units per acre for a total of 1,350 4 apartment units. These will be upper end apartment units. 5 I will add that we have talked with the Parks Department 6 and they chose a park tract on the east side of our 7 development. We actually offered them a larger tract on 8 the west side which was in the floodplain. They declined on this project. And, again, for sake of brevity, I will not rcexplain or reintroduce anything that has been brought forth earlier by staff. I did want to -- one docmnent that I hope reads a little perhaps a little better. And let you-all know that we have been working with both staff and the neighbors around this development for some six months. Dr. Wolski had done further work on that prior even to that time. And I do indeed want to address some of the issues raised by some of our neighbors. Tonight we did have an opportunity to speak with neighbors prior to the meeting tonight and address a few of their concerns. In meeting with them, again, I would point out that we feel the zoning we're asking for on this property is very logical. The property itself is surrounded to the west by existing single-family developments in this area. To the north, just north of Kings Row, single-family 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to take that tract and chose a 5.3 acre tract up here. That tract, I think, will be ideal for you-all. It is tied to other developments with a utility easement which we propose becoming a hike and bike trail linking the neighborhoods in the area. Two or three issues addressed tonight, Mr. Cox and Mr. Lillie, I think, both addressed the alignment of Windsor Drive in your Mobility Plan. What is shown here, Windsor currently dead-ends at this point. And, again, your Mobility Plan connects Windsor with an overpass crossing to Ferris Road at the intersection of Kings Row and Ferris. Again, we have told the neighbors and certainly take this position to this very day, we have absolutely no opposition to Windsor turning back to the east in lieu of linking at that point and this becoming a minor street and would certainly support that, if we can amend your Mobility Plan to do that. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19TH, 2001 Page 249 - Page 252 Condcns¢ltTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 253 Other concerns expressed, we certainly have absolutely no problem in deleting this rectangular or squarish tract from our community area. We did, in our neighborhood meetings, not only discussed the appropriateness of the land planning and the zoning issues which, again, with the exception I think of some densities, the neighbors pretty much agree that the land planning is appropriate for their neighborhood. And I'm sure they will speak to that. But we went through all the allowable uses within the different categories, including single-family, multi-family, co~m,nunity, and co~ranercial uses, and agreed to strike those uses which neighbors deemed undesirable. I would offer to you that they have come back tonight and asked us to look at that list. Under Community Service, we have an outdoor recreation use called out. They're concerned about light and noise issues and have requested that we restrict bungy jmnping and Grand Prix racing from that tract, which we will most certainly be happy to do. Beyond that, I think that the list complies with where they want to go with this property. Again, we think -- I think professionally this is a real opportunity for the City to have a real quality mixed use development and I can't tell you how excited we are to be here and we request your approval. Thank you. Page 254 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 255 developers is very possible and that we could see some positive cooperation related to this. As we addressed earlier in thc Mobility Plan we do have concerns regarding the mobility with the connection of Windsor Road to Fcrris and would recommend some changes in that preferably something that would take that road further east and maybe turn Ferris Road into more of a residential-type of a connector. One thing is on the books right now or that is a possibility is this particular area, I think, is optioned for a church which removes all of the single family three that would be in this area and so we would recmmnend or ask that consideration be given, perhaps, to doing some of those larger type lots elsewhere in this development to help reduce the density. Wc are concerned about the amount of density through the apartment that are -- the apartments that are being recommended for this. On a larger scale we'll also concerned about just the northeast section or the northern section of the cmmnunity as a whole, and the types of housing and the types of lots, and thc types of development that is going on there. It seems like that a lot of the development tends toward very small lots and small starter types of homes and we would like to see a balanced development in that area that does contribute to Page 256 1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. 2 Weltie. Colranissioners, any questions of Mr. Weltie? 3 Thank you very much, sir. 4 I have several cards of people that would 5 like to speak. Once, again, this is a public hearing. If 6 anyone would like to speak regarding this, if you would 7 please fill out a card toward the front. Then I have a 8 whole set of cards of people that would not like to speak 9 but did want to be recognized. I'm going to Call the 10 first one, and this just happens -- I don't see -- let me 11 go ahead and call Mr. Wade Lillie. I know Mr. Lillie is a 12 representative of the neighborhood. 13 In an effort to kind of speed things along, 14 I'm going to ask the next person to be on deck, if they 15 might move forward, and that would be Lisa Allen. 16 MR. LILLIE: My name is Wade Lillie. I 17 live at 3800 Deer Forest. And it seons like we began this 18 meeting just yesterday. We have, in the neighborhood 19 association, have some concerns regarding the development 20 of this area. And we have been appreciative of thc 21 information that has been forthcoming regarding this. 22 There have been some cmmnunity meetings. Some that were 23 better publicized than others. And those that were better 24 publicized definitely had better attendance. And I think 25 the potential for future neighborhood meetings with the 1 several different stages of sizes of homes. 2 And we would like to see more along the 3 lines of the very distinctive neighborhoods with larger 4 lots and more attractive homes that what we've been seeing 5 thrown up recently. 6 We will agree that this is a beautiful 7 site. And on that site there are several stands of post 8 oak trees, and there is something that is coming up in the 9 Code that I think is a concern, and that has to do with 10 the limitations about the setback requirements. And I 11 think that it would be good if the City would look at 12 modifying that, that if a developer wanted a further 13 setback so that they could maintain those types of stands 14 of trees, that they not be restricted to that, but that 15 they'd be allowed to work that out so that we can protect 16 and maintain those. 17 We know that when development hits around 18 post oak trees, typically, even though the development may 19 not directly impact any development close to those stands 20 of trees, it will kill those trees. And once they're 21 gone, they won't be back. And so we would recommend that 22 there be special attention given to preserving those 23 stands of trees that have been there for decades. Thank 24 you. 25 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Lillie, I have a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19TH, 2001 Page 253 - Page 256 CondcnseltTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 257 1 couple of questions. Commissioner Keith. 2 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. Before I 3 ask you a question, I have a question of somebody 4 regarding the traffic on this. Who would be the person to talk to? Mr. Reichhart. Okay. Mr. Reichhart, regarding the Kings Row, it's my understanding that Kings Row 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 259 King's Row would be a mistake? MR. LILLIE: I think that would be a mistake with what we're attempting to do with connectivity within the neighborhoods and within the con~nunity. I think that would impair mobility if these neighborhoods up in this area that's off the map has to come back through crossing is going to be crossed at a future date? MR. REICHHART: It'S proposed to be eliminated at a future date. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Proposed? It's not a done deal? I mean, what the -- MR. REICHHART: well, it's identified in 7 8 9 10 11 12 this direction, that that could impair mobility. I don't think that closing that off is going to answer any of the concerns related to this development, but I think it can create future concerns for that area. COMMISSIONER KEITH: well, that's kind of what I was wanting to know because that's a lot of concern the Mobility Plan to be eliminated. I see David Sahnon -- COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Salmon might be as appropriate as anyone to try to address -- COMMISSIONER KEITH: Mr. Lillie, I'll be asking you some questions, so -- MR. SALMON: I've got a blown up map or copy of the Mobility Plan on the overhead. Basically, what it's showing is that Windsor Drive, of course, as has been stated tonight would cross Loop 288. And then as it approaches, Ferr[s Road would curve off to the east. Ferds Road would remain a local residential street. Kings Row would be a collector on both sides of the Loop. There would be no crossing of Kings Row over the Loop, Page 258 although, we have been discussing with the developer the possibility of extending service roads so that rather than 13 from people. Thank you very much. 14 MR. LILLIE: Thank you. 15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, any 16 further questions of Mr. Lillie? 17 MR. LILLIE: ?hank you. 18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mrs. Allen and the 19 next speaker would be Brian Tolbert. 20 MS. ALLEN: uello, I'm Lisa Allen. I live 21 at 2541 East Windsor Drive. I am the home that sits -- 22 I'm the dead-end of Windsor Drive. And I would like to 23 point out that I have received no invitations to any 24 neighborhood meetings to meet with developers to discuss 25 any concerns. I understand there have been several Page 260 1 meetings, but we've received no invitations. We didn't 2 know this was going on until very recently. a dead-end, you could probably get on and off the Loop at Kings Row, but it would be more of a ramp situation as opposed to a T-intersection. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Okay. You know, a lot of people are showing opposition to this connecting into Ferris Road, okay, having seen his map showing that it comes up and makes a curve and then goes on east and that Ferris Road would still be like that. If they come in and the curve it any further down, and they close off Kings Row, and you just make that a little feeder down there, you're going to have a lot of traffic coming down that into Windsor. I mean, you've got -- you know it's got to empty out down there somewhere and I think -- would that create a -- I'm thinking that might even create a problem -- you've got -- because you're going to have a lot of traffic on just a little feeder road. MR. LILLIE: I think restricting Kings Row from having access to Loop 288 whether it be bridged across or whether it be some kind of a controlled access will be a mistake in the connectivity to that neighborhood and to those neighborhoods. COMMISSIONER KEITH: YOU mean, closing off 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: HOW long have you lived in the house? MS. ALLEN: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: HOW long have you lived in the house? MS. ALLEN: we uloved there -- six years. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. MS. ALLEN: okay. We are highly opposed to any multi-family development on the west side of Loop 288. It just creates a density problem. It is not consistent with the current neighborhoods in the area. There are no apartments nearby. And that's one reason we moved to the area is because we didn't want apartments nearby. And also Windsor Drive extending on to the Loop and having all those dumped on to Windsor, is going to -- you're not going to need a four-lane, you're going to need a six-lane. And we're opposod to Windsor even going to the Loop. I don't know if there's anything we can do about that now. I know some young women who had to leave who couldn't stay asked me to propose that Windsor Drive, that we not be connected to that neighborhood at all, that there be no connection from Windsor Drive to the new PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19TH, 2001 Page 257 - Page 260 Condenselt m 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 261 neighborhood even if it's single family homes, because of the traffic problems, that and some drainage problems. We're concerned about drainage. I know we have a pool that's bccn flooded twice with -- when it rains heavily as it is now. Now, it has been fixed since, but early on, we did have some drainage problems and we're concerned with drainage and that's it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: ~rhank you, Ms. Allen. Commissioners, any further questions of Ms. Allen? Is Mr. Tolbert here? Mr. Tolbert has left us, okay. Excuse me. He was opposed to that - strongly opposed to the rezoning to industrial use, multi-family dwellings, concerns regarding crime traffic and devaluation of his property. Thank you. Mr. Springer. C.C Springer, excuse me. I didn't know if that was a Mr. or a Mrs. And the next person would be Mr. Cox, Roger Cox. Is Mr. Cox still with us, if you'd come on deck. Sure. Excuse me, Mrs. Springer. Give us your name and address if you would. MS. SPRINGER: MS. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: MS. -- Thank you. MS. SPRINGER: candace Springer, I'm at 2557 Quail Ridge Drive, Denton, Texas 76209. In 1999 the neighbors along the same plat as mine, we petitioned -- we originally contacted the City about clairning the road behind our house, Old North Road. Now, understanding Page 262 that's on the Agenda tonight to possibly reopen that road, we contacted the City, and they told us that there was a possibility we could claim the plat, have our plats rezoned to claim the additional 30 feet. And the reason that we were asking about doing this is because at the time they had not told us that they were going to open Old North Road, because we had several issues. One of them being that Old North Road is directly adjacent to our property. It's behind our property. There is a 12-inch water main and an 18-inch sewer main behind our property that has an 18 to 24 inch 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 263 to be facing another issue and that's going to be privacy. My back yard from my porch to my back fence has a one to one drop of about 20 feet. So if you put in a road back there, I'm going to be faced with every peeping Tom, Dick and Harry driving by my back yard which means the road would run right along in here. My back door is here, which means I not only now have a front yard here, I have a front yard here. I have no privacy. That means that if I wanted privacy to be able to put in obstructive landscaping so that you wouldn't be able to see my property, I'd have to have bushes 20 feet tall. That's not going to be possible because all the power lines run across our -- run adjacent to our property line. So we're in a no-win situation. And that's basically just a few of our concerns, but it's all in this request for consideration that we submitted back in October. Has anybody seen this document? Okay. Well, the City says that they have considered it and denied it and that coming from Pamela England, so -- but she did send us a letter saying of all things that we did address as far as the drainage and the privacy and everything and she just gave us a list of things saying that these would be considered, and, yes, they would mow the property back there. Because right now we're mowing thc property because we have to keep out the Page 264 1 varmint and the critter that's residing in the field. If 2 we don't, nmuber one, it's a fire hazard in the summer 3 months. And No. 2, it's just a safety and health issue. 4 I've already come in my back yard and found two rattle 5 snakes, so we do have to keep that area up. 6 So my guess is is that when they talked 7 about the invitations to the meeting, the last meeting 8 that we knew about was in June. And the only reason we 9 found out about it was word of mouth. We conveniently 10 received our notice or our letter inviting us to this 11 meeting the day after. So that's my concern, my points of depression along the entire plat. This water main and sewer main run right along adjacent to the back sides of our property. When it rains it floods back there. It floods so bad we have crawfish. We have crawdads in our back yard. So if you do put in Old North Road, not only are you going to be 12 13 14 15 16 17 contention with this. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mrs. Springer. I think we had some questions from Cormnissioner. Commissioner Keith. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you, Ms. Springer. Those letters that you have, would you mind putting a road right into our back yards, you're going to be elevating this road and there's going to be no where for this water to go. There is a creek that runs back here. It's a dry bed creek most of the time until it rains like the last two or three days. Then that's where all the water collects, if it's not taken in the back yard with it. If you do put in the road, then we're going 18 having a copy of that made and supply it to the Planning 19 Department for distribution to us. 20 MS. SPRINGER: which one would you like -- 21 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Both of them. 22 MS. SPRINGER: -- my original letter or -- 23 COMMISSIONER KEITH: The original letter 24 25 MS. SPRINGER: And the reply. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19TH, 2001 Page 261 - Page 264 CondcnscltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 265 COMMISSIONER KEITH: -- and the reply. MS. SPRINGER: I can certainly do that. COMMISSIONER KEITH: I'd like to have copies fumished to us, please to the entire Commission. MS. SPRINGER: And where would I bring those to? COMMISSIONER KEITH: well, I think -- COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Planning Department. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Get with your Planning Department and let them -- have them distribute it to us on that. MS. SPRINGER: All right. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you very much. I just wanted to address that. MS. SPRINGER: okay. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Yes, we do. Conunissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: I'm a little confused about Old North Road and how it relates to what we're discussing here tonight. Could you help me out on that? It seems to be totally out of the picture of this -- MR. GRAY: ^ctually, I can shed some light on that. Old North Road, currently it's on this comer of the -- this side of the development. And the City has some right-of-way along here behind these existing homes. Page 266 Page 267 1 to you. 2 MS. SPRINGER: So that he could utilize in 3 service of the area that he wants to develop; however, the 4 land that we're talking about is right up here. That is 5 here. Here's my back yard. This is what we're talking 6 about, this strip of land from where LaPoloma starts and 7 if you'll notice, on some of the other maps, LaPoloma's 8 land -- part of Old North Road had already been absorbed 9 into the plat when they developed into the plat when they 10 developed the houses, so actually ~- and this is why he's 11 having to veer off this way, because this part used to be 12 Old North Road. It used to mn along the fence line. But 13 it had been absorbed into the houses when they developed 14 those house on LaPaloma. But they did not do that on 15 ours. 16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Cormnissioner Roy, did 17 that help you any. 18 COMMISSIONER ROY: Yes. I don't understand 19 why it had the stone name on it because it doesn't seem to 20 be related to the other road at all. But I think that I 21 understand it now. 22 MS. SPRINGER: And that's -- they're trying 23 to open this back up so that he would have use or access 24 from Windsor to Kings Row. And it's not a problem with 25 the development, it's just the idea that it's going to Page 268 1 On the applicant's map he is showing -- he 2 is proposing to realign Old North Road to veer off a 3 little ways. But, of course, doing that is going to have 4 to -- he'll have to coordinate that with the right-of-way 5 engineering dcparunent. The citizen noted that she 6 received a letter from Pamela England and she is one of 7 our right-of-way engineers and they had been -- I think 8 some discussions had been taken place regarding the status 9 of this right-of-way right here. 10 But the issue in a nutshell is just Old 11 North Road, or this section of Old North Road that's shown 12 right here. 13 COMMISSIONER ROY: It doesn't show on my 14 map that I have in front of me here that Old North Road is 15 included in this. Old North Road seems to stop at 16 Windsor. 17 MR. GRAY: Right. This is a future 18 extension. 19 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Conunissioners, we 20 have a document on the docucam that might help you. 21 MS. SPRINGER: where he's talking about Old 22 North Road where it veers off, this is land that Mr. 23 Wolski was going to donate to the City so that he could 24 re-use that -- 25 COMMISSIONER RISI-IEL: Pull your microphone 1 have to veer off in here. TXDOT has already told me that 2 the property across from us is owned by EPS. Er>S is not 3 going to relinquish their part of the property because 4 it's an investment property bought by an investment group. 5 And the other part of that is owned by 6 TXDOT. when I talked to the TxDOT cormnissioner in 7 Planning, he said that he wasn't planning on giving up 8 that right away. 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. 10 Commissioners, any other questions of Mrs. Springer? Mrs. 11 Springer, my mother being from New Iberia, I've got a 12 really good ettufette recipe if you need it, and thank you 13 very much for being here. 14 Mr. Cox would be our next presenter, 15 followed by Mr. Bob Gorton. 16 MR. COX: YeS. My nmne is Roger Cox. I 17 reside at 3912 Deer Forest Drive. Zip Code is 76208. 18 There have been quite a few of the concerns that are 19 probably most in concert, I probably won't try to wear 20 those out. 21 Once again, I'd like to just express my 22 concerns about the mobility. Has there been any address 23 made? Has there been any traffic studies? Has there been 24 any plans or we're looking at this and we're trying to 25 approve all of this, but do we really know what the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19TH, 2001 Page 265 - Page 268 CondonsoltTM Page 269 1 impacts are on these -- on these particular streets that 2 they're showing as just the primaries? What about the 3 residential streets that are going to follow in with this 4 or is this all of the streets that we're going to have on 5 244 acres? 6 And if we're talking about 1,300 units or 7 1,350 apartment units, we need to consider what the 8 implications of that might be to the elementary school 9 that's probably akeady at 100 percent. How about fire 10 protection? Is there a -- there's no allocation for any 11 type of services, another firehouse, nothing there. And, 12 heaven forbid, that if Kings Row is cut off, our quick 13 method of being able to have any type of quick response 14 from the fire department, I would imagine it probably 15 would increase by two or three minutes at a minimum to 16 being able to serve as the existing departments. 17 Those are big concerns and I don't know 18 that everybody's -- if they're thinking about all of these 19 implications. There was some conversation made eafller 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 271 1 So maybe we all need to find out what 2 those -- 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Gray, do you have 4 a list of things that have been discussed and agreed to by 5 multiple parties maybe? 6 MR. GRAY: well, in terms of the uses 7 allowed the -- in your backup, Enclosure 6 has a list of 8 conunitted used per zone that the applicant is proposing. 9 And he does list them on his docmnent but I went ahead and 10 retyped them here. 11 MR. REICHHART: I believe the question is 12 regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and what the 13 conununity mixed use zone would allow and to paraphrase the 14 Comprehensive Plan, it would allow commercial-type uses, 15 anything from a grocery store to some bigger box retails. 16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: The Petitioner at one 17 point had referred to several allowable things that they 18 had -- 19 MR. REICHHART: It would also allow concerning some of what we were, as a neighborhood group, when we finally made it to one of the meetings, collectively, we agreed to strike some of the permitted uses. And I realized that we're talking about two different issues here; one, and I'm still confused about the concept plan, and us changing that. Right now the way Page 270 1 I understand it, this entire tract, if I'm not mistaken is 2 agricultural, so what we're trying to decide right now is 3 we're going to change the plan from the centers, which I 4 don't understand fully, and I looked on the website. And 5 I was looking to see what the uses are, what these 6 different centers are going to allow or disallow. Because 7 we can agree that we're going to allow these centers to be 8 changed and manipulated, but there's nothing posting as to 9 what the allowed uses of those centers are. Nobody knows 10 what they are so I don't know -- I think there's probably 11 a bunch of people behind me that would like to know 12 exactly what are the real new uses for what we're trying 13 to agree with for Item No. 15. No. 16, I think we're 14 in trouble with that tonight, only because we know that 15 everything is going to change, and so if we can call it an 16 SF-7 today and it's going to be something completely 17 different. So I think we're in trouble with that one. 18 But I'm real concerned about what we're 19 trying to agree to on Item No. 15. I don't understand. 20 I don't know what's allowed within each one of these 21 situations. And I don't think anybody's ran down the list 22 tonight to let everybody know what it is that we're trying 23 to agree to for each of these two mixed centers, I believe 24 is what they call them, I don't know what those allow in 25 that. And I don't know if anybody else here does. 2O 21 22 23 24 25 multi-family use. But then the zoning that would be associated with it would narrow it down more as to what the uses could be. It's the neighborhood center allows multi-family, conmaercial and residential. But if you give it an NR-2 designation, that's strictly residential. So there's a wide range of uses that a COlmnunity mixed use Page 272 1 center would allow and it would then be more narrowly 2 defined as you get into the zoning. 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And all of these uses 4 refer to the old system or the new system. 5 MR. REICHHART: well, what the applicant 6 has proposed on his zoning plan -- the Compromise Plan, 7 you know, relates back to the Compromise Plan. But what 8 the applicant has identified on the zoning plan is a cross 9 -- it is more relal~xt to the proposed Development Code 10 than it would be the existing. 11 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. Thank 12 you. Okay. Thank you very much. Commissioner Keith, you 13 have a question of Mr. Cox? 14 COMMISSIONER KEITH: well, my question is 15 more towards Mr. Reichhart on this. Mr. Cox did bring up 16 an interesting point regarding the fire station off of 17 Sherman Drive. What is the City's plans for a fire 18 station on the east side of Loop 288 if there is any? 19 MR. REICHHART: I am not familiar with 20 those plans. 21 COMMISSIONER KEITH: SO we have none at 22 this time. 23 MR. REICHHART: I'm not saying that. I'm 24 not familiar with what the plans are. 25 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. We're not PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19TH, 2001 Page 269 - Page 272 CondcnscltTM 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 273 familiar okay so -- on that because Mr. Cox did make a valid statement that -- to close Kings Row and then for these fire trucks to respond to anything on that side of the town, it could be very problematic. Thank you, Mr. Cox. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. Keith. Commissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: I wonder if Mr. Cook could simply hand Mr. Cox a copy of the material that he's looking for. It talks about what's allowed in these various categories. It seems like a simple thing. MR. REICHHART: Also, the Comprehensive Plan is on the City's website. And you could look under the land use chapter and it would identify what is intended to be permitted uses and the neighborhood centers Page 275 1 the next speaker followed by Steve Pogue. If Mr. Pogue 2 could be on deck, I'd appreciate it. 3 MR. GORTON: chairman Rishel and members of 4 the Co~mnission, my name is Bob Gorton. I reside at 3821 5 Deer Forest Drive, Denton, Texas 76208. Commissioner 6 Mulroy's forethought as to postponing decision-making may 7 prove out my thoughts in that we appear to have a cart, a 8 horse, and we're not sure we have a race track to even run 9 them on. 10 And, also, looking at the proposal of a VD 11 zoning districts with concept plan zoning plan for that 12 purpose without having a lot of that information readily 13 available to myself. At this point in time, I'm going to 14 reserve a number of comments that are ingrained in my 15 heart. But I will speak to another issue about the land use category. MR. COX: All right. MR. REICHHART: But we can also get you a copy. MR. COX: One last comment about the five different tracks that are proposed for the multi-fmnily; is that density that's comparable to west of North Texas University campus, that's the density we're talking about, right? MR. REICHHART: The new development on 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 density intensity, what it might bring to our community. The lack of a fire station, the impact it will have on our public school systems, when at this point in time, the bonds for thc construction of schools may be available, and there are members of this Commission that are very keenly aware of this. We may not as a school district be able to staff additional schools. And I know growth is inevitable. But, again, looking at where the growth patterns are taking place, the fact that we do not have Page 274 Bonnie Brae? MR. COX: NO, thc existing -- west of thc actual university itself by Prairie Street. MR. REICHHART: owsley Addition. COMMISSIONER KEITH: You're talking about -- referring to what's called slab city? MR. COX: Yes, that's about the density that we're discussing, 18 units per acre? MR. REICHHART: I'd have to run some calculations before I could do a comparable. I believe that might even be a little bit higher than 18 units per acre. MR. COX: JUSt a major concern. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: still have another question. Co~ranissioner Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes, just as a point of information. In response to the question of the fire station, we have the cIP in the back of our booklet, and I don't find any reference to a fire station in the next five years anywhere in the City. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. Mulroy. Any further questions of Mr. Cox, any Cmrnnissioners? Thank you, Mr. Cox. MR. COX: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Gorton would be Page 276 1 school sites in the inunediate area to absorb those type of 2 student loads, I feel that to move forward with this type 3 of density will place undue burdens upon our school 4 district. And, also, I believe that a great deal of what 5 we see here and my record of having been on City Council 6 years ago with many PDS, a lot of other things coming 7 before us. It was pie in the sky. Those PDS still sit 8 out there. They still come before you-all and haunt you 9 late into thc night and early into the morning. And 10 they'll continue to do that if we look at those type of 11 designations. Because again, until the site plan, thc 12 footprint and everything else is approved, it's 13 supposition on my part. 14 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. 15 Cotton. Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Oorton? Can 16 we blame you for all those PDS, 190 something eDS we've 17 had through the -- 18 MR. GORTON: NO, I inherited that. 19 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Pogue. Is there 20 a Steve Pogue here? And followed by Vernon Dickson, Mr. 21 Vernon Dixon. 22 MR. POGUE: My name is Steve Pogue. I live 23 at -- 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: EXCUSe me. :25 MR. VOGUE: that's okay -- 3416 Hillview PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19TH, 2001 Page 273 - Page 276 Condons¢ItTM Page 277 1 Street. And my home is to the west of the proposed 2 development. Just two quick points. The first relates to 3 consistency as the architect talked about. Nearly this 4 entire area is single family homes. There is very little, 5 if any, multi-family homes. There's no commercial 6 development. We're miles away from the nearest grocery 7 store and the nearest drug store and strip mall and we've 8 liked it like that, and we'd like to continue to keep the 9 area as single family homes, so we would propose the least 10 for the entire area west of 288 that the restrictions be 11 to single family homes. 12 Secondly, it's just related to mobility. 13 As you begin to go down Loop 288 from University and head 14 down towards the mall, it's one way each way. It's 15 currently gridlock and if we allow development to occur 16 soon before Texas Depamnent of Transportation works with 17 the City to allow thc widening of 288, we're going to 18 encounter even more problems, so we would ask that any 19 future development be delayed until Loop 288 is widened. 20 Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, sir. 22 Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Pogue? Conuaissioner 23 Keith. 24 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. Mr. Pogue, 25 I agree with you on the 288 deal, but I think has been the Page 278 1 fault of the City lack of real working with the State. We 2 had -- ten years ago we had a chance to widen that up and 3 we had a City Council ten years kill the opportunity to 4 widen that up. And for this developer to be put on hold 5 on that should be -- is something I think might be a 6 little bit of a stretch on that. I can understand your 7 concern. It's my concern too, and I live up on that side 8 of town as well. And I agree with you, 288 is a 9 gridlock. But that is something a past City Council is 10 killing, the expansion ten years ago. That's where the 11 grief should be laid, and not upon this property owner. :12 MR. POGUE: well, I didn't mean that 13 against the developer. I just felt like the conditions 14 being what they are, they're just going to increase in the 15 future and if you lay a lot of development on until 16 that -- 17 COMMISSIONER KEITH: I agree with you. But 18 I just think for everybody that's up there and is 19 concerned with that, I'm kind of presenting a little bit 20 of the history of the community as to where that point of 21 grief should be directed at is in past city councils. And 22 we had the opportunity, and the State was going to do 23 something then, and the City -- 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: cormnissioner Keith, 25 is there a question for the -- Page 279 1 COMMISSIONER KEITH: SO, anyway, thank you 2 very much. 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very much. 4 I have another card from Mr. Vernon Dickson. Is there 5 anyone else that would like to speak after Mr. Dixon, if 6 you'd move toward the front, I would appreciate it. Mr. 7 Dixon, give us your name and address if you would. 8 MR. DICKSON: I'm Vernon Dickson and I live 9 at 3213 Staghorn Circle. If you come in on Kings Row on 10 the east side, our cul-de-sac backs up to Dr. Wolski's 11 property. And if you go out in my front yard and kind of 12 look off to the left, you can see those beautiful Oak 13 trees that are out there. And we definitely want to keep 14 that view. We don't want to have a big aparunent complex 15 over there that we have to look at and stuff. 16 I have a couple of other points and I'll 17 make them real brief because I know everybody's ready to 18 go home. I am concerned about the closing of Kings Row 19 just because of the traffic. If you would like to come 20 stand on my cul-de-sac about 7:45 any weekday when 21 school's going on, you'll know what I'm talking about. 22 The traffic backs up both directions. We really do need 23 two access paths into the neighborhood. I'm not really 24 opposed to development. I would like to see comparable 25 homes built as a buffer zone to ours. Ours is on the very Page 280 1 outer edge of the Deerwood Addition. 2 You know, that would be my only concern. I 3 really don't want to see a lot of little homes put in 4 there. I'd like to keep our property values up. And 5 that's really all I had. 6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Let me see if the 7 Commissioners have any questions of Mr. Dickson. 8 Co~mnissioners, any questions of Mr. Dickson? Thank you, 9 Commissioners. Mr. Dickson, thank you very much sir. 10 Once again, I've gone through the cards 11 that would like to speak, and anyone else who would still 12 like to speak, if you would come forward, and give us your 13 name and address. 14 MS. TIVIS: I'm Tonya Tivis and I live at 15 3910 Deer Forest. Several of my neighbors have spoken 16 this evening. And, basically, I just want to, I guess, 17 give my or have y'all know my opinion of this. And my 18 opposition to this has a lot to do with Windsor Road and 19 the closing of Kings Row. I'm not so much opposed to the 20 development along Loop 288 because, I would, too, like to 21 have a grocery store that was locatext out close on our 22 side of town. But it is important to me that in that 23 buffer zone that they do have comparable houses to our 24 houses over in the Deerwood addition. 25 Basically, I guess I'm a little confused PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19TH, 2001 Page 277 - Page 280 CondcnscItTM 5 6 7 8 get around easier and ride their bikes, and walk and hike 9 and all this, but, yet, let's close off access to the main 10 part of town for these people. And, you know, have the 11 police drive down these hiking trails or the fire 12 department come down the bicycle trails to get to us. I'm 13 just not quite in agreement with that. 14 And, also, I'm not quite so sure -- I live 15 right there on the comer ~- where Kings Row and Ferris 16 intersect, so Windsor will be in my back yard. And that 17 may not be a big concern to our developer, but it is a big 18 concern to me and my four children. And we can't hardly 19 keep the cars on the road as it is right now. They've 20 ended up in the Cox' back yard. They've ended up -- I 21 can't tell you how many skid marks I have on our back 22 sidewalk, but, yet, my three year old plays in her play 23 yard out there. And then you want to widen it from a 24 country road to a four-lane major road and add thousands 25 of people over there. Page 281 after hearing the approval of the Mobility Plan and so forth to have all these more connecting streets for all these neighborhoods and stuff, but, yet, this is wanting to close us off to one access and add thousands and thousands of people over into that area, but only give us one route to go. And I find contradictive that y'all are saying on one hand let's make it to where everybody can Page 283 1 who would like to speak either for or against this item on 2 our Agenda, if you would please come forward at this time. 3 Anyone else for or against, if you'd please come forward. 4 Give us your name and address. 5 MR. KEATON: Kenneth Keaton. I live at 6 2537 East Windsor Drive. I'm the next to the last house 7 on east Windsor Drive there. This correspondence that I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 282 8 received which was dated December the 10th was the first 9 correspondence, formal correspondence that I have received 10 about this new zoning and the buildings that am to be 11 built out there. And I'm very concerned about this. I 12 moved here three years ago, and east Windsor Drive was an 13 ideal place for me to live because there were no multi- 14 family homes very close to me. The closest is probably 15 half a mile or three quarters of a mile away so it's a 16 very good neighborhood to live in and I'd like to preserve 17 that. 18 I'm very concerned about now we'll be 19 coming out on Windsor and right next to my house. I guess 20 that's all I have. 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. 22 Keaton. Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Keaton? 23 Thank you very much, sir. 24 MR. KEATON: Thank you. 25 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: once again, anyone Page 284 Now, like I say, it's not a concern maybe to the developer, but it is a concern to me and my neighborhood, and I just want to voice my opinion about that. And, also, it's kind of hard for us to say whether we approve or disapprove of what's going to bc out there when we don't really know. I mean, there's not a specific plan. Okay. They're saying that they're willing to change the Windsor comes in or whatever, but nobody's willing to show us what they're willing to do. I need to sec it black and white. I'm not familiar with y'alls procedures. So just someone telling me that is not comfortable enough for me. I need to see it visually. I need to know that I'm not going to have some sort of race car track or whatever out there. I mean, I need to know that because this is my home. It may only be a $200,000.00 home to me, but that's everything to me. And it's not that way to a million dollar developer. And so I really want y'all to take into consideration the little people and not just who's going to make the big buck~ off of it because it affects lots of people that are just your average, middle income people. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Ms. Tivis. Colmnissioners, any questions of Ms. Tivis? Thank you very much. Once again, this is a public hearing. Anyone else 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 else who would like to address the Commission regarding either for or against Item No. 15 or Item No. 16 at this time. Anyone for or against? I have a whole series of cards of people that were against the project, at least, I think they were all against. Pm going to go through thou name and address. The first one that I have is from a Jeff Kruger at 3841 Grant Parkway. Concerns were traffic and drainage and density issues and multi-family concerns. And regard to -- and concerns regarding the schools and overcrowding. I have a Chaflice Kruger, at 3841 Grant Parkway, traffic concerns, impact on schools, and concerned with density. Andrew Collins at 3202 Saints Court Circle. Is concerned about the multi-family use and the single-family zoning and the density and, perhaps, not receiving notice. Daniel and Diane Bawcom, B-a-w-c-o-m, at 2525 East Windsor Drive. Concerns regarding not receiving adequate infonuation and specific development plans regarding the future use. Colleen Fisher at 3106 Saints, plans were not specific enough and had several concerns regarding the multi-family building. Paul Caplinger at 2517 East Windsor. Not enough information and was concerned about his notification, and overcrowding. Laura Dodson at 3921 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19TH, 2001 Page 281 - Page 284 CondcnscltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 285 Grant Parkway. Too much multi-family and a concern about the schools in acconunodation to that. Raymond Arnold at 3845 Grant Parkway, concerned about traffic, drainage and the multi-family development. Rod Dodson at 3921 Grant Parkway was concerned about the multi-family and the schools and being able to acconuuodatc the children. Pat Gobble at 3901 Grant Parkway, too high of density for this neighborhood area. Bobby Reed at 3913 Grant Parkway, no conunents but opposed to the project. Rhonda Reed at 3919 Grant Parkway, once again, no comments but opposed to the development. Nancy Lillie at 3800 Dcerfield, concerned about the density in the apartments, concerned about the traffic and the overall impact of the values of the neighborhood. Dayna McMillan at 3112 Deerfield, feels that thc -- is concerned about the proposed zoning on 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Page 287 that's a map change and the zoning issues. And I think it wouldn't serve anybody if we went forward with one without a full understanding by the neighborhoods of how the issues in it play, and a better understanding of what is being proposed both in the map change and the zoning, and an opportunity to relook at the densities. So I make a motion that we continue the map change proposal to January 23rd. COMMISSIONER POWELL: second. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: okay. I have a motion from Commissioner Mukoy and a second from Commissioner Powell. I'd ask Mr. Reichhart to clarify for us so that we might be able to move a little bit further done the mad when we come back on our next session. MR. REICHHART: we've gotten some, I think, pretty good input on multi-family, just traffic concerns and some broad issues. I didn't know if there was any Kings Row neighborhood and Loop 288 and concerns regarding traffic and the school district and access. And Anita Ferguson at 3606 Antler Circle, concerns regarding the Deerwood neighborhood and concerned whether we gave proper information and with the Mobility Plan and how it's going to affect their neighborhood. Excuse me. I had a couple of other cards that did have conunents that expounded from the front to Page 286 the back and I just want to make sure I got those. This is regarding Daniel and Diane Bawcom, further concerns with regard to the development beyond single family was not acceptable and the no extension of Windsor Drive and multi-family concerns. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 specific concerns that we wanted to relay to the applicant regarding the Comprehensive Plan change. Staff had made the reconunendation regarding the employment center and maintaining that buffer. Is thc proposed size too big? I know it is rela~l to traffic and other issues. Is there any direction that we can provide the applicant to start investigating? COMMISSIONER RISHEL: rm going to take Page 288 1 them in the order that I see them. Commissioner Keith. 2 COMMISSIONER KEITH: I was just going to 3 ask that if the applicant wanted to make any closing 4 comments before we move along. I thought that was normal 5 process that before we start making motions that he could 1 2 3 4 5 6 And then Colleen Fisher had further 7 concerns regarding -- since Denton has many areas of 8 multi-family, this neighborhood's two schools are not 9 prepared to handle the influx of multi-family. 10 Once again, this is a public hearing. 11 Anyone else that would like to cmmuent either for or 12 against this item, these two items on our Agenda, Item No. 13 15 and Item No. 16. Commissioners, once again, we're 14 going to continue this to a next date certain. That will 15 be January 23rd and if there's no other comments from 16 Commissioners -- I see that I have a few conuuents from 17 Co~muissioners. Cormuissioner Mulroy. 18 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes, sir, Mr. Chair, 19 the first item, the Comp Plan map change was not included 20 in the previous motion to continue for the next meeting or 21 the second meeting in January. After hearing from the 22 audience and the stack of cards that came in, I don't -- I 23 believe it would be in everybody's interest to make the 24 same motion for the map change because what I have heard 25 is a lack of COlmuunication and we do have two issues, 6 come in and make any rebuttals. 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: That's a good point. 8 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: My error. Would 10 everyone be receptive to that? Excuse mc. 11 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, members. My name 12 is Jeff Kruger. I also reside in this area. My address 13 is 3905 Dcerforest and I represent the applicant along Il 4 with Mr. Weltie, one of the things I want to make very 15 clear is from the school district impact a lot of the 16 things that -- a lot of the concerns that the neighborhood 17 has brought up are not really concerns that are within our 18 realm. 19 The road at the corner of Windsor where it 20 ties into Fcrris is part of thc Denton -- City of Denton 21 Mobility Plan which we don't really care where that road 22 goes. We literally -- if y'all want us to move it over, 23 we'll be more than happy to and if it will make the 24 neighborhood happy, we've said that all along. We want to 25 do what the neighborhood wants. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19TH, 2001 Page 285 - Page 288 CondcnsoltTM Page 289 1 Somebody mentioned the density issues, you 2 know, we have considered where we live, our physical 3 zoning is SF-7. We're looking at three units. The 4 developer has issued he wants three units over here. 5 Everything is compatible to the surrounding area. The 6 only argument that holds true is no, there is no multi- 7 family anywhere to be found out there, however, we're 8 talking about Loop 288, and I don't know too many people 9 that went to build sizable homes on Loop 288. 10 The only homes that you see being built 11 there are the exact kind of homes that they're afraid of, 12 the little cracker box homes that are in the 80s and the 13 90s, which is something that we don't want to be a part of 14 this development. We want this development to be 15 identical if not larger than some of the other little 16 developments that are located around it. 17 I mean, we've gone so far as to, you know, 18 we're looking at not selling, limiting the mnount of lots 19 that we'll sell each builder so there won't be any, you 20 know, more identical style home in there. They'll each 21 have their own personal flair like the kind that we have 22 over in Deerwood. We want to -- from the density 23 standpoint, I think that as far as the single family 24 housing goes, we have excellent. We have probably one of 25 the best densities of any development that you've seen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 290 before you. This is really good stuff. But the multi-fmnily, I don't know of any other use that you could possibly do with this. You can't see it from -- you certainly won't be able to see the multi-family from any of the existing neighborhoods because they're too far away. They certainly can't be seen through the growth. You heard Mr. Weltie testify earlier that because of the growth through here and the flood plain area, you can't see any of the -- you can't see the highway; you can't see the Loop, and the -- as far as the business goes, I heard somebody say, they moved out there because they wanted to drive all the way across town to go to the grocery store, and they wanted to not have a strip center. I, for one, want to be able to have -- I want a drycleaner. I don't want to have to drive all the way across town to buy a loaf a bread or whatever or to drop off my suits at the cleaner and my shirts. There's a lot of us that want those things up there. We have tried our begt to meet with all the people in that area, if we've missed one or two, it certainly wasn't because we had any secrets that we were trying to hide or people we were trying to exclude, those things just happened. We got the list from the City. We did our best to contact everyone involved. And the current list 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 291 that the City got, that mailed out their own, they mailed out over 300 or close to 300 notices and they got less than 2.3 percent back in opposition. I think those are really good numbers. We've worked with staff diligently on coming up with problems that they have with our deal. If that 1,350 units is too much for the City of Denton, then I think the market place will determine that. I think -- this is not going to happen overnight. This is going to happen over a ten year period. There will be a ten year buildout on this i'D. And so I think the market will determine how many units are there or not. We want that availability so that we can have a little bit of leeway to help make our development stronger. As far as the school district goes, they're going -- they're six sites planned along the 380 corridor. This school that's over here in the Deerwood subdivision is not a neighborhood school. 90 percent of those children that go to that school are bussed in there and they all come from the 380 corridor that's out east of town in the Nave, and Cross Roads and Oak Point area. I'm personally working on another development in the Cross Roads area that is donating a school site, and we're working on an agreement with the school to build a school out there on this development. Page 292 If that happens, all that's going to do is free up more space in that school for the local kids to begin to go there. There's also a planned site just down the street near the Stuart Road and Sherman Drive deal on that site where the athletic complex is proposed to be built. There's an elementary site there. And I mean, we're including a lot of mixed use and commercial and light industrial in this to help offset the burden that the school district usually gets because there's not enough commercial and industrial development going on here. So we're proposing that to help offset that and help the school district as well. I think one final note, the -- I don't anticipate the fire department having trouble getting to my house just because if they do close off Kings Row, and here again, it's a complaint that is kind of thrown at us. But we have no say in that. That's a City matter. And if it were up to us we would leave it open. But it's not up to the developer. But with the improvements that would be made on the overpass, it would actually become ahnost null and void as far as timing-wise. It probably -- it's not going to make it faster, but I don't think it will make it slower about getting to this area because of -- a lot of times a lot of the backup, I believe most of the traffic PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19TH, 2001 Page 289 - Page 292 Condcnsclt m Page 293 1 will be headed in either a northerly or southerly 2 direction. 3 I think a flow is not going to affect any 4 of these neighborhoods. So I think we have that pretty 5 much from our traffic studies, the ones we show, and, yes, 6 there has been a traffic study, and we're currently 7 working with the City to acconux~odate them more on that. 8 So we really have done and we're willing to do more. 9 We'll meet with each individual homeowner that has a 10 problem and request and we'll sit down with them, but I 11 just want you to know we've worked on this thing a very, 12 very long time. 13 We have not purposely in any way tried to 14 exclude anyone and we want to be a partner out there. 15 And, you know, I don't plan on moving anywhere. I live 16 out there and I want it to be a nice area and I think it 17 will be. So we really have tried to be very, very patient 18 through this process. But we really would like to see 19 something done. I'm not asking you to do anything 20 tonight, I'm just telling you we'd like to see this move 21 forward and not have to continue to meet and to meet and 22 to meet because it is very, very frustrating. 23 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Kruger, I have 24 several people that have questions for you. Connnissioner 25 Mulroy. Page 295 1 because, you know, I think it's probably workable, but I 2 think it's going to take a lot of citizen discussion and 3 input and cooperation from everyone. And I think the more 4 you-all put out, information-wise, the better off everyone 5 will be. Thanks. 6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Roy. 7 COMMISSIONER ROY: Yeah. My comments were 8 similar to Commissioner Holt's. You very eloquently 9 explained your position and what you thought ought to 10 happen from this moment on. It was a useful smnmary, but 11 you did say you were willing to talk to members of the 12 conununity, but I thought that was probably the weakest 13 part of your smmnary. And I would like a little stronger 14 commitment for you to communicate with the members of the 15 community who have come out here tonight and stayed until 16 2:00 o'clock or so to express their opinion. 17 It's sort of like Ms. Holt said, I think 18 there's -- probably there's -- a lot can be resolved by 19 just making a little bit more effort to take into 20 consideration what was said tonight and work these issues. 21 And if it requires you to have to sit down with the staff 22 and work the transportation issues, I think it would be to 23 your benefit to work them a little harder, rather than 24 just saying the City is saying do this because I think you 25 could make this project more acceptable and get rid of a Page 294 1 COMMISSIONER MULROY: He answered my 2 question. He projected a ten-year build-out. 3 Conm~issioner Powell. 4 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mine was a comment 5 not directed at Mr. Kruger. I'll wait until he's 6 finished. Commissioner Holt. 7 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Yes. Mr. Kruger, 8 I have a suggestion for the developer. This map that's up 9 here now, we don't have that in our back up and that's 10 really a pretty good map and that shows exactly what 11 you're going to do, where you plan to put it. I would 12 suggest that you have lots of those made. Each of those 13 areas have what could possibly be put in that area whether 14 it's cmmnercial and list the cmmx~ercial things that are 15 supposed -- that could be brought to that area and 16 distributed to the homeowners around there because I think 17 the more that people know about it and understand about 18 it, the better. And, also, do something else with Windsor 19 Road. Obviously, people don't like that. I mean, if it 20 could be brought all the way over to Mayhill, go out that 21 way or something. 22 MR. KRUGER: That's up to -- actually up to 23 y'all. That's not up to us. 24 COMMISSIONER HOLT: well, then work with 25 the City and say, let's come up with another plan for that Page 296 1 lot of the problea~s if you would take a little bit of 2 pro-activeness if that's a good word to work with the 3 City, to work this connectivity issue. That would be my 4 recommendation. 5 MR. rmUaER: Yes, sir. And, again, I will 6 reiterate the fact that a lot of these problems that we're 7 having is being created by the City. And I don't mean 8 that in a negative light, all I'm saying is we have done a 9 lot of things and talked and already spoke to a lot of the 10 people. And most of thc problems, not every problem they 11 have with this development, most of the problems are 12 driven by the City, not by the developer or the 13 development. And therein lies the problem. That's why it 14 has taken us a great deal of time and energy to get this 15 far. 16 And I appreciate what you're saying. We 17 will, you know, tighten our belts up and get after it 18 harder. But we have a lot of -- the real negative 19 complaints really has nothing to do with -- 20 COMMISSIONER ROY: Just a follow-up -- 21 excuse me. A follow-up on that, my understanding from thc 22 City staff is that the connectivity plan is not cast in 23 stone. And, perhaps, it was explained to you that it was. 24 But I believe you were here earlier tonight and you heard 25 that it was not cast in stone. And if there's any [~LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19TH, 2001 Page 293 - Page 296 CondenscltTM Page 297 1 question on that, we can ask the transportation 2 representative to clarify that. But I heard that they're 3 willing to work these issues. And if you didn't 4 understand that, I think that's the answer that they are 5 willing to work on these. It may turn out that this is 6 still the best way, their initial idea, but I think we 7 have to work very hard on this because of the concerns 8 we've heard tonight. 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: cmmnissioner Keith. l0 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. Yes, Mr. 11 Kruger, regarding connecting, you know, Kings Row, who 12 owns the property as you go up Loop 288, you've got that 13 yellow and blue. I heard one of the people that live in 14 the area said that land is owned by whom? 15 MR. KRUGER: I think they're referring to 16 this section of land up here above Kings Row, EDS, it's 17 actually a trust from one of their -- investment trust 18 that they make for -- whether it's a retirement. 19 COMMISSIONER KEITH: what is the 20 possibility of rather than having and it might work to 21 your favor of the Old North Road, if a service road was 22 connected to the existing Kings Row and brought down to 23 Windsor, along parallel to the highway? 24 MR. KRUGER: That would be obviously a 25 staff decision. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 298 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Yeah, it would be a staff decision on that. Another suggestion I would make is you've made a point that you contend that many of the problems that are being presented by folks in the area are generated duc to demands or expectations by the City. Would you be willing to make a detailed list of those? MR. KRUGER: I think they're addressed in our -- in the staff report. I mean, they're pretty much addressed. What I mean by that and I want to be careful -- COMMISSIONER KEITH: YOU're not being negative. I just want to -- I think for clarification -- MR. KRUGER: I'm not trying to be negative. What I'm trying to say is because of and I shouldn't just single out the staff, I should just simply say because of City rules and regs -- COMMISSIONER KEITH: That ~ s what I'm referring to. MR. KRUGER: -- that it has -- and in this case it really has to do with the fact that the new Comprehensive Plan, you're in the middle of all of this and here we're delayed again over it because of that. And then it's just kind of mounted up, just little bitty things over time have become very -- COMMISSIONER KEITH: The reason why I was 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 299 suggesting that is so -- as another Commissioner was recommending that communication, that the citizens can also see the conflict, that it's not generated by the developer. And that was my suggestion on that because, you know, you want to get cooperation from all three parties, the developer, the existing homeowners and the City, so there's got to be compromises made from all areas. And so I'm just saying okay let's put what's required where and what's being required from where and clear the air on that. Would that be possible? MR. KRUGER: I think yeah. We probably have something like that already. COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Powell. Yes, sir, just a conunent. That it's after 1:30 in the moming and we're going to have this on our Agenda again. Let's get out of here. Let's cut to the chance and get this moving. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, any further questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Kruger. Once again we are continuing the public hearing to a date certain which is January 23rd and that's a motion. We have a motion on the floor and the motion was moved by Conunissioner Mulroy and seconded by Commissioner Powell. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 please. COMMISSIONER ROY: Repeat the motion Page 300 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: conunissioner Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes. We wanted to continue Item 15. That's the comprehensive map change proposal to our second meeting in January, date certain January 23, 2002. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further questions or discussions, Co~mnissioners? If not, please vote. Motion carries 6-0 of the Commissioners present. Item 17 on the Agenda is discussion future plans for a possible Cormnissioners retreat and we may bring this up -- is there an idea here? COMMISSIONER MULROY: we don't spend enough time together already? COMMISSIONER RISHEL: seeing no farther comment, we are adjourned. (End of proceedings.) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19TH, 2001 Page 297 - Page 300 ATTACHMENT 6 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 27, 2002 Continue a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, from Neighborhood Centers to Community Mixed Use Center and from Employment Centers to Neighborhood Centers. The area for amendment encompasses approximately 105 acres and is generally located on either side of Loop 288 north of Mingo Road, south of King's Row, east of Old North Road and west of Cooper Creek Road. A planned development containing a variety of single family, multifamily, retail, office and commercial uses is proposed. (CA01-0001 Windsor Oaks, Stephen Cook) Motion by Bob Powell and seconded by Susan Apple to continue to the P&Z meeting March 13, 2002. *Discussion of item is included in the Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 43 - 113). Motion carries 7-0 CondenseltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 41 one other aspect of it, my colleague has reminded mc that this would require -- one condition is that the cro~s bars as proposed by the applicant be installed and maintained according to the applicant's cmmrdtment. COMMISSIONER POWELL: second. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, it's been moved by Commissioner Roy and seconded by Co~mnissioner Powell. We have some discussion. Co~rmfissioner Apple. COMMISSIONER APPLE: I'll be voting against the motion. Though I appreciate Conmfissioner Roy's opinion, if we were going to do this, I would prefer to I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Page 43 water and not a flowing water. So I don't think the wellhead is going to be in danger of being really knocked over by even a large log. So I really appreciate you coming forward and I don't think werll be placing the Cily in danger of any more oops. This is an accident, but if it should happen, then we address them one at a time and manage them accordingly. Thank you very much. COMM[SSIONERRISHEL: COlnlllissioners, any further comments? Once again, we have a motion on the floor. A motion was made by Cotrm~issioner Roy and seconded by Couunissioner Powell. Seeing no further questions, would you please vote. Motion carries 4-3 of the rely on staff's recoira~endation as I know they've spent a lot of time on this and I know that they had the option of doing that and they chose not to. So if I had an option, I'd feel more comfortable going with theirs. And I'm also concerned about setting a precedent for an, oops, I didn't mean to drill in the floodplain and so we have more of this. So I will be voting against the motion. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I would colmnent and confirm the sm~e thing. Cmm~issioner Holt. COMMISSIONER HOLT: It just seems like that we are providing protection to the well but we, as P&Z members, need to remember that we are trying to protect from contmnination, too. Page 42 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes. Pm going to vote for the motion. I'd prefer raising it to the 100-foot level but the combination of the bol[ards and the ten-year level seeans a reasonable acconunodation of all the parties and all the concerns. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: cmr~nissioner Keith. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. I can see to the -- I'm going to yield to the empathy of the drillers. I can see where, when you came to this area, you're accustomed to doing business in another part of the 13 14 t5 i6 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Conm~issioners present. Thank you, Coffu~issioners. (COMMISSIONERS R[SHEL, APPLE AND HOLT VOTED IN OPPOSITION.) COMMISSIONER RISHEL: AS we mentioned in our change of our Agenda, we have akeady addressed Item No. 7 and Itmn No. 8 on our Agenda. That's going to bring us to Item No. 9 on the Agenda. And I think we'll probably take Items 9 and 10 together; is that correct, Mr. Reichhart, if you'd prefer? At least present those together and we will see those separately as motions, if we could. ~. RErCI~H~T: Thank you. I~ns No. 9 and 10 both relate to the Windsor Oaks development. Page 44 State that has a greater mnount of leniency in regards to drilling. That's the primary economy of that part of our State. I think that coming back to us and saying you were unaware of the ET.I, I know there's some people that live here in Denton today that have been here for years who are unaware that an extraterritorial jurisdiction even exists. So I can understand why, when you came in, that you feel like you didn't dig enough for it. I'm not going to hold that against you. I th~nk coming in with your proposal to put a middle grade to protect it from water flow, I think is quite adequate. And I agree with you that's -- I've been out to this site and any water that's going to come through there, it's just going to bc more of a rising 1 Item No. 9 is for the Comprehensive ['lan mncn&nent. 2 Item 10 is then the associated zoning after the 3 Comprehensive Plan. 4 Identified on the overhead is the subject 5 property. Outlined here is Loop 288 and University. 6 Kings Row is to the north. The areas hatched arc the 7 areas intended for the Comprehensive Plan change. 8 Cmxentty on the property, it's in tln'ee land use 9 categories. First is Neighborhood Centers which is the 10 l[ghler yellow, Employment Centers which is the pinkish- 11 purple, and then floodplains which is the green. What is being proposed is a reduction of the Employment Cenler and changing that to Neighborhood Centers and then creating a Community Mixed Use Center where the future Windsor extension will cross Loop 288 and that would be not quite centered on it but it would be located at that intersection. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Reichhar~, I'd like to thank you already for your explanation of pinkish- purple. That really clarlfled it for me and it's just a perfect descriplion. Thank you. MR. REICHHART: You're welcome. And, again, the companion item to this is the zoning. Thc intent of a Con~nunity Mixed Use Center is identified in the backup as the area where it would serve a large 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 41 - Page 44 CondcnseltTM Page 45 1 community as opposed to a small neighborhood. It would 2 have the shopping and some office and it could even have 3 multi-family associated with that. In the Comprehensive 4 Plan, those areas were identified as 30 acres or less. 5 Currently -- and, again, here's the subject site. We have 6 two Conm~unity Mixed Use Centers located in this vicinity 7 along the Loop, North Locust and the Loop and then Shcnunan 8 Drive and the Loop. There are two areas identified. 9 Although not identified is a Comnmnity Mixed Use Center, 10 this intersection of Loop 288 and University with the 11 proposed Albe~-tson's and then Prominence Square which is a 12 Mixed Use Development in the northwest quadrant. 13 Together, that area will start functioning llke a 14 Conununity Mixed Use Center. 15 Staff struggled with this application but 16 really feel that the concept of having a node where 17 Windsor will come across Loop 288 is a very good concept. 18 What we stntggled with is its size, which was originally 19 reported as 32 acres, that did not include the 20 right-of-way. If you include the right-of-way for Windsor 2I and all the other roads, that area is in excess of 40 22 acres. And we do continue these as gross areas, as you 23 can see though that this area is still less than some of 24 these other areas. 25 Another concern we had was that Loop 288 is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2I 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 47 14-acre NR-~ neighborhood residential tract which actually tile applicant has -- discussing with a church about purchasing that property. 40 acres of Ne-4 which is located here along the west side and 56 acres of NR-6 which is located along the east side here, and then 64 acres of Nt~m~J, }~cighborhood Residential Mixed Use zoning located here, as well as here. And you should have full sized copies ia your backup so that's probably more easily readable. The applicant is also proposing to maintain ec~. Employment Center zoning, on the tracts closest to Mingo. Since the Development Code was adoptcd, these tracts akeady have the requested zoning so they are not part of the zoning application. The requested zoning would allow a maximmn of 536 sing[e-family units and 863 multi-family units. I will note that this actually represents a reduction in multi-family density from what the applicant's original submittal proposed. Tile amount of multi-fmnily was originally 76 acres and 1,352 units. Now it's 64 acres and 863 units. Be that as it may, staff is still concerned about the density. It still seems excessive to us. I will point out that the Denton Plan encourages a single-family unit to multi-family unit ratio of 60 to 40. It envisions 60 percent single-family units and 40 percent Page 46 a major collector and, you know, Locust continues up north and gathm's in a large area, as does Sherman, the extension of Windsor~ There isn't a large population to the east right now that would draw in a lot of this from this area. But, cut to the quick, we do recommend approval of this Comprehensive Plan amendment. And I don't know if you'd Iike to answer questions now or let Thomas present tile zoning application and then answer questions, but we are available. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. Rcichhart. Thomas, would you care to present on the zoning part of this? MR. GRAY: Yes and good evening. As you may be aware, this case was originally a Planned Development zoning case. However, the new Devclopmeut Code which was adopted by Council earlier this month decs not allow the creation of any new Planned Developments so the original case had to be closed and reopened as a straight zoning case after the new Code was adopted. The applicant is proposing a variety of zoning classifications for ttds 215-acre tract. Approximately 40 acres, as Doug noted, I have this upside down, and I apologize, approximately 40 acres locaw, d right here is proposed to be aM-O, commercial Mixed Use. There's a Page 48 1 multi-family units within the City of Denton. What the 2 appIicant is requesting is basically a 62 percent 3 multi-family and 38 percent single-family ratio so it's 4 actually opposite of what the Denton Plan proposes. 5 MR. POWELL: If I may, I'd like to point 6 out that the -- 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Director ?owelL 8 MR. I'OW~nL: -- the numbers that Thomas is 9 referring to make the assmnption that the Co~mnunity Mixed 10 Use zoning would not bc used for multi-family; although it 11 can be. So there is the potential, because of the CM-O 12 zoning district, that you coutd have additional 13 multi-family units. t4 COMMISSIONER RISHEE: Thank you, Director. 15 MR. C~RAY: 'the applicant is proposing 16 multi-family densities at ahnost four units per acre in 17 Tract 7 which is located here and 17 units per acre in 18 Tract 8 which is located here. Now~ thc only zoning 19 district that would permit densities of this type is the 20 ~qRMU, ~eighborhood Residential Mixed Use zoning district, 21 which aIlows densities of up to 30 units per acre for 22 mu[ti-family development. 23 However, I want to emphasize that the lruc 24 purpose of ~qamu zoning is to contain a mlx of uses and to 25 provide a node of neighborhood services, not just PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 45 - Page 48 CondcnscltTM Page 49 1 nmlti-family but also offices and retail. It is not 2 intended to be a straight multi-family residential zoning 3 district and this is wily the Denton Development Code 4 places a limitation on multi-family zoning in Nr~MU. 5 Nmnber one, it requires a specific use pm'mit. And, 6 number two, it is required to be constructed as part of a 7 mixed use development. 8 The applicant is requesting 64 acres of 9 NRMU and this creates another poit~t of concern for staff 10 because the 64-acre ~[tMU located here and ha,e, as welt as 11 the 40-acm eM-O, conwnunity Mixed Use, essentially creates 12 a high intensity cmmnunity center of over 100 acres. This 13 would really function more like a Regional Mixed Use 14 Center which is defined in the Denton Plan as an intensity 15 area of being about 100 acres in size. And staff just 16 docs not feel that this much intensity is appropriate for 17 this area. 18 In the Denton Development Code, we have a 19 table showing the different types of cmmnunity activity 20 centers and the thresholds are supposed to support a 21 Neighborhood Mixed Use -- 22 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Can you give us what 23 page you're oa there? 24 MR. aP, AY: oh, yeah. This is page 44 of 25 the Denton Development Code, I'm sorry, the Denton 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 51 In discussions with City staff, the applicant has expressed that this NRMU area is down here, Tract 7 and 8, is necessary to buffer the Employment Center along Kings Row -- sorry, or along Mingo with the neighborhood residential along Kings Row. Staff does not disagree that there does need to be some buffering between your heavier commercial, light industrial uses down here and your residential uses up here. The question is Tract 7 and 8 being NRMU and Tract 6 and 9 being NR-6, that's a buffer of 55 acres, 656 residential units. Staff's question is does it need to be that big. Tract 11 here on the southwest side of the property is proposed to be NRMU, as well. However, the density the applicant is proposing here works out to 11.9 units per acre. That could be supported by NRMU-I2 zoning and staff would support that this tract right here be rczoned to NRMU-12. The mnount of NR-6 which is six units per acre single-family residential, is also a concern of staff. The applicant is proposing 56 acres of ~[~-6 over here along Cooper Creek Road. The question we have is, okay, certainly, some smaller lot residential is appropriate but does it need to be 56 acres and does it need to be along Cooper Creek Road right here where at this time there's really no development other than large lot residential. As Larry noted with the Comprehensive Page 50 i Comprensive Plan. 2 MR. POWELL: It'S the Denton Plan, not the 3 Code. 4 MR. GRAY: Yeah, it's in the Denton Plan. 5 I'm sorry. And a Neighborhood Mixed Use Activity Center 6 serves a neighborhood one square mile and 5,000 people. 7 It can be up to ten acres in size. A Courrnunity Mixed Use 8 Activity Center serves up to eight square miles and 40,000 9 people, tt can be up to 30 acres. As Larry noted, the 10 applicant is proposing a Cmmnunity Mixed Use Center of 40 I 1 acres, but this does include road rights-of-way. And then 12 a Regional Mixed Use Activity Cen~r serves as much as a 13 quarter million people and can be more than 30 acres in 14 size. So I want to emphasize that we have these three 15 different criteria as far as these activity centers are 16 concerned. 17 Both the N~MU and CM-O zoning are meant to 18 function as these nodes. The Conununity Mixed Use node 19 provides conununlty services while the Nelghborhood Mixed 20 Use node provides neighborhood services. What the 2I applicant is proposing, in effect, is a node of CM-O 22 surrounded by another node of NRMU. ^nd this really is 23 not the way the Denton Plan envisions the activity centers 24 to function. The community nodes and the neighborhood 25 nodes are intended to be independent of one another. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 .12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 52 Plan amenchnent, we support the applicant's idea of a cotrmmnity node right homo and we support the CM-O request. Our issue is just with the mnount of single-family or multi-family residential the applicant has proposed. Really, briefly, I want to note some other issues that the neighborhood has had with this and I do want to note that the applicant has met with the neighborhood several times. There were a couple of neighborhood mcctings last smmner. There was also a neighborhood meeting last month and I believe cmmncnts from that neighborhood meeting should be in your backup. The alignment of Windsor has been an issue for the applicant, staff, and the neighborhood. The Denton Mobility Plan anticipates that Windsor be aligned, to be extended across Loop 288 and then curve upward into Farris Road. The applicant is proposing instead to extend Windsor across Loop 288 to Cooper Creek Road. Staff does not have any objection to this realignment. I will note that there has been some neighborhood opposition, especially in tile neighborhoods to the west of this development regarding the extension of Windsor. Some residents would like it not to be extended at all. However, as I mentioned, this extension has always been part of tile Denton Mobility Plan and the idea is that it would come to pass regardless of what development occurred PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 49 - Page 52 CondenseltTM here. Page 53 I have some opposition and letters in favor that I have received recently since the time of your staff report. I will say that the opposition currently stands 5 at 1.8 percent. And I'll pass these around. 6 COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: Thank you, Mr. Gray. 7 We may have some questions of the Co~mnissioncrs. 8 Co~mnissioners, let me point out I have several cards of 9 people flint would like to speak so I prestone you havc 10 something specific, Conunissioner, for Mr. Gray. 11 Colmnissioner Roy. 12 COMMISSIONER ROY: JUSt a quick question. 13 There was a discussion before about Kings Row, was it 14 going to temfinate at 288. Has that been changed? Where 15 does Kings Row stand or is that out of this issue? 16 MR. ORA¥: ~cings Row, thc plan has always 17 been that once the connection across Loop 288 is built for 18 Windsor, Kings Row would be detached from Loop 288 and 19 that at grade intersection would be eliminated. There has 20 been discussion as to whether or not these feeder roads or 21 these access roads would be continued up to catch Kings 22 Row and allow, like, a right-turn in, right-tarn out 23 situation. But as of this time, thc Mobility Plan states 24 that Kings Row would be cut off once Windsor is built 25 across. Page 54 COMMISSIONER ROY: IS it fair to say that that is divorced from this development? MR. GRAY: Yeah. That actual intersection is located to the north of this development on property that's not owned by the applicant. COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL; colmnissioners, any further questions of Mr. Ch'ay? Cotmnissioner Kcith. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. Conunissioner Roy brought up the topic of the Kings Row. So, in essence, at this time the Kings Row program, that would be a future date certain, future date discussion as to its -- MI~. airY: sight. It would occur once the Windsor overpass is built and not before then. Obviously, the Kings Row extension across Loop 288 is the only access that this neighborhood has at this time. COMMISSIONER KEITH: I*m talking to the people on both sides of the highway that am up there and it's where I live, as well, i'm hearing a lot of opposition to that idea. And for the two bits on it at this moment please, if alt this development is going on and the apartments and the housing that's going to be going on in this area, that the access to Loop 288, that having just one location all funneled in down to Windsor Page 55 I is going to create a little bit of a log jam at rash hour 2 morning and evening. And so I think Kings Row needs to be 3 reconsidered as to its future for that reason. Thank you. 4 MR. aRA¥: r)avid Sahnon might have some 5 colmncnts on that, as well. 6 MR. ~OWnt~[: Thomas, if I may, with the 7 indulgence of the Conunission, as pointed out by our legal 8 counsel that the issue of Kings Row is not on your Agenda 9 tonight, it's not part of this application. We'd be happy 10 to provide you information regarding that project and 11 we'll try to include it in your next backup, but it really 12 isn't part of this posting and there's some concern that 13 we're straying away from the topic at hand. 14 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Director Powell, I 15 was -- I know we probably have several people in the list 16 of speakers that probably have some questions about Kings 17 Row and so I appreciate the clarification regarding that 18 and the fact that we need to stay on the topic that we're 19 with today. 20 But if there's a general clarification that 21 we can make that might eliminate some of the people that 22 might want to speak because they want to speak 23 specifically on the road situation, I would say if we 24 could do some sort of clarification shortly, that would -- 25 maybe that will help everyone. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 56 1 Cormnissioners, any further questions of Mr. 2 Gray? Seeing no further questions, this is a public 3 hearing. Would the petitioner like to address the 4 Commission? And, once again, I'd like to rem[nd everyone 5 that at this point in time we have consolidated Agenda 6 Items No. 9 and 10 for the discussion purposes at this 7 point in time. So when it comes to asking questions, I 8 will ~ake all those cards regarding either 9 or 10. 9 And at this point in time, we will discuss everything in 10 open and then we will address thcun via the Conunission when 11 they get to making a rcconunendation Item 9 and then 12 Iran 10, respectively. The petitioner, would you please 13 give us your name and address? 14 DR. WOLSKI: Yes. My name is Ed Wolski. I 15 live at 2301 Holly Hill in Denton. And this is Bob Welty, 16 he's our architect. I'm here to present our case and get 17 input from file Planning and Zoning Cmmnission. 18 We met with the neighborhoods and we talked 19 with individuals~ Some of the issues that we tried to 20 solve, right here is Quail Ridge and there was a problem 21 with Old North Road backing up to these lots. We moved 22 Old North Road out so there's a row of lots in the back so 23 they don't have Old North Road in their backyard anymore~ 24 Like Thomas said, there's a problmn with 25 tile Mobility Plan. A lot ot' people have had issues with PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 53 - Page 56 CondenseltTM Page 57 Loop. 1 the Mobility Plan and we can't do much about that. 2 Windsor is on the Mobility Plan. Right here, this is 3 NR-4, four units per acres, NR~4, fOLlr units per acre. 4 This is exactly the same size as the lots over here. So 5 tile existing neighborhoods have lots that are either the 6 same size or bigger. Over here next to Deerwood we've got 7 three units per acre which is, like, larger than the 8 Deerwood Addition lots. 9 This was -- there was an issue about 10 multi-family. We dropped our request by 38 percent. We 11 wcrc kind of thrown a curve ball by tile new nomenclature 12 for the Denton Development Plan. We were only asking 18 13 units an acre here and NRMU gives us 30. We don't want 14 30. We made an agremnent with the neighborhood if we can 15 get 18 here and if we can get 12 here, we'd be really 16 happy. 17 COMMISSIONER RISIIEL: would you enmuerate 18 those again? 19 DR. WOLSKI: okay. This one here. 20 COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: which one is this 21 one? 22 23 24 25 Da. WOCSKi: That's the one inside the COMM[SSIONERRISHEL: SO yourre saying Tract 11 which is -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 58 DR. WOLSKI: Let me give yOU -- may I approach the Corm~aissioners with some diagrmns? COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Please. Da. WOLSKI: If yOU have this one here, that will -- COMMISSIONER RISHEL: We don't have it in color detail like that. Go ahead and put it on the docucam. Da. WOLSKI: Okay. This is Tract 11 and right here is Cooper Creek so there's no houses fronting this area. There's Cooper Creek and a greenbelt here and here's the Loop, so it's between the creek and the Loop. There's a lot of truck traffic there. We don't see single-family being very desirable there. We've got 12 units an acre down from 30. And the neighbors we've 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 59 requested as multi-family and it's NR-4 now. This tract, we were not aware of the gross acre, net acre issue until yesterday, but we'd like to -- there's a beautiful stand of trees on this hill, we'd like to save a bunch of those. There's huge trees on there. And that will probably allow us to do that. Right here, we've got, on this side, we've got -- this is all currently zoned -- COMMISSIONER RISHEL: what tract are you speaking of?. DR. WOLSKI: I'm sorry. This is Tract 7, 5, 6, 9, 8, and 12 are all currently zoned Industrial. We're asking to downzone that 72 acres of that, 15 levels of intensity, to residential, NRMU-12. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Including 12 which is already -- DR. WOLSKI: 12 is -- we're going to [cave that Industrial. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: But yOU just included it in the numbering sequential you gave me there. DR. WOLSKI: I'm sorry. That's -- well, you asked -- I was just pointing out what's Industrial right now. We're going to leave 12 Industrial. We're not going to change everything to NaMCr-12. We made an agreement with the residents and we want to keep it. We said we'll try to get 18 units closer into the Loop and Page 60 I we'd have s~-6 and s~-4 further out, and that's consistent 2 with the Development Plan. They want a gradient of 3 intensity. You want to go high intensity to lower 4 intensity. So we'll do that. The Denton Development Plan 5 allows us shifting of densities so we'll have low density 6 here and higher density up here to keep our agreeanent with 7 the neighborhood. 8 If you look at the -- if you puli up on the 9 interact, the wcbsite, the zoning map on the web shows all 10 this area being NRtauq2 so we're just trying to continue 11 that pattern of NRMU-12 through to the Loop. Again, tike 12 I said before, it's all Industrial right now and we're 13 trying to downzone this 15 levels of intensity. And the 14 neighborhood is happy with that. They'd rather see cars 15 rather than semi trucks in their neighborhood and they'd talked to were fine with that level of zoning. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: This is still on Tract No. 127 DR. WOLSKI: It'S Tract 11 right here. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: 11, excuse me. DR. WOLSKI: That's inside the Loop, north of Cooper Creek. That area, we had an issue with the drainage there that some folks thought we would flood Cooper Creek. We're going to keep all the drainage on-site. This area here, that's Tract 10, was initially 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rather sec rooftops rather than factories. The other issue, llke Thomas poinled out, this was a major issue and we thought we had no control over it but David Sahnon came through last time we had a lot of neighbors speak against Windsor connecting to Farris, and David agreed to change the Mobility Plan to where it doesn't connect into Fan:is. It's not a main connector. So that made a lot of people happy. That's about it. And I'd like to have input from file Colmnissioners and from the audience. If PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 57 - Page 60 CondcnscltTM 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 i1 12 13 14 15 16 t7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 61 there's any questions, I'll answer those, too, with the help of Bob. COMMISSIONER R[SIIEL: On yonr team, Dr. Wolski, you have Mr. Welty. WouId Mr. Welty like to add anything? MR. WELTY: My name is Bob Welty, 5207 McKinney Avenue, Dallas, Texas. One or two other things Page 63 I will, indeed, elect to support our request tonight. 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very much. 3 Once again, this is a public hearing. I have several 4 cards of people that would like to speak. I'm still -- 5 and let me restate the fact that if anyone still has a 6 question about Windsor Road, we will be addressing Windsor 7 Road at another mom appropriate time. If we could stay in that packet we included for you, an actual location of the existing trees on this site. Again, I assmne most of you are familiar with the site but it is a beautiful site. One of the prettiest, I think, in Denton. Rolling terrain with many large stands of mature trees, beautiful in every way, and it's been our intent from day one to maintain the integrity of this site, to not cut it off in flat grades, to maintain the trees. And our plan, as developed from our road locations to exactly where and how we've left the trees has accomplished that, we think. As Dr. Wotskl pointed out, we have worked very closely and numerous times with our neighbors all around us and I think many of them will speak to that fact tonight, that the plan we arc presenting has, indeed, addressed their concerns, has achieved appropriateness of densities and uses adjacent to their homes and subdivisions. Further, there were, as Dr. Wolski pointed 8 with Item No. 9 and Item No. 10 on our Agenda. I 9 don't know whether file neighborhoods have a specific 10 spokcsperson or should I just go through the cards as I 11 have them. 12 MR. SNYDER: YOU don't need a card. 13 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Don't necessarily 14 need a card but there's cards if you'd like to speak right 15 out front there. Dr. Wolski. 16 OR. WOkSKt: wade Lillie is head of the 17 neighborhood association at Dccrwood. 1 8 COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: Thank you. I have 19 several cards at this point in time and being no one has 20 come forth as -- Mr. Lillie, would you like to speak 21 first? Please. As a rc:presentative for file neighborhood 22 and a major voice, at least one of several voices, if 23 you'd care to adch'ess the Commission. Please give us your 24 name and adda~ss. 25 Ma. [milE: xhank you. My name is Wade Page 62 out, some road concerns that we think we have also addressed. We did have, as a part of our team, Deshazo, Tang and Associates who are probably the most recognized traffic consultants in the State of Texas and perhaps the country, do our traffic impact analys~s. And we know that our ohs and offs of Loop 288 are appropriate and safe and have been run by the TXDOT people, as well as David Salmon. And if you chose to take the time and would like to do that, I could walk you through each and every tract tonight and tell you why it's appropriate, but I think Iqt not do that unless that's requested. I remember we were here until about 3:00 o'clock last meeting and we'll try not to make that happen tonight. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. Go ahead. MR. WELTY: But our request -- again, we were quite surprised and shocked when we heard the staff's recmmnendation for denial as of 4:00 o'clock last Friday. Again, we had been working with the staff and the neighbors for months on this project and that's really the first negative COlrunents we got back that we hadn't addressed and didn't have time to address. So we're hopeful that when you hear thc neighbors and understand more about what we're trying to do here and the quality of development we're trying to bring to your City, that you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ~8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 64 Lillie. I live at 3800 Deer Forest and I am president of the Deerwoed Neighborhood Association. Some of the information that we are receiving this evening is probably a complication of the changeover from the old plan to the new plan. When we met -- when we had a neighborhood association meeting and Dr. Wotski and his team came and met with us, the plan that was presented that had the various tracts with the residential, and I'll speak specifically to the east side of the Loop, with the Neighborhood Residential 4 with the 3 up next to Kings Row, I believe that's Tract 1, and then Tract 4 coming down Neighborhood Residential 6, Tract 5 is an NR-6. dropping south from there with a Tract 6, NR-6, and then moving to Tract 9, NR-6. Tract ~- I'm not sm,e I can read that, it looks like a Tract 7 perhaps where the green area is where the trees are. COMMISSIONER RISItEL: That is 7 and right below that is 12. MR. LILL[E: okay. Tract 7 and then below that 12. The things that wac represented to us at that meeting we felt were appropriate and they were fair. I don't know what the change of nomenclature is going to do to that. We have not been given enough notice to realIy be able to analyze for ourselve~ what this means, We know what wc felt like we had an agrcranent with the developer PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 61 - Page 64 CondenseItTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 65 regarding what was going to happen with this and we felt like it was acceptable. We felt tike that they had made a nmnber of changes. They had listened to the concerns. Some of the major concerns regarding Windsor coming across Page 67 if all these in this whole area gets converted to NRMU-12, yOU have the same density issue. It veanoves the argument or the concern that staff has that this is, you know, 100 acres of community mixed use where you would have some and tying directly into Farris, we felt that that was not going to be a good thing and that that has been addressed, we hope satisfactorily. But some of thc changes they're talking about tonight with the nomenclature, quite frankly, I'm a little uneasy with because I don't know exactly what that means. And so if there's a way that we can make sure that that is locked in as to what the intent was from our meeting that we had previously with the developer, we're going to have to trust P&Z to make sure that we get those things written in as they were intended both fi'om the developer and frmn the understanding of the neighborhood. And I know that we have several that sent in written co~mnents. I think I attached those to cards and sent those. They will not be speaking but they did want to send written cmmnents. And I think all of those were in support of the plan as was presented at the neighborhood meeting. And then I know that we have other members of the neighborhood who would like to speak and maybe can add some different -- a different angle to some of this and some different concerns, as well. Page 66 COMMISSIONER R|SHEL: Mr. Lillie, let me suggest that we bring staff back up and ad&ess Tracts No. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 t4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 retail development associated with these NRMU. It is the same density issue that we've expressed all along that we are concerned about the number of multi-fmnily units on this site. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And tile ratiO~ MR. REICHHART: It removes that huge mixed use imbalance but it still is the density balance that we're still struggling with. And I don't know if we would have a recommendation one way or tile other. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: would you propose that the Wolskis and staff do some more work on this to represent at this point in time now that you know there's some confusion here? I know we'd like to move along with this, as everyone on our Co~mniss[on would, and I'm sure thc Wolskis would. But there is definitely some, I don't know, either misinformation or unclarification for the homeowners, as well as what we have presented here~ What is your rccormnendation? MR. REICm~T: what I would also like, and staff is more than willing to keep working with the applicant, is to get some direction from this body as to Page 68 I your comfort level or your concerns. I mean, if you have 2 the stone concerns we have regarding the density, about 1 2 3 5, 6, 9, 8~ and 7. Dr. Wolski has akeady mentioned that 4 he would like to leave Tract No. 12 as it is currently 5 zoned and so we would exclude that. And I don't know 6 whether you had mentioned 4 in your question of proposed 7 tracts but maybe we could get a clarification oa that. It 8 sounds like Dr. Wolski was amenable to making the changes 9 and I don't know whether what we have before us reflects 10 that or not. Maybe they can clarify that for the 11 homeowner's association. 12 And our situation as Colmnissioners is we 13 cannot conditions on what we have here. We need to 14 address a package. Excuse me. Assistant Director 15 Reichhart. 16 MR. REICHHART: The proposed, the 17 variations on this proposal, I don't know if staff has 18 really had time to analyze what the effect of that is. 19 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And the impact of 20 the -- 21 MR. amc~.mART: ,he only difference is, and 22 I've colowxl this map, these three purple areas are the 23 ones that were originally proposed for I~RMU-12 and -- 24 N~MU, excuse me. Dr. Wolski has said that this probably 25 could go to Nt~MtJ-t2. xhe only difference in this design, 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 some of the layout and such, I mean, I think we still need to listen to some more of the neighbors to see if there's additional concerns. I have some points of clarification that I'd like to make before we're done to clear up some additional i~ns, cmmnents that were made. But I think it's also important that we can get some feedback from the Commission. COMM£SS[ONER RISHEL: okay. I have a whole body of people that would like to speak, Mr. Reict~art, and so I'm anxious to hear from thmn but I'm sure that if we're confused on this end, that they're going to be confused on that end. I'm just trying to sec if there might be a better way to streamline this and yet still hear from the public. Director Powell. MR. POWELL: well, and I'm not sure if this will answer your question but I think that the last speaker indicated that there was confusion between the old Code and new Code or the old proposal and the new proposaL, the terminology. It is, you know, this is the first zone change under the new Code that was adopted earlier this month. There are obviously differences between an sv-7 and an NR-3, what's allowed, what is NRMU-12, Neighborhood PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 65 - Page 68 CondenseItTM Page 69 1 Residential Mixed Use, 12 units per acre. That -- trying 2 to define those and trying to explain that to the 3 residents, we could do that. I'm not sure, again, if we 4 could do that tonight to their satisfaction, to your 5 satisfaction. I'd be happy to try. 6 But if that is the question that was 7 raised, I don't want to say it's too complex to handle 8 tonight, but we could try to do that or, if your wish is 9 to set this aside and try to come back with that, a better 10 explanation of what these new districts and what they 11 entail without having to read this entire document, we'd 12 be also happy to do that. 13 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I have 15 or 20 cards 14 of people that would tike to speak and we'd love to hear 15 from the public. I'm just wondering if some of that is 16 confusion and some of that is specific issues that they 17 have with regard to getting forth the best plan we 18 possibly can. Cormnissioner Roy. 19 COMMISSIONER ROY: Yeah. I would like to 20 ask the homeowner's president, Mr. Lillie, you mentioned 21 confusion about the new Code, are you saying that these 22 designations, NR-4, NR-6. and NR-3, those you don't have a 23 good understanding of what that means? 24 MR. L1LLIE: The way we were explained that 25 is it would be four units per acre, six units per acre in Page 71 1 staff and with the developer and with the neighborhood so 2 that we can get some clarification and that might assist 3 with some of those cards because I know some of it deals 4 with questions and some of the concerns that we have about 5 the changeover. 6 COMMISSIONER ROY: Thank you. 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Please come forward. 8 MR. WELTY: one other point of concern I 9 know the homeowners expressed -- 10 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: once again, we have a 11 professional stenographer here so this is Mr. Wclty, Bob 12 Welty. 13 MR, WeLT'Z: Mr. Welty again, yes. Is -- we 14 had agreed to both limit the uses for these various 15 zonings and had listed those limited uses on thc left-hand 16 border of our sheet. We went back and revisited the issue 17 list and if thosc uses were still alIowed in your new 18 zoning classification, we left them on. If they were not 19 allowed, they went away. So we have agreed and want to 20 continue to agree for our neighbors to the limitation of 21 uses which we understand is a difflcult thing to do at 22 this point. 23 And then the other thing we elected to 24 limit what was the densities on these various tracts, and 25 we still want some instrument to be able to make than Page 70 1 the neighborhood residential. I think some of the 2 confusion that has resulted from the change is in these 3 areas that are marked in the purple, particularly for us 4 on the east side of this, as to what that actually means 5 for future growth and development. Does that open up 6 things just because of the nature of the new Code? Does 7 that open up new concerns that would not have been there 8 under the old Code? 9 COMMISSIONER ROY: SO if I understand what 10 you're saying, you're relatively comfortable with the 11 NR-4, 3, 5, 6, or whatever that is designations. 12 MR. LILLIE: Correct. 13 COMMISSIONER ROY: It'S -- your area of 14 discomfort is the NRMU? 15 MR. LILLIE: Co1Tect. And there were lists 16 that were attached to those items in the previous Code 17 that we've not had a chance to see under the new Code as 18 exactly what those mean and we had actually come to an I9 agreement about things related to what types of 20 activities, even to thc point of discussing apartment 21 height, that if apartments were built no higher than 22 two-story so that we can maintain those beautiful vistas 23 and you can still sec the rolling hills. 24 I know that the neighborhood association would 25 be more than willing to host another meeting with City 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 i1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 72 comfortable that we wilt not build any more than 18 units on these mutfi-fmuily tracts. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Snyder. MR. SNYDER: AS We mentioned, I think, at our work session, under the new Code, you can't put conditions on zoning. Are you proposing some deed restrictions, is that what you're proposing? MR. WELTY: Deed restrictions would be fine. MR. SNYDER: We wouldn't enforce those. It would be just strictly between the applicant and the neighbors. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Director Powell indicates that he feels that staff and Mr. Relchhart can go through thc residential land use categories and perhaps clarify that for us and maybe educate us both and we will alt understand a little bit better where we're coming from. So I'm going to have Mr. Reichhart present a brief smmmry of what we would be establishing land use wise. MR. REICHHART: The proposed NRMU category allows a mixture of uses. It allows both residential with -- as multi-family up to 30 units per acre and it allows a number of co~mnercial or retail uses. Pen~itted by right are hotels, a bed and breakfast, retail sates and services are limited to a size, theaters less than 10,000 square PLANNING AND ZONING COM31ISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 69 - Page 72 CondenseltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 73 feet are permitted with limitation, restaurants and private clubs are permitted with limitations. I believe that limitation is 5,000 square feet, no take out. It has to be a sit down restaurant. Professional services and offices are also penuitted. There's a limitation. I believe that limitation is 10,000 square feet. Both the limitation on the retail saIes and services and professional services and offices are uses limited to no more than 25,000 square feet, excuse me, gross floor area per use, except a grocery store which may be higher with an approval of an sue. And, again, those areas are identified on this map as the purple arms and that is, because of that mixture of uses that are allowed in these districts, not necessarily what thc applicant's plan is but what is allowed under those districts, would combine with this orange aim, agaip, which is a Cmmnuniry Mixed Use. And we can go through those also which allow the same similar type of uses without limitations. You can have a grocery store of any size and an office complex and a retail development along with multi-family without ail sup in those uses. So that, too, is a mixed use area. But our thought was comb/ned with all those, the potential, again, for a lot of retail uses and a lot of density was, is very overpowering for this Page 74 site. Tile NRMU-12 category allows, again, multi-family and that's at I2 units per acre. It does not require an sue. You can do it by right. It also docs allow for some retail sales and services with a limitation of the 10,000 square feet. Retail sales and services, as I said, was 10,000 square feet. Professional services and offices are limited to 5,000 square feet. So that, too, is a mixed use development, although much more reduced in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 75 MR. RE[CHHART: And there is not~ you know, any one set where each development has to be a unified mix of 60-40, but it is really our thought that the higher density should really be concentrated around the universities, atthough there will be multi-family areas outside that core around the universities. COMMISSIONER MULROY: A point of order, Mr. Chairman, tile purpose of this presentation was to find file new categories in file Code, not to continue file staff's position. COMMISSION.ER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. Mukoy. We have a couple of questions of Commissioners. Mr. Reichhart, I don't know whether the question is for your or for someone else. Comrnissioner Keith. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Ihank you. This is for Mr. We[ry. Mr. Welty, in this development how are these tracts going to be executed? t~a. wEn?Y: we did meet with the engineering staff a great deal and there is still some question as to whether the City has an adequately sized sanitary sewer system currently to handle this development in total. So we had agreed to phase this project and do the single-family construction in tile first phase which we believe tile City utilifies will handle in their current size. And then phase the other phases in as the utilities Page 76 allow that. And that is acceptable to Dr. Wolski. COMMISSIONER KEITH: SO yOU~re~ in essence, going to come in and plat out the residential areas and then set1 the lots, correct? MR. WELTY: sell or develop, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KEITH: SO are these going to be lots available for tract or custom homes? Tract home being a -- Ma, wu~.Tv: vm not certain who the buyer scale. And as has been stated tonight, the way this Development Code is structured, we do not, we cannot put conditions on the zoning. And that, again, goes back to even a road configuration or what type of uses could be allowed or not allowed in any zoning category. COMMISSIONER [~ISHEL: Mr. Reichhart, I guess the primary concern is going to be, as we look at the Denton Plan and the Denton Plan cites an ideal development rate of single-family to multi-family 60-40, Mr. Gray has akeady said that as we look at the project right now, it represents a 38-62 imbalance to what we would typically have of that ideal 60-40 in our growth plan for the City of Denton. Is that still the case.9 MR. RE[CHHART: Yes. COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: Thank you. 10 is in that -- I think we have someone here who can perhaps 11 answer that. But the way the lots lay out, they're 12 certainly more laid out in a custom home layout because so 13 many lots are curved and irregular shaped. This isn't a 14 little square cookie cutter layout. 15 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Yeah. Okay. Next 16 question would be is on your cotmnercial areas, is that -- 17 would you be, in essence, selling that to whomever would 18 want to develop that cotmnerclally, correct? Okay. So I 19 take it then, tile landowner wouldn't be participating in 20 those particulars of tile development, correct? 21 MR. WEarY: Not necessarily. That is 22 correct. 23 COMMISSIONER ~CEItU: okay. Thank you. 24 COMMISSIONERRIS[tEL: Thank you~ 25 Commissioner Keith. Cormnissioner Mukoy. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 73 - Page 76 CondenseltTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 lO il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 Page 77 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes. If I could, Mr. Chairman, get back to the tract where -- COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YOU have the floor. COMMISSIONER MULROY: -- tile tract that we were on and our concern was with Mr. Lillie, the homeowner's representative, that he indicated that lie was uncomfortable with the new temfinology. And I would like to address Mr. Lillie and see if enough information has been put forward for you -- COMMISSIONER RISHEL: This iS for Mr. Lillie. COMMISSIONER MULROY: -- if enough information has been put forward for your understanding or do you feel like that we ought to continue this to another meeting so you can pursue these new definitions further? MR. LILLIE: Mr. Mulroy, the concerns that we have that impact density, and this may be a matter of what thc developer is !tying to solve undc'r the new plan. In discussions with the neighborhood association, these tracts tl~rough here w~ indicated to be, I believe, multi-family. And, Dr. We[ski, correct me if I am speaking in error, but it's my understanding that these tracts here were going to be multi-family and that that would be where the apartments would be situated. Is that correct? These arms here? Page 79 I wanting to comment on this. 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: we'd like to do that, 3 too. 4 MR. LILLIE: And if we've got some 5 clarification here as to what the intent of that is and if 6 we can restrict that intent through the sups, then we 7 could go ahead and proceed with hearing what other 8 concerns there may be. 9 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Restricted through 10 deed restrictions but you'd have the extra protect[on of 11 thc suP process. Thank you, Mr. Lillie. Appreciate your 12 time. 13 MR. LILLIE; Thank you for that 14 clarification. 15 MR. SNYDER: Do you want me to clarify it 16 because I think we've -- this zoning classification, NRMU, 17 is a mixed use classification. Once this is adopted, as 18 far as the zoning is concerned, any use that's allowed 19 under that district, as Mr. Reichhart indicated, will be 20 allowed in this district. To come back and do 21 mult[-fmnily, you'd have to come back with an suP. 22 The suP, however -- the sue, however, would 23 not specifically address the other uses, although we 24 could, I suppose, look into that, Doug, to see if we could 25 with a multi-family sue, restrict other uses out of it. Page 78 DR. WOLSKI: That is correct, and we want to keep our agreement with the neighborhood and we'll do deed restrictions or whatever it takes to keep the agreement. MR. LI[LIE: In that those multi-family units would not exceed 18 units per acre, and none of us can see the future and so we are interested in making sure that we do have some restrictions that would limit that use. And it sounds like that under the new plan, that if it is approved as such, while we can ask for deed restrictions in the future, is there any type of enforeement action or is there any type of binding? COMMISS[0NER MULROY: Let me -- let's back up one step. Under the NRMU, in order to have multi-family, it would have to go through a special use permit process which would be another public hearing process. So there's a layer built in that the public would be heard from again. Additionally, legally, with a deed restriction, it would be there to be enforced and it would be -- have to be a civil action initiated by a citizen but it would be there and should not be a steep legal hill to climb, if it's been violated. MR. LILLIE: In that case, I'd like to open it up. Mr. Rishel, there's several folks that were Page 80 i But, generally speaking, the only way we 2 can restrict the uses is through a private agreement 3 between the property owners that the City would not 4 enforce. 5 I just want to make sure you understand 6 that, that this body can't put conditions on the zoning 7 itself. 8 COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: Director Powell, did 9 you want to add anything to that? 10 MR. POWELL: NO, I think Mr. Snyder is 11 correct that the suP is only applied to the multi-family 12 that is potentially allowed in this district and would not I3 apply. You could do thc retail, thc offices that Mr. ~4 Reichhart listed by right. 15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. 16 Co~mnissioner Keith. 17 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. This is 18 for -- I have a question of our attorney down here. There 19 appears to be a lot of cooperation between the developer 20 and the people living in the area that I'm seeing and the 21 concerns of how some of these classifications are going to 22 be used and the topic of deed restrictions are brought up. 23 Is it beyond our capacity or within our 24 capacity to ask them to work out the deed restrictions and 25 bring the whole package to us, and so that way they're PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 77 - Page 80 Condcns¢ItTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 81 happy, work it out before we come in and make our final reconunendations? I know we don't enforce them but -- COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: Mr, Snyder. MR. SNYDER: YOU can't make that a condition. If they decide they want to do that, they're free to do that but you can't make that a condition of your approval. COMMISSIONER KEIIH: okay. That's what I was wanting to know. Thank you. COMMISS[ONERRISHEL: colmnissioner Roy. COMMISS[ONERROY: Yes. Another question for Mr. Snyder. Again, this is the first case we were facing hem, and back on the NRMU and the sue required for tbe multi-family, I'm a little confused. Are you saying that an sue would not come to us for review and approval or disapproval? MR. SNYDER: NO. If you got that impression, that's not what I meant to say. No, it will come to you. It would be llke a separate zoning case. It will come to you, you will recolmnend approval, and it will go on to City Council. COMMISSIONER ROY: And we could reconunend approval based on whatever decisions wc have reached in the past. There's no new rules about that. MR. SNYr)ER: That's correct, but all that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 83 MR. POWELL: If I may, we've discussed, and I'm not sure with this body, but tile idea that through the sup process -- COMMISSIONER RISHEL: ^nd let's clarify that for our audience, that's special use permit. MR. POWELL: -- process which is a public hearing before Planning and Zoning Cotmnission, goes onto City Council for their approval. As part of that process, the provision for the ten acres and the mixed use could be waived. I do think it does, the limitation does set a very clear standard and that goes back to the discussion of what the intent of that district is. But we feel that you could, through that process, waive those provisions. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, I have a whole body of people that would like to speak. What I would suggest is that I'm anxious to hear them and their comments that they have. I think we can make a more intelligent decision as to which direction we need to go, but I would suggest that, being itrs 8:00 o'clock and werve been sitting since 6:00, that we take a short intermission. And if I could suggest we be back in about 12 minutes and we'll try to resume about 14 minutes after tbc hour. (Break taken) COMMISSIONER RISHEL: okay. I will resume Page 82 1 would be accomplished would be to add an additional usc, a 2 multi-family use. As Mr. Powell indicated, the other uses 3 would still be allowed. 4 COMMISSIONER ROY: well, I noticed that in 5 NR-6 that manufactured housing developments are allowed 6 under an suP. 7 MR. SNYDER: COrrect. But they would have 8 to come back tt~'ough the process to get that. 9 COMMISSIONER :~O¥: /,nd what would be the 10 basis, typical basis or an example basis for us to tarn 11 down multi-family in NRMU or manufactured housing 12 developments in NR-6? 13 MR. SSYDE~: It's a zoning case just like 14 any other zoning case. You have broad discretion to 15 either grant it or deny it. It's a legislative act. 16 COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you. 17 COMMISSIONER RiSHEL: conunissioner Holt. 18 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Yes. The sue has an 19 L-4 under it which is permitted as part of a mixed use 20 development of ten acres or more and only in conjunction 21 with office, retail, or other permitted coxmnercial and 22 institutional uses. So that puts a pretty specific sup on 23 it and not to size that they were -- or units per acre. 24 COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: Director Powetl would 25 like to clarify. Page 84 1 our meeting and we are discussing Item No. 9 and Item 2 No. 10 on our Agenda. We are in the public hearing part 3 of our meeting and I would tike to address the public. 4 And the first card that I have before me is Mr. Robert 5 Oorton. Mr. Gorton. 6 MR. OORTON: chairman Rishel, my name is 7 Robert M. Gotten. I reside at 3821 Deer Forest, Denton, 8 Texas, 76208. In our brief recess, a nmnber of the 9 members of our Deerwood Association have talked with Dr. 10 Wolski and his team and we believe that ifs probably in 11 our best interest to suggest a continuance of this public 12 hearing to allow for a possible two-week period of time so 13 that staff, members of the neighborhood association, and 14 Dr. Wolski and his developers could meet with us again so 15 that we can address some of the very concerns that have 16 been raised by the Commissioners and ourselves as to some 17 of the new nomenclature. 18 We also would hope to be able to work out 19 the possibility of privately arranging for deed 20 restrictions so that those would be in place before the i21 vote of this Conunission as far as the zoning itself, which il22 would help alleviate some of our own fears in the Deerwood 23 neighborhood. 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I appreciate your 25 cmmnents, Mr. Oorton. We're itl the public hearing part of PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 81 - Page 84 Condcns¢ItTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 85 this process so I would like to hear the public and that certainly might be an alternative opportunity for the Commission to make that decision. It sounds like Dr. Wolski and your group have agreed that the two-week contingency -- continuation of this might be appropriate. Da. WOLSKT: Tt would, but I'd like to hear if there's any other buming issues other than this fuzzy confusion over the nomenclature, I'd like to hear that. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: That'S the way we feel, too. Okay. That would be fine. Once again, this is a public hearing. Anyone else who would like to address this Co~muission at this time, would you please come forward. Anyone who would like to address the Commission at this time, would you please come forward? If you would give us your nmnc and address. MS. LILLIE: I'm Nancy Boyd Lillie. I live at 3800 Deer Forest in Denton, 76208. The comments I wanted to make are really more of a general nature. However the zoning ends up going, I feel it's important for our neighborhood, for the integrity of our neighborhood to be maintained. I£ you look at northeast Denton and see what's being developed out there right now, our neighborhood is unique. It is -- the homes are mostly custom built. Page 86 We're very proud of our neighborhood. We have people tell Page 87 1 possibly make it into, and it sounds like fl~e developers 2 are more than willing to work with you, we would like to 3 hear your concerns. 4 I have several cards of people who would 5 like to speak. I understand there are some people that 6 may need to leave early. If therers anyone who would like 7 to speak ahead of my card order, if you would come forward 8 at this thn¢. Okay. Seeing no one who is urgent to that 9 speaking, Mr. Wayne Allen, is Mr. Wayne Allen here? i0 MR. ALLEN: My name is Wayne Allen and I 11 live at 2541 East Windsor. Can we get that on? 12 COMMISSIONER R[StIEL: Docucam, it will come 13 up. 14 MR. ALLEN: ~can only speak for the west 15 side of the development. My property abuts the project 16 and I'm really excited about having a buffer along Loop 17 288 to stop some of the noise because it's very -- it's 18 really noisy at night. It sounds like a drag strip out 19 there. And it will also be nice to have some 20 neighborhood services close as there are down Old North 21 Road, those neighborhood services right in there, they're 22 just great. 23 This is what the Denton Development Plan is 24 about because I've been working on that plan along with 25 Joe and some others and this could be a beautiful area. Page 88 It's going to be hard to thrill the Denton Development 1 2 us frequently that they didn't -- they ~vanted to stay in 3 northeast Dcnton, they wanted to find a home to buy, and 4 there was nothing in our neighborhood so they went south. 5 It's like it's that neighborhood or there's nothing that's 6 fairly new. Everything else is old or it looks like in a 7 couple of years it's going to be a ghetto. Some of the 8 development on 288 north of us is very shoddy housing, 9 thrown up by, you know, cracker boxes that are just this 10 far apart. So that's my concern. 11 The oilier concern I have is that we do have 12 industrial currently south of us and the farther that 13 industrial comes up close to us or the closer it is to our 14 neighborhood, the less room there is for a buffer. And so 15 ! think that should be a consideration. I'm not sure what 16 thc proper zoning is in there. Dr. Wolski has been 17 atternpting to work with the neighborhood to make sure that 18 there is a u'ansition, but we certainly don't want the 19 only buffer between us and industrial to be multi-family. 20 And so that's my other concern. Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Ms. 22 Lillie. Once again, we arc interested and concerned 23 about the direction that the ckizenry and the Co~mnission 24 would like to see this go. If you could give us some 25 input as to what would make this the best area we could 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 117 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Plan but it's going to be wonderful for new developments. I think this one was cut out for it. I'm a little dismayed to hear that -- I went to a meeting at Deerwood Church, a neighborhood meeting to listen to Dr. Wolski present his development. And the young planner over here was there and he was a cheerleader for thc project. And now I understand that they're reconunending it not to go. That just boils me. That is not the way it should go. They should work with you, level with you, keep you going ail the way through, and not just come up at the last minute and say, oh, we're not going to recommend passage. That's not the way it should work. And I think that Doug knows how I feel about that sort of thing. I know Larry knows about how I fccl about that sort of thing. So maybe we need to -- I think City staff should work really hard at that, making that beUer. COMMISSIONER R[$HEL: Thank you, Mr. Allen. Thank you, sir. The next card I have is Mr. Krueger, Jeff Krueger. MR. KRUEGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Cormnissioners. My name is Jeff Kruegcr. I reside at 3905 Deer Forest Drive in Denton, Texas. I wanted to talk a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 85 - Page 88 CondenseltTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 1t 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 89 little bit about some of the opposition reports that you got back. I spoke with -- Thomas gave me the ones he had received as of Monday at about 3:00 o'clock and I called the people who were in opposition to the plan just to ask them one question, Irm not trying to change your mind, what is the reason? I need a reason for your opposition because they didn't have any explanations on their deal. And I wanted to share that with you real brief. I spoke with -- I only -- couldn't get ahold of two people. I left messages at their place. Those were the only two people I didn't get ahold of were the ones I had at the time. But I had -- obviously, we had three people at that time who had written in in favor for the deal. But the ones who were opposed, I spoke with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Page 9I representing the petitioner? MR. KRUEGER.: welt, I'm kind ot: doing a dual role here. I live -- COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Okay. Then if-- we had a chance for the petitioner to present and that opportunity was given. And so if you have some personal comments regarding that, I would like to hear those personal cmmnents. MR. KRUEGER: I do live in Deer Forest which abuts the project. And as Mr. Lillie stated, we are in support of this project as submitted. Now, we are open to make changes and want security from the developer on that side, but we like it as opposed to what the alternative is and that's the industrial that reaches a Mr. James Barbara who said he was opposed only because of the La Paloma extension. Now, the La Paloma extension is a part -- in your big maps you can see it. It's the part that comes off the future Windsor extension that travels back to the northwest and reconnects eventually with Kings Row. La Paloma comes in there and it ties in. You can see that on your big map. Actually, it's right here, as well, I believe, this strip right in here. He was opposed not to the development but he was opposed to that particular roadway because he didn't want La Paloma to be extended on Page 90 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 further north and reaches closer to our homes. And that's our end of it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER. RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. Krueger. The next card that I have is Eva Cadwallader. Is Ms. Cadwallader still here at 3920 Fawn Drive? Would Ms. Cadwallader like to present? Okay. [ have only that she's uncertain about the presentation, whether it's complete or not. John Eddy, is Mr. Eddy here? Mr. Eddy had to leave. He has numerous cormnents and I'm sure that Page 92 i and become, in his words, a major thoroughfare. 2 And that's the common theme of all thc 3 people that I talked to. They had no opposition to the 4 development. They didn't have opposition to the density. 5 They like the fact that it buffers. They like the fact 6 that way down here is heavy, you know, you have heavy 7 industry, you have tight industry, buffered with 8 multi-family, ~4a 6, tqm-4, all the way up to where the 9 present neighborhoods are. They like the concept and they 10 like the idea. - 11 I talked to Mr. James Matlock who had some 12 flooding issues and he -- I don't know if Mr. Matlock came 13 here tonight. He just had some issues about what it would 14 do to his property when we have -- I referred him to thc 15 City staff to talk to their engineers to determine that we ! 16 had a really good product here from our on-site storage. 17 I spoke with Ms. Dorothy Tamplen who was not necessarily 18 opposed to the project. She just didn't know enough about 19 it. And so she was to attend tonight's meeting and 20 subsequent meetings~ if we would. 21 The Tolberts, they sent in one for him, one 22 for his wife, and one for, I think, his daughter. They 23 made copies. But fl~elr opposition is, again, to the 24 extension of Windsor Drive. 25 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Krueger, are you 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 t2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we'll get those clarified as we go through our discussion. Liz Irvine, is Ms. Irvine here? I-R-V-I-N-E on Quail Ridge, 2553 Quail Ridge. No Ms. Irvine. Okay. And C.C. Springer was opposed to the development but did not wish to comment. Jmnes Irvine, is Mr. Irvine here? Would you like to comment? Once again, indicates that he was opposed to the development mostly because of traffic, multi-family concerns. Randall Smith, is Mr. Smith here? Mr. Smith, i'm going to have you address us at this point in time. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Come forward. MR. SMITH: My name is Randall Smith, 829 Tealwood Circle, Flower Mound, 75028. I would like to withhold my comments until the next meeting. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: That would be fine. If you have some constructive input for us, we'd certainly like to receive it at this time though. MR. SMITH: I'll just say I worked for Dr. Wolski on this project since 1998. We've had a nmnber of homeowners' meetings. We've worked with the neighbors. We considered the topography, the trees in laying this out. We've actually moved roads around to avoid trees. I think what we've got is a pretty good plan and I think we PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 89 - Page 92 CondenscltTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 .4 15 16 17 t8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 93 pretty much agree that we'll change all the NRMU to NRMU-12. we'd even like to extend it across to Cooper Creek Road. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: when we get the clarification done, would you like to represent? MR. SMITH: Yes, please. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: That would bc fine. Thank you, Mr. Snfith. MR. SMITH: That would be thc best thing to do. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YOU bet. I have a Page 95 1 that they were in support of the development. 2 Excuse me. Mr. Cox, is Mr. Cox here? And, 3 once again, he said he did not wish to speak. He had a 4 cormnent sheet and we'll add those to our minutes and go 5 from there. And, once again, he said he was in support of 6 the project but did not wish to speak. 7 Klm Kelly, is Klm Kelly here? Would they 8 like to speak? Once again, in support of the argument and 9 had an E-mail attached and we will note that. 10 I have several other cards from Marjorie 11 Nelson. Ms. Nelson, would you like to speak? Would not card from, I believe it's Tom Dirickson. I've only known him for years and if only he could write legibly I would have it made. MR. DIRICKSON: I'l~'t capable of doing it. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Tom, thank you very much. Give your nmne and address, if you would, please. MR. DIRICKSON: My name is Tom Dirickson. I'm an attorney, I live and reside at 956 Valley View Drive, Lewisville, Texas. COMMISSIONER RIStlEL: And would you tell us your interest in this project. MR. DIRICKSON: I am the owner of approximately 45 acres. I call it my little Nevada section given the color scheme in the upper right-hand Page 94 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 like to speak. She has some cormnents regarding mostly development with regard to Windsor and the Loop and reflects back to the 40-60 density in the Denton Plan and that being a concem, and then Old North Road and some other things and we'll have those comments~ So thank you very much. Mr. Staniszewski, being I'm one of only three people that could pronounce that name. Please. Yes, sir. MR. STANISZEWSKI: My name is Ray Staniszewski. I live at 3605 Antler Circle, 76208, and that's in Deerwood. And ray concern is not necessarily with the proposed project as Dr. Wolski is presenting it. He is saying what his intent is, NR-4 here and NR-6 here, Page 96 comer there, outside that. Originally, I counted ~nyself as one of those who was in opposition to this product or process, but I now count myself as being in favor of it, in support of the process and proccdure~ The reason, it's balanced and it's appropriate. And I would also hazard to say that the Irvine's objections, by and large, are directed toward Kings Row and not toward the development. And I'm just in wholehear~d support of the project at this point in time. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very much, sir. Charlice Kruger did not wish to speak. Had some concerns with deed restrictions and covenants, attachments, multi-family, density, and other issues. And it sounds like we may get those worked out yet. Ms. Fcrguson. And, once again, Ms. Ferguson did not wish to speak. She has, see attached. She has some conunents that we'll take into consideration. And we appreciate that. Would Ms. Ferguson care to speak at this point in time now that she's heard where we are? Okay. Brenda and James Larsen, once again, they did not wish to speak. Had a see attached, also, with some comments on that. Did they wish to speak at this point in time? No. Okay. And they indicated originally 1 but my concern is the apparent disparity between what the 2 zoning uses or proposed zoning uses, the multi use and 3 stuff, versus what his intent is. And my concern sterns 4 from the fact that once that property is sold, the person 5 that buys that can do whatsoever is undo' that zoning, 6 deed restrictions and whatever aside. 7 And what I'm hearing from y'all is that the 8 City is not going to enforce deed restrictions. One of us 9 would have to take, on a case by case basis, somebody to 10 court to try to override that. And in my experience, dod 11 restrictions are often overridden. They get -- I know in 12 our own neighborhood we had cases where people presented a 13 change or a request for an exception to the deed 14 restriction. I think without exception they were 15 accepted. 16 So I would second what Mr. Lillie has 17 ah'cady said and that is if we could postpone this pending 18 us getting more information. I would say if the intent is 19 to do NR-4 here or NR-6 hc~"c, then that's the way it 20 should be zoned so that it matches up with the intent, 21 rather than have it zoned in a way that allows much mom 22 to happen then what might be originally intended. And at 23 some point~ the original developer is going to be out of 24 thc picture, you know, where does that leave the 25 homeowners? Thank you. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 93 - Page 96 CondenseltTM 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 2 3 4 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 il t2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 97 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. Staniszewski. That completes my cards that I had. If anyone would still llke to address the Cmxunission, if you would come forward at this time. Anyorte who would like to address the Conunission, please come forward at this time. Once again, this is a public hearing. Seeing no one who would like to addt, ess the Colmnissioa, I have several questions from the Conunissioners. Would you Page 99 the school district. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YOU still have a question for Mr. Krueger? COMMISSIONER HOLT: well, I wanted to get that clarified. COMMISSIONER RISI.IEL: Sum. COMMISSIONER HOLT: Then I have a couple of statements where we am here. mind if I close the public hearing, Commissioners? I'm looking -- I may need a motion here. Co~mnissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: I would like to ask Mr, Snyder a question about procedure for just a moment. In the interest of responding to the developer's request for key issues that he would like to hear, I was approached by two people who live on the west side outside the room in which they had to leave. They had to go pick up their daughter from some situation. Can I bring up thek points that they brought to me and mention them at this time? MR. SNYDER: I don't know that your rules specifically speak to that, but probably the better procedure would be to continue the pubtic hearing and give them an opportunity to come back at the next meeting and testify. COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you. MR. SNYDER: ! don't know if you'd be Page 98 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: okay. Thank you, 10 Jeff. You have the floor, Ms. Holt. 11 COMMISSIONER HOLT; Dr. Wolski has stated 12 earlier that he would like to hear something from the 13 Commissioners. And I think that because this has been 14 delayed, delayed, delayed, I think now is the time that we 15 need to say something. Here are a few of my concerns, so 16 I'll be the first. 17 We're looking at 536 single-family units 18 and 863 multiffamily units and we have no school site 19 anywhere around. We've got two schools pretty close but 20 they're fuI[ and I'm really concerned about this. And 21 there's a lot of area in here that we could have a school 22 site. I think that would be something that would be 23 beneficial to the City and to the school district. 24 I tuft a little bit -- I'm not a little bit, 25 I'm concemed about the density. And I feel like that we Page 100 violating your rules but the normal practice is to receive with public co~mnents at the public hearing. COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank yoU. COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: colmnissioner Holt. COMMISSIONER HOLT: I make a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I'm wondering if you want to close the public hearing or continue the public hearing that we could move this to a date certain. It sounds to mc like we still have some questions and if we left it open, then we could continue the discussion. That's just a suggestion on my part. I have a couple of other Co~mnissioners but you have the floor, Commissioner Holt. It is not closed and we might prefer to leave it open is my sta~aent if we want to continue this. You have a question for the developer. Mr. Wolski. COMMISSIONER HOLT: Have you talked at all to the school district? DR. WOLSrI: I believe Jeff Krueger did. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: would you have Mr. Krueger come forward? MR. KRUEGER: Yes, Co~mnissioner, fl~ey met in a Development Review Cmranittee meeting with the staff and Mr. Holloway, Gene Holloway, along with City staff when we had thc original DRC meeting. So we have met with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 could have a situation here that looks like Wal-Mart with all of this multi-family, cormnercial lined up here right along 288 and then there are two ways to get on. And with one area coming out of Windsor, this just looks like it would -- I mean, I need more clarification of how this is going to work in that sense. What do you plan to put on these exactly? What kind of businesses do you want? And I know it's described here and you probably don't know yet, but I think for all the people that live to the west and all the people up in Deer Park and that area, we need to know whafs going to surround us exactly. And that's what we're worried about. I mean, I live close to this area, too, and this will impact me a lot. And it looks -- it is a gorgeous piece of property and we -- but we need the services and we all know we need the services around there. So I think everybody is really open to development of this, but we just don't want to see it developed so tight that it just boalenecks all of us. It's going to bottleneck all of these people to the west. We're already bottlenccked in with University Drive and with no access to Loop 288 and Windsor would be the only way. And then you're adding in 536 single-family and 863 multi-family, that's a lot of people. We're PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 97 - Page 100 CondcnscltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [2 13 t4 15 16 17 i8 t9 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 101 afraid it's going to be exactly like way out on Teasley Lane. So those arc some of my concerns and I just feel like that maybe now was the time to get them out there and you could discuss it with your public. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Commissioner Holt. Commissioner Keith. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. A request of Cormnissioner Holt, if I may. I can't hear you too well. When you speak, would you pull your mike closer, please. COMMISSIONER HOLT: okay. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. And also in conjunction with Connnissioner Holt is the access to Loop 288. As she pointed out, you have a lot of density in here. I would like to have it put that on our next meeting that the Kings Row issue be included in our discussion. I mean, this is going to impact that whole area. And having just Windsor Drive to be the only way et getting across, as well as off and on Loop 288 with this additional population, this is something the City really needs to examine, as well as -- I know that this property up towards Kings Row isn't part of the developer's responsibility but I think we, as the Cmmnissioners, Page 102 should make this part of it because it is going to have such an impact on the traffic flow. And we need to examine this and see if this Mobility Plan of closing this down is really the wise choice or not. Can that be put in the motion in some way? MR, SNYDER: We're looking at -- COMMISSIONER KE[TH: In the topic el the next -- MR. SNYDER: Can P&Z initiate a Mobility Plan change? That's what we're looking up right now. I would think they can but -- MR. REICHHART: I believe they can but I mean, t hey could also put it on for discussion, the topic. Well, as part of a briefing on where we are and what's proposed for that and when it's proposed. COMMISSIONER KEITH: So we can add that into our -- COMMISSIONER RISHEL: We can request that itl Our '- MR. SNYDER: I believe that the Planning and Zoning Co~ranission can initiate a Comprehensive Plan amcnchr~ent. That's what that would be, right? COMMISSIONER KEITB: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISItEL: CmmXfissioner Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: '/es, I have a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 103 question for Dr. Wolski. Dr. Wolski, if you can bracket this in broad tenns and as broad a timeframe as possible, what do you anticipate the build-out for the development in total? Am we talking five, 10, 15 years? }Iow do you anticipate it unfolding.9 DR. WOLSK[: well, Denton is on the wave of an cxplosive growth that's going to hit Denton any time now and I expect the single-family will go pretty quickly. The commercial will never go fl~ere until you have an overpass. And there's money to design the overpass but there's no funding for the overpass. So the multi-family probably, the colmncreial, the community mixed use, I don't see that happening until a bridge is there. We've done traffic studies, too. That's another thing is there was an issue about the traffic. Our traffic engineers say the development we've got phased now, there will be not very much wait time. And David Sahnon could probably address that a lot better. But that's a big "iP' is the overpass. COMMISSIONER MULROY: so can we quantify this a little bit? Let's say single-family, by the time you design the utilities and streets, you're six months to a year before lots are available. Da. WOLSKt: erobably. And that would be on certain areas. The Na-3 that we're proposing, we've Page 104 1 got a church interested in 15 acres there and we've had 2 some interest in other areas, too. But, you know, I'm not 3 saying all the single-fm~ily will go but some of it will 4 in the next, probably in the next year. $ COMMISSIONER MULROY: SO if you'll help my 6 understanding through this, if this is year one, then the 7 beginning of year two, you're going to have a percentage 8 of your single-family start to actually break ground and 9 build houses. Year three is probably more single-family. 10 Year four, hopefully, are you anticipating the bridge 11 being done by year four or year five? 12 DR. WOLSKI: There's no money for it right 13 now. We're waiting for a bond issue. The next bond issue 14 we're going to try to -- the money, there's $500,000.00 15 cmmnitted to design it but there's no money to build it 16 yet. We're wa[ting for the next bond issue and probably 17 try to propose that. 18 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. So that would 19 be -- the next bond issue is about 2003 or 2004. They 20 have to pass the bond issue and you'd be in the cue for 21 either the first all the way up to the fifth year. So 22 somehow relative to today -- 23 DR. WOLSKI: I don't anticipate it 24 happening overnight. This might be a ten-year project. 25 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Realistically, four PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 101 - Page 104 CondcnscItTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 :16 17 ,18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 t5 i6 17 I8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 105 or five years for the bridge, then you anticipate your cmmnercial and hotel and type of shopping centers coming on-line then? DR. WOLSKI: Possibly. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. So I'm just trying to bracket. It's not all going to happen tomorrow morning or next year. We're probably looking at seven to 10 year build-out for maybe 70 percent of what we're looking at. DR. WOLSKI: correct~ This is a very big project. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: conunissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: 'des. A cmmnent and I understand that the developer -- I'm waiting for Mr. Reichhart, to get his attention. Mr. Reichhart, I understand thc developer has agreed tonight to change all the request of NRMU to NRMU-12 and that is a step in the right direction; is that correct, as far as your staff is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Page 107 about it. That's number one. Nmnber two, it's inconceivable to me that by this time after all these months, Dr. Wolski and his staff and the City and their staff can't get their act together and come to us with a joint proposal that we can vote yes or no on. And Ood bless Dr. Wolski. I don't mean to raise iny voice, sir, because you probably saved my iife one day during a medical procedure. You may not remember it but maybe you shouldn't have. Maybe I wouldn't be so upset here. I am upset. I'm upset because nobody will bring to me and the rest of this Commission something we can vote yes or no on. We continue to get a thing we can't get our hands on. Well, it would be okay if we did this up here and we changed that over there. Well, bologna. I want something brought to this Co:mnission that is solid. And I prefer that the staff and Dr. Wolski get together and bring something together. The neighborhood knows what they want. I think I know what you want. But nobody will concerned? MR. REICHHART: I don't know if we've totally analyzed that. And as I said, in talking with Dr. Wolski it's not only just these three pockets of NRMU, it's also additional tracts to the east in order to maintain the stone development. It's going to be the exact 20 ever -- this is like the third or fourth time now nobody 21 will bring to us something we can vote on. And if you 22 can't get together with staff, and that won't shock me, 23 then you bring a proposal and you bring something that you 24 can lay in front of us and you say -- in front of mc and 25 you say, Colmnissioner Powell and Chairman and members, I Page 106 same development as proposed in the ?D, straight multi-family at different densities and single-fmmly. It wouldn't have the mixed use component if you go straight NRMU-12. And we still believe it's too dense. COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you. And tile second point I'd like to make is that in an earlier public hearing, the residents on the west side, there were several of them who cm~e to us and talked about their existing homes were in the floodplain, and I'm concerned about how this development, in conjunction with the t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Page 108 can't get together with staff. I want you to vote on this and I have it written out and here's the motion. Don't come to us again wltb something that says, well, it's not quite like this. We're going to reduce this over here. That's nuts. I'm tired of that. It's time to get real. You've spent a ton of money here. Help us out. Help us hey you. Help us help the Cily. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: conunissioner Pow¢ll, thank you very much. I would like to remind the Albertson's development, will affect those existing homes. And I haven't heard anything tonight that addresses that and I would request the developer in future meetings to specifically address that issue for us and try to alleviate that concern on rny part and I suspect it's still there on the part of the homeowners. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MULROY: cmmnissioncr Powell. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of conunents since this appears to be the cotranent time. I'm with Mr. Keith, I don't believe it's conceivable that we talk about this without bringing in Kings Row. It's part of this area. You can't cross the interstate there -- excuse me, you can't cross the Loop now without it and it's going to be a long time that you can cross the Loop without it so we need to talk 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Cormnissioners though that this is, in fact, the first major development we've had under the new Development Code and I think nobody has been shot yet. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I understand, sir, but it's like the third or fourth time it's been before under the old Code or the new Code. COMMISSIONER R£SHEL: I understand. But we do have a new Code that we're trying to work with and everybody is trying to learn a little bit more about it. So I appreciate your patience. Co~mnissioner Keith. COMMISSIONER KE[TH: Yes. I have a question to ask Mr. Reichhart, please. Your last time at the well, you mentioned a certain area that you didn't like the density. MR, REICHHART: That's correct. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 105 - Page 108 CondenseltTM Page 109 i COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Which part of 2 that? 3 MR. gEiCUu~a~rr: well, I think the mix of 4 multi-family to single-family is too heavy on the 5 multi-family. 6 COMMISSIONER KEITH: why do you think that? 7 Ma. REICHHART: Because I think the 8 Comprehensive Plan says overall City-wide that we're 9 supposed to have a 60-40 mix of single-family to i0 multi-family and this mix says just the opposite. We'll l I take -- we haven't done the math but we could probably do i2 it and figure out how many additional single-family houses 13 without any multi-family just to get us back to where we 14 arc now, let alone get us to the direction that the 15 Comprehensive Plan says we should be in. 16 Additionally, I think werre opposed to the 17 amount of NRMU because of the mixed use characteristics of 18 that and the conmmnlty mixed use center. i9 COMMISSIONER ~cErm: okay. Thank you. I 120 second -- I would just like to say I appreciate :21 Co~mnissioner Powell's voicing of get this show on the 22 mad, bring something we can have more tangible. I would 23 like to ask the staff to really work with Dr. Wolski and 24 the colmnunity and bring something so that next time this 25 thing can get going. We've got a lot of other issues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ii I2 13 14 15 I6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 111 1 with the developer or what the case is, might be either a 2 date certain of March the 13th or March the 27th. One 3 would be two weeks out and one would be four weeks out. 4 What have you suggested? 5 COMMISSIONER POWELL: My suggestion, sir, 6 would be that we allow Dr, Wolski and his staff to work 7 that out either the 13th or the 27th, if that's something 8 I can do without causing a problem here. 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Counsel Snyder would 10 like to address that. 11 MR. SNYDER: NO. We would have to continue 12 this to a date certain because of the public notice. Let t 3 me point out something else, too, that if the intent of 14 this Colmnission is to act on a recmrnnendation of the 15 Mobility Plan for that street, our rules require, that's 16 what we were checking on earlier, we advertise that in the 17 newspaper and it's our understanding that we're past the 18 date to advertise that for the March 13th meeting. If you 19 just wanted to treat it as a Briefing Session, we could do 20 that on March 13th but the actual action item couldn't be 21 until March 27th for the Comprehensive Plan amendment, 22 Mobility Plan mnendment. 23 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I will then make it 24 part of my motion for March the 13th and ask for a 25 Briefing Session on the Mobility Plan. I don't think it Page 110 coming down the pike, a lot of other requests, and we've been on this one particular one now for ahnost over two hours. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, I appreciate those cormnents. I'm going to remind us where we are. We are still in the midst of the public hearing. Anyone else who would like to cmm~ent from the audience regarding Item No. 9 or Item No. l0 on our Agenda? Anyone else who would like to co~m~ents from the audience? Seeing no one, Cmmnissioner Powell, COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Chairman, if I may, sir, I'd like to move that we continue Items 9 and 10 and the public hearings associated with Items 9 and 10 until the next regular meeting of this Zoning Commissioner. I don't have the date in front of me, if you would fill me in on that. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I have the date in front of me, and one of the colmnents was to learn more about the Mobility Plan and I might suggest that we perhaps do that as a Briefing at the next meeting, if that would help you and the neighbors in that area as opposed to a -- and maybe learn more whether they want to try to amend the Mobility Plan at some future time or not. But the date certain, and I don't know whether the neighborhood needs to have some more time to get together 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 112 was -- I'1[ just end it ti:crc. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I have a motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER APPLE: secolld. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It'S been moved by Cmmnissioncr Powe[1 and seconded by Commissioner Apple that we continue Item No. 9 and Item No. 10 to a date certain, that's March 13th, and have a Briefing at that same meeting, presmnably before on the Agenda i~n the discussion of 9 and I0 on this particular Agenda. Any further discussion? Cmmnlssloner Kelth. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Yes. The question I have is on the Mobility. We'll just bo discussing this regarding the Kings Row issue? How will that be handled? COMMISSIONER RISIIEL: [ think Mr. Sahnon and staff would be able to brief us on where we are with the status of the development of the Mobility Plan in that particular area. And if you have a recotmncndation for trying to put forth a motion, we would probably want to do that at a date that would be probably four weeks beyond that, if you want to modify thc Mobility Plan, would bc my understanding just for notification purposes. If you just want to learn more about it, a Briefing would certainly be appropriate before the discussion of this particular development. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 109 - Page 1 t2 Condcns¢ItTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 tO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 113 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further eonunents or questions? We have a motion on the floor. Seeing no further discussion, please vote. Motion carries 7-0. Thank you vory much, audience and gallory. We appreciate your participation, your input in this important part of our discussion and we'd like to thank you very much. Item No. 11 on the Agenda is future Agenda items. I think it has been generally concurred, I don't know if we need to vote on that or not, that we have a Briefing. Siace it's been part of our motion, I presume we will. We'll make sum that that's ahead of the Agenda iron discussion. Assistant Director Reichhart, future Agenda items, do you have -- I think we had some iteans we might have discussed. MR. REICHHART: Tile only item that we'd like to add to a Work Session at the next meeting is regarding conservation casemeats or districts, excuse me. What we would like to propose is to have that Work Session starting at 5:30 while you're eating dinner and it should only take about a half hour. If it runs five, 10, 15 m~nutes later -- COMMISSIONER RISHEL: W6 would post our meeting as starting at 5:30 and ask you to meet ia the ~vork session room and the regular scheduled meeting would Page 114 be ilmnediately following that, And that may be 6:00 o'clock or 6:15 or 6:30 but we don't think it will be that long, But our regular meeting would start at 5:30 as opposed to tacking on something at the end of our meeting. Does that meet with everyone's approval? Do we need to vote on that? No. Everyone agrees. Okay. That would be great. Thank you, Mr. Reichhart. Thank you, staff and Co~mnissioners. (Adjournment) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 113 - Page 114 ATTACHMENT 7 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 13, 2002 13. Continue a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, from Neighborhood Centers to Community Mixed Use Center and from Employment Centers to Neighborhood Centers. The area for amendment encompasses approximately 105 acres and is generally located on either side of Loop 288 north of Mingo Road, south of King's Row, east of Old North Road and west of Cooper Creek Road. A development containing a variety of single family, multifamily, retail, office and commercial uses is proposed. (CA01-0001 Windsor Oaks, Stephen Cook) Motion by Joe Mulroy and seconded by Susan Apple to continue till April 10, P&Z meeting. *Discussion of item is included in the Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 42 - 114). Motion carries 5-1 - Commissioner Bob Powell opposed. Commissioner Bill Keith not present during voting. CondenseltTM Page 41 1 So this is not a rmnrod effort to try to 2 make people feel as though it's a -- you know, the money 3 is there so we've got to do it. There's always that point 4 of control for Council and Council is going to review that 5 and they're going to take the public cmmnents into 6 account. And that also gives us an opportunity, I think, 7 to look at all the technical merits of -- you know, if thc 8 intent is to go back and ask us what are the options, and, 9 you know, is the Windsor interchange really the way we 10 want to go, Council has the opportunity to reexmnine that 11 approach. So there are some points where I think some 12 decisions will be made before any money is spent on this 13 project. 14 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I think we have some 15 Co~ranissioners that might have some questions. 16 Conunissioner Mulroy. 17 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yeah, Mr. Hill. Was 18 that Windsor exchange a line item in the bond issue? 19 MR. HILL: Yes, it was specifically 20 identified by title. 21 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. And what was 22 the percentage that the bond issue passed? What was the 23 percentage vote? 24 MR. HILL: It was at least 87 percent. 25 COMMISSIONER MULROY: 87 percent, okay. Page 42 Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Conmnissioner Mulroy. Thank you, Assistant City Manager. Page 43 1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: okay. Mr. Gray will 2 present Item No. 13 and Item No. 14 at this time. 3 MR. GRAY: I was just going to bring the 4 Colmnission up to date as to what has happened with this 5 case since the last time it was at this Conunission two 6 weeks ago. There was a neighborhood meeting held at Hodge 7 Elementary on the evening of Tuesday, March 5th. I 8 believe information about that meeting, as well as 9 conunents are provided in your backup. The applicant has 10 provided a revised zoning plan. The staff received copies 11 of these plans yesterday and you should have received 12 copies at the beginning of the meeting. The applicant is 13 here and will explain thc changes that have been made. 14 At the start of the meeting, I also passed 15 out a packet of information containing items such as a 16 letter from Gene Holloway of Denton Independent School 17 District. He is here and he would like to speak to you 18 tonight. You should also have a petition from 19 neighborhood residents regarding flooding along the creek 20 on the west side of the applicant's property. I included 21 a list of concerned citizens who have telephoned me in the 22 last few days regarding this development, as well as 23 included a couple of E-mails concerned citizens have sent 24 to staff regarding this development. 25 I can answer any questions or I could also 1 2 3 4 Mr. Salmon, anything else? 5 MR. SALMON: NO. 6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: The Conunission and 7 the audience, I'm sure, appreciate your input on the 8 Mobility Plan, specifically related to this northeast 9 qua&ant, northwest quadrant, northeast qua&ant. Okay. 10 Any further questions, Commissioners? 11 Seeing no further questions, I'm wondering if the 12 Cotmnission migtit like to take a little break before we 13 start into Item No. 13 on our Agenda. And I'm seeing a 14 consensus that that would be recmmnended. Let's resmnc 15 our meeting back here, if we could, at 25 after the hour 16 by the big clock in the back. 17 (Break taken.) 18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, if 19 you'd take your seat, we will try to resmne here. I 20 believe we have a quormn so we will continue with our 21 meeting. Excuse me for being a little bit late. That 22 brings us at this point in time to Ite~n No. 13 on our 23 Agenda, and I believe that Mr. -- yes. 24 MR. GRAY: I was going to ad&ess Items 25 No. 13 and 14. let Mr. Reichhart speak because he also has a brief presentation to make regarding this development. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Gray, I think the 4 Commission would prefer to hear the staff presentation and 5 then we'll move on to the other presenters. So if Mr. 6 Reichhart would like to come forward and present at this 7 time, I would appreciate it. Thank you, sir. Mr. Mulroy, 8 Co~ranissioner Mulroy. 9 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes. If I may ask 10 staff to please differentiate between the Comprehensive 11 Plan related issues and the zoning issues because they are 12 separate i~ns. 13 MR. REICHHART: veTy well. 14 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: once again, this is a 15 public hearing and this is regarding Item No. 13 and 16 Itmn No. 14 of which are posted currently on our 17 docucam. 18 MR. REICHHART: Thank you. At the last 19 meeting, there was some discussion regarding the 20 residential and the multi-family mix identified in the 21 Comprehensive Plan which is also expressed in the zoning 22 application. I handed out during the break a form that 23 looks like this, a table. And on the back side of the 24 table is a map of the study area. And, quite quickly, the 25 applicant asked us to do an analysis of what is the Page 44 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 41 - Page 44 CondcnscltTM 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 45 existing single-family to multi-family mix in the northeast section of the City, and they had requested the area north of University and east of Locust and we bounded it by the City limits and Mayhill. I went further and we did an analysis taking it all the way down to McKinney. We figured that was more of a representative mix of that quadrant of the City, if you will. Now, the only caveat I'd like to put on to this report, this is -- in order to do a study like that, there's an extensive amount of man hours that had to go into this. And given the short period of time, the data on this sheet are as close as we could get. I would estimate that thc number of single-family units is probably a little high, not very high, and the nmnber of multi-family units is probably a little bit low, but these are fairly good representatives. We haven't done any analysis. We finished this this afternoon. I gave a copy to the applicant. He said he was going to mention this in his presentation so I just wanted to give you a little background. In this information, we used existing GrS in~bnnation that we had available through the City's database to figure out the single-family. Two years ago, the Building Deparunent did an extensive multi-family analysis on the entire City and then we added what we knew was developed since two years Page 46 1 ago. 2 And just looking at the map, I know there's 3 a few inconsistencies but I think it's fairly 4 representative. And take it for what it is. It's just 5 nm~abers right now. We haven't really done any analysis 6 but I did want to give you the opportunity to let you know 7 some of the background on that. I'd bc happy to answer 8 any questions. 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEE: why don't you give a 10 brief interpretation of what you have nmnber-wise here and 11 talk about the percentages. 12 MR. REICHH~XT: The -- well, north of 13 University, right now existing there's approximately a 75 14 percent to 25 percent single-family to multi-family. If 15 you take that area all the way down to McKinney, the !16 average drops to 64 single-family to 36 percent 17 multi-family. 18 Middle column was what the applicant had 19 originally proposed, what was represented at the last 20 Planning and Zoning public hearing, those numbers would 21 have dropped from 75 percent north of University to 68 22 percent for single-family and increased on the 23 multi-family from 25 percent to 32 percent, again, north 24 of University. In the bottom figure or table represents 25 the nmnbers, as I knew of I believe Tuesday morning which 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 47 is approximately 595 multi-family and 451 single-family now proposed in this development. Overall, it slightly reduces the single-family from the existing levels from 64 percent in that total quadrant down to 63 percent, and then increases multi-family from 36 to 37 percent. And, again, those nmnbers are a little bit higher for north of University because currently there isn't that much multi-fmnily in that quadrant north of University, so any multi-family mix you put in that quadrant will really increase that multi-family area. And, again, what this map and this analysis doesn't show is where is the core multi-family development in the City. It is just looking at this quadrant. MR. POWELL: ^nd if I may, I think we mentioned at the last lneeting, caution again that the Comprehensive Plan is a policy guide, it's a tool. That 60-40 split is City-wide so, you know, how far down you want to tailor that to a section or a neighborhood. Again, the applicant asks for this information and that's why we tried to provide it. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Director. Conunissioners, any questions of the staff report? Co~mnissioner Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: NO, I'm sorry my light is on. Page 48 1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. Thank 2 you, Mr. Reichhart. Someone else staff-wise that we -- 3 MR. REICHHA~T: YeS. At the neighborhood 4 meeting that was held recently, one of the bigger concerns 5 expressed was the drainage situation, specifically on the 6 west side of Loop 288. And Charles Fiedler, the Director 7 of Engineering is here to address that situation. 8 MR. FIEDLER: Good evening. Give y'all a 9 little update. 10 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: could you give us 11 your name and position with the City? 12 MR. FIEDLER: charles Fiedler, Director of 13 Engineering with the City of Denton. To give you an 14 update, the question regarding drainage is an issue with 15 the two iteans before you. As far as no engineering having 16 been done on them at this time, the firm cmmnitment is 17 that this application for future development would be 18 coining in under the new Code which would require that this 19 land be developed in accordance with that Code such that 20 there would be no impact to the existing Cooper Creek 21 water she, at from this development, that any work that they 22 do in this area, any development that they do in this area 23 will have to be managed in a way that it does not impact 24 the water shed. 25 Now, there are concerns with the water shed PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 45 - Page 48 CondcnscltTM Page 49 1 that are beyond the scope of this project that's before 2 you this evening and there are things that are being done 3 in that water shed right now on behalf of the City to try 4 and address some of those concerns. Historically, this is 5 an area of town that developed prior to any of thc mapping 6 of the floodplains and, unfortunately, some of the lots 7 that were developed in this area are in the floodplain and 8 the floodway. It's an existing condition. There was no 9 mapping when it was platted. There was no indication that 10 they were in a floodplain. Houses were built out there. 11 And in hindsight the mapping indicated that this area was 12 in a floodplain. 13 That in mind, the City has been working on 14 this project for a number of years. Two detention ponds 15 have already been constructed upstream to try and hold 16 some of the waters -- a map of thc area -- have been 17 developed upstream to try and contain some of the water so 18 that they limit the amount of flows that's coming upstream 19 of this area. With the introduction of the drainage fee 20 recently, monies are now available to go into a routine 21 maintenance mode where sections of the creek that we have 22 easements on can be maintained properly so that flow 23 through those areas does not adversely impact the 24 properties anymore than is necessary. There is monies in 25 the budget in 2004 for improvements to Mingo Road and the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 50 drainage channels underneath Mingo Road which represents a dam downstream. But there are still challenges like a railroad track that we have no control over or ability to change. All in all, the City is working diligently trying to minimize the current condition out there, but understanding that it will never fully be resolved given that some of the houses are actually in the floodway. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Page 51 ! COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. So how will 2 that affect the -- by not building on that, how much will 3 that contribute to lessening problems or impact? 4 MR. FIEDLER: It would be an even split, 5 that if he's not developing on it, that water would still 6 be coming off of the property in the current condition 7 it's coming off now. 8 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Would be 9 developing in there, clearing -~ I've been down there and 10 I've walked it and there's a lot of debris and whatnot 11 that has accumulated in that area along the creek bed. 12 Will that be attended to as a result of developing? 13 MR. FIEDLER: In areas where we have 14 easements, and right now we do not have easements through 15 the property that's under discussion here this evening, 16 but with the platting of that property, the addition of 17 easements through there would allow us to do additional 18 maintenance in that area. 19 COMMISSIONER KeITH: okay. So by them 20 relinquishing that as a greenbelt, then that will enable 21 the City to go in there and do some work on it and clean 22 it out and make it drainage better then, correct? 23 MR. FIEDLER: In a limited approach based 24 on the environmental sensitive area guidelines that we're 25 working under, yes, sir. Page 52 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. What do you mcan by the environment sensitive, please? MR. FIEDLER: It'S not going to be a channelization project. It would be pulling out debris that has floated downstream, clearing the channel of that debris, trying to promote the flow through there in a natural condition. COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. So the City wouldn't be able to go in there and open it up and channel COMMISSIONER RISHEL: we have several questions. Conmnissioner Keith. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. Mr. Fielder, so as I'm listening to you, I take it that the City is already taking an active role in resolving the problems that are with this creek? MR. FIEDLER: we're taking an active role 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 it out? MR. FIEDLER: NO, sir. COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes. Charles, if you could run back through briefly, and it may not be specific only to this case, but just in general for the Cormnission, to mitigate some of the problems. The problems cannot be totally resolved, no, sir. COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. With this development as you're familiar with on this, there is some area that's going to be designated greenbelt by the developer that's not going to be built upon at all, correct? MR. FIEDLER: That's my understanding, yes, sir. 17 the new Code and the treatment of drainage from this point 18 looking into the future, my understanding is in the 19 majority of cases, with some few exceptions, is the 20 principle, the guiding principle is that whenever land is 21 developed, we will have no effect downstream. So whatever 22 is necessitated holding ponds on the property as opposed 23 to widening the downstream channel is the direction we're 24 headed in. Is that -- 25 MR. FIEDLER: In general, yes, sir. We're PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 49 - Page 52 CondcnseltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 53 developing -- unlike a lot of cities that are acquiring every tract to develop a detention pond to take care of their specific tract, we're trying to design the system based on an idea that the fully developed flow in a water shed is going to continue to be allowed to transmit through each property that's subsequently developed. So that the property that we're talking about here would be developed in conj unction with the fully developed flow that would be coining onto that property and contained, given the fact that the Cooper Creek water shed is already in a detention mode. This is maybe a little bit special case because we already have a problem here. We're not going to do anything to make that problem any worse through any future development in this water shed. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. So whether it's this project or any, the analysis will be you can't contribute to more flow in the channel? MR. FIEDLER: well, specifically in this water shed, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any other questions of staff, Commissioners? Thank you, Mr. Fiedler. MR. FIEDLER: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: This is a public hearing, t'm going to ask the petitioner if he would like Page 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 55 rezone it. Here are the sectors that we're trying to rezone. This is going to be -- right up here is Deerwood and right here is SF-3. That means three units per acre. Those are bigger lots than in Deerwood. We're having a church that's very interested in buying that so there will probably end up being a church. They're not going to develop that whole tract i~mnediately. There will probably be a church with most of it left open space. They'll probably preserve all the trees there. This area here is SF-6 and this is SF-6. This area here is being converted from Industrial to SF-6. It'S the downzoning of about 16 levels. COMMISSIONER RtSHEL: Can we get clarification from staff as to what our zoning classification would be? Is there NR-3 involved here? DR. WOLSKI: This is NR-6, NR-6, NR-3. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Okay. Thank you. DR. WOLSKI: We had a -- this is going to be multi-fmnily. This is going to be multi-family. The blue is going, to be multi-fmnily. We dropped our multi-family by about 809 units. We asked for 1,399 initially, or more than that, and we dropped it down to 590. And we went from 30 units an acre here to 12 units an acre. Page 56 to present at this time. And the petitioner has 15 minutes and if I could ask all of his representatives that might want to participate to participate in that timeframe. I would appreciate it. If you would care to introduce yourself and the rest of your staff or coworkers, I'd appreciate it. DR. WOLSKI: My name is Ed Wolski and -- COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And, once again, this is in reference to Items No. 13 and 14 on our Agenda and we will address both of these at the same time. DR. WOLSKI: My name is Ed Wolski. I live at 2301 Hollyhill in Denton. Bob Welty is our architect and Jeff Krueger is going to be talking also, and he lives in the neighborhood we're talking about. This is an aerial. This is an aerial of the place we're talking about. Here's to orient you, here's Mingo. Here's the Loop. Here's Kings Row. Here's Windsor. Here's the neighbors that are in the floodplain and Albertson's is building down in the floodplain down here. We tried to make as many people happy as possible and make a bunch of compromises. What we did here, the way it is zoned right now, this is all Industrial. That's the current zoning. This is NR-4, NR-4, the rest is NR-2. When we talked to staff why it was NR-2, they said it was a computer glitch and so that's why we decided to try to 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 i16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The reason we like multi-fmnily here is because this is a truck route. It's noisy, a lot of truck traffic. It's not as desirable for single-family to be against the heavy truck traffic on the Loop. Also, there's a railroad here so it's a buffer for the railroad, and there's Safety-Kleen and the copper plant are over here. So it's a buffer against all this industrial. So we're trying to have an NRMU-12 buffer and an SF-6 buffer here against the railroad, against Safety-Kleen and the copper plant, the industrial. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Once again, there is no SF configuration. DR. WOLSKI: I'm sorry, it's NR-6. NOW, on this side up here, we had these neighbors were upset because the easement for Old North Road was in their backyard. We said that's no problem. We can have a row of lots here that are as big as lots in the neighborhood to buffer this road, Old North Road. Windsor, we have a lot of people upset about Windsor going through. But on 87 percent of the people, passed a bond election for that Windsor overpass so there's nothing we can do. There's 87 percent of the City said that they wanted that road there. And that's really -- you know, people arc upset with our development but we don't have anything to do with Windsor or the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 53 - Page 56 CondcnscltTM flooding? Page 57 1 Mobility Plan. It's been on there for years. 2 These folks were upset because they thought 3 their houses would flood. They're in the floodplain and 4 at this would aggravate the flooding. And like the 5 engineers have said, that the drainage will be retained 6 on-site and it will be released at a controlled rate so it 7 won't flood. And that's one of the -- 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: SO it won't add to 9 the flooding? 10 r)R. WOLSI~I: what's that? l 1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It won't add to the 12 floods-- DR. WOLSKI: correct. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: If it akeady 13 14 15 16 DR. WOLSKI: It won't add to the flooding. 17 This is going to be community mixed use and we sec that as 18 being offices, maybe some restaurants. Okay. This is 19 what we're asking for, co~mnunity mixed use, neighborhood 20 residential. Downzoning of Employment Center and low 21 density residential next to existing neighborhoods. Okay. 22 The residential buffers, they'll be the same size lots or 23 larger lots than existing neighborhoods. 24 The Neighborhood Residential 6 and Namuq2 25 will buffer the heavy truck traffic on the Loop. Page 58 1 Originally, we had 1,399 multi-family units. We reduced 2 the multi-fmnily units. We've got -- the total nmnber of 3 residential units are now actually less than 1,000 and we 4 did this after talking to Planning and Zoning staff, the 5 Co~mnissioners, feedback from the Co~muissioners, and the 6 school board. 7 The northern portion of the Employment 8 Center will be downzoned to Neighborhood Residential 6, 9 NR-6, to buffer the Deerwood neighborhood. Light 10 industrial in that area will also buffer the heavy 11 industrial of Safety-Kleen and the copper plant. Again, 12 the extension of Old North Road, we're going to have lots 13 buffering the existing neighborhood. There's not going to 14 be Old North Road in anyone's backyard. 15 Drainage, no buildings will be built in the 16 floodplain. Retention ponds will be built to decrease 17 runoff, and the City engineers will ma/re sure that the 18 level of water in Cooper Creek won't increase. Windsor, 19 you know, inside the Loop, it's really not a zoning issue. 20 It's like a Mobility Plan issue. And the City is saying 21 it needs to connect. It can't dead end. The 22 Comprehensive Plan promotes connectivity. Windsor, 23 outside the Loop, this is a big issue for the neighbors. 24 They didn't want Windsor to connect up to Farris because 25 they would have a lot of traffic through the neighborhood. Page 59 1 So we designed an extension all the way out to Cooper 2 Creek Road. 3 Again, we reduced our multi-family by over 4 800 units and we went from 30 units per acre to 12 units 5 per acre. The traffic impact study showed Category B 6 before the density was reduced, and that's the City 7 minimmn, I understand, is a Category rating of D. That's 8 my presentation. 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. 10 Wolski. 11 MR. KRUEGER: My name is Jeff Krueger and 12 my address is 3905 Deer Forest and I represent Dr. Wolski. 13 I'm going to address the DISD's concern. Ijust want to 14 make a couple of brief statcunents. 15 Nmnber one we have a 240-acre planned 16 development community here. Out of those 240 acres, we 17 now have over 105 acres as either Conunercial or Light 18 Industrial. This is not your normal type of development 19 that the school district is used to dealing with. They're 20 used to dealing with the developers that either do 21 strictly single-family homes or developers that do 22 multi-family homes. We currently are in negotiation with 23 thcun. And except for just some timing errors, we would 24 have hashed this out last night but we didn't. We 25 understand you have a letter from Mr. Holloway and perhaps Page 60 1 you'll hear from him later. 2 COMMISSIONER RISI-IEL: I-Iow was yollr hashing 3 coining? 4 MR. ~mUEOER: well, it's a -- you know. 5 It actually is going -- we have a lot to offer the school 6 district and I think that Mr. Holloway will confer that we 7 actually do have a lot to offer the school district and 8 we're willing to offer a lot to the school district. 9 However, due to time restraints and legal 10 legalities, because we weren't quite an Agenda itcnn, we 11 could not finalize those discussions. However, we don't 12 feel like we should be penalized because of that. We feel 13 that we have met a lot of the staff requircunents, a lot of 14 the City requirements. Because we are not through 15 negotiating with the D[SD does not mean that we will not 16 continue to negotiate with the DISD. ^nd we feel that 17 because we've met certain technical rcquirmnents with 18 y'all, we would like to see this resolved. We feel that 19 the City Council has thc authority to support or deny our 20 continued request after we get beyond your level and it 21 does allow us to move forward with your approval, if we're 22 fortunate to get that approval, and we will continue to 23 work with the school district. 24 In fact, we will go on record as stating we 25 will not go forward to the City Council, even with your PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 57 - Page 60 Condcns¢ItTM Page 61 1 approval, until we have finalized our negotiation with the 2 school district. We feel that confident that what we have 3 to offer them will be accep~:t and that we can move 4 forward. 5 However, we have been here nmncrous times, as 6 you're all aware, sometimes very late at night. We have 7 strived to work with the neighborhood. We have been going 8 since before March of last year. And I know there's a lot 9 of circumstances beyond both of our control, both your' s, 10 staff's, our's that caused that. However, it's been over 11 one year and we'd like to see this moved forward. We're 12 asking you tonight -- what I heard last week from the 13 Comanission was that give us something to vote for or vote 14 against. We think that we have put together a product 15 that will allow you to do just that. We hope that you 16 vote for it, but we hope that we move forward tonight. 17 We are willing to work with the school 18 district. We have shown that, and I think that Mr. 19 Holloway agrees with that. I've met with their attorney. 20 I've inet with thc board president. I've inet with the 21 superintendent. We are going through that process. We 22 would like the time to do that beyond the P&Z. We want to 23 get past you-all and, technically, we think we've met your 24 deal and we'd appreciate y'all voting and moving this 25 forward. If there's any other questions, Mr. Welty is 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 63 very sensitive in all of the densities we are requesting on sites abutting other single-family developments, are at densities less -- equal to or less than the densities of those sites and lot sizes equal to or larger than those lots in those other developments. Again, what we have done in our -- we have done preliminary engineering on this site and we are not reclaiming any land currently in floodplain and we have provided detention bases on each of our sites which will handle sufficiently thc runoff from our site and hold it on-site with no impact to our adjacent sites. And with that, we will answer your questions. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Commissioners, any questions of the petitioner? Thank you very much. This is a public hearing so at this time I'm going to open the public hearing. I'd like to ask for -- I'm going to divide this up between people that would like to speak either for the petition or against the petition. And, once again, we are speaking of Item No. 13 and Item No. 14 on our Agenda. As cited in our rules and our regulations, basically we have 30 minutes for additional speakers that want to speak for this petition and we have set aside 40 minutes for those who might be opposed to this petition. So I'm going to ask that each petitioner that would like Page 62 1 here and Dr. Wolski can answer those. But thank you for 2 your time. 3 COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: Thank you, Mr. 4 Krueger. 5 MR. K~UEOER: By thc way, happy birthday, 6 Cormnissioner Powell. 7 MR. WE[T¥: Good evening. My name is Bob 8 Welty. 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YOU have two and a 10 half minutes left on your time. 11 MR. WELTY: TWO and a half minutes. My i12 name is Bob Welty, 5207 McKinney Avenue, Dallas, Texas. I 13 am here as a member of Dr. Wolski's tcaln and I did want to 14 point out two or three things vc'~ quickly and I will make 15 them very quick. 16 Since our last meeting, we promised you 17 that we would indeed meet with the neighbors again. We 18 have inet with the neighbors and hopefully addressed some 19 of their concerns. We have further listened to the staff. 20 We havc reduced our multi-family land area by 21 approximately 28 acres, reducing the total multi-family 22 unit count by 342 units just since our last meeting. 23 And we have agreed to leave a big portion of the EC-I land 24 just as it is currently zoned in your Comprehensive Plan. 25 As Dr. Wolski pointed out, we have been Page 64 1 to speak, if they'd limit themselves to five minutes and 2 present additional new information that another speaker 3 might not have presented. We would like to take at this 4 point in time speakers or presenters that would like to 5 speak in favor of this petition. 6 Are there some people that would like to 7 speak in favor of this petition, if you'd come forward at 8 this time. Anyone who would like to speak in favor of the 9 petition? 10 Okay. Seeing no one who would like to 11 speak in favor of the petition, I will address the people 12 that would like to speak in opposition to the petition. 13 Once again, I rmnind you that you have five minutes. I 14 have several speakers or a list of people that would like 15 to present. I'd like to take them in some sort of order 16 at this time and thc first speaker would be Mr. Gene 17 Holland (sic) with the school district. Is Mr. Holland 18 (sic) still here? 19 MR. HOLLOWAY: Good evening, Cmmnissioners. 20 My name is Ocnc Holloway. I'm Director of Transportation 21 and Planning for Denton ISD and I bid you greetings from 22 the Denton ISD Board of Trustees. 23 At your place, I believe you received a 24 letter on behalf of the Denton DIso Board of Trustees. I 25 would like to inform you that the district was only PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 61 - Page 64 CondenseltTM Page 65 1 informed as of Monday of this week, March the 1 lth, of the 2 new modifications to the proposed zoning to the Windsor 3 Oaks development. At that point in time, initial analysis 4 showed that that would generate approximately a student 5 yield of approximately 530 from the multi-housing and 6 single-housing development. 7 Thc district is on record from DRC meetings 8 dating back to May of 2001 of being extremely concerned 9 with the concentration of multi-housing with this 10 particular development. As was pointed out, 1,300 plus or 11 thereabouts at that time, it was reduced down to 12 approximately 800 within the last two weeks and has, yes, 13 been reduced down to 590. But, again, the district has 14 not had an opportunity to examine and look in on this 15 particular development plan and modification and has not 16 had adequate time. 17 As you well know as a public body, the 18 Board of Trustees can only deliberate and deal and discuss 19 district business with posted meetings. And, 20 unfortunately, with the timing of this Monday the 10th, 21 and Tuesday the 11 th was the scheduled board meeting, the 22 item was not able to make the Board Agenda. With the 23 Board's next meeting scheduled for April the 9th, 24 unfortunately with spring break and in the timeframe of 25 the school calendar, the Board has invited the developer, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 67 many speakers. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I have a lot of cards but some of them don't want to speak so I don't think it's as bad as it might appear from this side of the desk. COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, I mean, if we have the five-minute rule it's eight speakers. If we want to allow more than eight, we need to reduce that five down. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I'm just guessing we're going to be right about there, but I appreciate your concerns. It might not be as bad as it looks from this side of the table. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I don't want to deprive the last three speakers. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: If' I was better organized over here, I'm sure it would be much easier to see where we are with our count. Okay. Thank you very much. Let me take them in the order that I have at this point in time. The next speaker I have on my list would be Mr. Terry Sewell. Mr. Terry Sewell, would you like to present? MR. SEWELL: Terry Sewell, 3005 Mistywood, and I do live in the flood zone. Our concem is if we build in Tracts 10 and 11, according to this map that I Page 66 1 Dr. Wolski and his associates to meet with the Board again 2 on April the 9th to present their plan so that they can 3 indced respond to this appropriately and properly. 4 I would like to say at this point in time, 5 to my knowledge, that the developer has not met with the 6 Board specifically, and as far as with that, any special 7 or any acconmnodations have only been brought to the table 8 just within the last 24 to 36 hours. And as far as 9 certainly duc diligence must be exercised for the Board to 10 make a decision for or against any type of position on 11 this particular proposal. At that point, I stand ready to 12 answer any questions. 13 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Gene, excuse me for 14 misspeaking your name. I'm only known you for, what, 15, 15 16 years. 16 MR. UOLt, OW^Y: xhat's quite all right. 1[ 17 answer to many things, sir. 18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: ^ppreciate it. Thank 19 you for your kindness. Conunissioners, any questions of 20 Mr. Holloway? Thank you very much, Mr. Holloway. 21 Cormnissioner Mulroy. 22 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. 23 May I make a suggestion, if we have a limitation of 40 24 nfinutes in total -- 25 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I don't have that Page 68 I have right here, that more water is going to come down. 2 If they build right up next to the flood zone, where are 3 the retaining ponds going to go? It's already there. So 4 we lack the confidence, myself and some of my neighbors 5 lack the confidence in the retaining ponds holding back 6 the water. 7 Pm not sure what to do. I don't know what 8 the answer is. I don't know if cleaning it out -- and I 9 know the upgrades around Mingo Road and the railroad 10 trestle is a big issue. That will help but it still 11 floods a lot. 12 I'm going to keep this short. This is my 13 backyard. I don't know if we can see all this or not. I 14 really like to use our backyard, barbecues, whatnot, and 15 we love to go swi~mning, just not in this pond. 16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: when was this picture 17 taken? 18 MR. SEWELL: I believe this was last 19 January. And this has happened several times, which you 20 can see it also floods the storage shed and whatnot. 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: If you would move 22 your picture over, maybe you could show us again where 23 your house is located. 24 MR. SEWELL: tet's see. My house is right 25 here, right here. So if they build these -- this is just PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 65 - Page 68 CondcnseltTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 69 adding n'lore concrete already up to this flood zone and the elevation is already high right here and the water to us just seems like it's going to come down faster. So I'm just going to lack the confidence in the retaining ponds and the flooding system that has been proposed. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: We can see you have a concern. MR. SEWELL: Yes. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. Sewell. Mr. Mulroy. Mr. Sewell, I think I have a couple of Commissioners that may have some questions. Mr. Mulroy, are you one of those? COMMISSIONER MULROY: No. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Okay. Mr. Keith. COMMISSIONER KEITH: DO yOU carry flood insurance? MR. SEWELL: Yes, we do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 i1 12 13 14 15 16 17 Page 71 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: okay. Okay. We'll have time for that, I'm sure. Thank you, Mr. Sewell. MR. SEWELL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I have a letter and several pictures from a Mary Wright. Would Mary Wright care to speak at this time? Is Mary Wright here? I have some very detailed pictures that she had and I will submit her letter into our minutes for Planning and Zoning and we'll have that information all together. The next speaker that I have is Wade Lillie. Is Mr. Lillie here? MR. LILLIE: Good evening. My name is Wade Lillie. I serve as President of the Deerwood Neighborhood Association. We have several members that are here with us tonight. You guys want to wave or something? Michael, I think this is your que. We did meet with the developer back last COMMISSIONER KEITH: Have you had to file with that flood insurance with your policy? MR. SEWELL: I don't have it with me, no. COMMISSIONER KEITH: I mean, have you filed under it, have you made any claims? MR. SEWELL: NO, I have not. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Okay. So it's just primarily the flooding has been back up into your 18 week. Some of the changes that have been proposed were 19 not discussed at that meeting, but let me tell you that 20 there are some areas of agrtmnent. And while we can't 21 speak in total support of it at this time because there 22 are still some things that are left hanging, we think the 23 density is moving in the right direction and that the 24 changes that are being made to reduce the density are 25 good. Page 70 1 backyard? 2 MR. SEWELL: For the most part, at this 3 point so far, yes. 4 COMMISSIONER KEITH: At this point. Is 5 your house on slab at grade level? I mean, is it elevated 6 off the ground much? I'm trying to get a picture of how 7 those houses arc built there. 8 MR. SEWELL: Right. The house comes -- the 9 slab comes up six to eight inches or so. 10 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Thank you very 11 much. 12 MR. SEWELL: Thank you. 13 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Sewell, attached 14 to your briefing information that you presented to us, you 15 had a whole list of neighbors that were involved with you 16 here. 17 MR. SEWELL: Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Are any of those 19 neighbors here with you? 20 MR. SEWELL: Yes, they are. 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: will some of those 22 people be speaking or did you want to present them in some 23 way, shape, or form? 24 MR. SEWELL: I would like for them to 25 speak. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 72 We have not heard, or, at least, I've not heard this evening, what the staff's recommendation is as to how that fits with the density plan for the City, but we do like the downward trend. We do appreciate the developer's enthusiasm and willingness to be ma:ting with us, and we could be meeting about once a week on a regular basis as we go through this process. One point that we are in agreement with is that perhaps continuing for simply a two-week period when there are so many changes coming down, may not be enough time to get the information to all the people who are going to be affected or impacted by the changes. We still have some concerns regarding density. We do have some concerns regarding the traffic and the traffic impact, as well as the access from outside the Loop to inside the Loop. And I was here for part of the discussion related to the Kings Row and the Windsor overpasses. We do have some concerns about that accessibility. And we also, being a neighborhood that has a neighborhood school, we are concerned about the impact that it will have on the school. I know that the school district has some things in place to help with impact fees and/or making allowances for land or other things that would help reduce that negative impact or that overflow PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 69 - Page 72 CondenseltTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 73 impact. And so I guess right now we feel that things are moving the right direction and we would encourage the process to continue until we can get agreement. I know that they're interested in meeting with the school and getting some agreement there, as well. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: co~mnissioners, any questions of Mr. Lillie? Mr. Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes. Thanks again for coining to another meeting. My question -- COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I8 your microphone on."{ COMMISSIONER MULROY: Thank you. Excuse me. My mistake. Thank you again for coming to another meeting, Mr. Lillie. It's important for our process. Of specific interest to me is the recent changes reverting the originally proposed NRMU'S and some NR-6'S back to the EC-I area, the light industrial area that buffers between the heavier industrial and University Drive and your 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 i1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Page 75 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further questions, Co~ranissioners? Thank you, Mr. Lillie. MR. LILLIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: The next speaker that I have is Mr. Steve Pogue. I hope I got that right this time, Mr. Pogue. MR. POGUE: Thank you. My name is Steve Pogue. I live at 3416 Hillview. And I want to just kind of look at this property as proposed in terms of the context of the City. And Pm not sure how this is showing up on the map. The area in green is basically representing the areas where there's existing housing and the new developrnents will abut against that. And my concern is if you look at this entire area, most of the area is currently zoned NR-3. There's a small section that is currently developed as NR-4 and then as you go up in the area called D-10, you can see it, part of that is NR-4. Several times I've heard the petitioners talk about that neighborhood. And, of course, there's an NR-6 in between. What is your neighborhood association's reflection on the Ec-I designation, the light industrial versus the previous proposed? MR. LILLIE: we've not had an opportunity to specifically address that in some type of a format to Page 74 1 either get a vote on it or to come to some consensus. 2 However, it was addressed at our last meeting with the 3 developer and Larry Reichhart was there and provided the 4 list of activities and services that could be provided 5 through that. 6 And at that time, there did not seem to be 7 a real concern regarding any of those. We're not talking 8 about having smokestacks and those kinds of things. It is 9 more mnenable. And also some of the usages are normally 10 daytime uses when most of the homeowners are gone. And 11 then in the evenings, those activities would not be 12 apparent. 13 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. So you're not 14 opposed to that at all, reverting back to the light 15 industrial? 16 MR. LILLIE: We did not propose that. 17 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I mean, you're not 18 opposed to it. 19 MR. LILLIE: AS a neighborhood 20 association, we have not had a chance to come to consensus 21 on that, but there was not opposition voiced at our last 22 neighborhood meeting when it was discussed with Mr. 23 Reichhart and the developers. 24 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. Thank you, Mr. 25 Lillie. 20 the lots will be the existing size or larger, but that 21 would require -- they would be NR-3's, NR-2'S, or NR- 1 's. 22 So I'm kind of puzzled as to why they're saying these lots 23 will actually be the same size as thc existing area. 24 And I guess in the overall context of what 25 this map shows to me is that this is primarily an area of 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 76 single-family housing. There's really not multi-family areas right in this inmnediate area. And I think many of us in this area would like to keep it that way, keep it single-family. I think SOlnetimes the idea has been proposed that people don't want to live within a proximity of the Loop, but I think as you go further around the Loop, you'll see a number of developments have been brought up basically within a few yards of the Loop or a few feet of the Loop, and then they have some type of wall that pennits privacy. So thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Some of those subdivisions are selling and some of those aren't. Thank you, Mr. Pogue. Let me see if there's any Commissioners that have any questions. Any questions, Cmmnissioners? Thank you very much. Is there a Ginger Ester here? Ms. Ester. MS. ESTER: Most of my concerns and questions have already been answered. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: They've already been answered? MS. ESTER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very much. Mr. Richard Beggs. MR. BEGGS: My nmnc is Richard Bcggs. I live at 2324 East Windsor Drive. I would hate to see the PLANN1NG AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 73 - Page 76 CondenseltTM Page 77 1 Council approve anything that would further a Windsor 2 overpass, anymore traffic on Windsor. We don't need that 3 at all. We've got Woodrow Wilson Elementary, Strickland 4 Middle School, Evers Park Elementary, two parks, Evers 5 Park and North Lakes Park on Windsor. 6 In a recent study the City did -- well, not 7 recent, about last year, they clocked people at 70 miles 8 an hour on my street. So I have nothing against the 9 petitioner but we don't need any more traffic on Windsor 10 Drive, is the main point that I would like to make. 11 Also, I believe the school district has 12 indicated that they are against -- well, not against, that 13 they would like to have single-fatally homes compared to 14 multi-family dwellings. I know that the City, I felt in 15 the past, would like some multi-family because they can 16 have all the utilities there and we like to live out in 17 the country and those kind of things, but we all have to 18 live together. But I would suggest that we not encourage 19 more multi-fmnily homes in that area and increase the 20 traffic. 21 Also, you've heard of the water shed 22 problems so I don't need to go into those. Thank you very 23 much. 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. Beggs. 25 Let me see if any Colmnissioners have questions. Page 78 1 Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Beggs? Thank you, 2 sir. 3 MR. BEGGS: Thank you. 4 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I have several cards 5 of people that did not wish to speak. But, first of all, 6 let me call to see if there's anyone else who would like 7 to speak. Once again, this is people in opposed to the 8 Item No. 13, Item No. 14 on our Agenda. Anyone else 9 who would like to speak opposed to this issue currently 10 before us? 11 Let me go through the cards. I have a card 12 from Mr. Ray Staniszewski, and I believe he addressed us 13 last meeting. Still concerned about the zoning changes, 14 concerned about the Denton Plan, the traffic, would like 15 to see a traffic study, and is concerned about the schools 16 and the density. 17 I have a card from Ms. Staniszewski, and 18 would like to thank the staff for their information that 19 they have tried to relate to her regarding the questions 20 that she's had. She lives in the Deerwood area, I 21 presume, with Mr. Staniszewski, and is still concerned 22 about the school, the Denton Plan, and increased density. 23 I have a card from Ms. Lillie, and also 24 concerned about the changes that have been put forth and 25 the need for time to look at those changes, the density Page 79 1 and how it affects the neighborhood. 2 I have a card from Linda -- yeah, that's 3 C-R-E-A-G-I-I. Is that Creagh, I believe? And is concerned 4 about the Mobility Plan and the intersection at 288 and 5 Windsor. 6 Once again, this is a public hearing. 7 Anyone else who would like to speak either for or against 8 this itoh at this time, please come forward. If you'd 9 give us your name and address. 10 MR. DAVIS: Yes. My name is Glen Davis. I 11 live at 2907 Emerson. I guess one of our biggest issues 12 was the flood situation. Now, you saw the pictures that 13 the lady brought you hcrc and you looked at thcan. Some of 14 those am behind my house. Okay. And when I first moved 15 in my house, it floods, it floods bad. It doesn't matter 16 how much it rains, it floods. 17 And one of our biggest issues we've been 18 fighting the City to come in there and clean it. Okay. I 19 cleaned my lot personally myself just so I could get the 20 water and debris to flow though. The City didn't do it. 21 I did it. I fought the City to do it and they still 22 wouldn't do it. My neighbors next to me did the same 23 thing. Now, you go down the road towards Old North, you 24 see the pictures, it's nothing but a brush pile. And you 25 go around the corner to Creagh, it's nothing but a brush Page 80 1 pile. When it rains, it floods severely. 2 Now, we've been fighting the City. Now 3 we're going to a greenbelt, ivh'. Wolski says that he's 4 willing to give it to the City. The City don't want no 5 part of it. Neither does Mr. Wolski because Mr. Wolski 6 doesn't want to clean it and put the money out, neither 7 does the City. So who pays for it? The neighborhood. 8 We're the ones that lose because it floods oar houses and 9 everything behind our house every time it rains. I used 10 to have a six-foot fence behind my house. You know where 11 it'sat? It' s down that damn creek. And we've been 12 dealing with this issue every time it comes up. 13 Now, I remember when Mr. Wolksi last year 14 came to my house, personally called me at my house -- I've 15 known Mr. Wolski for awhile, haven't I? He's a nice guy. 16 I don't have anything against him. But when Albertson's 17 came in, he called me, called a lot of the neighbors and 18 said, hey, Albertson's is coining in. It's going to flood 19 my 217 acres. You need to petition against it. Well, now 20 we're in the same boat. Mr. Wolski wants to build behind 21 my house. What aln I doing now? I'm petitioning against 22 it because it's going to flood my house. I've been there 23 and I'm looking at that same situation again. Same with 24 all my neighbors that arc sitting in these seats. I'm 25 looking out for the benefit of myself, but also the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 77 - Page 80 CondcnscItTM 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 81 1 benefit of my neighbors and the value of my house. 2 Now, when Mr. Wolski goes in there and 3 builds, is he going to build those retention ponds right 4 next to that greenbelt? It's not going to serve any good 5 because nobody is cleaning the creek. The water is still 6 going to flow in the damn creek. So now we're at a losing 7 battle. It's called punt. Who's going to punt? We lose. 8 Mr. Wolski loses. We know that he's going to build back 9 there. That's a given. 10 Of course, we don't want to see apartment 11 complexes or co~rnnercial buildings back there. We'd sure 12 like to see residential homes and a nice neighborhood. But the issue is something has to be done about the creek, whether the City does it or whether Mr. Wolski does it. And we know that. It has to be addressed. So I'll oppose whatever he's willing to do until something is addressed. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. Davis. MR. DAVIS: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Co~mnissioners, any questions of Mr. Davis? Any further questions? Anyone who would like to speak either for or against Item No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Page 83 historically, the property owner, not Dr. Wolski but the previous propcmy owner would not grant us easements to go on the property to do any drainage clearing. And as Mr. Ficdler had expressed, this has been on a maintenance routine, although it hasn't been, if you listen to the neighbors and they're right out there, it hasn't been enough. With the drainage impact fees that we have now, it is believed that we will be able to kick up the maintenance that is required to keep this area free of debris. Working with the applicant to get the easmnents needed either temporarily to get on the property to do some more maintenance would also be beneficial. But the real problem is down here at Mingo and the railroad tracts is that restriction, and as you clear this up, the water will still back up. I mean, it will allow some more water to get out of there a little bit quicker, but the restriction is at Mingo. Excuse me. And until that is resolved, the routine maintenance will keep that area flowing as well as it can. It will not correct the flooding situation. COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Can the City 13 or Item No. 14 on our Agenda this evening? If there's no one else who -- excuse me, Commissioner Keith. COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Yeah. In relation to Mr. Davis' remarks, I would like -- no, please Page 82 22 come in and do some channeling in that area? 23 MR. REICHHART: I'll defer to the Director 24 of Engineering on that. 25 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. And then the Page 84 1 be seated. I would like to ask Mr. Reichhart to come to 2 the podimn. I'd like to ask him something regarding that 3 nature. 4 COMMISSIONER RISI~EL: I think it might help 5 also if Mr. Fiedler might come forward and maybe we can 6 get both of them because I'm sure he'll have some ideas 7 and feedback and I was going to ask for him to come up and 8 address that, also. 9 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. l0 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: SO yollr question, Mr. 11 Keith. 12 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Yeah. Mr. Reichhart, 13 what is the City code regarding these creeks, particularly 14 this one? Is this part of the ES^? 15 MR. REICHHART: I can't speak specifically 16 regarding drainage requirements but the property is 17 identified as ES^. It is developed floodplains which does 18 state that there could be some mitigation because it's 19 already a developed floodplain. But you'd have to do, you 20 know, the drainage studies to indicate what that would be. 21 COMMISSIONER KEITH: I mean, I think Mr. 22 Davis just gave us a drainage study. 23 MR. REICImART: Quite honestly, the City 24 does have some easements on this portion of that channel. 25 We don't have any easements on here -- excuse me -- and, 6 7 8 9 10 11 !12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 next question, and maybe Engineering will have to do that too, is we just had a big rework, facelift down here on Bell Avenue and Prairie Street to handle the flooding down in that area. Has the City made any plans regarding addressing this backup that you just described that's at Mingo? MR. FIEDLER: with respect to the Cooper Creek wa~' shed which is what we're talking about, Cooper Creek and this area, no, there are no plans to do a channelization of this. It's my understanding that the studies that we have, even with the channelization, would not pull all of these houses out of the floodplain in that some of them are actually in the floodway. COMMISSIONER KEITH: But would channeling help? Well, that's what channeling is for is to help encourage water to go downstream faster. As Mr. Reichhart pointed out, the problcan is at Mingo Road. Has the City had any plans to work on the Mingo Road under road water way? MR. FIEDLER: Yes, sir. It's in thc 2004 budget. There's $80,000.00 in the budget to replace the culverts under Mingo Road, but it will not resolve the flooding situation in the Coop~ Creek water shed upstream. MR. D^VIS: It's just not Mingo Road. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 81 - Page 84 Condcns¢ItTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 85 You're not understanding -- COMMISSIONER RISHEL: sir. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Please, Mr. Davis. What we have is a real problmn here and some of it is the previous developer's building down in a floodplain. And I just want to let the audience know and Mr. Davis know that I've worked as a catastrophe insurance adjuster and I had to do a lot of flood insurance claims across the country and I've seen very similar situations and seeing a home flooded out is not a pretty sight. So my sympathies are there but this is part of the developer in which the City previously allowing these to be built down there. So we've kind of got a hair in the butter situation of, okay, what can we do to alleviate some of the flooding because you're not, apparently from your report, you're never going to alleviate 100 percent of it, correct? MR. FIEDLER: Ihat's correct. COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Powell. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. I still have a couple of questions of staff. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: stay with us, staff. COMMISSIONER POWELL: one of them has been answered. The second one is does either of you gentlemen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 87 MR. FIEDLER: without any specific engineering done on the project at this point in time, the best answer I have for you is that the code would not allow for them to discharge into the Cooper Creek water shed upstream of Mingo Road. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: what I'm hearing you say I think is that as this particular piece of property is developed, that particular piece of property will not add to additional waters into the Cooper Creek. MR. FIEDLER: That would have an adverse impact to the current water surface elevation, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Okay. Is there anything else we're doing upstream detention -- I know we have several that we've just completed detention-wise. Anything else we're doing upstream that's going to help us ilmnediately with regard to alleviating some of the problems that Mr. Sewel! and Mr. Davis have? MR. FIEDLER: Yes, sir. There is another detention pond, as I understand, that's in the works upstream. How much impact it will have in this location, really the Mingo Road improvements will have the most impact for this reach of the creek. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And you said that is, in fact, part of the 2004 bond issue which would put it approximately how far out? Page 86 1 know or does anybody know what the shaded area is on that 2 map that's on the screen now? Does that represent the 3 floodplain? 4 MR. REICHHART: It doesn't show very well. 5 I tried to highlight the subject property in the gray. 6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: IS that the David 7 Sahnon's school of drawing? 8 MR. REICHHART: The area I am outlining is 9 the floodway or the floodplain. 10 COMMISSIONER POWELL: okay. So that shaded 11 area is what I was getting at. 12 MR. REICHHART: This area in here is the 13 floodplain. 14 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. So 15 there's a lot of houses and a lot of lots that are in that 16 area. 17 MR. REICHHART: Yes, sir. 18 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. 19 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Fiedler, with 20 regard to the development that we have at hand, is there 21 any -- do you see a combination of enlarged detention and 22 channeling or moving the water in a broader sense that 23 would help the people in this i~mnediate area, either with 24 or without the Mingo drainage expansion at the railroad 25 track? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 88 MR. FIEDLER: My understanding is that they would be constructing it in 2004. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I see. So it would be i~mnediate in that bond issue, in theory, if it makes the bond. MR. FIEDLER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: okay. Mr. Reichhart. MR. REICHHART: Just a point of clarification, it is in the 2004 bond. It has been approved. The money is set aside already. There is no other requirements for any -- it's in the 2000 bond issue. COMMISSIONER MULROY: It'S scheduled for 2004. in 2004. MR. REICHHART: It's slated to be approved COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Okay. Thank you very much. I hope that helps our audience a little bit in trying to understand what we've tried to do to mitigate some of the things that are troublesome to us at this point in time. Colmnissioners, I have a couple of questions still from Colmnissioners. Co~mnissioner Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: very briefly, if I can massage the feelings of some of the folks in the audience and come to defense of staff, the Cooper Creek PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 85 - Page 88 CondenscltTM Page 89 1 basin has been the subject of City engineering for almost 2 ten years. In the '96 bond issue, it was addressed 3 looking at the crossings, our detention ponds, the total 4 budget for detention ponds for that basin would be $4 to 5 $6 million in 1996. The total mnount of drainage money 6 for five years from '96 to 2000 City-wide was only $7 7 million. 8 So you can look at the proportionality and 9 what money that could be allotted has been allotted and 10 two detention ponds have been built with the developer 11 participation. So it's not that the City is unaware and 12 not that they haven't been undertaking design of 13 solutions. It's really come down to a budget crunch 14 because you're looking at somewhere between $4 to $8 15 million bracket to completely solve this and that's more 16 than the City has spent historically over five year spans 17 on their drainage. 18 Now, hopefully, with the advent of the 19 drainage fee, they've increased the money in the 20 maintenance budget. They can start to clean out the 21 creeks and they can plan -- better plan and implement 22 these future resolutions of these problems. So it's 23 really been a budget crunch the last six or seven years. 24 Thank you. 25 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Co~mnissioner Roy. Page 90 1 COMMISSIONER ROY: We're spending a lot of 2 time on this issue. It's a very sensitive issue for this 3 development. And despite the fact that you've taken a 4 position from an engineering perspective that it will not 5 adversely affect the existing condition, but I think it's 6 worthwhile to continue working this. 7 What is the possibility of moving this 8 drainage improvement up from 2004? What would have to 9 happen to move this up higher in priority? 10 MR. FIEDLER: I really don't know the 11 answer to that question, sir. It is something that is a 12 part of the utility budgeting process and it is determined 13 of when the funds were allotted to be available. 14 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Our Counselor Snyder 15 would like to add a cmmnent here. 16 MR. SNYDER: And, Doug, correct me if I'm 17 wrong, but I believe every year there's a capital 18 improvement plan that comes through this Board. 19 COMMISSIONER MULROY: NO. !20 MR. SNYDER: We don't do that anymore? 21 COMMISSIONER MULROY: If I may, Counselor, 22 no longer does the utility cIP come before P&Z. It goes 23 straight to Council. 24 MR. SNYDER: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I would add that we Page 91 1 could relay this information on to the Director of 2 Utilities and the PUB. They have some flexibility in 3 changing their priorities. 4 MR. SNYDER: But to make a formal 5 rccolmnendation, we'd have to put it on a future Agenda and 6 actually take an action because we're not posted for that 7 tonight. 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: colmnissioncr Mulroy. 9 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I'm finished. Thank 10 you, Chairman. 11 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further questions 12 of staff at this time? Colmnissioner Holt. 13 COMMISSIONER HOLT: YeS. It's nothing with 14 drainage. It's solnething else. I would like to know what 15 the zoning is on these properties that are adjacent, I 16 think Mr. Pogue brought this up, that are adjacent to 17 Tracts 2, 3, and 10 that are NR-4. well, maybe this has 18 changed. 19 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: ithink you have the 20 current one there. 21 COMMISSIONER HOLT: IS this the current 22 one? On this map, I have they're NR-4's and I wondered 23 what thc zoning was on these homes over here on Windsor 24 that are right in there by the Morman church on Old North 25 Road. Page 92 1 MR. GRAY: I guess you'd be referring to 2 this area right here? 3 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Yes. 4 MR. GRAY: okay. That is all NR-3. 5 COMMISSIONER ~ot:r: ^11 the way down Old 6 North Road? 7 MR. OR^Y: Right. Old North Road is going 8 to be right here so it's going to be NR-3 all the way down 9 ahnost to Uiversity. Right at the area of University, 10 there's some NR-2 and NRMU, but everything else along Old 11 North Road is NR-3. 12 COMMISSIONER HOLT: It's all NR-3? 13 MR. GRAY: uh-huh. 14 COMMISSIONER HOLT: okay. Thank you. 15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further 16 questions, Commissioners? Okay. Once again, I have 17 deliberately left this open as a public hearing. Is there 18 anyone else -- I don't know whether we've raised more 19 questions or answered more questions. Anyone else who 20 would like to speak at this time either for or against 21 this item on our Agenda? Anyone for or against, if you'd 22 please come forward at this time. Seeing no one who would 23 like to speak either for or against this iron, I would 24 invite the petitioner to give his rebuttal and we will 25 close thc public hearing. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 89 - Page 92 CondcnscltTM Page 93 1 DR. WOLSKI: Appreciate all the comments. 2 Now, as far as the school district, we have made offers of 3 land. We offered on this site. The tract on this site 4 was too small so we're talking about another site. 5 As far as the flooding, there's a big 6 difference between Albertson's and our site. Number one, 7 we haven't been filling the floodplain for 15 years 8 without a pem~it. Nmnber two, we're returning all water 9 on-site. All the Albertson's water is not being retained 10 on-site. And we arc completely out of the floodplain. 11 You know, Albertson's is in the floodplain. We're 12 completely out. And that's why I was concerned because 13 Albertson's was building in the floodplain, you know. And 14 from what I'm hearing here that the City Council now and 15 the Commissioners now wouldn't allow that to happen, well, 16 they've allowed it to happen at Albertson's 17 As far as houses being NR-3, Mr. Poguc 18 brought that up, I thought that those were SF-7 houses and 19 we'll double-check that. I think what it is is on the 20 map, it's NR-3, but it's really, if you measure out the 21 lots, they're SF-TS which are equivalent to NR-4S, and 22 we'll double-check that. 23 As far as density, we've been coming down 24 the last several weeks. Every time we hear density, we've 25 dropped it and we've dropped it 809 units. We've dropped 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 95 1 Albertson's in a slanderous mode here. Could you clarify 2 for us anything that you might know about the Albertson's 3 property and what has or has not transpired on that 4 property? 5 MR. POWELL: I'd be happy to. The 6 Albertson's proposed development which is at the northwest 7 corner of University and 288 was referred to as being 8 built in a floodplain. I'm sure at one point in time that 9 that property was in thc floodplain but the Albertson's 10 proposal, they are not reclaiming any of the floodplain, 11 it was previously filled in the past, not by their 12 actions, the current actions. 13 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: thank you, Director. 14 Once again, we have closed the public heating and, staff, 15 is there a final co~mnent? 16 MR. GRAY: NO. 17 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: A wise statmnent. 18 Thank you. Cormnissioners, any conunents? And I'd like to 19 get Legal to clarify for us, once again, Con'nnissioners 20 received a last part of a packet on Monday and I just want 21 to make sure that notification was given amply for this 22 meeting and the information contained in this meeting with 23 regard to notification. 24 MR. SNYDER: I don't think there was a 25 legal notification problem, per se, but it's my Page 94 from the -- we went from 30 units per acre to 12 units per acre. And as far as the flooding again, most of those problems like at Mingo Road, because there's restricted flow under Mingo, and I just don't feel it's fair for us to have to fix the bridge at Mingo and the culvert. That's -- no, we're not going to add any water to Cooper Creek to elevate the level of the water. We're planning to go talk to the school board and try to make thean happy. And what I'd like to do is if we could move onto City Council and we'll work something out with the school board before then. But after being continued five times and having a renotificafion of the neighborhood once, so that's like six times we've been here. And the neighbors, we've met like lots of meetings, you know, and I think they might be tired of going to all the meetings. I'd sure like to see if we can move on to the next step. And we'll -- the main impasse that I see is -- or it's not an impasse. The main thing is we need to finish our negotiations with the school board. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Dr. Wolski. Director ?owell, if I could get you -- I don't want to have anything a petitioner might have said about 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 96 understanding that this latest proposal did not -- was not submitted to staff until Monday and staff hadn't had an opportunity to look at it and analyze it to the degree that they normally would. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Tuesday, I believe. MR. SNYDER: Tuesday, excuse me. But there is not a legal notice problem as far as the posting goes. You can proceed tonight legally. COMMISSIONERRISHEL: okay. Thank you very much. Colurnissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: Yeah. There are two continuing troublesome issues for me having to do with the floodplain continuing. The fact that these houses were built in the floodplain and the fact that somebody filled in the floodplain on the site where Albertson's is going to build. What happened here and how did this happen and what is the City's responsibility for if we allowed it to happen consciously, what's our responsibility to get out of that problean? I'm confused about this. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Director. MR. POWELL: well, I think you'll find in the City of Denton and other cities, historically, people do -- there are not being regulations built -- buildings, develop property within the floodplain. And, in fact, most of downtown Denton is in a floodplain. So I think PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 93 - Page 96 CondcnsoIt m 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 97 it's not unusual that this has happened. Current regulations would not permit that. Then there's the question of how do you retrofit and I think that was discussed. We do have a new drainage fee that is to take into account and try to improve ston-n water drainage. The magnitude of this problem and whether or not it will be addressed through that process and the utilities and the Public Utilities Co~mnission, we will -- I know that they know that this is an issue and I think that you can also forward on your concerns. But, clearly, any new development such as Dr. Wolski's property, the regulations, without a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Page 99 or doesn't develop. I do feel that the regulations we have in place will protect that situation getting worse regardless of the development, whether it's at a higher density or a lower density. COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: Getting worse from the subdivision? MR. POWELL: Getting worse from the present condition. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Right. Colmnissioner Keith. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. I would like to, first of all, co~ranend Dr. Wolski on his variance, would call that there would be no additional impact. You couldn't make the situation worse. COMMISSIONER ROY: SO this was done before there were regulations, is that what we think? Is that what you understand? MR. POWELL: I assume it was before there were regulations prohibiting the development of lots and building buildings in the floodplain, but we have not researched that. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Counselor would like to chime in here for a second. MR. SNYDER: I just want to make this clear Page 98 if it wasn't clear earlier in the discussion about this drainage issue. Although it might have a bearing on whether you vote this case up or down, it really is not a zoning issue, per se. As I understood the testimony, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Powell, the testimony is that this issue is going to be there regardless of how the subject property is developed. And it's really not a land use issue, per se, as far as what the zoning on the property would be. I just wanted to point that out because we have spent a lot of time on it. It's like I said, you can -- this is a legislative act so you can vote this case up or down on any reasonable information that you have. But I just wanted to point out the way I heard it, the testimony tonight, this issue is going to be present here regardless of what this property is zoned. Is that correct or did I overstate that? MR. POWELL: well, I think that's correct but I also think there's a magnitude, there could be a magnitude of the issue depending on how it's developed. Very similar to traffic, obviously a TIA is required for all development and that TIA would look at mitigating the adverse, the additional vehicle trips. I do believe in this case Mr. Snyder is right, the drainage issue is going to stay regardless of whether or not the property develops 14 presentation and his compromises he's made with the City, 15 as well as the people living in thc area. 16 In my discussions with him, I understand 17 that he's been trying to -- he began on this a year ago 18 and tried to get before the City last fall, but was 19 postponed because of thc new Code coming down the pike. 20 Well, he's now in the pike and he's worked 21 very hard to convert to it and I think he's done a very 22 commendable job. I'd like to co~mnend his staff and him 23 for his efforts. 24 One of the characteristics on here he's 25 rezoned from NRMU to EC-I and this stmns from some of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 100 problems that apparently the Code doesn't have provisions to allow for what he was wanting to do in certain multiple fm~ily housing, that he was wanting to go NRMU-12. People in the region didn't like it because this allowed for multiple use that they could wind up putting a go-cart track in their backyard. So it lacked guarantees for them. And even although he was willing to offer deed restrictions, they still felt uncomfortable because the City is in a position of not being able to enforce those deed restrictions. So he's come in and compromised on those. Again, I conunend him. The drainage problem, I wish to thank our counsel for bringing the point that this is kind of a problem that's been ongoing and the City is working to try and alleviate this, but I don't see why anything we should do should punish or hold up Dr. Wolski with his plans. And as far as with the school, I kind of look at it this way, this is going to be kind of an incremental type progrm~, that if this property was divided up into five parcels and developed incremental by five different developers, the school board wouldn't be saying anything until the fifth developer down there started building and they said, oh, wait a minute, we've got problems. We have an impact now. PLANN1NG AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 97 - Page 100 CondenseItTM Page 101 1 So I think, yes, the school does have a 2 problcun. I know they have financial problem, but this is 3 because of lack of economic development in the co~mnunity. 4 And this is where we, as a Co~mnission really and the City, 5 need to really be engineering ourselves into bringing 6 industry in this town to offset these high taxes and to 7 make these new schools we're going to have to build in the 8 future more affordable. There's where we need to be 9 generating. 10 Now, Dr. Wolski is also offering part of 11 this development, light industrial areas, for that 12 purpose. So I think this is something that's going to be 13 a very strong addition to the colmnunity and I'm going to 14 vote for it. Thank you. 15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. Keith. 16 Co~mnissioner Powell. 17 COMMISSIONER eOWELL: Thank you, Mr. 18 Chairman. We were talking a minute ago about regulations 19 and perhaps these houses were built before regulations. 20 It may not have been the case. It nfight be that they were 21 built before the floodplain was recognized. Maybe there 22 were regulations but it could be the floodplain was not 23 outlined at that time and all the regulations that you 24 could have had wouldn't have helped. I guess that was my 25 point. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 102 Page 103 1 long way since the beginning of this and I feel like we've 2 really made sorne progress. One, I think we need to find 3 out before we vote on this whether these properties are 4 NR-3 or NR-4. TO me, that makes a huge difference because 5 if these homes are NR-3 that are already there, then I 6 would want these homes and these tracts to be NR-3. 7 And then I think the school site issue is 8 definitely a -- I would really like to know what's going 9 to happen -- you know, whether we're going to have 10 something or not. Because if we're not going to have 11 anything, then I would vote no. If we're going to have 12 something, that would definitely change my vote. So 13 that's my only hesitance voting at this time is because I 14 think we are not quite -- we don't have anything clear. 15 We're going to go to the school. We're not sure whether 16 this is NR-3, this is NR-4. And I just think there's too 17 much gray area right now. 18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, 19 Commissioner. Colmnissioner Roy. 20 COMMISSIONER ROY: It'S been awhile since 21 we've had any recmmncndation from staff on this. We've 22 done a lot of talking and there's been a lot of changes. 23 But before we vote, I'd like to hear what the staff feels 24 about the current density and all these issues that we're 25 talking about. I'm going to rely very strongly on what Page 104 My second thing is that I, personally, am ready to move on this when it would suit the Chairman. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I See no one else that would like to address the Commission or the audience. Oh, I take that back. Well, let's go ahead and take the other Conu~issioners' questions and we'll come back to you as first call. Colmnissioner Mukoy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes. My comment would be at this time is that I think that the density has been mitigatcxt and, you know, we had asked for -- part of the purpose of the new Development Code was to look for a well-planned development. It's been -- many of the areas of concern have been addressed. The major things I've heard tonight, the transportation really is out of the realm of this zoning. The drainage is out of the realm of this zoning. The one problem area I have is still the neighborhood association did not scan to be satisfied that they had enough time with the revised plan, didn't seem to be passionately against it, but were tentative on absolute acceptance and that's problematic for me that the neighborhood hasn't digested the most recent plan. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Holt. COMMISSIONER HOLT: Yes. Thank you. The problems that I have with it as it is, and we have come a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 they have to say. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Director Powell. MR. POWELL: The staff report that we submitted that we have not updated, raised concerns about the magnitude, the size of the node, if you will, and the eunount of the multi-family, the density. Obviously, the latest proposal by Dr. Wolski reduces that. I do believe that this is one I don't think that there is a right or wrong. Whether or not the new proposal absolutely agrees with the Comp Plan, absolutely agrees with the Development Code, absolutely agrees with the intent of what we'd like to see for that area, I do believe that they've made strides. I think that we still would have concerns. I think a recolmncndation -- however, if we went back and looked at it, and, obviously, we've really not studied ir since we only got it Tuesday also, I think may be different than the one that was in your original report. COMMISSIONER ROY: well, I don't see how we, as a Colmnission, can act on this until we have a formal recommendation from staff. I guess we could without staff reco~muendation but that would be kind of unusual. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YOU're empowered. COMMISSIONER ROY: Okay. But I want PLANN/NG AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 101 - Page 104 CondenscltTM Page 105 1 somebody with me on this and somebody who knows all the 2 details. I propose we get formal rcconunendation from 3 staff because I know you took, area by area, you had some 4 agremnents. On some areas in the old documentation, you 5 agreed with the proposal. 6 Then some other sections of it, you did not 7 agree. And the docmnent we have in here is before the 8 latest changes. So I reco~mnend that we get their formal 9 review and reco~mnendatlon. 10 COMMISSIONERRISHEL: Thank you, 11 Conmfissioner. Conunissioner Apple. 12 COMMISSIONER APPLE: For my part, I would 13 feel that it was prcnnature for me to make a decision 14 tonight based on the fact that at our last meeting, I know 15 Co~mnissioncr Powell so eloquently asked that we be 16 presented with information that was solid and not new 17 information thrown at us at the last minute. 18 I concur with Co~mnissioner Mulroy that the 19 neighborhood hasn't had time to digest this. Staff has 20 not had time to digest this. The school board has asked 21 for additional time. The Colmnission has not had time to 22 digest this. And I just feel like it would be premature 23 to make an up or down decision this evening. 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I'm going to weigh in 25 here. I, too, am concerned about how this particular 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 106 subdivision weighs in with the Denton Plan, as we have spent so much time looking at that and developing that, and my concern deals mostly with what we've seen as the ideal growth of our cmmx~unity. And as we textured it in that particular proposal, we see it as a 60/40 growth potential. That's 60 percent residential and 40 percent multi-family. And I think that draws on the texture and the fabric of our cmmuunity and how we'd like to see it grow and progress. And I think it's important for us as citizens, and I think we spoke loudly when we put forth those percentages as something that was important to us. I hate to deviate from that. I'm still concerned about some life, safety, and health issues that we have with regard to this particular subdivision. I'm concerned about the drainage issues that we have. I don't know if they can all be solved in this thing. I think that the City is going to work with us the best they possibly can to make sure we get things implemented as swiftly as possible. Pm concerned about the fact that the neighbors have not had enough time to look at. I really got the feeling at the last meeting that we had that the neighborhood were buying into the direction that the builder was going, the developer was going and could fully Page 107 1 support this. And I know we have a new plan that they 2 have not had a chance to look at fully. And I think it 3 probably is a better plan than we had put forth to us 4 before, but I would like to give the people a chance to 5 buy into that as it is textured at this point in time. I 6 think it's important that we sell that to as many of the 7 neighbors and the people that are around the neighborhood 8 as possible. 9 So I'm concerned about the direction that 10 we've gone at this point in time, although I think it has 11 gotten much better from what we were originally presented 12 several months ago. And I would like to see the 13 Cmmnission be able to support this strongly as opposed to 14 sending it forth to City Council that might be in a 15 position that it has to have a super-majority. So those 16 are my concerns at this point in time. Commissioner 17 Powell. 18 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, Mr. 19 Chairman. I have a question of our legal staff, if I may. 20 On page 5 is the motion on Itmn 13. This is apparently 21 the same motion we had before us at the last ~neeting. How 22 does this motion affect or is it affected by this new 23 plan? Is this motion still -- would this still be a 24 reconunendcd motion? 25 COMMISSIONER R£SHEL: I think our Director Page 108 i would prefer to answer that. 2 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Fine. Thank you very 3 much. I needed an answer from somebody. 4 MR. POWELL: well, the recommendation 5 historically was based on staff's recommendation, the 6 motion was based on staff reconunendation. Again, we 7 haven't changed our recommendation since the first staff 8 report, the original request came in. So we haven't 9 changed our -- but either way, the Comprehensive Plan 10 application really hasn't changed. It really is the 11 zoning portion of it. But, again, the reconunendation is 12 the same that was in the first staff report. 13 COMMISSION~ POWE[[: okay. Well, I'm 14 going to read this, not as a motion, Mr. Chairman, but 15 just as a matter of information. I'm not moving on this 16 at the moment. But it says I move to recommend approval 17 to amend the Comprehensive Plan by changing approximately 18 32 acres of Neighborhood Center and Coxmnunity Mixed Use 19 Center and 72 acres of Employment Center to Neighborhood 20 Center as defined in the Windsor Oaks master plan. 21 Now, my question is does that still hold? 22 Do those numbers still hold? Do those designations still 23 hold or have they changed? 24 MR. POWELL: My apologies. No, they have 25 changed in that the Employment Center, they are retaining PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 105 - Page 108 CondonsoltTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 109 that. All of it? Mr. Reichhart may have the numbers. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Reichhart, would you cam to help us ad&ess this? Thank you, Comanissioner Powell. MR. REICHHART: originally, there's three tracts in hem that were originally or are currently Employment Center land use designation that were going to be switched to the Neighborhood Centers designation, but now the applicant is saying that they're with&awing that part. So that description docs not hold true anymore. There is going to be less Employment Center switching into Neighborhood Center. COMMISSIONER POWELL: SO I guess at thc risk of beating a dead horse, we are, once again, in a position where we do not have a motion to vote on? MR. REICHHART: correct. COMMISSIONER POWELL: For the fourth or fifth time. motion. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YOU can always make a COMMISSIONER POWELL: Yes, but I don't know how. I mean, I'd love to make a motion. You can tell I'm itching to do it, but I don't know how to do it because I don't know how -- I don't know what nmnbers to fill in these slots here, so to speak. Page 111 1 get that information. 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Did you want to make 3 a second to that motion? 4 COMMISSIONER HOLT: second. 5 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I didn't want to put 6 words in your mouth but thank you. It has been moved by 7 Co~mnissioner Apple and seconded by Commissioner Holt. We 8 have a motion on the floor. Any further discussion? 9 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Yes, Mr. Chairman. 10 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: cormnissioner Powell. 11 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you very much, 12 sir, for letting me interrupt you there. I'm going to be 13 voting no on the motion, not because I'm obstinate though 14 I guess it may appear that way. I'm going to be voting no 15 out of frustration. I'll just tell you that right now and 16 then I'll wait for the vote and do it. 17 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: In light of the 18 motion, it's been brought to my attention that we have 19 closed the public hearing, so the question becomes, I 20 believe, is did you want to leave, reopen the public 21 hearing and continue this at that point in time? 22 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Sure. 23 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: TO the date certain, 24 April 10th? Does that meet with the second? Okay. Any 25 further questions, Commissioners? Colmnissioner Mulroy. Page 110 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Reichhart, do you have a comment? MR. REICHHART: NO. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. Cmmnissioner Apple. COMMISSIONER APPLE: I would like to take a stab at a motion. COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: YOU have the floor, Conunissioner Apple. COMMISSIONER POWELL: YOU have it, llla~alll. Go to it. COMMISSIONER APPLE: I would like to move to continue Items 13 and 14 to a date certain of April the 10th to allow time for everyone involved to digest this and come up with recolmnendations and also to ad&ess Cormnissioner Holt's concerns about exactly what the abutting neighborhood is. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: conmlissioncr Holt. COMMISSIONER HOLT: Did I remember that the school district doesn't get theirs until the 9th? Is that going to be enough time for us to get that information? COMMISSIONER APPLE: Their meeting will be April the 9th and I hate to hold them off any longer than that because that would be four weeks. COMMISSIONER HOLT: That's fine, if wc can 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 112 COMMISSIONER MULROY: JUSt a conunent. I'm going to support the motion for exactly your words two weeks ago which I believe we asked to have a package brought back to us that the neighborhood was in agreement with, that was clear, that we could vote on. And we don't have that in front of us tonight. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Keith. COMMISSIONER KEITH: My final two bits' worth. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It's your floor. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Here's the two bits. Our last meeting, we asked the applicant to come back with a proposal. As Cmmnissioner Powell pointed out in the last meeting, his frustration and it was a reflection of mine, as well, was with the City staff, that there seemed to be lack of comanunication there, there was some last-minute changes on their part to the applicant just days or even half a day or so before. And so Conunissioner Powell turned to the applicant and said, here, give us something to vote on, something to look at. He's come in. He's done this. I find he's made a pretty decent presentation tonight. Yes, there's some clarifications regarding these NR-4S, SF-7, but I think that could be probably resolved in five minutes outside the door with the staff and them getting PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 109 - Page 112 CondenseltTM Page 113 1 together. That's not a big -- though it is important, I'm 2 not belittling it, but I think that's something that can 3 be resolved rather quickly. 4 And I am going to be voting no against this 5 in the same reason for Conunissioner Powell, is out of mere 6 frustration that this man has been working on this now for 7 a year. This is the first code -- first project to come 8 out of the box under the new Code and here we are. And I 9 was told that this was supposed to streamline everything, 10 this new Development Code, and it hasn't. Thank you. 1 ] COMMISSIONER RISHEL: conmfissioners and 12 audience, I want to rcunind you, and I appreciate your 13 patience, that this really is the first major project 14 we've had under the new Code and I appreciate the struggle 15 that the City and the Colmnissioners and the audience has 16 gone through in trying to learn more about how we can work 17 with this and make it better. Co~mnissioner Apple. 18 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I'd just like to 19 rcnnind the Commissioners that, yes, this has had to come 20 back to us and, yes, the petitioner did come with a plan 21 but, unfortunately, they were given a little over two 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Page 115 to not to separate those out. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: okay. Thank you very much. I think we will take a short break here, if that meets with everyone's approval, and we'll come back and restm~e our meeting at 9:20. (Break taken.) COMMISSIONER RISHEL: ~eing we have a quorum present, we will go ahead and continue our regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Cmmnission. And that brings us to Item No. 15 on our Agenda. Itcun No. 15 will be posted on the docucam and Ms. Viera will present. MS. VIERA: cmmnission, the applicant is requesting the amenchnent of the concept plan for Planned Development 139. The concept plan encompasses approximately 400 acres. For clarification purposes, Plan 139 is one of the Pr)s able to proceed under the zoning conditions approved prior to the adoption of the Development Code. The amenchnent of the concept plan basically weeks to do this. The neighborhood meeting was held on March the 5th which was over a week ago and yet the information was only forthcoming to staff and to the Colmnissioners yesterday which was pretty late, in my Page 114 22 has three components. Components 1 and 2 will be to allow 23 amenity centers and gas well operations as a permitted use 24 in the Planned Development. The third component will be 25 to redefine the floodplain boundary of Roark Branch and Page 116 opinion, for us to take full advantage. And I think that if the petitioner is in a bind, it is partially due to his own fault for not bringing this forth at an earlier time. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Cormnissioner. Any further questions, Co~mnissioners? Seeing no further questions, we have a motion on the floor. The motion was to continue with reopening of the public hearing to a date certain of April 10th. It's been moved by Commissioner Apple and seconded by Conunissioner 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 the reclamation of a portion of the floodplain with the purpose to develop approximately 35 additional single-family lots. In your backup, staff -- I'm sorry -- Attacluncnt No. 1 highlights the area where the uses of gas well operations and amenity center will be allowed. The exact location of the amenity center and the gas well will be determined in a detailed planning stage. A Planned Development requires a detail plan for any proposed use. Gas well operations have been proposed to be loca[e.d in Holt. If no further discussion, please vote. The motion carries 5-2. (COMMISSIONER POWELL AND KEITH VOTED IN OPPOSITION.) COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Conunissioners. Let me get clarification on this. Cmurnissioner Apple, normally I would ask and I would clarify that both -- that Itmn 13 and Item 14 were brought forth separately. Did you bring both of those forward together and is that -- COMMISSIONER APPLE: Yes, rny motion was to continue Items 13 and 14. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Was that what everyone believed that we were -- okay, I wanted to make sure I had clarification on that because it's not like me 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 areas where dedicated park land has been proposed, as well. We have been looking through the different ordinances that we have for gas well operations and having gas well sites on park land would not violate any of our existing ordinances. The applicant is expecting that a new detailed drainage study would redefine the boundary of the floodplain and also he wants to reclaim a portion of the new floodplain. The Denton Plan analysis identified three areas within the PD-139, that is Neighborhood Centers, Conununity Mixed Use Centers, and Floodplain ESA areas. On page 58 of the Denton Plan, the Code states that an environmentally sensitive area will be protected from development impacts. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 113 - Page 116 ATTACHMENT 8 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Continue a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, from Neighborhood Centers to Community Mixed Use Center and from Employment Centers to Neighborhood Centers. The area for amendment encompasses approximately 105 acres and is generally located on either side of Loop 288 north of Mingo Road, south of King's Row, east of Old North Road and west of Cooper Creek Road. A development containing a variety of single family, multifamily, retail, office and commercial uses is proposed. (CAe 1-eee 1 Windsor Oaks, Stephen Cook) Motion by Bob Powell and seconded by Joe Mulroy to recommend approval to City Council. *Discussion of item is included in the Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 64 - 128). Motion carries 6-0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CondcnscltTM Page 61 Conunissioners, for your diligence. So at this point in time, it has been suggested that we open the public hearing and move Itoh 7 and Itmn 12 to a date certain which would be April the 24th. Do I hear a motion that might reflect that? COMMISSIONER HOLT: SO uloved. COMMISSIONER ROY: second. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It's been moved by Commissioner Holt and seconded by Commissioner Roy. Any further discussion? Seeing no further discussion, please vote. Motion carries 6-0 of the Commissioners present. Thank you very much, Conunissioners. That will bring us to Item No. 8 on our Agenda. Item No. 8 should appear on our docucam and Ms. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 motion. Page 63 Viera will present. MS. VIERA: conunission, this is a colmnercial replat requiring a public hearing. The intent of the application is to subdivide an existing lot into two separate lots. The application meets the minimum requirements of the subdivision and land regulations, Chapter 34. Therefore, staff is recormnending approval. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, any questions of Ms. Viera? Is the petitioner here and would they like to present? Would you please give us your name and address? 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Pnl ready to listen. COMMISSIONER ROY: Move approval. COMMISSIONER MULROY: second. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It's been moved by Colmnissioner Roy and seconded by Cmmnissioner Mulroy. Any further discussion? Seeing no further discussion, please vote. Motion carries 6-0 of the Conmfissioners present. Conmfissioners, I'm wondering if you might want to take a break before we address the next item. The next item, in fact, will be No. 9 on our Agenda. (Break taken) COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I believe we have a quorum. As I mentioned to you before, I just want to make a couple of notes. Mrs. Page 62 1 MS. DIAMOND: My nmne is Julie Diamond. 2 I'm with Racetrack Petroleum. My address is 300 3 Technology Court. That's in Atlanta, Georgia, 30082. I'm 4 just here representing Racetrack Petroleum and we're 5 really excited about this development. If you have any 6 questions regarding our replat, I'm prepared to answer 7 them. 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. 9 Co~rnnissioners -- please stay right there. Cmrnnissioners, 10 any questions of Ms. Diamond? Thank you, Ms. Diamond. 11 This is a public hearing. Anyone else -- I don't have any 12 cards regarding this item, I don't believe. 13 Yes, I do believe. I have one card and 14 that was from Ms. Julie Diamond and she is the petitioner. 15 And I have no other cards. Once again, this is a public 16 hearing. And if you have not filled out a card and want 17 to address the Co~mnission, if you would please fill out a 18 card. Anyone else who would like to present regarding 19 Item No. 8 on our Agenda? Seeing none, I will close 20 the public hearing and ask Ms. Viera to make a closing 21 comment. 22 MS. VIERA: NO further comments. 23 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Ms. Viera. 24 Coxmnissioner Roy. 25 COMMISSIONER ROY: I'IT1 ready to make a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Apple -- Conmfissioner Apple is out ill today and she's excused frmn this session. If you would like to fill out a yellow card to speak on any of the future items we have coming up. Item No. 12 has been postponed or moved to a date certain of the 24th. And I have a request from item -- petitioners of No. 13 and 14, Conunissioners, that that order be reversed. One of those is a contested item and one of those is a noncontested item, and they thought that might help us with our Agenda. So I would like to see if at the discretion of the Conunission if they would Page 64 be possible to move Item 14 to 13 and 13 to 14 if that met with your discretion. Conunissioners, I will take that as an approval. Once again, we left off on Item No. 9 on our Agenda. Itcun No. 9 should appear on our docucam. This is actually regarding Itcan No. 9 and 10, so I will open the public hearing and we will hear from staff regarding Ittnns 9 and 10 respectively. MR. aP, AY: Thank you and good evening. Item 9 is to continue a public heating regarding a comprehensive plan amendment for approximately 105 acres on Loop 288 north of Mingo and south of Kings Row. Itcun 10 is continuing a public hearing regarding the zoning for this development. These two cases obviously go hand in hand. I'll show you what the applicant is proposing in regards to Item No. 9. Currently the Comprehensive Plan has this area and you can see the dashed line to show the applicant's property. This area right here is shown as an eanployment center on the Comprehensive Plan. The rest of the ama is shown as a neighborhood center. What the applicant is proposing is to change approximately 40 acres of the neighborhood center located here to a co~mnunity mixed use center. And then PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 61 - Page 64 CondcnseltTM Page 65 1 approximately another 30 acres of this strip right here, 2 change that from an employment center to the neighborhood 3 center. 4 The applicant is requesting this because he 5 has a zoning -- and I believe this information should be 6 in your backup. And it should look similar to what you've 7 seen in the past. Right now the applicant is proposing -- 8 just to bring you up to date on some past developments, 9 the applicant has taken tracts, 8, 9, and 7 out of the 10 zoning, the requested zoning. They will remain employment 11 center, industrial. And then tracts 7 and 11, which were 12 at one point NRMU, the applicant it now requesting 13 NRMU- 12. 14 This very briefly, to bring everybody up to 15 date to the changes that have been made since the last 16 time the Council or thc Conunission saw this, the applicant 17 is currently proposing 593 multi-family units and 413 18 single family units. This is a reduction of what the 19 applicant was proposing previously. 20 Staff has provided an analysis in your 21 backup. I believe the applicant has -- or the Commission 22 continued this the last time around so that we could get 23 input from the school district. A representative from the 24 school district is here tonight, and I do understand that 25 a letter has been left with the Colmnission as well before 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 67 1 the northern part of the industrial on the outside of the 2 Loop to residential for buffering effect. We are going to 3 pull Old North Road off of the back of the lots of folks 4 because they were concerned -- they just didn't want Old 5 North Road in their back yard. So we're going to buffer 6 that with a row of houses. There was complaints about the 7 drainage and the engineers will make sure that there's no 8 increased runoff, because we'll build retention ponds. 9 Windsor, there's nothing we can do about. 10 Some folks are opposed to extending Windsor over to the 11 Loop. But that's on the Mobility Plan and it's really not 12 a zoning issue. 13 Another complaint was that folks in 14 Deerwood did not want to connect Windsor to Farris, so we 15 respected their wishes and David Salmon was able to change 16 the Mobility Plan for that. 17 One of the issues was multi-family. These 18 are mostly located in areas where people wouldn't want to 19 live in single family. They're against the Loop, which 20 has heavy truck traffic. It's next to railroad tracks, 21 next to Safety-Kleen. We reduced these from 1640 units to 22 590 units. This is 64 percent reduction. We initially 23 asked for the higher density so we could put the 24 infrastructure in. There's tremendous costs associated 25 with access roads that are -- the City's requiring. Since Page 66 the start of the meeting. I will be happy to answer any questions or let the applicant make his presentation. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: IS the applicant here and would they like to present? And I would ask once again, if you have a team of people that are going to present for you, that will be part of your total block of time. You have fifteen minutes. And will you be addressing both 9 and 10 at the sm~e -- DR. WOLSKI: Correct. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, sir. DR. WOLSKI: My name is Ed Wolski. I live at 2301 Holly Hill. This is the property we are talking about. We made numerous concessions with -- we listened to what the Cmm~issioners said, the school board said, what the neighbors said, and we tried to make everybody happy as much as we could. And what we try to do is do buffering from high intensity to low intensity. We try to go from -- have greenbelts buffer apartments. For example, the Craig Street neighborhood is buffered by a greenbelt that's over six acres. We decreased the density tremendously. It was 1626 units. We decreased it to 984 units due to concerns of neighbors, planning and zoning staff and school board. The overall density was calculated by the school board to be 4.15 units per acre. We've converted Page 68 1 we don't have the density probably, these apartments won't 2 happen for about ten years until the overpass and the 3 access roads go in. 4 The density of the apartments was reduced 5 from 30 units to 12 units per acre. Usually apartments 6 are at least 18 units an acre according to our architect. 7 And with the reduced density, like I said, it will 8 tremendously delay development of multi-family. 9 A traffic impact study showed that for the 10 first phase there was a Category B even in peak hours. 11 Category D is the least acceptable by the City. This was 12 done with an engineering study. The school district -- we 13 met with the school district yesterday, and they 14 calculated -- these are their numbers that they will get 15 3.6 million dollars per year in school taxes when this 16 area is fully developed. 17 There was a concern about, you know, that 18 the children in this development -- this will generate -- 19 the fully developed project will generate $7,700.00 per 20 child. That's $4,000.00 more that it costs to educate 21 them. 22 And the impact of the apartments probably 23 won't be for another ten years. This concludes 24 evm'ything, the $7,700.00 per student revenue. We talked 25 to the school district and we're making a donation to the PLANNING AND ZON1NG COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 65 - Page 68 CondcnseltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 69 school district for an easement which should save them around $30,000.00. There's a problem with the -- Craig/Emerson/Mistywood neighborhood, they're concerned about the flooding, however, the City has basically told them that that was not really our problem. And because we'll be retaining every drop of water in retention ponds. The neighbors are also concerned about apamnents. If we can focus on this diagram. There's over six acres of greenbelt. The reason we put this greenbelt in was to buffer thc residences on Emerson and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Page 71 happening with one minor point that I'd like to offer to you. This line here represents apartments on the right of that line and everything to the left of that line is actually single-family 4 or t,m-4 land which will be single family property -- COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Proposed. MR. WELTY: v~ry similar in size -- COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Proposed. MR. WELTY: Proposed, yes, sir, correct. Dr. Wolski has very appropriately pointed out, I think -- Craig from the apartments. Okay. Right here, this is 250 feet per inch. This is off the Internet off of the City's web site. This is 250 feet. This is 200 feet. This lot is the closest because this juts in like this so at the top of this lot, it's 250 feet. Here's 425 feet, which is about a football field and a half. The second lot, the distance is 625 feet. If they look in their back yard, they've got two football fields of riparian habitat to look at. Okay. And there won't be any apamnents directly behind there. This one will go directly all the way to the Loop. So they've got 775 feet of riparian habitat to look at. This is all -- and by the way, the green is the riparian habitat. This is the remainder of the flood plain. Here's the Loop. Okay. So from the third house Page 70 down, they're looking at the Loop. They're looking at the Loop. They're looking at the Loop across Riparian flood plain. They're looking across the Loop. They're looking across to the Loop. There's two and a half football fields of riparian habitat or greenbelt. The apa~nents, we can only put those up here out of the flood plain, so they're very, very distant from these houses. Glenn Davidson and I walked the creek and here's what it looks like in the winter time. And in the summer this fills in beautifully with leaves, you know, so it's hard to see anything -- and this is an embankment that goes up, too. There's a creek. So you've got natural barriers of a creek. You've got a natural barrier of riparian habitat. And this will fill in beautifully with leaves in the smmner time. Plus most of these houses, this goes all the way back to the Loop. There's no apartments directly behind their lots. There would be no roads connecting Emerson or Craig to this development. So there will be a creek that's a barrier. I'd like to have Bob Welty, our architect talk now. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Please. MR. WELTY: Good evening. My name is Bob Welty. My address is 5207 McKinney Avenue, Dallas, Texas. Dr. Wolski very accurately described exactly what's 11 just one or two points I want to make and then I'm going 12 to turn it over to someone else. We have -- as you-all 13 are very well aware of worked on this project for several 14 months. We have been before you, I believe, this is our 15 fourth time. Each time you have exhorted us to work with 16 both the planning and zoning staff and the homeowners 17 groups to try and arrive at reasonable compromises to try 18 and reduce densities, to try and resolve drainage issues, i19 issues with schools. We think we have made a number of 20 very good concessions. We think the project we're 21 presenting to you tonight, although, I'm sure you will 22 hear from some people who don't totally agree with mc, but 23 we think it represents a very good offer for that and will 24 represent a very good project for your City. 25 Again, we arc here before you to tonight to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 72 answer any remaining questions. We have -- in addition to what we -- we mentioned we have agreed to do some restrictive uses on these properties with some of the homeowner groups which we are very willing to do to prevent any undesirable uses on those properties. And we're here before you requesting your approval of both the Comprehensive Plan and this zoning change. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. Welty. Anyone else on your team that would like to present? MR. WELT¥: Jeff. MR. KRUEGER: Thank you, Commissioners. My nmne is Jeff Krueger. I reside at 3905 Deer Forest Drive in Denton, Texas. Just real briefly, the one thing that you will note that this is the stone plat that you got -- I mean, the same proposal that you got three weeks ago. So it's not a change which, you know, it seems like every time we crone here we brought a different product. This is the same product that we brought back. So that's twice in a row now that you've seen the same product. We did meet with the school district. We had a very good meeting with them. Mr. Holloway, as Mr. Grace said, is here to present the school district's side. We were received I thought very warmly by the school district. We will not create negative monetary impact to PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 69 - Page 72 Condcns¢ItTM Page 73 1 the school district. It will be positive. We heard from 2 you-all that you wanted us to go meet with thmn and work 3 it out. We did work out what -- we think we have a very 4 pleasant agreement with them, however, they kind of said, 5 it's not their place to tell you-all what to do, which I 6 thought was kind of refreshing on their part. 7 So they -- they seemed to on an individual 8 side one-on-one, they seemed to really enjoy this project 9 based upon the fact that again, we have over 100 acres of 10 conwnercial and industrial use here. They like that. 11 Everything that we've worked on with them -- between thca-n 12 and the neighborhoods, we believe it's all col-ne to pass. 13 We -- we think we have made as many people happy as we're 14 going to make on this. And we, again, respectively ask 15 for your approval of this project. Thank you. 16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: thank you very much. 17 Anyone else on your team, Mr. Krueger, that would like to 18 present? Thank you. Okay. This is a public hearing, 19 beings the petitioner brought up the school district, I 20 would like for Mr. Gene Holloway to come forward and 21 present. And this is a public hearing. Anyone else who 22 would like to speak before this Colmnission, if you'd fill 23 out a yellow card, I would appreciate it. 24 MR. HOLLOWAY: oood evening, Commissioners, 25 rny name is Gene Holloway. I'm the director of Page 75 1 District, register an opinion on a zoning issue or case. 2 Lastly, the Board of Trustees respect the 3 electra and appointed officials of the City of Denton and 4 trust them to perform their task and render their 5 decisions uncomplicated by the actions of another 6 political entity. 7 With that, the case that was presented this 8 evening and at the last -- on March 13th, was, again, 9 reviewed by the Board of Trustees last night. And with 10 that, the proposed alignment and zoning change as is 11 indicated by this example does, indeed, represent and does 12 impact the school district. 13 With this, in your letter, there is 14 additional infon-nation that highlights the current zoning 15 that is endorsed and promoted by thc Comprehensive Plan, 16 and a comparison of that as to the current proposed plan 17 by the petitioners. With that, the current plan does 18 represent residential higher and greater residential 19 density to this area, and will over the period of 20 development and what is happening on the eastern Loop 288 21 area and the 380 corridor represent the need for this 22 district to acquire a future school site to meet the ,23 demand for educating our students. 24 The District has provided you with this 25 additional information to assist you in your deliberations Page 74 1 transportation and planning for the Denton Independent 2 School District. And, first of all, order of business is 3 to thank the Planning and Zoning Cormnission for the 4 opportunity that was afforded the Board of Trustees and 5 the school district to review thc proposed modifications 6 that were presented back on the 13th of March and with 7 that, last night at our regular scheduled school board 8 meeting, April 9th, the proposal -- this proposal was 9 presented to the Denton Independent Board of Trustees. 10 And with that, I have a letter at your -- 11 each position, that outlines the District's current 12 position. I would like to reiterate that there are some 13 points there that the Board of Trustees desires and is 14 very mindful to foster and enhance the positive 15 collaboration and working relationship between the Denton 16 Independent School District and the City of Denton. 17 Secondly, the trustees in the District 18 demonstrates and is very respectful for the political 19 process and the enormous devotion and time, talent and 20 energies put forth by hundreds of Denton and DISD citizens 21 in formulating the Denton Plan and the Development Code. 22 Thirdly, the Board of Trustees is in total 23 support and gives total allegiance to the Denton Plan and 24 its related procedures, and would not, except in extreme 25 extraordinary circumstances as they would impact the Page 76 1 regarding this particular zoning request and with that 2 stand ready to answer any questions that you may have. 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Have you requested a 4 school site? 5 MR. HOLLOWAY: That has not been a matter 6 of discussion. 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Roy. 8 COMMISSIONER ROY: Yes, Mr. Holloway. Of 9 course, we just got this tonight. And I understand what l0 you just said about leaving it to us to make our own 11 decisions, but couldn't you walk us through the 12 attachment, the key points, what's really important for us 13 to see because there's a huge amount of numbers? 14 MR. HOELOWAY: Yes, sir. Quite frankly, 15 what we have here is a chronological time line of where we 16 have taken the School Board last night up to the current 17 time. Under the operational impact, the third item and I 18 believe, in response to the multi-family density, the 19 petitioner has, indeed, reduced the density level by 64 20 percent, or thc apartment-style living by 64 percent and 21 the density level by 60 percent. 22 The estimated time line on this particular 23 development is five to ten years, and much of this 24 construction is totally dependent upon the Windsor Road 25 Extension over Loop 288. The results -- the zoning PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 73 - Page 76 CondonsoltTM Page 77 1 request profile, thc first table that you see is the 2 current zoning as is defined under the current 3 Comprehensive Plan, the NR-2, NR-4 and the Industrial 4 Employment Center. 5 With that, the District did an analysis 6 showing what the student impact would be which would be 7 approximately 206 students maximum residential units in 8 that particular profile is 332 residential units. 9 Residential units per acre, 1.46, and projected school 10 taxes would be 2.1 --just over 2.1 million dollars with 11 projected revenue per student in that affected area, 12 $10,310.00 and change. 13 Now, that is with the current zoning 14 assmning that thc values for approximately 276 NR-2 level 15 homes and as far as 56 NR-4 level homes and the values 16 projected out there for the Industrial Employment Center. 17 The second table profiles the proposed 18 zoning. Again, it walks through and these numbers were 19 provided by the petitioner to the District of what would 20 be the proposed value and projected value of this 21 particular development which would be just under 194 22 million dollars, under 195 million dollars, excuse me. 23 The projected student impact of this particular 24 development goes from 206 students to approximately 537. 25 And that breakdown is shown by elementary, middle school 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [25 Page 78 Page 79 1 aware of the DISD growth picture. 2 And I hope that answers and profiles the 3 comparisons. 4 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Roy, 5 does that answer your question? 6 COMMISSIONER ROY: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. 8 Colmnissioner Powell. 9 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Holloway, you say 10 that if this is developed out under the numbers shown here 11 that it would have a value, revenue value of $7,731.74 a 12 student per year, I'm assmning. Do you know what the 13 average revenue value per student is within the District? 14 MR. HOLLOWAY: At this point in time as far 15 as revenue value per student, I can -- believe I can with 16 some authority indicate to you that it costs approximately 17 62 -- 61 to 63 hundred dollars per student within DISD. I 18 would want to qualify that. Please don't hold me to a 19 task on that. 20 COMMISSIONER POWELL: But I didn't ask you 21 the cost. 22 MR. HOLLOWAY: Right. 23 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I asked you what the 24 present revenue value is per student like you've done 25 here. This doesn't talk about cost. Page 80 and high school. Maximum residential units as was profiled by the petitioner, 943 approximately with residential units per acre of 4.15. Projected tax base would be over 3.6 million dollars with projected revenue per student of approximately 7,700 dollars and change. Now, impact on current attendance zones, there would be no i~mnediate impact to oar current attendance zones due to the time line that this particular development will take to come to fruition. The Windsor Oaks is split between thc Wilson and Hodge attendance zones. The secondary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 MR. HOLLOWAY: Right. Right. I'm unable to answer that question for you, sir. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: cmmnissioners, any further questions of Mr. Holloway? Commissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: I'm a little bit confused about these nmnbers now. This $7,000.00 you're talking about, are we talking about dollars ten years from now, or are these today's dollars versus the $6,000.00 dollar cost? MR. HOLLOWAY: This is purely, Mr. Roy, purely an estimate based upon the projected numbers of attendance zones are Strickland and Ryan High School. And at this time it is difficult to determine the future impact of this development on current attendance zones because of redistricting that will take place over the next five to ten years. And, again, much of this is dependent upon the Windsor Road Extension. However, with the increased residential density, which would bring up the student population with what's happening again on the eastern Loop 288 corridor and development of the 380 corridor west of Cross Roads, again, it is only evident -- it's evident that thc district will have to be considering a future school site for this particular area as you all are well 13 value that the petitioner provided us based upon what you 14 see in that profile. The $194,000,970.00 is basically 15 multiplied -- or divided by 100 per value, that one dollar 16 85 -' 4 cents, which is the tax rate which generates the 17 3.6 million dollars. And that's divided by the 537 18 students to give a -- some kind of indication of the yield 19 on per student by that development within the identified 20 area. 21 COMMISSIONER ROY: SO you can't answer 22 whether that 194 million dollars is today's dollars or 23 dollars ten years from now? 24 MR. HOLLOWAY: I would say this is 25 information I would have to ask the petitioner because PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 77 - Page 80 CondenseltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 81 these are his numbers and not -- I do not believe it's based or a ten year or five-year projection. COMMISSIONER ROY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Commissioner Keith. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. I just wish to -- just looking at your numbers, what I find intriguing is the employment centers and commercial centers are anticipated to garner over half the remount of tax revenues or -- not tax revenues, but the valuations, projected values, correct? MR. HOLLOWAY: I -- would you please repeat that, sir? COMMISSIONER KEITH: I was looking at the zoning of the CMG and EC-1, that this would, in essence, provide over 50 percent of projected land values towards taxation, correct? MR. HOLLOWAY: If yOU look at that, 194.9 million dollars, that's 100 million dollars right there. That's a safe assumption, and, again, I would like to reiterate this is -- this comes from the petitioner. This is not from DISD. COMMISSIONER KEITH: SO with econmrfic development on these properties, that would really offset a lot of tax burden to the property owners, correct, your assessment? Page 82 MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, any further questions of Mr. Holloway? Thank you, Mr. Holloway. Excuse me. Mr. Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yeah. Just so I have a clear understanding, then, is this the school district's analysis of the development or is this the applicant's analysis of the development? MR. HOLLOWAY: what has happened is is that this is -- I did check with our purchasing agent as far as with the district. And, again, looking at this and the projected value per unit for say like an NR-4, the 74R-6 type unit, that was collaborated. As far as when it comes to the cmmnercial and the industrial, that is, as I understand, a -- possibly a conservative nmnber. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 83 well, that was really the applicant's number and not mine. MR. HOLLOW^Y: well, if I may, again, this is what was provided by the applicant based upon what they have projected. COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. But I just want to make -- I'm about to make an assmnption since you're forwarding this on -- COMMISSIONER RISHEL: on your letterhead. COMMISSIONER MULROY: -- on your letterhead and underscoring it as conservative, then you pretty much endorse these nmnbers? MR. HOLLOWAY: we are looking at this based upon its value and utilize this as a benchmark to what is currently -- COMMISSIONER MULROY: IS that a yes or a no? I don't think I -- MR. HOLLOWAY: we will accept the numbers as they are now. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: once again, Colmnissioners, just as a rcuninder, and I've checked with staff, but staff has not had a chance to review this or give you any further input on it anymore than what Mr. Holloway has done. So I just throw that out as a comment. Commissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: Yes. Mr. Holloway, the Page 84 1 applicant mentioned an agreement with DISD concerning 2 property at some other location rather than property on 3 this site. Could you explain your understanding of that 4 agreement or commitment? 5 MR. HOLLOWAY: I do know that there have 6 been negotiations and discussions with the school 7 district. Unfortunately, I had to leave early last night 8 for medical purposes and was not available for the final 9 determination. But I do understand that there is an 10 agreement. I 1 COMMISSIONER ROY: An agreement that would, 12 you know, eliminate your concerns about these large number 13 of children that you're going to have to school? 14 MR. HOLLOWAY: W(~ll, that particular 15 agreement is reanoved from this particular location, and is 16 to the north side of the district regarding easements and COMMISSIONER MULROY: SO, again, Gene, I just want to understand, is this your opinion that that's a conservative nmuber? MR. HOLLOWAY: That was the -- COMMISSIONER MULROY: The school district' s? MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. I mean, I don't want to be here two years from now, and you say, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 sewer and water on thc 288 property. COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. COMMISS[ONER RISHEL: commissioner Roy, you have the floor. COMMISSIONER ROY: I've got to think about it. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: can I move on? Cmmnissioner Holt. COMMISSIONER HOLT: Yes, Mr. Holloway, so PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 81 - Page 84 Condcnsolt m 5 6 7 8 9 MR. HOLLOWAY: A site or are we talking 10 about casement and access? To my knowledge, it's casement 11 and access. 12 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Have you-all looked or 13 talked to the applicant about sites within this area? 14 MR. HOLLOW^Y: we have broached the 15 subject, but it has not been discussed in depth. 16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: would you care to 17 have Dr. Wolski or any of his people join you h~re? Would 18 they care to comment on this? 19 COMMISSIONER HOLT: well, I have one more 20 question for Mr. Holloway here. Do you-all have -- or are 21 you looking for sites in this part of town since there is 22 obviously a lot of interest in building in this area? 23 MR. HOLLOWAY: with my task as director of 24 transportation and planning, I'm looking all over the 25 district for any and all opportunities for land now and Page 85 there has not been a specific site donated or designated? There's just been some -- it says rights to land have been pledged to the school district on another site on the Loop near the school district's complex and water park. So this is not a site or is it a site? It is not a site? COMMISSIONER RISHEL: well put. COMMISSIONER HOLT: That's what I'm trying to get at whether it's -- Page 87 COMMISSIONER HOLT: okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It looked like Dr. Wolski wanted to join you here. And I'm just wondering if Dr. Wolski or Mr. Krueger, either one -- MR. KRUEGER: Just to give some clarification -- COMMISSIONER RISI4EL: Please. MR. KaUEOER: -- to Mr. Roy. The deal that I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 86 the future. Certainly, with the 380 corridor, with over 10,000 single family units being planned for that arco, we have six elementary school sites potentially out there. And as far as speaking to some school site donations on the northern end of the district off Stewart Road and 288 with a planned development that is coming and has come to DRC. COMMISSIONER HOLT: could you tell me the enrollment of the two schools, the two elementary schools that would be impacted by this development? MR. HOLLOW^Y: I would tell you I believe -- and please I do not have that particular information directly in front of me. I believe that our Hedge Elmnentary is at the 700 plus mark. 9 we discussed with the school district is not a part of 10 this. And they wanted to make that perfectly clear. It 11 had no bearing upon their decision on this project one way 12 or another. It was a separate deal on some property that 13 they needed access and easement to for drainage purposes 14 for a sewer line. That was Dr. Wolski's -- he donated 15 that to the school district. 16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: concession? 17 MR. KRUEGER: His concession exactly. 18 Thank you. The other part and I think we need to go back 19 to Mr. Holloway's presentation is, this has as it 20 currently sits has no inunediate impact on the zoning 21 issues because of the time frames and we all have to 22 remember that none of this multi-family is going to be 23 built until thc Windsor overpass is complete. And all the 24 infrastructure is in place with the service roads and all 25 that. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Page 88 So there will be -- there's no inunediate impact, and I know Ms. Holt, you and I were on the School Board together. Hedge Elementary had 850 students in it. Now, it just has 700. I think that's a pretty good sign for the District. There is really not a -- because of the location of Hedge, the proximity of Hedge, and the proximity of Woodrow Wilson, there's really not a suitable site on this particular location. Off site there will be, and there may be some discussions at a future time with the School District for some future properties. But as it sits, this particular project is kind of -- stands alone from what we're dealing -- what we're doing with the School District in other places. COMMISSIONER HOLT: And what is its capacity? MR. HOLLOW^Y: That's its capacity. Our elementary schooFs capacity is designed for 650. That is what we look to operate by. 650 for elementaries, 1,000 15 16 17 18 19 Krueger. question. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. MR. KRUEOER: I hope that answered your Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further questions for middle school, and 2,000 students for high school. COMMISSIONER HOLT: what about Woodrow Wilson? MR. HOLLOWAY: woodrow Wilson is -- because of rezoning and they are, I think, pressing the 650 and above. 20 21 22 23 24 25 of Mr. Holloway? Thank you, Mr. Holloway. MR. HOLLOWAY: You*re vgry welcome. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: This is a public hearing. I have several cards of people who would like to speak. If anyone else would like to speak on this item or any other item, if you would please fill out a yellow card PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 85 - Page 88 CondcnscltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 89 and present it to a staff member, they'll make sure tho we get it front up here. Mr. Richard Beggs, if you'd please give us your nmne and address. MR. BEGGS: Hello. I'm Richard Beggs. I live at 2324 East Windsor Drive. I think you have a handout. It has my nmne on the front of it. I have four points that I would like for you to consider in relation to this proposal. Progress will affect Denton. Low density projects are needed. Please don't overload the existing drainage system, and please preserve the integrity of the existing neighborhoods. Under progress will affect Denton. Progress is inevitable and needed. Progress brings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Page 91 regularly travel over our neighborhood. And my last points, a four-lane road or anything that would lead to that on East Windsor would not allow our current lifestyle of walking, biking and skating. We believe that a property would be devalued, and that children could not safely walk to school because of sidewalks to the school are not continuous. And I have one actual photo. It's right in front of my house. And it's pretty nice, wide, a nice place to walk. And this is an altered photo. Please do not let this become a reality. I've talked to some of my neighbors. At least one of th~n is here tonight and we do not want a four-lane road in front of our house. It's prosperity and growth. Progress is not inexpensive as I'm sure Dr. Wolski will tell you. Regulated growth is needed. That's why we have governing bodies like the P & Z. And please don't overload the existing infrastructure, especially the roadways and school system. Under low density projects are needed, low density is needed to cope with the existing infrastructures, however, we do need a mixture of houses, apartments, that is, affordable housing and businesses, or don't overload existing drainage. The current system consists of drainage ditches and a roadway and creeks. Page 90 The new Code says that future projects should not increase thc problem. However, I believe that the problem will be magnified by more concrete and less grassy area. And my question was how many drainage ponds would 14 just unimaginable. Thank you very much. If you have any 15 questions -- 16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Boggs, we may 17 have some questions. Let me sec. Commissioners, any 18 questions of Mr. Beggs. Mr. Powell -- Conunissioner 19 Pow¢ll, excuse me. 20 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Beggs, I assume 21 that you understand that Mr. Wolski -- Dr. Wolski's 22 development will have no affect on whether Windsor becomes 23 four lane or doesn't become four lane. It's not his 24 choice. It's not his desire to do it or not do it. It's 25 not his concept. It's the City's concept regardless of Page 92 what Dr. Wolski does. MR. BEGGS: I understand that. But we haven't had a chance to fight the City. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I guess the point I'm bc needed to handle the runoff?. I took advantage of the recent rains to take some pictures of Windsor. And you can see it's pretty full as it is right now. My question is how much leeway do we give for extra projects -- for new projects? Here's a picture of Old North Road. I don't know if you can see or not, but the car is splashing water, so we akeady have water over the road. Here's another picture of Old North Road looking where the drainage ditch is. You can see it is pretty filled up. So if there's any kind of error on the part of the City engineers and developers, we're going to have a flooded park. This is Nottingham. This would be the flooded park. Okay. And my final point is preserve existing neighborhood integrity. Our neighborhood is filled with family-oriented activities, like, walking biking, skating. We have several neighborhood schools. Thc children walk to the schools, Woodrow Wilson, Strickland Middle School, probably not that many middle schoolcrs want to walk, but, anyway, and school buses do 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 making is this is really not the place to make that fight. If I -- I won't go any further, but there are ways to do that. And it's not part of thc project here tonight. Now, the other things you talked about were. MR. BEGGS: okay. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. MR. BEGGS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: OUr next -- this is -- once again, this is a public hearing. Beverly Tannas, T-A-N-N-A-S, Tannas. And if you'd give us your name and correct pronunciation and address. MS. TANNAS: My name is Beverly Tannas and my address is 2512 Craig Lane. I am speaking for the Northwoods Estate residents on the west side of Loop 288. May I use this? This would be Craig Lane right here. This is Emerson and this is Mistywood right in here. And there is some of us here tonight from all of those areas. We've sent packets to you-all. You have letters and you have pictures from us explaining our point of view. Basically, there's two issues that we have. We have a flooding issue. I think everybody's pretty aware PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 89 - Page 92 CondcnseltTM Page 93 1 of that by this point. I'm going to, if I may, use some 2 pictures as well. This -- I don't know if you can really 3 tell, but the creek is over here. The creek is over here. 4 This is a lake now. This is three back yards, one back 5 yard, two back yards, three back yards. This is how bad 6 we flood. This is not a comer of our property getting 7 wet. This is bad flooding. So what we would like for 8 y'all to consider is a 100-foot easement on this creek on 9 this greenbelt area, so that the City might be able to 10 come in here and clean it out. 11 As of now because it's a greenbelt 12 designation, everybody has basically said, not our 13 problem. And as you can see it's very much our problem, 14 so we're really looking for some help here in ten~s of an 15 easement. We understand that what Dr. Wolski's planning 16 on doing should not affect these levels. But right now 17 there's already a huge problem. And we would hope that 18 you would see the benefit of helping us with this initial 19 problem right now before any more building takes place. 20 The second issue -- I have a neighbor who 21 is going to speak more on this. But our second issue is 22 the zoning of Tract 11, which would be this tract right 23 here. Dr. Wolski is proposing NRMU-12. we would like to 24 see this as NR-4 or NR-6. obviously, there's a 25 residential neighborhood here. This is going to be a Page 94 I residential neighborhood. We feel it's not appropriate to 2 have an apartment building where we can see it from our 3 backyard. He might say that we have sufficient greenbelt 4 to cover it up. This is a winter picture. We can see the 5 Loop. We can see cars going by night and day. We 6 certainly hear them. 7 Our feeling is is we do not want our 8 property values compromised. We do not want an area tha! 9 -- I believe he wants 364 units in this area. We do not 10 believe that that many people should have access to this 11 greenbelt area. We believe that to keep the integrity of 12 our neighborhood that we should be able to keep this a 13 residential area. 14 Because it is a greenbelt, right now, like 15 I said before, no one is taking any responsibility for it. 16 No one has been in there to clean it out. Can you just 17 imagine if this is an apartment building, 364 units, a 18 great many people being allowed back here with nobody 19 cleaning it, no one maintaining it? Is that my time? 20 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YOU have a minute. 21 MS. TANNAS: okay. That's basically it. 22 We would like for y'all to consider a 100-foot easement on 23 this greenbelt area so the City can come back and clean it 24 up. And we would like for you to consider tract 11 being 25 zoned NR-4, NR-6. Thank you. 8 9 10 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 95 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mrs. Tannas. Let me see if Commissioners have any questions. Conu~issioners, any questions of Mrs. Tannas? Thank you, Mrs. Tannas. The next card that I have is from a Glenn Davidson. Is Mr. Davidson here? MR. DAVIDSON: I'm Glenn Davidson. I live at 2907 Emerson. And, of course, one of my neighbors has already spoken to you regarding this flooding issue. I think you had some letters that were sent out in regards to this. Here's some pictures of what my yard looks like before, when it rains, and the pictures were after it rains. I have talked to everybody from, oh, let me look in here, from Thomas Gray to Doug Powell to Dave Hill, from the drainage people, from Larry Reichhart, Jim Colter, Clark Rosenthal, you name it, I've talked to them. And all that comes back to is, go to talk to this person. Go talk to this person. It's called pass the buck. That's all I've been hearing. Okay. Now, Clark Rosenthal, I think sent you guys a letter. I think each one of you guys got that letter. It's got my name in big bold letters stating that he wants a 100-foot easement from the City. Where do we go from there? I still can't get anybody to call me and give me answers on that. Page 96 1 Now, I had Jerry Clark meet me last week at 2 my house and we walked the creek. And he knows there's a 3 big issue there. Of course, nobody called me back to tell 4 me what we want to hear, because nobody wants to address 5 the issue. We know it's a greenbelt. We know that the 6 greenbelt can't be touched. But somewhere down the line 7 the City or the property owners have to be held some type 8 of responsibility for the flooding issue that's at hand. 9 Now, the pictures you see there is my house 10 being flooded 15 feet from my back door. That's within 11 one hour -- the pictures that you see afterwards is all 12 the debris after the rain when the creek finally went 13 down. Now, every day we walk out our back yards, we see 14 that trash in the trees, in the -- you name it, we see it. 15 Hock, I could have brought a trash sack full of trash in 16 here from my back yard. But, of course, I didn't. 17 Okay. So that's a big issue at hand. Of 18 course, yes, we know Dr. Wolski's going to build over 19 there. He's going to put retention ponds in there. I 20 think that's going to not affect us a whole lot. But I 21 think it's going to affect us at some point especially if 22 he builds apartment complexes over there. 23 And whether he thinks we can't see them or 24 not, I think we can see them. Of course Dr. Wolski walked 25 it with me. Of course, when he showed you the pictures of PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 93 - Page 96 Condcns¢ItTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 per apartment and their kids, where are their kids going 11 to be? In my backyard or in that creek, stealing from me 12 -- I'm not saying they're going to, but there's a lot of 13 potential in that. 14 We feel that needs to be a housing addition 15 and, also, the creek needs to be addressed really bad 16 before any type of development is approved over here. 17 That's all I have to say. 18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: COlranJssioners, any 19 questions of Mr. Davidson? Thank you Mr. Davidson. 20 MR. DAVIDSON: I do have one more question. 21 Can somebody answer what is going to happen regarding this 22 letter that we got? Can somebody tell me anything on 23 that? 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: IS there a staff' 25 member who would like to see if they can -- Page 97 all the trees and all the debris, it looks pretty nice, but when it rains, it looks pretty bad. We just want some answers. We want somebody to address the issue with the flooding. And we want somebody to address the issue with the apartment complexes. If he's building NR-4 and NR-6 all the way around our property, we feel that it should be the same so our values stay the same. If you've got 365 apartment complexes over there, you double that times four people Page 99 that the City has to maintain the water flow in this creek no matter what. MR. POWELL: I would point out that Mr. Clark does work for Mr. Colter, so I'm sure they're working in conjunction with each other trying to resolve this issue. MR. DAVIDSON: But doesn't the City or the Planning and Zoning get with the owners of the land and ask for an easement? I mean, I've talked to every owner issue. letter. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 i12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 i25 Page 98 MR. DAVIDSON: Or who can address this Do y'all have this letter? COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Yes, we have that 10 that owns that land. They're willing to give the City an 11 easement. What do we have to do to address that issue to 12 get the easement? 13 MR. POWELL: And I will be happy to call 14 Mr. Colter tomorrow and find out the status of this. My 15 understanding is he is working with the homeowners, the 16 property owners to resolve this issue. Normally in the 17 course of subdividing property, the current regulations 18 would require a drainage easement that would allow the 19 City to maintain it. Unfortunately, this property was 20 developed at a time where no easement was granted. And, 21 therefore, therein lies the problem. 22 And, again, the City staff has been working 23 and will continue to work to resolve this issue. 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: sounds to me like if 25 you would give one of the staff members your telephone Page 100 number that one of Mr. Powell's people --MR. DAVIDSON: All the staff members know my phone number, I think. I've talked to every one of Mr. Powell. MR. POWELL: I'll make a stab at it. We have been in contact with Mr. Colter who is over the group in the City that deals with drainage. The issue with this creek, as I understand them. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I have a question. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Mr. Davidson, how it is, thought it's a green belt, there's no easement in which the City by right can go in there and clean it out. So prior to Mr. Colter going in there and actually doing some work in there, he suggested that we really need to get an easement that gives the City the permission to do it. As it's been mentioned in previous meetings, that's in the upper branch, lower branch -- Dr. Wolski also has the ability to give the City that easement, which really is not the stone area as this gentlemen is speaking to. And so it really is an issue separate and apart somewhat from the item you have before you tonight. The City is working with the homeowners and the property owners to try to resolve this issue. MR. DAVIDSON: Doesn't the City contact the property owners to try to get an easement on there, because according to Jerry Clark, when I talked to him, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 long have you been experiencing this drainage problem? MR. DAVIDSON: I've been in my house over ten years. It's every time it rains. least COMMISSIONER MULROY: SO it's been at MR. DAVIDSON: It'S consistent. It's every time. COMMISSIONER MULROY: SO as far back as you can remember, ten years? MR. DAVIDSON: well, when I first bought my house, I had a six-foot fence. My six-foot fence is gone. It's been under water. COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, I understand. And I understand that you're -- MR. DAVIDSON: I mean, the issue that is at hand is no matter who I talk to whether it's the drainage department, whether it's the City or -- I mean, like I PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 97 - Page 100 CondenseltTM Page 101 1 said, I've talked to everybody you can think of from the 2 guy that mows the grass to the head cheese in drainage, 3 okay, and nobody wants to address the issue. No, it's 4 always, well, you have to talk to Clark or you have to 5 talk to Jerry. Everybody's been passing the buck around. 6 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. I understand. 7 I can appreciate your frustration. 8 MR. DAVIDSON: I'm not frustrat~l. I'd 9 just like to have somebody give me an honest answer 10 instead of you know -- 11 COMMISSIONER MULROY: In fairness to thc 12 applicant, I want to separate the issues, okay? You have 13 a ten year old problem and you're hoisting it on this 14 particular hearing like it's urgent and it may be urgent. 15 But urgent -- 16 MR. DAVIDSON: Yeah, it's a ten-year 17 problem, I agree. 18 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. So we need to 19 focus, you know, our forward energy working with the City 20 staff members and get their attention and get a 21 Resolution, but not expend this energy in this hearing 22 when it's really not part of this project. I just want to 23 clear the air for everybody. 24 MR. DAVIDSON: NO, I mean, I understand 25 your situation there. But, also, you need to understand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 103 1 please. You finished, let me finish. You have an 2 election coming up next month with three City-wide 3 candidates -- excuse me, three City-wide offices up for 4 election, there's no better time to talk to an elected 5 official than when they're running for office. They'll 6 never listen to you at any better than when they're 7 running for office. 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: connnissioner Powell. 9 MR. D^VIDSON: I don't think anybody 10 listens, to be honest with you, wherever they stand. 11 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further 12 questions, Commissioners? Thank you, Mr. Davidson. 13 The next card that I have is from Mr. Wade 14 Lillie. Mr. Lillie. 15 MR. LILLIE: My name is Wade Lillie. I 16 live at 3800 Deer Forest. I'm president of thc Dcerwood 17 Neighborhood Association, and I have some comments 18 tonight. The first comment is I would like to thank the 19 Planning and Zoning Commission for the time you've spent 20 on this. And, also, and I have know Mr. Powell that 21 you've been frustrated with the delays, but I want to say 22 that thc delays for our benefit have been very 23 providential to allow us to come to an understanding of 24 the new Denton plan and how this impacted by that. And, 25 also, how the developer is being impacted by that. Page 102 our situation that, you know, with the development that is going on behind our property, there's got to be some concern. There's going to be some type of water coming into that area more than there is now. COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, I'm all for working with staff to help solve your problem, but let's separate it out from -- you know, let's get the heat away from what we're here to discuss tonight. MR. DAVIDSON: I think everybody knows what we're here to discuss. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Davidson, I have some other Colmnissioners that have some questions. Commissioner Powell. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Davidson, your cormnents are well taken. But I've lived a lot of years as you can tell by looking at me. And one of the things I have learned is that paid staff is often times between a rock and a hard place, and if I were trying to solve a problem like this, I wouldn't go to paid staff. You've got an election coming up next month with three City-wide offices -- MR. DAVIDSON: I don't think election has anything to do with it. COMMISSIONER POWELL: ret me finish, sir, Page 104 1 And so that time has not been lost or 2 wasted as far as we're concerned and we appreciate your 3 willingness to give us that time and to work with us in 4 granting that time. I'd also like to thank Dr. Wolski and 5 his team for being willing and forthcoming with 6 information to us and for granting us time. And they have 7 been available for meetings, phone calls, visits, whatever 8 it would take to try to understand what their concerns are 9 as well as listening to the concerns that we have had. tO Since our last meeting before you, I think I 11 stated then that I did not have information from the 12 Neighborhood Association specifically. Following that 13 meeting, I did go to the neighborhood. I submitted 101 14 letters that called for a response to the neighborhood. I 15 received 13 responses back. And of those 13, one did not 16 mark a preference, but did indicate that there were 17 concerns or that they still had concerns about the impact 18 that development would have regarding traffic on Kings 19 Row. 20 One person commented that they were opposed 21 to the Development Plan as presented because they didn't 22 feel that things had adequately been resolved with the 23 School District. And they also were concerned about some 24 of the drainage issues that had been brought up by the 25 residents west of the freeway. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 101 - Page 104 CondcnscltTM Page 105 1 Ten of those responses were satisfied with 2 the Development Plan as presented. And so I'm appearing 3 before you tonight in support of the plan as presented 4 from the Deerwood Neighborhood Association. 5 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: conm:aissioners, any 6 questions of Mr. Lillie? Any further questions? Mr. 7 Mulroy -- Colmnissioner Mulroy. 8 COMMISSIONER MULROY: JUSt a comment. We 9 appreciate your participation in the process to make that 10 work. Thank you. 11 MR. LILLIE: Thank you very much. 12 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further : 13 questions, Co~ranissioners? Thank you, Mr. Lillie. Once 14 again, this is a public hearing. I have gone through the 15 cards that I had with regard to people that would like to 16 speak regarding Items No. 9 and Items No. 10 on our 17 Agenda. So I presto'ne anyone who wanted to speak has 18 presented a card to us. And at this point in time I will 19 close the public hearing. 20 The petitioner has a rebuttal opportunity. 21 And I'd ask the petitioner to come forward. 22 DR. WOLSKI: I'd like to thank Wade Lillie 23 and the Deerwood neighborhood for their support. As far 24 as the School Board, currently the taxes -- the entire 25 area is agricultural exemption. This is probably 10, 15 Page 106 1 year build up of -- the tax dollars to the School Board 2 should like 3.6 million dollars a year on this. And the 3 cmmnercial and the industrial more than compensates for 4 the residential aspects of this development. As far as 5 Beverly Tannas, I can give a 100 foot easement to clean 6 the creek on my side of the creek. And that's fine with 7 me. I think that's a great idea. 8 The other point, if I can get this screen 9 here, if you can give me the screen. Okay. This is 10 riparian habitat right here. This is flood plain. Okay. 11 Thc third house down, I think Beverly's house is right 12 here. And her backyard, it goes straight back to the 13 Loop. There are no apartments there. Can everybody see 14 the laser pointer? Okay. Going straight back, it goes 15 right to the Loop. Going straight back from here it goes 16 right to the Loop, right here. There are no apartments 17 there. This is like a buffer. There are absolutely no 18 apartments in here. You're not going to wake up and see 19 apartments built in the flood plain. That's absolutely 20 not allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. 21 This area is 250 feet right here. This 22 area is 250 feet. So this area right here is more than 23 two football fields in their backyard before -- and I 24 don't know if we're going to put apartments right on the 25 edge of the flood plain. Again, we dropped the density Page 107 1 from 30 units an acre to 12. We dropped the -- 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Wolski, in your 3 your original conunent and the sheet that I have, the 4 horizontal line that comes from there shows 200 foot and 5 the other line shows 250; is there a change there now? 6 DR. WOLSKI: I'm sorry. This is 200 feet. 7 You're 100 percent right. 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Okay. Thank you. 9 DR. WOLSKI: This is one inch. This is off 10 the City web site, one inch to 250 feet. You can check 11 this yourself. This is from this line to line. I don't 12 know how accurate it is, but from this line to this line 13 it's a little bit less than an inch, so it's around 250 14 feet. From here to here -- but anyway, this is Glenn 15 Davidson's house here. Right here, he's looking on 16 residential, so that doesn't even matter there. This is 17 where the apartments are going to be on this yellow stuff. 18 That's out of the flood plain. This house is going to be 19 mostly looking back on riparian habitat. You know, this 20 house is going to be all the way to the Loop, all the way 21 to the Loop, all the way to the Loop. This is all buffer 22 behind your backyard. If you look out your backyard, you 23 know, just straight back all the way to the Loop, youtve 24 got a greenbelt. 25 So it's not like, you know, Beverly says, Page 108 1 you know, she's going to look out and see apartments. 2 There's not going to be apartments in her backyard because 3 it goes right to the Loop. And for Mr. Beggs like the -- 4 we did a traffic study, you know. We've got a B rating 5 before we even reduced the density. That -- I asked the 6 traffic engineer what that means, and he said, well, you 7 know Denton will accept a D, and we've got a B, which is 8 much better, even at peak business hours. And that was 9 before we reduced the density. 10 Our overall density is 4.15 units per acre. 11 That's like -- you know, if you had -- there's 43,000 feet 12 in an acre. 43,560, so that's like 10,000 feet per 13 person, over 10,000 feet per person. And, you know, like 14 I said, you know, I'll be glad to help the Deerwood -- I 15 mean, the Craig Street neighborhood with the -- an 16 easement like they're asking of 100 feet. It's very easy. 17 I'll give it to them. 18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. 19 Conunissioner Mulroy. 20 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yeah. As a point of 21 clarification that Doug Powell mentioned, when you plat, 22 you'll have to give the easement and all your flood plain 23 to the City, so part of that process, the City will have 24 an easement through your property on any of the flood 25 plain, a drainage casement, so that's going to happen PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 105 - Page 108 CondenseltTM Page 109 1 automatically. 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, any 3 further questions? Thank you, Dr. Wolski. I'd like to 4 ask staff to give a closing con'unent. 5 MR. THOM^S: Staff really has no further 6 comments at this time. 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. 8 Co~mnissioners, what is your -- Commissioner Powell. 9 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, Mr. 10 Chairman. I would move to approve Item No. 9 as 11 submitted. 12 COMMISSIONER MULROY: second. 13 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: it's been moved by 14 Co~mnissioncr Powell and seconded by Cormnissioner Mulroy. 15 I have a couple of questions, I believe. Cormnissioner 16 Holt. 17 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Yes. At the last 18 meeting, I guess it was the meeting before, I had asked 19 that tracts 2, 3 and 10 be looked at to become NR-3 20 because that is more keeping with what the adjacent 21 developments are. Was that looked at and would you 22 consider that? 23 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Dr. Wolski, would you 24 address the microphone? Would you review that again, 25 Commissioner Holt? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 111 already zoned NR-4. So it's just the closer to the Loop, the increase in the density. COMMISSIONER HOLT: well, I understand that. But this is -- since we're not looking at the same map, I'm a little bit confused. On this map here, this one. DR. WOLSKI: which numbers? COMMISSIONER HOLT: Tract 2. DR. WOLSKI: Tract 2 would be up in here. COMMISSIONER HOLT: okay. And you say this is NR-4, the existing -- staff told me it was NR-3. I don't know. DR. WOLSKI: Okay. This one right here is NR-4 right here. This one is NR-3. COMMISSIONER HOLT: well, my point is the NR-3'S should abut NR-3's and the NR-4's can abut NR-4's. But I would like to keep the same type of building consistent in those residential areas abutting other residential areas. DR. WOLSKI: Right. The only problem is -- this isn't like a planned development, so the way you do it is an NR-3 or NR-4. YOU can't say, well, you know, I'm going to do a row of houses here and a row of houses here. And so the only way to buffer this area is to go to NR-4 right here. And that's -- it's very compatible with this Page 110 1 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Tracts 2, 3 and 10. 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And I think part of 3 what they were trying to do was present the same map to us 4 twice in row, so -- 5 DR. WOLSKI: Okay. We checked out on this 6 and -- could I have this one, please? Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Would you show us on 8 the docucam where those houses are? 9 DR. WOLSKI: Right. This is an area that's l0 under consideration right here. This area is NR-4, this 11 coloration here. This area is NR-3. 12 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Mine says NR-4. 13 DR. WOLSKI: This is the proposed 14 development. This is the subdivisions abutting this. 15 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Right. 16 DR. WOLSKI: okay. So we~ve got NR-4, 17 NR-3. This is already zoned, okay, and when the 18 Comprehensive Plan passed, this is already zoned NR-4. So 19 we have, like, NR-4 here, NR-4 here. We're asking for 20 NR-4 because it's going to be buffering the NR-3 here with 21 the CMO here. We don't want to have NR-3 right to the 22 Loop, we need a buffered area. If you look at what these 23 -- in the Comprehensive Plan, this area here is NR-4. 24 Anything abutting the Loop has generally been zoned NR-4. 25 But that's NR-4. That's NR-4. That's NR-4. This is Page 112 1 subdivision here and this subdivision here. And since 2 there's CNa starting very rapidly right in here -- 3 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Right. 4 DR. WOLSKI: -- there's not very much room 5 to buffer. You know, we were thinking of having NR-3's, 6 but that's not -- there's not very much room to buffer 7 that CMO. So we're going from low density to CMO. And in 8 between there we need NR-4 to comply with the 9 Comprehensive Plan which likes a gradation of densities. 10 COMMISSIONER HOLT: okay. 11 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Mulroy, 12 would you care to address the Conunission? 13 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yeah, I'd like 14 clarification on the topography that separates the two 15 areas. 16 OR. WOLSKI: well, this area right here, 17 the CMO is on a huge hill or like on a hill and it goes 18 down -- as far as the elevations, it goes from a hill and 19 it goes all the way downhill here. But as far as -- 20 there's no park or anything separating the areas. It's 21 just going to from a NR-4 -- I'm sorry. Here's NR-4. 22 NR-4, CMO. And in this area this will be NR-3, NR-4, CMO 23 in here. 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: COlmnissioner Holt. 25 COMMISSIONER hOLT: well, I still feel the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 109 - Page 112 CondenseltTM Page 115 1 and not create barriers. 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Powell. 3 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I'd like to remind 4 the Chairman that I have a motion on the floor with a 5 second and that is for Item 9 only. This is not Item 10, 6 just Item 9. 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, 8 Cormnissioncr Powell. Any further questions or conunents, 9 Commissioners regarding the motion that's before us on the I0 floor? Conuuissioner Roy? And I presume this is for 11 clarification. 12 COMMISSIONER ROY: I wanted to make a 13 comment. 14 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: comment, please. 15 COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Assuming this 16 motion passes, we're leaving two groups of citizens very 17 unhappy. And I think we've separated these issues -- 18 we've separated these issues and I think the citizens have 19 indicated that they understand reasonably well that these ~20 issues are separated from the issue at hand, but these are 21 not particularly things that we as Planning and Zoning 22 Conunissioners can address. It's not our job at this 23 particular time, just not to make it worse. But I don't 24 know what we can do to help these citizens. But I wish we 25 could just make our desires known as these things come up Page 113 1 whole density is a little high. I mean, you all have done 2 marvelous things with it already. But I would like to see 3 it come down and I think that would be a really good way 4 to bring it down a little bit, making that NR-3. And from 5 the public hearings that we've had before, those people in 6 those areas over there would be a lot happier if that was 7 the sm-ne type of development that they have. Thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further questions 9 or clarifications. I have a motion on the floor. Thank 10 you very much, Dr. Wolski. Mr. Keith -- Cmmnissioner 11 meith, excuse me. i12 COMMISSIONER KEITH: I have a question. On 13 these plattings, is it this time that we can -- that if 14 there's a -- like, you're going from a residential into 15 apartments, can conditions be placed at this time or does 16 that wait until the property is developed? 17 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Snyder. 18 MR. SNYDER: I'm sorry. I didn't 19 understand the question. 20 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Okay. My question is 21 -- he's got two tracts here going from NR-4 residential 22 into multiple housing. He's designing the tracts later to 23 be platted out for developing. Is it that point in time 24 that the Planning and Zoning can come in and place any 25 restrictions between the two tracts? Page 114 1 MR. SNYDER: NO, yOU can't do it at the 2 platting stage. The new Development Code gives them the 3 flexibility within an NR-4, so long as they have an 4 overall density of four units per acre. 5 COMMISSIONER KEITH: what I would be 6 concerned is that in order to have a boundary between the 7 two, a fence or something, is that -- that's kind of what 8 I was saying -- my thoughts were. 9 MR. SNYDER: NO, yOU can't do that. You 10 cannot do that at platting. The whole purpose behind the 11 new -- and Mr. Powell can add to this. The whole idea of 12 the new Development Code is to have mixed use straight 13 zoning classifications without conditions and to give the 14 property owner the flexibility to develop within that 15 mixed use zoning classification. 16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Director Powell. 17 MR. POWELL: ^nd, further, if the issue is 18 a design of multi-family, the new Code calls for a 19 different type of multi-family development, one which 20 requires a street system, inter-connectivity, that the 21 mixed use and multi-family areas will actually be part and 22 integrated into adjacent residential areas. So we really 23 are going away from trying to create pods of single use 24 type districts and developments, multi-family, single i25 family, commercial. We're trying to integrate those uses Page 116 1 and I will ask Mr. Powell to do what he's conmfitted to do 2 and any extra effort he can make to address these two 3 issues or help these citizens better understand what they 4 can do and what they should do would be appreciated by me, 5 at least, and I'm sure thc other Commissioners. 6 COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: Sllre. Counselor 7 Snyder, let me ask to find out if we can get some sort of 8 -- I realize that the offer that Dr. Wolski has made with 9 regard to the 100-foot easement in this southern part, 10 southeastern part of the subdivision -- southwestern part 11 of the subdivision is not tied into the two things that 12 arc represented on Item No. 9 here. Is there a -- as we 13 look at Item No. 10, will we be able to put forth a 14 proposal that would allow or would contain something that 15 would allow us to put Dr. Wolski's offer of 100-foot 16 easement in that area on the floor? And Director Powell 17 would like to chime in here, if he would. 18 MR. POWELL: If I could answer that 19 question. I think Commissioner Mulroy really addressed it 20 and that is as this property proceeds through development, 21 the next stage being platting, that flood plain will be 22 looked at. And the current regulations require that that 23 flood plain be put in a drainage easement, so the City 24 will have access. So it will be taken care of as part of 25 the existing regulations. 10TH, 2002 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL Page 113 - Page 116 CondenseltTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 117 The only thing that may happen is they could seek a variance, but then again that would be back before y'all. So without a variance there, they're going to be required to give the City a drainage easement on the property that Dr. Wolski controls. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you for your clarification. Commissioner Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: NO. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: okay. Once again, we have a motion on the floor and the motion was by Conunissioncr Powell and a second by Colmnissioner Mukoy, I believe. Any further clarification needed on the motion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, please vote. Motion Page 119 1 residential to it. So that to me modifies it 2 dramatically. Just my way of looking at it. 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Commissioner Mulroy. 4 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Just to further 5 address the density. Yeah, selectively to this acreage, 6 it's skewed past the ratio, but if you impose this acreage 7 on the northwest quadrant of -- northeast quadrant of 8 town, then the ratio comes down considerably. So if you 9 look at the area as a whole, then it's not that much 10 askew. And I have one cmmnent, back on -- when you were 11 looking at the NR-3, NR-4, correct me if I'm wrong, but I 12 believe there's some natural barriers between those 13 existing houses. I believe there's a small creek that carries 6-0 of the Commissioners present. We have also discussed in this last period of time Item No. 10 on our Agenda. Do I hear a motion? Or is there further discussion or clarification? COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I would move to approve Item No. 10 as submitted. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I would second that, Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It's been moved by 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 runs to the east side with a north/south access down behind the Checkmate Development there. And there's a bridge where Windsor stops. So there's a natural barrier. You've got a creek that runs down there. So there's -- it's not going to be a house backed up to a house. You're going to have some barriers there. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I'd like for Director Powell to see if he can help us clarify what the density Commissioner Powell and seconded by Colmnissioner Mulroy. Colmnissioner Holt, question or clarification? COMMISSIONER HOLT: I have a question. The Page 1 18 Denton Plan suggests a city wide multi-family to single family ration of 40 to 60. Given the size of this multi-fmnily development, it is being proposed at 59 percent multi-family, 41 percent single fmnily. I think this is a huge overstep in multi-fmnily for this area. And this has not been brought out. We've not discussed it. We've discussed bringing down the densities of the area, and we're still way off from what the Denton Plan suggests that we do for our community. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: DO you have a friendly motion you would like to make. COMMISSIONER HOLT: NO. I would like to see if any of the other CmTnnissioners feel as I do. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I have several Colmnissioners that would like to speak. Conunissioncr Powell. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Strangely enough so do I feel that way. But I may be wrong here, I don't want to put words in your mouth. But I don't think you've considered the industrial land. And when you take that into consideration it changes the ratio dramatically. I mean, yes, if you just look at the residential areas, it's a 60/40 the wrong way or whatever you said. But there's a lot of industrial land here also that's being developed under this stone Item No. 9 and No. 10 that has no 23 24 25 represents at this point in time with regard to the entire project. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thomas, do you have 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 120 that information? I don't have it right in front of me. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I was hoping that would help clarify. MR. POWELL: Maybe if you can give us a couple minutes and go. We can come back to that. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Commissioner Holt, do you have a question you'd like to put forth? COMMISSIONER HOLT: NO. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Or is this germane to your question? Thank you. Any further questions, Commissioners? It doesn't appear that staff has that information for us at this time. Staff has worked with this situation for sometime and I'm just trying to get some sort of COlrnnent from them as to how they see where they are at this time. And maybe they would prefer not to make a comment at this time. MR. POWELL: I apologize for not having the information at hand. But at an earlier meeting, we did provide you with an analysis of looking at the northwest quadrant or northeast quadrant of the City. And I think Mr. Mulroy is correct that for this particular project, that obviously the densities, the ratio from single family to multi-family is above what is called out in the Denton Plan. Again, that's a policy document, and a guide and it does come down significantly if you take this project and PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 117 - Page 120 CondcnscltTM Page 121 i view it over the whole northeast quadrant. 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Holt, 3 you still have the floor. 4 COMMISSIONER HOLT: I'm sorry. Thank you. 5 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, any 6 further questions? And we have a motion on the floor. 7 Mr. Gray has a conunent regarding density. 8 MR. GRAY: I do apologize. I thought that 9 I didn't have this information, but, in fact, I did. 10 Here's -- this is information that Mr. Reichhart had 11 proposed last thne that north of University, the existing 12 conditions are that we have 75 percent single family, 25 13 percent multi-family. And then between University and 14 McKinney we have 53 percent single family and 47 percent 15 multi-family. So the total area between McKinney up north 16 on the northeast quadrant of town we have 64 percent 17 single family, 36 percent multi-family. The applicant's 18 revised proposal, once you factor everything in, would 19 change the totals for the area of town McKinney northward 20 to 63 percent single family, and 37 percent multi-family. 21 So even though he is -- Dr. Wolski's application is 22 proposing a ratio of multi-family to single family that is 23 backwards of what the Denton Plan provides, the Denton 24 Plan docs specify this is a City wide average and, in fact 25 ~- the effect on the City-wide would be just one 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 123 1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. 2 Commissioner Keith. 3 COMMISSIONER KEITH: I kind of look at 4 these apartments. Dr. Wolski has really reduced them. 5 And rather than coming in and putting a housing 6 development of where it's going to be smaller lots but 7 more housing, so it makes them cheaper housing because 8 it's right up against the highway, I think coming in with 9 apartments is a lot wiser use. i0 He's brought down thc density of them. 11 And, granted, a lot of people don't want to live right 12 next to -- the marketability of living next to a major 13 thoroughfare and the Loop is going to become more busy. 14 And it's more understanding the State is going to at some 15 point in time even increase the lanes on that. So it's 16 going to be very difficult for anybody willing to live 17 right next to such a major thoroughfare. And the 18 apartment complex and then the employment centers adjacent 19 to them will be of a great service to the area. And I 20 live over in that area. And so I think Dr. Wolski -- I'd 21 like to colmnent to him that he has done a very good job of 22 working with the neighborhood people, meeting with them. 23 He's bent over backwards. I'm surprised he doesn't need a 24 chiropractor himself in accommodating these people. 25 And I'd just like to commend him. He's Page 122 percentage point in either direction. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And I don't want to put words in Ms. Holt's mouth. But I think her premise was, that what is just the property that's involved with this particular area, what is the ratio on that with regard to the property overall including in the industrial and the other things that we have as a mix in here? MR. GRAY: Just for the property owned by the applicant, we're just looking at single family and multi-family residential units. So I don't know if the industrial or the nonresidential portions of this development would factor into that ratio. Right now the ratio that the applicant is proposing is 59 percent multi-family and 41 percent single fmnily. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I think that answers her question. Commissioner Holt. COMMISSIONER HOLT: Thank you for that explanation. But that is my concern, yes, if you do put the employment centers in there, it's going to bring down your ratio, but that doesn't scatter those apartments out anymore. There's going to be a huge amount of apartments in a smaller area. And I really feel -- and, you know, it may just be perception or how you look this. I look at this one development has 60/40, whereas we want 40/60. That's all I'm saying. Page 124 1 really -- he's a citizen of the cmmnunity and has done a 2 very fine job on this. I just wish to apologize that it's 3 taken so long for him to be able to work this all out, but 4 it's come to fruition and I'd like to compliment him and 5 the staff for working with him. Thank you. 6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I'd just like to 7 conm~ent that I know there's been a lot of work that has 8 gone into this project. And I reflect back on the work 9 that we put forth in trying to get to the Denton plan and 10 the other things we did and the stress that we made as a 11 conmmnity, I thought, that talked very strongly. And I 12 totally agree with Conunissioner Holt that the 40/60, 60/40 13 ratio was something that was important to us as a 14 coxmnunity and to change that mix meant a change in the 15 texture of our conm~unity and it represents the quality of 16 life that I think we want to have and preserve as a 17 conununity. So I, too, am very much concerned and 18 conscious of what we spent a lot of time in trying to 19 development as the Denton Plan and where we've gone with 20 that. 21 And I would not like to see without being 22 noted as a major exception as we go forth here that this 23 docs not, in fact, comply with the work that we have put 24 in to try to get that to where it is today, and I would :25 not be able to vote for this at this time. And I reflect PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 121 -Page 124 CondenseltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 125 upon the fact that I think the developer has done a lot of work in trying to work with the neighbors and the neighborhood and I appreciate his concession tbis evening to try to work with the flood plain in the southern part of this piece of property. And I think that we're very close and there's certainly an area that I could agree with here on many of the things that we've gone to. But I think to change the complexion of our conununity and to move away from that 60/40 ratio is a bad move for us. Thank you. Commissioner Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, I will be voting for it. And for just a 180 degree read on what you have experienced, I was involved in the development of the Comp Plan, and it's to be used as a guide. The 60/40 ratio is a City-wide ratio. And, also, we have encouraged through the Denton Code and thc Comp Plan more master planning, you know, our desire is to have larger projects with a master plan theme as opposed to spotted projects. So if you were looking at small conglomerate, then you might want to be less flexible on your nm~thers, but if you have the quality of a master plan product -- project, which we're promoting, and then you step back and look in the quadrant of that City, you're really not changing your ratio but one point. You know, I think that's the flexibility that's always been in the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 127 plan and also I know we're not supposed to talk directly, but I know to Mr. Roy he would enjoy this. Dr. Wolski spent over $10,000.00 on a tree study on this propcxty. He's put a lot of money into this. And I think, you know to -- in detennining what esthetics could be preserved. And I think that's very colmnendable as well. And I just want to throw that in. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further comments, Commissioners? COMMISSIONER POWELL: Yes. I'm sorry. I wasn't, but I am. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: co~mnissioner Powell. COMMISSIONER POWELL: If I may, thank you, sir. Several -- it seems like a couple of months ago, Dr. Wolski was up here land I came down on him like a duck on a June bug. And I think it was well deserved. But I can't imagine a developer putting more effort into pleasing the colmnunity than you have done, sir. And I think what I said that night was well-deserved and what I said tonight is also well-deserved. You've really spent a lot of time and effort to make this a good project for the whole city. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Roy, did you want to weigh in here? Once again, we have a motion on the floor. I see no further conunents. Please vote. Page 126 Comp Plan because it's meant as a guide. And what we have to judge is the final outcome, not all the small equations. So I think we've got most of what we're trying to accomplish with the Comp Plan and as it develops out, such as -- a good example is the eascunent -- that the flood plain becoming automatically an easement. That's part of this new process. So I think we're well within the spirit of it. And I'm going to vote for it because I'd rather see one large master plan that has been worked out with the central node and especially that has taken into consideration all the co~mncnts from the neighborhoods and has incorporated all the concerns practically that it could in to reshaping tile development and that was feasible and that were pertinent to this development. Most of the negativity we've heard of the drainage and the transportation really are apart from this development. And I'm pleased as a Colmuission that this has been processed and that you have the neighborhood group coming in now with the majority of folks supporting this project. So I'm going to be voting for it for those reasons. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Keith. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Yeah, I know I've already had my say. But I want to add one more thing. Dr. Wolski -- that some of the Co~mnissioners are not aware of and the audience as well, that in his working on this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 128 Motion carries 5-1. (COMMISSIONER RISHEL VOTING IN OPPOSITION.) COMMISSIONER RISHEL: That should in theory bring us to Item No. 11. And I have some Commissioners calling for a break. Is that acceptable for everyone? We will hold Item 11 for about a ten-minute break. And if we could get everyone to meet us back here in about ten minutes we will pick up on Item No 11. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: co~ranissioners, if I could have your attention. We have our quorum and we'd like to proceed. I think we're on Item No. 11. And Item No. 11 should be on our docucam. And Mr. Grace will present. This is Item No. 11 on our Agenda and Mr. Grace will present. MR. GRACE: AS you can see here, the site is located at 1911 Virginia Street, which is south of Mingo and is located here. Okay. The applicant has applied for a specific use permit to allow for the construction of a 120 foot co-locatable telecommunications tower for Cingular Wireless. A 230 square foot equipment shelter will accompany the proposed tower and will be a prefabricated nine foot eight inch structure with an aggregate exterior. The subject property is platted. The Denton Plan designates this location as an employment center, future land use area. Here is the -- if the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 125 - Page 128 ATTACHMENT 9 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 2002- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DENTON PLAN 1999-2020 BY ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN OF THE LAND ELEMENT OF THE DENTON PLAN FOR THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; THE AREA FOR AMENDMENT ENCOMPASSING APPROXIMATELY 70 ACRES AND GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF LOOP 288 AT KINGS ROW. PROVIDING A SAVINGS AND REPEAL CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (CA01-0001) WHEREAS, Dr. Ed Wolski initiated a comprehensive plan amendment to the land use plan of the land element of the Denton Plan for 40 acres of land from Neighborhood Centers to Community Mixed Use and 30 acres of land from Employment Center to Neighborhood Centers which is more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the "Land Use Plan Amendment"); and WHEREAS, on December 7, 1999, the City of Denton adopted the Denton Plan, 1999- 2020; and WHEREAS, on April 10, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after a public hearing on May 14, 2002, finds that the recommended Land Use Plan Amendment is in the best interests of the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Denton, Texas; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby approves Land Use Plan Amendment to the Denton Plan, 1999-2020. SECTION 2. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in force when the provisions of this ordinance became effective, which are inconsistent or in conflict with the terms or provisions contained in this ordinance, are hereby repealed to the extent of any such conflict only. The non- conflicting sections, sentences, paragraphs, and phrases shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. The City staff is directed to change the land use plan map to the Denton Plan in conformity with the Land Use Plan Amendment. Until such map change is made a copy of this ordinance shall be attached to the Denton Plan, 1999-2020 showing the Land Use Plan Amendment. SECTION 4: approval. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and Page 1 PASSED AND APPROVED this the ~ day of ,2002. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Page 2 EXHIBIT "A" Approximately 70 acres of a 243.91-acre master plan is being amended. The amendment is in two distinct areas: The first area encompasses approximately 40 acres from Neighborhood Centers to Community Mixed Use Centers surrounding the proposed interchange of Loop 288 and the extension of Windsor Road. The second area encompasses approximately 30 acres from Employment Center to Neighborhood Center. LOCATION MAP Page 3 This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #36 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: May 14, 2002 Planning Departmem David Hill, 349-8314 SUBJECT - Z02-0004 (Windsor Oaks) Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 180 acres from Neighborhood Residemial 2 (NR-2), Neighborhood Residemial 4 (NR-4), and Employmem Cemer Industrial (EC-I) zoning districts to Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3), Neighborhood Residemial 4 (NR-4), Neighborhood Residemial 6 (NR-6), Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12), and Community Mixed Use General (CM-G) zoning districts. The property is generally located on either side of Loop 288 north of Mingo Road, south of King's Row, east of Old North Road and west of Cooper Creek Road. A developmem comaining a variety of single- family, multifamily, retail, office and commercial uses is proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (5-1). BACKGROUND Applicam: Ed Wolski, DeNon, Texas 76205 The applicam owns approximately 215 acres of land on either side of Loop 288 between Mingo Road and King's Row. The applicam has proposed developmem for this property which would comain a variety of single-family, multifamily, commercial and retail uses (see Attachmem 5). The proposed plan is divided imo sevemeen (17) separate tracts comaining differem land use types and densities. Staff has received three (3) responses in favor of the zoning request, one (1) response conditionally in favor of the zoning request, one (1) response nemral to the zoning request, and sevemeen (17) responses in opposition to the zoning request from owners within the 200' notification boundary. Staff has also received several responses from neighbors located omside the 200' boundary (see Attachmem 3). Curremly 2.5% of the land area within 200 feet of the subject property is in opposition to the rezoning request. This zoning application was originally submitted under the old zoning ordinance as a Concept Plan for a Planned Developmem zoning district (Z01-0031). The new Developmem Code, adopted by City Council on February 5th and implememed February 20th, has no provisions for the creation of new Planned Developmem zoning districts. Therefore, the zoning application was modified to conform to the new developmem code. This zoning case has been submitted in conjunction with a comprehensive plan amendmem request (CA01-0001) for the same property. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Deny. 3. Postpone consideration. 4. Table item. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (5-1, Rishel opposed). ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The subject property is not platted. A final plat is required prior to the issuance of any building permits. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology of Z02-0004, commonly known as Windsor Oaks: Application Date - August 31, 2001 (as Z01-0031) DRC Date- September 13, 2001 (as Z01-0031) Neighborhood Meetings - June 21,2001 June 28, 2001 January 17, 2002 (see Attachment 4) March 5, 2002 (see Attachment 4) P&Z Dates - December 19, 2001 February 27, 2002 March 13, 2002 April 10, 2002 FISCAL INFORMATION Development of this property will increase the assessed value of the city. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Maps 3. Public Notification (Property Owner Notification Map, letters from neighborhood residents) 4. Neighborhood Meeting Information 5. Zoning Plan 6. Planning and Zoning Commission minutes, December 19, 2001 7. Planning and Zoning Commission minutes, February 27, 2002 8. Planning and Zoning Commission minutes, March 13, 2002 9. Planning and Zoning Commission minutes, April 10, 2002 10. Draft ordinance Property Owner Responses and Prepared by: Thomas B. Gray Planner II Respectfully submitted: Douglas S. Powell, AICP Director of Planning and Development ATTACHMENT 1 Staff Analysis Summary_ of Zoning Request The applicant owns approximately 215 acres of land on either side of Loop 288 between Mingo Road and King's Row. The applicant has proposed development for this property which would contain a variety of single-family, multifamily, commercial and retail uses (see Enclosure 5). The proposed plan is divided into seventeen (17) separate tracts containing different land use types and densities. Since the February 27, 2002 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the applicant has made changes to the proposed zoning. The requested zoning for Tracts 7 and 11 has been changed from NRMU to NRMU-12, and the requested NR-6 zoning for Tracts 6, 8 and 9 have been removed, effectively dropping these properties from the zoning plan. The applicant is requesting single-family development at densities of 3, 4 and 6 units per acre, reflected by the requested Neighborhood Residential zoning categories (NR-3, NR-4 and NR-6). Community Mixed Use - General (CM-G) zoning has been requested for the "community center" at the future intersection of Loop 288 and Windsor Road. The applicant is also proposing some multifamily development at densities of up to 12 units per acre, and is requesting Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU) zoning for this purpose. Below is a table showing the proposed use, zoning, acreage and proposed density for each tract. Tract Land Use Type Proposed Acres Maximum Zoning Dwelling Units I (1) Church/Single Family NR-3 14.25 43 II (2) Single Family NR-4 12.59 50 III (3) Single Family NR-4 13.43 54 IV (4) Single Family NR-6 20.72 124 V (5) Single Family NR-6 14.21 85 VII (7) Multifamily NRMU- 12 18.84 226 X (la) Single Family NR-4 14.38 57 XI (11) Multifamily NRMU-12 30.61 367 XIII (13) Community CM-G 5.23 n/a XIV (14) Community CM-G 11.05 n/a XV (15) Community CM-G 16.30 n/a XVI (16) Community CM-G 7.95 n/a The proposed zoning would allow a maximum of 413 single-family units and 593 multifamily units. Tracts 6, 8, 9, 12 and 17, designated for commercial use, already have the proper zoning (EC-I) in place and therefore are not part of this zoning request. Additionally, the requested NR-4 zoning is already in place for most, but not all, of Tract la. As currently presented, this zoning case effectively covers approximately 180 acres. The applicant is proposing to dedicate a park site as part of Tract 4. There is also an approximately 6-acre floodplain area in Tract 11 that will be preserved. To date, the applicant has not provided any information or justification for the proposed zoning change. Existing Condition of Property_ The subject property is currently zoned Employment Center - Industrial (EC-I), Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) and Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4). Previous to the adoption of the Denton Development Code, the property encompassed One Family Dwelling (SF-7 and SF-10) and Agricultural (A) zoning districts. The subject property is currently undeveloped. It is surrounded on the north and west, and southwest sides by existing single-family residential development zoned NR-3 and NR-4. There is existing industrial development to the southeast of the property zoned EC-I and IC-E (see Attachment 1). The areas to the east and northeast of the subject property are currently undeveloped. Comprehensive Plan Analysis The subject site is located within an Employment Center future land use area and a Neighborhood Center future land use area. Employment Centers are intended to provide locations for a variety of workplaces, including limited light manufacturing uses, research and development activities, corporate facilities, offices, and institutions. Employment centers are also intended to accommodate secondary uses that complement or support the primary workplace uses, such a hotels, restaurants, convenience shopping, and child care. Adequate public facilities shall be a criterion by which zoning is granted. Neighborhood Centers may develop in conventional patterns or may be developed in a pattern of 'neighborhood centers'. Neighborhood centers are oriented inwardly, focusing on the center of the neighborhood and containing facilities vital to the day-to-day activity of the neighborhood. A neighborhood center might contain a convenience store, small restaurant, personal service shops, church or synagogue, daycare, individual office space, a small park and perhaps an elementary school. The applicant has submitted a comprehensive plan amendment request (see case CA01-0001) to create a Community Mixed-Use Activity Center towards the center of the subject property and also to adjust the boundary between the Employment Center area and the Neighborhood Center area. A Community Mixed-Use Activity Centers contains the shopping, services, recreation, employment, and institutional facilities that are required and supported by the surrounding community. Thus, a community activity center could contain a supermarket, drug store, specialty shops, service stations, one or more large places of worship, a community park, midsize offices, and employers, high- to moderate- density housing, and perhaps an elementary or middle school. It includes vertically integrated uses where different uses may occur on each floor of the building. The proposed zoning is currently inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. However, if the Comprehensive Plan amendment as requested by the applicant is approved, then the land uses will become consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Developmem Review Analysis Transportation The applicam has submitted a Traffic impact Analysis (TiA) for review by city staff. The Traffic impact Analysis will more accurately determine the impact of this developmem on traffic flow as well as idemify the required road improvemems necessary to mitigate negative impacts of the proposed developmem. This developmem will have access primarily to Loop 288 and Windsor Road. Secondary access will be provided to King's Row and Cooper Creek Road. The applicam is also proposing for the commercial area on the southeast portion of the subject property to take access to Mingo Road. Windsor Road is proposed to be extended across Loop 288, per the DeNon Mobility Plan. The applicam's site layout (Attachmem 5) shows the location of the proposed imerior road network and their connections to the existing roads. Utilities Due to the increase in density being proposed through the applicam's comprehensive plan amendmem and zoning change requests, staff has determined that there potemially is not sufficiem capacity for existing utility lines to serve the developmem. Staff is still reviewing this situation; this issue might be able to be resolved in the platting process. Drainage and Topography Neighborhood residems have expressed concern about the impact that this developmem will have on existing drainage patterns. New development will be required to design and construct a drainage system to city standards. Some drainage information was submitted with this application and is curremly being reviewed by staff. As the applicam plats the individual tracts comained within the property, he will be required to submit preliminary drainage studies which include calculations of the 100-year storm for all drainage areas on this property and any area that drains towards this property. The developer must indicate the method by which the run-off will be carried across the property or stored on the property. The proposed project will meet the minimum requiremems for pedestrian linkages, signs, landscaping, open space, lighting and environmem quality impacts. Staff Analysis The applicant has made several modifications to this zoning application since it was originally submitted last year. Chief among these was a reduction in the amoum of proposed multifamily developmem. Both staff as well as neighborhood residems expressed concern that the 76 acres and 1,352 multifamily units originally proposed by the applicam was excessive. The applicam has responded to these concerns by reducing the amoum of proposed multifamily developmem, first to 64 acres and 863 units and then to 50 acres and 593 units. Single-family densities were also reduced. Curremly, the applicant is proposing 593 multifamily units and 413 single-family units. This represems a multifamily-to-single family ratio of 59% to 41%. The DeNon Plan suggests a city- wide multifamily-to-single-family ratio of 40% to 60%. Given the size of the multifamily developmems being proposed as well as the multifamily to single-family ratio, staff still has concerns about the density of the project. The applicam is proposing a Community Mixed Use Activity Cemer of approximately 40.5 acres. Although the requested zoning includes street rights of way, it should be noted that The DeNon Plan suggests that Community Mixed Use Activity Cemers be no larger than 30 acres. 6 ATTACHMENT 2 Maps NORTH Location/Zoning Map Scale: None ATTACHMENT 3 Public Notification NORTH Notification Map Scale: None Public Notification Date: February 16, 2002 200' Legal Notices* sent via Certified Mail: 500' Courtesy Notices* sent via 1st Class Mail: Number of responses to 200' Legal Notice · In Opposition: 16 · In Favor: 3 · Neutral: I 77 203 Percent of land within 200' in opposition: 2.5 % *A copy of the notification list can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 Property Owner Responses Property owner responses received as of April 5, 2002: Name Address Reponse Comments Within 200'? Tonya Tivis 3910 Deerforest in favor none yes Wayne Allen 2541 E. Windsor in favor none yes William W. Rainey Jr 2894 Cooper Creek in favor none yes Clayron L Byrom 2869 Cooper Creek neutral none yes James M. Barham 2564 Quail Ridge opposed none yes Roger Cox 3912 Deerforest Dr conditional see letter yes John A. Calabrese 2525 Hillview opposed none yes Wilma Davis 3212 Staghorn opposed none yes Andrew C. Kendall 3001 Emerson opposed none yes Dorothy Tamplen 2532 La Paloma Dr opposed none yes James W. Matlock 2534 Craig opposed see letter yes Patricia Banfield 3005 Mistywood opposed none yes Brian K. Tolbert 2533 E. Windsor opposed none yes Maria A. Tolbert 2533 E. Windsor opposed none yes April B. Tolbert 2533 E. Windsor opposed none yes Bernard Martinez 3305 Cooper Branch E. opposed none yes Beverly & Paul Tanis 2512 Craig Lane opposed see letter yes Ron & Nicole Peters 2520 Craig Lane opposed see letter yes Glenn Brazzel 2524 Craig Lane opposed see letter yes Michael Wright 2745 Mill Pond opposed see letter yes Glenn Davidson 2907 Emerson Ln opposed none no Bennie G. Day 2905 Emerson Ln opposed none no Connie Reno 2421 Windsor opposed I pay $3700 in no taxes to live in a nice neighbor- hood. I do not want to live by businesses or apartments! That brings down value + brings in trash! Andrea Hawk 2517 Craig Lane opposed see letter no Bennie & Janice Day 2905 Emerson Ln opposed see letter no See also the attached petition dated March 2, 2002. The actual response documents are on file with the Planning Department. FROf'l : fqBS Seed, Ltd. Co. PHONE NO. : 940 3E17 270i Feb. 2'2 2802 02:OlPf~ F'l 2-22-02 ~C ~ ~ ~ING OF PRO~ ~JA~ ~I~IN 200 ~) TO ~ PROPE~ ~ ",,_ CIRCLING OPPOS~ ~0. O~ ~ V~LE T~ IS SI~I~G OH ~ PASO ~ ~OY~ ~ ~ O~ O~ ~ p~p~I~ B~N ~ ~ A C~ ~ ~~ ~ PROP~I~ ON ~ ~T. ~ ~DITION OF PA~ ~D~C ~TIONS. ~ C~CLUSION ~ BU~G ~ PAVING ~T O~ ~F 288 ~ ~ P~P~I~ ~U~ ~ YOU ~ Y~' :~NS~TION:'ON~'~S' ~- SINGLY, 2534 C~ ~ ~HO~ ~i0 38~ 2Y01 ~ ~HO~ 910 ~8~ 02/27/02 09:09 FAX 940 381 3160 ANDREW CORP ESA/ACT ~003 To~ Date: Thomas B. Gray, Denton P&D Department Wade Lillie, President, Deerwood Neighborhood Association 3912 Deer Forest Dr. Denton TX. 76208 ~~L~ Fobnlary26,2002 Subject: Z-02-0004 At tho January 17, 2002 neighborhood meeting that was conducted, w= left that meeting with an understanding that some changes had been made to the continuation of Windsor Drive and that it would follow an easterly track and connect to Cooper Creek road. There also had been some down changes to some of the densities of the tracts to the far south end. We spoke to JeffKruger on 2/26/02 and he indicated that there were some new changes proposed that would increase the industrial zoned area to about half of the eastern side of Loop 288. This most recent proposal is of ficeat concern to us. We had the opportunity to view a revision dated 2/21/02, which looked very much like what we had agreed to in the neighborhood meeting. We would like to agree in favor of the request [fit remains as proposed on the 2/21/02 drawing. If densities are still a concern, we would agree to the following: Tract #1 NP,.-3 Tract #4 NR-4 Tract #5 NR-4 Tract #6 NR-6 Tract's #7 & #8 beco~ MRMU-12 Tract g9 lqR-12, Tract's #13 & #14 CMG or NR-4 We are very much interested in Windsor Drive remaining as drawn on the 2/21/02 proposal. We m~ very much against industrial use being any greater than what the 2/21/02 drawing ref¥cted. Concerned property owners within 200 feet of proposed site. 10. Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioner, April 2, 2002 The following letters are from concerned residems living in the Northwoods estate area that are opposing the zoning requests from Dr. Wolski for the Windsor Oaks development. Because we are on the west side of loop 288, our concerns are different from the Deerwood neighborhood association. Our main concerns are flooding and the zoning of tract 11 as NRMU-12. Please consider what we have to say. Thank You. 11. Dear Planning and zoning commissioners, April 2, 2002 We are writing this letter to eXpress our concerns about the developments and zoning requests that Dr. Wolski is proposing for the property along loop 288, Windsor Oaks. Specifically, tracts labeled 10 and 11. Our home at 2512 Craig Ln. is within 100 feet of the boundary of that property. Our lot backs up to the edge of Cooper creel also known as tract 11 within Dr. Wolski's proposal. We have two main concerns: 1) We do NOT want tract 11 to be zoned NRMU. We want our neighborhood integrity to be maintained. 2) We are concerned that the development will make our flooding problems worse. As everybody is aware of at this point in the discussions, our lot floods when there is a heavy rain (as does EVERYBODIES along parts of Craig, Emerson and Millpond.) The rains these past weeks are significant evidence to this point. I understand that some maintenance is going to take place with the cleaning out of the creek, which is great, but some further issues need to be addressed: · Is what Dr. Wolski is proposing going to effect the flooding that ALREADY is very significant? I am aware that the city feels the holding ponds are a way to prevent more flooding. What recourse will the residents have if they do not work? · Who is going to be responsible for the creek area? I feel the city should impose restrictions or responsibilities on the owner and developer of this tract (including the creek area) to keep it a clean and safe area. It is designated a "Green Belt". On Dr. Wolski's plans there is notation for "bike/hike trail" He has not said that he is willing to maintain this area. If this is not done, and the building takes place, it will become a garbage dump and a hazard to this city. I suggest this: 1. Put a moratorium on building anything on tracts 10 and 11 (because these tracts boarder the streets mentioned above that have the flooding 14. problems) until the culvert at Mingo road is fixed (slated to be sometime 2004). I believe this is the most responsible decision that can be made by this commission in order to assess the probability of this development causing more flooding. Reduce the density of tract 11 (zone for single family homes). This also helps the existing homes retain their property values by not having a 65-foot tall apartment building (as allowed in NRMU-12) looming over their backyards. NRMU zoning would mean that 1092 people would be able to reside in this area. 1092 people that would have direct access to this creek area that no one is taking care off In closing, I ask that the commissioners please review this situation with much thought. We akeady have a significant problem with flooding, and we have a neighborhood that does not want apartment buildings in our backyards.. This is the only opportunity that we as citizens and residents of Denton can voice our concerns. My home is as important to me as yours are to all of you. Please be fair and do not de-value our homes by allowing building that is not appropriate. Thank you for your considerations, Beverly and Paul Tanls 15. To~ From: City of Denton planning and Zoning Ron and Nicole Peters 2520 Craig Lane Denton, TX 76209 (940)566-2689 Subject: Development of Property North of HW380 East of Cooper Creek Date: 18Mar02 Dear Sir or Madam: This letter is to address concern of the proposed development at Loop 288 between Kings Row and HW380. As a resident of Northwood Estates at 2520 Craig Lane, our property backs up to Cooper Creek. There is an immense flood problem in this area during heavy rains due to poor drainage of Cooper Creek. The water flow is obstructed at Mingo Road and the railroad bridge. A proposal for building has been initiated, however an acceptable plan to correct the flood problem that would increase due to this construction has not. Additional drainage in to the creek from the proposed apartments and retail sites would create a dangerous flood zone in our neighborhood. A satisfactory solution is to correct the drainage problem, then build. As a neighborhood, we are adamantly opposed to the current project until the city or project developer corrects the flooding problem. We are also opposed to the development of multifamily apartments and retail sites on this property for the following reasons: 1. Again, flooding is an issue. Water drainage from the large concrete parking areas will increase the flooding in Cooper Creek. If my property or house is damaged by flooding due to this development, I will sue the city and developer for negligence and willful destruction of private property. 2. Another concern is the decrease of property values for the surrounding residential houses. This would decrease city revenues and place an additional burden on the tight city budget. The tax rates would then be raised to offset this loss. 3. We have enjoyed living in a single family residential neighborhood for 17 years. This is the type of neighborhood we have chosen to raise our family in. A multifamily or retail business site would not enhance our neighborhood or allow us to enjoy the lifestyle we are accustomed to. It would also detract from the Denton plan for growth. COnstruction of new apartments should be done in areas that currently suppOrt apartments and would not take away from surrounding single family neighborhoods. 4. We are also concerned about increased traffic in this area. There is akeady a high volume of traffic in this area and the roads and highways are overburdened. The increased density of people in this area brought on by apartments and retail sites would create a serious traffic safety threat. The city is responsible for maintaining safe traffic flow. We understand that the city of Denton is growing and allowances such as housing need be made to accommodate this growth. Therefore if the above stated concerns are dealt with in a satisfactory manner, we would not be opposed to the development of single family homes in this area. Your attention given to this matter is appreciated. Sincerely, , z~557 ,~.~' 19 March 2002 City of Denton Planning & Zoning We would like to address the issues pertaining to Cooper Creek in regards to the potential re-zoning and possibility of new construction. First, we need to know if the creek area belongs to the city as a green belt area. If so, does this mean the city will not/cannot do any maintenance to prevent the flooding that occurs? If the city does not own the creek and/or it is not a green belt area, who is responsible for the maintenance or also the damage caused by the floodwaters that occur? When we first moved into this house we were in the 500 year floodplain. Then we were upgraded to the 100 year floodplain. The creek usually exceeds its banks at least once a year already. At times, it gets to within 10-15 yards of the back of our house. The residents in this area are all required to carry flood insurance since the upgrade to the 100 year floodplain. If the waters flood our homes, who is responsible? If there is nothing done to prevent it AND if more construction is allowed, it seems someone would be liable for the destruction of the residents' homes. We think there are enough issues that need to be addressed before the city even thinks about allowing MORE building to affect this already potentially dangerous situation. This leads to questions concerning the proposed re-zoning and new construction by Dr. Wolski. If the city allows more building to be done in this area, it will be drastically affecting the all ready hazardous area. We ask that new construction not be allowed until such a time that the situation is more favorable of being able to handle the current water flow - along with any that is added on by the building project. We are also concerned about the re-zoning issue. We bought this home and settled here to raise our family in a single family living area. The possibility of apartments being put up in our 'backyards' is negating our benefits of living in this area. We could easily have purchased a home in an area surrounded by apartments and retail stores if that was our desire. Obviously, it was not. Our wish is to have the zoning be limited to NR6 or NR4. Glenn and Cindy Brazzel Denton Residents for 15.5 years Cr /5 17. Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners, I have received the notices about the proposed zoning changes that will affect the neighborhood that I and my children reside in, Northwood Estates. I have attempted to attend the meetings. The first on December 19, 2001 in which the committee was still on issue number 9 at 9:30 p.m. a~guing the amount of time a person could talk, and another that was found in my mailbox at 7:00 p.m. when I arrived home from work for March 5, 2002. The meeting was for 7:00 p.m. that evening. I have immediate concerns about the proposed zoning for Dr. Wolsld's Windsor Oaks Addition, particularly NRMU. FLOODING · How will this development affect the flooding that occurs in this creek? · The method that the engineers and developer have proposed eoneeming holding hanks, is there documentation to prove this is an effective method? · My home is currently exempt from flood insurance. Will I have more money out of my pocket for flood insurance occurring from building on a problem that already exists? TRAFFIC Track ~raffic has akeady been re-rou~xl to loop 288. At 7:30 a.n~, the traffic is congested at the loop 288/380 interseetiorL · How much traffic flow should we expect with this proposed development? · Will I be seeing an increase in unwanted traffic in my neighborhood frrnn people trying to avoid the congestion as they do around the mall area? · What has the city and developer done to plan for the increased traffic? POLLUTION · Traffic noise has significantly increased with the re-routing of tracks to loop 288. How much more traffic noise should I expect with the added flow of lraffic? · What will be done about the air quality from the exhaust of the added traffic? · Who will be responsible for the added man-made trash that will be entering this now unattended creek'/ SCHOOLS · This area has already been re-districted. Should we expect more re-districting? · How will the schools handle the extra students? HOME VALUE , Has multifamily development ever increased the value of the homes around it? · We already have multifamily housing just to the south and west of us, should we really tolerate it in our back yard as well? In looking at these five issues, I can see no benetlcial reason to support such a development of multifamily housing in this area. I also eamaot understand how we are expected to handle an additional 1,092 people in this area with these problems that already exist. I would like to see these issues addressed and presented at the next scheduled meeting on April 10, 2002 which I have made special anangements to attend. Andrea Hawk 2517 Craig Lane Denton, TX 76209 (940)382-9867 Glen Davidson Chairman of the Northwood Estates Neighborhood Committee I would like to voice my objection to the Planning & Zoning Committee concerning Dr.. Wolski'd proposal of apartment units being built behind single family homes up to Loop 288. This would cause additional concrete being layed and thus causing more water tO build up in the creek. This past week was another example of when it rains on how much rain accummulates in the yard and overflows to the creek causing logs and fallen trees to come flowing down the drain from all the debris that has not been cleaned from back of our house at 2905 Emerson to the Old North Road. My husband and I would like to express our vote against any appartments, but rather support single family homes. I feel the value of our homes would deterioate plus bring in more traffic around the Loop and Kings Row. The traffic backed up now on Old North Road has increased significantly since the latest addition of the homes at the end of Windsor and the cul de sac. I can only imagine how much traffic we would have on Old North Road once Apartments are built. We will be at the meeting lending our support to defeat the proposal of multi-unit housing instead of single family homes Sincerely, Beunie & Janice Day 2905 Emerson Ln Denton, texas 76209 940-320-9935 email Dayzoie0110~aol.com 19. 3/20/02 To~ The members of the Planning & Zoning Committee of the City of Denton and the members of the Denton City Council Re: Tract 11 This letter is being sent on behalf of my family and I to oppose apartments being Built on Tract 11. Our main reason for the opposition is the concern of the possible'increase of the flooding problem of Cooper Creek. The neighbors that have Cooper Creek to the back of their homes are worried everytime flood rains come. At this time, the City of Denton does not wants to be responsibility for the section of the Creek from Emerson Street to Craig Street, where visible blockages and obstruction is present. ARer, Tract 11 is built upon as requested and more flooding is caused, the present problem will only be worse. If no one is assisting to resolve this problem now, it is not difficult to foresee the same if this proposal is completed. The other concern is the apartments being proposed for Tract 11. As a homeowner, there is a concern of property depreciation to the neighborhood. With multiple family housing there is also increase traffic. Currently, in this area daily there are people walking and jogging, and parents out with their children. If traffic increases from the apartments, it will not be as safe for parents to ride bicycles or walk with their children. My family has no problem with a profit being made from Tract 11, but let it not be made at this neighborhood expense. It is hoped that the Planning & Zoning Committee and/or the Denton City Council will take under consideration the concerns of this neighborhood, before making a final decision. Thank you, for you time. Mr. & Mrs. Wright ,~745 Mill Pond Denton, TX 20. 3-2-02 From: Concerned Residents near Water~ay in Northwoo~,~v-it Our Neighborhood backyards loin the water~ay on the North side of Hill Fond East of Old North Road to gmerson,,then East on Fanerson to Craig Lane, then on the East of Craig Lane South to Histy~ood. Our concem is the possible rezoning for deveto~ent being consXdered by the Zoning C~ission of the property North of~ngo Road, Nest of Loop 288, South of lings Ro~ and East of Old North Road..~is prOPertY slopes t~ard the ~ay described above. Buildings and pavement on this area would drastically increase ~ already severe flooding condition. ~is wate~ay from the East end of ~erson, South on Crai~ Lane ~o~ngo Road is littered ~th trees and vegetation, fallen trees ~d debris that restricts the flow of water from the East, North and Nest area of the North East section of Denton. ~e have ~erienced several floods in this area, one of which actually flooded s~e houses and vas ~thin a foot or ~o of flooding a large percentage of the houses mentioned above. First consideration should be to clean out the wate~ay and build several holdin~ pools on this property in question. ~e probl~th holdin~ pools is when it floods they fill up and add to floodin~th the overflow. Second consideration should be all~ing only single f~ily d~ellin~s on a ve~ i~ted.scale ~d ~o ~itipie f~-ily ~ird consideration should be that a~ss of apartment buildings and hi~hrise office buildings would drastically reduce the esthetic value, thus reduce the value of our properties. Ne ask the Zoning C~ission before your f~al consideration to investi[ate the validity of this request. ~ank you for Your consideration, Concemed Residents near Nate~ay in Northwood Estates Addition. Signitures Attached 21. From: To: Date: Subject: <Sarahpogue@aol.com> <larry.reichhart@cityofdenton.com> 3/11/02 8:05PM planning and zoning concerns Mr. Reichhart: I have been part of the meetings that have been going on regarding the development and zoning of the last south of Kings Row on both sides of Loop 288. I have wanted to write P&Z but cannot find the email addresses for any of them listed on any Denton web site. Would you please forward this on to those individuals. My concerns on the zoning of this property that have not been sufficiently addressed at any time are: 1. Density. I would recommend eliminating any zoning NR-6 and higher. I am very concerned about the flow of traffic, condensed housing areas and the elimation of the wooded areas (which Denton does not protect). I do not want to see apartments and town homes in this area and by not having them, it would greatly reduce the density problem. I propose all single family homes. 2. I am also concerned about the lack of provision for elementary schools for the population in this area. Mr. W. needs to make provision in this area for at least one elementary school. If this is not made, there are too many children to feed into Woodrow Wilson or Hodge already at overly full capacity. This is a community problem and not one to be neglected by either Mr. W or whoever the land is sold to for development. 3. Traffic: I have a big concern that you are treating Windsor like Teasley-yet it is not the same as Teasley. There are homes on that street, it is narrower, and right through neighborhood areas, yet you are treating it as an artery like Teasley. I am concerns for the homeowners along that route, children traveling to and from schools, etc. It is not meant for a major traffic route. Please reconsider. 4. The city of Denton has a poor reputation of not preserving trees and the natural environment. Bill Utter Ford wiped out a grove of native trees that cannot be replaced by the required few trees he planted. You have some major trees out in these areas that will be destroyed like every other developed area in town. Please reconsider their preservation. In summary, I do not like or agree with the proposed development of this area. Planning and Zoning has very little opportunity to handle this right. Once approved, it is out of anyone's hands except the developers. Please, make some good choices on the zoning on the front end. Thanks- Sarah Pogue 3416 Hillview St. Denton, TX 76209 :24. From: SH <dancer1950@yahoo.com> To: <euline.brock@cityofdenton.com >, <raymond.redmon@cityofdenton.com >, <jane.fulton@cityofdenton.com >, <michael.phillips@cityofdenton.com >, <perry.mcneill@cityofdenton.com>, <roni.beasley@cityofdenton.com>, <mark.burroughs@cityofdenton.com> Date: 3/9/02 12:43AM Subject: Z02-0004, Windsor Oaks, Thomas B. Gray, CA01-0001 Windsor Oaks, Stephen Cook, Z02-0002, Nottingham Wood, Thomas B. Gray Dear Mayor and Council Members, I am writing to express my objection to the approval of the above listed projects that will be coming before the Planning & Zoning Commission on March 13, 2002. I was unable to locate the email addresses of the members of the Planning & Zoning Commission. I would appreciate you forwarding this email to all members on that Commission. I think it is time for the City leaders to plan ahead prior to approving any new developments within the City of Denton. There will be a tremendous burden from traffic and congestion that these developments will add to the already over burden south Loop 288. Before any more developments along Loop 288 are approved, the Planning & Zoning Commission along with the City Council must address the traffic problems. Alternate routes connecting to Interstate 35E must be considered or increasing the capacity on the existing Loop 288. Too many developments have already been approved and are under construction without any regard to the traffic impact that these will create. These developments that include 800 apartments and 500 homes will only cost the City of Denton in infrastructure and additional demands on the City. The City departments are not able to keep up with the existing road conditions that have been deteriorating over the last few years. I urge you to NOT approve these requests or any future developments until the existing and future roads are able to handle the traffic. It is time that you listen to the citizens who elected you to appoint members to the Planning & Zoning Commission that represent the wants and desires of the residents. Represent the citizens - not the developers. Sandy Hart 1425 Stratford Lane Denton, Texas 76209 Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! 25. Attachment 4 Z0'I-0031 (Windsor Oaks) Neighborhood Meeting - Thursday January 17 2002 Developer has amended proposal to reduce the amount of multi-family and to propose a new alignment of Windsor east of Loop 288. Neighborhood Comments: · · · · · How much is the multifamily being reduced? (from 1352 units and 75.9 acres to 863 units and 51.4 acres) Where is the multifamily going? (Multifamily tracts are Tract XI, on the west side of Loop 288, Tract V/I, on the east side of Loop 288, and Tract V/lO Loop 288 is noisy at night; the development will crate a buffer that reduces noise to the existing neighborhood, plus it will be convenient to have retail and services nearby. What will house sizes be? (Unknown at this stage; but the development code does contain a minimum house size) If the residential area is designed well, small-lot homes won't be an issue; however, we don't want Choice or Pulte developments. Will you develop this yourself or will you sell this property once it's been rezoned? If so, what's to keep you from selling off to Choice or Pulte? Can we discuss the allowed uses in each district? Six units per acre seems rather dense for single-family housing. Applicant's plan is reducing the amount of industrial and increasing the amount of single family currently being proposed. If the applicant decides not to go through with this rezoning, we'll be stuck with the Employment Center area near Mingo. Does the platting process require a public hearing? (No) Would the applicant consider reducing some of the SF-6 to SF-4? What is the timeframe for this development? We appreciate the reduction in multifamily density. New development code has aesthetic standards that will address house design. Applicant is trying to preserve some of the existing trees, which I appreciate. Why not entirely eliminate King's Row once Windsor is extended? I don't want traffic from this development to inundate local roads. Deerwood should connect with proposed road that will separate community center from residential/church site. Something's going to happen to this land whether we like it or not. Our neighborhood needs to remain vigilant; this development is too unpredictable. I wish the applicant had larger lot sizes for single-family tracts, but I acknowledge that the applicant has worked with us regarding the design 26. of this project. This is better than what the applicant originally proposed last summer. What the applicant is proposing is better than what could go here otherwise. · The plus is that the applicant is a local developer; he's not an out-of- towner. The applicant needs to be able to make a profit; I'd like to see larger single family lots but I'm glad he reduced the multifamily. · I'm concerned about traffic. · I'm thrilled that the applicant has adjusted the alignment of Windsor. · The SF-6 tract closest to us needs to be SF-4. · I'm glad the industrial area is being reduced. · I hope the community center doesn't end up like the intersection of Loop 288 and 35E. · The applicant has tried to accommodate us; we can live with this development. · Maybe our neighborhood should form committees to meet with the city regarding some of these issues. 27. o '-o~ -% D Cc> 5-d '~ --::'-t[ 29. Z02-0004 (Windsor Oaks) Neighborhood Meeting -Tuesday March 5 2002 Neighborhood Comments: My backyard floods every time it rains. There's already a problem with the creek behind my house; if this development is added the problem will just be worse. (Staff responded by noting that the applicant is proposing on- site detention; the applicant will not be able to build in the floodplain nor cause an overall increase in runoff.) Why won't the city clean out the drainage easement? (Staff responded by saying that they would check into the situation regarding clearing the creek.) Where will the applicant put his backfill? Is the creek going to be improved? What kind of guarantee do we have that this development won't increase runoff? If you fix the current problem, we'll feel better about this new development. Does cit staff still believe that what the applicant is proposing is too dense? (Yes.) The applicant is proposing modifications to his plan that he says will reduce the number of units, but I did some calculations of my own and they show that the number of multifamily units could actually go up. What is really allowed in Employment Center Industrial (EC-I) zoning? Heavy industry and smoke stacks will not be permitted in EC-I zoning; I think the applicant is just trying to scare us by telling us that? Why hasn't the applicant proposed a school site? The applicant is proposing placing deed restrictions on his property, but the city does not enforce deed restrictions. I don't want to look at apartment complexes from my backyard; if you build apartment complexes near our house, or property values will be affected. What is the applicant going to build first? If city staff is opposed to the density, what would they prefer to see instead? (Staff responded by saying that staff had no alternative plans, as that would be tantamount to designing the project for the applicant.) When will Kings Row be disconnected from Loop 288? What is the current zoning of this site (EC-I, NR-2 and NR-4) This is a very complex development, and we have very few details as to what's actually going to be built here. We are forced to rely on the rather broad guidelines of the new Development Code. 30. · What about police and fire protection? If Windsor isn't built over Loop 288, there will be longer response times to the proposed residential development. · To be fair to the applicant, his is the very first developer to go through rezoning under the new Development Code. · What can I do about keeping apartments out of my back yard? · This proposal does not set any road alignments; that will be done at the platting stage. 31. 35. Attachment 5 ........ ,.,,oT /:-Z,.,L~/ IMAST6R PLAN Cond~nscltTM 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 properties. all They're all -- our property is 40 acres. next to us is seven 7 and then we own another 's 12, and a 20-acre, and then the rest of them So this is definitely different on currently on that side I just wanted to express information on my i I'll just else until the next: IONER RISHEL Ms. Page 243 retail, office, and commercial uses is proposed. And Mr. Cook will present on Item No. 15. ~ COOK: Mr. Commissioner. CO/V~IlSSIONER RISHEL: Can I just make a survey of the C~m~ssioners and make sure they're still all awake. I see they are. Thank you, sir. ~ cook Mr. Chair, Commissioners, good morning. Agaim I'm Stephen Cook. I'm a planner with the City of Denton Planning Department. I'll be addressing Wilkes. Let me., any questions. Wilkes? Thank you MS. WILKES: public hearing that have any questions of Ms. like to item, would forward at 13 and/or 14, as we forth in time? Seeing no would to speak, we are going to and that date certain would be And I will -- we will continue it at further questions, Commissioners? we'll move onto Item No. 15 on our Agenda. once again, this is a 13 on our Agenda. for or against this time. Anyone for or them that this item to Being Item No. 15 and Item No. 16 Page 242 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Comprehensive Plan amendment portion of this. Mr. Gray will be addressing the zoning portion of this item. The Comprehensive Plan is an organic document. It was adopted in 1999. But that does not mean that this is plan is set in stone. So, therefore, there are opportunities for our developers and our public to come in and present their ideas on changing that Comprehensive Plan, changing the ideas of the way the City wants to grow in the future. So to that end, public involvement is important. And I do appreciate that we do have several members of the public who have been with us for the expire eveafing and are willing to speak concerning this item. And so I would hope that that input is in consideration for whatever staff is approving on the -- or staff is considering on this Agenda item. COMbnSsIONER RISHEL: and that means that your presentation will be very short, right? Page 2 relate closely, I'll read through both of those and we 3 will open both of those at the same time. Item No. 15 4 is hold a public hearing and consider making a 5 recommendation to the City Council regarding a 6 Comprehensive Plan amendment from a Neighborhood Center to 7 a Commercial -- to a Community Mixed Use Center, and from 8 an Employment Center to a Neighborhood Center. The area 9 for amendments encompass approximately i 10 acres and is 10 located generally on either side of Loop 288, north of 11 MAngo Road, and south of Kings Row, east of Old North Road 12 and west of Cooper Creek Road. A Planned Development 13 containing a variety of sidle-family, multi-family, 14 retail, office, and commercial uses is proposed. 15 Item No. 16 is hold a public hearing and 16 consider making a recommendation to the City Council 17 regarding the rezoning of approximately 244 acres from 18 Agricultural, A to One-Family zoning district, SF-10, 19 One-Family Dwelling considered SF-7(C) zoning district to 20 a Planned Development, i'D zoning district, as well as a 21 concept plan zoning plan for that purpose. The property 22 is generally located on either side of Loop 288, north of 23 Mingo Road, south of Ki~s Row, east of Old North Road, 24 and west of Cooper Creek Road. A Planned Development 25 containing a variety of singl~ e-family, multi-family, 2 MR. COOK: Yes, sir, absolutely. 3 COMmiSSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. 4 MR. COOK: Right now, you have received 5 additional comments that we have rec6ived since the backup 6 was presented for a total of 14 opposed, one in favor, and 7 one in neutral. And on that map, on this area here -- 8 well, because of the scale, is that the opposed are 9 housing units surrounding this piece of property. The one l0 in neutral is outside the City limits and adjacent to this 11 property. And th: one in favor is outside the City limits 12 and adjacent to this Property. 13 The analysis for this Comprehensive Plan 14 amendment is in 5'our backup. I'm just going to briefly 15 summarize that for you. Currently, the Comprehensive 16 Plan, as it states uxlay, has this area to the north as a 17 Neighborhood C, en~r, this area here as an Employment 18 Center, which is again basically on areas of office in a 19 large campus-type setting with some very light 20 manufacturing avnilable into it. It is proposed for this 21 area in the Neighborhood Center for a node to be a 22 Community Mixed Use Center. A node at this location 23 allows aeee~s to retail from surrounding neighborhoods. 24 Oh, sorry, excuse me, I apologize. Allows access to 25 retail from the sm-rounding neighborhoods. It is PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19TH, 2001 Page 241 - Page 244 CondcnscltTM Page 245 1' curmatly proposed as alxml 35 acres. In the 2 Comprebensivc Plan, we ~vc kind of set a guidclinc for 3 about 30 acres for a Community Mixed Use node. 4 One of the th~r_~ that we had noticed is 5 that this area right into th: south, kind of a tag part, 6 is in the plan as submit~ as Tract 18. Staff feels that 7 that area would probably be beginning a type of strip 8 development along Loop 2S8 that we would probably not b~ 9 in favor of. 10 The otlier ar~ for consideration for 11 changing from the Comp:~msive Plan would be a decrease, 12 a significant decrease in ktensi~ from the Employment 13 Center to a Neighborhood Cenmr. One of the things that 14 the plan does state is that we want to not only protect 15 our existing neighborhoods from encroaching industrial 16 but we also want to prote,.'~ our industrial from 17 encroa~g neighborhood, because the thing is we want to 18 be able to continue businesses without having new future 19 neighborhoods that would come in and complain about noise 20 and other kinds of things..&nd so we do have a 21 significant amount of in&_stfial uses to the south here, 22 in addition to existing and industrial areas just on the 23 north side of the railroad .':acts and along Minge Road 24 here. So it would possibl...' be that staff would probably 25 look at and like to work ~ the developer on some 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 247 here and here, ~m'l then multi-family tracts here, hem, here, hexe, and here, then down here, a more intense commercial tract along Mingo. I have passed out some additional responses that we have received from neighbors since last week's packet. Currentl~', the opposition we have amounts to, I think, 2.3 percent of the land area within 200 feet. And I think that the map Stephen showed is basically thc same opposition map that's for this case. Staff is not making any sort of recommendation on this zoning plan tonight. There are two reasons for that. The main reason is that the information we have ~regardir~g_ engineering is still incomplete at this point. Them are some unresolved issues with the lraffic impact anal)sis. We're currently determining the capacity of a sewer Fine going out there because we're not sure we have sufficient capacity for the existing sewer system to handle the ~pe of development the applicant is proposing. And ~aother issue that staff has or concern that x~: have is the amount of multi-family the applicant is proposing. The applicant is proposing five tracts of multi-family locmed here, here, here, here, and here. That is about 76 acres of multi-family at just about or under 18 units per acre, which come out to 1,352 units of multi-family. That, frankly, gives us a bit of concern Page 246 1 buffering from this Neig~'.-orhood Center to the Employment 2 Center and Industrial Cent's ~ the south. 3 The applicant b, here to address any 4 further questions that you might have and that is our 5 presentation at this mommy. 6 COMM~SSIONF_~.~S~EL: 'rhank you, Mr. Cook. 7 I'm going to go ahead and open up No. 16, also. Mr. 8 Crcay will present and the: we'll have the petitioners. 9 MR. {}RAY: xh,-~: you and good morning. 10 COMMISSIONF=aR.~L~HEL: That's an operative 11 word, good morning. 12 Ma. {}RAY: I do::'t know if the docucam can 13 get this entire docim'~nt. %'hat You have before you is the 14 zoning plan concept plan :hat is being proposed by the 15 applicant. This is being v:_bmitted in hand with the 16 Comprehensive Plan amev,~ent because the zoning the 17 applicant is proposing re£ects also the Comprehensive 18 Plan changes. 19 Just very brie~,- I'll just outline the 20 major aspects of the deveL-p, ment that the applicant is 21 proposing. We have 244 a.-res on both sides of Loop 288. 22 A key component of this ~uld be the future extension of 23 Windsor Road across Loc7 288 and that is where the 24 applicant is proposing his :ommanity area. He proposes 5 community areas here, s' _mrSe-family on periphery out the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 11 12 13 14 :15 i16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 248 because that is ma awfully large amount of multi-family and we ju_< don't know if that much multi-family is appropriate in this area. Otber~4se, staff has no further comments at this time mad I'll be happy to answer any questions. COM2~ELSSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Roy. CO,VD, flSSIONER ROY: I think I understand this but let me ask the question. The drawing we have shows an outline, a dotted outline of the entire site and there's two cross hatched areas. So they're just proposing a chmage at the cross hatched areas and the rest of the site aSll remain Neighborhood Center. MR. GRAY: I guess I'm curious as to which map you're Iook4ng at. MR. REICHHART: Regarding the -- CO.VD,[ISSIONER ROY: That Mi. Cook was showing, what's in our backup. 5t/R. REICHHART: Regarding the Comprehensive Plan, that's correct. CO~X, LMISSIONER ROY: Okay. Another question, I had the s'.~aal from someone, I thought from staff, that City Council's ~-midance to staff was that we would not -- they would not consider any changes to the Comprehensive Plan at this time. And if that's the case, why are we discussing this at this time? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19TH, 2001 Page 245 - Page 248 CondenseltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 249 M~. ~,EIC~HAR?: xhe direction from Council was that we would not consider Comprehensive Plan changes that were a result of proposed zoning changes. With the mapping issues associated with the Development Code, there are people, and this is an example, I don't know if it's correct, but could have been in a Neighborhood Center ca~jory and they wanted an Employment or an Industrial zoning classification. That request would require a Comprehensive Plan change. It does not preclude the applicant from bringing forward a Comprehensive Plan change on their own. What we're not going to be considering is City-initiated Comprehensive Plan changes as a result of the Code, with the exception of the ten that were bought forward last week. But the applicant can bring a Comp Plan amendment forward as he has. '<- COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further questions, Commissioners? Thank you, Mr. Gray. MK ORAY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: we have opened both 15 and 16 on our Agenda. Is the petitioner for Item No. 15 here and would like to present? And I m-mention the fact that we are going to be continuing this. And in the efforts of striking brevity, that you're going to be representing, we would appreciate it. Page 250 I MR. WELTIE: Planning and Zoning 2 Commission, my name is Bob Weltie. 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And, Mr. Weltie, you 4 will be presenting on both 15 and 16; is that correct? 5 MR. WELTIE: I will. Yes, sir. 6 cOMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you now. 7 MR. WELTIE: My address is 5207 McKinney 8 Avenue, Dallas, Texas, 75205. I am Dr. WolskPs architect 9 on this project. And, again, for sake of brevity, I will 10 not reexplain or reintroduce anything that has been 11 brought forth earlier by staff. I did want to -- one 12 document that Ihope reads a little perhaps a little 13 better. And let you-all know that we have been working 14 with both staff and the neighbors around this development 15 for some six months. Dr. Wolski had done further work on 16 that prior even to that time. 17 And I do indeed want to address some of the 18 issues raised by some of our neighbors. Tonight we did 19 have an opportunity to speak with neighbors prior to the 20 meeting tonight and address a few of their concerns. In 21 meeting with them, again, I would point out that we feel 22 the zoning we're asking for on this property is very 23 logical. The property itself is surrounded to the west by 24 existing single-family developments in this area. To the 25 north, just north of Kings Row, single-family Page 1 developments. The property to our east is b.~-'icaDy f~--m 2 land or open land. 3 Our property, again, for those of y~u who 4 have not had an opportunity to see this site, ~s is, in 5 my opinion, perhaps the prettiest site Denton has ~o o~ 6 right now. It's covered with large oak trees. It is our 7 intention to presev,'e those trees and this plan certainly 8 does that. To the south of the property, agaim socrth o:- 9 Mingo Road there is what I would call some hea~-y l0 industrial uses. To the north of industrial, there's sorm l 1 vacant -- well there's a church, some vacam tracts tl~ 12 are zoned very Light Industrial. 13 Our plan is certainly to buffer all 14 single-family from our site with single-family to a sizz 15 and a density comparable of their existing dmsities. 16 This tract is an SF-4 tract. This tract is an 17 tract. This tract is actually an SF-3 tract. These ti~'ee 18 tracts arc SF-6 tracts. Again, there's a natur/buffer 19 to what I would call the southwest of our si~ in this 20 greenbelt. I have ~mlked the site numerous dines mad 21 will tell you you can s'mud on the site at th~s poim anc~ 22 not see any of the sinCe-family homes thro ~:u~ that 23 growth. 24 The green areas shown are the mulu-fm-~ly 25 tracts we are proposing here, here, and three ~dit2ona2 I~age I tracts over here. As you were told, the apprcximaze ~_-m 2 of those multi-family tracts is about 76 acre-: at a 3 density just under 18 units per acre for a totz2 of tl,35( 4 apartment units. These will be upper end ap~-m'aemt mrs. 5 I will add that we have talked with the Parks Dep~artme~r 6 and they chose a park tract on the east side oY our 7 development. We actually offered them a l~'g, er wact 8 the west side which was in the floodplain. Tzey deal/zed 9 to take that tract and chose a 5.3 acre tract W here._ 10 That tract, I think, will be ideal for you-all. ;z is 11 tied to other developments with a utility easement wh~ 12 we propose becoming a hike and bike trail ll,;cinc,= the 13 neighborhoods in the m-ea. 14 Two or three issues addressed torrid_' t, 15 Cox and Mr. Lillie, I think, both addressed fie 16 of Windsor Drive in your Mobility Plan. Wmt is sho--n 17 here, Windsor currently dead-ends at this po~t. And, 18 again, your Mobility Plan connects Windsor with an 19 overpass crossing to Fcrris Road at the inter~-cticra of 20 Kings Row and Ferris. Again, we have told :Se n~gh' 21 and certainly take this position to this very &-y, we hz 22 absolutely no oppositicm to Windsor turning ':ack Io t2_ 23 east in lieu of linking ar that point and this becom2mg 24 minor street and would certainly support the_ [f ~*e ca: 25 amend your Mobility Plan to do that. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19TH, 2001 Page 249 - Page CondcnscltTM Page 253 1 Other concerns expressed, we certainly have 2 absolutely no problem in deleting this rectangular or 3 squarish tract from our community area. We did, in our 4 neighborhood meetings, not only discussed the 5 appropriateness of the land planning and the zoning issues 6 which, again, with the exception I think of some 7 densities, the neighbors pretty much agree that the land 8 planning is appropriate for their neighborhood. And I'm 9 sure they will speak to that. But we went through all the 10 allowable uses within the different categories, including I 1 single-family, multi-family, community, and commercial 12 uses, and agreed to strike those uses which neighbors 13 deemed undesirable. 14 I would offer to you that they have come 15 back tonight and asked us to look at that list. Under 16 Community Service, we have an outdoor recreation use 17 called out. They're concerned about light and noise 18 issues and have requested that we restrict bungy jumping 19 and Grand Prix racing from that tract, which we will most 20 certainly be happy to do. Beyond that, I think that the 21 list complies with where they want to go with this 22 property. Again, we think -- I think professionally this 23 is a real opportunity for the City to have a real quality 24 mixed use development and I can't tell you how excited w 25 are to be here and we request your approval. Thank you. Page 254 1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. 2 Weitie. Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Weltie? 3 Thank you very much, sir. 4 I have several cards of people that would 5 like to speak. Once, again, this is a public hearing. If 6 anyone would like to speak regarding this, if you would 7 please fill out a card toward the front. Then I have a 8 whole set of cards of people that would not like to speak 9 but did want to be recognized. I'm going to call the 10 first one, and this just happens -- I don't see -- let me 11 go ahead and call Mr. Wade Lillie. I know Mr. Lillie is a 12 representative of the neighborhood. 13 In an effort to kind of speed things along, 14 I'm going to ask the next person to be on deck, if they 15 might move forward, and that would be Lisa Allen. 16 M.~. LILLIE: My name is Wade Lillie. I 17 live at 3800 Deer Forest. And it seems like we began this 18 meeting just yesterday. We have, in the neighborhood 19 association, have some concerns regarding the development 20 of this area. And we have been appreciative of tho 21 information that has been forthcoming regarding this. 22 There have been some community meetings. Some that were 23 better publicized than others. And those that were better 24 publicized definitely had better attendance. And I think 25 the potential for future neighborhood meetings with the Pge 255 I developers is very possible and that we could see seine 2 positive cooperation related to this. 3 As we addresscd carlier in thc Mob~ty 4 Plan we do have concerns regarding the mobiE-ty wifla t.~ 5 connection of Windsor Road to Ferris and wo~id r~com-end 6 some cha _nges in that preferably something thru would tak: 7 that mad further east and maybe turn Ferris P~ad into 8 mom of a residential-XYPe of a connector. One thing is 9 on the books right now or that is a possibility ~s this 10 particular area, I think, is optioned for a church wh~:h 11 moves all of the simgle family three that wo ?ukt be in 12 this area and so we would recommend or ask :&at 13 consideration be given, perhaps, to doing some of those 14 larger type lots else~aere in this dexelopment ~o he2p 15 reduce the density. 16 We am concerned about the amoum of 17 density through the apartment that are -- the a~artmznts 18 that are bcqng recommended for this. On a 1 _afar scale 19 we'll also concerned about just the northeast section or 20 the northern section of the community as a wh~le, and th: 21 types of housing and the types of lots, and the gq:es of 22 development that is going on there. It seems Em tl~ a 23 lot of the development tends toward very smaZ lots and 24 small starter types of homes and we would like to see a 25 balanced d~'elopment in that area that does cmtribute tc Pge 256 I several different stages of sizes of homes. 2 And we would like to see more alo~ the 3 lines of the very dis..fiactive neighborhoods w/t5 4 lots and more atu-active homes that what we've been 5 thrown up recently. 6 We will _agree that this is a beauti~ 7 site. And on that site there are several stands cf po~ 8 oak trees, and there is something that is coming_- up ha the 9 Code that I think is a concern, and that has to ~ 10 the limitations about the setback requirements. And I : 11 think that it would be good if the City would leek at 12 modifying that, that if a developer ~nted a fi_~daer 13 setback so that they could maintain those type.; of stands 14 of trees, that they not be restricted to that, but :hat 15 they'd be allowed to work that out so that we can protec~ 16 and maintain those. 17 We know that when development K--~ around 18 post oak trees, typically, even though the deveL, pmem m~; 19 not directly impact any development close to '-r2ose smnfl.~ 20 of trees, it will kill those trees. And once they're 21 gone, they won't be back. And so we would recommend :hat 22 there be special attention given to preserving th:se 23 stands of tree~ that have been there for decadc.~. Thank 24 you. 25 COM~flSSIO.NF_,R RISHEL: Mr. LiUic, I have a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19TH, 2001 Page 253 - P~e 2_' CondenseltTM Page 257 couple of questions. Commissioner Keith. 2 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. Before I 3 ask you a question, I have a question of somebody 4 regarding the traffic on this. Who would be the person to 5 talk to? Mr. Reichhart. Okay. Mr. ReichharL regarding 6 the Kings Row, it's my understanding that Kings Row' 7 crossing is going to be crossed at a future date? 8 MR; REICHHART: It'S proposed to be 9 eliminated at a future date. 10 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Proposed? It's not a 11 done deal? I mean, what the -- 12 MR. REICHHART: Well, it's identified in 13 the Mobility Plan to be eliminated. I see David Salmon -- 14 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Salmon might be 15 as appropriate as anyone to try to address -- 16 COMMISSIONER K~ITH: Mr. Lillie, I'll be 17 asking~ou some questions, so -- 18 MR. SALMON: rye got a blown up map or 19 copy of the Mobility Plan on the overhead. Basically, 20 what it,s showing is that Windsor Drive, of course, as has 21 been stated tonight would cross Loop 288. And then as it 22 approaches, Fen'is Road would curve off to the east. 23 Ferris Road would remain a local residential street. 24 Kings Row would be a collector on both sides of the Loop. 25 There would be no crossing of Kings Row over the Loop, Page 258 1 although, we have been discussing with the developer the 2 possibility of extending service roads so that rather than 3 a dead-end, you could probably get on and off the Loop at 4 Kings Row, but it would be more of a ramp situation as 5 opposed to a T-intersection. 6 COMMISSIONER rd~ITH: Okay. You know, a lot 7 of people are showing opposition to this connecting into 8 Ferris Road, okay, having seen his map showing that it 9 comes up and makes a curve and then goes on east and that 10 Ferris Road would still be like that. If they come in and 11 the curve it any further down, and they close off Kings 12 Row; and you just make that a little feeder down there, 13 you're going to have a lot of traffic coming down that 14 into Windsor. 15 I mean, you've got -- you know it's got to 16 empty out down there somewhere and I think -- would that 17 create a -- I'm thinking that might even create a problem 18 -- you've got -- because you're going to have a lot of 19 traffic on just a little feeder road. 20 MR. LILLIE: I think restricting Kings Row 21 from having access to Loop 288 whether it be bridged 22 across or whether it be some kind of a controlled access 23 will be a mistake in the connectivity to that neighborhood 24 and to those neighborhoods. 25 COMMISSIONER KEITH: YOU mean, closing off 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 124 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .25 Page 259 King's Ra~ would bca mistake? m LmLIE: I think that would be a mistake wrnrh wlat we're attempting to do with connectivity wir~ the :nt/gt~orhoods and within the community. I thin¥ that w~ould impair mobility if these neighborhoods up in ~ ~ that's off the map has to come back through this ~.Srecffrnn; that that could impair mobility. I don't thiner that -,..losing that off is going to answer any of the cona:ms ~.lated to this development, but I think it can cre~ ~ concerns for that area. I20.~IISSIONER KEITH: Wel]~ that's kind of wt~ I wa~ -wanting to know because that's a lot of concern from peog~. Trunk you very much. ~ Lm[m: Thank you. I2Oh~IISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, any furr.5~ qta:~dons of Mr. Lillie? ~ IZLLIE: Thank you. I2OM2.1ISSIONER RISHEL: M-rs. Allen and the nexn ~-pealca~r weuld be Brian Tolbcrt. · ls. ALLEN: Hello, I'm Lisa Allen. I live at 2.:41 Ezest V,~mdsor Drive. I am thc home that sits -- I'm :he dead-end of Windsor Drive. And I would like to pelt: out treat I lave received no invitations to any neig2:borhc~:xt rmetings to meet with developers to discuss any :oncer'm. I understand there have been several Page meemgs. Bm ~x~'ve received no invitations. We didn't kncr~ this -~'as g:ing on until very recently. ~.OIv~SSIONER RISHEL: HOW long have you liv~ ~. t~ 3aou:<? 2MS..aLLEN: I'm sorry. ZOIvLMISSIONER RISHEL: HOW long have you livo5 in th~ hou_~? 2MS. ALLEN: We moved there -- six years. .U. OI~IISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. ads. AL[es: okay. We are highly opposed to any -~ulti-.-Yamity development on the west side of Loop 288. It ju.~ c~ a 6msity problem. It is not consistent wi~ 5~e cm:a'ent neighborhoods in the area. There are no aparment~ x~earby. And that's one reason we moved to the area 5s becamse we didn't want apartments nearby. And also Whadsrar Dr~ve extending on to the Loop and having all tho~ dumgn:xt_ on to Windsor, is going to -- you're not goi~ to ~ a ir:ur-lane, you're going to need a six-line. _-~ad ~'re opposed to Windsor even going to the Laop. _2 don'~ know if lJaere's anything we can do abort that mow. [ know some young women who had to lea~ who :ouldm*t stay asked me to propose that Windsor Drive, thai ~c nor ~e ccrmected to that neighborhood at all, that there be nc ~onamtion from Windsor Drive to the new PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19Tit, 2001 Page 257 - Page 260 CondenseltTM Page 261 neighborhood even if it's single family homes, because of the traffic problems, that and some drainage problems. We're concerned about drainage. I know we have a pool that's been flooded twice with -- when it rains heavily as it is now. Now, it has been fixed since, but early on, we did have some drainage problems and we're Page 263 t~ be facing anottan= isle and that's going to be privacy. My back 5'aml fi~m mx- porch to my back fence has a one to oae &op otabour 2!0 f~---t. So if you put in a road back rlxae. I'm ~ing t~,be f~ed with every peeping Tom, Dick and l:ta~, R/ring_ by my, back yard which means the road would nm ~__ght ni'e~nE ix here. My back door is here, 5 6 7 concerned with drainage and that's it. Thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Ms. Allen. · 9 Commissioners, any further questions of Ms. Allen? Is Mr. 10 Tolbert here? Mr. Tolbert has left us, okay. Excuse me. 11 He was opposed to that -- strongly opposed to the rezoning 12 to industrial use, multi-family dwellings, concerns 13 regarding crime traffic and devaluation of his property. 14 Thank you. Mr. Springer. C.C Springer, excuse me. I 15 didn't know if that was a Mr. or a Mrs. And the next 16 person Would be Mr. Cox, Roger Cox. Is Mr. Cox still with 17 us, if you'd come on deck. Sure. Excuse me, Mrs. 18 Springer. Give us your name and address if you would. 19 MS. sP~mG~ MS. 20 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: MS. *- Thank you. 21 MS. SPRrNG~: candace Springer, I'm at 22 2557 Quail Ridge Drive, Denton, Texas 76209. In 1999 the 23 neighbors along the same plat as mine, we petitioned -- we 24 originally contacted the City about claiming the road 25 behind our house, Old North Road. Now, understanding 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 which meres I nec mu'3.' aow have a front yard here, I have a from yar~ here~ 2 hax= no privacy. _-'mat ~,--~n~ :hat if I wanted privacy to be able t~ pm ~a obsn-mefixe landscaping so that you wouldn't ~able x:~ see -ny property, I'd have to have bushes 20 ~t mit Tk~-"s not going to be possible because al3 ~ae pc'~eer ~ run across our -- nm adjacent ~ our prop~y l~ra~- Se wWre in a no-win situation. And that's ~asica.~-y ju_< a few of our concerns, but it's all ia flais ~.mest ~r consideration that we submitted lack ha Oc~ber. EIas eaybody seen this document? C_kay. 'Well the City says that they have considexed ~ and 5male,5 it and that coming from Pamela £ngla.~d, s: - bu~ :r~be ~d send us a letter saying of all l~aings thru ye did addr~s as far as the drainage and the privacy an~ ~er2.'aTaiag md she just gave us a list of ~ain~ sa34n~_~ that ~ would be considered, and, yes, ~ would '~ow frae przperty back thexe. Because right now ~'re mo~g the _~rol~ty because we have to keep out the Page 262 1 that's on the Agenda tonight to possibly reopen that road, 2 we contacted the City, and they told us that there was a 3 possibility we could claim the plat, have our plats 4 rezoned to claim the additional 30 feet. 5 And the reason that we were asking about 6 doing this is because at the time they had not told us 7 that they were going to open Old North Road, because we 8 had several issues. One of them being that Old North Road 9 is directly adjacent to our property. It's behind our 10 property. There is a 12-inch water main and an 18-inch 11 sewer main behind our property that has an 18 to 24 inch 12 depression along the entire plat. 13 This water main and sewer main run right 14 along adjacent to the back sides of our property. When it 15 rains it floods back there. It floods so bad we have 16 crawfish. We have crawdads in our back yard. So if you 17 do put in Old North Road, not only are you going to be 18 putting a road right into our back yards, you're going to 19 be elevating this road and there's going to be no where 20 for this water to go. There is a creek that runs back 21 here. It's a dry bed creek most of the time until it 22 rains like the last two or three days. Then that's where 23 all the water collects, if it's not taken in the back yard 24 with it. 25 If you do put in the road, then we're going Page 264 1 x,.rmSnt a:d the zritraz that's residing in the field. If 2 we don't, -nrnb~' or~ it's a fire hazard in the summer 3 month~, p_ad N~. 2, 5'.'s just a safety and health issue. 4 I've alrea~_,- corrae in :ay back yard and found two rattle 5 ~akes, so we dc. 'nave to keep that area up. 6 ~ my =mae~ is is that when they talked 7 about the =vim zo the meeting, the last meeting 8 that we kmw al:oat was in June. And the only reason we 9 found out mout ~ x~ word of mouth. We conveniently I0 received 02 notice or our letter inviting us to this 11 .meet?ag tie day 2~-ter. So that's my concern, my points of 12 conteation wi~ ~is. il 3 C3ICLM2251SION-ER RISHEL: Thank you, Mrs. 14 Sprin=oer. ~ rhln~r -we ~d some questions from 15 Commissimer. Corrmissioner Keith. 16 C.31VLM2~SIONER KEITH: Thank you, Ms. 17 Sprir~oer. _-nose 3e~ that you have, would you mind 18 ~Sng a c,:py o~' zt~t made and supply it to the Planning 19 Departmea: for ~tri'rution to us. 20 ~. sl, a:~o~-'<: which one would you like -- 21 C3Iv~M125;SIO.X'ER KmTH: Both of them. 22 ~,~. S~'a:~G~: -- my original letter or -- 23 C31vLM~SIO_X-ER KEITH: The Original letter 24 25 mad the reply. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19TIL 2001 Page 261 - Page 264 CondenseltTM Page 265! COMMISSIONER KE1TH: - arm] the reply. MS. SPRINGER: I ~ C~--"mi~n[~? do that. COMMISSIONER gEl'II-t: ?d ~ to have copies furnished to us, please to fie em'tire Commission. MS. S?mNGE~,: And wt~-e w~uld I bring those to? 4 5 6 7 COMMISSIONER KEIIlt: weLL_ '[ th~k -- 8 COMMISSIONER KtSa4_EL PI~ Department. 9 COMMISSIONER KErrH: ~7_~ w~ith .~)ur Planning 10 Department and let them -- have -hem ,dism-bute it to us 11 on that. 12 MS. S?m~a~- Ail rigk 13 COMMISSIONER KErm: ~ you very much. 14 I just wanted to address that. 15 MS. SPRINGER: okay..z, ny firtrller questions? 16 "~" COMMISSION?-R RISHEL Yer~.. we do. 17 Commissioner Roy. 18 COMMISSION~ ROY: Itn a [lfttle confused 19 about Old North Road md bow r retarms to what we're 20 discussing here tonight Could y:u ~ me out on that? 21 It seems to be totally ox of the pa:turin of/is -- 22 MR. GRAY: Azrual[3~, I 2.u s[ned srrrne light 23 on that. Old North Ro-:d, cm'remy k':.t on :his comer of 24 the -- this side of the &-velopmem Amd the City has 25 some right-of-way along_ here behnd ffnese existing homes. 23 24 25 ?LANNING AND ZONING COMldlSSION DECEMBER 19TH, 2001 Page 266 I On the applic~t's nmp h~ is -dmr)x~Sm2_- -- he 2 is proposing to realign O~ Nor'~ Rind ta wear ~ff a 3 little ways. But, of cour~ doing th~ is _~aing ~ have 4 to -- he'll have to coordirn~- that ~xTa the _-ight-rf-way 5 engineering department. ~ c?fizer ~oted~ -lhat _~he 6 received a letter from par-ela F. nglmd an~ she g one of 7 our fight-of-way engineer., and flaey md ~ - [ think 8 some discussions had bern taken plme v-~,,'cliv~ thc status 9 of this fight-of-way right kote. 10 But the issue k. a n~slae2 is ju.~ Old 11 North Road, or this secfi~ of Old N-x~a I~a)ad/oar's shown 12 right here. 13 COMMISSIONER aOY: n &n:sn't ~aow ~n my 14 map that I have in front e-: me lhare ~at Olifl Ncrth Road is 15 included in this. Old Nor& Road ~ tm stop at 16 Windsor. 17 M_K 6RXY: ~igS~. Thfis is ~ fumxre 18 extension. 19 COMMISSIONT. R .KISHEL: C -~" '-i~--~iOIl~S, we 120 hav~ a document on thc &~cuc~ma t~ ,,,i_~nt heL? you. 21 MS. svm~oeP,: where he's ~ about Old 22 North Road where it veer.~ off, ~s S ~.n(5 -that _Mr. Wolski was going to doma: to fl~e Cry m :that ~ could re-use that -' COMMISSIONmr_.R glSh"~l.: PlJI y~lztr mkrophone Page 267 1 to you. 2 MS. SPRINGER: SO that he could utilize in 3 service of the area that he wants to develop; however, t! 4 land that we're talking about is right up here. That is 5 here. Here's my back yard. This is what we're talking 6 about, this strip of land from where LaPoloma starts and 7 if you'll notice,, on some of the other maps, LaPoloma's 8 land -- part of Old North Road had already been absorbed 9 into the plat when they developed into the plat when they 10 developed the houses, so actually -- and this is why he's 11 having to veer off this way, because this part used to be 12 Old North Road. It used to run along the fence line. But 13 it had been absorbed into the houses when they developed 14 those house on LaPaloma. But they did not do that on 15 ours. 16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Roy, did 17 that help you any. 18 COMMISSIONER ROY: YeS. I don't understand 19 why it had the same name on it because it doesn't seem to 20 be related to the other road at all. But I think that I 21 understand it now. 22 MS. SPRINGER: And that's -- they're trying 23 to open this back up so that he would have use or access 24 from Windsor to Kings Row. And it's not a problem with 25 the development, it's just the idea that it's going to Page 1 have to veer off in here. TXDOT has already told me that 2 the property across from us is owned by E~)S. E~)S is not 3 going to relinquish their part of the property because 4 it's an investment property bought by an investment group. 5 And the other part of that is owned by 6 TXDOT. when I talked to the Txoox commissioner in 7 Planning, he said that he wasn't planning on giving up 8 that right away. 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: ~hank you. 10 Commissioners, any other questions of Mrs. Springer? Mrs. 11 Springer, my mother being from New Iberia, I've got a 12 really good ettufette recipe if you need it, and thank you 13 very much for being here. 14 Mr. Cox would be our next presenter, 15 followed by Mr. Bob Gorton. 16 Mm COX: YeS. My name is Roger Cox. I 17 reside at 3912 Deer Forest Drive. Zip Code is 76208. 18 There have been quite a few of the concerns that are 19 probably most in concert, I probably won't try to wear 20 those out. 21 Once again, I'd like to just express my 22 concerns about the mobility. Has there been any address 23 made? Has there been any traffic studies? Has there been 24 any plans or we're looking at this and we're trying to 25 approve all of this, but do we really know what the Page 265 - Page 26t CondcnscltTM Page 269 1 impacts are on these -- on these particulax str-~ts than 2 they're showing as just the primaries? What ~bout frae 3 residential streets that are going to follow in v;xh 4 or is this all of ~ streets that we're going to ~ave am 5 244 acres? 6 And if we're talking about 1,300 mits 7 1,350 apartment units, we need to consider a~t the: 8 implications of that might be to the elemental., school 9 that's probably already at I00 percent. How about ~re I0 protection? Is thea'e a -- tbem's no allocation for amy_' 11 type of services, another firehouse, nothing thththththththththt~e. 12 heaven forbid, that if Kings Row is cut off, cra: 13 method of being able to have any tS'Pc of q~ ~se 14 from the f'u'e department, I would imagine it 15 would increase by two or three minutes at a -~nlmmm to 16 being able to serve as the existing departmena. 17 Those are big concerns and I don': kno,~- 18 that everybody's - if they're thinking_ about -,_1 of ffamse 19 implications. The~ was some com~rsation made earlier 20 concerning some of what we were, as a nei~orhcofl grcup, 21 when we finally made it to one of the meeting_. 22 collectively, we agreed to strike some of the .:~rnittm:l 23 uses. And I realized that we're talking abou~ :wo 24 different issues tx:re; one, and I'm still conf~--'d about 25 the concept plan, and us changing that. Righ: sow :fne way Page 270 I I understand it, this entire tract, if I'm ncc mi~rmkeu is 2 agricultural, so what we're ~ to decCEe ~ now is 3 we're going to change the plan from the :.--nter~> wkich I 4 don't understand fully, and I looked on fie w~site. And 5 I was looking to see what the uses are, ~xiat ttxgse 6 different centers are going to allow or d?~llowq Because 7 we can agree that we're going to allow tkese centers to be 8 changed and manipulated, but there's no:hi, ag posting as to 9 what the allowed uses of those centers ~-:.. Nc~ody knows 10 what they are so I don't know -- I think :Sere'~ prd:ably 1 a bunch of people behind me that would '~_ke ~ know 2 exactly what are the real new uses for w5~ w~ h-e trying 13 to agreewith for ItemNo. 15. No. 16,~hinkwe'm 14 in trouble with that tonight, only becaum we k:now that 15 everything is going to change, and so if-~e cam call it an 16 sF-7 today and it's going to be somethin-z com,2,~etely 17 different. So I think we're in trouble w~ th,2c one. 18 But I'm real concerned about -~hat x~e're 19 trying to agree to on Item No. 15. I don': undm-staxt. 20 I don't know what's allowed wkhin eack one caf these 21 situations. And I don't think anybody's .-an c~wu ',he list 22 tonight to let everybody know what it is :hat we're trying 23 to agree to for each of these two mixed amter~ I believe 24 is what they call them, I don't know wh':r' thos": allow in 25 that. And I don't know if anybody else kere cSr~es. Page 271 1 So maybe we all need to find out what 2 tho~ - 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Gray, do you have 4 a list of things that have been discussed and agreed to by 5 multiple parties maybe.'? 6 MK oe, x¥: well, in terms of the uses 7 allowed the -- in your backup, Enclosure 6 has a list of 8 coi ..... i~l used per zone that thc applicant is proposing. 9 And he does list them on his document but I went ahead and I0 retyped them here. 11 M~. R~tCHHART: t believe the question is 12 regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and what the 13 co~,,mnity mixed use zone would allow and to paraphrase the 14 Comprehensive Plan, it would allow eormnercial-type uses, 15 anything from a grocery store to some bigger box retails. 16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: The Petitioner at one 17 point had referred to several allowable things that they 18 had - 19 MR. REICHHART: It would also allow 20 multi-family use. But then the zoning that would be 21 associated with it would narrow it down more as to what 22 the uses could be. It's the neighborhood center allows 23 multi-family, commercial and residential. But if you give 24 it an NR-2 designation, that's strictly residential. So 25 there's a wide range of uses that a community mixed use Page 272 1 center would allow and it would then be more narrowly 2 del'reed as you get into the zoning. 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: ~nd all of these uses 4 refer to the old system or thc new system. 5 MK ~,E~CUHART: well, what the applicant 6 has proposed on his zoning plan -- the Compromise Plan, 7 you know, relates back to the Compromise Plan. But what 8 the applicant has identified on the zoning plan is a cross 9 -- it is more related to the proposed Development Code 10 than it would be the existing. 11 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: 'thank you. Thank 12 you. Okay. Thank you very much. Commissioner Keith, you 13 have a question of Mr. Cox? 14 COMMiSSiONER KE~TH: well, my question is 15 mo~ towards Mr. Reichhart on this. Mr. Cox did bring up 16 an interesting point regarding the fire station off of 17 Sherman Drive. What is the City's plans for a fire 18 station on the east side of Loop 288 if there is any? 19 Me- REICHHART: I am not familiar with 20 thom plans. 21 COMMISSIONER KEITH: SO we have none at 22 this time. 23 M~ REICHHART: Pm not saying that. I'm 24 not familiar with what the plans are. 25 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. We're not PLANNING AND ZONING COlVllVl]SSION DECEMBER 19TH, 2001 Page 269 - Page 272 CondenseltTM Page 273 I ffamilLar okay so -- on that because Mr. Cox did make a 2 walid statement that -- to close Kings Row and then for 3 these fire macks to respond to anything on that side of 4 the t~wn, it could be very problematic. Thank you, Mr. 5 Cox. 6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. Keith. 7 Commissioner Roy. $ COMMISSIONER ROY: I wonder if Mr. Cook 9 could simply hand Mr. Cox a copy of the material that he'., 10 rtootcLng for. It talkn about what's allowed in these 1 warious categories. It seems like a simple thing. 2 MR. REICHHART: Also, the Comprehensive 13 lPlan Ls on the City's website. And you could look under 14 the [md use chapter and it would identify what is 15 im~ to be permitted uses and the neighborhood centers 16 .trend ~"category. 17 MR. COX: All fight. 18 MR. REICHHART: But we can also get you a 19 copy. 20 MR. COX: One last comment about the five 21 diff~-ent tracks that are proposed for the multi-family; 22 5s that- density that's comparable to west of North Texas 23 University campus, that's the density we're talking about, ~R. m~icua~drr: 'the new development on Page 275 I the next speakex follow~ by Steve Pogue. If Mr. Pogue 2 could be on deck, I'd appreciate it. 3 M~ C, ORXON: chairman Rishel and members of 4 the Commission, my name is Bob Gorton. I reside at 3821 5 Deer Forest Drive, Denton, Texas 76208. Commissioner 6 Mulroy's forethought as to postponing decision-making may 7 preve out my thoughts in that we appear to have a cart, a 8 htr~e, and we're not sure we have a race track TM even mn 9 them on. I0 And, also, looking at the proposal of a PI) 11 zerAng districts with concept plan zoning plan for that 12 purpose without having a lot of that information readily 13 awdlable to myself. At this point in time, I'm going to 14 re,o-xrve a number of comments that are ingrained in my 15 he~. But I will speak to another issue about the 16 density intensity, what it might bring to our community. 17 The lack of a f'u-e station, the impact it will have on our 18 public school systcxns, when at this point in time, the 19 boxds for the construction of schools may be available, 20 an~ there are members of this Commission that are very 21 keenly aware of this. 22 We may not as a school district be able to 23 staff additional schools. And I know growth is 24 ine~qtable. But, again, looking at where the growth 25 par~ms are taking place, the fact that we do not have Page 274[ ] Borme Brae? 2 MR. COX: NO, the existing -- west of the 3 actmi university itself by Prairie Street. 4 MR. REICHHART: owsley Addition. ~ COMMISSIONER KEITH: You're talking about 6 -- reLnring to what's called slab city? 7 MR. COX: Yes, that's about the density $ zhat we're discussing, 18 units per acre? 9 MR. REICHHART: I'd have to run some 10 c~lc,!ations before I could do a comparable. I believe z. hat might even be a little bit higher than 18 units per ll 12 13 MR. COX: Just a major concern. 14 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Still have another 15 que~on. Commissioner Mukoy. 16 COMMISSIONER MULROY: YeS, just as a point 17 of inSormation. In response to the question of the tire 1 $ ~-'ratim, we have the cIP in the back of our booklet, and I 19 don': find any reference to a fire station in the next 20 five years anywhere in the City. 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. 22 _MuL-oy. Any further questions of Mr. Cox, any 23 Corrmissioners? Thank you, Mr. Cox. 24 MR. COX: Thank you. 25 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Gorton would be Page 2 I sc'mol sites in the imm~iate ama to absorb those type of 2 student loads, I feel that to move forward with this type 3 of density will place undue burdens upon our school 4 di.,-a'ict. And, also, I believe that a great deal of what 5 we see here and my record of having been on City Council 6 years ~ago with many em, a lot of other things coming 7 be'ore us. It was pie in thc sky. Those PDS still sit 8 o'~ there. They still come before you-all and haunt you 9 la'e into the ni~t and early into thc morning. And 10 tl~i'll continue to do that if we look at those type of 11 cle?%onati0ns. Because again, until thc site plan, thc 12 focrprint and ev~ything dsc is approved, it's 13 s~position on my part. 14 CO.XmmS~ONE~ RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. 15 Ocrton. Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Oorton? Can 16 ~ blame you for all those ~os, 190 something P~S we've 18 Ma. OOaTON: NO, I inherited that. 19 CO.~LVIISSIONERRISHEL: Mr. Poguc. Is there 20 a Steve Pogue here? And followed by Vernon Dickson, Mr. 21 Va'non Dixon. 22 Mit. pootm: ray name is Steve Pogue. I live 23 at- 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: EXCUSe me. 25 M~- POOUE: xhat's okay -- 3416 Hillview PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEM~BER 19TH, 2001 Page 273 - Page 27( Condens~lt m Page 277 1 Se*~x. :~md my home is to the west of the proposed 2 de~otnment. Sust two quick points. The first relates to 3 co:sistvm~ as the architect talked about. Nearly this 4 enL~a~ arem is single family homes. There is very litfie, 5 if my, m-mlti-family homes. There's no commercial 6 dexelol~ment. We're miles away from the nearest grocery 7 s~xe am5 the nearest drug store and strip mall and we've 8 ~ it 5xq~ t]:at~ and we'd like to continue to keep the 9 arm as sdngk family homes, so we would propose the least 10 for ~ e:mire area west of 288 that the restrictions be 21 to .~n~Te~ famqy homes. :2 Sezondly, it's just related to mobility. D As you begS~ to go down Loop 288 from University and head ;4 ~ to, yards the mall, it's one way each way. It's ~5 c~'ea~_? gric2ock and if we allow development to occur .-6 seen ~ Texas Department of Transportation works with 37 the C~-- xo aY_ow the widening of 288, we're going to '.8 emmmt~r even more problems, so we would ask that any :9 ~ c~vel~ment be delayed until Loop 288 is widened. 20 Think yr~u. 21 CC.WnMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, sir. .'2 Cr~mi~ion,.,~"s, any questions of Mr. Pogue? Commissioner 23 K~h. 24 C~MMISSIONER r~tXH: xhank you. Mr. Pogue, 25 I _agee ~4th ym on the 288 deal, but I think has been the Page 278 i f~.2t off the City lack of real working with the State. We 2 ha2 -- uan 3,~ars ago we had a chance to widen that up and 3 we ha~ a CL-y Council ten years kill the opportunity to 4 ~xS~en ffnat zO. And for this developer to be put on hold 5 on ~ sho~d be -- is something I think might be a 6 lithe b~. of z stretch on that. I can understand your 7 coac~'m. It's my concern too, and I live up on that side 8 of :o~s~ as well. And I agree with you, 288 is a 9 g~.dloc.3:, l?.~t that is something a past City Council is ~0 ki"in~ the expansion ten years ago. That's where the I gazef sk, nuld be laid, and not upon this property 22 .xc-~. VOGUE: well, I didn't mean that '.3 %~,in,-t the developer. I just felt like the conditions :4 b~g ~hat :hey are, they're just going to increase in the 25 fi..wa-e amd ff you lay a lot of development on until '7 COMMISSIONER KEITH: I agree with you. But :8 I jr~-t r~nk :'or everybody that's up there and is :9 coxcmm~l ~Sth that, I'm kind of presenting a little bit 20 of :he t:nis~r.~ of the community as to where that point of 21 gr:~.ef should be directed at is in past city councils. And 22 we had the ~portunity, and the State was going to do 23 so:neth~g '-.tSen, and the City -- 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Keith, 25 is ~ a qmstion for the -- Page 279 I COMMISSIONER r~ix~: so, anyway, thank you 2 very much. 3 COMMISSIONER ~USH~L: Thank you very much. 4 I have another card from Mr. Vernon Dickson. Is there 5 anyone else that would like to speak after Mr. Dixon, if 6 you'd move toward the front, I would appreciate it. Mr. 7 Dixon, give us your name and address if you would. 8 MR. DICKSON: l'm Vga'non Dickson and I live 9 at 3213 Staghorn Circle. If you come in on Kings Row on 10 the east side, our cul-de-sac backs up to Dr. Wolski's 11 property. And if you go out in my front yard and kind of 12 look off to the left, you can see those beautiful Oak 13 trees that are out there. And we definitely want to keep 14 that view. We don't want to have a big apartment complex 15 over there that we have to look at and stuff. 16 I have a couple of other points and I'll 17 make them real brief because I know everybody's ready to 18 go home. I am concerned about the closing of Kings Row 19 just because of the traffic, ff you would like to come 20 stand on my cul-de-sac about 7:45 any weekday when 21 school's going on, you'll know what I'm talking about. 22 The traffic backs up both directions. We really do need 23 two access paths into the ndghborhood. I'm not really 24 opposed to development. I would like to see comparable 25 homes built as a buffer zone to ours. Ours is on the very Page 280 1 outer edge of the Deerwoed Addition. 2 You know, that would be my only concern. I 3 really don't want to see a lot of little homes put in 4 there. I'd like to keep our property values up. And 5 that's really all I had. 6 COMMISSIONER P~Sm~: Let me see if the 7 Commissioners have any questions of Mr. Dickson. 8 Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Dickson? Thank you, 9 Commissioners. Mr. Dickson, thank you very much sir. 10 Once again, I've gone through the cards 11 that would like to speak, and anyone else who would still 12 like to speak, if you would come forward, and give us your 13 name and address. 14 MS. l[vts: ['m Tonya Tivis and I live at 15 3910 Deer Forest. Several of my neighbors have spoken 16 this evening. And, basically, I.just want to, I guess, 17 give my or have y'all know my opinion of this. And my 18 opposition to this has a lot to do with Windsor Road and 19 the closing of Kings Row. I'm not so much opposed to the 20 development along Loop 288 because, I would, too, like to 21 have a grocery store that was located out close on our 22 side of town. But it is important to me that in that 23 buffer zone that they do have comparable houses to our 24 houses over in the Deer~,ood addition. 25 Basically, I guess I'm a little confused PLANNXNG AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19TH, 2001 Page 277 - Page 280 CondcnscltTM Page 281 I after hearing the approval of the Mobility Plan and so 2 forth to have all these more connecting streets for all 3 these neighborhoods and stuff, but, yet, this is wanting 4 to close us off to one access and add thousands and 5 thousands of people over into that area, but only give frs 6 one route to go. And I find eontradictive that y'all are 7 saying on one hand let's make it to where everybody can 8 get around easier and ride their bikes, and ~"alk and hike 9 and all this, but, yet, let's close off access to the main 10 part of town for these people. And, you know, have the 11 police drive down these hiking trails or the fire 12 department come down the bicycle trails to get to us. I'm 13 just not quite in agreement with that. 14 And, also, I'm not quite so sure -- I live 15 right there on the corner -- where Kings Row and Fen'is 16 intersect, so Windsor will be in my back yard. And that 17 may not be a big concern to our developer, but it is a big 18 concern to rne and my four children. And we can't hardly 19 keep the cars on the road as it is right now. They've 20 ended up in the Cox' back yard. They've ended up -- I 21 can't tell you how many skid marks I have cra our back 22 sidewalk, but, yet, my three year old plays in her play 23 yard out there. And then you want to widen it from a 24 country road to a four-lane major road and add thousands 25 of people over there. Page 282 1 Now, like I say, it's not a concern maybe 2 to the developer, but it is a concern to me and my 3 neighborhood, and I just want to voice my opinion about 4 that. And, also, it's kind of hard for us to say whether 5 we approve or disapprove of what's going to be out there 6 when we don't really know. I mean, there's not a specific 7 plan. 8 Okay. They're saying that they're willing 9 to change the Windsor comes in or whatever, but nobody's 10 willing to show us what they're willing to do. I need to 11 see it black and white. I'm not familiar with y'alls 12 procedures. So just someone telling me that is not 13 comfortable enough for me. I need to see it visually. I 14 need to know that I'm not going to have some sort of race 15 ear track or whatever out there. I mean, I need to know 16 that because this is my home. It may only be a 17 $200,000.00 home to me, but that's everything to me. And 18 it's not that way to a million dollar developer. And so I 19 really want y'all to take into consideration the little 20 people and not just who's going to make the big bucks off 21 of it because it affects lots of people that are just )'our 22 average, middle income people. Thank you. 23 co~tssIo~ atst~Et.: xhank you, Ms. Tivis. 24 Commissioners, any questions of Ms. Tivis? Ths,l~ you very 25 much. Once again, this is a public hearing. Anyone else Page 283 I who would like to speak either for or against this item on 2 our Agenda, if you would please come forward at this time. 3 Anyone else for or against, if you'd please come forward. 4 Give us your name and address. 5 MR. KEATON: Kenneth Keaton. I live at 6 2537 East Windsor Drive. I'm the next to the last house 7 on east Windsor Drive there. This correspondence that I 8 received which was dated December the 10th was the first 9 correspondence, formal correspondence that I have received 10 about this new zoning and the buildings that are to be 11 built out there. And I'm very concerned about this. I 12 moved here three years ago, and east Windsor Drive was an 13 ideal place for me to live because there were no multi- 14 family homes very close to me. The closest is probably 15 half a mile or three quarters of a mile away so it's a 16 very good neighborhood to live in and I'd like to preserve 17 that. 18 I'm very concerned about now we'll be 19 coming out on Windsor and right next to my house. I guess 20 that's all I have. 21 COMMtSSIONER RtSH£L: Thank you, Mr. 22 Keaton. Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Keaton? 23 Thank you very much, sir. 24 MR. KEATON: Thank you. 25 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: once again, anyone Page: 1 else who would like to address the Commission regarding 2 either for or against Item No. 15 or Item No. 16 at this 3 time. Anyone for or against? I have a whole series of 4 cards of people that were against the project, at least, I 5 think they were all against. I'm going to go through them 6 name and address. 7 The first one that I have is from a Jeff 8 Kruger at 3841 Grant Parkway. Concerns were traffic and 9 drainage and density issues and multi-family concerns. 10 And regard to -- and concerns regarding the schools and 11 overcrowding. 12 I have a Charlicc Kruger, at 3841 Grant 13 Parkway, traffic concerns, impact on schools, and 14 concerned with density. Andrew Collins at 3202 Saints 15 Court Circle. Is concerned about the multi-family use and 16 the single-family zoning and the density and, perhaps, not 17 receiving notice. Daniel and Diane Bawcom, B-a-w-c-o-m, 18 at 2525 East Windsor Drive. Concerns regarding not 19 receiving adequate information and specific development 20 plans regarding the future use. 21 Colleen Fisher at 3106 Saints, plans were 22 not specific enough and had several concerns regarding the 23 multi-family building. Paul Caplinger at 2517 East ~24 Windsor. Not enough information and was concerned about 25 his notification, and overcrowding. Laura Dodson at 3921 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19TH, 2001 Page 281 - Page 284 CondenseltTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 285 Grant Parkway. Too much multi-family and a concern about thc schools in accommodation to that. Raymond Arnold at 3845 Grant Parkway, concerned about traffic, drainage and thc multi-family development. Rod Dodson at 3921 Grant Parkway was concerned about the multi-family and the schools and being able to accommodate the children. Pat Gobble at 3901 Grant Parkway, too high of density for this neighborhood a_rc~. Bobby Reed at 3913 Grant Parkway, no comments but opposed to the project. Rhonda Reed at 3919 Ch'ant Parkway, once again, no comments but opposed to the development. Nancy Lillie at 3800 Deerfield, concerned about the density in the apartments, concerned about the traffic and the overall impact of the values of the neighb6~'hcod. Dayna McMillan at 3112 Deerfield, feels that the -- is concerned about tho proposed zoning on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 Page 287 that's a map change and the zoning issues. And I think it wenlcln't serve anybody if we went forward with one without a full understanding by the neighborhoods of how the issues in it play, and a better understanding of what is ~ proposed both in the map change and the zoning, and an opportunity to relcok at the densities. So I make a motion that we continue thc map ch~ge proposal to January 23rd. COMMISSIONER POWELL: second. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: okay. I have a mcdon fi.om Commissioner Mulroy and a second from Co:nmissioner Powell. I'd ask Mr. Reichhart to clarify for us so that we might be able to move a little bit further d~.c th~ road when we come back on our next session. MR. REICHHART: we've gotten some, I think, preay good input on multi-family, just traffic concerns and some broad issues. I didn't know if there was any Kings Row neighborhood and Loop 288 and concerns regarding traffic and the school district and access. And Anita Ferguson at 3606 Antler Circle, concerns regardlnE the Deerwood neighborhood and concerned whether we gave proper information and with the Mobility Plan and how it's going to affect their neighborhood. Excuse me. I had a couple of other cards that did have comments that expounded from the front to Page 286 1 the back and I just want to make sure I got those. This 2 is regarding Daniel and Diane Bawcom, further concerns 3 with regard to the development beyond single family was 4 not acceptable and the no extension of Windsor Drive and 5 multi-family concerns. 6 And then Colleen Fisher had further 7 concerns regarding -- since Denton has many areas of 8 multi-family, this neighborhood's two schools are not 9 prepared to handle the influx of multi-family. 10 Once again, this is a public hearing. 11 Anyone else that would like to comment either for or 12 against this item, these two items on our Agenda, Item No. 13 15 and Item No. 16. Commissioners, once again, we're 14 going to continue this to a next date certain. That will 15 be January 23rd and if there's no other comments from 16 Commissioners -- I see that I have a few comments from 17 Commissioners. Commissioner Mulroy. 18 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes, sir, Mr. Chair, 19 the first item, the Comp Plan map change was not included 20 in the previous motion to continue for the next meeting or 21 the second meeting in January. After hearing from the 22 audience and the stack of cards that came in, I don't -- I 23 believe it would be in everybody's interest to make the 24 same motion for the map change because what I have heard 25 is a lack of communication and we do have two issues, 18 specific concerns that we wanted to relay to the applicant 19 ~regxrding the Comprehensive Plan change. Staff had made 20 the recommendation regarding the employment center and 21 mdntairfing that buffer. Is the proposed size too big? I 22 kn:w it is related to traffic and other issues. Is there 23 any direction that we can provide the applicant to start 24 im~tigating? 25 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I'm going to take Page 288 1 the~ in the order that I see them. Commissioner Keith. 2 COMMISSIONER r. EIX~: I was just going to 3 ask that if the applicant wanted to make any closing 4 ct~.a~ents before we move along. I thought that was normal 5 pr~ess that before we start making motions that he could 6 cc=e in and make any rebunals. 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: That's a good point. 8 COMMISSIONER KEri'H: Thank you. 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: My error. Would 10. ev~yonc be receptive to that? Excuse me. 11 MR. KRUOER: Thank you, members. My name 12 is Jdf Kruger. I also reside in this area. My adckess 13 is .:905 Deefforest and I represent the applicant along 14 wi~ Mr. Weltie, one of the things I want to make very 15 clear is from the school district impact a lot of the 16 lh~r~S that -- a lot of the concerns that the neighborhood 17 has bro _ught up are not really concerns that are within our 18 rea2m. 19 The road at the comer of Windsor where it 20 ties into Feaxis is part of the Denton -- City of Denton 21 M~iliW Plan which we don't really care where that road 22 goes. We literally -- if y'all want us to move it over, 23 we'2 be more than happy to and ff it will make the 24 nei~_' borhood happy, we've said that all along. We want to 25 do what the neighborhood wants. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19TH, 2001 Page 285 - Page 288 CondonscltTM Page 289 I Somebody mentioned the density issues, you 2 know, we have considered where we live, our physical 3 zoning ~s st--7, we're looking at three units. The 4 developer has issued he v~nts three units over here. 5 Everyrking is compatible to the surrounding area. The ' 6 only _axgument that holds true is no, there is no multi- 7 family anywhere to be found out there, however, we're 8 talking about Loop 288, and I don't know too many people 9 that went to build sizable homes on Loop 288. 10 The only homes that you see being built 11 there are the exact kind of homes that they're afraid of, 12 the little cracker box homes that are in the 80s and the 13 90s, ~ich is something that we don't want to be a part of 14 this development. We a~nt this development to be 15 identim[ if not larger than some of the other little 16 devel%xnents that are located around it. 17 I mean, we've gone so far as to, you know, 18 we're lcoking at not selling, limiting the amount of lots 19 that we'll sell each builder so there won't be any, you 20 know, =ore identical sVa~e home in there. They'll each 21 have tt:dr own personal flair like the kind that we have 22 over in Deerwood. We want to -- from the density 23 standpeint, I think that as far as the single family 24 housing goes, we have excellent. We have probably one of 25 the be~ densities of any development that you've seen Page 290 1 before you. This is really good stuff. 2 But the multi-faxnily, I don't know of any 3 other ,~,e that you could possibly do with this. You can't 4 see it from -- you eertain!y won't be able to see the 5 multi-f-zmily from any of the existing neighborhoods 6 because they're too far away. They certainly can't be 7 seen through the growth. You heard Mr. Weltie testify 8 earlier ~.hat because of the growth through here and the 9 flood p~n area, you can't see any of the -- you can't 10 see the '-ighway; you can't see the Loop, and the -- as far 11 as the k',_siness goes, I heard somebody say, they moved oul 12 there be,'ause they wanted to drive all the way across town 13 to go to the grocery store, and they wanted to not have a 14 strip ce'acer. 15 I, for one, want to be able to have -- I i16 want a d'ycleaner. I don't want to have to drive all the 17 way across town to buy a loaf a bread or whatever or to 18 drop off my suits at the cleaner and my shirts. There's a 19 lot of ~ that want those thin~ up there. We have tried 20 our bes~ to meet with all the people in that area, if 21 we've r_Lssed one or two, it certainly wasn't because we 22 had any secrets that we ,aere trying to hide or people we 23 were trsfi, ng to exclude, those things just happened. 24 We got the list from the City. We did our 25 best to contact everyone involved. And the current list 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 291 that the City got, that mailed out their own, they mailed out over 300 or close to 300 notices and they got less than 2.3 percent back in opposition. I think those are really good numbers. We've worked with staff dilige~ on coming up wir. h problems that they have with our a .... If that 1,350 units is too much for the City of Denton, then I think the market place will determine that. I think -- this is no~ going to happen overnight. This is going to happen over a ten year period. There will be a ten year buildout on this PD. And so I think thc market will determine how many units m-e there or not. We want that availability so tha/we can have a little bit of leeway to help make our development stronger. As far as thc school district goes, they're going -- they're ff~x sites planned along the 380 corridor. This school that's over here in the Deerwood subdivision is not a neighborhood school. 90 percent of those children that go to that school are bussed in there and they all come from the 380 corridor that's out east of town in the Navo, and Cross Roads and Oak Point area. I'm personally working on another development in the Cross Roads area that is donating a school site, and we're working on an agreement with the school to build a school out there on this development Page 1 If that happens, ali r. hat's going to do is free up more 2 space in that schoot for the local kids to begin to go 3 rhe~. 4 There's v.]so a planned site just down the 5 street near the Stua~ Road and Sherman Drive deal on that 6 si~e where the athletSc complex is proposed to be built. 7 There's an elementary site there. And I mean, we're 8 including a lot of mLxed use and commercial and fight 9 industrial in this to help offset the burden that the 10 school district us~ gets because there's not enough 11 conunercial and indmstrial development going on here. So 12 ~,e're proposing thax to help offset that and help the 13 school district as ~I1. 14 I think or~e final note, the -- I don't 15 anticipate the fm department having trouble getting to 16 my house just becac:se if they do close off Kings Row, and 17 ia:re again, it's a complaint that is kind of thrown at us. 18 But we have no say in that. That's a City matter. And if 19 it were up to us we would leave it open. But it's not up 20 to the developer. Bm with the improvements that would be 21 made on the overpaxs, it would actually become almost null 22 and void as far as tEaring-wise. It probably - it's not 23 going to make it fas~r, but I don't think it will make it 24 slower about grrdng xo this area because of - a lot of 25 times a lot of the backup, I believe most of the traffic PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19TH, 2001 Page 289 - Page 292 CondcnseltTM Page 293 I will be headed in either a northerly or southerly 2 direction. 3 I think a flow is not going to affect any 4 of these neighborhoods. So I think we have that pretty 5 much from our traffic studies, the ones we show, and, yes, 6 there has been a traffic study, and we're currently 7 working with the City to accommodate them more on that. 8 So we really have done and we're willing to do more. 9 We'll meet with each individual homeowner that has a 10 problem and request and we'll sit down with them, but I 11 just want you to know we've worked on this thing a very, 12 very long time. 13 We have not purposely in any way tried to 14 exclude anyone and we want to be a partner out there. 15 And, you know, I don't plan on moving anywhere. I live 16 out there and I want it to be a nice area and I think it 17 will be. So we really have tried to be very, very patient 18 through this process. But we really would like to see 19 something done. I'm not asking you to do anything 20 tonight, I'm just telling you we'd like to see this move 21 forward and not have to continue to meet and to meet and 22 to meet because it is very, very frustrating. 23 COIvfiViISSIONER PdSHEL: Mr. Kruger, I have 24 several people that have questions for you. Commissioner 25 Mulroy. Page 294 1 COMMISSIONER MULROY: He answered my 2 question. He projected a ten-year build-out. 3 Commissioner Powell. 4 COIvLMISSIONER POWELL: Mine was a comznent 5 not directed at Mr. Kruger. I'll wait until he's 6 finished. Commissioner Holt. 7 CONLMISSIONER HOLT: Yes. Mr. Kruger, 8 I have a suggestion for the developer. This map that's up 9 here now, we don't have that in our back up and that's 10 really a pretty good map and that shows exactly what 11 you're going to do, where you plan to put it. I would 12 suggest that you have lots of those made. Each of those 13 areas have what could possibly be put in that area whether 14 it's commercial and list the commercial things that are 15 supposed -- that could be brought to that area and 16 distributed to the homeowners around there because I think 17 the more that people know about it and understand about 18 it, the better. And, also, do something else with Windsor 19 Road. Obviously, people don't like that. I mean, if it 20 could be brought all the way over to Mayhill, go out that 21 way or something. 22 MR. KRUGER: That's up to -- actually up to 23 y'all. That's not up to us. 24 COIVLMISSIONER HOLT: well, then work with 25 the City and say, let's come up with another plan for that Page 295 I because, you know, I think it's probably workable, but I 2 thing it's going to take a lot of citizen discussion and 3 input and cooperation from everyone. And I think the more 4 you-all put out, information-wise, the better off everyone 5 wffibe. Thanks. 6 OOMMISSION~r_~R RISHEL: commissioner Roy. 7 COMMISSIO*?~R ROY: Yeah. My comments were 8 similar to Commissioner Holt's. You very eloquently 9 explained your position and what you thought ought to 10 happen from this moment on. It was a useful summary, but 11 you did say you wem willing to talk to members of the 12 ctwnmunity, but I thought that was probably th~ weakest 13 part of your summary. And I would like a little stronger 14 commitment for you to communicate with the members of the 15 c~rnmunity who have come out bere tonight and stayed until 16 2.'00 o'clock or so to ~press their opinion. 17 It's sort of like Ms. Holt said, I think 18 thexe's -- probably tbexe~s -- a lot can be resolved by 19 just making a little bit more effort to take into 20 consideration what was said tonight and work these issues. 21 And if it require~ you to have to sit down with the staff 22 and work the transportation issues, I think it would be to 23 your benefit to work them a little harder, rather than 24 ju~-t saying the City is saying do this because I think you 25 could make this project more acceptable and get rid of a Page 296 1 lot of the problems if you would take a little bit of 2 pr-o-activeness if that's a good word to work with the 3 City, to work this connectivity issue. That would be my 4 recommendation. 5 ~m. K~UOEte Yes, sir. And, again, I will 6 reiu:rate the fact that a lot of these problems that we're 7 having is being created by the City. And I don't mean 8 that in a n~ative light, all I'm saying is we have done a 9 lot of things and talked and already spoke to a lot of the 10 people. And most of the problems, not eve~'y problem tlx-y 11 have with this development, most of the problems are 12 driven by the City, not by the developer or the 13 development. And thegn lies the problem. That's why it 14 has taken us a great deal of time and energy to get this 15 far. 16 And I appreciate what you're saying. We 17 ~a'll, you know, t'~mhtea our belts up and get after it 18 harder. But we have a lot of -- the real negative 19 complaints really has nothing to do with -- 20 COMMISSIONER ROY: JUSt a follow-up == 21 excuse me. A follow-up on that, my understanding from the 22 City staff is that the connectivity plan is not Cast in 23 stone. And, perhaps, it was explained to you that it was. 24 But I believe you were here earlier tonight and you heard 25 that it was not cast in stone. And if there's any PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19TH, 2001 Page 293 - Page 296 CondenseltTM Page 297 1 question on that, we can ask the transportation 2 representative to clarify that. But I heard that they're 3 willing to work these issues. And if you didn't 4 understand that, I think that's the answer that they are 5 willing to work on these. It may turn out that this is 6 still the best way, their initial idea, but I think we 7 have to work very hard on this because of the concerns 8 we've heard tonight. 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Commissioner Keith. I0 COMMISSIONF. R KEITH: Thank you. Yes, Mr. 11 Kruger, regarding connecting, you know, Kings Row, who 12 owns the property as you go up Loop 288, you've got that 13 yellow and blue. I heard one of the people that live in 14 the area said that land is owned by whom? 15 MR. KRUGER: I think they're referring to 16 this section of land up here above Kings Row, EDS, it's 17 actually a trust from one of their -- investment trust 18 that they make for -- whether it's a retirement. 19 COMMISSIONER KEITH: what is the 20 possibility of rather than having and it might work to 21 your favor of the Old North Road, if a service road was 22 connected to the existing Kings Row and brought down to 23 Windsor, along parallel to the highway? 24 MR. KRUGER: That would be obviously a 25 staff decision. 9 [0 I1 114 !16 Page 299 suggestirg that 5s s: - as an~thar Commissioner was recommmdlnff thaz mmmTm, i,;,.afim, that the citizens can also see ~Se corffi/c-. :hat iff~uaot _~merated by the developer.. And thz 'teas m-Z2' ~,~-~tion on that becau you know, you -~arr :o get ~-nopaution from all three parties, fie dew~. the ,~;,~t;~ homeowners and the City, so fiere's go: -a be c ..... s,rcr~ises made from'all areas. A_~.d so rm tar say/rt~_ oL----y let's put what's required where and W~at's [toeing .~'equired from where and clear the ,.h- on thru WoulcF':Xhat }e possible? .yin. K~uc~: I thh~,tr ?~h. We probably have somethin~ like-zat alr~ady. COb~ISSL-'N'ER ~=Trt-I: 3kay. Thank you. ¢O~L-MBSL'¥ER m:~'~qEL: commissioner Powell. Yes, sir,[vast a c, orrrw~t. '~nat fl'~ after 1:30 in the morning md we're _ming ta 5rove :5is on our Agenda again. Let's get out o~'herz Let's ._-n. t tv:he chance and get this mov~g. CONLa, KISSL2X[ER R,rm~gL: commissioners, any further q-.estioms? -'_:ank ymm v~; much, Mr. Kruger. Once ~a= we ar~, r. onz:auing the public hearing tca da~ ce~._m wh/m:h is fanuary 23rd and that's a motion. We have ~ -~oticra~ on rZe floor and the motion was mm'vd by Eom :ssiom=- M~-oy and seconded by Commis~oner Page 298 1 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Yeah, it would be a 2 staff decision on that. Another suggestion I would make 3 is you've made a point that you contend that many of the 4 problems that are being presented by folks in the area are 5 generated due to demands or expectations by the City. 5 6 Would you be willing to make a detailed list of those? 6 7 MR. KRUGER: I think they're addressed in , 7 8 our -- in the staff report. I mean, they're pretty much 8 9 addressed. What I mean by that and I want to be ~ 9 10 careful - I0 11 COMMISSIONER KErm: YOU're not being 1 12 negative. I just want to -- I think for clarification -- 2 13 MR. KRUGER: I'm not trying to be negative, ii3 14 What I'm trying to say is because of and I shouldn't just 114 15 single out the staff, I should just simply say because of 15 16 City rules and regs -- 16 17 COMMISSIONER KEITH: That's what I'm t17 18 referring to. 18 19 MR. KRUGER: -- that it has -- and in this I9 20 case it really has to do with the fact that the new 20 21 Comprehensive Plan, you're in the middle of all of this 21 22 and here we're delayed again over it because of that. And 22 23 then it's just kind of mounted up, just little bitty 23 24 things over time have become very -- 24 25 COMMISSIONER KEITH: The reason why I was 25 please. Page co~a~mSSlO~ Roy: me~_x the motion COM~mSSlO~.=--q VaS~*~.~: ca~mfissioner Mulroy. co~trmSlO,,~--q .,vm'ra~rW: yin. Wc wan~ to ~nfinue ~ 15_ Tm': ~ c:~..,y~sive map chan~ proposal u o~ ~om ~~ Jama~, da~ c~in J~ 2L 20~2. co~IO~ ms~:: .~ ~ questions or ~scus~ns, C-nmm~ion~F ~ nm pl~sc vo~. Motion cm~ 6-D of m Co ....... ;ssim p~ent. [~ ~7 or m ~ is ~cussion ~ p~q for ~ pos~e ~ ..... ;..isdm~s ~t and we :om~o~ ~Y: va don't spmd PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19TIt, 2001 Page 297 - Page 300 CondenseltTM as 5 6 7 been moved 8 Commissioner 9 Commissioner 10 COMMISSI 11 the motion. Though 12 opinion, if we were 13 rely on staff' s 14 lot of time on this 15 doing that and 16 I'd feel more 17 concerned 18 mean to 19 this. So 20 21 other aspect of it, my colleague has reminded me would require -- one condition is that the cross Dosed by the applicant be to the applicant's commitment. second. ~IONER RISHEL: conlmil it's Commissioner Roy We have be voting against Commissioner Roy's ) this, I would prefer to as I know they've spent a they had the option of not to. if I had an option, going a precedent floodplain and so be voting against RISHEL: I would and the same thing. Commissioner Holt. COMMISSIONER HOLT: It just are providing protection to the well but we, as members, need to remember that we are trying to from contamination, too. And I'm also oops, I didn't more of 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page water and not a flowing water. So I don't think the is going to be in danger of being even a large log. So I really appreciate and I don't think we'll be~ the City in danger ' more oops. This is an but if it should we address :at a time and manage very much. commissioners, any further comments? we have a motion on the floor. A motion was and seconded by Commissioner Seeing questions, would you Motion carries of the Thank you, VOTED IN OPPOSITION.) COMMISSIONER RISHEL: AS We mentioned in our change of our Agenda, we have already addressed That's going to bring us to Item No. 9 on the Agenda. And I think we'll probably take Items 9 and 10 together; is that correct, Mr. Reichhart, if you'd prefer? At least present those together and we wilt see those sqaarately as motions, if we could. MR. REICHHART: Thank you. Items No. 9 and 10 both relate to the Windsor Oaks development. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes. I'm going for the motion. I'd prefer raising it to the but the combination of level seems a reasonable parties, all the concerns. Thank you. 4 5 6 7 8 SIONER KEITH: 9 to the -- I'm to yield to the 10 drillers. I can when 11 you're accustomed 12 State that has a greater 13 drilling. That's the 14 State. I think that 15 unaware of the ETJ 16 here in Denton 17 unaware that 18 exists. So ~ understand of all the 19 you feel you didn't dig enough for 20 against you. 21 I think coming in with your put to protect it from water flow, I adequate. And I agree with you that's -- I've out to this site and any water that's going to come through there, it's just going to be more of a rising Keith. I can see of the came to this area, in another part of the of leniency in regards to ~ of that part of our to us and saying you were some people that live here for years who are even came in, that m not going Page, 1 Item No. 9 is for the Comprehensive Plan amendment. 2 Il.tern 10 is then the associated zoning after the 3 Comprehensive Plan. 4 Identified on the overhead is the subject 5 property. Outlined here is Loop 288 and University. 6 Kings Row is to the north. The areas hatched are the 7 areas intended for the Comprehensive Plan change. 8 Currently on the property, it's in three land use 9 categories. First is Neighborhood Centers which is the 10 lighter yellow, Employment Centers which is the pinkish- 11 purple, and then floodplains which is the green. What is 12 being proposed is a reduction of the Employment Center and 13 changing that to Neighborhood Centers and then creating a 14 Community Mixed Use Center where the future Windsor 15 extension will cross Loop 288 and that would be not quite 16 centered on it but it would be located at that ~ 17 intersection. 18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Reichhart, I'd 19 like to thank you already for your explanation of pinkish- 20 purple~ That really clarified it for me and it's just a 21 perfect description. Thank you. 22 MR. REICHHART: You're welcome. And, 23 again, the companion item to this is the zoning. The 24 intent of a Community Ivlixed Use Center is identified in 25 the backup as the area where it would serve a large PLANNING AND ZONING COM3eHSSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 41 - Page 44 CondonseltTM Page 45 1 community as opposed to a small neighborhood. It would 2 have the shopping and some office and it could even have 3 multi-family associated with that. In the Comprehensive 4 Plan, those areas were identified as 30 acres or less. 5 Currently -- and, again, here's the subject site. We have 6 two Community Mixed Use Centers located in this vicinity 7 along the Loop, North Locust and the Loop and then Sherman 8 Drive and the Loop. There are two areas identified. 9 Although not identified is a Community Mixed Use Center, 10 this intersection of Loop 288 and University with the 11 proposed Albertson's and then Prominence Square which is a 12 Mixed Use Development in the northwest quadrant. 13 Together, that area will start functioning like a 14 Community Mixed Use Center. 15 Staff straggled with this application but 16 really feel that the concept of having a node where 17 Windsor will come across Loop 288 is a very good concept. 18 What we struggled with is its size, which was originally 19 reported as 32 acres, that did not include the 20 right-of-way. If you include the right-of-way for Windsor 21 and all the other roads, that area is in excess of 40 22 acres. And we do continue these as gross areas, as you i23 can see though that this area is still less than some of 24 these other areas. 25 Another concern we had was that Loop 288 is Page 46 1 a major collector and, you know, Locust continues up north 2 and gathers in a large area, as does Sherman, the 3 extension of Windsor. There isn't a large population to 4 the east right now that would draw in a lot of this from 5 this area. 6 But, cut to the quick, we do recommend 7 approval of this Comprehensive Plan amendment. And I 8 don't know if you'd like to answer questions now or let 9 Thomas present the zoning application and then answer 10 questions, but we are available. 11 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: ?hank you, Mr. 12 Reichhart. Thomas, would you care to present on the 13 zoning part of this? 14 MR. aP, ny: Yes and good evening. As you 15 may be aware, this case was originally a Planned 16 Development zoning case. However, the new Development 17 Code which was adopted by Council earlier this month does 18 not allow the creation of any new Planned Developments so 19 the original case had to be closed and reopened as a 20 straight zoning case after the new Code was adopted. 21 The applicant is proposing a variety of zoning 22 classifications for this 215-acre tract. Approximately 40 23 acres, as Doug noted, I have this upside down, and I 24 apologize, approximately 40 acres located right here is 25 proposed to be eM-O, commercial Mixed Use. There's a Page 47 1 14-acre NR-3 neighborhood residential tract which actually 2 the applicant has -- discussing with a church about 3 purchasing that property. 40 acres of NO-4 which is 4 located here along the west side and 56 acres of No-6 5 which is located along the east side here, and then 64 6 acres of NaMU, seighborhood Residential Mixed Use zoning 7 locatext here, as well as here. And you should have full 8 sized copies in your backup so that's probably more easily 9 readable. 10 The applicant is also proposing to maintain 11 ECI, Employment Center zoning, on the tracts closest to 12 Mingo. Since the Development Code was adopl~d, these 13 tracts already have the requested zoning so they are not 14 part of the zoning application. The requested zoning 15 would allow a maximum of 536 single-family units and 863 16 multi-family units. I will note that this actually 17 represents a reduction in multi-family density from what 18 the applicant's original submittal proposed. The amount 19 of multi-family was originally 76 acres and 1,352 units. 20 Now it's 64 acres and 863 units. 21 Be that as it may, staff is still concerned 22 about the density. It still seems excessive to us. I 23 will point out that the Denton Plan encourages a 24 single-family unit to multi-family unit ratio of 60 to 40. 25 It envisions 60 percent single-family units and 40 percent Page 48 1 multi-family units within the City of Denton. What the 2 applicant is requesting is basically a 62 percent 3 multi-family and 38 percent single-family ratio so it's 4 actually opposite of what the Denton Plan proposes. 5 MR. POWELL: If I may, I'd like to point 6 out that the -- 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Director Powcll. 8 MR. POWELL: -- the numbers that Thomas is 9 referring to make the assumption that the Community Mixed 10 Use zoning would not be used for multi-family; although it 11 can be. So there is the potential, because of the cm-o 12 zoning district, that you could have additional 13 multi-family units. 14 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Director. 15 MR. GP~Y: The applicant is proposing 16 multi-family densities at almost four units per acre in 17 Tract 7 which is located here and 17 units per acre in 18 Tract 8 which is located here. Now, the only zoning 19 district that would permit densities of this type is the 20 ~aMU, Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use zoning district, 21 which allows densities of up to 30 units per acre for 22 multi-family development. 23 However, I want to emphasize that the true 24 purpose of NRMU zoning is to contain a mix of uses and to 25 provide a node of ne/ghborhood services, not just PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 45 - Page 48 CondenseltTM Page 49 1 multi-family but also offices and retail. It is not 2 intended to be a straight multi-family residential zoning 3 district and this is why the Denton Development Code 4 places a hmitation on multi-family zoning in ~mMU. 5 Number one, it requires a specific use permit. And, 6 number two, it is required to be constructed as part of a 7 mixed use development. 8 The applicant is requesting 64 acres of 9 NRMU and this creates another point of concern for staff i 0 because the 64-acre SRMU located here and here, as well as 11 the 40-acre eM-O, community Mixed Use, essentially creates 12 a high intensity community center of over 100 acres. This 13 would really function more like a Regional Mixed Use 14 Center which is defined in the Denton Plan as an intensity 15 area of being about 100 acres in size. And staff just 16 does not feel that this much intensity is appropriate for 17 this area. 18 In the Denton Development Code, we have a 19 table showing the different types of community activity 20 centers and the thresholds are supposed to support a 21 Neighborhood Mixed Use -- 22 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Can you give us what 23 page you're on there? 24 MR. OP,~Y: oh, yeah. This is page 44 of 25 the Denton Development Code, I'm sorry, the Denton Page 50 1 Comprensive Plan. 2 MR. POWELL: It's the Denton Plan, not the 3 Code. 4 MR. GRAY: Yeah, it's in the Denton Plan. 5 I'm sorry. And a Neighborhood Mixed Use Activity Center 6 serves a neighborhood one square mile and 5,000 people. 7 It can be up to ten acres in size. A Community Mixed Use 8 Activity Center serves up to eight square miles and 40,000 9 people. It can be up to 30 acres. As Larry noted, the 10 applicant is proposing a Community Mixed Use Center of 40 11 acres, but this does include road rights-of-way. And then 12 a Regional Mixed Use Activity Center serves as much as a 13 quarter million people and can be more than 30 acres in 14 size. So I want to emphasize that we have these three 15 different criteria as far as these activity centers are 16 concerned. 17 Both the NRMU and CM-O zoning are meant to 18 function as these nodes. The Community Mixed Use node 19 provides community services while the Neighborhood Mixed 20 Use node provides neighborhood s~rvices. What the 21 applicant is proposing, in effect, is a node of CM-O 22 surrounded by another node of NRMU. And this really is 23 not the way the Denton Plan envisions the activity centers 24 to function. The community nodes and the neighborhood 25 nodes are intended to be independent of one another. Page 51 1 In discussions with City staff, the 2 applicant has expressed that this NRMU area is down here, 3 Tract 7 and 8, is necessary to buffer the Employment 4 Center along Kings Row -- sorry, or along Mingo with t! 5 neighborhood residential along Kings Row. Staff does n 6 disagree that there does need to be some buffering between 7 your heavier commercial, light industrial uses down here 8 and your residential uses up here. The question is Tract 9 7 and 8 being NRMU and Tract 6 and 9 being NR-6, that's a 10 buffer of 55 acres, 656 residential units. Staff's 11 question is does it need to be that big. Tract 11 here on 12 the southwest side of the property is proposed to be NRMU, !13 as well. However, the density the applicant is proposing 14 here works out to 11.9 units per acre. That could be 15 supported by NRMU-12 zoning and staff would support that 16 this tract right here be rezoned to NRMU-12. 17 The amount of NR-6 which is six units per 18 acre single-family residential, is also a concern of 19 staff. The applicant is proposing 56 acres of NR-6 over 20 here along Cooper Creek Road. The question we have is, 21 okay, certainly, some smaller lot residential is 22 appropriate but does it need to be 56 acres and does it 23 need to be along Cooper Creek Road right here where at 24 this time there's really no development other than large 25 lot residential. As Larry noted with the Comprehensive Page ! 1 Plan amendment, we support the applicant's idea of a 2 community node right here and we support the c~4-c~ request. 3 Our issue is just with the amount of single-family or 4 multi-family residential the applicant has proposed. 5 Really, briefly, I want to note some other 6 issues that the neighborhood has had with this and I do 7 want to note that the applicant has met with the 8 neighborhood several times. There were a couple of 9 neighborhood meetings last sram'ncr. There was also a 10 neighborhood meeting last month and I believe comments 11 from that neighborhood meeting should be in your backup. 12 The alignment of Windsor has been an issue 13 for the applicant, staff, and the neighborhood. The 14 Denton Mobility Plan anticipates that Windsor be aligned, 15 to be extended across Loop 288 and then curve upward into 16 Farris Road. The applicant is proposing instead to extend 17 Windsor across Loop 288 to Cooper Creek Road. Staff does 18 not have any objection to this realignment. I will note 19 that there has been some neighborhood opposition, 20 especially in the neighborhoods to the west of this 21 development regarding the extension of Windsor. Some 22 residents would like it not to be extended at all. 23 However, as I mentioned, this extension has always been 24 part of the Denton Mobility Plan and the idea is that it 25 would come to pass regardless of what development occurred PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 49 - Page 52 Condon soIt ~ ~ Page 53 1 here. 2 I have some opposition and letters in favor 3 that I have received recently since the time of your staff 4 report. I will say that the opposition currently stands 5 at 1.8 percent. And I'll pass these around. 6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. Gray. 7 We may have some questions of the Commissioners. 8 Commissioners, let me point out I have several cards of 9 people that would like to speak so I presume you have 10 something specific, Commissioner, for Mr. Gray. 11 Commissioner Roy. 12 COMMISSIONER ROY: JUSt a quick question. 13 There was a discussion before about Kings Row, was it 14 going to terminate at 288. Has that been changed? Where 15 does Kings Row stand or is that out of this issue? 16 MR. ~RA¥: Kings Row, the plan has always 17 been that once the connection across Loop 288 is built for 18 Windsor, Kings Row would be detached from Loop 288 and 19 that at grade intersection would be eliminated. There has 20 been discussion as to whether or not these feeder roads or 21 these access roads would be continued up to catch Kings 22 Row and allow, like, a right-turn in, fight-turn out 23 situation. But as of this time, the Mobility Plan states 24 that Kings Row would be cut off once Windsor is built 25 across. Page 54 I COMMISSIONER ROY: IS it fair to say that 2 that is divorced from this development? 3 MR. OP, XY: yeah. That actual intersection 4 is located to the north of this development on property 5 that's not owned by the applicant. 6 COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you. 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, any 8 further questions of Mr. Gray? Commissioner Keith. 9 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. 10 Commissioner Roy brought up the topic of the Kings Row. 11 So, in essence, at this time the Kings Row program, that 12 would be a future date certain, furore date discussion as 13 to its -- 14 MR. GR~Y: Right. It would occur once the 15 Windsor overpass is built and not before then. Obviously, 16 the Kings Row extension across Loop 288 is the only access 17 that this neighborhood has at this time. 18 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Pm talking to the 19 people on both sides of the highway that are up there and 20 it's where I live, as well, I'm hearing a lot of 21 opposition to that idea. And for the two bits on it at 22 this moment please, if all this development is going on 23 and the apartments and the housing that's going to be 24 going on in this area, that the access to Loop 288, that 25 having just one location all funneled in down to Windsor Page 55 i is going to create a little bit of a log jam at rush hour 2 morning and evening. And so I think Kings Row needs to be 3 reconsidered as to its future for that reason. Thank you. 4 MR. GRAY: mvid Salmon might have some 5 comments on that, as well. 6 MR. POWELL: Thomas, if I may, with the 7 indulgence of the Commission, as pointed out by our legal 8 counsel that the issue of Kings Row is not on your Agenda 9 tonight, it's not part of this application. We'd be happy 10 to provide you information regarding that project and 11 we'll try to include it in your next backup, but it really 12 isn't part of this posting and there's some concern that 13 we're straying away from the topic at hand. 14 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Director Powell, I 15 was -- I know we probably have several people in the list 16 of speakers that probably have some questions about Kings 17 Row and so I appreciate the clarification regarding that 18 and the fact that we need to stay on the topic that we're 19 with today. 20 But if there's a general clarification that 21 we can make that might ehminate some of the people that 22 might want to speak because they want to speak 23 specifically on the road situation, I would say if we 24 could do some sort of clarification shortly, that would -- 25 maybe that will help everyone. Page 56 1 Commissioners, any further questions of Mr. 2 Gray? Seeing no further questions, this is a public 3 hearing. Would the petitioner like to address the 4 Commission? And, once again, I'd like to remind everyone 5 that at this point in time we have consolidated Agenda 6 Items No. 9 and 10 for the discussion purposes at this 7 point in time. So when it comes to asking questions, I 8 will take all those cards regarding either 9 or 10. 9 And at this point in time, we will discuss everything in 10 open and then we will address them via the Cmmnission when 11 they get to making a recommendation Item 9 and then 12 Itean 10, respectively: The petitioner, would you please 13 give us your name and address? 14 DR. WOLSKt: Yes. My name is Ed Wolski. I 15 live at 2301 Holly Hill in Denton. And this is Bob Welty, 16 he's our architect. I'm here to present our case and get 17 input from the Planning and Zoning Commission. 18 We met with the neighborhoods and we talked 19 with individuals. Some of the issues that we tried to 20 Solve, right here is Quail Ridge and there was a problem 21 with Old North Road backing up to these lots. We moved 22 Old North Road out so there's a row of lots in the back so 23 they don't have Old North Road in their backyard anymore. 24 Like Thomas said, there's a problem with 25 the Mobility Plan. A lot of people have had issues with PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2TrH, 2002 Page 53 - Page 56 CondonseltTM 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 57 the Mobihty Plan and we can't do much about that. Windsor is on the Mobihty Plan. Right here, this is NR-4, four units per acres, ~m-4, four units per acre. This is exactly the same size as the lots over here. So the existing neighborhoods have lots that are either thc same size or bigger. Over here next to Deerwood we've got three units per acre which is, like, larger than the Deerwood Addition lots. This was -- there was an issue about multi-family. We dropped our request by 38 percent. We were kind of thrown a curve ball by the new nomenclature for the Denton Development Plan. We were only asking 18 units an acre here and NRMU gives us 30. We don't want 30. We made an agreement with the neighborhood if we can get 18 here and if we can get 12 here, we'd be really happy. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: would you enumerate those again? DR. WOLSKI: okay. This one here. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: which one is this one7 Loop. DR. WOLSKI: That's the one inside the COMMISSIONER RISHEL: So you're saying Tract 1 t which is -- Page 58 1 DR.. WOLSK~: Let me give you -- may I approach 2 the Commissioners with some diagrams? 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Please. 4 DR. WOLSKI: If you have this one here, 5 that will -- 6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: We don't have it in 7 color detail like that. Go ahead and put it on the 8 docucam. 9 DR. WOLSKI: Okay. This is Tract 11 and 10 right here is Cooper Creek so there's no houses fronting 11 this area. There's Cooper Creek and a greenbelt here and 12 here's the Loop, so it's between the creek and the Loop. 13 There's a lot of truck traffic there. We don't see 14 single-family being very desirable there. We've got 12 15 units an acre down from 30. And the neighbors we've 16 talked to were fine with that level of zoning. 17 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: This iS still on 18 Tract No. 127 19 DR. WOLSKI: It'S Tract 11 right here. 20 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: 11, excuse me. 21 DR. WOLSKI: That's inside the Loop, north 22 of Cooper Creek. That area, we had an issue with the 23 drainage there that some folks thought we would flood .24 Cooper Creek. We're going to keep all the drainage 25 on-site. This area here, that's Tract 10, was initially Page 59 I requested as multi-family and it's NR-4 now. This tract, 2 we were not aware of the gross acre, net acre issue until 3 yesterday, but we'd like to -- there's a beautiful stand 4 of trees on this hill, we'd like to save a bunch of those. 5 There's huge trees on there. And that will probably allo 6 us to do that. Right here, we've got, on this side, we've 7 got -- this is all currently zoned -- 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: what tract are you 9 speaking of?. 10 DR. WOLSKI: I'm sorry. This is Tract 7, 11 5, 6, 9, 8, and 12 are all currently zoned Industrial. 12 We're asking to downzone that 72 acres of that, 15 levels 13 of intensity, to residential, NRMU-12. 14 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Including 12 which is 15 already -- 16 DR. WOLSKI: 12 is -- we're going to leave 17 that Industrial. 18 COMMISSIONER RtSHEL: But you just included 19 it in the numbering Sequential you gave me there. 20 DR. WOLSKI: I'113. sorry. That's -- well, 21 you asked -- I was just pointing out what's Industrial 22 right now. We're going to leave 12 Industrial. We're not 23 going to change everything to NRMU-12. We made an 24 agreement with the residents and we want to keep it. We 25 said we'll try to get 18 units closer into the Loop and Page 1 we'd have sF-6 and sF-4 further out, and that's consistent 2 with the Development Plan. They want a gradient of 3 intensity. You want to go high intensity to lower 4 intensity. So we'll do that. The Denton Development Plan 5 allows us shifting of densities so we'll have low density 6 here and higher density up here to keep our agreement with 7 the neighborhood. 8 If you look at the -- if you pull up on the 9 internet, the website, the zoning map on the web shows all 10 this area being NRMU-12 SO we're just trying to continue 11 that pattern of NRMU-12 through to the Loop. Again, like 12 I said before, it's all Industrial right now and we're 13 trying to downzone this 15 levels of intensity. And the 14 neighborhood is happy with that. They'd rather see cars 15 rather than semi tracks in their neighborhood and they'd 16 rather see rooftops rather than factories. 17 The other issue, like Thomas pointed out, 18 this was a major issue and we thought we had no control 19 over it but David Salmon came through last time we had a 20 lot of neighbors speak against Windsor connecting to 21 Fart/s, and David agreed to change the Mobility Plan to 22 where it doesn't connect into ?arris. It's not a main 23 connector. So that made a lot of people happy. 24 That's about it. And I'd like to have 25 input from the Commissioners and from the audience. If PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 57 - Page 60 CondenseltTM Page 61 1 there's any questions, I'll answer those, too, with the 2 help of Bob. 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: on your team, Dr. 4 Wolski, you have Mr. Welty. Would Mr. Welty like to add 5 anything? 6 MR. WELX¥: My name is Bob Welty, 5207 7 McKinney Avenue, Dallas, Texas. One or two other things 8 in that packet we included for you, an actual location of 9 the existing trees on this site. Again, I assume most of 10 you are familiar with the site but it is a beautiful site. 11 One of the prettiest, I think, in Denton. Rolling terrain 12 with many large stands of mature trees, beautiful in every 13 way, and it's been our intent from day one to maintain the 14 integrity of this site, to not cut it off in fiat grades, 15 to maintain the trees. And our plan, as developed from 16 our road locations to exactly where and how we've left the 17 trees has accomplished that, we think. 18 As Dr. Wolski pointed out, we have worked 19 very closely and numerous times with our neighbors all 20 around us and I think many of them will speak to that fact 21 tonight, that the plan we are presenting has, indeed, 22 addressed their concerns, has achieved appropriateness of 23 densities and uses adjacent to their homes and 24 subdivisions. 25 Further, there were, as Dr. Wolski pointed Page 62 1 out, some road concerns that we think we have also 2 addressed. We did have, as a part of our team, Deshazo, 3 Tang and Associates who are probably the most recognized 4 traffic consultants in the State of Texas and perhaps the 5 country, do our traffic impact analysis. And we know 6 that our ons and offs of Loop 288 are appropriate and safe 7 and have been run by the Txr>o'r people, as well as David 8 SaLmon. 9 And if you chose to take the time and would 10 like to do that, I could walk you through each and every 11 tract tonight and tell you why it's appropriate, but I 12 think I'll not do that unless that's requested. I 13 remember we were here until about 3:00 o'clock last 14 meeting and we'll try not to make that happen tonight. 15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. Go ahead. 16 MR. WELTY: But Our request -- again, we 17 were quite surprised and shocked when we heard the staffh 18 recommendation for denial as of 4:00 o' clock last Friday. 19 Again, we had been working with the staff and the 20 neighbors for months on this project and that's really the 21 first negative comments we got back that we hadn't 22 addressed and didn't have time to address. So we're 23 hopeful that when you hear the neighbors and understand 24 more about what we're trying to do here and the quality of 25 development we're trying to bring to your City, that you Page 63 1 will, indeed, elect to support our request tonight. 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very much. 3 Once again, this is a public hearing. I have several 4 cards of people that would like to speak. I'm still -- 5 and let me restate the fact that if anyone still has a 6 question about Windsor Road, we will be addressing Windsor 7 Road at another more appropriate time. If we could stay 8 with Item No. 9 and Item No. 10 on our Agenda. I 9 don't know whether the neighborhoods have a specific 10 spokesperson or should I just go through the cards as I 11 have them. 12 Ma. SNYDF_~,: YOU don't need a card. 13 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Don't necessarily 14 need a card but there's cards if you'd like to speak right 15 out front there. Dr. Wolski. 16 Da. WOLS~tI: wade Lillie is head of the !17 neighborhood association at Deerwood. 18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. I have 19 several cards at this point in time and being no one has 20 come forth as -- Mr. Lillie, would you like to speak 21 first? Please. As a representative for thc neighborhood 22 and a major voice, at least one of several voices, if 23 you'd care to address the Commission. Please give us your 24 name and address. 25 MR. LmLIE: Thank you. My name is Wade Page 64 I Lillie. I live at 3800 Deer Forest and I am president of 2 the Deerwood Neighborhood Association. 3 Some of the information that we are 4 receiving this evening is probably a complication of the 5 changeover from the old plan to the new plan. When we met 6 -- when we had a neighborhood association meeting and Dr. 7 Wolski and his team came and met with us, the plan that 8 was presented that had the various tracts with the 9 residential, and I'll speak specifically to the east side I 0 of the Loop, with the Neighborhood Residential 4 with the 11 3 up next to Kings Row, I believe that's Tract 1, and then 12 Tract 4 coming down Neighborhood Residential 6, Tract 5 is 13 an NR-6, dropping south from there with a Tract 6, 14 and then moving to Tract 9, NR-6. Tract -- I'm not sure I 15 can read that, it looks like a Tract 7 perhaps where the 16 green area is where the trees are. 17 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: That is 7 and right 18 below that is 12. 19 Ma. LmLm: okay. Tract 7 and then below 20 that 12. The things that were represented to us at that 21 meeting we felt were appropriate and they were fair. I ~22 don't know what the change of nomenclature is going to do 23 to that. We have not been given enough notice to really 24 be able to analyze for ourselves what this means. We know 25 what we felt like we had an agreement with the developer PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2TI'H, 2002 Page 61 - Page 64 CondcnscItTM Page 65 1 regarding what was going to happen with this and we felt 2 like it was acceptable. We felt like that they had made a 3 number of changes. They had listened to the concerns. 4 Some of the major concerns regarding Windsor coming across 5 and tying directly into Farris, we felt that that was not 6 going to be a good thing and that that has been addressed, 7 we hope satisfactorily. 8 But some of the changes they're talking 9 about tonight with the nomenclature, quite frankly, I'm a 10 little uneasy with because I don't know exactly what that 11 means. And so if there's a way that we can make sure that 12 that is locked in as to what the intent was from our 13 meeting that we had previously with the developer, we're 14 going to have to trust P&Z to make sure that we get those 15 things written in as they were intended both from the 16 developer and from the understanding of the neighborhood. 17 And I know that we have several that sent 18 in written comments. I think I attached those to cards 19 and sent those. They will not be speaking but they did 20 want to send written comments. And I think all of those 21 were in support of the plan as was presented at the 22 neighborhood meeting. And then I know that we have other 23 members of the neighborhood who would like to speak and 24 maybe can add some different -- a different angle to some 25 of this and some different concerns, as well. Page 66 1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Lillie, let me 2 suggest that we bring staff back up and address Tracts No. 3 5, 6, 9, 8, and 7. Dr. Wolski has akeady mentioned that 4 he would like to leave Tract No. 12 as it is currently 5 zoned and so we would exclude that. And I don't know 6 whether you had mentioned 4 in your question of proposed 7 tracts but maybe we could get a clarification on that. It 8 sounds like Dr. Wolski was amenable to making the changes 9 and I don't know whether what we have before us reflects I0 that or not. Maybe they can clarify that for the 11 homeowner's association. 12 And our situation as Commissioners is we 13 cannot conditions on what we have here. We need to 14 address a package. Excuse me. Assistant Director 15 Rcichhart. 16 MR. REICHHART: The proposed, the 17 variations on this proposal, I don't know if staff has 18 really had time to analyze what the effect of that is. 19 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And the impact of 20 the -- 21 MR. amC~H~T: The only difference is, and ,22 I've colored this map, these three purple areas are the 23 ones that were originally proposed for NaMU-12 and -- 24 NaMU, excuse me. Dr. Wolski has said that this probably 25 could go to NRMU-12. the only difference in this design, Page 67 1 if all these in this whole area gets converted to NRMU-12, 2 yOU have the same density issue. It removes the argument 3 or the concern that staff has that this is, you know, 100 4 acres of community mixed use where you would have some 5 retail development associated with these NRMU. It is the 6 same density issue that we've expressed all along that we 7 are concerned about the number of multi-family units on 8 this site. 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And the ratio. 10 MR. REICHHART: It removes that huge mixed I use imbalance but it still is the density balance that 2 we're still struggling with. And I don't know if we would 13 have a recommendation one way or the other. 14 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: would you propose 15 that the Wolskis and staff do some more work on this to 16 represent at this point in time now that you know there's 17 some confusion here7 I know we'd like to move along with 18 this, as everyone on our Commission would, and I'm sure 19 the Wolskis would. But there is definitely some, I don't 20 know, either misinformation or unclarification for the 21 homeowners, as well as what we have presented here. What 22 is your recommendation? 23 MR. REICHHART: what I would also like, and 24 staff is more than willing to keep working with the 25 applicant, is to get some direction from this body as to Page 1 your comfort level or your concerns. I mean, if you have 2 the same concerns we have regarding the density, about 3 some of the layout and such, I mean, I think we still need 4 to listen to some more of the neighbors to see if there's 5 additional concerns. I have some points of clarification 6 that I'd like to make before we're done to clear up some 7 additional items, comments that were made. But I think 8 it's also important that we can get some feedback from thc 9 Commission. 10 COMMISSIONER RISI-IEL: okay. I have a whole 11 body of people that would like to speak, Mr. Reichhart, 12 and so I'm anxious to hear from them but I'm sure that if 13 we're confused on this end, that they're going to be 14 confused on that end. I'm just trying to see if there 15 might be a better way to streamline this and yet still 16 hear from the public. Director Powell. 17 MR. eowEuu: well, and I'm not sure if this 18 will answer your question but I think that the last 19 speaker indicated that there was confusion between thc old 20 Code and new Code or the old proposal and the new 21 proposal, the terminology. 22 It is, you know, this is the first zone 23 change under the new Code that was adopted earlier this 24 month. There are obviously differences between an sF-7 25 and an ~m-3, what's allowed, what is NamUq 2, Neighborhood "LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 65 - Page 68 CondenscltTM Page 69 1 Residential Mixed Use, 12 units per acre. That -- trying 2 to define those and trying to explain that to the 3 residents, we could do that. I'm not sure, again, if we 4 could do that tonight to their satisfaction, to your 5 satisfaction. I'd be happy to try. 6 But if that is the question that was 7 raised, I don't want to say it's too complex to handle 8 tonight, but we could try to do that or, if your wish is 9 to set this aside and try to come back with that, a better 10 explanation of what these new districts and what they 11 entail without having to read this entire document, we'd 12 be also happy to do that. 13 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I have 15 or 20 cards 14 of people that would like to speak and we'd love to hear 15 from the public. I'm just wondering if some of that is 16 confusion and some of that is specific issues that they 17 have with regard to getting forth the best plan we 18 possibly can. Commissioner Roy. 19 COMMISSIONER ROY: Yeah. I would like to 20 ask the homeowner's president, Mr. Lillie, you mentioned 21 confusion about the new Code, are you saying that these 22 designations, NR-4, NR-6. and NR-3, those you don't have a 23 good understanding of what that means? 24 MR. LILLIE: The way we were explained that 25 is it would be four units per acre, six units per acre in Page 70 1 the neighborhood residential. I think some of the 2 confusion that has resulted from the change is in these 3 areas that are marked in the purple, particularly for us 4 on the east side of this, as to what that actually means 5 for future growth and development. Does that open up 6 things just because of the nature of the new Code? Does 7 that open up new concems that would not have been there 8 under the old Code? 9 COMMISSIONER ROY: SO if I understand what 10 you're saying, you're relatively comfortable with the 11 NR-4, 3, 5, 6, or whatever that is designations. 12 MR. LILLIE: correct. 13 COMMISSIONER ROY: It's -- your area of 14 discomfort is the NRMU? 15 MR. LILLIE: Correct. And there were lists 16 that were attached to those items in the previous Code 17 that we've not had a chance to see under the new Code as 18 exactly what those mean and we had actually come to an 19 agreement about things related to what types of 20 activities, even to the point of discussing apartment 21 height, that if apartments were built no higher than 22 two-story so that we can maintain those beautiful vistas 23 and you can still see the roiling hills. 24 I know that the neighborhood association would 25 be more than willing to host another meeting with City Page 71 1 staff and with the developer and with thc neighborhood so 2 that we can get some clarification and that might assist 3 with some of those cards because I know some of it deals 4 with questions and some of the concerns that we have about 5 the changeover. 6 COMMISSIONER ROY: Thank you. 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Please come forward. 8 MR. WELTY: One other point of concern I 9 know the homeowners expressed -- 10 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Once again, we have a 11 professional stenographer here so this is Mr. Welty, Bob 12 welty. 13 MR. WeLT'Z: Mr. Welty again, yes. Is -- we 14 had agreed to both limit the uses for these various 15 zonings and had listed those limited uses on the left-hand 16 border of our sheet. We went back and revisited the issue 17 list and if those uses were still allowed in your new 18 zoning classification, we left them on. If they were not 19 allowed, they went away. So we have agreed and want to 20 continue to agree for our neighbors to the limitation of 21 uses which we understand is a difficult thing to do at 22 this point. 23 And then the other thing we elected to 24 limit what was the densities on these various tracts, and 25 we still want some instrument to be able to make them Page 72 1 comfortable that we will not build any more than 18 units 2 on these multi-family tracts. 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Snyder. 4 MR. SNYDER: AS we mentioned, I think, at 5 our work session, under the new Code, you can't put 6 conditions on zoning. Are you proposing some deed 7 restrictions, is that what you're proposing? 8 MR. WELTY: Deed restrictions would be 9 fine. 10 MR. SNYDER: We wouldn't enforce those, tt 11 would be just strictly between the applicant and the 12 neighbors. 13 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Director Powell 14 indicates that he feels that staff and Mr. Reichhart can 15 go through the residential land use categories and perhaps 16 clarify that for us and maybe educate us both and we will 17 all understand a little bit better where we're coming 18 from. So I'm going to have Mr. Rcichhart present a brief 19 summary of what we would be establishing land use wise. 20 MR. REICHHART: The proposed NRMU category 21 allows a mixture of uses. It allows both residential with 22 -- as multi-family up to 30 units per acre and it allows a 23 number of com2nercial or retail uses. Permitted by right 24 are hotels, a bed and breakfast, retail sales and services i25 are limited to a size, theaters less than 10,000 square ?LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 69 - Page 72 CondcnscltTM Page 73 1 feet are permitted with limitation, restaurants and 2 private clubs are permitted with limitations. I believe 3 that limitation is 5,000 square feet, no take out. It has 4 to be a sit down restaurant. Professional services and 5 offices are also permitted. There's a limitation. I 6 believe that limitation is 10,000 square feet. 7 Both the limitation on the retail sales and 8 services and professional services and offices are uses 9 limited to no more than 25,000 square feet, excuse me, 10 gross floor area per use, except a grocery store which may 11 be higher with an approval of an sue. 12 And, again, those areas are identified on 13 this map as the purple areas and that is, because of that 14 mixture of uses that are allowed in these districts, not 15 necessarily what the applicant's plan is but what is 16 allowed under those districts, would combine with this 17 orange area, agait), which is a Conuuunity Mixed Use. And 18 we can go through those also which allow the same similar 19 type of uses without limitations. 20 You can have a grocery store of any size 21 and an office complex and a retail development along with 22 multi-family without an sue in those uses. So that, too, 23 is a mixed use area. But our thought was combined with 24 all those, the potential, again, for a lot of retail uses 25 and a lot of density was, is very overpowering for this Page 74 1 site. 2 The NRMU-12 category allows, again, 3 multi-family and that's at 12 units per acre. It does not 4 require an sue. You can do it by right. It also does 5 allow for some retail sales and services with a limitation 6 of the 10,000 square feet. Retail sales and services, as 7 I said, was 10,000 square feet. Professional s~rvices and 8 offices are limited to 5,000 square feet. So that, too, 9 is a mixed use development, although much more reduced in 10 scale. 11 And as has been stated tonight, the way 12 this Development Code is structured, we do not, we cannot 13 put conditions on the zoning. And that, again, goes back 14 to even a road configuration or what type of uses could be 15 allowed or not allowed in any zoning category. 16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Reich_hart, I 17 guess the primary concern is going to be, as we look at 18 the Denton Plan and the Denton Plan cites an ideal 19 development rate of single-family to multi-farn/ly 60-40, 20 Mr. Gray has already said that as we look at the project 21 right now, it represents a 38-62 imbalance to what we 22 would typically have of that ideal 60-40 in our growth 23 plan for the City of Denton. Is that still the case? 24 MR. REICHHART: Yes. 25 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. Page 75 1 MR. REICHHART: And there is not, you know, 2 any one set where each development has to be a unified mix 3 of 60-40, but it is really our thought that the higher 4 density should really be concentrated around the 5 universities, although there will be multi-family areas 6 outside that core around the universities. 7 COMMISSIONER MULROY: A point of order, Mr. 8 Chairman, the purpose of this presentation was to find the 9 new categories in the Code, not to continue the staff's 10 position. 11 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. 12 Mulroy. We have a couple of questions of Commissioners. 13 Mr. Reichhart, I don't know whether the question is for 14 your or for someone else. Commissioner Keith. 15 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. This is 16 for Mr. Welty. Mr. Welty, in this development how are 17 these tracts going to be execul~l? 18 MR. WELTY: we did meet with the 19 engineering staff a great deal and there is still some 20 question as to whether the City has an adequately sized 21 sanitary sewer system currently to handle this development 22 in total. So we had agreed to phase this project and do 23 the single-family construction in the first phase which we 24 believe the City utilities will handle in their current 25 size. And then phase the other phases in as the utilities Page ' 1 allow that. And that is acceptable to Dr. Wolski. 2 COMMISSIONER KEITH: SO you're, in essence, 3 going to come in and plat out the residential areas and 4 then sell the lots, correct? 5 MR. WEL?Y: sell or develop, yes, sir. 6 COMMISSIONER KEITH: SO are these going to 7 be lots available for tract or custom homes? Tract home 8 being a -- 9 MR. WELTY: I'm not certain who the buyer 10 is in that -- I think we have someone here who can perhaps 11 answer tliat. But the way the lots lay out, they're 12 certainly more laid out in a custom home layout because so 13 many lots are curved and irregular shaped. This isn't a t 4 little square cookie cutter layout. 15 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Yeah. Okay. Next 16 question would be is on your commercial areas, is that -- 17 would you be, in essence, selling that to whomever would 18 want to develop that commercially, correct? Okay. So I 19 take it then, the landowner wouldn't be participating in 20 those particulars of the development, correct? 21 MR. WELTY: Not necessarily. That is 22 correct. 23 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Thank you. 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, 25 Commissioner Keith. Commissioner Mulroy. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 73 - Page 76 CondenseIt ~ Page 77 1 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes. If I could, Mr. 2 Chairman, get back to the tract where -- 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YOU have the floor. 4 COMMISSIONER MULROY: -- the tract that we 5 were on and our concern was with Mr. Lillie, the 6 homeowner's representative, that he indicated that he was 7 uncomfortable with the new terminology. And I would like 8 to address Mr. Lillie and see if enough information has 9 been put forward for you -- 10 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: This is for Mr. 11 Lillie. 12 COMMISSIONER MULROY: -- if enough 13 information has been put forward for your understanding or 14 do you feel like that we ought to continue this to another 15 meeting so you can pursue these new definitions further? 16 MR. LILLIE: Mr. Mulroy, the concerns that 17 we have that impact density, and this may be a matter of 18 what the developer is trying to solve under the new plan. 19 In discussions with the neighborhood association, these 20 tracts through here were indicated to be, I believe, 21 multi-family. And, Dr. Wolski, correct me if I am 22 speaking in error, but it's my understanding that these 23 tracts here were going to be multi-family and that that 24 would be where the apartments would be situated. Is that 25 correct? These areas here? Page 78 1 DR. WOLSKI: That is correct, and we want 2 to keep our agreement with the neighborhood and we'll do 3 deed restrictions or whatever it takes to keep the 4 agreement. 5 MR. LILLIE: In that those multi-family 6 units would not exceed 18 units per acre, and none of us 7 can see the future and so we are interested in making sure 8 that we do have some restrictions that would limit that 9 use. And it sounds like that under the new plan, that if 10 it is approved as such, while we can ask for deed 11 restrictions in the future, is there any type of 12 enforcement action or is there any type of binding? 13 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Let me -- let's back 14 up one step. Under the NRMU, in order to have 15 multi-fmnily, it would have to go through a special use 16 permit process which would be another public hearing 17 process. So there's a layer built in that the public 18 would be heard from again. 19 Additionally, legally, with a deed 20 restriction, it would be there to be enforced and it would 21 be -- have to be a civil action initiated by a citizen but 22 it would be there and should not be a steep legal hill to 23 climb, if it's been violated. 24 MR. LILLIE: In that case, I'd like to open 25 it up. Mr. Pdshel, there's several folks that were Page 79 1 wanting to comment on this. 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: We'd like to do that, 3 too. 4 MR. LILLIE: And if we've got some 5 clarification here as to what the intent of that is and if 6 we can restrict that intent through the sups, then we 7 could go ahead and proceed with hearing what other 8 concerns there may be. 9 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Restricted through 10 deed restrictions but you'd have the extra protection of 11 the SUP process. Thank you, Mr. Lillie. Appreciate your 12 time. 13 MR. LILLIE: Thank you for that 14 clarification. 15 MR. SNYDER: DO yOB want me to clarify it 16 because I think we've -- this zoning classification, NRMU, 17 iS a mixed use classification. Once this is adopted, as 18 far as the zoning is concerned, any use that's allowed 19 under that district, as Mr. Reichhart indicated, will be 20 allowed in this district. To come back and do 21 multi-family, you'd have to come back with an suP. 22 The suP, however -- the suP, however, would 23 not specifically address the other uses, although we 24 could, I suppose, look into that, Doug, to see if we could 25 with a multi-family suP, restrict other uses out of it. Page 80 1 But, generally speaking, the only way we 2 can restrict the uses is through a private agreement 3 between the property owners that the City would not 4 enforce. 5 I just want to make sure you understand 6 that, that this body can't put conditions on the zoning 7 itself. 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Director Powell, did 9 you want to add anything to that? 10 MR. POWELL: NO, I think Mr. Snyder is 11 correct that the sup is only applied to the multi-family 12 that is potentially allowed in this district and would not 13 apply. You could do the retail, the offices that Mr. 14 Reichhart listed by right. 15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. 16 Co~rmaissioner Keith. 17 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. This is 18 for -- I have a question of our attorney down here. There 19 appears to be a lot of cooperation between the developer 20 and the people living in the area that I'm seeing and the 21 concerns of how some of these classifications are going to 22 be used and the topic of deed restrictions are brought up. 23 Is it beyond our capacity or within our 24 capacity to ask them to work out the deed restrictions and 25 bring the whole package to us, and so that way they're PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 77 ~ Page 80 CondenseltTM Page 81 1 happy, work it out before we come in and make our final 2 recommendations? I know we don't enforce them but -- 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Snyder. 4 MR. SNYDER: YOU can't make that a 5 condition. If they decide they want to do that, they're 6 free to do that but you can't make that a condition of 7 your approval. 8 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. That's what I 9 was wanting to know. Thank you. l0 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Roy. 11 COMMISSIONER ROY: YeS. Another question 12 for Mr. Snyder. Again, this is the first case we were 13 facing h~re, and back on the NRMU and the sue required for 14 the multi-family, I'm a little confused. Are you saying 15 that an sup would not come to us for review and approval 16 or disapproval? 17 MR. SNYDER: NO. If you got that 18 impression, that's not what I meant to say. No, it will 19 come to you. It would be like a separate zoning case. It 20 will come to you, you will recommend approval, and it will 21 go on to City Council. 22 COMMISSIONER ROY: And we could recommend 23 approval based on whatever decisions we have reached in 24 the past. There's no new rules about that. 25 MR. SNYDER: That's correct, but all that Page 82 1 would be accomplished would be to add an additional use, a 2 multi-family use. As Mr. Powell indicated, the other uses 3 would still be allowed. 4 COMMISSIONER ROY: well, I noticed that in 5 NR-6 that manufactured housing developments are allowed 6 under an suP. 7 MR. SNYDER: COrrect. But they would have 8 to come back through the process to get that. 9 COMMISSIONER ROY: And what would be the 10 basis, typical basis or an example basis for us to turn 11 down multi-family in NRMU or manufactured housing 12 developments in NR-6? 13 MR. SNYDER: It'S a zoning case just hke 14 any other zoning case. You have broad discretion to 15 either grant it or deny it. It's a legislative act. 16 COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you. 17 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Holt. 18 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Yes. The sUP has an 19 L-4 under it which is permitted as part of a mixed use 20 development of ten acres or mom and only in conjunction 21 with office, retail, or other permitted commercial and 22 institutional uses. So that puts a pretty specific sup on 23 it and not to size that they were -- or units per acre. 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Director Powell would 25 like to clarify. 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 83 MR. POWELL: If I may, we've discussed, and I'm not sure with this body, but the idea that through the suP process -- COMMISSIONER RISHEL: ^nd let's clarify that for our audience, that's special use permit. MR. ?OWELL: -- process which is a public heating before Planning and Zoning Co~ranission, goes onto City Council for their approval. As part of that process, the provision for the ten acres and the mixed use could be waived. I do think it does, the limitation does set a very clear standard and that goes back to the discussion of what the intent of that district is. But we feel that you could, through that process, waive those provisions. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: COma-nissioners, I have a whole body of people that would like to speak. What I would suggest is that I'm anxious to hear them and their comments that they have. I think we can make a more intelligent decision as to which direction we need to go, but I would suggest that, being it's 8:00 o'clock and we've been sitting since 6:00, that we take a short intmnission. And if I could suggest we be back in about 12 minutes and we'll try to resume about 14 minutes after the hour. (Break taken) COMMISSIONER RISHEL: okay. I will resume Page 1 our meeting and we are discussing Item No. 9 and Item 2 No. 10 on our Agenda. We are in the public hearing part 3 of our meeting and I would like to address the public. 4 And the first card that I have before me is Mr. Robert 5 Gorton. Mr. Oorton. 6 MR. GORTON: chairman Rishel, my name is 7 Robert M. Gorton. I reside at 3821 Deer Forest, Denton, 8 Texas, 76208. In our brief recess, a number of the 9 meanbers of our Deerwood Association have talked with Dr. 10 Wolski and his team and we believe that it's probably in 11 our best interest to suggest a continuance of this public 12 hearing to allow for a possible two-week period of time so 13 that staff, members of the neighborhood association, and 14 Dr. Wolski and his developers could meet with us again so 15 that we can address some of the vex5, concerns that have 16 been raised by the Commissioners and ourselves as to some 17 of the new nomenclature. 18 We also would hope to be able to work out 19 the possibility of privately arranging for deed 20 restrictions so that those would be in place before the 21 vote of this Commission as far as the zoning itself, which 22 would help alleviate some of our own fears in the Deerwood 23 neighborhood. 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I appreciate your 25 conunents, Mr. Gorton. We're in the public hearing part of PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2TrH, 2002 Page 81 - Page 84 Condenselt TM Page 85 1 this process so I would like to hear the public and that 2 certainly might be an alternative opportunity for the 3 Commission to make that decision. It sounds like Dr. 4 Wolski and your group have agreed that the two-week 5 contingency -- continuation of this might be appropriate. 6 DR. WO~SKI: It would, but I'd like to hear 7 if there's any other burning issues other than this fuzzy 8 confusion over the nomenclature, I'd like to hear that. 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: That's the way we 10 feel, too. Okay. That would be fine. 11 Once again, this is a public hearing. 12 Anyone else who would like to address this Commission at 13 this time, would you please come forward. Anyone who 14 would like to address the Commission at this time, would 15 you please come forward? If you would give us your name i 16 and address. 17 MS. LILLIE: I'm Nancy Boyd Lillie. I live 18 at 3800 Deer Forest in Denton, 76208. The comments I 19 wanted to make are really more of a general nature. 20 However the zoning ends up going, I feel it's important 21 for our neighborhood, for the integrity of our 22 neighborhood to be maintained. If you look at northeast 23 Denton and see what's being developed out there right now 24 our neighborhood is unique. 25 It is -- the homes are mostly custom built. Page 87 1 possibly make it into, and it sounds like the developers 2 are more than willing to work with you, we would like to 3 hear your concerns. 4 I have several cards of people who would 5 like to speak. I understand there are some people that 6 may need to leave early. If there's anyone who would hke 7 to speak ahead of my card order, if you would come forward 8 at this time. Okay. Seeing no one who is urgent to that 9 speaking, Mr. Wayne Allen, is Mr. Wayne Allen here? 10 MR. ALL~.N: My name is Wayne Alien and I 11 live at 2541 East Windsor. Can we get that on? 12 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Docucam, it will come 13 up. 14 MR. ALLEN: I can only speak for the west 15 side of the development. My property abuts the project 16 and I'm really excited about having a buffer along Loop 17 288 to stop some of the noise because it's very -- it's 18 really noisy at night. It sounds like a drag strip out 19 there. And it will also be nice to have some 20 neighborhood services close as there are down Old North 21 Road, those neighborhood services right in there, they're 22 just great. 23 This is what the Denton Development Plan is 24 about because I've been working on that plan along with 25 Joe and some others and this could be a beautiful area. Page 86 1 We're very proud of our neighborhood. We have people tell 2 us frequently that they didn't -- they wanted to stay in 3 northeast Denton, they wanted to find a home to buy, and 4 there was nothing in our neighborhood so they went south, 5 It's like it's that neighborhood or there's nothing that's 6 fairly new. Everything else is old or it looks like in a 7 couple of years it's going to be a ghetto. Some of the 8 development on 288 north of us is very shoddy housing, 9 thrown up by, you know, cracker boxes that are just this 10 far apart. So that's my concern. 11 The other concern I have is that we do have 12 industrial currently south of us and the farther that 13 industrial comes up close to us or the closer it is to our 14 neighborhood, the less room there is for a buffer. And so 15 I think that should be a consideration. I'm not sure what 16 the proper zoning is in there. Dr. Wolski has been 17 attempting to work with the neighborhood to make sure that 18 there is a transition, but we certainly don't want the 19 only buffer between us and industrial to be multi-family. 20 And so that'~ my other concern. Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Ms. 22 Lillie. Once again, we are interested and concerned 23 about the direction that the citizenry and the Commission 24 would like to see this go. If you could give us some 25 input as to what would make this the best area we could Page 88 1 It's going to be hard to infill the Denton Development 2 Plan but it's going to be wonderful for new developments. 3 I think this one was cut out for it. 4 I'm a little dismayed to hear that -- I 5 went to a meeting at Deerwood Church, a neighborhood 6 meeting to listen to Dr. Wolski present his development. 7 And the young planner over here was there and he was a 8 cheerleader for the project. And now I understand that 9 they're recommending it not to go. That just boils me. 10 That is not the way it should go. They should work with 11 you, level with you, kecrp you going all the way through, 12 and not just come up at the last minute and say, oh, we're 13 not going to recommend passage. That's not the way it 14 should work. 15 And I think that Doug knows how I feel 16 about that sort of thing. I know Larry knows about how I 17 feel about that sort of thing. So maybe we need to -- I 18 think City staff should work really hard at that, making 19 that better. 20 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. Allen. 21 Thank you, sir. The next card I have is Mr. Krueger, 22 Jeff Krueger. 23 MR. KaUEGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 24 Commissioners. My name is Jeff Krueger. I reside at 3905 25 Deer Forest Drive in Denton, Texas. I wanted to talk a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 85 - Page 88 Condcnselt TM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 i1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 89 little bit about some of the opposition reports that you got back. I spoke with -- Thomas gave me the ones he had received as of Monday at about 3:00 o'clock and I called the people who were in opposition to the plan just to ask them one question, I'm not trying to change your mind, what is the reason? I need a reason for your opposition because they didn't have any explanations on their deal. And I wanted to share that with you real brief. I spoke with -- I only -- couldn't get ahold of two people. I left messages at their place. Those were the only two people I didn't get ahold of were the ones I had at the time. But I had -- obviously, we had three people at that time who had written in in favor Page 91 1 representing the petitioner? 2 MR. KRUEGER: well, I'm kind of doing a 3 dual role here. I live -- 4 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Okay. Then if -- we 5 had a chance for the petitioner to present and that 6 opportunity was given. And so if you have some personal 7 comments regarding that, I would like to hear those 8 personal comments. 9 MR. KRUEGER: I do live in Deer Forest 10 which abuts the project. And as Mr. Lillie stated, we are 11 in support of this project as submitted. Now, we are open 12 to make changes and want security from the developer on 13 that side, but we like it as opposed to what the for the deal. But the ones who were opposed, I spoke with a Mr. James Barham who said he was opposed only because of the La Paloma extension. Now, the La Paloma extension is a part -- in your big maps you can see it. It's the part that comes off the future Windsor extension that travels back to the northwest and reconnects eventually with Kings Row. La Paloma comes in there and it ties in. You can see that on your big map. Actually, it's fight here, as well, I believe, this strip right in here. He was opposed not to the development but he was opposed to that particular roadway because he didn't want La Paloma to be extended on and become, in his words, a major thoroughfare. Page 90 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 i22 23 24 25 alternative is and that's the industrial that reaches further north and reaches closer to our homes. And that's our end of it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. Krueger. The next card that I have is Eva Cadwallader. Is Ms. Cadwallader still here at 3920 Fawn Drive? Would Ms. Cadwallader like to present? Okay. I have only that she's uncertain about the presentation, whether it's complete or not. John Eddy, is Mr. Eddy here? Mr. Eddy had to leave. He has numerous comments and I'm sure that Page C we'll get those clarified as we go through our discussion. 1 2 And that's the common theme of all the 3 people that I talked to. They had no opposition to the 4 development. They didn't have opposition to the density. 5 They like the fact that it buffers. They like the fact 6 that way down here is heavy, you know, you have heavy 7 industry, you have light industry, buffered with 8 multi-family, NR-6. NR-4, all the way up to where the 9 present neighborhoods are. They like the concept and they 10 like the idea. - 11 I talked to Mr. James Matlock who had some 12 flooding issues and he -- I don't know if Mr. Matlock came 13 here tonight. He just had some issues about what it would 14 do to his property when we have -- t referred him to the 15 City staff to talk to their engineers to detennine that we 16 had a really good product here from our on-site storage. ~ 17 I spoke with Ms. Dorothy Tamplen who was not necessarily 18 opposed to the project. She just didn't know enough about 19 it. And so she was to attend tonight's meeting and 20 subsequent meetings, if we would. 21 The Tolbcrts, they sent in one for him, one 22 for his wife, and one for, I think, his daughter. They 23 made copies. But their opposition is, again, to the 24 extension of Windsor Drive. 25 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Krueger, arc you 2 Liz Irvine, is Ms. Irvine here? 3 I-R-V-I-N-E on Quail Ridge, 2553 Quail Ridge. No Ms. 4 Irvine. Okay. 5 And C.C. Springer was opposed to the 6 development but did not wish to co~ument. 7 James Irvine, is Mr. Irvine here? Would 8 you like to comment? Once again, indicates that he was 9 opposed to the development mostly because of traffic, 10 multi-fmuily concerns. 11 Randall Smith, is Mr. Smith here? Mr. 12 Smith, I'm going to have you address us at this point in 13 time. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Come forward. 14 MR. SMITH: My name is Randall Smith, 829 15 Tealwood Circle, Flower Mound, 75028. I would like to 16 withhold my con'nuents until the next meeting. 17 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: That would be fine. 18 If you have some constructive input for us, we'd certainly 19 like to receive it at this time though. 20 MR. SMITH: I'll just say I worked for Dr. 21 Wolski on this project since 1998. We've had a number 22 homeowners' meetings. We've worked with the neighbo: 23 We considered the topography, the trees in laying this 24 out. We've actually moved roads around to avoid trees. I 25 think what we've got is a pretty good plan and I think we PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 89 - Page 92 CondenseltTM Page 93 1 pretty much agree that we'll change all the NRMU to 2 NRMU-12. we'd even like to extend it across to Cooper 3 Creek Road. 4 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: when we get the 5 clarification done, would you like to represent? 6 MR. SMITH: Yes, please. 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: That would be fine. 8 Thank you, Mr. Smith. 9 MR. SMITH: That would be the best thing to 10 do. Thank you. 11 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YOU bet. I have a 12 card from, I believe it's Tom Dirickson. I've only known 13 him for years and if only he could write legibly I would 14 have it made. 15 MR. DIRICKSON: I'm capable of doing it. 16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Tom, thank you very 17 much. Give your name and address, if you would, please. 18 MR. DIRICKSON: My name is Tom Dirickson. 19 I'm an attorney. I live and reside at 956 Valley View 20 Drive, Lewisville, Texas. 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And would you tell us 22 your interest in this project. 23 MR. DIRICKSON: I am the owner of 24 approximately 45 acres. I call it my little Nevada 25 section given the color scheme in the upper right-hand Page 94 1 comer there, outside that. 2 Originally, I counted myself as one of 3 those who was in opposition to this product or process, 4 but I now count myself as being in favor of it, in support 5 of the process and procedure. The reason, it's balanced 6 and it's appropriate. And I would also hazard to say that 7 the Irvine's objections, by and large, are directed toward 8 Kings Row and not toward the development. And Pm just in 9 wholehearted support of the project at this point in time. 10 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very much, 11 sir. 12 Charlice Kruger did not wish to speak. Had 13 SOllle concerns with deed restrictions and covenants, 14 attachments, multi-family, density, and other issues. And 15 it sounds like we may get those worked out yet. 16 Ms. Ferguson. And, once again, Ms. 17 Ferguson did not wish to speak. She has, see attached. 18 She has some comments that we'll take into consideration. 19 And we appreciate that. Would Ms. Ferguson care to speak 20 at this point in time now that she's heard where we are? 21 Okay. 22 Brenda and James Larsen, once again, they 23 did not wish to speak. Had a see attached, also, with ,24 some comments on that. Did they wish to speak at this 25 point in time? No. Okay. And they indicated originally Page 95 1 that they were in support of the development. 2 Excuse me. Mr. Cox, is Mr. Cox here? And, 3 once again, he said he did not wish to speak. He had a 4 comment sheet and we'll add those to our minutes and go 5 from there. And, once again, he said he was in support of 6 the project but did not wish to speak. 7 Kim Kelly, is Klm Kelly here? Would they 8 like to speak? Once again, in support of the argument and 9 had an E-mail attached and we will note that. 10 I have several other cards from Marjorie I 1 Nelson. Ms. Nelson, would you like to speak? Would not 12 like to speak. She has some comments regarding mostly 13 development with regard to Windsor and the Loop and 14 reflects back to the 40-60 density in the Denton Plan and 15 that being a concern, and then Old North Road and some 16 other things and we'll have those comments. So thank you 17 very much. 18 Mr. Staniszewski, being I'm one of only 19 three people that could pronounce that name~ Please. 20 Yes, sir. 21 MR. STANISZEWSKI: My nmaae is Ray 22 Staniszewski. I live at 3605 Antler Circle, 76208, and 23 that's in Deerwood. And my concern is not necessarily 24 with the proposed project as Dr. Wolski is presenting it. 25 He is saying what his intent is, NR-4 here and NR-6 here, Page 96 1 but my concern is the apparent disparity between what the 2 zoning uses or proposed zoning uses, the multi use and 3 stuff, versus what his intent is. And my concern stems 4 from the fact that once that property is sold, the person 5 that buys that can do whatsoever is under that zoning, 6 deed restrictions and whatever aside. 7 And what I'm hearing from y'all is that the 8 City is not going to enforce deed restrictions. One of us 9 would have to take, on a case by case basis, somebody to 10 court to try to override that. And in my experience, deed i 1 restrictions are often overridden. They get -- I know in 12 our own neighborhood we had cases where people presented a 13 change or a request for an exception to the deed 14 restriction. I think without exception they were 15 accepted. 16 So I would second what Mr. Lillie has 17 already said and that is if we could postpone this pending 18 us getting more information. I would say if the intent is 19 to do NR-4 here or NR-6 here, then that's the way it 20 should be zoned so that it matches up with the intent, 21 rather than have it zoned in a way that allows much more 22 to happen then what might be originally intended. And at 23 some point, the original developer is going to be out of 24 the picture, you know, where does that leave the 25 homeowners? Thank you. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 93 - Page 96 CondenseltTM Page 97 1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. 2 Staniszewski. That completes my cards that I had. If 3 anyone would still like to address the Commission, if you 4 would come forward at this time. Anyone who would like to 5 address the Cmmmission, please come forward at this time. 6 Once again, this is a public hearing. 7 Seeing no one who would like to address the Commission, I 8 have several questions from the Commissioners. Would you 9 mind if I close the public hearing, Commissioners? I'm 10 looking -- I may need a motion here. Commissioner Roy. 1 1 COMMISSIONER ROY: I would like to ask Mr. 12 Snyder a question about procedure for just a moment. In 13 the interest of responding to the developer's request for 14 key issues that he would like to hear, I was approached by 15 two people who live on the west side outside the room in 16 which they had to leave. They had to go pick up their 17 daughter from some situation. Can I bring up their points 18 that they brought to me and mention them at this time? 19 MR. SNYDER: I don't know that your rules 20 specifically speak to that, but probably the better 21 procedure would be to continue the public hearing and give 22 them an opportunity to come back at the next meeting and 23 testify. 24 COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you. 25 MR. SNYDER: I don't know if you'd be Page 98 1 violating your rules but the normal practice is to receive 2 with public comments at the public hearing. 3 COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you, 4 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: coramissioner Holt. 5 COMMISSIONER HOLT: I make a motion to 6 close the public hearing. 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I'm wondering if you 8 want to close the public hearing or continue the public 9 hearing that we could move this to a date certain. It 10 sounds to me like we still have some questions and if we 11 left it open, then we could continue the discussion. 12 That's just a suggestion on my part. I have a couple of 13 other Commissioners but you have the floor, Commissioner 14 Holt. It is not closed and we might prefer to leave it 15 open is my statement if we want to continue this. You 16 have a question for the developer. Mr. Wolski. 17 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Have you talked at all 18 to the school district? 19 OR. WOt. SKI: I believe Jeff Krueger did. 20 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: would you have Mr. 21 Krueger come forward? 22 MR. KRUEGER: Yes, Conunissioner, they met 23 in a'Development Review Committee meeting with the staff 24 and Mr. Holloway, Gene Holloway, along with City staff 25 when we had the original DRC meeting. So we have met with Page 99 1 the school district. 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YOU still have a 3 question for Mr. Krueger? 4 COMMISSIONER HOLT: well, I wanted to get 5 that clarified. 6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: sure. 7 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Then I have a couple of 8 statements where we are here. 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: okay. Thank you, 10 Jeff. You have the floor, Ms. Holt. 11 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Dr. Wolski has stated 12 earlier that he would like to hear something from the 13 Commissioners. And I think that because this has been 14 delayed, delayed, delayed, I think now is the time that we 15 need to say something. Here are a few of my concerns, so 16 I'll be the first. 17 We're looking at 536 single-family units 18 and 863 multi-fmnily units and we have no school site 19 anywhere around. We've got two schools pretty close but 20 they're full and I'm really concerned about this. And 21 there's a lot of area in here that we could have a school 22 site. I think that would be something that would be i23 beneficial to the City and to the school district. 24 I am a little bit -- I'm not a little bit, 25 I'm concerned about the density. And I feel like that we' Page 1! 1 could have a situation h~re that looks like Wal-Mart with 2 all of this multi-family, commercial lined up here right 3 along 288 and then there are two ways to get on. And with 4 one area coming out of Windsor, this just looks like it 5 would -- I mean, I need more clarification of how this is 6 going to work in that sense. 7 What do you plan to put on these exactly? 8 What kind of businesses do you want? And I know it' s 9 described here and you probably don't know yet, but I i0 think for all the people that live to the west and all the 11 people up in Deer Park and that area, we need to know 12 what's going to surround us exactly. And that's what 13 we're worried about. I mean, I live close to this area, 14 too, and this will impact me a lot. 15 And it looks -- it is a gorgeous piece of 16 property and we -- but we need the services and we all 17 know we need the services around there. So I think 18 everybody is really open to development of this, but we 19 just don't want to see it developed so tight that it just 20 bottlenecks all of us. It's going to bottleneck all of 21 these people to the west. We're already bottlenecked in 22 with University Drive and with no access to Loop 288 and 23 Windsor would be the only way. 24 And then you're adding in 536 single-family 25 and 863 multi-fa~rdly, that's a lot of people. We're PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 97 - Page 100 CondenseltTM Page 101 1 afraid it's going to be exactly like way out on Teasley 2 Lane. 3 So those are some of my concerns and I just 4 feel like that maybe now was the time to get them out 5 there and you could discuss it with your public. 6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, 7 Commissioner Holt. Commissioner Keith. 8 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. A request 9 of Commissioner Holt, if I may. I can't hear you too 10 well. When you speak, would you pull your mike closer, 11 please. 12 COMMISSIONER HOLT: okay. 13 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. And also 14 in conjunction with Commissioner Holt is the access to 15 Loop 288. As she pointed out, you have a lot of density 16 in here. I would like to have it put that on our next 17 meeting that the Kings Row issue be included in our 18 discussion. 19 I mean, this is going to impact that whole 20 area. And having just Windsor Drive to be the only way ol 21 getting across, as well as off and on Loop 288 with this 22 additional population, this is something the City really 23 needs to exmrfine, as well as -- I know that this property 24 up towards Kings Row isn't part of the developer's 25 responsibility but I think we, as the Cmranissioners, Page 102 1 should make this part of it because it is going to have 2 such an impact on the traffic flow. And we need to 3 examine this and see if this Mobility Plan of closing this 4 down is really the wise choice or not. Can that be put in 5 the motion in some way? 6 MR. SNYDER: we're looking at-- 7 COMMISSIONER KEITH: In the topic of the 8 next -- 9 MR. SNYDER: Can P&Z initiate a Mobility 10 Plan change? That's what we're looking up right now. I 11 would think they can but -- 12 MR. REICHHART: I believe they can but I 13 mean, t hey could also put it on for discussion, the 14 topic. Well, as part of a briefing on where we are and 15 what's proposed for that and when it's proposed. 16 COMMISSIONER KEITH: SO we can add that 17 into our -- 18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: We can request that 19 in our -- 20 MR. SNYDER: I believe that the Planning 21 and Zoning Commission can initiate a Comprehensive Plat 22 amendment. That's what that would be, right? 23 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Mulroy. 25 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes, I have a Page 103 1 question for Dr. Wolski. Dr. Wolski, if you can bracket 2 this in broad terms and as broad a timeframe as possible, 3 what do you anticipate the build-out for the development 4 in total? Are we talking five, 10, 15 years? How do you 5 anticipate it unfolding? 6 DR. WOLSKI: well, Denton is on the wave of 7 an explosive growth that's going to hit Denton any time 8 now and I expect the single-family will go pretty quickly. 9 The co~ranercial will never go there until you have an [0 overpass. And there's money to design the overpass but 11 there's no funding for the overpass. So the multi-family 12 probably, the commercial, the community mixed use, I don't 13 see that happening until a bridge is there. 14 We've done traffic studies, too. That's 15 another thing is them was an issue about the traffic. 16 Our traffic engineers say the development we've got phased 17 now, there will be not very much wait time. And David 18 Salmon could probably address that a lot better. But 19 that's a big "if" is the overpass. 20 COMMISSIONER MULROY: SO can we quantify 21 this a little bit? Let's say single-family, by the time 22 you design the utilities and streets, you're six months to 23 a year before lots are available. 24 DR. WOLSKI: Probably. And that would be 25 on certain areas. The NR-3 that we're proposing, we've Page 104 I got a church interested in 15 acres there and we've had 2 some interest in other areas, too. But, you know, I'm not 3 saying all the single-family will go but some of it will 4 in the next, probably in the next year. 5 COMMISSIONER MULROY: SO if you'll help my 6 understanding through this, if this is year one, then the 7 beginning of year two, you're going to have a percentage 8 of your single-fro'ally start to actually break ground and 9 build houses. Year three is probably more single-family. 10 Year four, hopefully, are you anticipating the bridge 11 being done by year four or year five? 12 DR. WOLSKI: There's no money for it right 13 now. We're waiting for a bond issue. The next bond issue 14 we're going to try to -- the money, there's $500,000.00 15 committed to design it but there's no money to build it 16 yet. We're waiting for the next bond issue and probably 17 try to propose that. 18 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. So that would 19 be -- the next bond issue is about 2003 or 2004. They :20 have to pass the bond issue and you'd be in the cue for 21 either the first all the way up to the fifth year. So 22 somehow relative to today -- 23 DR. WOLSKI: I don't anticipate it 24 happening overnight. This might be a ten-year project. 25 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Realistically, four PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 101 - Page 104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .20 21 22 23 24 25 Condcnsclt m Page 105 or five years for the bridge, then you anticipate your conmnercial and hotel and type of shopping centers coming on-line then? DR. WOLSKI: Possibly. COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. So I'rn just trying to bracket. It's not all going to happen tomorrow morning or next year. We're probably looking at seven to 10 year build-out for maybe 70 percent of what we're looking at. DR. WOLSKI: correct. This is a very big project. COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: Yes. A comment and I understand that the developer -- I'm waiting for Mr. Reichhart, to get his attention. Mr. Reichhart, I understand the developer has agreed tonight to change all the request of NRMU to NRMU-12 and that is a step in the right direction; is that correct, as far as your staff is concerned? MR. REICHHART: I don't know if we've totally analyzed that. And as I said, in talking with Dr. Wolski it's not only just these three pockets of NRMU, it's also additional tracts to the east in order to maintain the stone development. It's going to be the exact Page 106 1 same development as proposed in the PD, straight 2 multi-family at different densities and single-family. It 3 wouldn't have the mixed use component if you go straight 4 NRMU-12. and we still believe it's too dense. 5 COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you. And 6 the second point I'd like to make is that in an earlier 7 public hearing, the residents on the west side, there were 8 several of them who came to us and talked about their 9 existing homes were in the floodplain, and I'm concerned 10 about how this development, in conjunction with the 11 Albertson's development, will affect those existing homes. 12 And I haven't heard anything tonight that 13 addresses that and I would request the developer in future 14 meetings to specifically address that issue for us and try 15 to alleviate that concern on my part and I suspect it's 16 still there on the part of the homeowners. Thank you. ~17 COMMISSIONER MULROY: commissioner Powell. 18 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, Mr. 19 Chairman. I have a couple of cmrmaents since this appears 20 to be the comment time. I'm with Mr. Keith, I don't 21 believe it' s conceivable that we talk about this without 22 bringing in Kings Row. It's part of this area. You can't 23 cross the interstate there -- excuse me, you can't cross 24 the Loop now without it and it's going to be a long time 25 that you can cross the Loop without it so we need to talk Page 107 1 about it. That's number one. 2 Number two, it's inconceivable to me that 3 by this time after all these months, Dr. Wolski and his 4 staff and the City and their staff can't get their act 5 together and come to us with a joint proposal that we can 6 vote yes or no on. And God bless Dr. Wolski. I don't 7 mean to raise my voice, sir, because you probably saved my 8 1/fe one day during a medical procedure. You may not 9 remmnber it but maybe you shouldn't have. Maybe I 10 wouldn't be so upset here. I am upset. I'm upset because 11 nobody will bring to me and the rest of this Commission 12 something we can vote yes or no on. We continue to get a 13 thing we can't get our hands on. 14 Well, it would be okay if we did this up 15 here and we changed that over there. Well, bologna. I 16 want something brought to this Commission that is solid. 17 And I prefer that the staff and Dr. Wolski get together 18 and bring something together. The neighborhood knows what 19 they want. I think I know what you want. But nobody will 20 ever -- this is like the third or fourth time now nobody 21 will bring to us something we can vote on. And if you 22 can't get together with staff, and that won't shock me, 23 then you bring a proposal and you bring something that you 24 can lay in front of us and you say -- in front of me and 25 you say, Commissioner Powell and Chairman and members, I Page 1(. 1 can't get together with staff. I want you to vote on this 2 and I have it written out and here's the motion. 3 Don't come to us again with something that 4 says, well, it's not quite like this. We're going to 5 reduce this over here. That's nuts. I'm tired of that. 6 It's time to get real. You've spent a ton of money here. 7 Help us out. Help us help you. Help us help the City. 8 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: conunissioner Powell, 10 thank you very much. I would like to remind the 11 Commissioners though that this is, in fact, the first 12 major development we've had under the new Development Code 13 and I think nobody has been shot yet. 14 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I understand, sir, 15 but it's like the third or fourth time it's been before 16 under the old Code or the new Code. l '7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I understand. But we 18 do have a new Code that we're trying to work with and 19 everybody is trying to learn a little bit more about it. 20 So I appreciate your patience. Commissioner Keith. ,21 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Yes. I have a 22 question to ask Mr. Reichhart, please. Your last time at 23 the well, you mentioned a certain area that you didn't 24 like the density. 25 MR. REICHHART: That's correct. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2TI'H, 2002 Page 105 -Page 108 CondcnseltTM Page 109 1 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Which part of 2 that? 3 MR. REICUU~d~T: well, I think the mix of 4 multi-family to single-family is too heavy on the 5 multi-family. 6 COMMISSIONER ~:EITH: why do you think that? 7 MR. RE[CHHART: Because I think the 8 Compreheasive Plan says overall City-wide that we're 9 supposed to have a 60-40 mix of single-family to 10 multi-family and this mix says just the opposite. We'll 11 take -- we haven't done the math but we could probably do 12 it and figure out how many additional single-family houses 13 without any multi-family just to get us back to where we 14 are now, let alone get us to the direction that the 15 Comprehensive Plan says we should be in. 16 Additionally, I think we're opposed to the 17 amount of NRMU because of the mixed use characteristics of 18 that and the community mixed use center. 19 COMMISSIONE~R KEITH: okay. Thank you. I 20 second -- I would just like to say I appreciate 21 Commissioner Powell's voicing of get this show on the 22 road, bring something we can have more tangible. I would 23 like to ask the staff to really work with Dr. Wolski and 24 the community and bring something so that next time this 25 thing can get going. We've got a lot of other issues Page 110 1 coming down the pike, a lot of other requests, and we've 2 been on this one particular one now for almost over two 3 hours. Thank you very much. 4 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, I 5 appreciate those co,torrents. I'm going to remind us where 6 we are. We are still in the midst of the public hearing. 7 Anyone else who would like to conunent from the audience 8 regarding Item No. 9 or Item No. 10 on our Agenda? 9 Anyone else who would like to cormnents from the 10 audience? Seeing no one, Co~m'nissioner Powell. 11 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Chairman, if I 12 may, sir, I'd like to move that we continue Items 9 and 13 10 and the public hearings associated with Items 9 and 14 10 until the next regular meeting of this Zoning 15 Commissioner. I don't have the date in front of me, if 16 you would fill me in on that. 17 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I have the date in 18 front of me, and one of the comments was to learn more 19 about the Mobility Plan and I might suggest that we 20 perhaps do that as a Briefing at the next meeting, if that 21 would help you and the neighbors in that area as opposed 22 to a -- and maybe learn more whether they want to try to 23 amend the Mobility Plan at some future time or not. But 24 the date certain, and I don't know whether the 25 neighborhood needs to have some more time to get togethe~ Page 111 i with the developer or what the case is, might be either a 2 date certain of March the 13th or March the 27th. One 3 would be two weeks out and one would be four weeks out. 4 What have you suggested? 5 COMMISSIONER POWELL: My suggestion, sir, 6 would be that we allow Dr. Wolski and his staff to work 7 that out either the 13th or the 27th, if that's something 8 I can do without causing a problem here. 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: counsel Snyder would 10 like to address that. 11 MR. SNYDER: NO. We would have to continue 12 this to a date certain because of the public notice. Let 13 me point out something else, too, that if the intent of 14 this Commission is to act on a recommendation of the 15 Mobility Plan for that street, our rules require, that's 16 what we were checking on earlier, we advertise that in the 17 newspaper and it's our understanding that we're past the 18 date to advertise that for the March 13th meeting. If you 19 just wanted to treat it as a Briefing Session, we could do 20 that on March 13th but the actual action item couldn't be 21 until March 27th for the Comprehensive Plan amenchuent, 22 Mobility Plan amendment. 23 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I will then make it 24 part of my motion for March the 13th and ask for a 25 Briefing Session on the Mobility Plan. I don't think it Page 112 1 was -- I'll just end it there. Thank you. 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I have a motion. Is 3 thea:e a second? 4 COMMISSIONER APPLE: second. 5 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It's been moved by 6 Commissioner Powell and seconded by Commissioner Apple 7 that we continue Item No. 9 and Item No. 10 to a date 8 certain, that's March 13th, and have a Briefing at that 9 same meeting, presumably before on the Agenda item the 10 discussion of 9 and 10 on this particular Agenda. Any 11 further discussion? Commissioner Keith. 12 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Yes. The question I 13 have is on the Mobility. We'll just be discussing this 14 regarding the Kings Row issue? How will that be handled? 15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I think Mr. Salmon 16 and staff would be able to brief us on where we are with 17 the status of the development of the Mobility Plan in that 18 particular area. And if you have a recommendation for 19 trying to put forth a motion, we would probably want to do 20 that at a date that would be probably four weeks beyond 21 that, if you want to modify the Mobility Plan, would be my 22 understanding just for notification purposes. If you just 23 want to learn more about it, a Briefing would certainly be 24 appropriate before the discussion of this particular 25 development. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2TrH, 2002 Page 109 - Page 112 CondcnscltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 113 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further comments or questions? We have a motion on the floor. Seeing no further discussion, please vote. Motion carries 7-0. Thank you very much, audience and gallery. We appreciate your participation, your input in this important part of our discussion and we'd like to thank you very much. Item No. 11 on the Agenda is future Agenda items. I think it has been generally concurred, I don't know if we need to vote on that or not, that we have a Briefing. Since it's been part of our motion, I presume we will. We'll make sure that that's ahead of the Agenda item discussion. Assistant Director Reichhart, future Agenda items, do you have -- I think we had some items we might have discussed. MR. REICHHART: The only item that we'd like to add to a Work Session at the next meeting is regarding conservation easements or districts, excuse me. What we would like to propose is to have that Work Session starting at 5:30 while you're eating dinner and it should only take about a half hour. If it runs five, 10, 15 minutes later -- COMMISSIONER RISHEL: we would post our meeting as starting at 5:30 and ask you to meet in the work session room and the regular scheduled meeting would Page 114 be immediately following that. And that may be 6:00 o'clock or 6:15 or 6:30 but we don't think it will be that long. But our regular meeting would start at 5:30 as opposed to tacking on something at the end of our meeting. Does that meet with everyone's approval? Do we need to vote on that? No. Everyone agrees. Okay. That would be gmat. Thank you, Mr. Reich_hart. Thank you, staff and Conunissioners. (Adjournment) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 2002 Page 113 - Page 114 t,;on~lonSolt 5 6 7 8 9 i0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, any of Mr. Carruthers? Any further of Mr. Gray? Once again, this is a public Anyone else who would like to address regarding Item No. 10 on p Seeing no one else that ~ like to address I will close thc' heating on Item No. Gray,.anything d like to add? Commissioner Roy. No. 10. t RISHEL: moved by Apple. Any Seeing no further Item No. 10 carries 7-0. will bring us to 11 on our Agenda. And Item No. 11 on our docucam. And this is Item No. Gray will present. M~. o~Y: This is the final plat of Lot 1, Block 1 of the Kwik Laundry Mat Addition. If this looks 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Page 19 add, Mr. Gray? MR. OP, AY: staff has nothing further. RISHEL: okay. Holt. ~. HOLT: I'll move approval. COMMISSIONER 1[ motion and I sec motion, I Please. she made the got it. ' ' Holt and seconded by Any further discussion? If there's no further if you'd please vote. Thank you, _ 0v_--2v~: ...... I~.. Ilv. 11 .... '.~ 0 ~. This brings us to something we requested as 16 a Commission the last meeting we had regarding a brief 17 staff report regarding the Denton Mobility Plan and some 18 further specifications on the Kings Row area. Mr. Salmon 19 will present. This is Item No. 12 on our Agenda. 20 MR. SALMON: on the overhead is a copy of 21 the City of Denton Mobility Plan. And I believe all of 22 the Commissioners should have had a colored copy in their 23 packets. 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Salmon, let me 25 interrupt just briefly. One of the things we had Page 20 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 familiar, it's because you recently approved the replat for this development. meets the requirements of the subdivision and and staff COMMISSIONER RISHEL: COMMISSIONER HOLT: So ;lONER RISHEL: It'S hearing. heating. you. Is the present on Item No. 11' MR. with Kwik here to answer open the Holt. HOLT: public That's okay. Thank would they like to I'm Eric Smith Road in Dallas. Just Mr. Smith. tolt. That's okay. -- let me hearing. This is a public Item No. our Agenda. Anyone who to speak or against Item No. 11 at this time come forward. Anyone for or -~ would you please come forward at this time. one who would like to speak, I will close the publ hearing for Item No. 11. And anything else you'd like 1 ~ regarding some of the items still to come forth on our 2 Agenda were things specifically related to the Loop 288 3 thing and the Kings Row area. So if we have anybody 4 that's in the audience or in the viewing area down below, 5 they might want to join us here. And if we have -- 6 hopefully, we'll be able to answer any questions that they 7 might have specific to transportation and mobility. And 8 that was our desire in bringing this forth at this point 9 in our Agenda, and then moving onto the things that might 10 be neighborhood conc~ns. Thank you, Mr. Salmon. 11 MR. SALMON: Again, the City of Denton 12 Mobility Plan is on the overhead. I know the area that -- 13 the specific request to talk about was the northeast 14 quadrant, specifically in the Windsor/Kings Row area, Loop 1'5 288, which would be up in this area, on this area of thc 16 map. 17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER IN THE AUDIENCE: we 18 can't hear him or see it. 19 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: EXCUSe me. Someone 20 can'thear. We'll try to talk a little louder. And 21 you're having trouble seeing it. Okay. You might move it 22 up a little bit on the docucam and if we can get maybe a 23 little bit clarity on that. 24 MR. SALMON: Well, and I do have a larger 25 map to move to once I get done with the general -- PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 17 - Page 20 ~onocnscl~ Page 21 1 COMMISSIONER KISHEL: And if you would 2 point specifically to whatever areas you're worldng with, 3 maybe that will help the audience a little bit. Let us 4 know if there's anything else we can do to accommodate 5 that. Please proceed, Mr. Salmon. 6 MR. SALMON: One of the things I wanted to 7 illustrate by this particular map was the fact that Loop 8 288 all the way around the north side of the City is 9 designated as a freeway on our Mobility Plan, which is 10 different than our previous Mobility Plan. Our previous 11 Mobility Plan showed Loop 288 as just being an urban 12 arterial similar to the existing section of Loop 288 that 13 goes down by the mall with driveways and at-grade street 14 intersections. What makes this section of Loop 288 15 different, and you can see it's a slightly different color 16 on your map than the rest of the Loop, is that a freeway 17 only allows access at interchanges. It does not allow 18 direct access. So it actually becomes more like 1-35, I 19 guess, in that you can't put a driveway or a direct street 20 connection. 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Point tO point 22 travel 23 MR. SALMON: what prompted that change in 24 the Mobility Plan is that we were informed by the -- 25 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Salmon, would you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 :15 16 17 18 19 20 Page 22 put the other map up and then maybe it will be a little bit clearer to some people specific to that area and what -- that detail might help visuahze for them. MR. SALMON: The reason the north side of the City was -- the Loop 288 around the north side of the City was changed to a freeway is that the Texas Department of Transportation indicated to the City that it was more 21 22 23 24 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 23 I allow a city to remove a truck route from a State highway. 2 But -- and, again, they follow it up and 3 said, well, you know, if Loop 288 around the north side of 4 the City was a freeway and had controlled access rather 5 than driveways and an at-grade intersection, I think we 6 would be more open to the idea of taking the truck route 7 off of University Drive and routing it around the north 8 side of the City. 9 So we had those two factors that prompted 10 the change of Loop 288 from being an urban arterial to a 11 freeway. And, of course, since that time we've been 12 successful in moving the mack route off of Highway 380 13 and we actually have been successful in, I guess, 14 obtaining some funding toward the design of this northwest 15 quadrant of the Loop. So, you know, some of the things 16 that we talked about with thc State earlier on, before we 17 did this, are starting to fall into place. 18 The reason I went through that is because a 19 lot of what I just said predicates, you know, what's 20 happened with Windsor and Kings Row in terms of the 21 Mobihty Plan. Obviously, again, with Loop 288 being a 22 freeway, we can't have, in the long-term, Kings Row or 23 Windsor being at-grade intersections. 24 On the previous Mobility Plan, both Kings 25 Row and Windsor Drive were shown as arterials with Page '. at-grade intersections with Loop 288. And, obviously, having to change to grade-separated intersections which is, in other words, an interchange rather than just the plain intersection, those are very, very costly to build and it's hard to get funding for those. And in addition to that, they have to be approved by the Texas Department of Transportation. likely that we would be able to obtain funding for -- I'll have to put thc other map back up to illustrate this. Thc section of the Loop around the northwest comer of the City, it would complete -- right now, the Loop comes around, starts at Highway 380, and comes all the way over to 35~ But in order to get funding for the next piece that goes from 35 down to 380 West and to expedite that funding, the State, Texas Department of Transportation indicated that if we changed the section of road to a freeway rather than just an arterial, it would probably be funded faster. The other thing that prompted the change to a freeway rather than just a plain urban arterial was that we wanted to move mack traffic off of Highway 380 going through the middle of town. And, again, the Texas Department of Transportation typically doesn't - it's very unusual for the Texas Department of Transportation to 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~25 So given what was going on in the neighborhood and given the expense of providing grade-separated intersections on Loop 288, Kings Row was downgraded to a collector street rather than an arterial. Windsor Drive remained an arterial just as it was on the previous Mobility Plan, but rather than a grade-separated intersection -- but rather than a grade intersection, it's a separated intersection or an interchange. I know there's been some questions about, well, what's going to happen to Kings Row and I think there's probably been a little bit of misinformation or maybe just a misunderstanding. Just because the Mobility Plan does not show Kings Row, I guess, connecting to anything in particular, it doesn't mean that Kings Row i going to become a dead end or it's not going to go anywhere. And I think that was the next point I wanted ._ bring out was the fact that, according to the Mobility Plan, Kings Row is not going to have a direct connection Page 21 - Page 24 T,,.,,,OTI U.G~I,~JL L Page 25 1 to Loop 288, if this plan is adhered to, nor would it 2 cross Loop 288. But what we would really envision, and 3 then what Pre got on the overhead here, is actually a 4 blow-up of the connectivity component of our Mobility 5 Plan. 6 You can see by the lighter lines, the real 7 intention is for Kings Row to be connected to property on 8 both the north and the south side of the street and to be 9 interconnected with the new neighborhoods that might 10 develop adjacent to Loop 288 and possibly even frontage 11 road connection or access so that you could drive down 12 Kings Row, get on a frontage road, possibly come down to 13 Windsor, and then get on the Loop down at Windsor where 14 the interchange is proposed to be. 15 So I guess the main point I'm trying to 16 illustrate there is the fact that we're not looking at 17 Kings Row becoming a dead end but simply not a crossing of 18 Loop 288 and not a direct connection, but there will 19 probably be some sort of indirect connection to Loop 288 20 from Kings Row and also connections into any new 21 neighborhoods along Kings Row that might develop on either side of it. And that goes for both sides of the Loop. Kings Row is not intended to be a dead end or simply be disconnected without any connection to some other road. The other thing I wanted to point out is 22 23 24 25 Page 26 1 that, you know, of course, we've got the area outside the 2 Loop, and in addition to Kings Row and Windsor Drive, the 3 Mobility Plan shows a collector street running north up 4 to, I guess, what would be Hartley Field Road as all that 5 property develops, in addition to an upgrade of Cooper 6 Creek Road, all the way down to University Drive. So, you 7 know, as the property out here north and east of the Loop 8 develops, you know, we really don't expect all the traffic 9 to funnel in on, I guess, Loop 288 and Windsor. 10 We really expect for a lot of the traffic 11 to be funneled off on Cooper Creek Road, especially people 12 that are expecting to travel east toward McKinney or Piano 13 or the eventual extension of the North Dallas Toilway. 14 And anybody wanting to go north would be able to use one 15 of the other collector streets to get over to Sherman Drive or eventually all the way over to Locust Street or 16 17 even further. 18 So I really just wanted to explain what the 19 Mobility Plan showed, what it says, what it doesn't say, 20 to try to clarify some of the, I guess, misunderstandings 21 or communications that have been floating around, and just 22 simply to provide some basic information. I'll be glad to 23 answer any questions that you might have. 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. SaLmon, it might 25 help if people were able to relate to the fact that Cooper Page 27 1 Creek is really kind of a northward extension of MayhilI 2 Road. 3 MR. SALMON: That's correct. 4 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And then if you would 5 kind of help us by enumerating the difficulty we've had 6 with regard to accidents on Kings Row and Loop 288 and 7 then talk a little bit about the cost of separated 8 crossings and what that sort of expense relates to. I 9 think people would be able to relate to why we've gone to 110 the freeway type of thing and the great work you've done 11 in trying to help that come along. 12 MR. SALMON: There have been 22 recorded 13 accidents at Loop 288 and Kings Row over the past four 14 years. Obviously, at a grade-separated intersection or an 15 interchange, you're going to have fewer accidents. 16 Anytime you have a grade intersection with a signal, 17 you're expected to have more accidents. So, obviously, 18 with Loop 288 being a high-speed facility, which it is, I 19 think the speed limit out there is 55 or 60 miles an hour, 20 the higher the speed limit on Loop 288, the more likely it 21 is that any accidents that do occur are going to be either 22 injury or fatality accidents. So, again, we want to 23 reduce the number of crossings and grade intersections on 24 our high-speed arterials and, in this case, freeway. 25 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It may help if you Page 28 1 kind of define grade separation because I know we say that 2 terminology kind of fast sometimes and I don't think 3 everyone understands exactly what grade separation means. 4 MR. S^t~MON: okay. A grade-separated 5 intersection, another term for that would be an 6 interchange. It means that one road goes over or under 7 the other road and so the only way to get from one road to 8 the other one is on some kind of a ramp. 9 The cost of the proposed interchange at 10 Windsor Drive and Loop 288 is approximately $5.3 milhon. 11 And any kind of a crossing, any kind of grade-separated 12 crossing over a road the size of Loop 288 is going to be 13 in the millions. Those are very difficult things to fund 14 and you really don't want to throw a lot of money at 15 something like that unless you know you really need it 16 because when you look at the City's capital improvements 17 program, if you look over the past couple of bond issues 18 we've had, the City spends in the range of about $5 to $7 19 million a year on transportation improveauents. 20 So to bite off just one improvement that 21 costs $5 million would be an entire year of the City's 22 capital improvements program and wouldn't leave any money 23 to make any other transportation improvements. And, of 24 course, that's assuming that if we had another bond 25 election, that we'd be talking about similar amounts of PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION M_ARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 25 - Page 28 Page 29 1 money. But I wanted to say that just as kind of a 2 comparison of magnitude. 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: We can build a lot of 4 roads for one at-grade separation. 5 MR. SALMON: Exactly. So I guess the point 6 I'm trying to make is that we want to be a little bit 7 cautious about proposing a lot of grade-separated 8 intersections over Loop 288 because, well, frankly, 9 they're very, very expensive and, number two, if there's 10 not really a need for them anyway, they're not going to be 11 funded and there's no sense in putting them on the plan. 12 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. 13 Salmon. Commissioner Roy. 14 COMMISSIONER ROY: The map you gave us, the 15 Mobility Plan, on the east side, it clearly shows Kings 16 Row connecting to a service road. It shows on the west 17 side, excuse me. But on the east side, it doesn't show, 18 it just.kind of stops there. 19 MR. SALMON: well, actually, it does. 20 Because it's shaded green, it kind of washes out. But if 21 you look on your map very closely, if you look at the pink 22 shaded area along the Loop, you can see there's a light 23 blue line that runs all the way along the Loop. 24 COMMISSIONER ROY: I see the light blue 25 line but I just didn't see it connecting. Page 30 1 MR. SALMON: Right, and it is intended for 2 Kings Row to intersect that. It's just that the green 3 highlighting on this particular map washes out the blue 4 line. 5 COMMISSIONER ROY: Okay. I know you said 6 it. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Powell. 8 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, Mr. 9 Chairman. 10 Mr. Sahnon, I sometimes wish I had taken 11 more logic classes in school because some logic that I see 12 is missing here, and I don't mean it personal. Please 13 don't take these questions personal. Why in the world are 14 we going to build the exchange or overpass, whatever you 15 want to call it, on Windsor rather than Kings Row? And 16 the reason I ask that is a couple of the reasons. When I 17 travel Kings Row, I see that the last mile or so of it 18 going east before you get to the Loop -- 19 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: The squiggle-squaggly 20 part of it? 21 COMMISSIONER POWELL: ThC squiggle-squaggly 22 part of it, yes -- has no houses that face it, just 23 backyards, fences. When I travel Windsor from Sherman 24 Drive to anywhere going east, I know there are front yards 25 and driveways facing Windsor. And it just -- the logic of Page 31 1 that defies my understanding of logic. Recognizing we 2 have to spend the $5.3 somewhere probably, why don't we 3 spend it where we don't have front yards and driveways 4 coming into the road? 5 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: EXCUSe me. Audience, 6 please. 7 COMMISSIONER POWELL: And, honest to Pete, 8 they didn't pay me to say this. I came up with it all my 9 own. i 0 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: we appreciate your 11 enthusiasm. Thank you very much. Mr. Salmon, would you 12 address that? 13 MR. SALMON: If yOU look on the previous 14 Mobility Plan, both Kings Row and Windsor Drive were 15 arterial streets and they were both intended to cross Loop 16 288. When you look at the Mobihty Plan as a whole, and, 17 of course, obviously, everyone realizes Kings Row stops at 18 Smart Road, for the most part. I mean, after you cross 19 Smart Road, it just becomes a residential street and then 20 eventually dead ends into a neighborhood and doesn't go 21 any further. Windsor Drive is continuous, at this point, 22 virtually across the entire City. 23 COMMISSIONER POWELL: YeS, sir. 24 MR. SALMON: And it is a very wide street, 25 for the most part, and, in fact, wider than Kings Row is Page 1 and has more fight-of-way than Kings Row does. And so for 2 the most part Kings Row is not wide enough to provide for 3 four lanes of traffic and doesn't have the right-of-way to 4 be expanded because the houses that do, even the houses 5 that back up to Kings Row are not set back far enough for 6 the City to obtain additional right-of-way. Because 7 Windsor Drive has always been an artmal on the City's 8 Mobility Plan with the excq0tion of one very short piece 9 close, I think it's between or just to the east of Sherman 10 Drive, with the exoeption of that one very short piece, 11 Windsor Drive is actually wide enough to stripe and make 12 four lanes of traffic. And in a lot of those areas, the 13 right-of-way, when those subdivisions were platted, was 14 actually platted wide enough to provide for expansion of 15 that road if ever needed. 16 So, you know, it's k/nd of a two-fold 17 issue. Number one, Kings Row doesn't go very far. It 18 ends at Stuart Lane. And, number two, the right-of-way 19 and the road width on Windsor Drive was originally 20 designed and is currently constructed to allow four lanes 21 of traffic. 22 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I understand what you 23 say and I don't disagree with you. Obviously, you've 24 thought this through or somebody has in the past. It just ¸25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 bothers me that we're going through these houses that were ] Page 29 - Page 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 all built facing the street, from yards on the street, driveways on the street, sidewalks right on the street, and we use it as an arterial. And it's an arterial now, I understand. Page 33 But once a crossing, an above-grade crossing, I suppose it will be above-grade, is built at the Loop, it will be, Katie, bar the door. I mean, you won't be able to get out on the sidewalk there safely, I don't think. It just bothered me because Kings Row goes to Sherman and Sherman goes to thc Loop. Sherman goes to Windsor or on into town. It seemed to me to be logic. Now, Mr. Keith may disagree because he lives on Kings Row COMMISSIONER KEITH: My house faces Kings Row. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I know it does but it's one of the last ones that does. You can see why I'm asking. It just bothered my logic and I'll hush. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Commissioner Powell. I want to just refresh oar audience, as we have posted at the door our rules and procedures, it's important that we adhere to those. And I appreciate your enthusiasm for Commissioner Powell's statement but I felt confident that Mr. Salmon had a logical and Page 35 is there on this, approximate, and would this happen 2 before the other end of 288 is widened? 3 MR. SALMON: That's a good question. The 4 other end of Loop 288, we've gotten money for some of the 5 preliminary design work but there isn't any money for the 6 actual construction of it. In this case, again, the City 7 has some money in its current capital improvements program 8 for the design of the interrchange, but there's no money to 9 build it. So they're really both in the same boat. It's 10 a matter of when we can get funding. 11 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Are they prioritized? 12 MR. SALMON: tn priority, I think the Page 34 I reasonable answer for that, and I appreciate your 2 listening to that and understanding where we were coming 3 from. Commissioner Holt. 4 COMlviISSIONER HOLT: YeS, Mr. Salmon. I'm 5 sorry I didn't understand this. Who is going to pay for 6 this interchange at Windsor and when? 7 MR. SALMON: well, I mean, the real end 8 answer to that is that we really anticipate a combination 9 of funding sources. We're really looking toward the Texas 10 Department of Transportation and the North Central Texas 1 Council of Governments to help fund it. As a matra' of 2 fact, the North Texas Council of Governments is sending 13 out a call for projects right now in which not only the 14 City of Denton has asked for some money toward the 15 construction of that but, in addition to that, the Texas 16 . Department of Transportation is also asking for funding 17 toward that interchange. 18 That's not to say we're going to get it 19 but, obviously, something of this magnitude is going to 20 have to be a cooperative effort between the City, the 21 State. The money that's doled out by the Council of 22 Governments is generally Federal money. And, frankly, we 23 would anticipate some developer participation in the 24 funding of the interchange. 25 COMMISSIONER HOLT: what kind of a timeline 13 City's -- the City would prioritize the western extension 14 of Loop 288 over this interchange for the simple fact that 15 now that's we've moved the track route onto the Loop, it's 16 a little bit difficult, and for especially the large 17 trucks, to maneuver the interchange at Loop 288 and 1-35 8 because of the way the State designed it with the 9 jug-handle style ramps. And then the fact that they have 20 to come down 35 and then immediately exit and then get off 21 and turn on Highway 380. 22 COMMISSIONER HOLT: DO yOU see that that 23 western part of 288 will be put in before the part down ~24 from 35 up to University? 25 MR. SALMON: I'm sorry. Say again. I Page 36 1 didn't quite -- 2 COMMISSIONER HOLT: okay. The western part 3 over there, the finishing off of that Loop, okay, would 4 that be put in before the 1-35 to University part of 288 5 is widened? 6 MR. SALMON: Are you talking about the 1-35 7 to University along the east, about where the mall is? 8 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Right. 9 MR. SALMON: NO. Actually, that section of 10 the Loop is akeady under design. The City and the County 11 are sharing the cost of the design of Loop 288 from 12 Highway 380 east down to 1-35 East by the mall, and we 13 really expect that to be under construction by 2004. ,14 COMMISSIONER HOLT: SO we have the money 15 for thaff 16 MR. SALMON: YeS. The money is in place 17 for the construction of that section of the Loop and, in 18 fact, the design work has already begun. 19 COMMISSIONER HOLT: okay. Thank you. 20 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, 21 Commissioner Holt. Commissioner Keith. 22 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. I have a 23 few questions here. As I listen to you, what's the 24 deadline for these grade crossings at Kings Row then, when 25 the Windsor overpass will be built, correct? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 33 - Page 36 Page 37 1 MR. SALMON: ^gain, we don't know when the 2 Windsor overpass might be built. It's a matter of when 3 funding becomes available and if and how and when property 4 in that area develops. 5 COMMISSIONER KEITH: SO the Kings Row grade 6 would be retained until then? 7 MR. SALMON: Right. The grade crossing, 8 nothing can happen -- I mean, being that that's currently 9 the only way to cross the Loop in that area, that has to 10 stay in place until such time that the funding becomes 11 available and the construction occurs on an alternative 12 interchange. 13 COMMISSIONER ~:EITH: okay. Is the City 14 encouraging, as properties develop along that corridor of 15 Loop 288 that currently exists north of 380 -- is the City 16 encouraging to work with the developers on building access 17 roads paralleling? 18 MR. SALMON: Our current ordinances do not 19 allow direct access or driveways. 20 COMMISSIONER KEITH: I'm talking about 21 access roads paralleling the Loop. 22 MR. SALMON: Right. They're not required. 23 We're encouraging them. There's no requirement for a 24 developer to do so. But, then again, you know, up until 25 recently, we didn't have the connectivity component of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 125 Page 39 are on Kings Row, as I'm looking at this for the Mobility Plan, that if frontage roads were placed along there, that would relieve probably some of the traffic that would be going through these street areas. And that's why I was very interesting in the City pursuing those areas on that. Is the Loop going to be widened at any time any more tl it already is? MR. SALMON: It'S conceivable. I believe right now the Loop is two lanes in each direction and we really expect that at some point in time, it could be three lanes in each direction. COMMISSIONER KEITH: That's kind of far down the road though at this point. MR. SALMON: I would think so. COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. All right. Well, I just -- I really appreciate you presenting this. I know I was one that pushed it on the last one. But since I became on the Commission as of last August, we didn't have any work sessions on the Mobility Plan and so I think most of us were in the dark regarding a lot of the development of it. And I think had we had some work sessions with more information before we put it through, then some of this might be able to be taken care of beforehand. Thank you very much, Mr. Salmon. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, any Page 38 1 Mobility Plan either, and that does clearly show frontage 2 roads. So I think we're going to be in a lot better shape 3 now that this particular component of the Mobility Plan is 4 in place, to encourage development of frontage roads along 5 this northem section of Loop 288. 6 COMMISSIONER KEITH: well, okay. So if a 7 developer comes in and there's not a frontage road that's 8 with that particular developer, what is the City going -- 9 how will the City approach those proposals? 10 MR. SALMON: First of all, if it's a large 11 development, they're going to have to do a traffic impact 12 analysis. And, I mean, the City can only require from any 13 particular development improv~aents that are required in 14 order for that development to operate properly. So, I 15 guess, depending on the size of the development and type 16 of development, I would assume that we're either going to 17 be -- I mean, the requirements could range anywhere from 18 requiring additional right-of-way so that there's 19 right-of-way available for frontage roads, or if it's an 20 extremely large development with a lot of traffic, there 21 may be a requirement to participate in the cost of the 22 frontage roads. 23 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Well, as I'm looking 24 at this, and I know there's a lot of concern for those 25 folks that are on Windsor, as well as those for us that Page 1 further questions of Mr. Salmon or anyone else on staff 2 regarding the Denton Mobility Plan? Thank you, Mr. 3 Salmon: Excuse me, Mr. Hill. Assistant City Manager Dave 4 Hill would like to make a comment. 5 MR. HILL: Thank you. I'm going to take 6 just a moment of your time, if you don't mind. David has 7 done a wonderful job of kind of outlining the technical 8 merits. The one thing that I wanted to make really clear 9 is that through a Blue Ribbon Cormnittee, $500,000.00 was 10 allocated in the last bond election for design for the 11 Windsor interchange. In order to spend that money, that 12 means that City Council has to authorize the expenditure 13 of those funds before that engineering finn can go forward 14 with the design. So it's a point of control for City 15 Council. 16 And I think what we have known all along 17 that the Windsor interchange was not going to be something 18 that was universally accepted. And the intent, and I 19 think that it's relevant and you need to know what's going 20 on with it because you've got a significant zoning case in 21 this area tonight. But at the same time, I think it's 22 premature in terms of trying to tell you what we're going 23 to do because the intent is to go out and have some public 24 meetings and report back to Council what the public 25 sentiment is. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 37 - Page 40 Page 41 1 So this is not a ramrod effort to try to 2 make people feel as though it's a -- you know, the money 3 is there so we've got to do it. There's always that point 4 of control for Council and Council is going to review that 5 and they're going to take the public comments into 6 account. And that also gives us an opportunity, I think, 7 to look at all the technical merits of -- you know, if the 8 intent is to go back and ask us what are the options, and, 9 you know, is the Windsor interchange really the way we 10 want to go, Council has the opportunity to reexamine that 11 approach. So there are some points where I think some 12 decisions will be made before any money is spent on this 13 project. 14 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I think we have some 15 Commissioners that might have some questions. 16 Commissioner Mulroy. 17 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yeah, Mr. Hill. Was 18 that Windsor exchange a line item in the bond issue? 19 MR. HILL: Yes, it was specifically 20 identified by title. 21 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. And what was 22 the percentage that the bond issue passed? What was the 23 percentage vote? 24 MR. HILL: It was at least 87 percent. 25 COMMISSIONER MULROY: 87 percent, okay. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Page 42 Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Conunissioner Mulroy. Thank you, Assistant City Manager. Mr. Salmon, anything else? Page 43 1 COMMISSIONER mSHEL: okay. Mr. Gray will 2 present Item No. 13 and Item No. 14 at this time. 3 MR. oa.~Y: I was just going to bring the 4 Commission up to date as to what has happened with this 5 case since the last time it was at this Commission two 6 weeks ago. There was a neighborhood meeting held at Hedge 7 Elementary on the evening of Tuesday, March 5th. I 8 believe information about that meeting, as well as 9 comments are provided in your backup. The applicant has 10 provided a revised zoning plan. The staff received copies 11 of these plans yesterday and you should have received 12 copies at the beginning of the meeting. The applicant is 13 here and will explain the changes that have been made. 14 At the start of the meeting, I also passed 15 out a packet of information containing items such as a 16 letter from Gene Holloway of Denton Independent School 17 District. He is here and he would like to speak to you 18 tonight. You should also have a petition from 19 neighborhood residents regarding flooding along the creek 20 on the west side of the applicant's property. I included 21 a list of concerned citizens who have telephoned me in the 22 last few days regarding this development, as well as 23 included a couple of E-mails concerned citizens have sent 24 to staff regarding this development. 25 I can answer any questions or I could also Page 44 MR. SALMON: NO. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: The Commission and the audience, I'm sure, appreciate your input on the Mobility Plan, specifically related to this northeast quadrant, northwest quadrant, northeast quadrant. Okay. Any further questions, Commissioners? Seeing no further questions, I'm wondering if the 12 Commission might like to take a little break before we 13 start into Item No. 13 on our Agenda. And I'm seeing a 14 consensus that that would be recommended. Let's resume 15 our meeting back here, if we could, at 25 after the hour 16 by the big clock in the back. 17 (Break taken.) 18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: cotmnissioners, if 19 you'd take your seat, we will try to resume here. I 20 believe we have a quorum so we will continue with our 21 meeting. Excuse me for being a little bit late. That 22 brings us at this point in time to Item No. 13 on our 23 Agenda, and I believe that Mr. -- yes. 24 MR. OR~Y: I was going to address Items 25 No. 13 and 14. 5 then we'll move on to the other presenters. So if Mr. 6 Reichhart would like to come forward and present at this 7 time, I would appreciate it. Thank you, sir. Mr. Mukoy, 8 Commissioner Mukoy. 9 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes. If I may ask 10 staff to please differentiate between the Comprehensive Plan related issues and the zoning issues because they are 11 12 separate items. 13 MR. REICHHART: very well. 14 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: once again, this is a 15 public hearing and this is regarding Item No. 13 and 16 Item No. 14 of which are posted currently on our 17 docucarn. 18 MR. REICHHART: Thank you. At the last 19 meeting, there was some discussion regarding the 20 residential and the multi-family mix identified in the 21 Comprehensive Plan which is also expressed in the zoning 22 application. I handed out during the break a form that 23 looks like this, a table. And on the back side of the 24 table is a map of the study area. And, quite quickly, the 25 applicant asked us to do an analysis of what is the PLANNING AND ZONIIqG COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 41 - Page 44 1 let Mr. Reichhart speak because he also has a brief 2 presentation to make regarding this development. 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Gray, I think the 4 Co~umission would prefer to hear the staff presentation and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t..;onOonsolt Page 45 existing single-family to multi-family mix in the northeast section of the City, and they had requested the area north of University and east of Locust and we bounded it by the City limits and Mayhill. I went further and we did an analysis taking it all the way down to McKinney. We figured that was more of a representative mix of that quadrant of the City, if you will. Now, the only caveat I'd like to put on to this report, this is -- in order to do a study like that, there's an extensive amount of man hours that had to go into this. And given the short period of time, the data on this sheet are as close as we could get. I would estimate that the number of single-family units is probably a little high, not very high, and the number of multi-family units is probably a little bit low, but these are fairly good representatives. We haven't done any analysis. We finished this this afternoon. I gave a copy to the applicant. He said he was going to mention this in his presentation so I just wanted to give you a little background. In this information, we used existing ors information that we had available through the City's database to figure out thc single-family. Two years ago, the Building Department did an extensive multi-family analysis on the entire City and then we added what we knew was developed since two years Page 46 1 ago. 2 And just looking at the map, I know there's 3 a few inconsistencies but I think it's fairly 4 representative. And take it for what it is. It's just 5 numbers right now. We haven't really done any analysis 6 but I did want to give you the opportunity to let you know 7 some of the background on that. I'd be happy to answer 8 any questions. 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: why don't you give a 10 brief interpretation of what you have number-wise here and 11 talk about the percentages. 12 MR. REICHHART: The -- welt, north of 13 University, right now existing there's approximately a 75 14 percent to 25 percent single-family to multi-family. If 15 you take that area all the way down to McKinney, the 16 average drops to 64 single-family to 36 percent 17 multi-family. 18 Middle column was what the applicant had 19 originally proposed, what was represented at the last 20 Planning and Zoning public hearing, those numbers would 21 have dropped from 75 percent north of University to 68 22 percent for single-family and increased on the 23 multi-family from 25 percent to 32 percent, again, north 24 of University. In thc bottom figure or table represents 25 the numbers, as I knew of I believe Tuesday morning which 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 47 is approximately 595 multi-family and 451 single-family now proposed in this development. Overall, it slightly reduces the single-family from the existing levels from 64 percent in that total quadrant down to 63 percent, and then increases multi-family from 36 to 37 percent. And, again, those numbers are a little bit higher for north of University because currently there isn't that much multi-family in that quadrant north of University, so any multi-family mix you put in that quadrant will really increase that multi-family arm. And, again, what this map and this analysis doesn't show is where is the core multi-family development in the City. It is just looking at this quadrant. MR. POWEL[~: ^nd if I may, I think we mentioned at the last meeting, caution again that the Comprehensive Plan is a policy guide, it's a tool. That 60-40 split is City-wide so, you know, how far down you want to tailor that to a section or a neighborhood. Again, the applicant asks for this infon2ation and that's why we tried to provide it. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Director. Conunissioners, any questions of the staff report? Commissioner Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: NO, I'm sorry my light is on. Page 1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. Thank 2 you, Mr. Reichhart. Someone else staff-wise that we -- 3 MR. REICHHART: Yes. At thc neighborhood 4 meeting that was held recently, one of the bigger concerns 5 expressed was the drainage situation, specifically on the 6 west side of Loop 288. And Charles Fiedler, the Director 7 of Engineering is here to address that situation. 8 MR. FIEDLER: Good evening. Give y'all a 9 little update. 10 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: could you give us 11 your name and position with the City? 12 MR. FIEDLER: charles Fiedler, Director of 13 Engineering with the City of Denton. To give you an 14 update, the question regarding drainage is an issue with 15 the two iteans before you. As far as no engineering having 16 been done on them at this time, the finn commitment is 17 that this application for future development would be 18 coming in under the new Code which would require that this 19 land be developed in accordance with that Code such that 20 there would be no impact to the existing Cooper Creek 21 water shed from this development, that any work that they 22 do in this area, any development that they do in this area 23 will have to be managed in a way that it does not impact 24 the water shed. 25 Now, there are concerns with the water shed PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 45 - Page 48 ~ondcnsclt .... Page 49 1 that are beyond the scope of this project that's before 2 you this evening and there are things that are being done 3 in that water shed right now on behalf of the City to try 4 and address some of those concerns. Historically, this is 5 an area of town that developed prior to any of the mapping 6 of the floodplains and, unfortunately, some of the lots 7 that were developed in this area are in the floodplain and 8 the floodway. It's an existing condition. There was no 9 mapping when it was platted. There was no indication that 10 they were in a floodplain. Houses were built out there. 11 And in hindsight, the mapping indica~,xl that this area was 12 in a floodplain. 13 That in mind, the City has been working on 14 this project for a number of years. Two detention ponds 15 have akeady been constructed upstream to try and hold 16 some of the waters -- a map of the area -- have been 17 developed upstream to try and contain some of the water so 18 that they limit the amount of flows that's coming upstream 19 of this area. With the introduction of the drainage fee 20 recently, monies are now available to go into a routine 21 maintenance mode where sections of the creek that we have 22 easements on can be maintained properly so that flow 23 through those areas does not adversely impact the 24 properties anymore than is necessary. There is monies in 25 the budget in 2004 for improvements to Mingo Road and the Page 50 1 drainage channels underneath Mingo Road which represents a 2 dam downstream. But there are still challenges like a 3 railroad track that we have no control over or ability to 4 change. 5 All in all, the City is working diligently 6 trying to minimize the current condition out there, but 7 understanding that it will never fully be resolved given 8 that some of the houses are actually in the floodway. I'd 9 be happy to answer any questions that you might have. 10 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: We have several 11 questions. Commissioner Keith. 12 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. Mr. 13 Fielder, so as I'm listening to you, I take it that the 14 City is already taking an active role in resolving the 15 problems that are with this creek? 16 MR. FIEDLER: We're taking an active role 17 to mitigate some of the problems. The problems cannot be 18 totally resolved, no, sir. 19 COMMrSSIONERKErTH: okay. With this 20 development as you're familiar with on this, there is some 21 area that's going to be designated greenbelt by the 22 developer that's not going to be built upon at ail, 23 correct? 24 MR. FIEDLER: That's my understanding, yes, 25 sir. Page 51 1 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. So how will 2 that affect the -- by not building on that, how much will 3 that contribute to lessening problems or impact? 4 MR. FIEDLER: It would be an even split, 5 that if he's not developing on it, that water would still 6 be coming off of the property in the current condition 7 it's coming off now. 8 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Would be 9 developing in there, clearing -- I've been down there and 10 I've walked it and there's a lot of debris and whatnot 11 that has accumulated in that area along the creek bed. 12 Will that be attended to as a result of developing? 13 MR. FIEDLER: In areas where we have 14 easements, and right now we do not have easements through 15 the property that's under discussion here this evening, 16 but with the platting of that property, the addition of 17 easements through there would allow us to do additional 18 maintenance in that area. 19 COMMISSIONER ~ITH: okay. So by them ~ 20 rehnquishing that as a greenbelt, then that will enable 21 the City to go in there and do some work on it and clean 22 it out and make it drainage better then, correct? 23 MR. ~EDLER: In a limited approach based 24 on the environmental sensitive area guidelines that we're 25 working under, yes, sir. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 'LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH Page 52 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. What do you mean by the environment sensitive, please? MR. FIEDLER: It's not going to be a channelization project. It would be pulling out debris that has floa~xt downstream, cleating the channel of that debris, trying to promote the flow through there in a natural condition. COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. So the City wouldn't be able to go in throe and open it up and channel it out? MR. FIEDLER: NO, sir. COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: cormnissioner Mu[roy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: YeS. Charles, if you could run back through briefly, and it may not be specific only to this case, but just in general for the Commission, the new Code and the treatment of drainage from this point looking into the future, my understanding is in the majority of cases, with some few exceptions, is the principle, the guiding principle is that whenever land is developed, we will have no effect downstream. So whatever is necessitated holding ponds on the property as opposed to widening the downstream channel is the direction we're headed in. Is that -- MR. FIEDLER: In general, yes, sir. We're 13Ttl, 2002 Page 49 - Page 52 Condenselt .... Page 53 1 developing -- unlike a lot of cities that are acquiring 2 every tract to develop a detention pond to take care of 3 their specific tract, we're trying to design the system 4 based on an idea that the fully developed flow in a water 5 shed is going to continue to be allowed to transmit 6 through each property that's subsequently developed. So 7 that the property that we're talking about here would be 8 developed in conjunction with the fully developed flow 9 that would be coming onto that property and contained, 10 given the fact that the Cooper Creek water shed is already 11 in a detention mode. This is maybe a little bit special 12 case because we already have a problem here. We're not 13 going to do anything to make that problem any worse 14 through any future development in this water shed. 15 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. So whether 16 it's this project or any, the analysis will be you can't 17 contribute to more flow in the channel? 18 MR. FIEDLER: well, specifically in this 19 water shed, yes, sir. 20 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: ~ny other questions 22 of staff, Commissioners? Thank you, Mr. Fiedler. 23 MR. FIEDLER: Thank you, sir. 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: This is a public 25 hearing. I'm going to ask the petitioner if he would like Page 54 1 to present at this time. And the petitioner has 15 2 minutes and if I could ask all of his representatives that 3 might want to participate to participate in that 4 timeframe. I would appreciate it. If you would care to 5 introduce yourself and the rest of your staff or 6 coworkers, I'd appreciate it. 7 Ol~. WOLSKI: My name is Ed Wolski and -- 8 COMMISStONEa RtSUEL: ^nd, once again, this 9 is in reference to Items No. 13 and 14 on our Agenda and 10 we will address both of these at the same time. 11 Da. WOLSKt: My name is Ed Wolski. I live 12 at 2301 Hollyhill in Denton. Bob Welty is our architect 13 and Jeff Krueger is going to be talking also, and he lives 14 in the neighborhood we're talking about. 15 This is an aerial. This is an a~rial of 16 the place we're talking about. Here's to orient you, 17 here's Mingo. Here's the Loop. Here's Kings Row. Here's 18 Windsor. Here's the neighbors that are in the floodplain 19 and Albertson's is building down in the floodplain down 20 here. We tried to make as many people happy as possible 21 and make a bunch of compromises. What we did here, the 22 way it is zoned right now, this is all Industrial. That's 23 the current zoning. This is Na-4, ~r~-4, the rest is NR-2. 24 When we talked to staff why it was NR-2, they said it was 25 a computer glitch and so that's why we decided to try to Page 55 1 rezone it. 2 Here are the sectors that we're trying to 3 rezone. This is going to be -- right up here is Deerwood 4 and right here is SF-3. That means three units per acre. 5 Those are bigger lots than in Deerwood. We're having ~ 6 church that's very interested in buying that so there will 7 probably end up being a church. They're not going to 8 develop that whole tract immediately. There will probably 9 be a church with most of it left open space. They'll i0 probably preserve all the trees there. This area here is 11 SF-6 and this is SF-6. This area here is being converted 12 from Industrial to SF-6. It's the downzoning of about 16 13 levels. 14 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Can we get 15 clarification from staff as to what our zoning 16 classification would be? Is there NR-3 involved here? 17 DR. WOLSKI: This is NR-6, NR-6, NR-3. 18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: okay. Thank you. 19 DR. WOLSKI: We had a -- this is going to 20 be multi-family. This is going to be multi-family. The 21 blue is going to be multi-family. We dropped our 22 multi-family by about 809 units. We asked for 1,399 23 initially, or more than that, and we dropped it down to 24 590. And we went from 30 units an acre here to 12 units 25 an acre. Page: 1 The reason we like multi-family here is 2 because this is a truck route. It's noisy, a lot of truck 3 traffic. It's not as desirable for single-family to be 4 against the heaw truck traffic on the Loop. Also, 5 there's a railroad here so it's a buffer for the railroad, 6 and there's Safety-Kleen and the copper plant are over 7 here. So it's a buffer against all this industrial. So 8 we're trying to have an NRMU-12 buffer and an SF-6 buffer 9 here against the railroad, against Safety-Kleen and the 10 copper plant, the industrial. 11 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Once again, there is 12 no SF configuration. 13 DR. WOLSKI: I'm sorry, it's NR-6. NOW, on 14 this side up here, we had these neighbors were upset 15 because the easement for Old North Road was in their 16 backyard. We said that's no problem. We can have a row 17 of lots here that are as big as lots in the neighborhood 18 to buffer this road, Old North Road. 19 Windsor, we have a lot of people upset 20 about Windsor going through. But on 87 percent of the 21 people, passed a bond election for that Windsor overpass 22 so there's nothing we can do. There's 87 percent of the 23 City said that they wanted that road there. And that's 24 really -- you know, people are upset with our development 25 but we don't have anything to do with Windsor or the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 53 - Page 56 Condenselt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 :23 24 25 Page 57 Mobility Plan. It's been on there for years. These folks were upset because they thought their houses would flood. They're in the floodplain and at this would aggravate the flooding. And like the engineers have said, that the drainage will be retained on-site and it will be released at a controlled rate so it won't flood. And that's one of the -- COMMISSIONER RISHEL: SO it won't add to the flooding? DR. WOLSKI: what's that? COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It won't add to the flooding? floods -- DR. WOLSKI: correct. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: If it already DR. WOLSKI: It won't add to the flooding. This is going to be community mixed use and we see that as being offices, maybe some restaurants. Okay. This is what we're asking for, community mixed use, neighborhood residential. Downzoning of Employment Center and low density residential next to existing neighborhoods. Okay. The residential buffers, they'll be the same size lots or larger lots than existing neighborhoods. The Neighborhood Residential 6 and NRMU-12 will buffer the heavy truck traffic on the Loop. Page 58 1 Originally, we had 1,399 multi-family units. We reduced 2 the multi-family units. We've got -- the total number of 3 residential units are now actually less than 1,000 and we 4 did this after talking to Planning and Zoning staff, the 5 Commissioners, feedback from the Commissioners, and the 6 school board. 7 The northern portion of the Employment 8 Center will be downzoned to Neighborhood Residential 6, 9 NR-6, to buffer the Deerwood neighborhood. Light 10 industrial in that area will also buffer the heavy 11 industrial of Safety-Kleen and the copper plant. Again, 12 the extension of Old North Road, we're going to have lots 13 buffering the existing neighborhood. There's not going to 14 be Old North Road in anyone's backyard. 15 Drainage, no buildings will be built in the 16 floodplain. Retention ponds will be built to decrease 17 runoff, and the City engineers will make sure that the 18 level of water in Cooper Creek won't increase. Windsor 19 you know, inside the Loop, it's really not a zoning issue. 20 It's like a Mobility Plan issue. And the City is saying 21 it needs to connect. It can't dead end. The 22 Comprehensive Plan promotes connectivity. Windsor, 23 outside the Loop, this is a big issue for the neighbors. 24 They didn't want Windsor to connect up to Farris because 25 they would have a lot of traffic through the neighborhood. Page 59 1 So we designed an extension all the way out to Cooper 2 Creek Road. 3 Again, we reduced our multi-family by over 4 800 units and we went from 30 units per acre to 12 units 5 per acre. The traffic impact study showed Category B 6 before the density was reduced, and that's the City 7 minimum, I understand, is a Category rating of D. That's 8 my presentation. 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. 10 Wolski. 11 MR. KRUEOER: My name is Jeff Krueger and 12 my address is 3905 Deer Forest and I represent Dr. Wolski. 13 I'm going to address the msD's concern. I just want to 14 make a couple of brief statements. 15 Number one, we have a 240-acre planned 16 development community here. Out of those 240 acres, we 17 now have over 105 acres as either Connuercial or Light 18 Industrial. This is not your normal type of development 19 that the school district is used to dealing with. They're 20 used to dealing with the developers that either do 21 strictly single-family homes or developers that do 22 multi-family homes. We currently are in negotiation with 23 them. And except for just some timing errors, we would 24 have hashed this out last night but we didn't. We 25 understand you have a letter from Mr. Holloway and perhaps Page 60 1 you'll hear from him later. 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: HOW was your hashing 3 coming? 4 MR. KRUEGER: Well, it's a -- you know. 5 It actually is going -- we have a lot to offer the school 6 district and I think that Mr. Holloway will confer that we 7 actually do have a lot to offer the school district and 8 we're willing to offer a lot to the school district. 9 However, due to time restraints and legal 10 legalities, because we weren't quite an Agenda item, we 11 could not finalize those discussions. However, we don't 12 feel like we should be penalized because of that. We feel 13 that we have met a lot of the staff requirements, a lot of 14 the City requirements. Because we are not through 15 negotiating with the Disr~ does not mean that we will not 16 continue to negotiate with the DISD. And we feel that 17 because we've met certain technical requirements with 18 y'all, we would like to see this resolved. We feel that 19 the City Council has the authority to support or deny our 20 continued request after we get beyond your level and it 21 does allow us to move forward with your approval, if we're 22 fortunate to get that approval, and we will continue to 23 work with the school district. 24 In fact, we will go on record as stating we 25 will not go forward to the City Council, even with your ['LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 57 - Page 60 Condenselt Page 63 very sensitive in all of the densities we are requesting on sites abutting other single-family developments, are at densities less -- equal to or less than the densities of Page 61 1 approval, until we have finalized our negotiation with the 2 school district. We feel that confident that what we have 3 to offer them will be accepted and that we can move 4 forward. 5 However, we have been here numerous times, as 6 you're all aware, sometimes very late at night. We have 7 strived to work with the neighborhood. We have been going 8 since before March of last year. And I know there's a lot 9 of circumstances beyond both of our control, both your's, 10 staff's, our's that caused that. However, it's been over 11 one year and we'd like to sec this moved forward. We're 12 asking you tonight -- what I heard last week from the 13 Commission was that give us something to vote for or vote 14 against. We think that we have put together a product 15 that will allow you to do just that. We hope that you 16 vote for it, but we hope that we move forward tonight. 17 We are willing to work with the school 18 district. We have shown that, and I think that Mr. 19 Holloway agrees with that. I've met with their attorney. 20 I've met with the board president. I've met with the 21 superintendent. We are going through that process. We 22 would like the time to do that beyond the P&Z. We want to 23 get past you-all and, technically, we think we've met your 24 deal and we'd appreciate fall voting and moving this 25 forward. If there's any other questions, Mr. Welty is Page 62 1 here and Dr. Wolski can answer those. But thank you for 2 your time. 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. 4 Krueger. 5 MR. KRUeOEa: By the way, happy birthday, 6 Commissioner Powell. 7 Ma. WELTY: Good evening. My name is Bob 8 Welty. 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YOU have two and a 10 half minutes left on your time. 1 MR. WELTY: TWO and a half minutes. My 2 name is Bob Welty, 5207 McKinney Avenue, Dallas, Texas. I 13 am here as a meunber of Dr. Wolski's team and I did want to 14 point out two or three things very quickly and I will make 15 them vcn'y quick. 16 Since our last meeting, we promised you 17 that we would indeed meet with the neighbors again. We 18 have met with the neighbors and hopefully addressed some 19 of their concerns. We have further listened to the staff. 20 We have reduced our multi-family land area by 21 approximately 28 acres, reducing the total multi-family 22 unit count by 342 units just since our last meeting. 23 And we have agreed to kave a big portion of the Ec-I land 24 just as it is currently zoned in your Comprehensive Plan. 25 As Dr. Wolski pointed out, we have been 1 2 3 4 those sites and lot sizes equal to or larger than those 5 lots in those other developments. 6 Again, what we have done in our -- we have 7 done preliminary engineering on this site and we are not 8 reclaiming any land currently in floodplain and we have 9 provided detention bases on each of our sites which will 10 handle sufficiently the runoff from our site and hold it 11 on-site with no impact to our adjacent sites. And with 12 that, we will answer your questions. Thank you. 13 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: cormnissioners, any 14 questions of the petitioner? Thank you very much. This 15 is a public heating so at this time I'm going to open the 16 public hearing. I'd like to ask for -- I'm going to 17 divide this up between people that would like to speak 18 either for the petition or against the petition. And, 19 once again, we are speaking of Item No. 13 and Item No. 20 14 on our Agenda. 21 As cited in our rules and our regulations, 22 basically we have 30 minutes for additional speakers that 23 want to speak for this petition and we have set aside 40 24 minutes for those who might be opposed to this petition. 25 So I'm going to ask that each petitioner that would like Page ( 1 to speak, if they'd limit themselves to five minutes and 2 present additional new information that another speaker 3 might not have presented. We would like to take at this 4 point in time speakers or presenters that would like to 5 speak in favor of this petition. 6 Are there some people that would like to 7 speak in favor of this petition, if you'd come forward at 8 this time. Anyone who would like to speak in favor of the 9 petition.9 10 Okay. Seeing no one who would like to 11 speak in favor of the petition, I will address the people 12 that would like to speak in opposition to the petition. 13 Once again, I remind you that you have five minutes. I 14 have several speakers or a list of people that would like 15 to present. I'd like to take them in some sort of order 16 at this time and the first speaker would be Mr. Gene 17 Holland (sic) with the school district. Is Mr. Holland 18 (sic) still here? 19 MR. blOLLOWAY: Good evening, Commissioners. 20 My name is Gene Holloway. rm Director of Transportation 21 and Planning for Denton tSD and I bid you greetings from 22 the Denton ISD Board of Tmstecs. 23 At your place, I believe you received a 24 letter on behalf of the Denton DISD Board of Trustees. I 25 would like to inform you that the district was only PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 61 - Page 64 Condcns¢lt Page 65 1 informed as of Monday of this week, March the 1 lth, of the 2 new modifications to the proposed zoning to the Windsor 3 Oaks development. At that point in time, initial analysis 4 showed that that would generate approximately a student 5 yield of approximately 530 from the multi-housing and 6 single-housing development. 7 The district is on record from PRe meetings 8 dating back to May of 2001 of being extremely concerned 9 with the concentration of multi-housing with this 10 particular development. As was pointeA out, 1,300 plus or 1 thereabouts at that time, it was reduced down to 2 approximately 800 within the last two weeks and has, yes, 13 been reduced down to 590. But, again, the district has 14 not had an opportunity to examine and look in on this 15 particular development plan and modification and has not 16 had adequate time. 17 As you well know as a public body, the 18 Board of Trustees can only deliberate and deal and discuss 19 district business with posted meetings. And, 20 unforttmately, with the timing of this Monday the 10th, 21 and Tuesday the 11 th was the scheduled board meeting, the 22 item was not able to make the Board Agenda. With the 23 Board's next meeting scheduled for April the 9th, 24 unfortunately with spring break and in the timeframe of 25 the school calendar, the Board has invited the developer, Page 66 1 Dr. Wolski and his associates to meet with the Board again 2 on April the 9th to present their plan so that they can 3 indeed respond to this appropriately and properly. 4 I would like to say at this point in time, 5 to my knowledge, that the developer has not met with the 6 Board specifically, and as far as with that, any special 7 or any accommodations have only been brought to the table 8 just within the last 24 to 36 hours. And as far as 9 certainly due diligence must be exercised for the Board to 10 make a decision for or against any type of position on 1 this particular proposal. At that point, I stand ready to 2 answer any questions. 13 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: oene, excuse me for 14 misspeaking your name. I'm only known you for, what, 15, 15 16 years. 16 MR. HOLLOW^Y: that's quite all right. I 17 answer to many things, sir. 18 COMMISSIONER RISUEL: ^ppreciate it. Thank 19 you for your kindness. Commissioners, any questions of 20 Mr. Holloway? Thank you very much, Mr. Holloway. 21 Commissioner Mukoy. 22 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. 23 May I make a suggestion, if we have a limitation of 40 24 minutes in total -- 25 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I don't have that Page 67 1 many speakers. 2 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I have a lot of cards 4 but some of them don't want to speak so I don't think it's 5 as bad as it might appear from this side of the desk. 6 COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, I mean, if we 7 have the five-minute rule it's eight speakers. If we want 8 to allow more than eight, we need to reduce that five 9 down. 10 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I'm just guessing 11 we're going to be right about there, but I appreciate your 12 concerns. It might not be as bad as it looks from this 13 side of the table. 14 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I don't want to 15 deprive the last three speakers. 16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: If I was better 17 organized over here, I'm sure it would be much easier to 18 see where we are with our count. Okay. Thank you very 19 much. Let me take them in the order that I have at this 20 point in time. The next speaker I have on my list would 21 be Mr. Terry Sewell. Mr. Terry Sewell, would you like to 22 present? 23 MR. SEWELL: Terry Sewell, 3005 Mistywood, 24 and I do live in the flood zone. Our concern is if we 25 build in Tracts 10 and 11, according to this map that I Page 68 1 have right here, that more water is going to come down. 2 If they build right up next to the flood zone, where are 3 the retaining ponds going to go? It's already there. So 4 we lack the confidence, myself and some of my neighbors 5 lack the confidence in the retaining ponds holding back 6 the water. 7 I'm not sure what to do. I don't know what 8 the answer is. I don't know if cleaning it out -- and I 9 know the upgrades around Mingo Road and the railroad 10 trestle is a big issue. That will help but it still 11 floods a lot. 12 I'm going to keep this short. This is my 13 backyard. I don't know if we can see all this or not. I 14 really like to use our backyard, barbecues, whatnot, and 15 we love to go swimming, just not in this pond. 16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: when was this picture 17 taken? 18 MR. SEWELL: I believe this was last 19 January. And this has happened several times, which you 20 can see it also floods the storage shed and whatnot. 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: If you would move 22 your picture over, maybe you could show us again where 23 your house is located. 24 MR. SEWELL: Let's See. My house is right 25 here, right here. So if they build these -- this is just PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 65 - Page 68 Condens~It .... Page 69 adding more concrete already up to this flood zone and the elevation is akeady high right here and the water to us just seems like it's going to come down taster. So I'm just going to lack the confidence in the retaining ponds and the flooding system that has been proposed. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: We can see you have a concern. 4 5 6 7 8 MR. SEWELL: Yes. Thank you. 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. 10 Sewell. Mr. Mulroy. Mr. Sewell, I think I have a couple 11 of Commissioners that may have some questions. 12 Mr. Mulroy, are you one of those? 13 COMMISSIONER MULROY: NO. 14 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: okay. Mr. Keith. 15 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Do yOU carry flood 16 insurance? i17 MR. SEWELL: Yes, we do. 18 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Have you had to file 19 with that flood insurance with your policy? 20 MR. SEWELL: I don't have it with me, no. 21 COMMISSIONER KEITH: I mean, have you filed 22 under it, have you made any claims? 23 MR. SEWELL: NO, I have not. 24 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. SO it's just 25 primarily the flooding has been back up into your Page 70 1 backyard? 2 MR. SEWELL: For the most part, at this 3 point so far, yes. 4 COMMISSIONER KEITH: At this point. Is 5 your house on slab at grade level? I mean, is it elevated 6 off the ground much? I'm trying to get a picture of how 7 those houses are built there. 8 MR. SEWELL: Right. Thc house comes -- the 9 slab comes up six to eight inches or so. 10 COMMISSIONERKEITH: okay. Thank you very 11 much. 12 MR. SEWELL: Thank you. 13 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Scwcll, attached 14 to your briefing information that you presented to us, you 15 had a whole list of neighbors that were involved with you 16 here. 17 MR. SEWELL: Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Are any of those 19 neighbors here with you? 20 MR. SEWELL: YeS, they are. 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: will some of those 22 people be speaking or did you want to present them in some 23 way, shape, or form? 24 MR. SEWELL: I would like for them to 25 speak. Page 71 Page 1 We have not heard, or, at least, I've not 2 heard this evening, what the staff's recommendation is as 3 to how that fits with the density plan for the City, but 4 we do like the downward trend. 5 We do appreciate the developer' s enthusiasm 6 and willingness to be meeting with us, and we could be 7 meeting about once a week on a regular basis as we go 8 through this process. One point that we arc in agreement 9 with is that perhaps continuing for simply a two-week 10 per/od when there are so many changes coming down, may not 11 be enough time to get the information to all the people 12 who are going to be affected or impacted by thc changes. 13 We still have some concerns regarding 14 density. We do have some concerns regarding the traffic 15 and the traffic impact, as well as the access from outside 16 the Loop to inside the Loop. And I was here for part of 17 thc discussion related to the Kings Row and the Windsor 18 overpasses. We do have some concerns about that 19 accessibihty. 20 And we also, being a neighborhood that has 21 a neighborhood school, we are concerned about the impact 22 that it will have on the school. I know that the school 23 district has some things in place to help with impact fees 24 an~or making allowances for land or other things that 25 would help reduce that negative impact or that overflow PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 69 - Page 72 1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: okay. Okay. We'll 2 have time for that, I'm sure. Thank you, Mr. Sewell. 3 MR. SEWELL: Thank you. 4 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I have a letter and 5 several pictures from a Mary Wright. Would Mary Wright 6 care to speak at this time? Is Mary Wright here? I have 7 some very detailed pictures that she had and I will submit 8 her letter into our minutes for Planning and Zoning and 9 we'll have that information all together. 10 The next speaker that I have is Wade 11 Lillie. Is Mr. Lillie here? 12 MR. LILLIE: oood evening. My name is Wade 13 Lillie. I serve as President of the Deerwood Neighborhood 14 Association. We have several members that are here with 15 us tonight. You guys want to wave or something? Michael, 16 I think this is your que. 17 We did meet with the developer back last 18 week. Some of the changes that have been proposed were 19 not discussed at that meeting, but let me tell you that 20 there are some areas of agreement. And while we can't 21 speak in total support of it at this time because there 22 are still some things that are left hanging, we think the 23 density is moving in the right direction and that the 24 changes that are being made to reduce the density are 25 good. Condcnsclt .... Page 73 1 impact. 2 And so I guess right now we feel that 3 things are moving the right direction and we would 4 encourage the process to continue until we can get 5 agreement. I know that they're interested in meeting with 6 the school and getting some agreement there, as well. 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, any 8 questions of Mr. Lillie? Mr. Mukoy. 9 COMMISSIONER MULROY: YeS. Thanks again 10 for coming to another meeting. My question -- I 1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: IS your microphone 12 on? 13 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Thank you. Excuse 14 me. My mistake. Thank you again for coming to another 15 meeting, Mr. Lillie. It's important for our process. Of 16 specific interest to me is the recent changes reverting 17 the originally proposed NRMU'S and some t4R-6's back to the .18 Ec4 area, the light industrial area that buffers between 19 the heavier industrial and University Drive and your 20 neighborhood. And, of course, there's an NR-6 in between. 21 What is your neighborhood association's reflection on the 22 ~.c4 designation, the light industrial versus the previous 23 proposed? 24 MR. LILLIE: we've not had an opportunity 25 to specifically address that in some type of a format to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 74 either get a vote on it or to come to some consensus. However, it was addressed at our last meeting with the developer and Larry Reichhart was there and provided the list of activities and services that could be provided through that. And at that time, there did not seem to be a real concern regarding any of those. We're not talking about having smokestacks and those kinds of things. It is more amenable. And also some of the usages are non,hall Page 75 1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further 2 questions, Commissioners? Thank you, Mr. Lillie. 3 MR. LILLIE: Thank you. 4 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: The next speaker that 5 I have is Mr. Steve Pogue. I hope I got that right this 6 time, Mr. Pogue. 7 MR. POGUE: Thank you. My nmne is Steve 8 Pogue. I live at 3416 Hillview. And I want to just kind 9 of look at this property as proposed in terms of the 10 context of the City. And I'm not sure how this is showing 11 up on the map. 12 The area in green is basically representing 13 the areas where there's existing housing and the new 14 developments will abut against that. And my concern is if 15 you look at this entire area, most of the area is 16 currently zoned NR-3. There's a small section that is 17 currently developed as NR-4 and then as you go up in the 18 area called D-10, you can see it, part of that is NR-4. 19 Several times I've heard the petitioners talk about that 20 the lots will be the existing size or larger, but that 21 would require -- they would be NR-3's, NR-2'S, or NR-I~S. 22 So I'm kind of puzzled as to why they're saying these lots 23 will actually be the same size as the existing area. 24 And I guess in the overall context of what 25 this map shows to me is that this is primarily an area of Page 76 i single-family housing. There's really not multi-family 2 areas right in this irmnediate area. And I think many of 3 us in this area would like to keep it that way, keep it 4 single-family. I think sometimes the idea has been 5 proposed that people don't want to live within a proximity 6 of the Loop, but I think as you go further around the 7 Loop, you'll see a number of developments have been 8 brought up basically within a few yards of the Loop or a 9 few feet of the Loop, and then they have some type of wall daytime uses when most of the homeowners are gone. And then in the evenings, those activities would not be apparent. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. So you're not opposed to that at all, reverting back to the light industrial? MR. LILLIE: We did not propose that. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I mean, you're not opposed to it. MR. LILLIE: AS a neighborhood association, we have not had a chance to come to consensus on that, but there was not opposition voiced at our last neighborhood meeting when it was discussed with Mr. Reichhart and the developers. COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. Thank you, Mr. Lillie. 10 that permits privacy. So thank you. 11 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Some of those 12 subdivisions are selling and some of those aren't. Thank 13 you, Mr. Pogue. Let me see if there's any Commissioners 14 that have any questions. Any questions, Commissioners? 15 Thank you very much. 16 Is there a Ginger Ester here? Ms. Ester. 17 MS. ESTER: Most of my concerns and 18 questions have already been answered. 19 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: They've already been 20 answered? 21 MS. ESTER: Yeah. 22 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very much. 23 Mr. Richard Beggs. 24 MR. BEGGS: My name is Richard Beggs. I 25 live at 2324 East Windsor Drive. I would hate to see the 'LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 73 - Page 76 CondcnscltTM Page 77 1 Council approve anything that would further a Windsor 2 overpass, anymore traffic on Windsor. We don't need that 3 at all. We've got Woodrow Wilson Elementary, Strickland 4 Middle School, Evers Park Elementary, two parks, Evers 5 Park and North Lakes Park on Windsor. 6 In a recent study the City did -- well, not 7 recent, about last year, they docked people at 70 miles 8 an hour on my street. So I have nothing against the 9 petitioner but we don't need any more traffic on Windsor 10 Drive, is the main point that I would like to make. 11 Also, I believe the school district has t2 indicated that they are against -- well, not against, that 13 they would like to have single-family homes compared to 14 multi-family dwellings. I know that the City, I felt in 15 the past, would like some multi-family because they can 16 have all the utilities there and we like to live out in 17 the country and those kind of things, but we all have to 18 live together. But I would suggest that we not encourage 19 more multi-family homes in that area and increase the 20 traffic. 21 Also, you've heard of the water shed 22 problems so I don't need to go into those. Thank you very 23 much. 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. Beggs. 25 Let me see if any Commissioners have questions. Page 78 1 Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Beggs? Thank you, 2 sir. 3 MR. BEGGS: Thank you. 4 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I have several cards 5 of people that did not wish to speak. But, first of all, 6 let me call to see if there's anyone else who would like 7 to speak. Once again, this is people in opposed to the 8 Item No. 13, Item No. 14 on our Agenda. Anyone else 9 who would like to speak opposed to this issue currently 10 before us? 11 Let me go through the cards. I have a card from Mr. Ray Staniszewski, and I believe he addressed us Page 79 1 and how it affects the neighborhood. 2 I have a card from Linda -- yeah, that's 3 C-R-E-A-G-H. Is that Creagh, I believe? And is concerned 4 about the Mobility Plan and the intersection at 288 and 5 Windsor. 6 Once again, this is a public hearing. 7 Anyone else who would like to speak either for or against 8 this item at this time, please come forward. If you'd 9 give us your name and address. l0 MR. DAVIS: Yes. My name is Glen Davis. I 1 live at 2907 Emerson. I guess one of our biggest issues .2 was the flood situation. Now, you saw the pictures that 13 the lady brought you here and you looked at them. Some of 14 those are behind my house. Okay. And when I first moved 15 in my house, it floods, it floods bad. It doesn't matter 16 how much it rains, it floods. 17 And one of our biggest issues we've been 18 fighting the City to come in there and clean it. Okay. I 19 cleaned my lot personally myself just so I could get the 20 water and debris to flow though. The City didn't do it. 21 I did it. I fought the City to do it and they still 22 wouldn't do it. My neighbors next to me did the same 23 thing. Now, you go down the road towards Old North, you 24 see the pictures, it's nothing but a brush pile. And you 25 go around the comer to Creagh, it's nothing but a brush Page 1 pile. When it rains, it floods severely. 2 Now, we've been fighting the City. Now 3 we're going to a greenbelt. Mr. Wolski says that he's 4 willing to give it to the City. The City don't want no 5 part of it. Neither does Mr. Wolski because Mr. Wolski 6 doesn't want to clean it and put the money out, neither 7 does the City. So who pays for it? The neighborhood. 8 We're the ones that lose because it floods our houses and 9 everything behind our house every time it rains. I used 10 1 2 12 13 last meeting. Still concerned about the zoning changes, 14 concerned about the Denton Plan, the traffic, would like 15 to see a traffic study, and is concerned about the schools 16 and the density. 17 I have a card from Ms. Staniszewski, and 18 would like to thank the staff for their information that 19 they have tried to relate to her regarding the questions 20 that she's had. She lives in the Deerwood area, I 21 presume, with Mr. Staniszcwski, and is still concerned 22 about the school, the Denton Plan, and increased density. 23 I have a card from Ms. Lillie, and also 24 concerned about the changes that have been put forth and 25 the need for time to look at those changes, the density to have a six-foot fence behind my house. You know where it's at? It's down that damn creek. And we've been dealing with this issue evm'y time it comes up. 13 Now~ I remember when Mr. Wolksi last year 14 came to my house, personally called me at my house -- I've 15 known Mr. Wolski for awhile, haven't I? He's a nice guy. 16 I don't have anything against him. But when Albertson's 17 came in, he called me, called a lot of the neighbors and 18 said, hey, Albertson's is coming in. It's going to flood 19 my 217 acres. You need to petition against it. Well, now 20 we're in the same boat. Mr. Wolski wants to build behind 21 my house. What am I doing now? I'm petitioning against 22 it because it's going to flood my house. I've been there 23 and I'm looking at that same situation again. Same with 24 all my neighbors that are sitting in these seats. I'm 25 looking out for the benefit of myself, but also the 13TH, 2002 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH Page 77 - Page 80 ~ontlons~lt ' Page 81 1 benefit of my neighbors and the value of my house. 2 Now, when Mr. Wolski goes in there and 3 builds, is he going to build those retention ponds right 4 next to that greenbelt? It's not going to serve any good 5 because nobody is cleaning the creek. The water is still 6 going to flow in the damn creek. So now we're at a losing 7 battle. It's called punt. Who's going to punt? We lose. 8 Mr. Wolski loses. We know that he's going to build back 9 there. That's a given. 10 Of course, we don't want to see apartment 11 complexes or commercial buildings back there. We'd sure 12 like to see residential homes and a nice neighborhood. 13 But the issue is something has to be done about the creek, 14 whether the City does it or whether Mr. Wolski does it. 15 And we know that. It has to be addressed. So I'll oppose 16 whatever he's willing to do until something is addressed. 17 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. Davis. 18 MR. DAVIS: Thank you very much. 19 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, any 20 questions of Mr. Davis? Any further questions? Anyone 21 who would like to speak either for or against Item No. 22 13 or Item No. 14 on our Agenda this evening? If 23 there's no one else who -- excuse me, Commissioner Keith. 24 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Yeah. In 25 relation to Mr. Davis' remarks, I would like -- no, please 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Page 82 be seated. I would like to ask Mr: Reichhart to come to the podium. I'd like to ask him something regarding that nature. COMMiSSIOneR RISHgL: I think it might help also if Mr. Fiedler might come forward and maybe we can get both of them because I'm sure he'll have some ideas and feedback and I was going to ask for him to come up and Page 83 1 historically, the property owner, not Dr. Wolski but the 2 previous property owner would not grant us easements to go 3 on the property to do any drainage clearing. 4 And as Mr. Fie, dim' had expressed, this has 5 been on a maintenance routine, although it hasn't been, if 6 you listen to the neighbors and they're right out there, 7 it hasn't been enough. With the drainage impact fees that 8 we have now, it is believed that we will be able to kick 9 up the maintenance that is required to keep this area free 10 of debris. Working with the applicant to get the 11 easements needed either temporarily to get on the property 12 to do some more maintenance would also be beneficial. 13 But the real problem is down here at Mingo 14 and the raikoad tracts is that restriction, and as you 15 clear this up, the water will still back up. I mean, it 16 will allow some more water to get out of there a little 17 bit quicker, but the restriction is at Mingo. Excuse me. 18 And until that is resolved, the routine maintenance will 19 keep that area flowing as well as it can. It will not 20 correct the flooding situation. 21 COMMISSIONER KetTH: okay. Can the City 22 come in and do some channeling in that area? 23 MR. REICHHART: I'll defer to the Director 24 of Engineering on that. 25 COMMtSS~O~a ~:~ITH: okay. And then the Page 84 next question, and maybe Engineering will have to do that too, is we just had a big rework, facelift down here on Bell Avenue and Prairie Street to handle the flooding down in that area. Has the City made any plans regarding addressing this backup that you just described that's at Mingo? MR. FIEDLER: with respect to the Cooper address that, also. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: SO your question, Mr. 11 Keith. 12 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Yeah. Mr. Reichhart, 13 what is the City code regarding these creeks, particularly 14 this one? Is this part of the ES^: 15 MR. REICHHART: I can't speak specifically 16 regarding drainage requirements but the property is 17 identified as es^. tt is developed floodplains which does 18 state that there could be some mitigation because it's 19 already a developed floodplain. But you'd have to do, you 20 know, the drainage studies to indicate what that would be. 21 COMMISSIONER KEITH: I mean, I think Mr. 22 Davis juat gave us a drainage study. 23 MR. REICHHART: Quite honestly, the City 24 does have some easements on this portion of that channel. 25 We don't have any easements on h~re -- excuse me -- and, 8 Creek water shed which is what we're talking about, Cooper 9 Creek and this area, no, there are no plans to do a 10 channelization of this. It's my understanding that the 11 studies that we have, even with the channelization, would 12 not pull all of these houses out of the floodplain in that 13 some of them are actually in the floodway. 14 COMMISSIONER KEITH: But would channeling 15 help? Well, that's what channeling is for is to help 16 encourage warm' to go downstream faster. As Mr. Reichhart 17 pointed out, the problem is at Mingo Road. Has the City 18 had any plans to work on the Mingo Road under road water 19 way? 20 MR. FIEDLER: Yes, sir. It's in the 2004 21 budget. There's $80,000.00 in the budget to r~lace the 22 culverts under Mingo Road, but it will not resolve the 23 flooding situation in the Cooper Creek water shed 24 upstream. 25 MR. D^VIS: It's just not Mingo Road. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TIt, 2002 Page 81 - Page 84 Condcnsclt Page 85 I You're not understanding -- 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: sir. 3 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Please, Mr. Davis. 4 What we have is a real problem here and some of it is the 5 previous developer's building down in a floodplain. And I 6 just want to let the audience know and Mr. Davis know that 7 I've worked as a catastrophe insurance adjuster and I had 8 to do a lot of flood insurance claims across the country 9 and I've seen very similar situations and seeing a home 10 flooded out is not a pretty sight. 11 So my sympathies are there but this is part 12 of the developer in which the City previously allowing 13 these to be built down there. So we've kind of got a hair 14 in the butter situation of, okay, what can we do to 15 alleviate some of the flooding because you're not, 16 apparently from your report, you're never going to 17 alleviate 100 percent of it, correct? 18 MR. FIEDLER: That' s correct. 19 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Thank you. 20 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Powell. 21 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. I still 22 have a couple of questions of staff. 23 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Stay with US, staff. 24 COMMISSIONER POWELL: one of them has been 25 answered. The second one is does either of you gentlemen Page 86 I know or does anybody know what the shaded area is on that 2 map that's on the screen now.'? Does that represent the 3 floodplain? 4 MR. REICHHART: It doesn't show very well. 5 I tried to highlight the subject property in the gray. 6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: IS that the David 7 Salmon's school of drawing? 8 MR. REICHHART: The area I am outlining is 9 the floodway or the floodplain. 10 COMMISSIONER ?OWELL: okay. So that shaded 11 area is what I was getting at. 12 MR. REICHHART: This area in here is the 13 floodplain. 14 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. So 15 there's a lot of houses and a lot of lots that are in that 16 area. 17 MR. REICHHART: Yes, sir. 18 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. 19 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Fiedler, with 20 regard to the development that we have at hand, is there 21 any -- do you see a combination of enlarged detention and 22 channeling or moving the water in a broader sense that 23 would help the people in this immediate area, either with 24 or without the Mingo drainage expansion at the railroad 25 track? Page 87 1 MR. FIEDLER: without any specific 2 engineering done on the project at this point in time, the 3 best answer I have for you is that the code would not 4 allow for them to discharge into the Cooper Creek water 5 shed upstream of Mingo Road. 6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: what I'm hearing you 7 say I think is that as this particular piece of property 8 is developed, that particular piece of property will not 9 add to additional waters into the Cooper Creek. 10 MR. FIEDLER: That would have an adverse 11 impact to the current water surface elevation, yes, sir. 12 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: okay. Is there 13 anything else we're doing upstream detention -- I know we 14 have several that we've just completed detention-wise. 15 Anything else we're doing upstream that's going to help us 16 irmnediately with regard to alleviating some of the 17 problems that Mr. Sewell and Mr. Davis have? 18 MR. FIEDLER: Yes, sir. There is another 19 detention pond, as I understand, that's in the works 20 upstream. How much impact it will have in this location, 21 really the Mingo Road improvements will have the most 22 impact for this reach of the creek. 23 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And you said that is, 24 in fact, part of the 2004 bond issue which would put it 25 approximately how far out? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 i1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page ~ MR. FIEDLER: My understanding is that they would be constructing it in 2004. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I see. So it would be immediate in that bond issue, in theory, if it makes the bond. MR. FIEDLER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: okay. Mr. Reichhart. MR. REICHHART: Just a point of clarification, it is in the 2004 bond. It has been approved. The money is set aside already. There is no other requirements for any -- it's in the 2000 bond issue. COMMISSIONER MULROY: It'S scheduled for 2004. in 2004. MR. REICHHART: It's slated to be approved COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Okay. Thank you very much. I hope that helps our audience a little bit in trying to understand what we've tried to do to mitigate some of the things that are troublesome to us at this point in time. Commissioners, I have a couple of questions still from Corm~aissioners. Commissioner Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: very briefly, if I can massage the feelings of some of the folks in the audience and come to defense of staff, the Cooper Creek PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 85 - Page 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 t3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~onoonsolt Page 89! basin has been the subject of City engineering for almost ten years. In the '96 bond issue, it was addressed looking at the crossings, our detention ponds, the total budget for detention ponds for that basin would be $4 to $6 million in 1996. The total amount of drainage money for five years from '96 to 2000 City-wide was only $7 million. So you can look at the proportionality and what money that could be allotted has been allotted and two detention ponds have been built with the developer participation. So it's not that the City is unaware and not that they haven't been undertaking design of solutions. It's really come down to a budget crunch because you're looking at somewhere between $4 to $8 million bracket to completely solve this and that's more than the City has spent historically over five year spans on their drainage. Page 91 Now, hopefully, with the advent of the drainage fee, they've increased the money in the maintenance budget. They can start to clean out the creeks and they can plan -- better plan and implement these future resolutions of these problems. So it's really been a budget crunch the last six or seven years. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Roy. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 changed. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I think you have the current one there. COMMISSIONER HOLT: IS this the current one? On this map, I have they're NR-4'S and I wondered what the zoning was on these homes over here on Windsor that are right in there by the Merman church on Old North Road. Page 90 1 COMMISSIONER ROY: we're spending a lot of 2 time on this issue. It's a very sensitive issue for this 3 development. And despite the fact that you!ve taken a 4 position from an engineering perspective that it will not 5 adversely affect the existing condition, but I think it's 6 worthwhile to continue working this. 7 What is the possibility of moving this 8 drainage improvement up from 2004? What would have to 9 happen to move this up higher in priority? 10 MR. FIEDLER: I really don't know the 11 answer to that question, sir. It is something that is a 12 part of the utility budgeting process and it is detenuined 13 of when the funds were allotted to be available. 14 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Our Counselor Snyder 15 would like to add a comment here. 16 MR. SNYDER: And, Doug, correct me if I'm 17 wrong, but I believe every year there's a capital 18 improvement plan that comes through this Board. 19 COMMISSIONER MULROY: NO. 20 MR. SNYDER: we don't do that anymore? 21 COMMISSIONER MULROY: If I may, Counselor, 22 no longer does the utility Lip come before P&Z. It goes 23 straight to Council. 24 MR. SNYDER: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I would add that we 1 MR. GRAY: I guess you'd be referring to 2 this area right here? 3 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Yes. 4 MR. OR~Y: okay. That is all NR-3. 5 COMMISSIONER HOLT: All the way down Old 6 North Road? 7 MK OP, nY: Right. Old North Road is going 8 to be right here so it's going to be NR-3 all the way down 9 almost to Uiversity. Right at the area of University, 10 there's some NR-2 and NRMU, but everything else along Old 11 North Road is ~m-3. 12 COMMISSIONER HOLT: It'S all NR-3? 13 MR. OR~Y: uh-huh. 14 COMMISSIONER HOLT: okay. Thank you. 15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: ^ny further 16 questions, Commissioners? Okay. Once again, I have 17 deliberately left this open as a public hearing. Is there 18 anyone else -- I don't know whether we've raised more 19 questions or answered more questions. Anyone else who 20 would like to speak at this time either for or against 21 this item on our Agenda? Anyone for or against, if you'd 22 please come forward at this time. Seeing no one who would 23 like to speak either for or against this itau, I would 24 invite the petitioner to give his rebuttal and we will 25 close the public hearing. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 89 - Page 92 Page 92 1 could relay this information on to the Director of 2 Utilities and the PUB. They have some flexibility in 3 changing their priorities. 4 MR. SNYDER: But to make a formal 5 recommendation, we'd have to put it on a future Agenda and 6 actually take an action because we're not posted for that 7 tonight. 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: conunissioner Mukoy. 9 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I'm finished. Thank 10 you, Chairman. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further questions 11 12 of staff at this time? Commissioner Holt. 13 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Yes. It's nothing with 14 drainage. It's something else. I would like to know what 15 the zoning is on these properties that are adjacent, I 16 think Mr. Pogue brought this up, that are adjacent to t 7 Tracts 2, 3, and 10 that are NR-4. well, maybe this has Page 93 1 DR. WOLSKI: Appreciate all thc comments. 2 Now, as far as the school district, we have made offers of 3 land. We offered on this site. The tract on this site 4 was too small so we're talking about another site. 5 As far as the flooding, there's a big 6 difference between Albertson's and our site. Number one, 7 we haven't been filling the floodplain for 15 years 8 without a permit. Number two, we're returning all water 9 on-site. All the Albertson's water is not being retained [ 0 on-site. And we are completely out of the floodplain. 11 You know, Albertson's is in the floodplain. We're 12 completely out. And that's why I was concerned because 13 Albertson's was building in the floodplain, you know. And 14 from what I'm hearing here that the City Council now and 15 the Conunissioners now wouldn't allow that to happen, well, 16 they've allowed it to happen at Albertson's 17 As far as houses being NR-3, Mr. Pogue 18 brought that up, I thought that those were SF-7 houses and 19 we'll double-check that. I think what it is is on the 20 map, it's h~-3, but it's really, if you measure out the 21 lots, they're sF-?s which are equivalent to NR-4s, and 22 we'll double-check that. 23 As far as density, we've been coming down 24 the last several weeks. Evm-y time we hear density, we've 25 dropped it and we've dropped it 809 units. We've dropped Page 94 1 from the -- we went from 30 units per acre to 12 units per 2 acre. 3 And as far as the flooding again, most of 4 those problems like at Mingo Road, because there's 5 restricted flow under Mingo, and I just don't feel it's 6 fair for us to have to fix the bridge at Mingo and the 7 culvert. That's -- no, we're not going to add any water 8 to Cooper Creek to elevate the level of the water. 9 We're planning to go talk to the school board 10 and try to make them happy. And what I'd like to do is if 11 we could move onto City Council and we'll work something 12 out with the school board before then. But after being 13 continued five times and having a renotification of the 14 neighborhood once, so that's like six times we've been 15 here. And the neighbors, we've met like lots of meetings, 16 you know, and I think they might be tired of going to all 17 the meetings. 18 I'd sure like to see if we can move on to 19 thc next step. And we'll -- thc main impasse that I see i20 is -- or it's not an impasse. The main thing is we need 21 to finish our ncgotlatlons with the school board. Thank 22 you very much. 23 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Dr. 24 Wolski. Director Powell, if I could get you -- I don't 25 want to have anything a petitioner might have said about 5 6 7 8 9 tO 11 12 13 14 15 16 :17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 95 Albertson's in a slanderous mode here. Could you clarify for us anything that you might know about the Albertson's property and what has or has not transpired on that property? MR. POWELL: I'd be happy to. The Albertson's proposed development which is at the northwest corner of University and 288 was referred to as being built in a floodplain. I'm sure at one point in time that that propm~:y was in the floodplain but the Albertson's proposal, they are not reclaiming any of the floodplain, it was previously filled in the past, not by their actions, the current actions. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Director. Once again, we have closed the public hearing and, staff, is there a final comment? MR. ORAY: NO. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: A wise statement. Thank you. Commissioners, any comments? And I'd like to get Legal to clarify for us, once again, Commissioners received a last part of a packet on Monday and I just want to make sure that notification was given amply for this meeting and the information contained in this meeting with regard to notification. MR. SNYDER: I don't think there was a legal notification problem, per se, but it's my Page 1 understanding that this latest proposal did not -- was not 2 submitted to staff until Monday and staff hadn't had an 3 opportunity to look at it and analyze it to the degree 4 that they normally would. 5 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Tuesday, I believe. 6 MR. SNYDER: TUesday, excuse me. But there 7 is not a legal notice problem as far as the posting goes. 8 You can proceed tonight legally. 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: okay. Thank you very 10 much. Commissioner Roy. 11 COMMISSIONER ROY: Yeah. There are two 12 continuing troublesome issues for me having to do with the 13 floodplain continuing. The fact that these houses were 14 built in the floodplain and the fact that somebody filled 15 in the floodplain on the site where Albmason's is going 16 to build. What happened here and how did this happen and 17 what is the City's responsibility for if we allowed it to 18 happen consciously, what's our responsibility to get out 19 of that problem? I'm confused about this. 20 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Director. 21 MR. POWELL: well, I think you'll find in 22 the City of Denton and other cities, historically, people 23 do -- there are not being regulations built -- buildings, 24 develop propm'ty within the floodplain. And, in fact, 25 most of downtown Denton is in a floodplain. So I think PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 93 - Page 96 ~ondcnsclt .... Page 97 i it's not unusual that this has happened. 2 Current regulations would not permit that. 3 Then there's the question of how do you retrofit and I 4 think that was discussed. We do have a new drainage fee 5 that is to take into account and try to improve storm 6 water drainage. 7 The magnitude of this problem and whether 8 or not it will be addressed through that process and the 9 utilities and the Public Utilities Commission, we will -- 10 I know that they know that this is an issue and I think 11 that you can also forward on your concerns. 12 But, clearly, any new development such as 13 Dr. Wolski's property, the regulations, without a 14 variance, would call that there would be no additional 15 impact. You couldn't make the situation worse. 16 COMMISSIONER ROY: SO this was done before 17 there were regulations, is that what we think? Is that 18 what you understand? 19 MR. POWELL: I assume it was before there 20 were regulations prohibiting the development of lots and 21 building buildings in the floodplain, but we have not 22 researched that. 23 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Counselor would like 24 to chime in here for a second. 25 MR. SNYDER: I just want to make this clear 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 Page 98 if it wasn't clear earlier in the discussion about this drainage issue. Although it might have a bearing on whether you vote this case up or down, it really is not a zoning issue, per se. As I understood the testimony, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Powell, the testimony is that this issue is going to be there regardless of how the subject property is developed. And it's really not a land use issue, per se, as far as what the zoning on the property would be. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I just wanted to point that out because we 10 have spent a lot of time on it. It's like I said, you can 11 -- this is a legislative act so you can vote this ease up 12 or down on any reasonable information that you have. But 13 I just wanted to point out the way I heard it, the testimony tonight, this issue is going to be present here regardless of what this property is zoned. Is that correct or did I overstate that? MR. POWELL: Well, I think that's correct but I also think there's a magnitude, there could be a magnitude of the issue depending on how it's developed. Very shuilar to traffic, obviously a TIA is required for all development and that T~^ would look at mitigating the adverse, the additional vehicle trips. I do believe in this case Mr. Snyder is right, the drainage issue is going to stay regardless of whether or not the property develops 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH Page 99 or doesn't develop. I do feel that the regulations we have in place will protect that situation getting worse regardless of the development, whether it's at a h/gher density or a lower density. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: oetting worse from the subdivision? MR. POWELL: aetting worse from the present condition. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Right. Commissioner Keith. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. I would like to, first of all, commend Dr. Wolski on his presentation and his compromises he's made with the City, as well as the people living in the area. In my discussions with him, I understand that he's been trying to -- he began on this a year ago and tried to get before the City last fall, but was postponed because of the new Code coming down the pike. Well, he's now in the pike and he's worked very hard to convert to it and I think he's done a very commendable job. I'd like to commend his staff and him for his efforts. One of the characteristics on here he' s rezoned from NRMU to EC-I and this stems from some of the Page 100 problems that apparently the Code doesn't have provisions to allow for what he was wanting to do in certain multiple family housing, that he was wanting to go NRMU-12. ?eople in the region didn't like it because this allowed for multiple use that they could wind up putting a go-cart track in their backyard. So it lacked guarantees for them. And even although he was willing to offer deed restrictions, they still felt uncomfortable because the City is in a position of not being able to enforce those deed restrictions. So he's come in and compromised on those. Again, I commend him. The drainage problem, I wish to thank our counsel for bringing the point that this is kind of a problem that's been ongoing and the City is working to try and alleviate this, but I don't see why anything we should do should punish or hold up Dr. Wolski with his plans. And as far as with the school, I kind of look at it this way, this is going to be kind of an incremental type program, that if this property was divided up into five parcels and developed incremental by five different developers, the school board wouldn't be saying anything until the fifth developer down there started building and they said, oh, wait a minute, we've got problems. We have an impact now. 13TH, 2002 Page 97 - Page 100 (~011~On SOlt .... Page 101 1 So I think, yes, the school does have a 2 problem. I know they have financial problem, but this is 3 because of lack of economic development in the community. 4 And this is where we, as a Commission really and the City, 5 need to really be engineering ourselves into bringing 6 industry in this town to offset these high taxes and to 7 make these new schools we're going to have to build in the 8 future more affordable. There's where we need to be 9 generating. 10 Now, Dr. Wolski is also offering part of 11 this development, light industrial areas, for that 12 purpose. So I think this is something that's going to be 13 a very strong addition to the community and I'm going to 14 vote for it. Thank you. 15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. Keith. 16 Commissioner Powell. 17 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, Mr. 18 Chairman. We were talking a minute ago about regulations 19 and perhaps these houses were built before regulations. 20 It may not have been the case. It might be that they were 21 buik before the floodplain was recognized. Maybe there 22 were regulations but it could be the floodplain was not 23 outlined at that time and all the regulations that you 24 could have had wouldn't have helped. I guess that was my 25 point. Page 102 1 My second thing is that I, personally, am 2 ready to move on this when it would suit the Chairman. 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I See no one else 4 that would like to address the Commission or the audience. 5 Oh, I take that back. Well, let's go ahead and take the 6 other Commissioners' questions and we'll come back to you 7 as first call. Commissioner Mukoy. 8 COMMISSIONER MULROY: YeS. My comment 9 would be at this time is that I think that the density has 10 been mitigated and, you know, we had asked for -- part of 11 the purpose of the new Development Code was to look for a 12 well-planned development. It's been -- many of the areas 13 of concern have been addressed. The major things I've 14 heard tonight, the transportation really is out of the 15 reaim of this zoning. The drainage is out of the reahn of 16 this zoning. 17 The one problem area I have is still the 18 neighborhood association did not seem to be satisfied that 19 they had enough time with the revised plan, didn't seem to 20 be passionately against it, but were tentative on absolute 21 acceptance and that's problematic for me that the 22 neighborhood hasn't digested the most recent plan. 23 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Holt. 24 COMMISSIONER HOLT: YeS. Thank you. The 25 problems that I have with it as it is, and we have come a Page 103 1 long way since the beginning of this and I feel like we've 2 really made some progress. One, I think we need to find 3 out before we vote on this whether these properties are 4 NR-3 or NR-4. TO me, that makes a huge difference because 5 if these homes are NR-3 that are already there, then I 6 would want these homes and these tracts to be NR-3. 7 And then I think the school site issue is 8 definitely a ~- I would really like to know what's going 9 to happen -- you know, whether we're going to have 10 something or not. Because if we're not going to have 11 anything, then I would vote no. If we're going to have 12 something, that would definitely change my vote. So 13 that's my only hesitance voting at this time is because I 14 think we are not quite -- we don't have anything clear. 15 We're going to go to the school. We're not sure whether 16 this is NR-3, this is NR-4. And I just think there's too 17 much gray area right now. 18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, 19 Commissioner. Commissioner Roy. 20 COMMISSIONER ROY: It'S been awhile since 21 we've had any recommendation from staff on this. We've 22 done a lot of talking and there's been a lot of changes. 23 But before we vote, I'd like to hear what the staff feels 24 about the current density and all these issues that we're 25 talking about. I'm going to rely very strongly on what Pag4 1£ 1 they have to say. 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Director Powell. 3 MR. POWELL: The staff report that we 4 submitted that we have not updated, raised concerns about 5 the magnitude, the size of the node, if you will, and the 6 amount of the multi-family, the density. Obviously, the 7 latest proposal by Dr. Wolski reduces that. 8 I do believe that this is one I don't think 9 that there is a right or wrong. Whether or not the new 10 proposal absolutely agrees with the Comp Plan, absolutely 11 agrees with the Development Code, absolutely agrees with 12 the intent of what we'd like to see for that area, I do 13 believe that they've made strides. 14 I think that we still would have concerns. 15 I think a recommendation -- however, if we went back and 16 looked at it, and, obviously, we've really not studied ir 17 since we only got it Tuesday also, I think may be ~18 different than the one that was in your original report. 19 COMMISSIONER ROY: Well, I don't see how 20 we, as a Conu-nission, can act on this until we have a 21 formal recommendation from staff. I guess we could 22 without staff recommendation but that would be kind of 23 unusual. 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: You're empowered. 25 COMMISSIONER ROY: Okay. But I want PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 101 - Page 104 Page 105 1 somebody with me on this and somebody who knows all the 2 details. I propose we get formal recommendation from 3 staff because I know you took, area by area, you had some 4 agreements. On some areas in the old documentation, you 5 agreed with the proposal. 6 Then some other sections of it, you did not 7 agree. And the document we have in here is before the 8 latest changes. So I recommend that we get their formal 9 review and recommendation. 10 COMMISSIONEi>, RISHEL: Thank you, i 1 Commissioner. Commissioner Apple. 12 COMMISSIONER APPLE: For my part, I would 13 feel that it was premature for mc to make a decision 14 tonight based on the fact that at our last meeting, I know 15 Commissioner Powell so eloquently asked that we be 16 presented with information that was solid and not new 17 information thrown at us at the last minute. 18 I concur with Commissioner Mukoy that the 19 neighborhood hasn't had time to digest this. Staff has 20 not had time to digest this. The school board has asked 21 for additional time. The Commission has not had time to 22 digest this. And I just feel like it would be premature 23 to make an up or down decision this evening. 24 COMMISSIONER RISH~.L: ~'m going to weigh in 25 here. I, too, am concerned about how this particular Page 106 1 subdivision weighs in with the Denton Plan, as we have 2 spent so much time looking at that and developing that, 3 and my concern deals mostly with what we've seen as the 4 ideal growth of our community. 5 And as we textured it in that particular 6 proposal, we see it as a 60/40 growth potential. That's 7 60 percent residential and 40 percent multi-family. And I 8 think that draws on the texture and the fabric of our 9 cormuunity and how we'd like to see it grow and progress. 10 And I think it's important for us as citizens, and I think 11 we spoke loudly when we put forth those percentages as 12 something that was important to us. I hate to deviate 13 from that. 14 I'm still concerned about some life, 15 safety, and health issues that we have with regard to this 16 particular subdivision. I'm concerned about the drainage 17 issues that we have. I don't know if they can all be 18 solved in this thing. I think that the City is going to 19 work with us the best they possibly can to make sure we 20 get things implemented as swiftly as possible. 21 I'm concerned about the fact that the 22 neighbors have not had enough time to look at. I really 23 got the feeling at the last meeting that we had that the 24 neighborhood were buying into the direction that the 25 builder was golng> the developer was going and could full Page 107 I support this. And I know we have a new plan that they 2 have not had a chance to look at fully. And I think it 3 probably is a bettor plan than we had put forth to us 4 before, but I would like to give the people a chance to 5 buy into that as it is textured at this point in time. I 6 think it's important that we sell that to as many of the 7 neighbors and the people that are around the neighborhood 8 as possible. 9 So I'm concerned about the direction that 10 we've gone at this point in time, although I think it has 11 gotten much better from what we were originally presented 12 several months ago. And I would like to see the 13 Commission be able to support this strongly as opposed to 14 sending it forth to City Council that might be in a 15 position that it has to have a super-majority. So those i 16 are my concerns at this point in time. Commissioner 17 Powell. 18 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, Mr. 19 Chairman. I have a question of our legal staff, if I may. 20 On page 5 is the motion on Item 13. This is apparently 21 the same motion we had before us at the last meeting. How 22 does this motion affect or is it affected by this new 23 plan? Is this motion still -- would this still be a 24 recommended motion? 25 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I think our Director Page 108 1 would prefer to answer that. 2 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Fine. Thank you very 3 much. I needed an answer from somebody. 4 MR. POWELL: well, the recommendation 5 historically was based on staff's recommendation, the 6 motion was based on staff recommendation. Again, we 7 haven't changed our recommendation since the first staff 8 report, the original request came in. So we haven't 9 changed our -- but either way, the Comprehensive Plan 10 application really hasn't changed. It really is the 11 zoning portion of it. But, again, the recommendation is 12 the same that was in the first staff report. 13 COMMISSIONER POWEUL: okay. Well, I'm 14 going to read this, not as a motion, Mr. Chairman, but 15 just as a matter of information. I'm not moving on this 6 at the moment. But it says I move to recommend approval 17 to amend the Comprehensive Plan by changing approximately 18 32 acres of Neighborhood Center and Community Mixed Use 19 Center and 72 acres of Employment Center to Neighborhood 20 Center as defined in the Windsor Oaks master plan. 21 Now, my question is does that still hold? 22 Do those numbers still hold? Do those designations still 23 hold or have they changed? 24 MR. POWELL: My apologies. No, they have 25 changed in that the Employment Center, they are retaining PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 105 - Page 108 1 2 3 4 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 109 that. All of it? Mr. Reich_hart may have the numbers. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Reichhart, would you care to help us address this? Thank you, Commissioner Powell. M~. mZlCHH,~tT: originally, there's three tracts in here that were originally or are currently Employment Center land use designation that were going to be switched to the Neighborhood Centers designation, but now the applicant is saying that they're with&awing that part. So that description does not hold tree anymore. There is going to be less Employment Center switching into Neighborhood Center. COMMISSIONER POWELL: SO I guess at the risk of beating a dead horse, we are, once again, in a position where we do not have a motion to vote on? MR. REICHHART: COIT~Ct. COMMISSIONER POWELL: For the fourth or fifth time. motion. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YOU can always make a COMMISSIONER POWELL: Yes, but I don't know how. I mean, I'd love to make a motion. You can tell I'm itching to do it, but I don't know how to do it because I don't know how -- I don't know what numbers to fill in these slots here, so to speak. Page 110 1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Reichhart, do you 2 have a comment? 3 MR. REICHHART: NO. 4 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. 5 Commissioner Apple. 6 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I would like to take a 7 stab at a motion. 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YOU have the floor, 9 Cmmnission~r Apple. 10 COMMISSIONER POWELL: YOU have it, ma'am. 11 Go to it. 12 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I would like to move 13 to continue Items 13 and 14 to a date certain of April 14 the 10th to allow time for everyone involved to digest 15 this and come up with recommendations and also to ad&ess 16 Commissioner Holt's concerns about exactly what the 17 abutting neighborhood is. 18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Commissioner Holt. 19 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Did I remmnber that the 20 school district doesn't get theirs until the 9th? Is that 21 going to be enough time for us to get that information? 22 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Th~qr meeting will be 23 April the 9th and I hate to hold them off any longer than 24 that because that would be four weeks. 25 COMMISSIONER HOLT: That's fine, if we can Page 111 1 get that information. 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Did you want to make 3 a second to that motion? 4 COMMISSIONER HOLT: second. 5 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I didn't want to put 6 words in your mouth but thank you. It has been moved by 7 Commissioner Apple and seconded by Commissioner Hok. We 8 have a motion on the floor. Any further discussion? 9 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Yes, Mr. Chairman. 10 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Powell. l 1 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you vex3, much, 12 sir, for letting me interrupt you there. I'm going to be 13 voting no on the motion, not because I'm obstinate though 14 I guess it may appear that way. I'm going to be voting no 15 out of frustration. I'll just tell you that right now and 16 then I'll wait for the vote and do it. 17 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: In light of the 18 motion, it's been brought to my attention that we have 19 closed the public hearing, so the question becomes, I 20 believe, is did you want to leave, reopen the public 21 hearing and continue this at that point in time? 22 COMMISSIONER APPLE: sure. 23 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: TO the date certain, 24 April 10th? Does that meet with the second? Okay. Any 25 further questions, Commissioners? Commissioner Mulroy. 7 8 9 10 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It'S your floor. 11 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Here' s the two bits. 12 Our last meeting, we asked the applicant to come back with 13 a proposal. As Commissioner Powell pointed out in the 14 last meeting, his frustration and it was a reflection of 15 mine, as well, was with the City staff, that there semued 16 to be lack of communication there, there was some :17 last-minute changes on their part to the applicant just 18 days or even haft a day or so before. 19 And so Conunissioner Powell turned to the 20 applicant and said, here, give us something to vote on, 21 something to look at. He's come in. He's done this. I 22 find he's made a pretty decent presentation tonight. Yes, 23 there's some clarifications regarding these NR-4S, SF-V. 24 but I think that could be probably resolved in five minutes outside the door with the staff and them getting Page 11 1 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Just a comment. I'm 2 going to support the motion for exactly your words two 3 weeks ago which I believe we asked to have a package 4 brought back to us that the neighborhood was in agreement 5 with, that was clear, that we could vote on. And we don't 6 have that in front of us tonight. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Keith. COMMISSIONER KEITH: My final two bits' worth. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 109 - Page 112 uonoon$oll Page 113 1 together. That's not a big -- though it is important, I'm 2 not belittling it, but I think that's something that can 3 be resolved rather quickly. 4 And I am going to be voting no against this 5 in the same reason for Commissioner Powell, is out of mere 6 frustration that this man has been working on this now for 7 a year. This is the first code -- first project to come 8 out of the box under the new Code and here we are. And I 9 was told that this was supposed to streaml/ne everything, 10 this new Development Code, and it hasn't. Thank you. l 1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners and 12 audience, I want to remind you, and I appreciate your 13 patience, that this really is the first major project 14 we've had under the new Code and I appreciate the struggle 15 that the City and the Commissioners and the audience has 16 gone through in trying to learn more about how we can work 17 with this and make it better. Commissioner Apple. 18 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I'd just like to 19 remind the Commissioners that, yes, this has had to come 20 back to us and, yes, the petitioner did come with a plan 21 but, unfortunately, they were given a little over two 22 weeks to do this. The neighborhood meeting was held on 23 March the 5th which was over a week ago and yet the 24 information was only forthcoming to staff and to the 25 Commissioners yesterday which was pretty late, in my 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 Page 115 to not to separate those out. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. !'!! !!.!!! .... ~2L_- ......2L__. --~--.--.,. ~.--.2~., ..... ; I think we will take a short break here, if that with everyone's approval, and we'll come back our meeting at 9:20. (Break taken.) MMISSIONER RISHEL: ~/n quorum pres go regularly of the Commission. And brings us Agenda. Item No. 15 Ms. Viera will present. MS. VIERA: requesting Development 139. 139 and Zoning No, 15 on our the docucam and For PDS able to prior to the adoption ;ode. the applicant is Dian for Planned lasses purposes, Plan zoning The amendment of the concept plan onents. Components 1 and 2 will centers and gas well operations as a in the Planned Development. The third component will be to redefine the floodplain boundary of Roark Branch and Page 114 1 opinion, for us to take full advantage. And I think that 2 if the petitioner is in a bind, it is partially due to his 3 own fault for not bringing this forth at an earlier time. 4 Thank you. 5 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, 6 Commissioner. Any further questions, Commissioners? 7 Seeing no further questions, we have a motion on the 8 floor. The motion was to continue with reopening of the 9 public hearing to a date certain of April 10th. It's been 10 moved by Commissioner Apple and seconded by Commissioner 11 Holt. If no further discussion, please vote. The motion 12 carries 5-2. 13 (COMMISSIONER POWELL AND KEITH VOTED IN 14 OPPOSITION.) 15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, 16 Commissioners. Let me get clarification on this. 17 Commissioner Apple, normally I would ask and I would 18 clarify that both -- that Item 13 and Item 14 were 19 brought forth separately. Did you bring both of those 20 forward together and is that -- 21 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Yes, my motion was to 22 continue Items 13 and 14. 23 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Was that what 24 everyone believed that we were -- okay, I wanted to make 25 sure I had clarification on that because it's not like me 4 5 6 7 8 9 ,10 1 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O Page the reclamation of a portion of thc floodplain with the ode to develop approximately 35 additional lots. In your backup, staff -- I'm sorry -- well exact be c 1 highlights the area where the ]of gas and amenity center will The the amenity center and well will detailed planning A Planned ; a detail plan f ? proposed use. [ to be located in .s been proposed, as the different well operations and having violate any of our Gas well operations areas where dedicated well. We have been ordinances that we have: gas well sites on park existing ordinances. The is a new detailed study would ~oundary of the floodplain also he wants to reclaim a p~on of thc new roi . X / The Denton Plan analysis iaentifi5 % ~[Smmunily Mixed Use Centers, and Floodplain ES^ ar~. On page 58 of the Denton Plan, the Code states tha~t ~an X environmentally sensitive area will be protected from ~ development impacts. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 113 - Page 116 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 CondcnscltTM 7 the 2. for your diligence. So at this point in time, it hat been open the public hearing and Item 12 to a date certain which would be Do I hear a motion that ONER HOLT: SO move. At. ~oY: second. [ RISHEL: It's by Commissioner Roy. Any further discussion? please vote. Motion carries present. Thank you very much, sloncrs. It~u No. 8 on our on our docucam and Ms. Agenda. Itmn No. 8 Viera will present. MS. Cmra'nis sion a requiring ,~. The intent is to subdivide t into two The application meets the of the subdivision and land 34. Therefore, staff is recommending COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, Ms. Viera? Is the petitioner here and they like to present? Would you please give us your name and address? 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 :12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 further vote. GOMM~SIONER RKSHEL: Pm ready to listen. COMMISSIONEK KOY: MOVe approval. COMMISSIONEK MULKOY: Second. COMMISSIONEK KISHEL: It~ s Roy and seconded by Seeing no 6-0 of the want to take a next item, in (Break taken) KISHEL: I believe we have a c you before, I just want to excused from this a yellow card to coming up. adat¢ is If you would l of the future ,night item. The Agenda. COMMISSIONER As I mentioned to notes. Mrs. ' and she's to fill out 12 has been postponed or to of the 24th. And I have a request from ; of No. 13 and 14, Cmmnissioners be reversed. One of lhose is a contested item those is a noncontested item, and they thought that might help us with our Agenda. So I would like to see if at the discretion of the Cmm~ission if they would tge Any MS. DIAMOND: My name is Julie Diamond. 'm with Racetrack Petroleum. My address is 300 Court. That's in Atlanta, Georgia, 4 Racetrack Petroleum 5 about this development. If any 6 our replat, answer 7 them. 8 RISHEL: yOU. 9 Conuuissioners stay Commissioners, 10 any questions Ms. Diamond 11 This is a public :lse -- I don't have any 12 cards regarding this 13 Yes, I do one card and 14 that was from Ms. and she is the petitioner. 15 And I have :ards. this is a public 16 hearing. And have not card and want 17 to address if you please fill out a 18 card. else who would like to regarding 19 )n our Agenda? close 20 the hearing and ask Ms. Viera to closing MS. VIERA: NO further comments. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Ms. Commissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: I'm ready to make a 1 be possible to Commissioners, 14 if that met Once again, we left off on Item No. 9 on 5 our Agenda. Item No. 9 should appear on our docucam. 6 This is actually regarding Item No. 9 and 10, so I will 7 open the public heating and we will hear from staff 8 regarding Items 9 and 10 respectively. 9 Ivm. OR~Y: Thank you and good evening. 10 Item 9 is to continue a public hearing regarding a 1 comprehensive plan amendment for approximately 105 acres 2 on Loop 288 north of Mingo and south of Kings Row. Item 13 10 is continuing a public hearing regarding the zoning for 14 this development. These two cases obviously go hand in 15 hand. 16 rll show you what the applicant is 17 proposing in regards to Item No. 9. Currently the 18 Comprehensive Plan has this area and you can sm thc 19 dashed line to show the applicant's property. This area 20 right here is shown as an employment center on the 21 Comprehensive Plan. The rest of the area is shown as a 22 neighborhood center. 23 What the applicant is proposing is to 24 change approximately 40 acres of the neighborhood cente* 25 located here to a community mixed use center. And then PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 61 - Page 64 Cond_en.~eltTM Page 65 1 approximately another 30 acres of this slrip right here, 2 change that from an employment center to the neighborhood 3 center. 4 The applicant is requesting this because he 5 has a zoning -- and I believe this information should be 6 in your backup. And it should look similar to what you've 7 seen in the past. Right now the applicant is proposing -- 8 just to bring you up to date on some past developments, 9 the applicant has taken tracts, 8, 9, and 7 out of the 10 zoning, the requested zoning. They will remain employment 11 center, industrial. And then tracts 7 and 11, which were 12 at one point N-aMU, the applicant it now requesting 13 NRMU-12. 14 This very briefly, to bring everybody up to 15 date to the changes that have been made since the last 16 time the Council or the Commission saw this, the applicant 17 is currently proposing 593 multi-family units and 413 18 single family units. This is a reduction of what the 19 applicant was proposing previously. 20 Staff has provided an analysis in your 21 backup. I believe the applicant has -- or the Commission 22 continued this the last time around so that we could get 23 input from the school district. A representative from the 24 school district is here tonight, and I do understand that 25 a letter has been left with the Commission as well before Page 66 1 the start of the meeting. I will be happy to answer any 2 questions or let the applicant make his presentation. 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: IS the applicant here 4 and would they like to present? And I would ask once 5 again, if you have a team of people that are going to 6 present for you, that will be part of your total block of 7 time. You have fifteen minutes. And will you be 8 addressing both 9 and 10 at the same -- 9 DR. WOLSKI: Correct. 10 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, sir. 1 DR. WOLSKI: My name is Ed Wolski. I live at 2 2301 Holly Hill. This is the property we are talking 13 about. We made numerous concessions with -- we listened 14 to what the Commissioners said, the school board said, 15 what the neighbors said, and we tried to make everybody 16 happy as much as we could. And what we try to do is do 17 buffering from high intensity to low intensity. We try to 18 go from -- have greenbelts buffer apartments. For 19 example, the Craig Street neighborhood is buffered by a 20 greenbelt that's over six acres. We decreased the density 21 tremendously. It was 1626 units. We decreased it to 984 22 units due to concerns of neighbors, planning and zoning 23 staff and school board. 24 The overall density was calculated by the 25 school board to be 4.15 units per acre. We've converted Page 67 1 the northern part of the industrial on the outside of the 2 Loop to residential for buffering effect. We are going to 3 pull Old North Road off of the back of the lots of folks 4 because they were concerned -- they just didn't want Old 5 North Road in their back yard. So we're going to buffer 6 that with a row of houses. There was complaints about the 7 drainage and the engineers will make sure that there's no 8 increased runoff, because we'll build retention ponds. 9 Windsor, there's nothing we can do about. 10 Some folks are opposed to extending Windsor over to the Loop. But that's on the Mobility Plan and it's really not 11 12 a zoning issue. 13 Another complaint was that folks in 14 Deerwood did not want to connect Windsor to Farris, so we 15 respected their wishes and David Salmon was able to change 16 the Mobility Plan for that. 17 One of the issues was multi-family. These 18 are mostly located in areas where people wouldn't want to 19 live in single family. They're against the Loop, which 20 has heavy truck traffic. It's next to railroad tracks, 21 next to Safety-Kleen. We reduced these from 1640 units to 22 590 units. This is 64 percent reduction. We initially 23 asked for the higher density so we could put the 24 infrastructure in. There's tremendous costs associated 25 with access roads that are -- the City's requiring. Since Page 68 1 we don't have the density probably, these apartments won't 2 happen for about ten years until the overpass and the 3 access roads go in. 4 The density of the aparmaents was reduced 5 from 30 units to 12 units per acre. Usually apartments 6 are at least 18 units an acre according to our architect. 7 And with the reduced density, like I said, it will 8 tremendously delay development of multi-family. 9 A traffic impact study showed that for the 10 first phase there was a Category B even in peak hours. 11 Category D is the least acceptable by the City. This was 12 done with an engineering study. The school district -- we 13 met with the school district yesterday, and they 14 calculated -- these are their numbers that they will get 15 3.6 million dollars per year in school taxes when this 16 area is fully developed. 17 There was a concern about, you know, that 18 the children in this development -- this will generate -- 19 the fully developed project will generate $7,700.00 per 20 child. That's $4,000.00 more that it costs to educate 21 them. 22 And the impact of the apartments probably 23 won't be for another ten years. This concludes 24 everything, the $7,700.00 per student revenue. We talked 25 to the school district and we're making a donation to thc PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 65 - Page 68 CondcnseltTM Page 69 1 school district for an easement which should save them 2 around $30,000.00. There's a problem with the -- 3 Craig/Emerson/Mistywood neighborhood, they're concerned 4 about the flooding, however, the City has basically told 5 them that that was not really our problem. And because 6 we'll be retaining every drop of water in retention ponds. 7 The neighbors are also concerned about 8 apartments. If we can focus on this diagram. There's 9 over six acres of greenbelt. The reason we put this 10 greenbelt in was to buffer the residences on Emerson and 11 Craig from the apartments. Okay. Right here, this is 250 12 feet per inch. This is off the Intmmet off of the City's 13 web site. This is 250 feet. This is 200 feet. 14 This lot is the closest because this juts 15 in like this so at the top of this lot, it's 250 feet. 16 Here's 425 feet, which is about a football field and a 17 half. The second lot, the distance is 625 feet. If they 18 look in their back yard, they've got two football fields 19 of riparian habitat to look at. Okay. And there won't be 20 any apartments directly behind there. 21 This one will go directly all the way to 22 the Loop. So they've got 775 feet of riparian habitat to 23 look at. This is all -- and by the way, the green is the 24 riparian habitat. This is the remainder of the flood 25 plain. Here's the Loop. Okay. So from the third house Page 70 1 down, they're looking at the Loop. They're looking at the 2 Loop. They're looking at the Loop across Riparian flood 3 plain. They're looking across the Loop. They're looking 4 across to the Loop. There's two and a half football 5 fields of riparian habitat or greenbelt. Thc apamnents, 6 we can only put those up here out of the flood plain, so 7 they're very, very distant from these houses. 8 Glenn Davidson and I walked the creek and 9 here's what it looks like in the winter time. And in the 10 summer this fills in beautifully with leaves, you know, so 11 it's hard to see anything -- and this is an embankment 12 that goes up, too. There's a creek. So you've got 13 natural barriers of a creek. You've got a natural barrier 14 of riparian habitat. And this will fill in beautifully 15 with leaves in the summer time. Plus most of these 16 houses, this goes all the way back to the Loop. There's 17 no aparnnents directly behind their lots. 18 There would be no roads connecting Emerson 19 or Craig to this development. So there will be a creek 20 that's a barrier. I'd like to have Bob Welty, our 21 architect talk now. 22 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Please. 23 MR. WELTY: Good evening. My name is Bob 24 Welty. My address is 5207 McKinney Avenue, Dallas, Texas. 25 Dr. Wolski very accurately described exactly what's Page 71 1 happening with one minor point that I'd like to offer to 2 you. This linc here represents apartments on the right of 3 that line and everything to the left of that line is 4 actually single-family 4 or NR-4 land which will be single 5 family property -- 6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Proposed. 7 MR. WELT¥: very similar in size -- 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Proposed. 9 MR. WELTY: Proposed, yes, sir, correct. 10 Dr. Wolski has vex3' appropriately pointed out, I think -- 11 just one or two points I want to make and then I'm going 12 to turn it over to someone else. We have -- as you-all 13 are very well aware of worked on this project for several 14 months. We have been before you, I believe, this is our 15 fourth time. Each time you have exhorted us to work with 16 both the planning and zoning staff and the homeowners 17 groups to try and arrive at reasonable compromises to try 18 and reduce densities, to try and resolve drainage issues, 19 issues with schools. We think we have made a number of 20 yew good concessions. We think the project we're 21 presenting to you tonight, although, I'm sure you will 22 hear from some people who don't totally agree with me, but 23 we think it represents a very good offer for that and will 24 r~resent a very good project for your City. 25 Again, we are here before you to tonight to Page 72 1 answer any remaining questions. We have -- in addition to 2 what we -- we mentioned we have agreed to do some 3 restrictive uses on these properties with some of the 4 homeowner groups which we are very willing to do to 5 prevent any undesirable uses on those properties. And 6 we're here before you requesting your approval of both the 7 Comprehensive Plan and this zoning change. 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. Welty. 9 Anyone else on your team that would like to present? 10 MR. WELTY: Jeff. 11 MR. KRUEGER: Thank yOU, Commissioners. My 12 name is Jeff Krueger. I reside at 3905 Deer Forest Drive 13 in Denton, Texas. Just real briefly, the one thing that 14 you will note that this is the sm,ne plat that you got -- I 15 mean, the same proposal that you got three weeks ago. 16 So it's not a change which, you know, it 17 seems like every time we came here we brought a different 18 product. This is the same product that we brought back. 19 So that's twice in a row now that you've seen the same 20 product. 21 We did meet with the school district. We 22 had a very good meeting with them. Mr. Holloway, as Mr. 23 Grace said, is here to present the school district's side. 24 We were received I thought very warmly by the school 25 district. We will not create negative monetary impact to ?LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 69 - Page 72 CondenseltTM Page 73 1 the school district. It will be positive. We heard from 2 you-all that you wanted us to go meet with them and work 3 it out. We did work out what -- we think we have a very 4 pleasant agreement with them, however, they kind of said, 5 it's not their place to tell you-all what to do, which I 6 thought was kind of refreshing on their part. 7 So they -- they seemed to on an individual 8 side one-on-one, they seemed to really enjoy this project 9 based upon the fact that again, we have over 100 acres of 10 commercial and industrial use here. They like that. 11 Everything that we've worked on with them -- between them 12 and the neighborhoods, we believe it's all come to pass. 13 We -- we think we have made as many people happy as we're 14 going to make on this. And we, again, respectively ask 15 for your approval of this project. Thank you. 16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Ihank you very much. 17 Anyone else on your team, Mr. Krueger, that would like to 18 present? Thank you. Okay. This is a public hearing, 19 beings the petitioner brought up the school district, I 20 would like for Mr. Gene Holloway to come forward and 21 present. And this is a public hearing. Anyone else who 22 would like to speak before this Conuuission, if you'd fill 23 out a yellow card, I would appreciate it. 24 MR. HOLLOWAY: oood evening, Commissioners, 25 my name is Gene Holloway. I'm the director of Page 75 1 District, registor an opinion on a zoning issue or case. 2 Lastly, the Board of Trustees respect the 3 elected and appointed officials of the City of Denton and 4 trust them to perform their task and render their 5 decisions uncomplicated by the actions of another 6 political entity. 7 With that, the case that was presented this 8 evening and at the last -- on March 13th, was, again, 9 reviewed by the Board of Trustees last night. And with 10 that, the proposed alignment and zoning change as is 11 indicateA by this example does, indeed, represent and does 12 impact the school district. 13 With this, in your letter, there is 14 additional information that highlights the current zoning 15 that is endorsed and promoted by the Comprehensive Plan, 16 and a comparison of that as to the current proposed plan 17 by the petitioners. With that, the current plan does 18 represent residential higher and greater residential 19 density to this area, and will over the period of 20 development and what is happening on the eastern Loop 288 21 area and the 380 corridor represent the need for this 22 district to acquire a future school site to meet the 23 deanand for educating our students. 24 The District has provided you with this 25 additional information to assist you in your deliberations Page 74 1 transportation and planning for the Denton Independent 2 School District. And, first of all, order of business is 3 to thank the Planning and Zoning Commission for the 4 opportunity that was afforded the Board of Trustees and 5 the school district to review the proposed modifications 6 that were presented back on the 13th of March and with 7 that, last night at our regular scheduled school board 8 meeting, April 9th, the proposal -- this proposal was 9 presented to the Denton Independent Board of Trustees. 10 And with that, I have a letter at your -- 11 each position, that outlines the District's current 12 position. I would like to reiterate that there are some 13 points there that the Board of Trustees desires and is 14 very mindful to foster and enhance the positive 15 collaboration and working relationship between the Denton 16 Independent School District and the City of Denton. 17 Secondly, the trustees in the District 18 demonstrates and is very respectful for the political 19 process and the enormous devotion and time, talent and 20 energies put forth by hundreds of Denton and DISD citizens 21 in formulating the Denton Plan and the Development Code. 22 Thirdly, the Board of Trustees is in total 23 support and gives total allegiance to the Denton Plan and 24 its related procedures, and would not, except in extreme 25 extraordinary circumstances as they would impact the Page 76 1 regarding this particular zoning request and with that 2 stand ready to answer any questions that you may have. 3 COMMISSIONER RISI-IEL: Have you requested a 4 school site? 5 MR. HOLLOWAY: That has not been a matter 6 of discussion. 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Roy. 8 COMMISSIONER ROY: Yes, Mr. Holloway. Of 9 course, we just got this tonight. And I understand what i0 you just said about leaving it to us to make our own 11 decisions, but couldn't you walk us through the 12 attachment, the key points, what's really important for us 13 to see because there's a huge amount of numbers? 14 MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, sir. Quite frankly, 15 what we have here is a chronological time line of where 16 have taken the School Board last night up to the current 17 time. Under the operational impact, the third item and I 18 believe, in response to the multi-family density, the 19 petitioner has, indeed, reduced the density level by 64 20 percent, or the apartment-style living by 64 percent and 21 the density level by 60 percent. 22 The estimated time line on this particular 23 development is five to ten years, and much of this 24 construction is totally dependent upon the Windsor Road 25 Extension over Loop 288. The results -- the zoning PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 73 - Page 76 CondenseltTM Page 77 1 request profile, the first table that you see is the 2 current zoning as is defined under the current 3 Comprehensive Plan, the sR-2, ~qR-4 and the Industrial 4 Employment Center. 5 With that, the District did an analysis 6 showing what the student impact would be which would be 7 approximately 206 students maximum residential units in 8 that particular profile is 332 residential units. 9 Residential units per acre, 1.46, and projected school 10 taxes would be 2.1 -- just over 2.1 million dollars with 11 projected revenue per student in that affected area, 12 $10,310.00 and change. 13 Now, that is with the current zoning 14 assuming that the values for approximately 276 NR-2 level 15 homes and as far as 56 tqR-4 level homes and the values 16 projected out there for the Industrial Employment Center. 17 The second table profiles the proposed 18 zoning. Again, it walks through and these numbers were 19 provided by the petitioner to the District of what would 20 be the proposed value and projected value of this 21 particular development which would be just under 194 .22 million dollars, under 195 million dollars, excuse me. 23 The projected student impact of this particular 24 development goes from 206 students to approximately 537. 25 And that breakdown is shown by elementary, middle school Page 78 1 and high school. 2 Maximmu residential units as was profiled 3 by the petitioner, 943 approximately with residential 4 units per acre of 4.15. Projected tax base would be over 5 3.6 million dollars with projected revenue per student of 6 approximately 7,700 dollars and change. Now, impact on 7 current attendance zones, there would be no immediate 8 impact to our current attendance zones due to the time 9 line that this particular development will take to come to 10 fruition. 11 The Windsor Oaks is split between the 12 Wilson and Hodge attendance zones. The secondary 13 attendance zones are Strickland and Ryan High School. And 14 at this time it is difficult to determine the future 15 impact of this development on current attendance zones 16 because of redistricting that will take place over the 17 next five to ten years. 18 And, again, much of this is dependent upon 19 the Windsor Road Extension. However, with the increased 20 residential density, which would bring up the student 21 population with what's happening again on thc castcTn Loop 22 288 corridor and development of the 380 corridor west of 23 Cross Roads, again, it is only evident -- it's evident 24 that the district will have to be considering a future 25 school site for this particular area as you all are well Page 79 1 aware of the DISD growth picture. 2 And I hope that answers and profiles the 3 comparisons. 4 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Roy, 5 does that answer your question? 6 COMMISSIONER ROY: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. 8 Commissioner Powell. 9 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Holloway, you say 10 that if this is developed out under the numbers shown here 11 that it would have a value, revenue value of $7,731.74 a 12 student per year, I'm assmuing. Do you know what the 13 average revenue value per student is within the District? 14 MR. HOLLOWAY: At this point in time as far 15 as revenue value per student, I can -- believe I can with 16 some authority indicate to you that it costs approximately 17 62 -- 61 to 63 hundred dollars per student within DISD. I 18 would want to qualify that. Please don't hold me to a 19 task on that. 20 COMMISSIONER POWELL: But I didn't ask you 21 the cost. 22 MR. HOLLOWAY: Right. 23 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I asked you what the 24 present revenue value is per student like you've done 25 here. This doesn't talk about cost. Page 80 1 MR. I-IOLLOWAY: Right. Right. I'm unable 2 to answer that question for you, sir. 3 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. 4 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, any 5 further questions of Mr. Holloway? Commissioner Roy. 6 COMMISSIONER ROY: I'113. a little bit 7 confused about these nmubers now. This $7,000.00 you're 8 talking about, arc we talking about dollars ten years from 9 now, or are these today's dollars versus the $6,000.00 10 dollar cost? 11 MR. HOLLOWAY: This is purely, Mr. Roy, 12 purely an estimate based upon the projected numbers of 13 value that the petitioner provided us based upon what you 14 see in that profile. The $194,000,970.00 is basically 15 multiplied -- or divided by 100 per value, that one dollar 16 85 -- 4 cents, which is the tax rate which generates the 17 3.6 million dollars. And that's divided by the 537 18 students to give a -- some kind of indication of the yield 19 on per student by that development within the identified 20 area. 21 COMMISSIONER ROY: SO you can't answer 22 whether that 194 million dollars is today's dollars or 23 dollars ten years from now? 24 MR. HOLLOWAY: I would say this is 12S infon'nation I would have to ask the petitioner because PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 77 - Page 80 these are based or CondcnscltTM Page 81 1 his numbers and not -- I do not believe it's 2 a ten year or five-year projection. 3 COMMISSIONER ROY: Thallk you. 4 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Keith. 5 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. I just 6 wish to -- just looking at your numbers, what I find 7 intriguing is the employment centers and commercial 8 centers are anticipated to garner over half the amount of 9 tax revenues or -- not tax revenues, but the valuations, 10 projected values, correct? 11 MR. HOLLOWAY: I -- would you please repeat 12 that, sir? 13 COMMISSIONER KEITH: I was looking at the 14 zoning of the CMG and EC-1, that this would, in essence, 15 provide over 50 percent of projected land values towards 16 taxation, correct? 17 MR. HOLLOWAY: If you look at that, 194.9 18 million dollars, that's 100 million dollars right there. 19 That's a safe assumption, and, again, I would like to 20 reiterate this is -- this comes from the petitioner. This 21 iS not from DISD. 22 COMMISSIONER KEITH: So with economic 23 development on these properties, that would really offset 24 a lot of tax burden to the property owners, correct, your 25 assessment? Page 82 1 MR. HOLLOWAY: YeS, sir. 2 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Thank you. 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, any 4 further questions of Mr. Holloway? Thank you, Mr. 5 Holloway. Excuse me. Mr. Mulroy. 6 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yeah. Just so I have 7 a clear understanding, then, is this the school district's 8 analysis of the development or is this the applicant's 9 analysis of the development? 10 MR. HOLLOWAY: what has happened is is that 11 this is -- I did check with our purchasing agent as far as 12 with the district. And, again, looking at this and the 13 projected value per unit for say like an NR-4, the NR-6 14 type unit, that was collaborated. As far as when it comes 15 to the colranercial and the industrial, that is, as I 16 understand, a -- possibly a conservative number. 17 COMMISSIONER MULROY: SO, again, Gene, I 18 just want to understand, is this your opinion that that's 19 a conservative number? 20 MR. HOLLOWAY: That was the -- 21 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Thc school 22 district's? 23 MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, sir. 24 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. I mean, I 25 don't want to be here two years from now, and you say, Page 83 1 well, that was really the applicant's number and not mine. 2 MR. HOLI~OW^¥: well, if I may, again, this 3 is what was provided by the applicant based upon what they 4 have projected. 5 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. But I just 6 want to make -- I'm about to make an assumption since 7 you're forwarding this on -- 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: OB your letterhead. 9 COMMISSIONER MULROY: -- on your letterhead 10 and underscoring it as conservative, then you pretty much 11 endorse these numbers? 12 MR. HOLLOWAY: We are looking at this based 13 upon its value and utilize this as a benchmark to what is 14 currently -- 15 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Is that a yes or a 16 no? I don't think I -- 17 MR. HOLLOWAY: We will accept the numbers 18 as they arc now. 19 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: once again, 20 Commissioners, just as a reminder, and I've checked with 21 staff, but staff has not had a chance to review this or 22 give you any further input on it anymore than what Mr. 23 Holloway has done. So I just throw that out as a comment. 24 Commissioner Roy. 25 COMMISSIONER ROY: Yes. Mr. Holloway, the Page 84 I applicant mentioned an agreement with DISD concerning 2 property at some other location rather than property on 3 this site. Could you explain your understanding of that 4 agreement or commitment? 5 MR. HOLLOWAY: I do know that there have 6 been negotiations and discussions with the school 7 district. Unfortunately, I had to leave early last night 8 for medical purposes and was not available for the final 9 determination. But I do understand that there is an 10 agreement. 1 ] COMMISSIONER ROY: An agreement that would, 12 you know, eliminate your concerns about these large number 13 of children that you're going to have to school? 14 MR. HOLLOWAY: well, that particular 15 agreement is reanoved from this particular location, and is 16 to the north side of the district regarding easements and 17 sewer and water on the 288 property. 18 COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. 19 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Roy, you 20 have the floor. 21 COMMISSIONER ROY: I've got to think about 22 it. 23 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Can I move on? 24 Commissioner Holt. 25 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Yes, Mr. Holloway, so PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 81 - Page 84 CondenseItTM Page 85 1 there has not been a specific site donated or designated? 2 There's just been some -- it says rights to land have been 3 pledged to the school district on another site on the Loop 4 near the school district's complex and water park. So 5 this is not a site or is it a site? It is not a site? 6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: well put. 7 COMMISSIONER HOLT: That's what I'm trying 8 to get at whether it's -- 9 MR. HOLLOWAY: A site or am we talking 10 about easement and access? To my knowledge, it's easmnent 11 and access. 12 COMMISSIONER HOLT: HaVe you-all looked or 13 talked to the applicant about sites within this area? 14 MR. HOLLOWAY: we have broached the 15 subject, but it has not been discussed in depth. 16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: would you care to 17 have Dr. Wolski or any of his people join you here? Would 18 they care to comment on this? 19 COMMISSIONER HOLT: well, I have one more 20 question for Mr. Holloway here. Do you-all have -- or am 21 you looking for sites in this part of town since there is ,22 obviously a lot of interest in building in this area? 23 MR. HOLLOWAY: with my task as director of 24 transportation and planning, I'm looking all over the 25 district for any and all opportunities for land now and Page 86 1 the future. Certainly, with the 380 corridor, with over 2 10,000 single family units being planned for that area, we 3 have six elementary school sites potentially out there. 4 And as far as speaking to some school site 5 donations on the northern end of the district off Stewart 6 Road and 288 with a planned development that is coming and 7 has come to DRC. 8 COMMISSIONER HOLT: could you tell me the 9 enrollment of the two schools, the two elementary schools l0 that would be impacted by this development? 11 MR. HOLt~OW^¥: I would tell you I believe 12 -- and please I do not have that particular information 13 directly in front of me. I believe that our Hodge 14 Elementary is at the 700 plus mark. 15 COMMISSIONER HOLT: And what is its 16 capacity? 17 MR. HOLLOWAY: That's its capacity. Our 18 elementary school's capacity is designed for 650. That is 19 what we look to operate by. 650 for elementaries, 1,000 20 for middle school, and 2,000 students for high school. 21 COMMISSIONER HOLT: what about Woodrow 22 Wilson? 23 MR. HOLLOWAY: woodrow Wilson is -- because 24 of rezoning and they are, I think, pressing the 650 and 25 above. Page 87 1 COMMISSIONER HOLT: okay. Thank you. 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It looked like Dr. 3 Wolski wantexl to join you here. And I'm just wondering if 4 Dr. Wolski or Mr. Krueger, either one -- 5 MR. KRUEOER: JUSt to give some 6 clarification -- 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Please. 8 MR. Ka~JEOER: -- to Mr. Roy. The deal that 9 we discussed with the school district is not a part of 10 this. And they wanted to make that perfectly clear. It 11 had no bearing upon their decision on this project one way 12 or another. It was a separate deal on some property that 13 they needed access and easement to for drainage purposes 14 for a sewer line. That was Dr. Wolsk?s -- he donated 15 that to the school district. 16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: concession? 17 MR. KRUEGER: His concession exactly. 18 Thank you. The other part and I think we need to go back 19 to Mr. Holloway's presentation is, this has as it 20 currently sits has no immediate impact on the zoning 21 issues because of thc time frames and we all have to 22 member that none of this multi-family is going to be 23 built until the Windsor overpass is complete. And ail the 24 infrastructure is in place with the service roads and all 25 that. Page 88 1 So there will be -- there's no immediate 2 impact, and I know Ms. Holt, you and I were on the School 3 Board together. Hodge Elementary had 850 students in it. 4 Now, it just has 700. I think that's a pretty good sign 5 for the District. 6 There is really not a -- because of the 7 location of Hodge, the proximity of Hodge, and the 8 proximity of Woodrow Wilson, there's really not a suitable 9 site on this particular location. Off site there will be, 10 and there may be some discussions at a future time with 11 the School District for some future properties. But as it 12 sits, this particular project is kind of -- stands alone 13 from what we're dealing -- what we're doing with the 14 School District in other places. 15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. 16 Krueger. 17 MR. KaUEOER: I hope that answered your 18 question. Thank you. 19 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further questions 20 of Mr. Holloway? Thank you, Mr. Hoiloway. 21 MR. HOLLOWAY: YOU~I'e very welcome. i22 COMMISSIONER RISUnL: This is a public 23 hearing. I have several cards of people who would like to 24 speak. If anyone else would like to speak on this item or 25 any other item, if you would please fill out a yellow card PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 85 - Page 88 CondenseltTM Page 89 1 and present it to a staff member, they'll make sure that 2 we get it front up here. Mr. Richard Beggs, if you'd 3 please give us your name and address. 4 MR. BEGGS: ~-Iello. I'm Richard Beggs. I 5 live at 2324 East Windsor Drive. I think you have a 6 handout. It has my name on the front of it. I have four 7 points that I would like for you to consider in relation 8 to this proposal. Progress will affect Denton. Low 9 density projects are needed. Please don't overload the 10 existing drainage system, and please preserve the 11 integrity of the existing neighborhoods. 12 Under progress will affect Denton. 13 Progress is inevitable and needed. Progress brings 14 prosperity and growth. Progress is not inexpensive as I'm 15 sure Dr. Wolski will tell you. 16 Regulated growth is needed. That's why we 17 have governing bodies like the P & Z. And please don't 18 overload the existing infrastructure, especially the 19 roadways and school system. 20 Under low density projects are needed, low 21 density is needed to cope with the existing 22 infrastructures, however, we do need a mixture of houses, 23 apartments, that is, affordable housing and businesses, or 24 don't overload existing drainage. The current system 25 consists of drainage ditches and a roadway and creeks. Page 90 I The new Code says that future projects should 2 not increase thc problem. However, I believe that the 3 problem will be magnified by more concrete and less grassy 4 area. And my question was how many drainage ponds would 5 be needed to handle the runoff?. 6 I took advantage of the recent rains to 7 take some pictures of Windsor. And you can see it's 8 pretty full as it is right now. My question is how much 9 leeway do we give for extra projects -- for new projects? 10 Here's a picture of Old North Road. I don't know if you 11 can see or not, but the car is splashing water, so we 12 akeady have water over the road. 13 Here's another picture of Old North Road 14 looking where the drainage ditch is. You can see it is 15 pretty filled up. So if there's any kind of error on the 16 part of the City engineers and developers, we're going to 17 have a flooded park. This is Nottingham. This would be 18 the flooded park. 19 Okay. And my final point is preserve 20 existing neighborhood integrity. Our neighborhood is 21 filled with family-oriented activities, like, walking 22 biking, skating. We have several neighborhood schools. 23 The children walk to the schools, Woodrow Wilson, 24 Strickland Middle School, probably not that many middle 25 schoolers want to walk, but, anyway, and school buses do Page 91 1 regularly travel over our neighborhood. 2 And my last points, a four-lane road or 3 anything that would lead to that on East Windsor would not 4 allow our current lifestyle of walking, biking and 5 skating. We believe that a property would be devalued, 6 and that children could not safely walk to school because 7 of sidewalks to the school are not continuous. 8 And I have one actual photo. It's fight in 9 front of my house. And it's pretty nice, wide, a nice 10 place to walk. And this is an altered photo. Please do 11 not let this become a reality. I've talked to some of my 12 neighbors. At least one of them is here tonight and we do 13 not want a four-lane road in front of our house. It's 14 just unimaginable. Thank you very much. If you have any 15 questions -- 16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Beggs, we may 17 have some questions. Let me sec. Commissioners, any 18 questions of Mr. Beggs. Mr. Powell -- Commissioner 19 Powell, excuse me. 20 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Beggs, I assume 21 that you understand that Mr. Wolski -- Dr. Wolski's 22 development will have no affect on whether Windsor becomes 23 four lane or doesn't become four lane. It's not his 24 choice. It's not his desire to do it or not do it. It's 25 not his concept. It's the City's concept regardless of Page 92 1 what Dr. Wolski does. 2 MR. BEOGS: I understand that. But we 3 haven't had a chance to fight the City. 4 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I guess the point I'm 5 making is this is really not the place to make that fight. 6 If I -- I won't go any further, but there are ways to do 7 that. And it's not part of the project here tonight. 8 Now, the other things you talked about were. 9 MR. BEGGS: okay. 10 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. 11 MR. BEGOS: Thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: our next -- this is 13 -- once again, this is a public hearing. Beverly Tannas, 14 T-A-N-N-A-S, Tannas. And if you'd give us your name and 15 correct pronunciation and address. 16 MS. TANNAS: My name is Beverly Tannas and 17 my address is 2512 Craig Lane. I am speaking for the 18 Northwoods Estate residents on the west side of Loop 288. 19 May I use this? This would be Craig Lane fight here. 20 This is Emerson and this is Mistywood right in here. And 21 there is some of us here tonight from all of those areas. 22 We've sent packets to you-alL You have 23 letters and you have pictures from us explaining our point 24 of view. Basically, there's two issues that we have. We 125 have a flooding issue. I think everybody's pretty aware PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 89 - Page 92 CondcnscItTM Page 93 1 of that by this point. I'm going to, if I may, use some 2 pictures as well. This -- I don't know if you can really 3 tell, but the creek is over here. The creek is over here. 4 This is a lake now. This is three back yards, one back 5 yard, two back yards, three back yards. This is how bad 6 we flood. This is not a comer of our property getting wet. This is bad flooding. So what we would like for 8 y'all to consider is a 100-foot easement on this creek on 9 this greenbelt area, so that the City might be able to 10 come in here and clean it out. 1 As of now because it's a greenbelt 2 designation, everybody has basically said, not our 13 problem. And as you can see it's very much our problem, 14 so we're really looking for some help here in ten'ns of an 15 easement. We understand that what Dr. Wolski's planning 16 on doing should not affect these levels. But fight now 17 there's already a huge problem. And we would hope that 18 you would see the benefit of helping us with this initial 19 problem right now before any more building takes place. 20 The second issue -- I have a neighbor who 21 is going to speak more on this. But our second issue is 22 the zoning of Tract 11, which would be this tract right 23 here. Dr. Wolski is proposing NRMU-12. We would like to 24 see this as NR-4 or NR-6. obviously, there's a 25 residential neighborhood here. This is going to be a Page 94 1 residential neighborhood. We feel it's not appropriate to 2 have an apartment building where we can see it from our 3 backyard. He might say that we have sufficient greenbelt 4 to cover it up. This is a winter picture. We can see the 5 Loop. We can see cars going by night and day. We 6 certainly hear them. 7 Our feeling is is we do not want our 8 property values compromised. We do not want an area 9 -- I believe he wants 364 units in this area. We do not 10 believe that that many people should have access to this 11 greenbelt area. We believe that to keep the integrity of 12 our neighborhood that we should be able to keep this a 13 residential area. 14 Because it is a greenbelt, right now, like 15 I said before, no one is taking any responsibility for it. 16 No one has been in there to clean it out. Can you just 17 imagine if this is an apartment building, 364 units, a 18 great many people being allowed back here with nobody 19 cleaning it, no one maintaining it? Is that my th.ne? 20 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YOU have a minute. 21 MS. TANNAS: okay. That's basically it. 22 We would like for y'all to consider a 100-foot easement 23 this greenbelt area so the City can come back and clean it 24 up. And we would like for you to consider tract 11 being 25 zoned NR-4, NR-6. Thank you. Page 95 I COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mrs. 2 Tannas. Let me see if Commissioners have any questions. 3 Commissioners, any questions of Mrs. Tannas? Thank you, 4 Mrs. Tannas. The next card that I have is from a Glenn 5 Davidson. Is Mr. Davidson here? 6 MR. DAVIDSON: I'm Glenn Davidson. I live 7 at 2907 Emerson. And, of course, one of my neighbors has 8 already spoken to you regarding this flooding issue. I 9 think you had some letters that were sent out in regards 10 to this. 11 Here's some pictures of what my yard looks 12 like before, when it rains, and the pictures were after it 13 rains. I have talked to everybody from, oh, let me look ,14 in here, from Thomas Gray to Doug Powell to Dave Hill, 15 from the drainage people, from Larry Reichhart, Jim 16 Colter, Clark Rosenthal, you name it, I've talked to them. 17 And all that comes back to is, go to talk to this person. 18 Go talk to this person. It's called pass the buck. 19 That's all I've been hearing. Okay. 20 Now, Clark Rosenthal, I think sent you guys 21 a letter. I think each one of you guys got that letter. 22 It's got my name in big bold letters stating that he wants 23 a 100-foot easement from the City. Where do we go from 24 there? I still can't get anybody to call me and give me 25 answers on that. Page 96 I Now, I had Jerry Clark meet me last week at 2 my house and we walked the creek. And he knows there's a 3 big issue there. Of course, nobody called me back to tell 4 me what we want to hear, because nobody wants to address 5 the issue. We know it's a greenbelt. We know that the 6 greenbelt can't be touched. But somewhere down the line 7 the City or the property owners have to be held some type 8 of responsibility for the flooding issue that's at hand. 9 Now, the pictures you see there is my house 10 being flooded 15 feet from my back door. That's within 1 one hour -- the pictures that you see afterwards is all 2 the debris after the rain when the creek finally went 13 down. Now, ev~'y day we walk out our back yards, we see 14 that trash in the trees, in the -- you name it, we see it. 15 Heck, I could have brought a trash sack full of trash in 16 here from my back yard. But, of course, I didn't. 17 Okay. So that's a big issue at hand. Of 18 course, yes, we know Dr. Wolski's going to build over 19 there. He's going to put retention ponds in there. I 20 think that's going to not affect us a whole lot. But I 21 think it's going to affect us at some point especially if 22 he builds apartment complexes over there. 23 And whether he thinks we can't see them or 24 not, I think we can see them. Of course Dr. Wolski walked 25 it with me. Of course, when he showed you the pictures of PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TIt, 2002 Page 93 - Page 96 CondenseltTM Page 97 1 all the trees and all the debris, it looks pretty nice, 2 but when it rains, it looks pretty bad. 3 We just want some answers. We want 4 somebody to address the issue with the flooding. And we 5 want somebody to address the issue with the apartment 6 complexes. If he's building NR-4 and NR-6 all the way 7 around our property, we feel that it should be the same so 8 our values stay the same. If you've got 365 apartment 9 complexes over there, you double that times four people 10 per apartment and their kids, where are their kids going 11 to be? In my backyard or in that creek, stealing from me 12 -- I'm not saying they're going to, but there's a lot of 13 potential in that. 14 We feel that needs to be a housing addition 15 and, also, the creek needs to be addressed really bad 16 before any type of development is approved over here. 17 That's all I have to say. 18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: conuuissioners, any 19 questions of Mr. Davidson? Thank you, Mr. Davidson. 20 MR. DAVIDSON: I do have one more question. 21 Can somebody answer what is going to happen regarding this 22 lett~ that we got? Can somebody tell me anything on 23 that? 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: IS there a staff 25 member who would like to see if they can -- Page 98 1 MR. DAVIDSON: Or who can address this 2 issue. Do fall have this letter? 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Yes, we have that 4 letter. Mr. Powell. 5 MR. POWELL: rll make a stab at it. We 6 have been in contact with Mr. Colter who is over the group 7 in the City that deals with drainage. 8 The issue with this creek, as I understand 9 it is, thought it's a green belt, there's no easement in 10 which the City by right can go in there and clean it out. 11 So prior to Mr. Colter going in there and actually doing 12 some work in there, he suggested that we really need to 13 get an easement that gives the City the permission to do 14 it. 15 As it's been mentioned in previous 16 meetings, that's in the upper branch, lower branch -- Dr. 17 Wolski also has the ability to give the City that 18 easement, which really is not the same area as this 19 gentlemen is speaking to. And so it really is an issue 20 separate and apart somewhat from the item you have before 21 you tonight. The City is working with the homeowners ant 22 the property owners to try to resolve this issue. 23 MR. DAVIDSON: Doesn't the City contact the 24 property owners to try to get an easement on there, 25 because according to Jerry Clark, when I talked to him, Page 99 1 that the City has to maintain the water flow in this creek 2 no matter what. 3 MR. POWELL: I would point out that Mr. 4 Clark does work for Mr. Colter, so I'm sure they're 5 working in conjunction with each other trying to resolve 6 this issue. 7 MR. DAVIDSON: But doesn't the City or the 8 Planning and Zoning get with the owners of the land and 9 ask for an easement? I mean, Pve talked to every owner 10 that owns that land. They're willing to give the City an 11 easement. What do we have to do to address that issue to 12 get the easement? 13 MR. POWELL: And I will be happy to call 14 Mr. Colter tomorrow and find out the status of this. My 15 understanding is he is working with the homeowners, the 16 property owners to resolve this issue. Normally in the 17 course of subdividing property, the current regulations 18 would require a drainage easement that would allow the 19 City to maintain it. Unfortunately, this property was 20 developed at a time where no easement was granted. And, 21 therefore, therein lies the problem. 22 And, again, the City staff has been working 23 and will continue to work to resolve this issue. 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: sounds to me like if 25 you would give one of the staff members your telephone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 118 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 100 number that one of Mr. Powell's people -- MR. DAVIDSON: All the staff members know my phone number, I think. I've talked to every one of them. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I have a question. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Commissioner Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Mr. Davidson, how long have you been experiencing this drainage problem? MR. DAVIDSON: rve been in my house over ten years. It's every time it rains. COMMISSIONER MULROY: SO it's been at least -- time. MR. DAVIDSON: It'S consistent. It's every COMMISSIONER MULROY: SO as far back as you can remember, ten years? MR. DAVIDSON: well, when I first bought my house, I had a six-foot fence. My six-foot fence is gone. It's been under water. COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, I understand. And I understand that you're -- MR. DAVIDSON: I mean, the issue that is at hand is no matter who I talk to whether it's the drainage department, whether it's the City or -- I mean, like I PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 97 - Page 100 CondcnseltTM Page 101 1 said, I've talked to everybody you can think of from the 2 guy that mows the grass to the head cheese in drainage, 3 okay, and nobody wants to address the issue. No, it's 4 always, well, you have to talk to Clark or you have to 5 talk to Jerry. Everybody's been passing the buck around. 6 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. I understand. 7 I can appreciate your frustration. 8 MR. DAVIDSON: I'm not frustrated. I'd 9 just like to have somebody give me an honest answer 10 instead of you know -- 11 COMMISSIONER MULROY: In fairness to the 12 applicant, I want to separate the issues, okay? You have 13 a ten year old problean and you're hoisting it on this 14 particular hearing like it's urgent and it may be urgent. 15 But urgent -- 16 MR. DAVIDSON: Yeah, it's a ten-year 17 problem, I agree. 18 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. So we need to 19 focus, you know, our forward energy working with the City 20 staff members and get their attention and get a 21 Resolution, but not expend this energy in this hearing 22 when it's really not part of this project. I just want to 23 clear the air for everybody. 24 MR. DAVIDSON: NO, I mean, I understand 25 your situation there. But, also, you need to understand Page 102 1 our situation that, you know, with the development that is 2 going on behind our property, there's got to be some 3 concem. There's going to be some type of water coming 4 into that area more than there is now. 5 COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, I'm all for 6 working with staff to help solve your problem, but let's 7 separate it out from -- you know, let's get the heat away 8 from what we're here to discuss tonight. 9 MR. DAVIDSON: I think everybody knows what 10 we're here to discuss. 11 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. Thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Davidson, I have 13 some other Cormnissioners that have some questions. 14 Commissioner Powell. 15 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Davidson, your 16 colrLments are well taken. But I've lived a lot of years as 17 you can tell by looking at me. And one of the things I 18 have learned is that paid staff is often times between a 19 rock and a hard place, and if I were trying to solve a 20 problem like this, I wouldn't go to paid staff. You've 21 got an election coming up next month with three City-wide 22 offices -- 23 MR. DAVIDSON: I don't think election has 24 anything to do with it. 25 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Let me finish, sir, Page 103 1 please. You finished, let me finish. You have an 2 election coming up next month with three City-wide 3 candidates -- excuse me, three City-wide offices up for 4 election, there's no better time to talk to an clec~:l 5 official than when they're running for office. They'll 6 never listen to you at any better than when they're 7 running for office. 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Powell. 9 MR. D^VIDSON: I don't think anybody 10 listens, to be honest with you, wherever they stand. 11 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further 12 questions, Commissioners? Thank you, Mr. Davidson. 13 The next card that I have is from Mr. Wade 14 Lillie. Mr. Lillie. 15 MR. LILLIE: My name is Wade Lillie. I 16 live at 3800 Deer Forest. I'm president of the Deerwood 17 Neighborhood Association, and I have some comments 18 tonight. The first comment is I would like to thank the 19 Planning and Zoning Commission for the time you've spent 20 on this. And, also, and I have know Mr. Powell that 21 you've been frustrated with the delays, but I want to say 22 that the delays for our benefit have been very 23 providential to allow us to come to an understanding of 24 the new Denton plan and how this impacted by that. And, 25 also, how the developer is being impacted by that. Page 104 1 And so that time has not been lost or 2 wasted as far as we're concerned and we appreciate your 3 willingness to give us that time and to work with us in 4 granting that time. I'd also like to thank Dr. Wolski and 5 his team for being willing and forthcoming with 6 information to us and for granting us time. And they have 7 been available for meetings, phone calls, visits, whatever 8 it would take to try to understand what their coneems are 9 as well as listening to the concerns that we have had. 10 Since our last meeting before you, I think I 11 stated then that I did not have information from the 12 Neighborhood Association specifically. Following that 13 meeting, I did go to the neighborhood. I submitted 101 14 letters that called for a response to the neighborhood. I 15 received 13 responses back. And of those 13, one did not 16 mark a preference, but did indicate that there were 17 concerns or that they still had concerns about the impact 18 that development would have regarding traffic on Kings 19 Row. 20 One person commented that they were opposed 21 to the Development Plan as presented because they didn't 22 feel that things had adequately been resolved with the 23 School District. And they also were concerned about some 24 of the drainage issues that had been brought up by the 25 residents west of the freeway. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 101 - Page 104 CondcnscltTM Page 105 1 Ten of those responses were satisfied with 2 the Development Plan as presented. And so I'm appearing 3 before you tonight in support of the plan as presented 4 from the Deerwood Neighborhood Association. 5 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, any 6 questions of Mr. Lillie? Any further questions? Mr. 7 Mulroy -- Commissioner Mulroy. 8 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Just a comment. We 9 appreciate your participation in the process to make that 10 work. Thank you. 11 MR. LILLIE: Thank you very much. 12 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further 13 questions, Commissioners? Thank you, Mr. Lillie. Once 14 again, this is a public hearing. I have gone through the 15 cards that I had with regard to people that would like to 16 speak regarding Items No. 9 and Items No. 10 on our 17 Agenda. So I presume anyone who wanted to speak has 18 presented a card to us. And at this point in time I will 19 close the public hearing. 20 The petitioner has a rebuttal opportunity. 21 And I'd ask the petitioner to come forward. 22 DR. WOL,$Yd: I'd like to thank Wade Lillie 23 and the Deerwood neighborhood for their support. As far 24 as the School Board, currently the taxes -- the entire 25 area is agricultural exemption. This is probably 10, 15 Page 106 1 year build up of -- the tax dollars to the School Board 2 should like 3.6 million dollars a year on this. And the 3 commercial and the industrial more than compensates for 4 the residential aspects of this development. As far as 5 Beverly Tannas, I can give a 100 foot easement to clean 6 the creek on my side of the creek. And that's fine with 7 me. I think that's a great idea. 8 The other point, if I can get this screen 9 here, if you can give me the screen. Okay. This is [0 riparian habitat right here. This is flood plain. Okay. 11 The third house down, I think Beverly's house is right 12 here. And her backyard, it goes straight back to the 13 Loop. There are no apartments there. Can everybody see 14 the laser pointer? Okay. Going straight back, it goes 15 right to the Loop. Going straight back from here it goes 16 right to the Loop, right here. There are no apartments 17 there. This is like a buffer. There are absolutely no 18 apartments in here. You're not going to wake up and see 19 apartments built in the flood plain. That's absolutely ~20 not allowed by thc Comprehensive Plan. 21 This area is 250 feet right here. This 22 area is 250 feet. So this area right here is more than 23 two football fields in their backyard before -- and I 24 don't know if we're going to put apartments right on the 25 edge of the flood plain. Again, we dropped the density Page 107 1 from 30 units an acre to 12. We dropped the -- 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Wolski, in your 3 your original comment and the sheet that I have, the 4 horizontal line that comes from there shows 200 foot and 5 the other line shows 250; is there a change there now? 6 DR. WOLSKI: I'm sorry. This is 200 feet. 7 You're 100 percent right. 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: okay. Thank you. 9 DR. WOLSKI: ThiS is one inch. This is off 10 the City web site, one inch to 250 feet. You can check 11 this yourself. This is from this line to line. I don't 12 know how accurate it is, but from this line to this line 13 it's a little bit less than an inch, so it's around 250 14 feet. From here to here -- but anyway, this is Glenn 15 Davidson's house here. Right here, he's looking on 16 residential, so that doesn't even matter there. This is 17 where the apartments are going to be on this yellow stuff. 18 That's out of the flood plain. This house is going to be 19 mostly looking back on riparian habitat. You know, this 20 house is going to be all the way to the Loop, all the way 21 to the Loop, all the way to the Loop. This is all buffer 22 behind your backyard. If you look out your backyard, you 23 know, just straight back all the way to the Loop, you've 24 got a greenbelt. 25 So it's not like, you know, Beverly says, Page 108 1 you know, she's going to look out and see apartments. 2 There's not going to be apartments in her backyard because 3 it goes right to the Loop. And for Mr. Beggs like the -- 4 we did a traffic study, you know. We've got a B rating 5 before we even reduced the density. That -- I asked the 6 traffic engineer what that means, and he said, well, you 7 know Denton will accept a D, and we've got a B, which is 8 much better, even at peak business hours. And that was 9 before we reduced the density. 10 Our overall density is 4.15 units per acre. 11 That' s like - - you know, if you had - - there' s 43,000 feet 12 in an acre. 43,560, so that's like 10,000 feet per 13 person, over 10,000 feet per person. And, you know, like 14 I said, you know, I'll be glad to help the Deerwood -- I 15 mean, the Craig Street neighborhood with the -- an 16 easement like they're asking of 100 feet. It's very easy. 17 I'll give it to them. 18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. 19 Commissioner Mulroy. 20 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yeah. As a point of 21 clarification that Doug Powell mentioned, when you plat, 22 you'll have to give the easement and all your flood plain 23 to the City, so part of that process, the City will have 24 an easement through your property on any of the flood 25 plain, a drainage easement, so that's going to happen 10TH, 2002 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL Page 105 - Page 108 CondcnscltTM Page 109 1 automatically. 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, any 3 further questions? Thank you, Dr. Wolski. I'd like to 4 ask staff to give a closing comment. 5 MR. ?HOM~S: Staff really has no further 6 comments at this time. 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. 8 Commissioners, what is your -- Commissioner Powell. 9 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, Mr. 10 Chairman. I would move to approve Item No. 9 as 11 submittexl. 12 COMMISSIONER MULROY: second. 13 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: it's been moved by 14 Commissioner Powell and seconded by Commissioner Mulroy. 15 I have a couple of questions, I believe. Commissioner 16 Holt. 17 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Yes. At the last 18 meeting, I guess it was the meeting before, I had asked 19 that tracts 2, 3 and 10 be looked at to become NR-3 20 because that is more keeping with what the adjacent 21 developments are. Was that looked at and would you 22 consider that? 23 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: r)r. Wolski, would you 24 address the microphone? Would you review that again, 25 Commissioner Holt7 Page 110 1 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Tracts 2, 3 and 10. 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And I think part of 3 what they were trying to do was present the same map to us 4 twice in row, so - 5 DR. WOLSKI: Okay. We checked out on this 6 and -- could I have this one, please? Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Would you show us on 8 the docucam where those houses are? 9 DR. WOLSKI: Right. This is an area that's 10 under consideration right here. This area is NR-4, this 11 coloration here. This area is NR-3. 12 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Mine says NR-4. 13 DR. WOLSKI: This is the proposed 14 development. This is the subdivisions abutting this. 15 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Right. 16 DR. WOLSKI: okay. So we've got NR-4, 17 NR-3. This is already zoned, okay, and when the 18 Comprehensive Plan passed, this is already zoned NR-4. SO 19 we have, like, NR-4 here, NR-4 hem. We're asking for 20 NR-4 because it's going to be buffering the NR-3 here with 21 the CMG here. We don't want to have NR-3 right to the 22 Loop, we need a buffered area. If you look at what these 23 -- in the Comprehensive Plan, this area here is NR-4. 24 Anything abutting the Loop has generally been zoned NR-4. 25 But that's NR-4. That's NR-4. That's NR-4. This is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Page 111 already zoned NR-4. So it's just the closer to the Loop, the increase in the density. COMMISSIONER HOLT: well, I understand that. But this is -- since we're not looking at the same map, I'm a little bit confused. On this map here, this one. DR. WOLSKI: which numbers? COMMISSIONER HOLT: Tract 2. DR. WOLSKI: Tract 2 would be up in here. COMMISSIONER HOLT: okay. And you say this iS NR-4, the existing -- staff told me it was NR-3. I don't known DR. WOLSKI: Okay. This one right here is NR-4 right here. This one is NR-3. 15 COMMISSIONER HOLT: well, my point is the 16 NR-3'S should abut NR-3's and the NR-4's can abut NR-4'S. 17 But I would like to keep the same type of building 18 consistent in those residential areas abutting other 19 residential areas. 20 DR. WOLSKI: Right. The only problem is -- 21 this isn't like a planned development, so the way you do 22 it is an NR-3 or NR-4. YOU can't say, well, you know, I'm 23 going to do a row of houses here and a row of houses here. 24 And so the only way to buffer this area is to go to NR-4 25 right here. And that's -- it's very compatible with this Page 112 1 subdivision here and this subdivision here. And since 2 there's eNO starting very rapidly right in here -- 3 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Right. 4 DR. WOLSKI: -- there's not very much room 5 to buffer. You know, we were thinking of having NR-3'S, 6 but that's not -- there's not very much room to buffer 7 that cmo. SO we're going from low density to CMO. ^nd in 8 between there we need N~-4 to comply with the 9 Comprehensive Plan which likes a gradation of densities. 10 COMMISSIONER HOLT: okay. 11 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Mulroy, 12 would you care to address the Commission? 13 COMMISSIONER MULROY: yeah, I'd like 14 clarification on the topography that separates the two 15 areas. 16 Da. WOLSKI: well, this area right here, 17 the CMO is on a huge hill or like on a hill and it goes 18 down -- as far as the elevations, it goes from a hill and 19 it goes all the way downhill here. But as far as -- 20 there's no park or anything separating the areas. It's 21 just going to from a NR-4 -- I'm sorry. Here's N~t-4. 22 N~-4, CMO. ^nd in this area this will be NR-3, ~R-4, CMO 23 in here. 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Holt. 25 COMMISSIONER HOt,T: well, I still feel the 10TH, 2002 ?LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL Page 109- Page 112 CondenseltTM Page 113 1 whole density is a little high. I mean, you all have done 2 marvelous things with it already. But I would like to see 3 it come down and I think that would be a really good way 4 to bring it down a little bit, making that NR-3. And from 5 the public hearings that we've had before, those people in 6 those areas over there would be a lot happier if that was 7 the same type of development that they have. Thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further questions 9 or clarifications. I have a motion on the floor. Thank 10 you very much, Dr. Wolski. Mr. Keith -- Commissioner 11 Keith, excuse me. 12 COMMISSIONER KEITH: I have a question. On 13 these plattings, is it this time that we can -- that if 14 there's a -- like, you're going from a residential into 15 apartments, can conditions be placed at this time or does : 16 that wait until the property is developed? 17 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Snyder. 18 MR. SNYDER: I'm sorry. I didn't 19 understand the question. 20 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. My question is 21 -- he's got two tracts here going from NR-4 residential 22 into multiple housing. He's designing the tracts later to 23 be platted out for developing. Is it that point in time 24 that the Planning and Zoning can come in and place any 25 restrictions between the two tracts? Page 114 1 MR. SNYDER: NO, you can't do it at the 2 platting stage. The new Development Code gives them the 3 flexibility within an NR-4, so long as they have an 4 overall density of four units per acre. 5 COMMISSIONER ~mlTH: what I would be 6 concerned is that in order to have a boundary between the 7 two, a fence or something, is that -- that's kind of what 8 I was saying -- my thoughts were. 9 MR. SNYDER: NO, you can't do that. You 10 cannot do that at platting. The whole purpose behind the 11 new -- and Mr. Powell can add to this. The whole idea of 12 the new Development Code is to have mixed use straight 13 zoning classifications without conditions and to give the 14 property owner the flexibility to develop within that 15 mixed use zoning classification. 16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Director Powell. 17 MR. POWELL: ^nd, further, if the issue is 18 a design of multi-family, the new Code calls for a 19 different type of multi-family development, one which 20 requires a street system, inter-connectivity, that the 21 mixed use and multi-family areas will actually be part and 22 integrated into adjacent residential areas. So we really 23 are going away from trying to create pods of single use 24 type districts and developments, multi-family, single 25 family, commercial. We're trying to integrate those uses Page 115 1 and not create barriers. 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Powell. 3 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I'd like to remind 4 the Chairman that I have a motion on the floor with a 5 second and that is for Item 9 only. This is not Item 10, 6 just Item 9. 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, 8 Commissioner Powell. Any further questions or comments, 9 Commissioners regarding the motion that's before us on the 10 floor? Commissioner Roy? And I presume this is for 11 clarification. 12 COMMISSIONER ROY: I wanted to make a 13 comment. 14 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: comment, please. 15 COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Assuming this 16 motion passes, we're leaving two groups of citizens very 17 unhappy. And I think we've separated these issues -- 18 we've separated these issues and I think the citizens have 19 indicated that they understand reasonably well that these 20 issues are separated from the issue at hand, but these are 21 not particularly things that we as Planning and Zoning 22 Commissioners can address. It's not our job at this 23 particular time, just not to make it worse. But I don't 24 know what we can do to help these citizens. But I wish we 25 could just make our desires known as these things come up Page 116 1 and I will ask Mr. Powell to do what he's committed to do 2 and any extra effort he can make to address these two 3 issues or help these citizens better understand what they 4 can do and what they should do would be appreciated by me, 5 at least, and I'm sure the other Commissioners. 6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Sure. Counselor 7 Snyder, let me ask to find out if we can get some sort of 8 -- I realize that the offer that Dr. Wolski has made with 9 regard to the 100-foot easement in this southern part, 10 southeastern part of the subdivision -- southwestern part 11 of the subdivision is not tied into the two things that 12 are represented on Item No. 9 here. Is there a -- as we 13 look at Item No. 10, will we be able to put forth a 14 proposal that would allow or would contain something that 15 would allow us to put Dr. Wolski's offer of 100-foot 16 easement in that area on the floor? And Director Powell 17 would like to chime in here, if he would. 18 MR. POWELL: If I could answer that 19 question. I think Commissioner Mukoy really addressed it 20 and that is as this property proceeds through development, 21 the next stage being platting, that flood plain will be ,22 looked at. And the current regulations require that that 23 flood plain bc put in a drainage easement, so the City 24 will have access. So it will be taken care of as part of 25 the existing regulations. 10TH, 2002 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL Page 113 - Page 116 CondonscltTM Page 117 1 The only thing that may happen is they 2 could seek a variance, but then again that would be back 3 before y'all. So without a variance there, they're going 4 to be required to give the City a drainage easement on the 5 property that Dr. Wolski controls. 6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you for your 7 clarification. Commissioner Mulroy. 8 COMMISSIONER MULROY: NO. 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: okay. Once again, we 10 have a motion on the floor and the motion was by 11 Commissioner Powell and a second by Commissioner Mulroy, I 12 believe. Any further clarification needed on the motion? 13 Any further discussion? Seeing none, please vote. Motion 14 carries 6-0 of the Commissioners present. 15 We have also discussed in this last period 16 of time Item No. 10 on our Agenda. Do I hear a motion? 17 Or is there further discussion or clarification? 18 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I would 19 move to approve Item No. 10 as submitted. 20 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I would second that, 21 Mr. Chairman. 22 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It's been moved by 23 Commissioner Powell and seconded by Commissioner Mulroy. 24 Cmmnissioner Holt, question or clarification? 25 COMMISSIONER HOLT: I have a question. The Page 118 1 Denton Plan suggests a city wide multi-family to single 2 fmxfily ration of 40 to 60. Given the size of this 3 multi-family development, it is being proposed at 59 4 percent multi-family, 41 percent single family. I think 5 this is a huge overstep in multi-fmnily for this area. 6 And this has not been brought out. We've not discussed 7 it. We've discussed bringing down the densities of the 8 area, and we're still way off from what the Denton Plan 9 suggests that we do for our community. 10 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: DO you have a 11 friendly motion you would like to make. 12 COMMISSIONER HOLT: NO. I would like to 13 see if any of the other Commissioners feel as I do. 14 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I have several 15 Commissioners that would like to speak. Cmranissioner 16 Powell. 17 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Strangely enough so 18 do I feel that way. But I may be wrong here, I don't want 19 to put words in your mouth. But I don't think you've 20 considered the industrial land. And when you take that 21 into consideration it changes the ratio drmnatically. I 22 mean, yes, if you just look at the residential areas, it's 23 a 60/40 the wrong way or whatever you said. But there's a 24 lot of industrial land here also that's being developed 25 under this same Item No. 9 and No. 10 that has no Page 119 1 residential to it. So that to me modifies it 2 dramatically. Just my way of looking at it. 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: coxrunissioner Mulroy. 4 COMMISSIONER MULROY: JUSt to further 5 address the density. Yeah, selectively to this acreage, 6 it's skewed past the ratio, but if you impose this acreage 7 on the northwest quadrant of -- northeast quadrant of 8 town, then the ratio comes down considerably. So if you 9 look at the area as a whole, then it's not that much [0 askew. And I have one comment, back on -- when you were 11 looking at the N~-3, NR-4, correct me if I'm wrong, but I 12 believe there's some natural barriers between those 13 existing houses. I believe there's a small creek that 14 runs to the east side with a north/south access down 15 behind the Checkmate Development there. And there's a 16 bridge where Windsor stops. 17 So there's a natural barrier. You've got a 18 creek that runs down there. So there's -- it's not going 19 to be a house backed up to a house. You're going to have 20 some barriers there. Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I'd like for Director 22 Powell to see if he can help us clarify what the density 23 represents at this point in time with regard to the entire 24 project. 25 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thomas, do you have Page 120 1 that information? I don't have it right in front of me. 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I was hoping that 3 would help clarify. 4 MR. POWELL: Maybe if you can give us a 5 couple minutes and go. We can come back to that. 6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Holt, do 7 you have a question you'd like to put forth? 8 COMMISSIONER HOLT: NO. 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Or is this genx~ane to 10 your question? Thank you. Any further questions, 11 Commissioners? It doesn't appear that staff has that 12 information for us at this time. Staff has worked with 13 this situation for sometime and I'm just trying to get 14 some sort of comment from them as to how they see where 15 they are at this time. And maybe they would prefer not to 16 make a comment at this time. 17 MR. POWELL: I apologize for not having the 18 information at hand. But at an earlier meeting, we did 19 provide you with an analysis of looking at the northwest 20 quadrant or northeast quadrant of the City. And I think 21 Mr. Mulroy is correct that for this particular project, 22 that obviously the densities, the ratio from single family 23 to multi-family is above what is called out in the Denton 24 Plan. Again, that's a policy docmnent, and a guide and it 25 does come down significantly if you take this project and ,LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 117- Page 120 CondcnscltTM Page 121 1 view it over the whole northeast quadrant. 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Holt, 3 you still have the floor. 4 COMMISSIONER HOLT: I'm sorry. Thank you. 5 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, any 6 further questions? And we have a motion on thc floor. 7 Mr. Gray has a comment regarding density. 8 MR. ORAY: I do apologize. I thought that 9 I didn't have this information, but, in fact, I did. 10 Here's -- this is information that Mr. Reichhart had 11 proposed last time that north of University, the existing !12 conditions are that we have 75 percent single family, 25 13 percent multi-family. And then between University and 14 McKinney we have 53 percent single family and 47 percent 15 multi-family. So the total area between McKinney up north 16 on the northeast quadrant of town we have 64 percent 17 single family, 36 percent multi-family. The applicant's 18 revised proposal, once you factor everything in, would 19 change the totals for the area of town McKinney northward 20 to 63 percent single family, and 37 percent multi-family. 21 So even though he is -- Dr. Wolski's application is 22 proposing a ratio of multi-family to single family that is 23 backwards of what the Denton Plan provides, the Denton 24 Plan does specify this is a City wide average and, in fact 25 -- the effect on the City-wide would be just one Page 122 1 percentage point in either direction. 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And I don't want to 3 put words in Ms. Holt's mouth. But I think her premise 4 was, that what is just the property that's involved with 5 this particular area, what is the ratio on that with 6 regard to the property overall including in the industrial 7 and the other things that we have as a mix in here? 8 MR. GRAY: mst for the property owned by the 9 applicant, we're just looking at single family and 10 multi-family residential units. So I don't know if the 11 industrial or the nonresidential portions of this 12 development would factor into that ratio. Right now the 13 ratio that the applicant is proposing is 59 percent 14 multi-family and 41 percent single family. 15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I think that answers 16 her question. Commissioner Holt. 17 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Thank you for that 18 explanation. But that is my concern, yes, if you do put 19 the employment centers in there, it's going to bring down 20 your ratio, but that doesn't scatter those apartments out 21 anymore. There's going to be a huge amount of apartment: 22 in a smaller area. And I really feel -- and, you know, it 23 may just be perception or how you look this. I look at 24 this one development has 60/40, whereas we want 40/60. 25 That's all I'm saying. Page 123 1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. 2 Commissioner Keith. 3 COMMISSIONER KEITH: l kind of look at 4 these apartments. Dr. Wolski has really reduced them. 5 And rather than coming in and putting a housing 6 development of where it' s going to be smaller lots but 7 more housing, so it makes them cheaper housing because 8 it's right up against the highway, I think coming in with 9 apartments is a lot wiser use. 10 He's brought down the density of them. 11 And, granted, a lot of people don't want to live right 12 next to -- the marketability of living next to a major 13 thoroughfare and the Loop is going to become more busy. 14 And it's more understanding the State is going to at some 15 point in time even increase the lanes on that. So it's 16 going to be very difficult for anybody willing to live 17 right next to such a major thoroughfare. And thc 18 aparunent complex and then the employment centers adjacent 19 to them will be of a great service to the area. And I 20 live over in that area. And so I think Dr. Wolski -- I'd 21 like to comment to him that he has done a very good job of 22 working with the neighborhood people, meeting with them. 23 He's bent over backwards. I'm surprised he doesn't need a 24 chiropractor himself in accommodating these people. 25 And I'd just like to commend him. He's Page 124 1 really -- he's a citizen of the community and has done a 2 very fine job on this. I just wish to apologize that it's 3 taken so long for him to be able to work this all out, but 4 it's come to fruition and I'd like to compliment him and 5 the staff for working with him. Thank you. 6 COMMISSIONER ms[mL: I'd just like to 7 comment that I know there's been a lot of work that has 8 gone into this project. And I reflect back on the work 9 that we put forth in trying to get to the Denton plan and ,10 the other things we did and the stress that we made as a 11 community, I thought, that talked very strongly. And I 12 totally agree with Commissioner Holt that the 40/60, 60/40 13 ratio was something that was important to us as a 14 community and to change that mix meant a change in the 15 texture of our community and it represents the quality of 16 life that I think we want to have and preserve as a 17 community. So I, too, am very much concerned and 18 conscious of what we spent a lot of time in trying to 19 development as the Denton Plan and where we've gone with 20 that. 21 And I would not like to see without being 22 noted as a major exception as we go forth here that this 23 does not, in fact, comply with the work that we have put 24 in to try to get that to where it is today, and I would 25 not be able to vote for this at this time. And I reflect 10TH, 2002 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL Page 121 - Page 124 CondenseltTM Page 125 1 upon the fact that I think the developer has done a lot of 2 work in trying to work with the neighbors and the 3 neighborhood and I appreciate his concession this evening 4 to try to work with the flood plain in the southern part 5 of this piece of prop~:y. And I think that we're very 6 close and there's certainly an area that I could agree 7 with here on many of the things that we've gone to. 8 But I think to change the complexion of our 9 community and to move away from that 60/40 ratio is a bad 10 move for us. Thank you. Commissioner Mukoy. 11 COMM~SSIOSER MULRO¥: well, I will be 12 voting for it. And for just a 180 degree read on what you 13 have experienced, I was involved in the development of the 14 Comp Plan, and it's to be used as a guide. The 60/40 15 ratio is a City-wide ratio. And, also, wc have encouraged 16 through the Denton Code and the Comp Plan more master 17 planning, you know, our desire is to have larger projects 18 with a master plan theme as opposed to spotted projects. 19 So if you were looking at small 20 conglomerate, then you might want to be less flexible on 21 your numbers, but if you have the quality of a master plan 22 product -- project, which we're promoting, and then you 23 step back and look in the quadrant of that City, you're 24 really not changing your ratio but one point. You know, I i25 think that's the flexibility that's always been in the Page 127 1 plan and also I know we're not supposed to talk directly, 2 but I know to Mr. Roy he would enjoy this. Dr. Wolski 3 spent over $10,000.00 on a tree study on this property. 4 He's put a lot of money into this. And I think, you know 5 to -- in determining what esthetics could be preserved. 6 And I think that's very commendable as well. And I just 7 want to throw that in. Thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further comments, 9 Commissioners? 10 COMMISSIONER POWELL: YeS. I'm sorry. I 11 wasn't, but I am. 12 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Powell. 13 COMMISSIONER POWELL: If I may, thank you, 14 sir. Several -- it seems like a couple of months ago, Dr. 15 Wolski was up here land I came down on him like a duck on 16 a June bug. And I think it was well deserved. But I 17 can't imagine a developer putting more effort into 18 pleasing the community than you have done, sir. And I 19 think what I said that night was well-deserved and what I 20 said tonight is also well-deserved. You've really spent a 21 lot of time and effort to make this a good project for the 22 whole city. 23 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Roy, did 24 you want to weigh in here? Once again, we have a motion 25 on the floor. I see no further comments. Please vote. Page 126 1 Comp Plan because it's meant as a guide. And what we have 2 to judge is the final outcome, not all the small 3 equations. So I think we've got most of what we're trying 4 to accomplish with the Comp Plan and as it develops out, 5 such as -- a good example is the easement -- that the 6 flood plain becoming automatically an easement. That's 7 part of this new process. So I think we're well within 8 the spirit of it. And I'm going to vote for it because 9 I'd rather see one large master plan that has been worked 10 out with the central node and especially that has taken 11 into consideration all the comments from the neighborhoods 12 and has incorporated all the concerns practically that it 13 could in to reshaping the development and that was 14 feasible and that were pertinent to this development. 15 Most of the negativity we've heard of the drainage and the 16 transportation really are apart from this development. 17 And I'm pleased as a Commission that this has been 18 processed and that you have the neighborhood group coming 19 in now with the majority of folks supporting this project. 20 So I'm going to be voting for it for those reasons. 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Keith. 22 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Yeah, I know I've 23 akeady had my say. But I want to add one more thing. 24 Dr. Wolski -- that some of the Commissioners are not aware 25 of and the audience as well, that in his working on this 7 8 9 10 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 25 Page 128 Motion carries 5-1. (COMMISSIONER RISHEL VOTING IN OPPOSITION.) bring us to Item No. 11. And I have some Commissioners alhng for a break. Is that acceptable for everyone? We . hold Item 11 for about a ten-minute break. And if to meet us back here in : will pick up on Item No 11. Thank COlranissioners. have your We have our we'd like to proceed. I think 're on Item No. 11 i Item No. 11 should be on our will present. This is Itmxt No. 11 on and Mr. Grace will present. MR. ORACE: SeC here, the site is located at 1911 south of Mingo and is Okay. Npplicant has applied for a use permit to allo~or the constructie ~ 120 foot co-locatable teleL~munications tower fo,.ir r Wireless. A 230 square fo~uipment shel~vill a, tpany the proposed tower and wu a p~bricat ~ ,foot eight inch structur, e w,1~ ? mN gggregate exterior. The subject propm'ty is pla .t.tecl. The N Denton Plan designates this locatio~n .a,s an .~eyl,,ployment N center, future land use area. Here is the-- if the ~ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 125 - Page 128 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 2 (NR-2), NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 4 (NR-4), AND EMPLOYMENT CENTER INDUSTRIAL (EC-I) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATIONS AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 3 (NR-3), NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 4 (NR-4), NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 6 (NR-6), NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE 12 (NRMU-12), AND COMMUNITY MIXED USE GENERAL (CM-G) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATIONS AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR APPROXIMATELY 180 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON EITHER SIDE OF LOOP 288 NORTH OF MINGO ROAD, SOUTH OF KING'S ROW, EAST OF OLD NORTH ROAD AND WEST OF COOPER CREEK ROAD.; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z02-0004) WHEREAS, Dr. Edward Wolski initiated a change in zoning for approximately 180 acres of land from Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2), Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4), and Employment Center Industrial (EC-I) zoning district classifications and land use designations to Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3), Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4), Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6), Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12), and Community Mixed Use General (CM-G) zoning district classifications and land use designations, with the intent to develop a variety of single-family, multifamily, retail, office and commercial uses; and WHEREAS, on April 10, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission concluded a public hearing as required by law, after which the commission recommended approval of the requested changes in zoning; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change in zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The zoning district classification and use designation of the approximately 14.25 acre property generally located south of King's Row and east of Loop 288 and more particularly described as "Tract I" in Exhibit A is hereby changed from Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district classification and land use designation to Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district classification and use designation uncle[ the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas. SECTION 2. The zoning district classification and use designation of the approximately 40.4 acre property generally located on either side of Windsor Drive west of Loop 288 and more particularly described as "Tract II," "Tract III" and "Tract X" in Exhibit B is hereby changed from Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district classification and land use designation to Page 1 of 3 Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning district classification and use designation under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas. SECTION 3. The zoning district classification and use designation of the approximately 34.931 acre property generally located east of Loop 288, west of Cooper Creek Road and north of Mingo Road south of King's Row and east of Loop 288 and more particularly described as "Tract IV," Tract V" and "Park" in Exhibit C is hereby changed from Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2), Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4), and Employment Center Industrial (EC-I) zoning district classifications and land use designations to Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning district classification and use designation under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas. SECTION 4. The zoning district classification and use designation of the approximately 49.445 acre property generally located to either side of south Loop 288 north of Mingo Road and more particularly described as "Tract VII" and "Tract XI" in Exhibit D is hereby changed from Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) and Employment Center Industrial (EC-I) zoning district classifications and land use designations to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning district classification and use designation under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas. SECTION 5. The zoning district classification and use designation of the approximately 40.526 acre property generally located to either side of south Loop 288 south of King's Row and more particularly described as "Tract XIII, .... Tract XIV," Tract XV" and''Tract XVI"in Exhibit E is hereby changed from Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) to Community Mixed Use General (CM- G) zoning district classification and use designation under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas. SECTION 6. The plan shown as Exhibit F is provided for informational purposes only to show the locations of the aforementioned tracts. SECTION 7. The City's official zoning map is amended to show the changes in zoning district classifications. SECTION 8. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid by any court, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. SECTION 9. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 10. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be Page 2 of 3 published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2002. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: Page 3 of 3 Exhibit A FIELD NOTE DESCRIPTION ZONiNG EXHIBIT TRACT I BEING a tract of land situated in the DAVID CULP SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 287, Denton County, Texas and being a portion of a 256.974 acre tract of land described in a deed to E.D.S. ENGINEERING CORPORATION as recorded in Volume 922, Page 718 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas (DRDCT) and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point for the northeasterly comer of a tract of land described as TRACT 1, PARCEL A in a deed to TRUSTEES OF EDS CORP. RETIREMENT PLAN & TRUST as recorded in Volume 920, Page 94 (DRDCT), said point also being the most northerly northwesterly comer of said 256.974 acre tract; THENCE South 88°11'50" East, a distance of t 183.88 feet to a point for comer; THENCE SOUTH, a distance of 440.20 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 52°40'18'' West, a distance of 193.38 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the right having a radius of 594.99 feet, a chord bearing of South 70°31'14" West and a chord length of 363.18 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the right through a central angle of 35°32'22" for an arc length of 369.06 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the left having a radius of 500.00 feet, a chord bearing of South 89°25'08" West and a chord length of 42.41 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the left through a central angle of 04°51'43" for an arc length of 42.43 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 32°40'05'' West, a distance of 356.22 feet to a point for comer; THENCE WEST, a distance of 460.00 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 01°02'22'' East, a distance of 416.45 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING within these metes and bounds 14.253 acres or 620,863 square feet of land more or less. FIELD NOTE DESCRIPTION ZONING EXHIBIT TRACT ]]2[ BEING a tract of land situated in the DAVID CULP SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 287 and the CASWELL CARTER SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 275, Denton County, Texas and being a portion of a 256.974 acre tract of land described in a deed tO E.D.S. ENGINEERING CORPORATION as recorded in Volume 922, Page 718 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas (DRDCT) and being more particularly described as follows: cOMMENCING at a point for the westerly most northwesterly comer of said 256.974 acre tract; THENCE South 10042'08'' West, a distance of 984.83 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE North 89° 14'52" East, a distance of 380.14 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the left having a radius of 750.00 feet, a chord beating of North 74044'09.' East and a chord length of 394.91 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the left through a central angle of 30°31'43" for an arc length of 399.62 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 30°31'43" East, a distance of 45.00 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the right having a radius of 621.51 re,et, a chord bearing of South 18°45'23" East and a chord length of 292.59 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the right through a central angle of 27° ~3'43" for an arc length of 295.36 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the left having a radius of 500.00 feet, a chord bearing of South 18°27'28'' East and a chord length of 230.32 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the left through a central angle of 26°37'54" for an arc length of 232.40 -feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 73022'57" West, a distance of 591.96 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the left having a radius of 270.00 feet, a chord bearing of North 76o12'30'. West and a chord length of 126.93 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the left through a central angle of 27°11'24" for an arc length of 128.13 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 89°17'15" West, a distance of 389.73 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the right having a radius of 813.16 feet, a chord bearing of North t4°38'25" West and a chord length of 130.63 feet; Exhibit B FIELD NOTE DESCRIPTION ZONING EXHIBIT TRACT li BEING a tract of land situated in the DAVID CULP SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 287, Denton County, Texas and being a portion of a 256.974 acre tract of land described in a deed to E.D.S. ENGINEERING CORPORATION as recorded in Volume 922, Page 718 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas (DRDCT) and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point for the westerly most northwesterly comer of said 256.974 acre tract; THENCE South 88°15'27'' East, a distance of 487.31 feet to a point for comer; THENCE SOUTH, a distance of 889.61 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the right having a radius of 750.00 feet, a chord beating of South 78037'55.' West and a chord length of 295.67 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the right through a central angle of 22°44'10.' for an arc length of 297.62 feet to a point for corner; THENCE South 89° i4'52" West, a distance of 380.14 feet to a point for corner; THENCE North 10042'08" East, a distance of 984.83 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING within these metes and bounds 12.587 acres or 548,294 square feet of land more or less. THENCE continuing along said curve to the fight through a central angle of 09°12'51" for an arc length of 130.77 feet to a point for corner; THENCE North 10°02~00'' West, a distance of 86.43 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the right having a radius of 739.28 feet, a chord bearing of North 01 °43'40" East and a chord length of 394.91 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the fight through a central angle of 23°33'49" for an arc length of 304.04 feet to a point for comer; THENCE EAST, a distance of 159.50 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 10°42'08" East, a distance of 47.06 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING within these metes and bounds 13.427 acres or 584,894 square feet of land more or less. FI~ELD NOTE DESCRIFrlON ZONING EXHYflIT TRACT X BEING a tract of land situated in the DAVID CULP SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 287 and the CASWELL CARTER SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 275, Denton County, Texas and being a portion of a 256.974 acre tract of land described in a deed to E.D.S. ENGINEERING CORPORATION as recorded in Volume 922, Page 718 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas (DRDCT) and being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at a point for the westerly most northwesterly corner of said 256.974 acre tract; THENCE South 88° 15'27" East, a distance of 734.32 feet to a point in the westerly right- or-way line of HIGHWAY LOOP 288 (a variable width fight-of-way), said point being the beginning of a curve to the right having a radius of 3709.72 feet, a chord bearing of South 40o33'24.. East and a chord length of 502.83 feet; THENCE along the westerly fight-of-way line of said HIGHWAY LOOP 288 as follows: Continuing along said curve to the fight through a central angle of 07046'20" for an arc length of 503.22 feet to a point for comer; . South 31°11'17" East, a distance of 581.42 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the fight having a radius of 3709.72 feet, a chord bearing of South 22°54'31" East and a chord length of 667.96 feet; Continuing along said curve to the fight through a central angle of 10° 19'50" for an arc length of 668.87 feet to a point for comer; THENCE departing the westerly fight-of-way line of said HIGHWAY LOOP 288, South 72°17'04'' West, a distance of 267.06 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the fight having a radius of 500.00 feet, a chord bearing of South 84055'27.' West and a chord length of 264.74 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the right through a central angle of 30°42'11" for an arc length of 267.93 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE South 01°48'14" West, a distance of 820.48 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 60°55'00'' West, a distance of 1016.11 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 01035'28'' East, a distance of 385.72 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 73022'57'' East, a distance of 591.96 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the left having a radius of 500.00 feet, a chord beating of South 55044'56.. East and a chord length of 406.34 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the left through a central angle of 47°57'02'' for an arc length of 418.45 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING within these metes and bounds 14.381 acres or 626,415 square feet of land more or less. EXHIBIT C FIELD NOTE DESCRIPTION ZONING EXHIBIT TRACT IV BEING a tract of land situated in the DAVID CULP SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 287, the T.H. LIVING SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 729 and the J.EARLY SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1279, Denton County, Texas and being a portion of a 256.974 acre tract of land described in a deed to E.D.S. ENGINEERING CORPORATION as recorded in Volume 922, Page 718 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas (DRDCT) and being more particularly described as follows: cOMMENCING at a point for the northeasterly corner of a tract of land described as TRACT 1, PARCEL A in a deed to TRUSTEES OF EDS CORP. RETIREMENT PLAN & TRUST as recorded in Volume 920, Page 94 (DRDCT), said point also being the most northerly northwesterly comer of said 256.974 acre tract; THENCE South 88°11'50" East, a distance of 1183.88 feet to a point for comer; THENCE SOUTH, a distance of 440.20 feet tO the POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH, a distance of 45.64 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 37° 19'42" East, a distance of 1242.62 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 04°i1'14" West, a distance of 478.14 feet to a point for the beginning' of a curve to the right having a'radius of 1790.83L feet, a chord bearing of North 56°50'42" West and a chord length of 632.23 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the right through a central angle of 20°20'03" for an arc length of 635.56 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the right having a radius of 833.33 feet, a chord beating of North 42°00'11" West and a chord length of 135.83 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to right through a central angle of 09°20'59" for an arc length of 135.98 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 37019'42'' West, a distance of 778.89 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the right having a radius of 300.00 feet, a chord bearing of North 22°05'51" West and a chord length of 157.62 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the right through a central angle of 30°27'42'' for an arc length of 159.50 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 06°52'01" West, a distance of 64.81 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the left having a radius of 594.99 feet, a chord bearing of North 67°51'15" East and a chord length of 310.07 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the left through a central angle of 30°12'25" for an arc length of 313.69 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 52°40'18" East, a distance 0f 193.38 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING within these metes and bounds 17.836 acres or 776,915 square feet of land more or less. FIELD NOTE DESCRIlYrlON ZONING EXHIBIT TRACT V BEING a tract of land situated in the J. EARLY SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1279, Denton County, Texas and being a portion of a 256.974 acre tract of land described in a deed to E.D.S. ENGINEERING CORPORATION as recorded in Volume 922, Page 718 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas (DRDCT) and being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at a point for the northeasteily comer of a tract of land described as TRACT 1, PARCEL A in a deed to TRUSTEES OF EDS CORP. RETIREMENT PLAN & TRUST as recorded in Volume 920, Page 94 (DRDCT), said point also being the most northerly northwesterly comer of said 256.974 acre tract; THENCE South 88°11'50" East, a distance of 1183.88 feet to a point for comer; THENCE SOUTH, a distance of 485.84 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 37°19'42" East, a distance of'1242.62 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE EAST, a distance of 142.17 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 87°26'24~ East, a distance of 1117.50 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 01°21'03" West, a distance of 610.23 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 87°38'57" West, a distance of 224.38 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the fight having a radius of 3471.81 feet, a chord bearing of North 85°22'27" West and a chord length of 559.98 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the right through a central angle of 09°15'06" for an arc length of 560.59 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 37°19'42" West, a distance of 761.60 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING within these metes and bounds 14.207 acres or 618,864 square feet of land more or less. FIELD NOTE DESCRIPTION ZONING EXHIBIT PARK BEING a tract of land situated in the J.EARLY SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1279, Denton County, Texas and being a portion of a 256.974 acre tract of land described in a deed to E.D.S. ENGINEERING CORPORATION as recorded in Volume 922, Page 718 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas (DRDCT) and being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at a point for the northeasterly comer of a tract of land described as TRACT 1, PARCEL A in a deed to TRUSTEES OF EDS CORP. RETIREMENT PLAN & TRUST as recorded in Volume 920, Page 94 {DRDCT), said point also being the most northerly northwesterly comer of said 256.974 acre tract; THENCE South 88°11'50" East, a distance of t 183.88 feet to a point for comer; THENCE SOUTH, a distance of 485.84 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 37019'42" East, a distance of'1242.62 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE South 37° 19'42" East, a distance of 761.60 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the fight having a radius of 3471.81 feet, a chord bearing of North 77°31'50" West and a chord length of 389.77 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the right through a central angle of 06°26'09" for an arc length of 389.98 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the right having a radius of 1790.83 feet, a chord bearing of North 69°00'10'. West and a chord length of 124.42 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the right through a central angle of 03058'53.' for an arc length of 124.44 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 04°11'14" East, a distance of 478.14 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING within these metes and bounds 2.888 acres or 125,793 square feet of land more or less. : EXHIBIT D FIELD NOTE DESCRIPTION ZONING EXHIBiT TRACT VII BEING a tract of land situated in the DAVID CULP SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 287, the T.H. LIVING SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 729 and the J.EARLY SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1279, Denton County, Texas and being a portion of a 256.974 acre tract of land described in a deed to E.D.S. ENGINEERING CORPORATION as recorded in Volume 922, Page 718 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas (DRDCT) and being more particularly described as follows:- COMMENCING at a point for the northeasterly comer of a tract of land described as TRACT 1, PARCEL A in a deed to TRUSTEES OF EDS CORP. RETIREMENT PLAN & TRUST as recorded in Volume 920, Page 94 (DRDCT), said point also being the most northerly northwesterly corner of said 256.974 acre tract; THENCE South 01°02'22" West, a distance of 619.45 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 88°15'27'' West, a distance of 57.67 feet to a point in the easterly right- of-way line of HIGHWAY LOOP 288 (a variable width right-of-way) for the beginning of a curve to the fight having a radius of 3939.72 feet, a chord bearing of South 34022'48'. East and a chord length of 918.66 feet; THENCE along the easterly right-of-way line of said HIGHWAY LOOP 288 as follows: Continuing along said curve to the right through a central angle of 13o23'26'' for an arc length of 920.75 feet to a point for comer; South 24040'14'' East, a distance of 331.13 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE departing the easterly right-of-way line of said HIGHWAY LOOP 288, North 69o34'22" East, a distance of 140.16 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the left having a radius of 400.00 feet, a chord bearing of North 55o42'22.. East and a chord length of 191.73 feet; , THENCE continuing along said curve to the left through a central angle of 27°43'59'' for an arc length of 193.61 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the fight having a radius of 300.00 feet, a chord bearing of North 47015'20.' East and a chord length of 56.63 feet; ': THENCE continuing along said curve to the fight through a central angle of 10°49'55" for an arc length of 56.72 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 52°40'18" East, a distance of 251.66 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 37019'42" East, a distance of 267.41 feet t° a point for the beginning of a curve to the left having a radius of 833.33 feet, a chord bearing of South 42°00'11' East and a chord length of 135.83 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the left through a central angle of 09°20'59' for an arc length of 135.98 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the left having a radius of 1790.83 feet, a chord bearing of South 56050'42'' East and a chord length of 632.23 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the left through a central angle of 20°20'03" for an ar~ length of 635.56 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 24°12'05'' West, a distance of 252.51 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the right having a radius of 300.24 feet, a chord bearing of South 63°55'55'' West and a chord length of 383.69 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the right through a central angle of 79°25'43" for an arc length of 416.22 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 77°53'35" West, a distance of 195.47 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the left having a radius of 400.00 feet, a chord bearing of North 89023'59'. West and a chord length of 159.58 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the left through a central angle of 23°00'47'' for an arc length of 160.66 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 79°05'38' West, a distance o~ 264.04 feet to a point in the easterly fight- of-way line of aforementioned HIGHWAY LOOP 288; THENCE along the easterly right-of-way line of said HIGHWAY LOOP 288 as follows: North 10054'22'. West, a distance of 102.01 feet to a point for comer; North 20025'38" West, a distance of 580.05 feet to a point for comer; North 24°40'14'' West, a distance of 81.25 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING within these metes and bounds 18.839 acres or 820,646 square feet of land more or less. ,~ FIELD NOTE DESCRIPTION ZONING EXHIBIT TRACT XI BEING a tract of land situated in the CASWELL CARTER SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 275 and the J.EARLY SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1279, Denton County, Texas and being a portion of a 256.974 acre tract of land described in a deed to E.D.S. ENGINEERING CORPORATION as recorded in Volume 922, Page 718 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas (DRDCT) and being more particularly described as follows: coMMENCING at a point for the westerly most northwesterly comer of said 256.974 acre tract; THENCE South 88015'27" East, a distance of 734.32 feet to a point in the westerly right- of-way line of HIGHWAY LOOP 288 (a variable width fight-of-way), said point being the beginning of a curve to the fight having a radius of 3709.72 feet, a chord beating of South 40o33'24" East and a chord length of 502.83 feet; THENCE along the westerly fight-of-way line of said HIGHWAY LOOP 288 as follows: Continuing along said curve to the fight through a central angle of 07°4G20'' for an arc length of 503.22 feet to a point for comer; South 3 I°11'17" East, a d/stance of 581.42 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the right having a radius of 3709.72 feet, a chord bearing of South 22°54'31" East and a chord length of 667.96 feet; Continuing along said curve to the fight through a central angle of 10°19'50'' for an arc length of 668,87 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, said point being the beginning of a curve to the right having a radius of 3709.72 feet, a chord bearing of South 12°25'21'. East and a chord length of 688.03 feet; Continuing along said curve to the right through a central angle of 10°38'30'' for an arc length of 689.02 feet to a point for comer; South 00°02'03" East, a d/stance of 97.50 feet to a point for comer; South 02055' 14",East, a distance of 290.50 feet to a point for comer; South 06°54'14" West, a distance of 339.85 feet to a point for corner; North 89°26'02'' West, a distance of 60.00 feet to a point for comer; South 00°13'08'' West, a distance of 720.52 feet to a point for comer; THENCE departing the westerly right-of-way line of said HIGHWAY LOOP 288, South 89°19~42'' West, a distance of 641.02 feet to a point for corner; THENCE North 01°48'14" East, a distance of 2020.68 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the left having a radius of 500.00 feet, a chord bearing of North 84°55'27" East and a chord length of 264.74 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the left through a central angle of 30°42' 11" for an arc length of 267,93 feet to a point for corner; THENCE North 72°17'04" East, a distance of 267.06 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING within these metes and bounds 30.606 acres or 1,333,190 square feet of land more or less. EXHIBIT E FIELD NOTE DESCRIPTION ZONING EXH[B1T TRACT XIII BEING a tract of land situated in the DAVID CULP SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 287, Denton County, Texas and being a portion of a 256.974 acre tract of land described in a deed to E.D.S. ENGINEERING CORPORATION as recorded in Volume 922, Page 718 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas (DRDCT) and being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at a point for the northeasterly comer of a tract of land described as TRACT 1, PARCEL A in a deed to TRUSTEES OF EDS CORP. RETIREMENT PLAN & TRUST as recorded in Volume 920, Page 94 (DRDCT), said point also being the most northerly northwesterly comer of said 256.974 acre tract; THENCE South 01002'22'' West, a distance of.416.45 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE EAST, a distance of 460.00 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 32°40'05'' East, a distance of 356.22 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the left having a radius of 500.00 feet, a chord bearing of South 70°59'41" West and a chord length of 275.52 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the left through a central angle of 31°59'10" for an arc length of 279.13 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 55°00'06" West, a distance of 240.99 feet to a point in the easterly right- of-way line of LOOP 288 (a variable width right-of-way) for the beginning of a curve to the left having a radius of 3939.72 feet, a chord bearing of North 38°03'28'' West and a chord length of 414.78 feet; THENCE along the easterly right-of-way line of said LOOP 288 and continuing along said curve to the left through a central angle of 06°02'06'' for an arc length of 414.97 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 88o15'27" East, a distance of 57.67 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 01002'22" East, a distance of 203.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING within these metes and bounds 5.226 acres or 227,626 square feet of land more or less. FIELD NOTE DESCRIPTION ZONING EXHIBIT TRACT XIV BEING a tract of land situated in the DAVID CULP SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 287, Denton County, Texas and being a portion of a 256.974 acre tract of land described in a deed to E.D.S. ENGINEERING CORPORATION as recorded in Volume 922, PageT18 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas (DRDCT) and being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at a point for the northeasterly corner of a tract of land described as TRACT 1, PARCEL A in a deed to TRUSTEES OF EDS CORP. RETIREMENT PLAN & TRUST as recorded in Volume 920, Page 94 (DRDCT), said point also being the most northerly northwesterly comer of said 256.974 acre tract; THENCE South 01o02'22" West, a distance of 619.45 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 88° 15'27" West, a distance of 57.67 feet to a point in the easterly fight- of-way line of HIGHWAY LOOP 288 (a variable width right-of-way) for the beginning of a curve to the right having a radius of 3939.'-/2 feet, a chord bearing of South 38003'28" East and a chord length of 414.78 feet; THENCE along the easterly right-of-way line of said HIGHWAY LOOP 288 and continuing along said curve to the right through a central angle of 06002'06'. for an arc length of 414.97 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE departing the easterly right-of-way line of said HIGHWAY LOOP 288, North 55o00'06'' East, a distance of 240.99 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the right having a radius of 500.00 feet, a chord bearing of North 73025'33'. East and a chord length of 316.05 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the right through a central angle of 36°50'53" for an are length of 321.56 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the left having a radius of 594.99 feet, a chord bearing of North 85°37'26'' East and a chord.length of 55.36 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the left through a central angle of 05019'57'' for an arc length of 55.38 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 06°52'01" East, a distance of 64.81 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the left having a radius of 300.00 feet, a chord bearing of South 22°05'51" East and a chord length of 157.62 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the left through a central angle of 30°27'42" for an arc length of 159.50 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 37°19'42" East, a distance of 5 ! 1.48 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 52°40'18'' West, a distance of 251.66 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the left having a radius of 300.00 feet, a chord bearing of South 47015'20'' West and a chord length of 56.63 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the left through a central angle of 10°49'55'' for an arc length of 56.72 feet to the beginning of a curve to the right having a radius of 400.00 feet, a chord bearing of South 55°42'22" West and a chord length of 191.73 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the right through a central angle of 27°43'59" for an arc length of 193.61 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 69034'22'' West, a distance of t40.16 feet to a point in the easterly fight- of-way line of aforementioned HIGHWAY LOOP 288; THENCE along the easterly fight-of-way line of said HIGHWAY LOOP 288 as follows: North 24o40' 14" West, a distance of 331.13 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the left having a radius of 3939.72 feet, a chord bearing of North 3 l°21'45"~West and a chord length of 505.43 feet; Continuing along said curve to the left through a central angle of 07°21'20" for an arc length of 505.78 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING within these metes and bounds 11.047 acres or 481,190 square feet of land more or less. FIELD NOTE DESCRIPTION ZONING EXHmlT TRACT XV BEING a tract of land situated in the DAVID CULP SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 287, CASWELL CARTER SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 275 and the J. EARLY SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1279, Denton County, Texas and being a portion of a 256.974 acre tract of land described in a deed to E.D.S. ENGINEERING CORPORATION as recorded in Volume 922, Page 718 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas (DRDCT) and being more particularly described as follows: CO1ViMENCING at a point for the westerly most northwesterly comer of said 256.974 acre tract; THENCE South 88°15'27" East, a distance of 734.32 feet to a point in the westerly fight- of-way line of HIGHWAY LOOP 288 (a variable width fight-of-way), said point being the beginning of a curve to the fight having a radius of 3709.72 feet, a chord bearing of South 40o33'24'' East and a chord length of 502.83 feet; THENCE along the westerly fight-of-way line' of said HIGHWAY LOOP 288 as follows: Continuing along said curve to the right through a central angle of 07°46'20" for an arc length of 503.22 feet to a point for comer; South 31 °11'17" East, a distance of 97.84 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; South 31 °11' 17" East, a distance of 483.58 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the fight having a radius of 3709.72 feet, a chord beating of South 22°54'31" East and a chord length of 667.96 feet; Continuing along said curve to the fight through a central angle of 10°19'50'' for an arc length of 668.87 feet to a point for comer; THENCE departing the westerly fight-of-way line of said HIGHWAY LOOP 288, South 72017'04'' West, a distance of 267.06 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the fight having a radius of 500.00 feet, a chord bearing of North 57°47'05" West and a chord length of 794.87 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the fight through a central angle of 105°17'07'' for an arc length of 918.79 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the left having a radius of 621.51 feet, a chord beating of North 18045'23.' West and a chord length of 292.59 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the left through a central angle of 27°13'43" for an arc length of 295.36 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 30°31'43" West, a distance of 45.00 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the left having a radius of 750.00 feet, a chord bearing of North 57°14'i2.' East and a chord length of 58.49 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the left through a central angle of 04°28'1 I" for an arc length of 58.51 feet to.a point for comer; THENCE North 55°00'06'' East, a distance of 591.10 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING within these metes and bounds 16.304 acres or 710,223 square feet of land more or tess. FIELD NOTE DESCRIPTION ZONING EXHIBIT TRACT XVI BEING a tract of land situated in the DAVID CULP SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 287, Denton County, Texas and being a portion of a 256.974 acre tract of land described in a deed to E.D.S. ENGINEERING CORPORATION as recorded in Volume 922, Page 718 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas (DRDCT) and being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at a point for the westerly most northwesterly comer of said 256.974 acre tract; THENCE South 88° 15'27" East, a distance of 487.31 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE South 88o15'27'' East, a distance of 247.01 feet to a point in the westerly right- of-way line of HIGHWAY LOOP 288 (a variable width right-of-way), said point being the beginning of a curve to the right having a radius of 3709.72 feet, a chord bearing of South 40033'24'' East and a chord length of 502.83 feet; THENCE along the westerly right-of-way line of HIGHWAY LOOP 288 as follows: Continuing along said curve to the right through a central angle of 07046'20'' for an arc length of 503.22 feet to a point for comer; South 31°11'17" East, a distance of 97.84 feet to a point for comer; THENCE departing the westerly right-of-way tine of HIGHWAY LOOP 288, South 55°00'06'' West, a distance of 591.10 feet to a point for the beginning of a curve to the right having a radius of 750.00 feet, a chord bearing of South 61o07'58'' West and a chord length of 160.20 feet; THENCE continuing along said curve to the right through a central angle of 12°15'44'' for an arc length of 160;51 feet-to a point for comer; THENCE NORTH, a distance of 889.61 feet to' the POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING within these metes and bounds 7.949 acres or 346,238 square feet of land more or less. EXHIBIT F This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #37 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: May 14, 2002 Planning Departmem CM/DCM/ACM: David Hill, 349-8314 SUBJECT - Z02-0016: (1822, 1828 and 1902 l/Vest OakStreeO Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 0.8 acres, from a Multiple Family Dwelling District 1 (MF-1) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) zoning district. The property is commonly addressed as 1822, 1828 and 1902 West Oak Street and generally located on the north side of West Oak Street approximately 310 feet east of Bradley Street. The property is being rezoned to bring it in conformance with the DeNon Developmem Code. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (4-2). (Z02-0016) [City initiated rezoning, initially reviewed during the Developmem Code review process.] BACKGROUND Applicam: City of DeNon - Property Owner, David Bynum As part of the city-wide rezoning related to the Developmem Code adoption, City Council reviewed this request at the January 15, 2002 Work Session meeting. At that time, a consensus was reached to rezone the property to Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12). However, at the January 28, 2002 Work Session meeting, Council reverted the zoning of the property back to Multiple Family Dwelling District 1 (MF-1) due to concerns related to adequate notice. City Council directed staff to initiate a zone change request for Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) with the City of Demon as the applicant. This case involves three tracts of land that are currently developed with two residential structures. One of the structures is not habitable. It is staff's understanding that one structure is occupied as a duplex. At the December 2001 public hearing on the citywide rezoning, the property owner requested Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use to allow for the developmem of a multi-family structure on the property to proceed. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Deny. 3. Postpone consideration. 4. Table item. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 4-2 (Keith, Powell opposed). ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The applicant submitted a preliminary and final plat application on March 12, 2001. The plat applications were submitted under Chapter 34, Subdivision and Land Development Regulations and Chapter 35, Zoning for MF-1 and are still under review. A final plat is required prior to the issuance of any building permits. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology of Z02-0016, commonly known as 1822, 1828, and 1902 West Oak Street: Application Date - DRC Date- Neighborhood Meeting P&Z Meeting March 4, 2002 March 14, 2002 None April 10, 2002 FISCAL INFORMATION Development of this property will increase the assessed value of the city. As a form of infill development, no extension of public infrastructure is necessary to service this site. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Maps 3. Public Notification (Property Owner Notification Map and Property Owner Responses) 4. Photographs 5. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, April 10, 2002 6. Draft Ordinance Prepared by: Marcy Ratcliff Development Review Manager Respectfully submitted: Douglas S. Powell, AICP Director of Planning and Development ATTACHMENT 1 Staff Analysis Summary_ of Zoning Request The request is to rezone the subject site from Multiple Family Dwelling District 1 (MF-1) to a Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district. City Council, at the January work session, decided not to rezone the subject site under the Development Code but to maintain the MF-1 zoning. The intent was to schedule a separate public hearing to insure property owner notification. If this request were approved, the zoning would comply with the Denton Development Code. However, the plats were submitted in 2001 and will be required to meet the MF-1 and Chapter 34, Subdivision and Land Development Regulation standards. The property owner, Mr. David Bynum, is opposed to the City initiated rezoning to Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) and is in favor of Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU 12) zoning because it allows a maximum of 12 multi-family units per acre (Attachment 3). The Planning and Zoning Commission cannot recommend a higher intensity district only a lower district. Because the property owner is opposed to the request, a super majority vote (6 out 7) by City Council to approve the rezoning to Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) is required. Existing Condition of Property_ Property History. February 20, 2002 - The subject property was retained in the Multiple Family Dwelling District 1 (MF-1) zoning district and land use classification by Ordinance 2002-040. The Multiple Family Dwelling District 1 (MF-1) has been in place on the subject property since 1969. The land use designation of the subject property and surrounding area known as the "Houston Place Neighborhood" was changed from Downtown University Core to Existing Neighborhood/infill Compatibility. January 8, 2002 Adjacent zoning and land use (ATTACHMENT 2): North: Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) - UNT Housing South: Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) - Single Family Residences East: Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) - Single Family Residences West: Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) - Single Family Residences The structure at 1902 W. Oak Street was declared substandard and ordered to be demolished immediately by the Construction Advisory and Appeals Board on June 21,2001. it typically takes a year to actually get a building demolished according to the Building inspections Division. Comprehensive Plan Analysis The subject site is located in an "Existing Neighborhoods/Infill Compatibility" future land use area. New development in this district should respond to existing development with compatible land uses, patterns and design standards. The plan recommends that existing neighborhoods within the city be vigorously protected and preserved. Housing that is compatible with the existing density, neighborhood service, and commercial land uses is allowed. The subject and surrounding properties prior to the amendmem of The DeNon Plan, in January 2002, had the land use designation of Downtown University Core, which encourages higher housing densities. The amendmem changing the land use designation to Existing Neighborhoods/infill Compatibility changes the strategies for residemial land use location. The prime purpose of the Existing Neighborhoods/Infill Compatibility land use designation is to protect and preserve existing neighborhoods. Allowing for increases in density is a major objective in the Downtown University Core and in mixed-use cemers, not necessarily in the Existing Neighborhoods/infill Compatibility areas. The subject property is located on a secondary arterial, in the middle of the block, surrounded by single family residemial development with the exception of the UNT housing to the north and is not within a Downtown University Core or a mixed-use cemers. "Future residential development within established residential areas would be developed in a manner that responds to the existing residential development with compatible land uses and development patterns. Existing neighborhoods within the city will be protected and preserved. " (p. 24) "Accommodate multifamily residential development in a variety of j~brms. Many of the deteriorating apartments adjacent to the universities could be renovated or redeveloped as new student housing in order to better support the needs of UNT and TWU. Additionally, other types of attached residential development such as townhomes should be considered. It is recommended that multifamily development be located in areas that provide transitions between lower and higher intensity uses, and in a manner that will not negatively impact surrounding uses. Additionally, multifamily uses should be located in small groupings around the city in a manner that provides a mix of uses and densities, rather than concentrating all multifamily uses in one area which can have negative impact upon the city." (p. 24) Due to the surrounding zoning of Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) and the surrounding existing single family residemial land uses, with the exception of the UNT multifamily housing to the north, the proposed NR-3 zoning is compatible with The Denton Plan. Development Review Analysis Transportation Trip Generation. Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) will allow the developmem of approximately two lots which will generate approximately 19 trips per day. if the property were to remain zoned MF-1 it would generate approximately 130 additional trips per day. A Traffic impact Analysis will not be required. Access. The development will have access from West Oak Street. Road Capacity The DeNon Mobility Plan idemifies West Oak Street as a Secondary Major Arterial street. Preliminary analysis indicates West Oak Street has adequate capacity for NR-3 developmem. Minimum requiremems for pedestrian linkages, utilities, drainage, and topography will be addressed at the time of platting. Development Code/Zoning Analysis If the zone change request is approved, any proposed uses on the subject site will be required to be in compliance with the regulations of Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3). STAFF FINDINGS 1. The proposed Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning designation will encourage and preserve contiguous single family residential development. 2. Single family residential development is compatible with the predominate existing residential land uses and development patterns in this neighborhood. 3. The subject site is located in the middle of the block ora secondary major arterial street surrounded by single family uses and is therefore not suitable for higher density multifamily. ATTACHMENT 2 Maps Location/Zoning Map NORTH LOCATION MAP Scale: None NORTH Land Use Map Scale: None ATTACHMENT 3 Public Notification NORTH Notification Map Scale: None Public Notification Date: 200' Legal Notices* sent via Certified Mail: 500' Courtesy Notices* sent via 1st Class Mail: Number of responses to 200' Legal Notice · In Opposition: 1 · In Favor: 8 · Neutral: 0 March 30, 2002 23 84 Percent of land within 200' in opposition: <1% *A copy of the notification list can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 Property Owner Responses Updated 05-02-02 Property Owner Name In favor Comments and Address /opposed* Dixie Stevenson In Favor Rezoning to NR-3 would bring these properties 1920 W. Oak into alignment with 17 other properties in same neighborhood tat were zoned NR-3 from MF-1 Scott and Laura Short In Favor In favor of zoning 1822, 1828 and 1902 West Oak 1907 W. Oak as NR-3 *Darlene G. Stewart In Favor None 2003 W. Oak Street *David Holdeman In Favor None 1820 West Oak *M.H. Naraght In Favor I own 1910 next to property (1902) which burnt 1910 W. Oak form more than 2 years. City of Denton, does not make the owners of this property to fix or demolish this ugly house, I don't know why?!! *Caroline S. Polliard Strongly In NR-3 zoning will be consistent with the rest of the 1800 W. Oak Favor neighborhood of single family houses and to prevent the slide of this neighborhood into problem area such as Thomas and Frye Street. *Joyce C. and Leslie H. Strongly In We enthusiastically support rezoning 1822, 1828, Palmer 1905 W. Oak Favor and 1902 W. Oak from MF-1 to NR-3 to conform to the prevailing residential nature of our neighborhood. As 31-year residents of our home here, we want to preserve the area for families to line in. Having apartments would great increase the density, the traffic and perhaps noise, pollution and even danger, and would affect our investment in our home, a matter which we as senior citizens and professionals are much concerned about. We have invested 35 years of our lives in Denton. *Margaret Wilson and Clint Miller In Favor None 1914 W. Oak Street David Bynum Opposed See attached letter A copy of the original notice can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 * Letters received after the PZ packets were delivered. March 15, 2002 City of Denton 221 North Ehn Denton, Texas 76201 Page 1 of 2 SUBJECT: City Initiated Rezoning, 1822, 1828, and 1902 West Oak Street in the city o£Denton, Denton County, Texas Dear Mrs. Ratcliff: This letter is to inform you that I will not accept the proposed city initiated down zoning of the three parcels located at 1822, 1828, and 1902 West Oak Street Denton, TX. Your letter said the City Council directed staffto initiate the rezoning on January 29, 2002 and I cant find a record of who told you to do that and no one will tell me who directed you to do it. Please direct me to the time and place and person who directed staff to do this. On January 9, 2002 the city council agreed that the property should be NRMU and that the proposed NR-3 was a significant reduction in intensity of the existing MF-1 zoning. At the beginning of thc January 9, 2002 city council work session Dave Hill, Assistant City Manager for development services, stated that the city would be liable if they down zoned any property, especially if the property owner has spent amy money in connection with the proposed development of that property in reliance on prior regulations. Why would you do something that you know is wrong and will make the city liable? As you know I have been working on the development of this property with designers/engineers and the city staffsince September 2000 and still do not have a definitive set of requirements. I have had to constantly redesign this project because the interpretation by the city staff oftbe rules keeps changing. The city stafffirst directed me to use the MF-1 building regulations that were available as a 3-page hand out. After several months and several thousand dollars of design work was done I brought the preliminary building plans to Greg Mitchell, the city designated building official, for an informal review. I was informed that the 3-page hand out was the old version and I would be requh'ed to use the new one, I pointed om that the old version of the MF-1 requirements was still being banded out and Greg Mitchell directed Deborah Viera to remove the old MF-1 requirements and replace them with the updated version immediately. The result of that over ske was to impact thc parking roqukcmcnt~. 10 Now it seems that was not an accurate interpretation because the visitor's parking spaces were not addressed. And now it seems that there might be other interpretations of the requirements that need to be interpreted by the legal department before I can proceed with the final and preliminary plat. When will this stop. I have been working with the city in good faith and at great expense to resolve any issues only to find that it is not as straight forward of a process as it should be and or represented as being. This is harassmem, what will it take to make you happy? Sincerely, David Bynum 11 ATTACHMENT 4 Photographs 1822 West Oak Street 1902 West Oak Street 12 The rear of the property looking north onto the UNT Housing The rear of the burned structure 13. ATTACHMENT 5 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council concerning the rezoning of approximately 0.8 acres, from a Multiple Family Dwelling District -1 (MF-1) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residemial -3 (NR-3) zoning district. The property is commonly addressed as 1822, 1828 and 1902 West Oak Street and generally located on the north side of West Oak Street approximately 310 feet east of Bradley Street. The property is being rezoned to bring it in conformance with the Demon Developmem Code. (Z02-0016, 1822,1828 and 1902 West Oak, Marcy Ratcliff) Motion by Joe Mulroy and seconded by Vicki Holt to recommend approval to City Council. *Discussion of item is included in the Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Pages153-194). Motion carries 4-2 - Commissioner Bill Keith and Bob Powell opposed. 14 CondensoltTM 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Any further discussion? MS. RATCLIFE: I would like to interject thing. Because this property is located in .c district, before any building could it has permission from the Page 153 ISSIONER RISHEL: r'. DO we need to make that a part thc mnendm or is it automatic? MS. ust for informational purposes. 11 tEL: Thank you. Okay. We 12 have a motion on no further comments, 13 please vote. carries 5 ~ 1 Commissioners 14 present Th~k you, Commissioners. 15 ~ OPPOSITION.) [6 j COMMISSIONER RISHEL: That ' us No. 13 on our Agenda. MS. RATCLIFF: I'm ready now. Thank COMMISSIONER RISHEL: MS. Ratcliff, please. :0 MS. RATCLIFF: Yes, sir. Before you this 21 evening we have a request that's also initiated by the 22 City of Denton to rezone 1822, 1828, and 1902 West Oak 23 Street from MFq, Multi-Family zoning district, to NR-3, 24 Neighborhood Residential. The location map shows this is 25 in the middle of the block between Bradley and Marietta. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 154 This zone change request is in compliance with the Denton Plan which is in the existing neighborhood. This property was zoned ME-1 in 1969. There's a variety of backup information in your packet. I'll be happy to entertain any questions you might have. What I've also passed out is an updated property owner response. That was as of this afternoon about 4:00 o'clock. Mr. Bynum, the property owner, is in opposition to this request and it wilt, therefore, require a super-majority vote by City Council, if you were to forward this on to City Council. I'll be happy to entertain any questions. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Cmmnissioners, any questions of Ms. Ratclifl? Thank you, Ms. Rateliff. The petitioner is here or a representative for the petitioner is here. MS. RATCLIFF: I mn the petitioner. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: EXCUSe me. That's fine. Let me see if we can take Mr. Ike Shupe who represents Mr. Bynum and we'll have Mr. Shupe present at this time. Once again, this is a public hearing and anyone who would like to speak on this item, if you'd please fill out a yellow card that are at the entry. It would help us tremendously. Thank you now. Mr. Shupe. Page 155 I MR. SHOPE: Mr. Chairman, my name is 2 Shupe, t717 Main Strmt, Dallas, 75201. I'm tm~ with 3 Bavid Bynum who is the property owner, and I'm 4 representing David tonight. 5 Mr. Powell, thc consequence of events here 6 is analogous to the prior case which is you've got a piece 7 of property that has been zoned MF-I since 1969. Until 8 Ianuary of this year, this was in one of your downtown 9 university cor~ districts. And on January the 9th when 10 this came through, I don't know if any of you got to sit 11 through the Council work sessions, but it was rozonm~ended, 12 or I think the term was Council consensus was to take it 13 to NRMU-12, which would have beeu consistent with the 14 multi-family use. And then -- and I don't know all of the 15 politics of what was going on, but as of the adoption of 16 tho Code, tiffs properly was carved out and l~t as ME-1. 17 I know also in January you revised the 18 Denton Plan and instead of this being the university core 19 disU'ict, this ~ became this neighborhood infitl and at 20 some point, this NR-3 rezoning was initiated. Now, if the 21 Council called for this reczxming, I'm not aware of it. If 22 this Commission called for the rezoning, I'm not aware of 23 it. So as best I can tell, somewhere in staff, 24 rezoning -- I notice that that rezoning was given to 25 David. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I4 15 16 t7 18 t9 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 156 Now, on the merits that the issue here is, what's the neighborhood. I mean, i read Marcy's report and she says it's in the middle of a block and she looks, if you go down that street -- and I was over there today and walked it and drove around it. If you go up and down the street a few houSes right there on Oak Street, there is no other non single-fmnily use, if that's your definition of neighborhood, if you go over a street on either side of Oak or go up and down Oak a few blocks, I quit counting at t 1 apartment complexes. So if you're looking at what is compatible with the neighborhood, if you're looking a few houses on Oak Street, is that the neighborhood? But just because it is this neighborhood infill category doesn't mean that you only look at the street and, therefore, that the only issue here is what's on that particular street. And you have the ability under the existing Denton Code, the revised Denton Code future land use category to look at all of those including co~mnercial uses. David bought it when it was MF-1, also at a time when it was this university core district, it went through the zoning process. Stayed as ME-1. It now wants to go to Single-Family Residential and this Neighborhood 3. Dave and I spent the morning here a couple of weeks ago, I have a little timeline that ~.s about four feet long PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 153 ~ Page 156 CondonsoltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 il 12 13 14 t5 16 17 t8 I9 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 157 of the activities he' s been involved with to try to develop this property over the last 19 months. This notebook contains all of the relevant correspondence beginning with the first multi-family handout he picked up when he went down to, I guess, Doug, to your office. So a lot of work has gone into this to develop it as an MF-I site. A preliminary plat is pending. We're still working on some issues with staff as far as what setbacks are, how to handle drainage. But I guess my point to you is this is an ME4 site that he's got a right to develop and I would ask you to leave it as MFq,just as the Council did. I don't have to deal with any issues, and Commissioner Mulroy, I understand your comments from the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 Page 15 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: we may have some other questions if you and Mr. Shupe if you'd stay right here. Commissioner Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULRO¥: Yes. My question is do you consider that you have a vested right in this property to develop this multi-fmnily? MR. SHUPE: DO yell want the long answer or the short answer? Yes. COMMISSIONER MULROY: YOU have paid a fee. You have made application or paid a fee at some stage of your development. That's any understanding. MR. SHUPE: YeS, sir. COMMISSIONER MULROY: SO yOU have a vested right and your legal right rhea to develop this as last as to special exceptions and how that carries for, yard. That's an alternative which solves most of my problems. But if given a preference, t would like you to leave it as MF-1 whie~l is consistent with what ifs been since '69 and it's consistent with what I consider to be David's vested right to develop under the current zoning. David is lw, xe to answer any questions that you might have, as well. He knows the property much better than I do. And, of course, Ym available for any questions you have. COMMISS[ONF_.,R RISI-IEL: Thank you, Mr. Shupe. MR~ snuee: ~'hank you. Page 158 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 multi-family will carry forward under the special exception rule regardless of whether this is zoned NR-3 or not. That's my understanding. MR. SHUPE: Councilor Mulroy, you're right. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. Thank you. MR. BYlCUM: whether the bankers see it that way is another question. COMMISSIONER RISttEL: comm/ssioner Keith. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. I'm looking at this. If I remember, right behind you is a multiple family complex, is there not? Page 160 COMMtSS[ONER RISHEL: I think we have some questions from C~nunissioners. Hold on, if you would please. Conmaissioner Powell. COMMISSIONER POWELL: a'hank you, Mr. Chairman. M~. Shupe, when I look at the maps, I see two lots and then I see three addresses. Help me out here. MR. S}tUPE; David, do you want to explain how the lot configurations work? MR. BYNIJM: certainly. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: if yOU could g/ve us your name and address. MR, BYNUM: David Bynmn, 215 Marietta, Denton. i would like to reiterate I bought this property I MR. BYNnOM: Yes. 2 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Okay. 'What's on 3 either side of the property at this time? 4 MR. BYNUM: single-family. My multi-family 5 is contiguous with the Bradley Street Apartments directly 6 north of it. 7 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Okay. So everything 8 on either side, on every end is single-family at this 9 time? MR. BYNUM: correct. 10 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Thank you. 11 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Commissioners, any 12 further questions of -- yes, Commissioner Roy. 13 COMMISSIONER ROY: Have you gone far enough because it was zoned multi-family, a block away from North Texsa, in a fairly nice neighborhood. It's a perfect location for a small apartment complex and that is brought up on ahnost every page of the Denton Plan. Your question is about the amount of tracts. It's throe tracts of land. Behind 1822 is a tract that has an address of 1828. Thexe's nothing on that tract. The other address is 1902 which is a duplex. It's actually 1902 and 1904. So there's actually four addresses. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I undexst~nd now. Thank you. 14 in your planning to be able to tell us what it would look 15 like, the facilities that you would propose to build 16 there, the buildings'?. 17 MR. BYNUM: It'S been a very difficult 18 process that's not over. For many, many reasons, it's 19 been very difficult getting straight answers on what the 20 requirements are. It's taken almost two years. And I got 21 a letter last week that I believe to be the definitive 22 rules and regulations on how to design the project. So 23 I've spent considerable money designing it the way I was 24 told the requirements I would have to design to, and those 25 have continually changed over the last 19 months, i'm PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 157 - Page 160 CondenseItTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 161 very frustrated. I've spent a lot of money on this project and it's been very difficult getting answers on what is required to build here. COMMISSIONER ROY: I glless i was ~~ Ma. BV3aJM: ~t keeps changing. COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. I guess I was moving in a little different direction there. I'm sure that eventually you and the staff will resolve what you have to do but i guess Ihn asking is them any wit. lingness or indication on your part that you would be willing to build something that's more in character with the neighborhood rather than a typical brick apartment house? MR. BYNUM: My design ideas from the beginning have been to make something that would fit in with the neighborhood. There's no reason to build something that would stand out like a sore thumb, i want to build something that has character. And if you drive by, if you look at it, it's the worst two properties on the block. I plan on building a complex that's going to be well over a million dollars. It's going to bring in considerable tax funds. It's going to reduce traffic. It's going to allow the students or anyone who wants to live there to walk across the street to North Texas. it's going to help Denton. In the big plan, it's what Denton needs. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 163 Denton where joining streets am named after the original owners of the homes that am there. I live on the comer of Oak and Bradley. Across the street from mo you'll find Miller Street. It's named Miller Street because that was the path to the Miller house where I live. Bradley Strcet~ my side street, was the path to Dr. Bradley's house up the hill. So we've got a lot of history and a lot of pride in that neighborhood. And it's a very hnpormnt part of Demon's history. However, the neighborhood in the last few years has changed dramatically. This is to show you what's going on with the neighborhood now. When my wife and I moved there 24 years ago here, we were the youngest in the neighborhood by 20 years, and that's not true any~nore. We were also tl~ only people in the block that had children. Now, as youql see, there are, I th/nk, 19 homes, these in yellow, that have children all of which are under 14 and most of which are babies. So the neighborhood is changing hands. It's becoming younger. People am putting a tmnendous amount of money into these homes and we don't want to se~ them degraded by a three-stow apar~nent building put right here in this red zone. I think you can understand why we wouldn't want that to happen. All of us in the neighborhood are in full Page 162 I know you're going to hear t¥om a lot of special -- a certain special interest group of people who live across the street, and they try to extend that neighborhood into a very large area just for their voice to be heard. But my whole intention was to build something comparable and with the design criteria that would look better than what's in that area. COMMISSIONER ROY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHleL: commissioners, any further questions of Mr. Shupe or Mr. Bynum? Thank you, Mr. Bynmn. Once again, I have several cards of people that would like to speak regarding this item on our Agenda. I'm going to take tlmn in some sort of order here. Is there a Dixie Stevenson that would like to present at this time? MR. STEVENSON: My nmr~ is Dixie Stevenson. t live at 1920 West Oak. And I represent the West Oak Homeowner's Association, as do many others behind me. And [ wish to speak to you tonight about the neighborhood and what's going on with the neighborhood and what has been going on with the neighborhood. I moved into the neighborhood 24 years ago and I've been associated with the homeowner*s association ever since. It's a fantastic neighborhood where neighbors associate with neighbors all the time. It's in an area of Page 164 1 support of the NR-3. Many of tlmn are still hove. A lot 2 of them had to leave, unfortunately. And any other zoning 3 bm ~g-3, single-fam/ly would not make sense. And, in 4 fact, in the City's own words, ~4R-3 would bring this 5 property into compliance with the new Denton Development 6 Code which was passed in February. I'd like to hand you 7 out a petition that was signed. And while they're doing 8 that, I'd like for all of my neighbors to stand up behind 9 me in support of this petition. We've had many meetings 10 in the neighborhood group. We've got ~nany other 11 presentations to be made to you. And, hopefully, we can 12 answer all of your questions and give you a lot more 13 infommtion. Thank you. 14 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: we may have some 15 questions. Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Stevenson? 16 Thank you, Mr. Stevenson. 17 MR. STEVElqSON: Yes, sir. 18 COMM~'SSIONER RISHEL: The next speaker I 19 have, and I only have one name for her I hope, Karen 20 DeVinney. 21 MS. DEVINN£¥: [Ii, good evening. My name 22 is Karen DeVinney. I live at 1820 West Oak which is the 23 house directly to tim east of the property in question. 24 My husband and I own the home right next to the property 25 and have lived them with our two children, Sam, age 6, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL I 0TH, 2002 Page t 61 - Page 164 Condens¢ItTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 22 23 24 25 Page 165 and Sarah, age 3, for the last four years. Our house is still eallerl the MeGuire House. Not only do the streets have significant names, but the houses do, too. The previous owners, Dr. and Mrs. David McGuire lived there for 35 years. We live them for the same reason they did, we want to raise our children in an interesting older home in an interesting older neighborhood. Th~ raised their children and a few grandchildren in that house and in its wonderful backyard. We like the older houses and we like having lots of friends and neighbors nearby who are raising families just as we are. We think that this Oak Street neighborhood is one of the things like the courthouse square that gives Denton its character, that keeps it from being a bland comb/nation of cookie caner suhm'bs and apartment complexes like Plane and Lewisville. We are afraid that if an apartment complex goes in next door, our great family neighborhood is going to be messed up. We are do:ply worried about the likelihood of having to deal with a lot more traffic, a lot more trash, and a lot more noise, and possibly a lot more crime. We're not sum if we'll be able to stay on Oak Street and raise onr family if those things come ahout. We think that sR-3 is the most appropriate zoning, not only for our property and all of the other properties up and down the street, but also for 1822, 1828, and 1902 Page 167 1 forward to working with the staff and the City to make 2 this a reality. One of our missions in the Small Area 3 Plan will be to maintain the single-family neighborhood. 4 This neighborhood is one of Denton's oldest 5 intact neighborhoods. A substantial percentage of the 6 homes were built by Benton's early civic leaders and by 7 tlre Uuiversity of North Texas faculty and administrators 8 in the first part of tla: 1900's. Two of them were 9 designed by well known Texas architect, O'Neal Ford. Even 10 though at this point, the area is not designated as 11 historical, it is none the less very historical. And the 12 remaining neighborhoods like this, it's very important to 13 keep them intact. The ~4R-3 zoning wilt help make that 14 happen and it will protect these neighborhoods for future 15 development and for future families. 16 As part of the Development Code and the 17 Plan, historical preservation was addressed. And we feel 18 that it was good, it needed to be addressed because the 19 City wants to actively promote the preservation as a means 20 to increase economic, cultural, and educational diversity 21 within our co,nmunity. And the City will also suppor~ and 22 encourage the restoration, preservation, and maintenance 23 of these areas having historical or cultural significance. 24 And this area does have that kind of significance. It's 25 ,maRy beautiful. It's old. The trees are old. The Page 166 West Oak. We urge you to preserve an important part of Benton's unique living neighborhood character by approving the zoning change. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: colmnissloners, any questions of lvks. DeVinney? Thank you, Ms. BeVinney. Sam Harvey. MS. HARVEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Cormnissioners. I'm Sara Harvey. I live at 312 Marietta. I've lived there for 17 years and the house that I live in was built in 1915. The previous owner of that house had enough foresight to move that house from a location that was going to cause the demolition of it and move it to the current site that it sits at now at 312 Marietta. It's a wonderful example of the preservation of an older home. I've fottowed the zoning issues that have beret going on for awhile, since the Planning Department and the City initiated the Denton Development Code. And the NR-3 zoning that was eventually designated to this area was very apprepr/ate and we feel, as the homeowner's association, that it's also appropriate for the property at t822, 1828, and 1902. And also on April tho 2nd, which just happened a few weeks ago, the City Council approved the Planning Department's list of areas that would be good candidates for the Small Area Plan, and the Oak Street area is one of those neighborhoods. We are looking Page 168 1 he, nos are unique and very old. 2 And I think there has been a misconception 3 about that area for some thne. I believe the perception 4 has been that it's a mixed bag area, that them are 5 aparanents and them are homes. And, yes, there are but 6 that doesn't mcan that the NR-3 zoning is not correct. It 7 is. It helps preserve the current neighborhood. The 8 majority of the homeowners feel that way and they feel 9 that the consistency of this zoning is what helps the 10 designation of this area remain intact and preserved. 11 It's a logical zoning and it also is the right one to 12 make. Thank you. 13 COMM[SSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, any t4 questions of Ms. Harv6T? Thank you, Sara. Elise 15 Ridenour, Ms. Ridcnour. I'm going to ask if we could have 16 some people be on deck perhaps. Would you give up that t7 chair? And the next person would be Steven Friedson. 18 MS. mo~.~qoua: My name is Elise Ridenoar 19 and I live at 2205 West Oak. This is Sloven Friedson and 20 Dixie Stevenson, my assistants. I'm here tonight to talk 21 to you about two things, the zoning history of our 22 neighborhood and to emphasize that we are a viable 23 neighborhood. 24 We have taken photographs of the block in 25 question where the properties that ara proposed for ~a-3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 165 - Page 168 CondonseltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 169 zoning, and this is thc Miller House. Meg Wilson lives in this house, She was raised in this house and bought it from her parents. COMMISSIONER RISHr~L: could you give us some addresses as yon go? MS. mDaNOUa: Actually, Dixie, what's your address? MR. STEVENSON: /c920 is on tho end. That's mine, MS. RIDENOUR: Okay. And then this is -- MR. STEVENSON: [ don't know. MS, RIDENOUR: I don't know. But this is the one next door. This is the house next door to this one and then these are the two properties in question. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 tl 12 13 14 Page 171 This is Iagoe Street and these were all, this was MF-L a was a privat~ home that actually is now Tender Loving Care Nursery which is still a nursery. These were MY-1 which were single-family homes. This was ME4 and it's an apartment complex. It's still operatlng as an apartment complex. These were all MY-1 right here and they are single-family homes, The last two lots were Office, were zoned Office. And I believe in February 2001, these came up before City Council with a request to change the zoning to MF-I so an apartment complex could be built here and the judgment on that was 6-1 that an apartment complex was not appropriate for this neighborhood. Over lxxc on Thmnas Street, we have a This is the McGuire and now the DeVinney House that Karen just spoke about, and this is Carolyn Hollier's house. What's your adclress, Carolyn? MS. HOLLIER: 1800. MS. RiDENOUR: t800. SO yOll can See that this is a neighborhood. This is not an apartment type of neighborhood. ['~n going to put up a couple of maps. COMMiSSiONER RISHEL: Plgase. MS. mOENOUR: The other thing I want to talk to everyone tonight about is the zoning history of this neighborhood so that you can see what's happened. Is Page 170 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 series of MFq, I believe they're called the Crescent Apartments and the Thomas Street Apartments. They are still apartment buildings to this day. This right here is a duplex, It was zoned 2F. GOMM[SS[ONF. R R[SHEL: YOU have a minute, MS. RIDENO10R: one minute, okay. Very quickly, this is what the zoning is now. The only remaining property that is not Neighborhood Residential 3 is Mr, Bynum's property. All we're doing is asking that you bring this in compliance with the rest of tl~ City. There were many properties in this Page 172 there some way to get both of these on? COMM1SSIONF..R mSHEL: If yOU could pull the microphone towards you. MS, RIDENOUR: oh, sorry, tg way to get both of these maps on at the same time? COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: Yes, we carl. You sot thcan on the desk and we'll just back the camera up a little bil. MS~ mD~.Uoua: okay. Maybe Yll put them going in the same directiorl. Okay. There they are, Oh, great, Thanks. All right, This map on the right-hand side represents the zoning of this neighborhood prior to 1 neighborhood that did not have zoning consistent with 2 neighborhood use from 1969 until February 2002, The City 3 of Denton has recognized a need to preserve neighborhoods 4 and has acted on this in the new Denton Plan and Coda, 5 with this one exception, The logic of it tells us that 6 this property should be zoned Na-3 to fit the vision and 7 be in compliance with the new Code, Any zoning but Na-3 8 implies that this property owner has special privilege 9 with the City that others do not have and would constitute t0 spot zoning. Our entire neighborhood, att 96 people who 11 signed that petition and others as well who have been out 12 of town, support NR-3 zoning. Thank you. February 20th, 2002, this year when the Zoning Code took effect. The darker areas are properties that were zoned MF-1,2F, or Office, And I'm just going to briefly go through it, These properties here arc Mr. Bynum's properties, This property back here that was called an apartment complex bdongs to the University of North Texas. At the moment there are approxitnately 50 something small adult graduate housing for students at urn'. ^nd i think there's a big difference between apamnent complex and 58 units for graduate students at vl, rr. That's a four-acre lot of land. The strip right here is a greenbelt and then these con, in the small units. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMtSS[ONF.~R RISHEL: Thank you, Ms. Ridenour, MS. RI'DEN'OUR: Any questions? COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any questions, Colmnissioners? Steven, and then the next one would be Scott Short, if you'd come on deck. MR. FR~'EOSON: Thank you very much. My name is Steven Friedson. I live at 2205 West Oak. I, like many of my neighbors, are ably to walk to work at the University of North Texas. There's been a real revitalization of this neighborhood and a lot of people in the eormnunity want to live ttaxe in a single-family neighborhood. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 169 - Page 172 Cond~nscltTM 5 6 7 § 9 10 11 ~2 13 14 16 17 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 t9 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 173 i want to give you a little bit of the history of the zoning of this property. There's seems to be some confusion over this about dates and when people knew things. First of all, I'd just like to say that if downzoning is an issue and the City is concerned about gct~ing sued, they made a hell of a mistake b~cause they just downzoned 17 prolx~rties to Sa-3. we feel this is consistent and is defensible. In 1969, Mr. Bynmn's property was designated MF-1 and remained that way until the Comprehensive Cede. It was desigmated as downtown university corn ,nixed use in the fall of 2000. Our neighborhood was very concerned about this. We ammded meetings. We were in many discussions with the City. We felt it was a xnisperccrption of what our neighborhood was like. It was not appropriate for a mixed use with, actually, high end kind of commercial use. The City, on February 2nd, 2001, before Mr. Bynmn put in any plat, rechanged this on the City map to UR-3, as designated in a session from the Council. It re~nained ~r~-3 on the map until January 9th, 2002 in a working session where no public conunent was allowed, when we were shocked to find out that Mr. Bynmn had requested NR~MU classification. Homeowners reading about NRMU get a little Page 175 I and my wife and I moved here in 1998. We live at 1907 2 West Oak. It's a home that was built in 1955. I can tell 3 you that when we came in here, we searched the City for a 4 neighborhood. We rented for a year before buying. And 5 this house needs a tot of work. I mean, we didn't come 6 into a model home. And I've spent probably more money 7 than Mr. Bynum has on his plan in just getting this house 8 to where it is, and it's still not done. We spent 9 $8,500.00 just on foundation work. So as far as a 10 commitment, I think every one of us has made a financial 11 co,mnitment to the homes that we're living in. ~ we 12 purchased, it had not been occupied in for two years and t 3 so a lot of things had to get done, electrical, plumbing, 14 paint. I'm still doing a lot of that work myself, as 15 well. 16 You know, I'm here today because I want to 17 preserve this. i don't want to preserve it just for 18 myself, but for all others, as well. Therefore, I ask you 19 to support the NI~-3 zoning for the properties at 1822 and 20 1902 West Oak Street so it is consistent with the entire 21 neighborhood. 22 Historically, when you multi-zone an area, 23 you destroy the integrity of the neighborhood. Like a 24 tree, it begins to gradually die from within until you 25 simply have a rotting hulk. Allowing this type of Page 174 concerned. Let me give you a laundry list of what that allows, tt allows laundry maps. It allows veterinary clinics. Are we going to be up all night listening to dogs barking? It allows bakeries. It allows restaurants or private clubs, theaters less than 1,000 seats, and hotels. Mr. Bynmn has said he is not going to build these kinds of units but he wants the option to have this kind of classification to move t'orward. What Mr. Bynum does want to build, and I think it is at least what we've seen in the plans, is a three -- two three-story apartment buildings. Absolutely the maximum poss/ble use. I don't see how this would be compatible with our neighborhood. We went to the City and discussed our concerns. You've already heard of why this was pulled out for various reasons to MF-i, until a new zoning was tO be initiated. And that's what we're dealing with tonight. ~,'R-3 obviously brings this property into conformity to the rest of the Denton Plan. We have been designated a Neighborhood Residential area with compatible infill. We respectfully ask you to pass this. The City has brought this forward and recommends it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. I see no questions from Commissioners. Thank you very much. I have a card on Scott Short and then Stephen Plyler. MR. SHORT: Hello. My name is Scott Short Page 176 1 development to occur in your neighborhood is paramount to 2 killing a hearty oak. Existing neighborhoods should he 3 protected and preserved. The current Denton Development 4 Plan supports this belief. In it it says tho Plan 5 recommends that existing neighborhocds within the City be 6 vigorously prorated and preserved. The City planners 7 recognize the need to protect neighborhoods by zoning 8 h~5, a zoning that is compatible with all other 9 properties in this neighborhood. 10 This issue shouldn't be tabled. I think it 11 needs to be decided. Tho facts are clear and this is not 12 a complex issue. This is the zoning that has become a 13 political issue and there is no reason for s~-3 zoning not 14 to go tlu:ough. I just want to thank you. I don't have 15 that much more to say. 16 COMM[SSIONf~R RISHEL: Thank yOU. We have a 17 question from Mr. Mukoy, Commissioner Mukoy. ! g COMMISSIONER MULROY: Actually, I have a 19 procedural comment for the Chairman so thank you. 20 MR. SHORT: okay. 21 COMMISSIONER MIJLROY: Mr. Chair, we 22 probably have seven to eight minutes left on the 30 23 minutes allowed for those in favor of a zoning change, and 24 I would suggest to give everyone a chance to speak that we 25 do some division and offer them at least a chance to get PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 173 - Page 176 CondcnscltTM Page 177 1 up and verify who they are and one or two major points and 2 move on so we can get everybody down here. Otherwise, 3 we'll run out of time. 4 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: ^nd how wonld you 5 like to go about that? 6 COMMISSIONER MULROY: HOW many cards do you 7 have left? 8 (X)MM[SS[ONER RlSHEL: ! have -- let me sce 9 if all of them want to speak. I have three more cards 10 that would like to speak. 1 1 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. So we've got 12 about nine lninutes so just realize they've got about tlu'~e 13 minutes a piece so thvy won't get cut off. 14 COMMISSIONER RIS:4EL: or if you want to t 5 extend thean their time. i 6 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Oh, we could get this 17 extended to about midnight, if you'd like. 18 COMMISSIONER R~'S[-IrtL: Any fu_ntx~ comments, 19 Commissioners? Stephen Plyler and then the next card is 20 Wendel Withrow. 21 MR. PCYLER: Hello. I'm Stephen Plyler. I 22 live at 1919 Houston Place. I'm actually a student at 23 North Texas. I thought I'd bring a different perspective 24 to it. I don't know how many people rca~mmber being in 25 college but I started in college right out of high school, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 179 apartment complex in a neighborhood such as ours. And I know there's apartment complexes already there but we have to loam from these things. When you live in the neighborhood and you know what goes on at th~ apartment complexe~ that are already there, you learn that you don't put another one. And so I guess that's basically all I have to say on it aud I appreciate your time tonight. I know it's getting late and thank you. COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: Thank you, Mr. Plyler. Wendel Withrow, and then the next card t have is lennifer -- Marvin Jeffries, excuse me~ after that. MR W[THROW: YeS. Thank you very much. I'm Wendel Withrow, 1120 Metroomst in Carroltten. I'm the attorney for the West Oak Homeowner's Assoeiatiou. I' will be very brief. It has been a long evening for all of I want to cormnend the City staff for making this recoxmnenflation of NO-3. Mr. Shupe asked -- he couldn'! understand why that things were changing. Well, I'ii tell you why things were cha,lging. I was, more or less, on the periphery at this fmc but i know things changed because the City staff got more information. As tl~y got more information, their opinions changed. As I went over and drove down this street, I said this is a residential street. You don't put a three-story apartment Page 178 17. Had a good time. Stayed in an apartment complex. Paid about $150.00. Probably stayed up too late, mo many nights playing loud music. Wemt through, made it through college basically, survived it, and I*m now going back to college after I've grown up and become a little more mature, and are now moving into what I considered a neighborhood. And there's been some questions on the definition of a neighborhood, but I- don't think after you've seen our neighborhood, you'd have any questions on what a neighborhood is. I know Mr. Bynum has some questions on a neighborhood but that's probably because he's not a part of the neighborhood, because the rest of the neighborhood is back here and is concerned about the nelghborhc~d and what it means. And I understand his interest and I th/nk it's kind of ironic that we had a man up here earlier who was making all these concessions to a neighborhood he wasn't a part of. And yet we're hearing about a three-story aparm:ent complex in a small two-acre, less than two-acre couple of lots in a basically historic district. So it's a liule bit shocking, considering ~ny previous experiences with apartment complexes near colleges, that anyone would even think about putting an 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1t 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 180 complex in the middle of it. There's other places, there's other zonings for that. That's the only issue tonight. You've all talked to your various speakers and you've tried to keep them narrow, but let's do that right now, all of us, that's the only issue, approving the NO-3. whatever its legal effect is is going to be decided down the road. A couple of people have talked about lawsuits. Lawsuits are a very poor way of resolving disputes. But I will tell you this, if any lawsuit ever happens, I always want to be on the right side of it. In other words, I want to do the right thing. I want to do something that I can defend. I don't want to have to defend trying to put a three-story apartment complex next to people with, you know, four and five year old children. I want to be on the right side. And i would just ask each of you to have a little extra courage, if it's going to take it. I think it's a pretty clear issue. Approve the NR-3. we can deal with the legal aspects and whether he has a special exception or not. That can be dealt with at a later date. But I would ask for you to approve that tonight and move the process forward. Thank you for your time and attention. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. PLANNING AND ZON'-ING COMMISSION APRiL 10TH, 2002 Page 177 - Page 180 Cond~,nsaltTM 5 6 7 9 10 11 t2 13 t4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 181 Withrow. I have one other card that wished to speak and it was a Marvin Jeffries. Is them a Marvin Jeffries here? $-F.-F-F-R-I-E-S, I believe, from -- and if I could nmd the address, I'd give it to you, but I can't read that. Denton, Texas. Did indicate they wished to speak. I presume they do no'* wish to speak at this time. I have several other cards that had notes on them and did not wish to speak. Laura Short supported the NR-3 zoning. Fred Ha~nilton thought it was consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. Lareen Hamilton strongly supports .~R-3 zoning. Ramona, Ms. Laird supports the Ne-3 zoning. Ms. Stevenson supports the rq~t-3 zoning. Kevin Kennelly supports the NI~-~ zoning and thought this was a good spot around the neighborhood, around North Texas for such a nice facility and appreciates living there. Ms. Iennifer Collins supports the issue. Edie Lenaburg supports the issue. Brian Morrison, zoning this property to be in alignment with the surrounding homes as an ~R-3 to maintain the residential integrity of the neighborhood is the right thing to do. And a Mr. Mike Cochran did not wish to speak but supported the issues. Conmfissioner Keith. co~MISS[ON~ KEITH: Thank you. I'd like to have -- 3[ have a very novel situation here. The hst gentleman who spoke is an attorney, and Mr. Shupe, would Page 183 1 MR. SUUPe: I'm sony. Yes, you can build 2 under your MF-1 rules, Mr. Keith, as they existed in 1969 3 because that's still referencing back to that orig/nal 4 Code. 5 COMMISSIONER KE[TH: SO he could have buih 6 a three-story apa~nent unit on it then, as well? Is that 7 what you're saying? 8 MR, SHUPE: Y~. 9 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay, Do you concur? 10 MR. wlTnROW: Possibly ~'ue with the 11 exception that because the use that was happening was two 12 duplexes, I believe there might would have been some other 13 issues brought up by the Development Review Conuniuee and 14 the different City offices of whether he could have 15 demolished those, especially on the edge of the historical 16 district. So I think thea~ stilf would have been some 17 issues but, in general, he very well possibly could have 18 built an apartment complex there. 19 COMMISSIONER KEtT[I: okay. So through the 20 avenue of this re'zoning, you're now having the opportunity 21 with which to come in and change the use of the property, 22 correct? 23 M~. WImROW: YOU do have that opportunity 24 and I think there's a very good reason for that, Mr. 25 Keith. I think neighborhoods do change. And i think it's Page 182 1 both of you approach the microphone, please? I'm going to 2 ask one question that I'd like each of you to answer. 3 Like i said, this is novel, i've got two lawyers that i 4 can talk to for free. Question, had we not had thc new 5 Code and the new zoning, what woutd have happened 6 regarding this property? Either of you can answer first. 7 MR. SI.~U}'E: I assume the zoning would have 8 remained as MF- t, Mr. Keith. 9 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Yeah. $o what could 10 he have done with the property if it remained that way? 11 MR. SHUPE: It would go back to the 1969 12 zoning which picks up multi-family. There's not really a 13 density in there, if I remember, Doug, but there are 14 different sizes depending upon whether it's a one-bedroom, 15 et cetera, but it doesn't pick up all of the other 16 permitted uses that belong to the NRMU cote'gory under the 17 new Code. 18 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Okay. 19 MR. SHUPE: Am I missing your question? 20 COMMISSIONER KEITH: well, under the old 21 Code, then he would have been restricted or could he have 22 built apartment units? 23 MR. SHUPE: YeS. 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Shupe, would you 25 pull the microphone closer to you? I Page 184 I the duty and the job of zoning, and you obviously go 2 through it every one of your meetings multiple times, it's 3 to work on that issue. When neighborhoods change, when 4 the desires of your citizens change, then zoning should 5 change. I think that's your very function, to keep it 6 current. The 1969 Code -~ zoning for this particular area 7 was not correct. It needed to be changed. 8 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Mr. Shupe, I 9 think, wants to respond to that. t0 MR. SHIn'S: well, I mean, I understand you 11 have the authority to change zoning, as does the Council. 12 And people are concerned about their property rights, but 13 so are the people who buy land that's zoned MF-t. You 14 know, what are your responsibilities? To a changing 15 neighborhood? Sure. To protect the rights of the people 16 who are there and who buy in reliance on it? Sure. It's 17 a tough balance. 18 And all i'm saying is that for this 19 property, it's zoned MF-I. You're now trying to downzone 20 it or you want to downzone it. And I understand that 21 those people want to protect their property rights, and 22 they want to do it at the expense of somebody else's. And 23 I'm asking you to leave the zoning the way it is, MF-1. 24 We're not asking for NRMU-12 and to do 25 theaters or whatever the other permitted uses are. i'm PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 181 - Page 184 CondenseltTM $ 6 7 8 9 l0 12 13 14 15 16 17 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 185 saying leave me alone. It's MF-i. That's what it was, That's what it was when they bought it and it was consistent with what the future land use plan was at the time. And we've been working for ahnost two years to develop it under that. COM~SS[O~qER KEIT~: okay. The question I would have for both of you, as well, were pretty much most all the ctm'ent property owners -- as I'm understanding listening to everyone here that you've got a tot of new owners in this neighborhood within the recent, what, ten, 15 years, There's some maybe longer but am I generally correct assturdng that? MR, WITHROW: I think it goes the whole spectrum from brand new owners to long time residents, COMMISSIONER KEI?H: Yeah. Okay, But there's been a shift, as b~n presented, I'm sitting here looking at some of the speakers tonight and I so: some of them with not quite as many gray hairs as others, et cetera, moving on. So when they purchased their properties, they knew what was akcady here, correct? MR. WITHROW: They knew what was already here in that there was what is now an abandoned building and a duplex that probably -- I'm not sure if it's a real duplex. I think it may just have one fanfily in it. Yes, they did know that. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t0 tl 12 t3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 187 this MF-1 and now you're trying to downzone me, that is a disputed issue. And I would like for y'all to take that into account and approve it. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Mr. Shupe, how long has he owned the property? MR. BYNUM: Everything he said is ridiculous. I bought this property -- COMMISSIONER KEITH: well, let's not attack him, COMMISSIONER RISHEL; would you address the question Mr. Keith asked? MR. BYNUM: I bought the property in June of 2000 because it was zoned MY-1. COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay, Now ~{' you*d like to comment. Please don't attack him but ple_~se address what he said, MR. BYNtJM: well, he's made a lot of incorrect statements, COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. MR. BYNUM: The reason I bought it was because it was zoned MF-L I live in this neighborhood. i live right around the comer from these properties, I'm going to live there for a long time. I don't want to build something that I would be ashamed of. This is a great opportunity for that location. And if the people Page 186 I COMMISSIONER KI~[TH: nut they ~ aware 2 that it was MF-1 when they moved in in the neighborhood? 3 MR~ wt-mRow: well, I would -- knowing the 4 normal homeowner, absolutely not. They did not know that 5 there was an MVq anywhere on that street. 6 COMMISSIONER KE[TH: okay. 7 MR. WITHROW: ^nd may i respond furth~ to 8 that point?, 9 COMMISSIONER KEITH: GO right ahead. 10 MR. W[THROW: [ think you're getting to a 11 very crucial point and another reason we would like for 12 you to do the Ne-3 tonight so this process can go forward. 13 As you heard Mr. Friedson say, there is strong, strong 14 indication that Mr. Bynmn knew that the zoning was being 15 changed to Nt~-3 when he bought this property. In other 16 words, that certainly is our position, I believe we can 17 prove that position hut that's certainly going to be a 18 battle. Bm I'm just ~elling the Court -- or the 19 Commission -- I've been in front of too many judges. 20 COMMI'SSI'ONF_.R KEITH: I'm beginning to feel 21 like one. 22 MR. WYrHROW: That's true. But I don't 23 want there to be a misperceplion that that is uncontested, 24 That's the safest way to say it. That he's just a 25 totally innocent purchaser that, eh, my gosh, I bought Page 188 1 bought their houses and they didn't know it was zoned 2 MY-I, they have the responsibility of due diligence to 3 find that out before ~ purchase their property, not 4 after the fact, And I did that when I brought the 5 propea'ty. I found out what it was and what around it was. 6 And you know what?. If you change this to 7 NR-3, yOU give them the benefit. Yon make their property 8 more valuable and you take my property rights away from 9 me. And I have never asked for NRMU. I have only asked 10 because the City changed all the properties in Denton, 11 They have never given me the opportunity to have a 12 designation comparable to MY-I, and there still isn't a 13 designation cmnparahle to MF-I. That's not my fault. I 14 didn't write the designations. I've always asked for t5 something comparable to M~-L ~rhat's all l've ever 16 wanted, That's what I bought it for. And I am not 17 manipulating anything but it seems a lot of people are 18 changing and stating things that aren't correct. 19 COMMISSIONER KE1TH; what year again was it 20 you bought it2 21 MR. BYNOM: June 2000. And I started 22 developing it, spending money on the development within 30 23 days. 24 COMM[SSIONER KmTH: okay. Thank you. 25 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Roy, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 185 - Page 188 CondenseltTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 189 COMMISSIONER ROY: I would like staff to explain, once again, what happens here. It's MF-1 now. If we change it to NR-3, please restate the owner's rights in terms of the use, existing use. What could he do with that property? Could he tear those buildings down anyway and build a three-story apartment because he has existing Page 191 So if you're asking if it's a moot point, it really isn't in that there are some other risks involved to the property owner. A, what would the determination be. There has to he an actual determination made by the Director of Planning as to whether they meet the criteria under this local permit. Assuming that he rights? COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Director Powel[, would you care to help us here? MR. ?OWELL: Yes. The property is currently zoned MF-1. ^nd so until such time as it's rezoned, he can avail himself that zoning district based on the regulations of the 1969 or the old Zoning Code. If the property becomes zoned NR-3, by 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 does say yes, it will be granted. And, also, the property owner runs the risk that that determination could be challenged based on the opposition we've heard here tonight. So if you're asking is it the same as being kept multi-family, no, it's not. But there are procedures in place to give the property owner some protection. But it's not exactly the same as if you had multi-family. fight, he would be allowed to develop it for single-family purposes, three dwelling units per acre as a maximum density. However, in the Code there are provisions that allow for vested rights, if you will Those specifically, a local permit procedure which basically says a property owner/developer can seek from the City a determiner/on that they've spent money or been in progress to develop property and that by virtue of that, they should he able to continue based on the Codes and the regulations that were in effect. I believe that in this case, Mr. Bynum Page 190 could make such a request. He hasn't but I think we could. And whether or not at that point in time would he be given a local permit designation. Or under the Code, there's also a State law that protects vested rights. And whether or not he would want to seek a legal action. But the Code itself -- COMMISSIONER ROY: I'm trying to let you know this is a moot point tonight. This whole argument tonight is a moot point. It seems like almost like it is. MR. POWELL: well, I believe that the issue before you tonight is whether the property should be zoned NR-3. There still is a question of whether or not he could continue with his development proposal based on the provisions of the Development Code. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Counselor Snyder. MR. SNYDER: I just want to add, another provision under this local permit procedure is a little different than the previous case. It's a different section in the Code. And this section of the Code that the applicant -- excuse me, the property owner would have to rely upon requires that he make his claim within six months after the regulations have changed. So he has a six-~nonth window of opportunity. So he has some additional risks involved that the previous case didn't. He would have to bring that application forward. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER ROY: Okay. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER RISI-IEL: I had deliberately left open the public hearing if there was any questions of the Commissioners to anyone. Let me close the public hearing at this time and I'll ask for Ms. Rateliff's summation. I have closed the public hearing. Ms. Rateliff. MS. RATCLIFF: I have no further information, COMMISStONER RISHEL~ Commissioner Keith. COMMISSIONER KE1TH: ! don't know if I Page 192 1 might be the only one, but I would be willing to let this 2 one gentleman, one final, and that's all. 3 COMMISSIONER RLSHEL: couzmissioo, do ~ 4 have a consensus? I don't see a consensus at this point 5 in time. We have closed the public hearing and I'll ask 6 Ms. Ratcliff to give us a summation. 7 Ms. RATCLI'FF: The application is for iqR-3 8 residential. It is in compliance with the Comprehensive 9 Phn. I'll be happy to address any other questions you 10 might have. 1 1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. 12 Commissioners, any questions, comments, or a motion? We 13 didn't say this was going to be easy. Commissioner 14 Powei1. 15 COMMiSSiON ,F_.R POWELL: ?hank you, Mr. 16 Chairman. I'm still between a rock and a hard place here. 17 I understand buying a property because it was zoned 18 and I understand that the~ are some rights grandfathered, 19 I'll use that term for lack of a better one. But the 20 owner made a comment earlier in the night that really 21 stuck with me, and he said, yes -- these aren't his exact 22 words but it's close. Yes, there are some grandfatheaeA 23 rights but will the bank think that. I think that's an 24 appropriate statement. Whatever he does, he's got to 25 finance it. And if he tries to finance a multi-family PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 189 - Page 192 CondonsoltTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 i9 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Page 193 something or other that he has a right to from the City, but the bank looks at the zoning or the financing company looks at the zoning and says, whoa, we don't want to get involved in that mess, then he may have lost all of his rights. I'm just bringing that point forward. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Conun[ssioner Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: If I may address those cmmnents. As the Code evolved, it was with concern of the lending institution was one of the major leverage points of getting the special exception clause put in to satisfy what their needs would be and to keep all ongoing loan arrangements legal, because there was a great fear that they could be in default because when the Code passed, you'd be in violation of your City Code. So that was really one of the main impetus of doing the special exceptions. So the bank should be satisfied. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Once again, Commissioners, I'd like to remind you that, as the Agenda item reads, this is to hold a public heating and consider making a recommendation to City Council. So this goes forth and beyond this point to City Council. Do I hear any further comments or a motion? COMMISSIONER MULROY: I']] move to approve the zoning to NR-3. COMMISSIONER HOLT: I'[[ second. Page 195 I COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Call We wait for it to 2 \{et a little quieter in here? Commissioners, thank 3 xxX MR. REICHHART: This is one of the -- 4 we ~er to as the eight cases, one that came to 5 Coun~x City Council had reconmxended or r :t.ed 6 consens~ Io change the zoning at the work 7 session, zoning back to NR-3. like 8 to clarify, was a typo. The zoning on the 9 property is The 'owners have 10 submitted an They :to rezone 11 the western half of t to NR-6, and the 12 eastern is consistent with the 13 NRMU- 12. where the . the property is is where the 14 break would be with zoning. 15 I've calculations 16 for opposition, the map. and I don't 17 have the count it I believe there's 18 letters in represent six 19 The r property to 20 submitted their letter in favo~ ' this and 2t then three properties that m this yellow that are neutral to the request. to answer any questions that you have. Page 194 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It's been moved by Cmmnissiener Mulroy to approve this as N~-3 and seconded by Commissioner Holt. Any further discussion or clarification? Seeing no further discussion, please vole. Commissioners, I want to thank you for your participation. And, audience, I want to thank you for participation in this. The motion carries 4-2 of the Conunissioners present. (COMMISSIONER POWELL AND COMMISSIONER KEITH VOTING IN OPPOSITION.) COMMISSIONER RISHEL: once again, thank you very much for being a part of this process and we appreciate your time and your commitment and your dedication to the City, both Co~mnissioners and public. Thank you, one and all. If that was Item No. 13 and we have had item No. 14, I'm hoping that will 18 to on our Agenda, if we haven' 19 for some we Ilern No. 20 15, and it looks Relchhart will 21 present. 22 .MR. Thank subject 23 on the west side I have it highlighted on the overhead. COMMISSIONER RISttEL: Commissioners, an~x \ questions of Mr. Reichhart? COMMISSIONER ROY: Say again the percentages. Page 196 IlO ( and applicant -- MR. REICHHART: It's approximately six COMMISSIONER R1SHEL: Mr. I see Cmmnissioners. Is the t like to present? They are you, sir. south lO 11 12 13 I4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Would' MR, reside at 2205 North years. We've tried to be think we have. But it that we're not good: I back and because there's going : about those things I understand that our with the new Code and so I'm If you've got questions later, I'll up some things. My in the northwest part of Denton for 44 ,ddress? Gene Gamble. I i have for the last 32 neighbors out there. I [ke that some people think a few things I'm probably I am about the is in to talk glad ~orry she couldn't be in the room tonight but she did feel llke being here. She is in tl~ building. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 193 - Page t96 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROViDiNG FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT 1 (MF-1) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSiFiCATiON AND USE DESiGNATiON TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESiDENTiAL 3 (NR-3) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 0.79 ACRE OF LAND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1822, 1828, AND 1902 WEST OAK STRREET GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WEST OAK STREET, APPROXIMATELY 195 FEET WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF MARIETTA AND WEST OAK STREET LOCATED IN THE E. PUBCHALSKi SURVEY, ABSTRACT 996; PROViDiNG FOR A PENALTY iN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; PROVIDING A SEVERABiLiTY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z02-0016) WHEREAS, the City of Demon initiated a change in zoning for approximately 0.79 acres of land from Multiple Family Dwelling 1 (MF-1) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) zoning district classification and use designation for single family uses; and WHEREAS, on April 10, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission concluded a public hearing as required by law, and recommended approval of the requested change in zoning to Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) zoning district; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change in zoning is consistem with the Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The zoning district classification and use designation of the approximately 0.79 acre property described in the legal description attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A is changed from Multiple Family Dwelling 1 (MF-1) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) zoning district classification and use designation. SECTION 2. The City's official zoning map is amended to show the change in zoning district classification. SECTION 3. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid by any court, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. SECTION 4. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the DeNon Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Denton, Page 1 of 2 Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2002. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Page 2 of 2 Exhibit A Legal Description of Z02-0016 WHEREAS David Bynum is the owner of all that certain lot, tract or parcel of land situated in the Eugene Pulchalski Survey, Abstract Number 996, in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, and being all of First Tract and Second Tract of Exhibit D-4 and all that certain tract of land described in Exhibit D-9 as described in deed to Peggy J. Mords recorded in Clerk's File Number 93-R0082575 and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a 5/8 inch iron rod found on the north line of West Oak Street, a public roadway, being the southeast corner of said Second Tract and the southwest corner of that certain tract of land described in deed to The State of Texas recorded in Volume 114, Page 443 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas; THENCE S 88°35'57" W, along the north line of West Oak Street paSSing at a distance of 84.75 feet a 1/2 inch iron rod found at the southwest comer of said Second Tract and continuing on a total distance of 169.21 feet to a capped iron rod found at the southeast corner of that certain tract of land described in deed to G. Tommy Bastian recorded in Volume 4276, Page 647 of the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas: THENCE N 01 °17'07" W, along the east line of said Bastain tract a distance of 208.17 feet to a 1/2 inch iron rod found being the northeast corner thereof, same being the southeast corner of that certain tract of land described in deed to State of Texas recorded in Volume 489, Page 284 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas, and the southwest comer of that certain tract of land described in deed to State of Texas recorded in Volume 490, Page 269 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas; THENCE S 89°20'10" E, along the south line of said State of Texas tract passing the southeast corner thereof and the southwest corner of that certain tract of land recorded in deed to State of Texas recorded in Volume 490, Page 452 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas, and continuing on a total distance of 167.77 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod found at the southeast corner of said State of Texas tract same being the northeast corner of said First Tract; THENCE S 01 °43'09" E, along the east line of said First Tract a distance 202.12 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing approximately 0.79 acres of land more or Page 3 of 3 Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #38 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: May 14, 2002 Planning Departmem CM/DCM/ACM: David Hill, 349-8314 SUBJECT - Z02-0017 (722 West Oak) Hold a public hearing to consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 0.4 acres, from a Multiple Family Dwelling District 1 (MF-1) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) zoning district. The property is commonly addressed as 722 West Oak Street and generally located on the north side of West Oak Street Between Mounts Avenue and Denton Street. The property is being rezoned to bring it in conformance with the Denton Developmem Code. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (5-1). (Z02- 0017) [City initiated rezoning, initially reviewed during the Developmem Code review process.] BACKGROUND Applicam: City of DeNon - Property Owner - Charlotte and Dalton Allen The subject site was originally developed as a single family residence with a carriage house in the rear. The use of the property has evolved since the early 1900's from single family residemial to commercial and multi-family. Most recemly, the existing house was used as a day care center and the carriage house was converted to a multi-family structure. At the December 2001 public hearing on the citywide rezoning, the property owner requested Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use (NRMU) to allow the commercial and multi-family uses on the property to continue. As part of the city-wide rezoning related to the Developmem Code adoption, City Council reviewed this request at the January 15, 2002 Work Session meeting. At that time, a consensus was reached to rezone the property to Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use (NRMU). However, at the January 28, 2002 Work Session meeting, Council reverted the zoning of the property back to Multiple Family Dwelling District 1 (MF-1) due to concerns related to adequate notice. City Council directed staff to initiate a zone change request for Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3), with the City of DeNon as the applicant. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Deny. 3. Postpone consideration. 4. Table item. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 5-1 (Bob Powell). ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The subject property is not platted. The property is developed. the issuance of any building permits for major additions. A final plat is required prior to PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology of Z02-0017, commonly known as 722 West Oak: Application Date - DRC Date- Neighborhood Meeting P&Z Meeting March 4, 2002 March 14, 2002 None April 10, 2002 FISCAL INFORMATION Development of this property will increase the assessed value of the city. As a form of infill development, no extension of public infrastructure is necessary to service this site. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Maps 3. Public Notification (Property Owner Notification Map and Property Owner Responses) 4. Photographs 5. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, April 10, 2002 6. Draft Ordinance Prepared by: Marcy Ratcliff Development Review Manager Respectfully submitted: Douglas S. Powell, AICP Director of Planning and Development ATTACHMENT 1 Staff Analysis Summary_ of Zoning Request The request is to rezone the subject site from a Multiple Family Dwelling District 1 (MF-1) to a Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district. City Council at the January work session, decided not to rezone the subject site under the Development Code but to retain the MF-1 zoning. The intent was to schedule a separate public hearing to insure property owner notification. If this request were approved, the zoning would comply with the Denton Development Code. The property owners, Charlotte and Dalton Allen, have requested to postpone the hearing until after the local election; Mr. Allen is running for the mayor's office, (Attachment 3). The Allens are opposed to the City initiated rezoning to Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) and are in favor of Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use (NRMU) zoning because it allows multi-family, commercial and service uses. The Planning and Zoning Commission cannot recommend a higher intensity district only a lower district. The property owner is opposed to the request; therefore a super majority vote (6 out 7) by City Council is required to approve the rezoning to Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3). Existing Condition of Property_ Property History. February 20, 2002 - The subject property was placed in the Multiple Family Dwelling District (MF-1) zoning district and land use classification by Ordinance 2002-040. The subject property was zoned Multiple Family Dwelling 1 (MF-1) zoning district in 1981. The land use designation as noted by The Denton Plan has always been Existing Neighborhoods/Infill Compatibility. Adjacent zoning and land use: (Attachment 3) North: Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) - Institutional - Calhoun Middle School South: Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) - Single Family East: Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) - Single Family and a multi-family complex West: Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) - Two Multi-family complexes The subject property is also located within the Oak-Hickory Historic District. The district was created to ensure the protection and preservation by providing regulations for the use, construction, alteration, repair, improvement and alteration of buildings, structures, properties and sites within. Comprehensive Plan Analysis The subject site is located in an "Existing Neighborhoods/Infill Compatibility" future land use area. New development in this district should respond to existing development with compatible land uses, patterns and design standards. The plan recommends that existing neighborhoods within the city be vigorously protected and preserved. Housing that is compatible with the existing density, neighborhood service, and commercial land uses is allowed. "Future residential development within established residential areas would be developed in a manner that responds to the existing residential development with compatible land uses and development patterns. Existing neighborhoods within the city will be protected and preserved. " ~v. 24) "Accommodate multifamily residential development in a variety of Jbrms. Many of the deteriorating apartments adjacent to the universities could be renovated or redeveloped as new student housing in order to better support the needs of UNT and TWU. Additionally, other types of attached residential development such as townhomes should be considered. It is recommended that multifamily development be located in areas that provide transitions between lower and higher intensity uses, and in a manner that will not negatively impact surrounding uses. Additionally, multifamily uses should be located in small groupings around the city in a manner that provides a mix of uses and densities, rather than concentrating all multifamily uses in one area which can have negative impact upon the city." (p. 24) The proposed NR-3 designation is consistem with The DeNon Plan. Developmem Review Analysis Transportation Trip Generation. Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) will allow one single family residence which will generate approximately 9.55 trips per day. A TIA will not be required. Access. The developmem will have access to Mourns Street. Access to Oak Street will not be permitted by right. Road Capacity The Demon Mobility Plan idemifies West Oak Street as a Secondary Major Arterial street. Preliminary analysis indicates West Oak Street has adequate capacity for NR-3 developmem. Minimum requiremems for pedestrian linkages, utilities, drainage, topography, signs, landscaping, open space, lighting and environmem quality impacts will be enforced if and when the property redevelops. Developmem Code/Zoning Analysis If the zone change request is approved, it will not cause any existing, legal use of property, building, structure or site development to become nonconforming. Uses that were lawful prior to the adoption of the Developmem Code, but which would be prohibited, regulated, or restricted under the Developmem Code are automatically given a Special Exception designation in Subchapter 11, Nonconforming Uses. A Special Exception allows the property to be used in the same or similar manner as allowed under the prior developmem regulations. STAFF FINDINGS 1. The proposed Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) zoning designation will create a Special Exception designation for the existing uses on the property. 2. The Special Exception will allow the lower density multi-family units on the subject site to serve as a transition between the existing single family on the east side of the subject site to the higher density multi-family uses on the west side of the subject property, and in a manner that will not negatively impact existing uses. 3. The Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) protects and preserves the neighborhood, which is highly encouraged by The Demon Plan. 4 TTACHMENT 2 Maps NORTH Location/Zoning Map Scale: None NORTH Land Use Map Scale: None ATTACHMENT 3 Public Notification NORTH Notification Map Public Notification Date: 200' Legal Notices* sent via Certified Mail: 500' Courtesy Notices* sent via 1st Class Mail: Number of responses to 200' Legal Notice · In Opposition: 2 · In Favor: 7 · Neutral: 0 March 30, 2002 18 79 Percent of land within 200' in opposition: <5 % Scale: None *A copy of the notification list can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 Property Owner Responses Updated 04-29-02 Property Owner Name In favor Comments and Site Address /opposed* Jerry Don Vann In favor None 811 W. Oak Paul Matth~ius In favor None 723 E. Oak Julana Hefner In favor None 613 Pearl Street (Response outside of 500' perimeter) * Brian Morrison In favor I support the rezoning of 722 W. Oak to NR-3 to 305 Mounts Ave. conform with the Denton Development Code and to match the rest of the homes in this residential neighborhood. Commercial zoning and development has no place in this or any other residential neighborhood. *Lynn & Chad In favor We consider it very important to keep our Historic Davenport district residential. 705 W. Oak *Darlene Mullenweg In favor None 711 W. Oak *Alonzo & Elisabeth Strongly In We appreciate your giving us an opportunity to Jamison Favor express our views on the on the above reference 616 W. Oak re-zoning matter. As nearby residents, we (500' Courtesy Notice) strongly favor 722 E. Oak being re-zoned to Neighborhood Residential - 3. We desire very much that the residential character of our neighborhood be preserved. Please pass on these views to the appropriate staff and to the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. *W.A Barker Opposed I will not be able to attend. My wife has been in 812 W. Oak and out of hospital twice and is now in Denton Rehab and nursing home, but we are opposed. I sped all of my available time with her. Charlotte & Dalton Allen Opposed See attached email and 722 West Oak Council is supposed to remove this from the agenda until August. A copy of the original notice can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 * Letters received after PZ packets were delivered. ATTACHMENT 4 Photographs 722 West Oak Street Looking north along Mounts Street Multi-family units in the rear Multi-family unit south side of Gregg Street east of the rear of 722 W. Oak Attachment 5 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes 14. Hold a public hearing to consider making a recommendation to City Council concerning the rezoning of approximately 0.4 acres, from a Multiple Family Dwelling District -1 (MF-1) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residemial -3 (NR-3) zoning district. The property is commonly addressed as 722 West Oak Street and generally located on the north side of West Oak Street Between Mounts Avenue and Denton Street. The property is being rezoned to bring it in conformance with the Demon Developmem Code. (Z02- 0017, 722 W. Oak, Marcy Ratcliff) Motion by Vicki Holt and seconded by Joe Mulroy to recommend approval to City Council. *Discussion of item is included in the Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Pages 131-153). Motion carries 5-1 - Commissioner Bob Powell opposed. 11 Condcns~ItTM Page 129] 13 6 7 8 9 10 11 19. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 t3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. camera can zoom out just a little bit -- a copy of the site plan. That's the site plan. The proposed tower is only allowed of a specific use permit. Five will remain. You can see those here. is required or notices sent out on Mareh 30th, 2I received in favor. passed out to by Ms. Viera. i'd note We have have just been Number one, this proposed use is Denton Development requirements of a of an additional will not have area. detrimental by staff. backup on Page 5. The the Denton Plan and the The applicant has met all the establistunent tower at this loc, at[on on the surrounding number three, dsting tower to the east will down to for the construction of an Grocery The existing on-site tower is not third service provider, therefore, a tower is required. That concludes my presentation. I believe Page 130 the applicant, Peter Kavanagh of Zone Systems is present and available for further questions. COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: Mr. Kavanagh, cam to present? MR, KAVANAGH: Mr. Chairman, my name is Peter Kavanagh. Handiey I'd first like to request an the time for my case to one min be 30 seconds 30 seconds Our request is for a subject' make that decision. MR, KAVANAOH: subject to the site plan. That will opposition. site plan -- will Request approval you, sir. Once again, this is a hearing, one card and that was Mr. And requesting previously will restate this. would like to speak would please fill out a yeller so the is 1620 we'd k that you'd liloe to we'd it. This is a public hearing and I have so I will close the public heating at this ~, And is there any further connnents from staf~ ~x~ MR, GRACE: staff has nO fuglh~l' cornlTlo~l'lts. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very much. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yeah. i move 4 COMMISSIONER ROY: second. $ It'S 6 and seconded by Roy that 7 Item No. 11 on Any further, 8 questions vote. 9 Motion carries 6-0. Mr. Kavanagh for your 10 brevity. 11 Once on our 12 Agenda has been ! from our A~a and has bem~ moved 13 tea ~:certa~ is April 24th. And~rder of 14 ~!__~as changed via the direction of the~ 15 ~sion. And so we will now have item No. 1~ 16 : il have Item No. 13 and the other remaining itcan~ 17 Agenda. So Item No. 14 will present at this time. ~'~ lg MS. RATCLIFF: Before you this evening we 19 have a case that was initiated by the City of Denton. 20 This is to rezone property a~ 722 West Oak Street. The 21 request is to rezone this to ~qa-3 from M[e-1, multi-family 22 zoning district. The proposed zoning of NR-3 is in 23 compliance with the Denton Development Plan. There is 24 backup material in your packets. Also, we have passed out 25 an updated property owner response list. We have eight 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page t 32 responses of people that were within 200 feet. And w~ also have one response fi.om -- the courtesy notice that was outside of the 200 feet, within 500 feet. The propeCry owner is in opposition to this request. And, therefore, when it goes to the City Council after recmmnendation from the Phnning and Zoning Co~mnission, it will require a three-quarter vote or super-majority vote which is six out of the seven members, lql he happy to entertain any questions that you might have. COMMISSIONL~R RtSHEL: commissioners, any questions of Ms. Ratcliff'?. Thank you, Ms. Ratcliff. Once again, this is a public hearing and just as a reaninder, this is Item No. 14 on our Agenda, and this is a public hearing. Is the petitioner hero and would they like to present? The City is the petkioner, right. I have several cards of people that would tike to speak. C~mmissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: Yes. I would like to ask a question. COMMISSIONER RISItEL: Please. COMMISSIONER ROY: The owner of the property request~xt that this be deferred, this discussion tonight; is that correct? MS. RATCLIFF; He had requested that City Council postpone this, And it's my understanding PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 129 - Page 132 CondenseltTM 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 133 yesterday it was on the Agenda and he requested that that be pulled from the Agenda. So he wants it to go forward. COMMISSIONER ROY: SO he wants it to go forward to discuss tonight? MS. RATCLIFF: That is my understanding. COMM[SSIONERRLSHEL: okay. Once again, this is a public hearing. And I have several cards of people that would like to speak. I'm going to start off with the first card, Mr. Lee Capps. Mr. Capps, you don't wish to speak, but you did have some comments on your card. Would like to maintain single family character of the West Oak neighborhood and would like to -- ~R-~ is most appropriate. Mr. Vann, once again, has a card, but did not wish to speak and was -- his card indicates he's in support of the petition. Mr. Cochran -- Mr. Mike Cochran indicated he'd like to speak. And, Mr. Cockran, if you cmfld give us your name and address. MR. COCnRAN: t would be pleaseA to do that. It's a pleasure to be down here, ! might add, My name is Mike Cochran. I live at 610 West Oak Street, And it's a pleasure to see you-alL I think that ! can maybe clarify a fc~v things here, First of all, with the map and if you can zero and take it out a little bit farther. Page 135 1 into play in the waning days of the discussion of the new 2 Development Code. Thvy were, I would hate to say 3 political issues but I believe that's a possibility at 4 least. And, never the less, you-all are lucky because you 5 can focus on strictly zoning issues. And if you'll look 6 at the staff report, although I'm afraid to say there are 7 a few errors in it. basically, they agree that this should 8 become NR-3 such as the rest of the area. 9 If I can give you a little bit of 10 background on it, and that is this is the Oak-Hickory 11 historic district, and this was not mentioned in the 12 report but that's an important aspect of what we've got 13 here. This property was a legal nonconforming use for a 14 number of years as a day cam center and th~ no longer 15 have a day care center there. It is zoned presently 16 Multi-Fmnily because the entire City, the ca, tire 17 neighborhood was zoned Multi-Family by the City Council in 18 1969. A number of us in the 70's went back and some of 19 the folks that were in on this battle are here tonight. I 20 went back -- and to reclaim our neighborhood. In fact, 21 had it backzoned, our properties to single-family. Not 22 all the properties did, but, never the less, this property 23 and lots of other properties were formerly multi-family 24 and all we're doing is asking that you bring it in 25 conformity with the ordinance. Page 134 Yeah, there we go. The subject property 722 West Oak Street is right here. Mr. Roy, asked you some questions about the position of the petitioner or the property OWOer. Yesterday afttyrnoon, t got a call from Mr. Allen and he is well aware of the situation we've been going ttn:ough down here. We've discussed it with him at some length, had him at some neighborhood meetings, et cetera. He's changed his mind complcqdy and he indicated to me that he was, in fact, in favor of lhis proceeding to an NR-3 resolution in conformity with the rest of the City. Now, it seeans to me that as a Planning and Zoning Cclmnission, that your job here is very simple and very easy, because the fact that this property here and one other which yoa will see later this evening are the only two properties in the entire City that have been omi. ned from the new zoning ordinance. There is nothing special about these properties but, never the less, they have been omitted from the new ordinance. And what we're asking you today to do is just to bring it in conformity with the rest of the City. As you can see here from this map that this is an aberration here. This is obviously -- there were some other issues besides zoning issues that were coming 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 136 I would say that asking me to -- asking you to believe my interpretation of my conversation with Mr. Allen, I guess perhaps is asking a lot of you. But, never the less, he's not here and that would also indicate some things. But he indicated to me in quite a pleasant conversation we had that he had done some thinking and decided that this was an entirely appropriate thing. If he wanted to take up a more intensive use in the future, he would do that. But it was not his intention to oppose this now or when it comes to the City Council meeting, assuming that you give a favorable vote on it today, in May. In any event, there are a number of us here that believe very strongly that the single-fmnily character of the neighborhood is an important thing. Keeping it in residential, even if it's multi-fmnily, is no problem. We're quite comfortable with that. But what we are quite concemed about is having one little spot here of multi-family. How much t/me do I have? COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YOU have a minute. Ma. COCHRAN: okay. Great. That will be easy. One little spot, an aberration really. It's almost an anachronism because this is under an entirely different ordinance then the entire rest of the City except for the property down at the other end of the street. There's no PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 133 - Page 136 CondenseltTM 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2I 22 23 24 25 Page 137 zoning reason to keep it this way. There's no political reason for you-all to consider. It would seem like that would be the most easy thing in the world and I would be happy to entertain any questions about my conversation with Mr. Alien, but it was quite a pleasant one and he indicated that he was in favor of what we were doing and he appreciated our efforts and I appreciated his call very Page 139 1 to preserve the homes of the neighborhood that were built 2 over the last century, and it was -- it's definitely an 3 asset to Denton. It brings in tourist dollars to local 4 businesses. It's been pictured and used on City phone 5 books and Chamber of Commerce promotions as representative 6 of the quality of life and the esthetic nature of Denton. 7 It's -- a decade or so ago that we, along much. COMMISSIONER RISHEL; Commissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: Yes. Just a question. The property irmnediately to the west of the subject property is current a multi-family dwelling. MR. COCHRAN: It'S mukbfm~ily. What it is it's -- on the report here, it says it's two mu[fi-family complexes but it's multi-family use. It's not two complexes. It's one complex. What it is is an older house that they made into apartments and then a newer inappropriate poorly designed apartment, quite frankly, that snuck in because the City Council zoned it all Muki-Fmnily in the 60's. So that's the property there. And on the -- if I can segway into another point on here, your staff report indicates that there's a multi-family complex adjacent to this property on the east. That's actually not the case. It's a single-family Page 138 8 with our neighbors, chose to petition the City to extend 9 the historic district up into our neighborhood from Oak l0 and to back zone our home back to a residential status. 11 And we were welcomed at that time then with open arms and 12 it was expressed to us that we were doing a good th/rig for 13 Denton. In fact, I realize that you can't judge a book by 14 the cover, but I think it's fair to say that when you put 15 an image on the cover of a books it's representative of 16 what's inside. 17 And I happened to notice that, whether by 18 design or default, our house was on the cover of the 19 Denton 2020 Plan. So it would seem that maintaining this 20 type of residential property would be in Denton's vision. 21 We recently invested literally tens of 22 thousands of dollars in the exterior restoration of our 23 house and we'd naturally warn to sm that protected. 24 Other homes in other neighborhoods also are experiencing 25 this kind of revitalization around town. So bringing this Page 140 1 adjacent to the east. If you go up and down Oak Street, 2 you can see that there's only one property that is an 3 aparunent complex in our entire area and there is one 4 other office use that has no sign and it has no impact on 5 the neighborhood whatsoever. It's a doctor's office. So 6 that's the situation there. 7 But this is, as far as neighbors go, I 8 think i can comfortably say that we're quite happy with 9 the fact that there wilt be residents there. And if it's 10 a rental unit or if it is a single-family occupancy, we're 11 happy with that, too. 12 OOMM[SS[ONER RIS~IEL: ^ny further 13 questions, Commissioners, of Mr. Cochran? Any further 14 questions? ',15 MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very much. i 16 COMMISSIOtar3: g[SnEL: Thank you, Mx. 17 Cochran. I have a card from Mx. Brian Mordson. Is Mr. 18 Morrison here? 19 MR. MORRISON: I'm Brian Morrison. I llve 20 at 305 Mounts and that's situated just diagonally adjacent 21 to tl~ 722 West Oak. And I want to thank the Commission 22 for making this proposal to align it with the Denton 23 Development Code and the neighborhood. 24 Just a few general co,inherits about the 25 correct nature of this. The lfistoric district was created I Oak Street property into the alignment of the surrounding 2 homes is the dght thing to do. I thank you for your 3 time. 4 COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: Any questions, 5 Co~mnissioners, of Mr. Morrison? Thank you, Mr. Morrison. 6 MR. MORRI$ON: Thank you. 7 COMMISSIONER RISI-IEL: t have a card but 8 does not wish to speak from Ms. Dolores Vann who said she 9 was in support of the proposal. 10 I have a card from Mr. Joe Lair. Does Mr. 11 Lair wish to speak? I have two chccks on here. One to 12 speak and one not to speak. And we'll say that the one 13 not to speak is prevailing but that he is also in support 14 of thc proposal. 15 And then I have a card, also not wish to I6 speak, from a Darlene Mullenweg. And, once again, she was 17 in support of the proposal. 18 This is a public hearing. I have gone 19 through all the cards that I had and so i presume that we 20 have no one else that wanted to address the Conunission. 21 So I will close the public hearing and ask staff to give 22 us a summation. 23 Ms. P,~TCLWF: [ would like to clarify one 24 thing. There is one multi-family complex that -- it 25 appeared to be a multi-family complex. It's on the east PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 137 - Page 140 CondcnseltTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 141 side, the northeast side. It's located on Grogs S'acet. There is ~ picture of that in your packet. I'll be happy to answer any other questions ttmt you may have. COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: I have some Commissioners that had some questions. I don't know wha! they're to but -- Conmnissioner Keith. COMMISSIONER KEITI4: Thank you, Yeah. Thank you for clearing up on that one on Oregg Strut. I'm looking at the photographs, as well. There is a lnulliple family unit in the hack of the house. It's on the same lot; is that correcff MS. F,.4.TCL~'FF: Yes, sir. I believe it's the Carriage House. COMMISSIONER KEtTH: okay. How would rezoning this back to Iqa-3. how would it affect that? Mr. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 you. 14 15 Page 143 Over to the left. That's a multi-family. That's an apartment house, right? MS. RATCLIFF: Yes, sir. That's why I called it two complexes. I assumed they were two separate buildings and I just called them two complexes. COMMISSIONER ROY: Okay. Now, that complex is currently NR-3. MS. RATCL1FF: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ROY: SO it'S one of these special exception? MS. RATCI.tFF: It has a special exception. COMMISSIONER ROY: Okay. All right. Thank COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Cotmnissioner Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MLILROY: Yes. What is the Powell, would you like to -- MR. POWELL: I'd be happy to. If you rcanmnbcr in the Development Code, one of th~ provisions that addresses existing land uses is a special exception. The special exception says that if you have a legal use, that that use can continue, it runs with the land, not with the property owner, it can continue. It can even 16 existing use of the large house today? 17 MS. RATCLIFF: If I understand correctly, 18 the house is vacant right now. 19 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. So what 20 special exemption would it carry forward then? 21 MS. RATCLIFF: It would carry the 22 Multi-Family 1 uses. expand in some instances. So any property, including this one, that had a legal use on it, tlmt uso would he able to continue under the provisions of the special exception. Page 142 1 COMMISSIONER KEiTH: SO it's, in essence, 2 grandfathered in, correct? 3 MR. POWELL: Yes, sir. 4 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Thank you. .5 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Roy. 6 COMMISSIONER ROY: So if the owner wanted 7 to demolish the Carriage House and build a larger 8 multi-family unit there, he could do it? 9 MR. POWELL: NO. It really protects the 10 existing building and the existing use. If he was to 11 voluntarily demolish a structure, the provisions of the 12 Code may require, depending on the amount of the 13 improvement, to come completely into compliance with the 14 Code. There's a provision in the Code, a table that deals 15 with expansion. It really deals, if a bu/lding is 16 destroyed because of a natural disaster, then it can be 17 built back exactly as is. But if k's destroyed 18 voluntarily by the owner, then it may have to come into 19 compliance with the new regulations. There's a 20 distinction made. 21 COMMISSIONER ROY: I'm a little confused, 22 too, about the property to -- i think it's to the west of 23 that. Isn't that -- that is a mu/ti-fmnily facility now 24 in an NR-3 area. Just to the left of that nice home, 25 you've got a picture there. Oh, okay, the bottom picture. 23 COMMISSIONER MULRO¥: W~ the large house 24 used for multi-family? 25 MS. RATCLIFF: If I' understand correctly, Page 144 1 under the special exceptions, you can use the uses allowed 2 in lhe Multi-Family 1 district. 3 MR. POWELL: vii try to clarify. The 4 special exception really applies to the existing use on 5 the property and I'm not quite sure what the existing nsc 6 is. It was previously used for a day care. My opinion, 7 not knowing all the facts, is that you could use that 8 building, continue to use it for a multi -- a day care or 9 a same or similar usc. That same or similar provision, 10 the Council instructed staff to broadly interpret that and 11 interpret it into the point of what is the impact, the 12 amount of trips generaw, xl, to try to gauge what that same 13 or similar would mean. So I don't know for certain but my 14 belief is that you could use it again for a day care or 15 anything that's same or similar to it. 16 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yeah. So our best 17 knowledge to date that it had bcca~ previously used for a 18 long nmnher of years as a day care center that's been 19 vacate, d. 20 MS. RATCL1FF: Yes, sir. I checked on the 21 certificate of occupancies. The last certificate of 22 occupancy issued was for a day care center. Tl~m has not 23 been a new one issued. 24 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. And how long a 25 time has lapsed, Marcy?. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 141 - Page 144 CondensoltTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 t4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 t7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 145 MS. RATCLIFF: I don't recall the year but it's been several years. COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. So [ guess we need to be clear in our thinking that the special exception, what's carrying forward on the main building. MS. RATCLIFF: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Commissioner Powcll. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I'm confused, as nonnal, i guess. But what was the zoning three months ago under the old plan? Was it not Multi-Family? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Page 147 will point out that there were several groups of properties. The two on West Oak were somewhat unique. They were held out and they were not rezoned. But there was also a group of properties that were rezoned but the City Council instructed staff to process zoning applications and waive the fees. Item No. 15 on your Agenda is one of those properties, and I think there were six of those. You heard, i think, two of them at your last meeting and we'll hear more of them. So there were several groups of properties as the Development Code was zoning. MS. RATCLIFE: It was MF-I. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Not the use but the MS. RATCLIFF: That is correct. COMMISSIONER POWELL: okay. And then the zoning today, unless we change it, is still Multi-Family; is that correct? MS. RATCLIFF: Yes, sir. They did not rezone this particular piece of property. COMMISSIONER POWELL: SO the City is asking to rezone this property from Multi-Family to Single-Family, right? MS. RATCLIFF: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER POWELL: And it had been zoned Multi-Fmnily, still is zoned Multi-Family, and just out of Page 146 the blue, the City is trying to change the zoning? Why is this happening? What's going ou here that I'm missing? MS. RATCLtFF: It is my understanding during the City-wide rezoning, two parcels of property, they picked out and did not rezone them. And this is one of them at 722 Oak Street. After that was done, staff was instructed to initiate a zone change request on this so that we could notify property owners within 200 feet and within 500 feet, specifically, so that they would be aware of this request. And that's what we've done. COMMISSIONER I~OWELL: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: COlmnissioner Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MIJI.ROY: Yeah, if I may just add to that clarification. They weren't randomly picked out. There were two problematic properties, this being one, and the owner was asking for some upzoning. And then that's why it was held out of the Code process to go ahead and pass the Code but come have a public hearing on the prospective zoning for this property. Is that the history? MS. RATCL[FF: I would defer that to Mr. Powell since t wasn't present at those meetings. COMMiSSiONER R[SHEL: Director Powell would like to see if he can add to that. MR, POWELL: Yes, that is correct. And I 11 wrapping up, different categories. Mr. Mulroy is correct. 12 But I did also want to say that though 13 these two were maybe t~ most unique, there were other 14 properties that were looked at and reviewed and will come t5 forward for rezoning like Item No. 15. 16 COMMISSIONER MULROY: If I still have the 17 floor as a Commissioner, the City initiated this and is I8 paying the fees. They were problematic. This particular 19 property, I believe, Doug, you can correct me, was 20 scheduled to be NR-3 with the map changing on the Code 21 anyway. And the reason it was held out was to have this 22 public process. 23 MR. POWELL: Yes, sir. 24 COMMISSIONER MULROY: So it's not a random 25 thing. It was in response to some problems. Page 148 1 MR. POWELL: That iS correct, 2 COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: commissioner Keith, 3 COMMISSIONER KE[TH: Thank you, A question 4 here. Maybe Conm~issioner Mulroy may have answered it. 5 We're not in any position of downzoning this, am we? 6 COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: Director Powell. 7 MR. POWELL: I was hoping Mr. Snyder wou~d 8 answer this. 9 MR. smcDER: Yes, we arc downzoning this 10 property. That's what we're doing. This property is 1 t zoned Mu]ti-Family now. We're downzoning it to NO-3. 12 COMMISSIONER KEiTH: SO if we're 13 downzoning, could we be positioning the City towards some 14 kind of potential lawsuit? 15 MR. S~,~YDER: well, I can't predict whether 16 we'd be sued or not. 17 COMMISSIONER KEITH: I mcan, I was asking 18 not whether we would be, but positioning is my point. 19 MR. Sm'DER: well, we have a protection in 20 that the new Code has the special exception that Mr. 21 Powell just alluded to that alloxvs them to continue using 22 the property as they're earrently using it. But, yes, it 23 is possible that we could ge'~ sued for a downzoning. But 24 we think that the special exception provision somewhat 25 insulates us from that. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TIt, 2002 Page 145 - Page t 48 CondenseltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ 9 t0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 t8 19 2(> 21 22 23 24 25 Page 149 COMMISSIONER KEITH: That special exemption would carry with the property? MR. SNYDER~ ~ight. COMMISSIONER KEtTH: Okay. Thank yo12. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: cmmnissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: We have two pieces of paper that was provided to us by the City which says the property owner opposes this. And I heard Mr. Coehran's cmnmcnt that he had personally talked to this -- to the owner. But i guess I'm a little uncomfortable about making a zoning change on a piece of property when the owner is against it. Now, can you confirm that the owner has removed his objection or do i just assmne, because he's not here, or I assume he's not here? MS. RATCLIFF: All I can confirm is the paperwork that I have received from Mr. Dalton -- MR. SNYDER: Mr. Alien. MS. 1LATCLIFF: Oh, 8orry. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Snyder. MR. SNYDER: Also, it's important that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Page 151 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: There we go. I just wanted to get that clarified. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Boy, I'm more confused than ever now. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: He did not -- I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth. He was not contesting what the City was doing here. ts that what you're saying? MR. POWELL: what happened at last night's meeting, I watched it, there was an Agenda item on the CounciPs meeting to talk about postponing this item. Council meanber Phillips said that he had heard from Mrs. Allen and they wanted to withdraw that request, i don't think that we're in the position to say what that means, if that means that they are now in favor of the rezoning. i have no information to that effect. There's nothing in our files. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. Commissioner Powell, did that answer your question? COMMISSIONER ?OWELL: AS much as we're everybody realizes that he has protested as it stands right now. Once this goes forward to the City Council, this is an official -- it's written, right? He sent us something in writing? MS. RATCLIFF: Yes, sir. Page 150 MR. sIqYDER: 7he super-majority rule has been invoked and the only way fl~at it can be moved is 2 ! going to. 22 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Mutroy. 23 COMMISSIONER MULROY: welL, remember, this 24 is a City committed, City initiated and at no expense to 25 the property owner. So I think the choices, to me, would Page 152 t be not to participate in that. I don't think there was 2 ever a choice to postpone it for eight months, because 1 2 3 for him to withdraw that protest in writing. He cannot do 4 it orally. So that is not really germane to your 5 discussion here tonight. That just affects the City 6 Council. But [ just want, for the benefit of the property 7 owners out there, that he will have to withdraw that 8 protest in writing in order to ~e~nove the super-majority 9 rule. 10 COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: commissioner Powell. 11 COMMISSIONER PO~VELL: Thank you, Mr. 12 Chairman. I read an E-mail in here from Mr. Allen and if 13 I read it correctly, he's asking for this to be held off 14 until August or something. And it would seem to be a 15 reasonable request due to the circmnstances. 3[ guess I'm 16 asking would that be harmful in any way or what's going on 17 here? Why aren't we holding it ofF?. It doesn't secan like i8 it's a big deal. Somebody help me out here. 19 MS~ RATCLIFF: It is my understanding, it 20 was on last night's Agenda for Council to discuss whether 2i to pull this fi'om the Agenda this evening, and Mr. Allen 22 withth-ew that r~xtuest. He wanted it to go forward. 23 COMMISSIONER RiS[1EL: Fie withdrew the 24 request to pull it? ]25 MS. R.ATCLIFF: Yes. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 t2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this is all happening in a group. Okay. And if it goes through as an h'~-3, that's what was scheduled in the mapping chang~ anyway. So to come back and look at other things later at the owner's initiation, this owner would not be deprived of that, like anybody else. So I don't think this shortchanges him. COMMISSIONER RISHEC: commissioner Holt. COMMISSIONER HOLT: Yes. I would like to offer a motion to rezone this property Iqa-3. nnd I think the owner is prelly well protected by this with the special exception provision. The community people seem to want it and it's the only piece of property in the area that's not zoned that way. So it see~ns like it's pretty cut and dried to me. CIDMM[SS[ONER RIStlEL: IS there a motion in them? COMMISSIONER HOLT: Yes. COMM[SS[OlqER msu~.L: what is the motion? COMM[,~.q[ONER HOLT: That we rezone it NR-3, COMM[SS[OlgER RISIIEL: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ML1LROY: vll second. COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: It'S been moved by Commissioner Holt and seconded by Commissioner Mulroy. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 149 - Page 152 CondenseltTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 21 22 23 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Page 153 Any further discussion? MS. RATCLIFE: I would like to interject one thing. Because this property is located in the historic district, before any building could be removed, it has to have permission from the Historic Landmark Commission. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Okay. Do we need to make that a part of thc mnendment or is it automatic.'? MS. RATCLIFF: That WaS jUSt for informational purposes. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. Okay. We have a motion on the floor. Seeing no further comments, please vote. Motion carries 5q of the Commissioners present. Thank you, Colnmissioners. (COMMISSIONER POWELL VOTED IN OPPOSITION.) COMMISSIONER RISHEL: That should us No. 13 on our Agenda. RATCLIFF: I'm ready now. you. RISHEL: please. MS. Before you this evening we have a also initiated by the City of Dento 1822, 1~ 1902 West Oak Street Multi-Family zoning dis~.~o NR-3, Residential. The location map sh~ in the middle of the block between Bradley and 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Page 154 This zone change request is in compliance with Plan which is in the existing neighborhood. This zoned ME-1 in 1969. There's a variety of in your packet. I'1I be happy to any you might have. What I've also 5 is an property owner response, as of 6 this about 4:00 o'clock. 7 the property is in 8 opposition to request and it require 9 a by City Ct if you were to 10 forward this on to be happy to t 1 entertain any 12 COMMISSIONEU ~HEL: Cmmnissioners, any 13 questions of Ms. Ratcli you, Ms. Rateliff. The I4 petitioner is here or for the petitioner 15 is here. 16 MS. I mn the t 7 MISSIONER RISHEL: me. That's 18 fine. Let: if we can take Mr. Ike who t9 Mr. Bynum and we'll have Mr. at 20 this 21 Once again, this is a public hearing_ ,\ 22 who would like to speak on this item, if you~x fill out a yellow card that are at the entry. It would help us tremendously. Thank you now. Mr. Shup& Page 155 MR. SH[JPE: Mr. Chairman, my name is Ike Shupe, t717 Main Street, Dallas, 75201. I'm tm'e with the property owner, and I'm David tonight. Mr. Powell, thc consequence of events is ~s to the prior case which is piece has been zoned MY4 since Until $anuary of this was in one of, downtown And on. this came through, know if through the Council x ut it was recommended, or I think the term was to take it to NRMU-12, : been consistent with the multi-hmily use. I don't know all of the polities of what was of the Code, tiffs was carved, and left as in the Denton Plan ~ instead of this being dis~'ict this neighborhood: some this NR-3 rczoning was initiated. called for this rezoning, I'm not called for the rezoning, I'm So as best I can tell, somewhere in staff, Na-3 rezoning -- I notice that that rezoning was given to David. ' COt'~ if the Page 156 Now, on the merits that the issue here is, what's the neighborhood. I mean, i read Marcy's she says it's in the middle of a block and she go down that street -- and I was over there and drove around it. It' you go ~ the a few houses right there on is no single-fmnily use, if that'~ definition if you go either side : or go up quit counting at looking at what is you're looking a few neighborhood? But just infill category doesn't t street and, therefore, on that particular s under the future down on few blocks, I So if you're the neighborhood, if Oak Street, is that the it is this neighborhood you only look at the issue here is what's And' have the ability Code, Code ' to look at 'those including j~ bought it when it at a time ~en it was this university core district, went thrfgh the zoning process. Stayed as ME-1. ~ w; ~go to Single-Family Residential and this lX }b~ ~. Dave and I spent the morning here a couple f wee: / ago, I have a little timeline that is about four feet long PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 153 - Page 156 S:\Our Documents\Ordinances\02kZ02-0017.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELL1NG DISTRICT 1 (MF-1) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDNETIAL 3 (NR-3) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 0.4 ACRE OF LAND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 722 WEST OAK STRREET GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WEST OAK STREET, BETWEEN MONTS AVENUE AND DENTON STREET LOCATED IN THE WILLIAM NEILL SURVEY, ABSTRACT 971 A; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMLrM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z02-0017) WHEREAS, the City of Denton initiated a change in zoning for approximately 0.4 acres of land from Multiple Family Dwelling 1 (MF-t) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district classification and use designation for single family uses; and WHEREAS, on April t0, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission concluded a public hearing as required by law, and recommended approval of the requested change in zoning to Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change in zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The zoning district classification and use designation of the approximately 0.4 acre property described as Tract 39 in the William Neill Survey, Abstract 971A, and also as shown in the attached Exhibit "A", and commonly addressed 722 West Oak Street is changed from Multiple Family Dwelling 1 (MF-1) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district. SECTION 2. The City's official zoning map is amended to show the change in zoning district classification. SECTION 3. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid by any court, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. SECTION 4. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (t4) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Denton, Page 1 of 2 S:\Our DocumentsXOrd~nances\02~Z02-0017.doc Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2002. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAI/TFORM: HERBal. ATTORNEY BY: ~ Page 2 of 3 Z02.0017 City of Denton Exhibit A (Allen Property) NORTH 722 W. Oak Street LOCATION MAP IIII Scale: None This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #39 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: May 14, 2002 Planning Department ~.~: ? Dave Hill, 349-8314 ~,~Y.~ SUBJECT - Z02-0001: (Cingular Wireless) Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance for a Specific Use Permit for approximately 0.7 acres, commonly known as 1911 Virginia Street. The subject property is zoned Employment Center-Commercial (EC-C) and is generally located north of Virginia Street and south of Mingo Road. A 120' telecommunications tower is proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-0). (Z02-0001) BACKGROUND Applicant: Zone Systems Dallas,Texas There are presently two towers located in the immediate vicinity. The proposed telecommunication tower will replace an existing tower located on the adjacent lot to the east. The tower is being removed for the development of an Albertson's grocery. The other existing 100-foot tower, built by AT&T Wireless, serves two carriers and is approximately 200 feet from the proposed tower. The AT&T tower is located on the subject development lot and has existing carriers located at 100-foot and 75-foot intervals. If this tower could accommodate a third carrier, that carrier would have to locate below the lowest existing carrier on the tower at a 65-foot height or lower, which would be too low to allow for the efficient use of Cingular antennas. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Approve w/conditions. 3. Deny. 4. Postpone consideration. 5. Table item. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-0). ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE A building permit must be issued prior to the beginning of construction. The subject property is platted. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology of Z02-0001, commonly known as Cingular Wireless: Application Date - DRC Date- P&Z Date - February 5, 2002 February 14, 2002 April 10, 2002 No Neighborhood meeting was held. FISCAL INFORMATION Development of this property will increase the assessed value of the city. short-term public improvements that are the responsibility of the city. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Maps 3. Public Notification (Property Owner Notification Map) 4. Photographs 5. Site Plan 6. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, April 10, 2002 7. Draft Ordinance Prepared by: Mike Grace Planner I Respectfully submitted: It will require no Douglas S. Powell, AICP Director of Planning and Development ATTACHMENT 1 Staff Analysis Summary of Zoning Request The applicant has applied for a Specific Use Permit (SUP) to allow for the construction of a 120 foot co-locatable telecommunications tower for Cingular Wireless (see Attachment 5). A six (6) foot chain link fence will surround the proposed 3,000 square feet lease area. The development of a telecommunications tower will leave a small area of developable land in the northwest comer of the 0.7 acre lot. The 230 square feet equipment shelter will accompany the proposed tower and will be a prefabricated 9'8" structure with an aggregate exterior. Existing Condition of Property Property History. February 20, 2002 - The subject property was placed in the Employment Center-Commercial (EC-C) zoning district and land use classification by Ordinance 2002-040. This site was previously in the Commercial (C) zoning district and land use classification by Ordinance 69-1. Adjacent zoning. North: Employment Center-Industrial (EC-I) South: Employment Center-Commercial (EC-C) East: Employment Center-Commercial (EC-C) West: Employment Center-Commercial (EC-C) Comprehensive Plan Analysis The subject site is located within an "Employment Center" future land use area. Employment Centers are intended to provide locations for a variety of workplaces, including limited light manufacturing uses, research and development activities, corporate facilities, offices, and institutions. Employment centers are also intended to accommodate secondary uses that complement or support the primary workplace uses, such a hotels, restaurants, convenience shopping, and child care. Adequate public facilities shall be a criterion by which zoning is granted. The Denton Plan does not directly address telecommunication towers, but it promotes the development of workplaces consistent with the availability of public facilities and services. The proposed tower enhances the availability of cellular service provided to the public. Development Review Analysis Transportation Trip Generation. No significant vehicle trips will be generated. required. A TIA will not be Access. The developmem will have access from Virginia Street. Environmental Quality Impacts No environmemal impacts from the proposed developmem have been idemified. Development Code/Zoning Analysis The proposed 120 foot telecommunication tower is only allowed in Employment Center- Commercial (EC-C) with the approval of a Specific Use Permit (SUP). Per section 35-421 (e) of the Zoning Ordinance, new telecommunication towers in excess of 180 feet must be located a minimum of one mile from any existing tower in excess of 180 feet. Also, monopole telecommunications towers exceeding 85 feet are allowed only with an approved SUP (Section 35-421(d)). The proposed tower and the existing tower are less than 180 feet in height, therefore, the proposed SUP for a telecommunication tower is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 35). Five existing parking spaces will remain. No additional parking is required or proposed. The proposed development is located in the Employment Centers district. The proposed developmem is compatible with The DeNon Plan and the Telecommunication Regulations. As required, the applicam has submitted a Master Amenna Plan, on file in the Planning office, outlining possible future locations of proposed towers. Section 35-112 of the Zoning Ordinance (69-01) states that a Specific Use Permit shall be issued only if all of the following conditions have been found: That the specific use will be compatible with and not injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property nor significantly diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity; The construction of the tower should not diminish or impair property values in the immediate vicinity. e That the establishment of the specific use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property; It is unlikely that establishment of this specific use will impede the normal and orderly developmem of surrounding property. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage supporting facilities have been or will be provided; All necessary supporting facilities are in place. and other necessary The design, location and arrangement of all driveways and parking spaces provides for the safe and convenient movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic without adversely affecting the general public or adjacent developments; The existing parking lot and driveway meet the requiremems of the City of Denton. That adequate nuisance prevention measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration; No offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise or vibration are anticipated. e That directional lighting will be provided so as not to disturb or adversely affect neighboring properties; and No lighting is proposed. e That there is sufficient landscaping and screening to ensure harmony and compatibility with adjacent property. An 8' screen wall is proposed around the perimeter of the lease area. The wall will screen the mechanical equipmem associated with the tower. However, Section 35-113 allows the Commission to recommend additional conditions on the proposal to protect the public imerest and the welfare of the community. STAFF FINDINGS The proposed use is compatible with The DeNon Plan and the DeNon Developmem Code. The applicam has met all requiremems of a Specific Use Permit. 2. The establishmem of an additional telecommunication tower at this location will not have any detrimemal impacts on the surrounding area. The existing telecommunication tower to the east will be torn down to make way for the construction of an Albertson's grocery store. The existing on site tower is not suitable for the addition of a third service provider. Therefore, a new telecommunication tower is needed. ATTACHMENT 2 Maps NORTH Location/Zoning Map J Scale: None NORTH Land Use Map Scale: None ATTACHMENT 3 Public Notification Notification Map 506' Notification 200' Newspaper Notification Date: March 30, 2002 200' Legal Notices* sent via Certified Mail: 9 500' Courtesy Notices* sent via 1st Class Mail: 14 Number of responses to 200' Legal Notice 0 · In Opposition: 0 · In Favor: 0 · Neutral: 0 Scale: None *A copy of the notification list can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 ATTACHMENT 4 Photographs ATTACHMENT 5 Site Plan Attachment 6 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes 11. Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council on a Specific Use permit for approximately .7 acres, commonly known as 1911 Virginia Street. The subject property is zoned Employment Center-Commercial (EC-C) generally located north of Virginia Street and south of Mingo Road. A 120 foot telecommunications tower is proposed. (Z02-0001, Cingular Wireless, Mike Grace) Motion by Joe Mulroy and seconded by Joe Roy to recommend approval to City Council. *Discussion of item is included in the Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 128 thru 131). Motion carries 6-0 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Condens¢ltTM voting for it. And for just have experienced, I was Comp Plan, and it's to ratio is a City-wide: And, through the planning, you with a Page 1 that I think the developer has done a lot of in trying to work with the neighbors and the I appreciate his concession this to with the flood plain in the southern 4 of property. And I think that we're' 5 close certainly an area that I 6 with here on f of thc things that we've : to. 7 change the of our 8 communit~ away from t 60/40 ratio is a bad 9 move for us. Coxmnis 10 well, I will be 1 degree read on what you 2 in the development of the 13 guide. The 60/40 14 we have encouraged 15 and the Plan more master 16 our desire is 'ects 17 theme as opposed to ects. 18 if you were looking at small 19 con then you might want to be less on 20 but if you have the quality 21 -- project, which we're tep back and look in the quadrant of that City, you're really not changing your ratio but one point. You know, I think that's the flexibility that's always been in the Comp Plan because it's meant as a guide. And what 1 ~ judge is the final outcome, not all the small 2 So I think we've got most of what 3 4 to ,lish with the Comp Plan and as it 4 5 such . a good example is the easement -- that 5 6 flood automatically an That's 6 7 part of this So I think we're within 7 8 the spirit of it. Fin going to vote :ause 8 9 I'd rather see master plan worked 9 10 that has taken 10 1 into consideration from thc neighborhoods 1 2 and has incorf practically that it 2 13 could in to reshaping the ¢ and that was 13 14 feasible and that were this development. 14 15 Most of the ' the drainage and thc 15 16 transportation apart from Jevelopment. 16 17 And I'm ~ a Commission that has been 17 18 group coining 18 19 in ' of folks supporting project. 19 20 So I'm ng to be voting for it for those 20 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: conunissioner 21 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Yeah, I know I've ii had my say. But I want to add one more thing. 23 Dr. Wolski -- that some of the Conunissloners 24 of and thc audience as well, that in his working on this ~lan and also I know we're not supposed to talk I know to Mr. Roy he would enjoy this. Dr. Wolski $10,000.00 on a tree study on this property lot of money into this. And I think, you to what esthetics could be And that's very cormnendable as well. I just that in. Thank you. Any comments, Commissioners? wasn't, but I am. I'm sorry. I connnissioner Powell. COMMISSIONER I If I may, thank you, sir. Several -- it seems ,lc of months ago, Dr. Wolski was up here I on him like a duck on a June bug. And nk it was well But I can't imagine into pleasing the than ;ir. And I think that night was well-deservex I said is also well-deserved. You've lot c and effort to make this a COMMISSIONER RISHEL: you want to weigh in here? Once again, we have a motion on thc floor. I see no further comments. Please vote. Page 128 Motion carries 5-1. (COMMISSIONER RISHEL VOTING IN OPPOSITION.) COMMISSIONER RISHEL: That should in theory bring us to Itmn No. 11. And I have some Commissioners calling for a break. Is that acceptable for everyone? We will hold Item 11 for about a ten-minute break. And if we could get everyone to meet us back here in about ten minutes we will pick up on Item No 11. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, if I could have your attention. We have our quorum and we'd like to proceed. I think we're on Item No. 11. And Item No. 11 should be on our docucam. And Mr. Grace will present. This is Item No. 11 on our Agenda and Mr. Grace will present. MR. GRACE: AS you can seo here, the site is located at 1911 Virginia Street, which is south of Mingo and is located here. Okay. The applicant has applied for a specific use permit to allow for the construction of a 120 foot co-locatable telecommunications tower for Cingular Wireless. A 230 square foot equipment shelter will accompany the proposed tower and will be a prefabricated nine foot eight inch structure with an aggregate exterior. The subject property is platted. The Denton Plan designates this location as an employment center, future land use area. Here is the -- if the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 125 -Page 128 Condens~ItTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 129 cmnera can zoom out just a little bit -- a copy of the site plan. That's the site plan. The proposed tower is only allowed with the approval of a specific use permit. Five existing parking spaces will remain. You can see those here. No additional parking is required or proposed. Public notices were sent out on March 30th, 2002. We have received two responses in favor. Those have just been passed out to you by Ms. Viera. I'd like to note three findings by staff. Number one, this is listed in your backup on Page 5. The proposed use is compatible with the Denton Plan and the Denton Development Code. The applicant has met all requirements of a specific use permit. Staff finding number two, the establistuuent of an additional teleconuuunications tower at this location will not have any detrimental impacts on the surrounding area. Staff finding number three, the existing teleco~muunication tower to the east will be torn down to make way for the construction of an Albertson's Grocery Store. The existing on-site tower is not suitable for the addition of a third service provider, therefore, a new telecmr~nunication tower is required. That concludes my presentation. I believe 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 131 Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yeah. I move approval. COMMISSIONER ROY: second. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It'S been moved by Commissioner Mulroy and seconded by Commissioner Roy that Item No. 11 on our Agenda be approved. Any further, questions or clarification? Seeing none, please, vote. Motion carries 6-0. Thank you, Mr. Kavanagh for your brevity. has been removed from our Agenda and has to a ~ccrtain which is April 24th. the Agen&~s changed via the direction of Colmnission.--x~ds° we will now have 14 and then we'l. 1 ha,ve I~ J_3 and the items on our Agenda. So Item~ at this time. MS. RATCLIFF: evening we have a case that was ~City of Denton. This is to rezon~ at 722 Wesf~ak Street. The request is.. to~o_n.e t NR-3 from MF-I, ~-family zoning~rict. The proposed zoning of NR-3 is~ co ~iance with the Denton Development Plan. Th~ ~ :kup material in your packets. Al.s.o~as~ an updated property owner response list. We have eight '~x Page 130 1 the applicant, Peter Kavanagh of Zone Systems is present 2 and available for further questions. 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Kavanagh, would 4 you care to present? 5 MR. KAVANAGH: Mr. Chairman, members of the 6 Commission, my name is Peter Kavanagh. My address is 1620 7 Handley Drive. I'd first like to request an amendment to 8 the time allou2ent for my case to one minute. That will 9 be 30 seconds for me and 30 seconds in the opposition. 10 Our request is for approval subject to the site plan -- 11 COMMISSIONER RISUEU: The Comaxfisslon will 12 make that decision. 13 MR. KAVANAGH: okay. Request approval 14 subject to the site plan. Thank you. 15 COMMISSIONERRISHEL: Thank you, sir. Once 16 again, this is a public hearing. And I have one card and 17 that was Mr. Kavanagh's card. And we had been requesting 18 previously and I will restate this. Anyone who would like 19 to speak if you would please fill out a yellow card so 20 we'd know that you'd like to address the Cotmnission we'd 21 · appreciate it. This is a public hearing and I have no 22 other cards, so I will close the public hearing at this 23 time. And is there any further comments from staff? 24 MR. ORACE: staff has no further cotmnents. 125 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you vc~y much. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 i1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 will which is six entertain any responses of people that were within 200 feet. And we have one response from -- thc courtesy notice that outside of the 200 feet, within 500 feet. The 'owner is in opposition to this request. when it goes to the City Council after from the Planning and or ' vote the seven members, be happy to as that any questions of Ms. Ms. Ratcliff. Once again, this is a public just as a reminder, this is Itmn No. 14 on our and this is a public hearing, would they like to present? The City is I have several cards of that would speak. Commissioner ROY: Yes. like to ask a COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Please. COMMISSIONER ROY: The owner of the requested that this be deferred, this discussionXxxx is that correct? _. MS. RATCLIFF; He had requested that City Council postpone this. And it's my understanding PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 129 - Page 132 Attachment 7 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER ON 0.7 ACRES OF LAND DESCRIBED AS LOT 3, BLOCK K OF THE EAST INDUSTRIAL PLAZA ADDITION AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1911 VIRGINIA STREET, WITHIN AN EMPLOYMENT CENTER-COMMERCIAL (EC-C) DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z02-0001) WHEREAS, Zone Systems, on behalf of Cingular Wireless, has applied for a specific use permit for a telecommunications tower on 0.7 acm of land described as Lot 3, Block k of the East Industrial Plaza Addition, commonly known as 1911 Virginia Street (the "Property"), within an Employment Center-Commercial (EC-C) zoning district classification and use designation; and WHEREAS, on April 10, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of a Specific Use Permit for a telecommunications tower; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Specific Use Permit is consistent with The Denton Plan; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 35.6.5 of the Denton Development Code, the City Council finds that all of the following conditions exist: The specific use will be compatible with and not injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property nor significantly diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity; The establishment of the specific use, a telecommunications tower, will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property; Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary supporting facilities have been or will be provided; The design, location, and arrangement of all driveways and parking spaces provides for the safe and convenient movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic without adversely affecting the general public or adjacent developments; Adequate nuisance prevention measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise, and vibration; Proposed lighting will be provided so as not to disturb or adversely affect neighboring properties; and Them is sufficient screening to ensure harmony and compatibility with adjacent PAGE 1 property; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. A specific use permit is hereby granted to allow a telecommunications tower on the Property, within an Employment Center-Commercial (EC-C) zoning district classification and use designation, in accordance with the site plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit SECTION 2. The City's official zoning map is amended to show the change in zoning district classification. SECTION 3. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the 14th day of May, 2002. EUL1NE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY PAGE 2 lillff I This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #40 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET May 14, 2002 Planning Department CM/DCM/ACM: David Hill, 349-8314 SUBJECT - Z01-0048 (The Fintage) Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance amending the Concept Plan for Planned Development 139 (PD-139). The approximately 400 acre site, commonly known as The Vintage, is located east of Interstate 35W along both sides of Vintage Boulevard west of Bonnie Brae. An amendment allowing filling of the floodplain to develop additional single-family dwellings, gas well operations, and amenity centers is proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial for additional residential lots, and approval with conditions to allow gas well operation and amenity center land uses (6-0). (Z01-0048) (The Vintage, Amended Concept Plan) BACKGROUND Applicant: Charles Jowell, Arlington, TX Section 35.1.5.B of the Development Code designates Planned Development 139 (PD-139) as one of the planned developments that can continue to develop according to the PD-139 approved zoning conditions. This request would allow for the reclamation of approximately 6 acres of the Roark Branch floodplain to develop approximately 35 additional residential lots, and amenity centers and gas well operation as permitted uses in the Planned Development 139. The exact location will be determined at the Detailed Plan stage. As of this writing, staff has received one (1) response in favor of the zoning request from a property owner within the city limits, and two (2) responses in opposition from property owners outside the city limits. The applicant has appealed the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation regarding the filling of the floodplain to develop additional single-family lots. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Deny. 3. Postpone consideration. 4. Table item. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial for additional residential lots, and approval to allow gas well operation and amenity center land uses with the following conditions (6-0): 1. Gas well development shall comply with Subchapter 35.22 of the Development Code. 2. The location of any structure or apparatus related to gas well operations, within dedicated parkland, shall be compatible with future plans for the parkland area. 3. Location of gas wells shall be disclosed to any prospective homebuyers. 4. Amenity centers shall not be located in a floodplain area. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE A portion of the subject property is platted. A final plat is required prior to the issuance of any building permits. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology of Z01-0048, commonly known as The Vintage: Application Date - DRC Date- P&Z Dates - Neighborhood Meeting December 3,2001 December 13,2001 March 13, 2002 March 27, 2002 None FISCAL INFORMATION Development of this property will increase the assessed value of the city. short-term public improvements that are the responsibility of the city. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Maps 3. Amended Concept Plan 4. Property Owner Responses 5. March 27, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 6. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 13, 2002 7. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 27, 2002 8. Draft Ordinance Prepared by: It will require no Deborah Viera, AICP Planner II Respectfully submitted: Douglas S. Powell, AICP Director of Planning and Development ATTACHMENT 1 Staff Analysis Summary_ of Zoning Request The applicam is requesting the addition of amenity cemers and gas well operations as permitted land uses (idemified in bold text below), and the reclamation of approximately 6 acres of the Roark Branch floodplain to develop approximately 35 additional residemial lots. The following chart summarizes the proposed land uses per designated areas. AREA APPROVED LAND USES AMENDED LAND USES A Residemial (SF-7) Residemial (SF-7), Amenity Centers B Open Space (Not dedicated) Gas Well Operations C Neighborhood Services Neighborhood Services D Neighborhood services Neighborhood Services E Residemial (SF-7) Residemial (SF-7), Amenity Centers F Parkland (Dedicated) Parkland, Gas Well Operations G Commercial Commercial, Gas Well Operations H Commercial Commercial, Gas Well Operations I Commercial Commercial, Gas Well Operations J Right of Way Right of Way K Parkland Parkland L Public School, Park Public School, Park M Residential Residential, Gas Well Operations The applicam is proposing gas well sites on 6 differem areas depicted on the Amended Concept Plan as Areas B, F, G, H, I, and M. (see Attachmem 5) Area F has been proposed as a parkland area, dedicated to the City, and for a gas well site. The gas well operations located on the parkland will not violate any of the city gas well ordinances. However, the net area for parkland purposes will be decreased. The gas well sites will be in operation prior the developmem of residemial and commercial areas (Areas G, H, I, and M). The exact location and sizes of each gas well site will be determined at the Detailed Plan stage. The drilling of wells and the production of natural gas will be monitored and regulated in accordance with the regulations set forth by the Railroad Commission of Texas, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, and the City Gas Well Ordinance, and Fire Code. The applicam is conducting a detailed drainage study to redefine the limits of the Roark Branch floodplain. Upon review and approval of the study, the revised floodplain boundaries would redefine the limits of development. However, the applicant is also proposing to reclaim portions of the floodplain, which is in direct conflict with the policies established in the DeNon Plan (see Comprehensive Plan Analysis) and Developmem Code. Existing Condition of Property_ Property History. March 5, 1991 - The subject property was placed in the Planned Developmem 139 (PD- 139) zoning district and land use classification by Ordinance 91-034. The DeNon Developmem Code, approved on February 20, 2002, designates PD-139 as a special exception providing that all approved zoning conditions prior the adoption of the Code are still valid. Adjacem zoning. North: Neighborhood Residemial 2 (NR-2) South: Extra-territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) East: Neighborhood Residemial 2 (NR-2), Neighborhood Residemial 6 (NR-6), and Extra-territorial Jurisdiction (ET J) West: Community Mixed-use Employmem (CM-E), and Community Mixed-use General (CM-G) Comprehensive Plan Analysis Portions of the subject site are located within the "Neighborhood Centers" future land use area. These areas may develop in conventional patterns or may be developed in a pattern of 'neighborhood cemers'. Neighborhood cemers are oriemed inwardly, focusing on the cemer of the neighborhood and comaining facilities vital to the day-to-day activity of the neighborhood. A neighborhood center might contain a convenience store, small restaurant, personal service shops, church or synagogue, daycare, individual office space, a small park and perhaps an elementary school. Parcels with frontage on Interstate 35W are located within the "Community Mixed-Use Activity Centers" future land use area. The focus area of a community activity cemer comains the shopping, services, recreation, employmem, and institutional facilities that are required and supported by the surrounding community. Thus, a community activity cemer could comain a supermarket, drug store, specialty shops, service stations, one or more large places of worship, a community park, midsize offices, and employers, high- to moderate- density housing, and perhaps an elememary or middle school. It includes vertically imegrated uses where differem uses may occur on each floor of the building. Portions of the subject site are located within the "Floodplain/Environmental Sensitive" land use area. Areas of environmemally sensitivity will be protected from developmem impacts. Environmemally sensitive areas should be an overlay district to all land use designations. There may be some uses allowed within some areas and none in others, dependem on the environmemal analysis. The undeveloped floodplain areas represem a unique opportunity to preserve an importam natural feature of the community while meeting significant community goals such as the prevemion of developmem in the floodplain subject to flooding; protection of adjoining and downstream property from erosion; conservation of natural habitats for wildlife; and maimenance of the quality of the city's supply (page 58 of the DeNon Plan). The proposed floodplain reclamation is not compatible with The DeNon Plan. Development Review Analysis Transportation Trip Generation. The 35 proposed additional residemial lots would generate approximately 340 additional trips per day. No TIA will be required for the additional residemial lots. The gas well, once drilled and in operation, will require periodic maiNenance, but this should not have a major effect on surrounding property nor cause a substaNial increase in traffic. Access. The developmeN will have access from the existing ViNage Boulevard. Gas well operations will have access from Bonnie Brae and the ViNage Boulevard. Road Capacity The DeNon Mobility Plan ideNifies the ViNage Boulevard as a Primary Major Arterial street. The street is designed to be a six (6) lane divided street without parking, providing six (6) lane of through traffic. As such, its designed traffic capacity allows for a traffic flow of up to 27,900 trips per day. There are no traffic couNs available for this street. The Denton Mobility Plan identifies Bonnie Brae as a Local Street. The street is designed to be a two (2) lane undivided street without parking, providing two (2) lane of through traffic. As such, its designed traffic capacity allows for a traffic flow of up to 9,100 trips per day. There are no traffic counts available for this street. It is aNicipated that the existing road capacity is sufficieN to accommodate the proposed development. Environmental Quality Impacts The drilling of the wells will likely create environmeNal impacts in terms of noise and odor. However, no resideN will be living near these well until the drill is completed so these impacts will be minimal. Clean-up of drilling sites is required under the Railroad Commission regulations. Once the drilling is completed and the wells are in operation, environmeNal impacts are expected to be minimal. The Roark Branch floodplain reclamation would decrease the total area in natural condition, which reduces the area for coNaining flooding evens, and may have an effect on water quality. The Detailed Plan will address the requiremeNs for pedestrian linkages, utilities, topography, signs, landscaping, open space, and lighting. DevelopmeN Code/Zoning Analysis The approximate 35 additional resideNial lots will increase slightly the density of Area E. The new density for Area E will be 3.6 units per acre compared to 3.5 units per acre as approved previously. Amenity ceNers are typical community uses that resideNial developmeNs provide for homeowners. Community ceNers are complemeNary to resideNial subdivisions. The proposed gas well sites will decrease the total area for parkland, commercial, open space (not dedicated), and multi-family developmeN. As this is a Planned developmeN, the details of the proposed gas wells will be considered with a Detailed Plan submission. If this property were not a Planned DevelopmeN, gas wells would be subject to the requiremeNs of Subchapter 22 (Gas Well Drilling and Production) of the DevelopmeN Code. However, it is anticipated that those regulations would be utilized as a guideline to review the proposed gas well developmeN within this Planned DevelopmeN. STAFF CONCERNS Gas Wells: In the event that the Planning and Zoning Commission considers approving this request, staff would recommend the following conditions: 1. No structure related to gas well operations shall be located in the floodplain. 2. The location of any structure or apparatus related to gas well operations, within dedicated parkland, shall be compatible with future plans for the parkland area. 3. Location of gas wells shall be disclosed to any prospective homebuyers. Floodplain: The Demon Plan idemifies Floodplains/Environmemally Sensitive Areas as areas that should not be disturbed. ATTACHMENT 2 Maps NORTH Location/Zoning Map Scale: None NORTH Land Use Map Scale: None Public Notification NORTH Notification Map Notification Ft. Notificat Newspaper Notification Date: March 2, 2002 200' Legal Notices* sent via Certified Mail: 500' Courtesy Notices* sent via 1st Class Mail: Number of responses to 200' Legal Notice · In Opposition: 2 (Outside City Limits) · In Favor: 1 · Neutral: 0 11 14 Percent of land within 200' in opposition: 0 % Scale: None *A copy of the notification list can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 ATTACHMENT 3 NORTH At:tachmcnt 3 10 ATTACHMENT 4 Property Owner Responses Property Owner Name and In favor Comments Address /opposed* Ted R. Ezzell (Joab Partners) Favor No Comments (Within City Limits) Lance Crawford, Opposed I am against the drilling of gas wells. If there 4325 S. Bonnie Brae (Outside City is a break in the gas line underground it will Limits) contaminate the drinking water. All of the homes on south Bonnie Brae have water wells that feed from the Piluei Water Basin. There is too much risk if you allow the drilling to take place. Rance G. Saint John, Opposed Do not wish to have gas wells or drilling; that 3821 S. Bonnie Brae (Outside City it may contaminate my water well since it is Limits) the only source of water for us. 11 /-~ I I/-~.,,r-IIVIr-I~l I ~ Agenda Number 02 0006 Agenda Item ~06 Case Manager Deborah Viera PLANNING 8,: DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: ATTACHMENTS: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DEBORAH VIERA, AICP THE VINTAGE AMENDED CONCEPT PLAN (Z01-0048) 03.27.02 ROARK BRANCH FLOODPLAIN EXHIBIT 200 & 500 FT. NOTIFICATION LISTS MARCH 13, 2002 P&Z STAFF REPORT The Planning and Zoning Commission continued the public hearing for the proposed amendment to the concept plan to allow staff time to review new drainage information pertaining to the redefinition and reclamation of the Roark Branch floodplain. The Commission also requested additional information about the neighborhood notification. FLOODPLAIN ISSUES During the course of this PD, three separate policy documents: the 1988 Denton Development Plan, 1998 Denton Plan Policies and now the 1999 Denton Plan have been in effect. At each review, the most recent adopted policy document was used to govern that review. Below is a historical overview of the applicable floodplain policies used to analyze this project. The first Concept Plan for Planned Development 139 (PD-139) was approved on March 5, 1991, by Ordinance 91-034 and included the following statement addressing open space: "Open Space. The open space in the district shall contain 15% (or over one-seventh) of the gross land area in the existing 450.6 acre tract. The open space will consist of at least all Roark Branch Floodway and those flood prone areas generally north of the first USGS elevation 576 contour which is south of the original channel of Hickory Creek. The areas along the edge of the original channel of Hickory Creek will provide an ideal alignment and location for a future "hike/bike/pedestrian" trail." The graphical representation of the concept plan shows 28.10 acres along the Roark Branch as open space. The approval of the first concept plan was under the 1988 Denton Development Plan, which addressed the floodplains as areas for potential open spaces and park areas but was not clear about the preservation of the floodplains. The following quotes from 1988 Denton Development addressed this issue: · "Neighborhood parks and open spaces may include natural areas such as flood plains and lakes." (page 66) · "The Committee felt strongly that maximum utilization of floodplain areas for parks and open spaces should be encouraged. The general concept is that there should be a continuous belt of open spaces and park land with adequate landscaping so as to provide facilities for organized games, picnics, ball fields, bikeways, hiking, jogging, and pedestrian trails." (page 67) City of Denton, Planning and Development 221 N. Elm, Denton, Texas 76201 ww~w~T, cityo fdento n. corn (940) 349 8350 fax: (940) 349 7707 -1- "The following locations are recommended [for greenbelts/linear parks]: Areas along Hickory Creek from the Municipal Airport to Lake Lewisville." (page 68) "It is the policy of this Plan to emphasize the conservation of energy and natural resources in land use decision making. Detailed policies are to be developed to encourage the conservation of water, electricity and natural gas. It is also important to promote the conservation of good agricultural land and green belts and open spaces." (page 80) On September 7, 1999, the City Council approved an amendment to the concept plan. The 1999 amended concept plan provided approximately 39.6 acres along the Roark Branch as a greenway corridor and parkland (not dedicated) to be preserved in a natural environment. North of the greenway corridor some floodplain was allowed to be reclaimed. However, the majority of the reclaimed floodplain was also designated as a drainage easement that would not allow any development within the easement. The 1999 amended concept plan was approved under the 1988 Denton Development Plan and the 1998 Denton Plan Policies. The purpose of the 1998 Denton Plan Policies was to be used in conjunction with the 1988 Denton Development Plan in evaluating the consistency of proposed development with the long-range vision of the city. The 1998 Denton Plan Policies included several policies addressing the floodplain issues: · "Policy IV.L.2: The city's regional, community, and large neighborhood park system should tie into a greenbelt park and recreation system in and along floodplains. Emphasis should be placed on park land acquisition within and/or contiguous to the floodplain." · "Policy IV.L.3: While other uses will be permitted, a particularly appropriate use of the floodplain is as greenbelt. Greenbelt uses include passive and active recreation; conservation, non-development of the most sensitive and flood hazardous areas; pedestrian, equestrian and bike ways; agricultural uses; wildlife habitat; drainage ways; and as buffers between different land uses. The most appropriate use should be determined based on detailed analysis of the environmental value of a particular floodplain and the impact of a particular use." · "Policy IV.L.4: Building construction and filling of unchannelized floodways must be strictly regulated and may be prohibited by regulations." · "Policy IV.L.5: Building construction and filling of the areas between the floodway and the limits of the floodplain (the floodplain fringe) will be allowed where environmental degradation is slight, the existing character of the particular floodplain is maintained, or a natural character is enhanced." · "Policy IV.L.7: Major channelization of floodways should be prohibited except where no other reasonable means of floodwater conveyance is available or where it is needed to provide mitigation for existing flooding and water quality improvement." · "Policy IV.L.8: Retain in their natural state those wetlands having value for water retention, storm water pollution mitigation, wildlife habitat and open space/recreational opportunities." · "Policy IV.L.10: As a means to reduce flooding by increasing times of concentration of flood waters, to mitigate water pollution, and to control erosion, the most desirable drainage design approach is to allow low velocity sheet flow of urban runoff across vegetated greenbelts prior to the runoff reaching the stream channel." The 1999 Denton Plan's policies regarding Floodplain/Environmentally Sensitive areas stress the need of keeping the floodplain areas in their natural conditions. (See March 13, 2002 P&% Staff Report) Overall, the City's position concerning management of floodplain areas has been increasingly limiting the activities within floodplains allowed by right. The 1988 Denton Development Plan was silent on floodplain and storm water/drainage issues besides encouraging the use of floodplain areas as greenbelts and park lands. With the adoption of the 1998 Denton Plan Policies, the City strengthened the requirements for the development of the floodplains and adopted a conservational attitude toward the floodplain areas. The 1998 Plan also provided policies for prohibiting the development of floodways. Finally, the 1999 Denton Plan provides for comprehensive policies concerning floodplain and the potential impacts on the quality of water, natural ecosystems, storm water pollution, and scenic views. The applicant submitted new floodplain/drainage information on March 19, 2002. No staff comments were available at the time when this report was written. Comments will be provided at the public hearing. NEIGHBORHOOD NOTIFICATION As a part of the notification process, eleven (11) property owners within the city limit and within 200 feet of the subject site were notified. According to the Local Government Code, only property owners within the city limits are required to be notified. One (1) property owner within the city limits and 2 property owners outside the city limits submitted responses. Copies of the responses were provided to the Commission at the last meeting. Additionally, staff notified fourteen (14) residents within 500 feet of the subject site. Staff has requested the certified mail receipts to the mail subcontractor. Staff will provide copies of the receipts to the Commission when they become available. ~ ~LN~NH3V~LLV OWNER NAME AP LAND INV LTD P/S CALVARY CATHEDRAL OF FT. WORTH DENTON CJW PARTNERS LTD HENDERSON, MARVIN EST TRUST JOAB PARTNERS LiP KOONCE, BEN K & REBECCA L PETRUS INV LP PIERCE PHILIP L SOUTHWEST DENTON J/V ST JOHN, RANCE G & JUDITH A YUEN, RUSSELL L ETAL ATTACHMENT 2 200 Ft. Notification List MAILING ADDRESS 12770 COlT RD STE 1170 1600 W 5TH ST % MICHAEL A CASEY PO BOX 74 % W MICHAEL GREEN 4365 S BONNIE BRAE 12377 MERIT DR STE 1700 530 E HICKORY HILL RD C/O BRUCE H. HARBOUR INC 3821 S BONNIE BRAE ST 81 IDORA AVE ADDRESS 2 CITY ST DALLAS TX FORT WORTH TX 722 N FIELDER RD ARLINGTON TX JUSTIN TX 1501 W RANDAL MILL ARLINGTON TX ARGYLE TX DALLAS TX ARGYLE TX 5400 LYNDON B JOHNSON F DALLAS TX ARGYLE TX SAN FRANCISCO CA ZIP CODE 75251-1317 76102-1846 76012-4635 76247-0074 76012 76226-9802 75251-2240 76226 75240-1021 76226-2425 94127-1057 500 Ft. Notification List OWNER NAME MAILING ADDRESS AP LAND INV LTD P/S 12770 COlT RD STE 1170 CALVARY CATHEDRAL OF FT. WORT~ 1600 W 5TH ST DENTON CJW PARTNERS LTD ERWIN, JOE M HENDERSON, MARVIN EST TRUST JOAB PARTNERS L/P KOONCE, BEN K & REBECCA L MEADOR, TERRI J & PETRUS INV LP PIERCE PHILIP L SOUTHWEST DENTON J/V ST JOHN, RANCE G & JUDITH A WILKES, MONT L & EMRIE A YUEN, RUSSELL L ETAL % MICHAEL A CASEY 1221 PRINCESS LN PO BOX 74 % W MICHAEL GREEN 4365 S BONNIE BRAE ROBERT HAMMER 12377 MERIT DR STE 1700 530 E HICKORY HILL RD C/O BRUCE H. HARBOUR INC 3821 S BONNIE BRAE ST 141 SPRINGFIELD LN 81 IDORA AVE ADDRESS 2 722 N FIELDER RD 1501 W RANDAL MILL 3895 CORBIN RD 5400 LYNDON B JOHNSON FWY STE CITY ST DALLAS TX FORT WORTH TX ARLINGTON TX HURST TX JUSTIN TX ARLINGTON TX ARGYLE TX DENTON TX DALLAS TX ARGYLE TX DALLAS TX ARGYLE TX ARGYLE TX SAN FRANCISCO CA ZIP_CODE 75251-1317 76102-1846 76012-4635 76053-4219 76247-0074 76012 76226-9802 76207-4706 75251-2240 76226 75240-1021 76226-2425 76226 94127-1057 ATTACHMENT 6 P&Z Commission Minutes March 13, 2002 15. Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council concerning the Amended Concept Plan for Planned Development 139 (PD-139). The approximately 400 acre site, commonly known as The Vintage development, is located east of Interstate 35W along both sides of Vintage Boulevard west of Bonnie Brae. An amendment allowing additional single-family dwellings, gas well operations, and amenity centers is proposed. (Z01-0048, The Vintage, Deborah Viera) Motion by Joe Mulroy and seconded by Susan Apple to continue March 27, 2002 P&Z meeting. *Discussion of item is included in the Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Pages 115 - 164). Motion carries 5-1 - Commissioner Bob Powell opposed. Commissioner Bill Keith was not present during voting. CondenseltTM Page That's not a big -- though it is important, belittling it, but I think that's something that can tuickly. 4 And I am going to be voting no against 5 in the for Conunissioncr Powell, is of mere 6 this man has been working on now for 7 a year. the first code -- first come 8 out of the new Code and And I 9 was told that this supposed to 10 this new Thank you. 11 conmfissioners and 12 audience, I want and I appreciate your 13 patience, that this really is ect 14 we've had under the I appreciate the struggle 15 that the City and the the audience has 16 gone through in ; to how we can work 17 with this and ~ it better. 'Apple. 18 APPLE: I'd just 19 remind that, yes, this has to come 20 back and, yes, the petitioner did come with lan 21 but, a little over two to do this. The neighborhood meeting was the 5th which was over a week ago and yet the information was only forthcoming to staff and to the Co~mnissioners yesterday which was pretty late, in my 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Pa opinion, for us to take full advantage. And I think that the petitioner is in a bind, it is partially due to his fault for not bringing this forth at an earlier you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Any further questions, Seeing no we have floor. moved bl Holt. If no further carries 5-2. (COMMISSIONER · AND KEITH VOTED IN OPPOSITION.) T~k you, Conmnissioncrs. get clarificati~n this. Cmurnission~ pie, normally I would a~xand I would clarify tha~th --that Itean 13 and Itmn 14~,ere brought ~rth separately. Did you bring both o"'~hose together and is that -- . COMMISSIONER APPLE: Yes, my motion wa~ ~o 13 and 14. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Was that what everyone believed that we were -- okay, I wanted to make sure I had clarification on that because it's not like me of the 10th. It's been seconded by Conunissioner vote. The motion )arate those out. ISSIONER APPLE: Than Thank you very break here, if that come back and much. I think meets with meeting at 9:20. (Break taken.) 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: 8eing we have a 9 quorum present, we will go ahead and continue our 10 regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning 11 Cmmnission. And that brings us to Item No. 15 on our 12 Agenda. Itcan No. 15 will be posted on the docucam and 13 Ms. Viera will present. 14 MS. VIERA: colmnission, the applicant is 15 requesting the amen&nent of the concept plan for Planned 16 Development 139. The concept plan encompasses 17 approximately 400 acres. For clarification purposes, Plan 18 139 is one of the PDs able to proceed under the zoning 19 conditions approved prior to the adoption of the 20 Development Code. 21 The amenchnent of the concept plan basically 22 has three components. Components 1 and 2 will be to allow 23 amenity centers and gas well operations as a permitted use 24 in the Planned Development. The third component will be 25 to redefine the floodplain boundary of Roark Branch and 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 116 the reclamation of a portion of the floodplain with the purpose to develop approximately 35 additional single-family lots. In your backup, staff -- I'm sorry -- AttacNncnt No. 1 highlights the area where the uses of gas well operations and amenity center will be allowed. The exact location of the amenity center and the gas well will be determined in a detailed planning stage. A Planned Development requires a detail plan for any proposed use. Gas well operations have been proposed to be located in areas where dedicated park land has been proposed, as well. We have been looking through the different ordinances that we have for gas well operations and having gas well sites on park land would not violate any of our existing ordinances. The applicant is expecting that a new detailed drainage study would redefine the boundary of the floodplain and also he wants to reclaim a portion of the new floodplain. The Denton Plan analysis identified three areas within the PDq ~9, that is Neighborhood Centers, Cormnunity Mixed Use Centers, and Floodplain ESA areas. On page 58 of the Denton Plan, the Code states that an environmentally sensitive area will be protected from development impacts. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 113 - Page 116 CondonseltTM 1 2 3 4 Page 117 The staff believes that the proposed reclmnation of the floodplain is not compatible with the Plan. And I would like to show you what is the area that will be redefined and potentially reclaimed. In the area highlighted in orange, it shows the boundary of the FEMA floodplain and the limits of development. Where the new floodplain boundary is going to run, we don't know yet 5 6 7 8 until a drainage study is submitted to staff. It is my 9 understanding that the applicant has more information 10 about what is the total area that they're planning to 11 reclaim from the floodplain. 12 Staff notified 11 property owners within 13 200 feet of the area. We got two notices from property 14 owners outside thc City limits and one response in favor. 15 Thomas is providing a copy of those notices to you. Those 16 notices were submitted after the staff report was done. 17 Staff still has some concerns about gas wells and 18 floodplain. They are outlined in your backup on page 6. 19 Planned Developments allow you to put any condition that 20 you may understand that they are applicable. If you have 21 any questions, I'm available to answer those. 22 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Commissioners, any 23 questions of Ms. Viera? Any questions of Ms. Viera? 24 Thank you, Ms. Viera. This is a public hearing. And 25 would the petitioner care to present at this time? Page 119 would have to fill a portion of the land down here and then along this area, as well, in order to redesign our single-family, and it would increase the nmnber of lots. Currently, we have 245 lots and then we're asking for 275 lots on the new -- well, what will be 275 on the new detailed plan as far as that goes. But, again, we will not increase or decrease the water elevation either 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 118 MR. JOWELL: I'm Charles Jowell, 1812 Woodridge, Arlington, Texas. Mr. Chairman, Conmfissioners, and staff, I have several exhibits and a little more information than what Ms. Viera had and I'm hoping that 8 upstream or downstream as far as that goes. 9 The amenity centers would be the next 10 issue. And, basically, we're requesting amenity centers 11 be allowed within this eD. 12 The third item would be gas wells being 13 allowed within the eD. It was not an allowable use within 14 this VD. 15 Basically, by redesigning this, and I don't 16 have the redesign, we would add -- a lot of this land is 17 going to be dedicated to the park as we progress with our 18 development and we will have access, better access through 19 the park by allowing for the new design. We'll actually 20 have a street there and we'll have quite a bit of space 21 along the street allowing back into the park area. We 22 also have a school site that's depicted back over in this 23 particular area, and that would give the school site 24 additional street frontage, as well. 25 Again, what we've got is 6.6 acres. Of Page 120 you can see this. Basically, when we zoned this piece of property and originally put thc floodplain elevations on there, these were the FEMA elevations showing the floodplain. We did a study and basically what we had done, we've laid this tract of land out and we had some very deep lots along the Roark Branch. After doing this study, we realized that the floodplain actually moved down quite a bit as far as that goes, and would allow us to reclaim about 3.6 acres out of a total of 6.6 acres of additional land. 2.9 acres of the property is not in the floodplain. Now, we will have to provide and have to be 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 that, 3.6 in the floodplain to be filled. And we'd request that you grant us a variance on that and allow us to fill that, as well as the amenity centers, allow thc amenity centers as a use within our PD. as well as gas approved by the Engineering Department with the City of Denton a detailed plan study, and it's going to be done by Freeze and Nichols out of Dallas, Ron Morrison, the engineer, stating that wc will not increase the water elevation either upstream or downstream of this particular site by doing this fill. This is the area here, kind of the hatch lines run diagonally of additional land that's not in the flood -- that would not have to be filled. We 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wells. I'd be glad to answer any questions that you might have. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: comanissioner Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes, sir, if you could be patient with us and maybe repeat again, you said that the original FEMA line moved. MR. JOWELL: Right. Well, actually, what it was it's an unstudied line. Okay? And the line was basically this red line along here. COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. MR. JOWELL: But once we studied it, the floodplain actually dropped back into this area. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Have you done a LOMAR when you say once you've studied it? MR. JOWELL: Freeze and Nichols is doing a HEC~2 study on all that and we will do a LOMAR, KLOMAR, whatever. We will do everything that it will require for the City engineers and the City of Denton to be assured that we're not increasing or decreasing the upstream or downstream water level. COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. But if you'll PLANNING AND ZON1NG COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 117 - Page 120 CondenseltTM Page 121 bear with me, I'm just trying to clarify your reference points. You had the original line that you're saying was the -- MR. JOWELL: That was on the FEMA map. COMMISSIONER MULROY: -- of-record FEMA 5 6 line. 7 MR. JOWELL: uh-huh. 8 COMMISSIONER MULROY: NOW, you have already 9 undertaken a study and completed a study that has moved 10 that line. Would you show us the second line again? 11 MR. JOWELL: Yes. This would allow us, the 12 floodplain would allow us to pick up this area right in 13 here. Okay? 14 COMMISSIONER MULROY: NOW, let's start 15 over. 16 MR. JOWELL: This was the approximate 17 limits right here. The red line, can you see the red, of 18 Zone A of the 100-year flood map with FEMA. ^nd after 19 doing the study, we increased the floodplain, the limits 20 south. 21 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. But if you'll 22 just bear with me, sir, because we did not have this in 23 our backup. This is one of the major items is the 24 floodplain reclamation. So if you would just indicate 25 with a pointer the first FEMA line of record. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 122 MR. JOWELL: Okay. It would be this line right here. COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. And you -- now, to the south of that, you have already undertaken and completed the engineering drainage study and so now you are going to revise the 100-year floodplain line, and that is your next thick line to the south? MR. JOWELL: Yes. COMMISSIONER MULROY: would you run your pencil across that? MR. JOWELL: This would be the floodplain. COMMISSIONER MULROY: That would be after you filled. I mean, prior to filling. MR. JOWELL: okay. Prior, yes, would be right in here. COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. $o you -- and you will have engineer documentation that that will be, in fact, the revised 100-year line. MR. JOWELL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MULROY: And then you are proposing to fill these new shaped areas. Are your contour lines, are those two-foot contour lines? MR. JOWELL: They're actually -- I'm not certain but I think these are five-foot contours. COMMISSIONER MULROY: SO you're proposing PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH don't -- Page 123 1 to fill 15 to 20 feet? 2 MR. JOWELL: oh, no, no. Then they're 3 wrong. We've got an average fill in hem of about five 4 feet. Okay? A high of seven and between seven and about 5 four feet fill. I'm not certain about the contour lines. 6 You've asked 1ne questions -- 7 COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, I'll be glad to 8 look at it when we are sure. 9 MR. JOWELL: okay. 10 COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: IS someone on your 11 staff sure about the contour lines? 12 MR. JOWELL: well, just a second here. I 13 can figure it out pretty quick. Those are one-foot 14 contours. Okay? 15 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Pardon me? 16 MR. JOWELL: Those are one-foot contours. 17 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. You're sure 18 that they're one-foot contours? 19 MR. JOWELL: I'm certainly relatively sure 20 of that. 21 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. Well, I 22 23 24 25 MR. JOWELL: Let me say this, I'm not an engineer and the engineer that is with us had an addition to thc family and she is unable to be here tonight so I'm Page 124 1 kind of filling in and some of the things that Fin telling 2 you -- 3 COMMISSIONER MULRO¥: well, do you think 4 she'd be available in two weeks? 5 MR. JOWEL[: she probably would. 6 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. Thank you. 7 MR. JOWELL: But if you'll look at the 588 8 elevation and then come over here at 590, it's right here. 9 COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, see, the 10 problem is I can't look at -- I don't have that -- 11 MR. JOWELC: okay. What I'll be glad to do 12 is I'll be glad to bring elevations in here and give you a 13 handout so you can specifically see for yourself. 14 COMMISSIONER MU[.RO¥: well, I really 15 apologize for being a little bit short but we were not 16 privy to this infommtion. We do not have this 17 information other than this blow-up and so we have not had 18 time to study it. 19 MR. JOWE[[: okay. That would be fine. 20 I'II tell you what I'll do. I will bring exhibits showing 21 the exact contours and the contours will be marked, if 22 that would be -- 23 COMMISSIONER MULROY: That would be -- I'm 24 trying to determine the depth of our fill since your -- 25 MR. JOWEnL: sure. And I'm telling you 13TH, 2002 Page 121 - Page 124 CondcnseltTM Page 125 1 that our fill, based one take off that I had, is an 2 average fill of about five, five and a half feet. But I 3 will specifically give you some material that will show 4 you the exact fills, if you'd like, sir. 5 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Good. And my next -- 6 I would, before I would be ready to vote on it. 7 MR. JOWELL: All right. That I certainly 8 can do. 9 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Then my next question 10 would be proportionality on this reclamation, 11 understanding that it would not raise the flood level but 12 in proportion to your total floodplain, what percentage 13 are you wanting to reclaim? 14 MR. JOWELL: Percent of it? I can do that. 15 That's not a problem. 16 COMMISSIONER MULROY: And then the actual 17 ground cover there, are we talking about trees or are you 18 just talking just grassland? 19 MR. JOWELL: I'll tell you what I'll do. 20 I'll actually go out and take pictures of it and bring you 21 some pictures. 22 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Thank you. 23 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And will your Freeze 24 and Nichols' study be completed by then? 25 MR. JOWELL: Part of it will. Part of it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 126 might not. But I will have Freeze and Nichols specifically here. I'll have their engineers here, sir. But as I said previously, whatever that we do will be predicated on the City of Denton Engineering Department approving our study. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Director Powell. MR. POWELL: I don't want to speak for the Engineering Department but I'm sure that they would like to see that. If you would like us to analyze this new information, and we do not have a copy of this map, it would actually need to be given to us prior to the meeting date. MR. JOWELL: In other words, you would like for the studies to be analyzed before -- let me ask this question then. Can we move forward on portions of this, maybe continue the floodplain and move forward with the mnenity centers? We have a builder on the north side that wants to start an mnenity center rather quickly. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Let US confer for a second and we're going to -- MR. JOWELL: Okay. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Co~mttissioners, any further questions of Mr. Jowell? MR. JOWELL: I'd like another item, too, let me mention, too. Also, we'd like to move forward with Page 127 1 our gas wells. And if we have to have the study completed 2 and analyzed by the Engineering Department, then that's 3 fine to continue that part of it. But I would like to 4 continue on with the gas wells and the amenity centers. 5 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I have several 6 questions. Let me let Director Powell respond, if he 7 would. 8 MR. POWELL: well, I'd like to remind you 9 that this is an amendment to a concept plan and there are 10 three components. Any of those can move forward. If the 11 applicant so chose to only ask for two of them to move 12 forward or ask for you to vote on two of them, that third 13 one would need to come back and open up a separate 14 application and we could get it through the system. 15 The other thing you might want to consider 16 is since this is a PD, it is a two-step process. It is a 17 concept plan followed by a detailed plan. I'm not 18 suggesting but there is the opportunity to somewhat put 19 off the issue until the detailed plan stage, such as for 20 the floodplain, you can say conceptually you may agree to 21 it depending upon the detailed infonnation that's part of 22 a detailed plan submittal. 23 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And let me just make 24 the statement that this is a public hearing, first of all, 25 so we not only listen -- we need to listen to the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 128 petitioner but we have some people that would like to speak either for or against the petition. MR. JOWELL: Can I ask one question, sir? COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Before we bring forward a motion on that, I'd like to make sure we hear from the public. MR. JOWELL: what I'm hearing then, conceptually this could be approved, and then with the detailed plan then we would prove up everything. Is that correct? At that time when we submit the detailed plan, then the Engineering Department, in essence, you could, in fact, agree to this conceptually, but you're going to see a detailed plan. Then you have an opportunity at the detailed plan to get all the specifics. Am I correct on that? COMMISSIONER RISHEL: HOW much time would you need to develop that? MR. JOWELL: oh, the detailed plan, I'm probably looking -- probably I'll file it, once this goes -- does this go to the City Council? The concept plan, once it goes to City Council, I'd come back and file the detailed plan. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And does that give you enough time to get the Freeze and Nichols' study? MR. JOWELL: It will, from that time PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 125 - Page 128 Condcns¢ltTM Page 129 1 because what I'll do is -- I mean, if conceptually this is 2 approved, then when will it go to -- Mr. Powell, when 3 would it go to City Council? 4 MR. POWELL: ^pproximately a month from now 5 would be the -- 6 MR. JOWELL: oh, yeah. That would give us 7 time then to get everything square and then reille the 8 detailed plan with all the exhibits and all. 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: why don't you finish 10 your presentation? 11 MR. JOWELL: Okay. I'm finished, 12 basically. I'd be glad to answer any additional 13 questions you might have. 14 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: con-nnissioner Roy. 15 COMMISSIONER ROY: JLlst a cmmnent on the 16 floodplain. I'm going to have to have a lot of convincing 17 before I'm going to agree to filling in the floodplain, i18 but I understand there's going to be a lot of studying on 19 that. You talk about us approving the amenity centers 20 issue tonight. I need more information. Where is the 21 mnenity center and what is the change in the -- I don't 22 understand. 23 MR. JOWELL: well, there will be an amenity 24 center in the single-fmrdly to thc north and an amenity 25 center in the single-fmnily to the south. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 130 Page 131 1 that, conceptually, mnenity centers would be allowed in 2 the residential components of this development, that gas 3 wells would be allowed, and then potentially additional 4 single-family lots would be allowed. And all the details 5 associated with that would need to come back as detailed 6 plans, separately or together. 7 COMMISSIONER ROY: I guess what I'm 8 concerned about, I think I understood the applicant to 9 indicate that there's somebody ready to take some action 10 based on what we say tonight. And I'm not sure we're 11 ready to approve anything so you can go out and start 12 digging or building or ~- 13 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Cormnissioners, 14 Counselor Snyder, Assistant City Attorney Synder would 15 like to address part of this issue, also. 16 MR. SNYDER: I think it's important to 17 address this concept plan/detailed plan issue because you 18 need to realize that if you do approve the concept plan 19 tonight subject to a study that would differentiate or 20 establish that there would not be an increase in the water 21 flow into the drainage area, what, in essence, you're 22 doing with the concept plan is you are approving the 23 zoning. So you would have to make the condition an 24 objective condition that if it were met at thc detailed 25 plan, it would be approved. You have more discretion at Page 132 COMMISSIONER ROY: could you show you on the chart that I have in front of me where we're talking about? MR. REICnH~d~T: If I could just clarify briefly. Again, as a concept plan, what thc idea of a concept plan is to establish the land uses that would be allowed on this piece of property. When this original concept plan came forward, we said, you know, residential uses would be permitted in the tracts on this property, as well as conunercial and some other uses. What the concept plan would say is that, conceptually, amenity centers would be permitted on this development. And, again, the second step of a detailed plan is to go through -- or of a Po, a Planned Development, is to get a detailed plan approved where the applicant would have to bring forward the site plan, here is exactly where the detailed plan is going. Similarly, the residential component would have to come forward and say, here are the roads, here are the lots, here is where I've affected the floodplain or not affected the floodplain. And the third step of this is saying that gas wells could be a permitted use on here. The next step would be taking a look at the details. Where exactly is it proposed? What distance to the nearest house? And all those details. So the concept plan is merely stating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the concept plan stage. It's more of a legislative function. When you get to the detailed plan stage, we treat it, under our Code, as a legislative function but you have less discretion. So I just want you to be aware of that in your deliberations. Thanks. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Excuse me. Co~rnnissioner Roy, you still have the floor. Is there any -- COMMISSIONER ROY: well, I'm concerned about the floodplain issue and I understand on the gas wells there's some issues about drilling the gas wells in the floodplain. And I have a lot of concerns that, you know, we either need to talk more about this tonight, if we want to try to move forward on it. And I don't think, I can just say now, that I'm not going to be voting for thc floodplain issue. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Commissioner Roy. MS. VIERA: If I may, I would like to clarify the issue of the amenity center. The applicant has submitted an application for a detailed plan for the amenity center for the north part of this development right in here. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Can we get a rnap that PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 129 - Page 132 CondcnscltTM Page 133 1 will bc enough detail that wc can see it? 2 MS. VIERA: Here's the location of the 3 amenity center for the north part of the residential 4 development. 5 COMMISSIONER ROY: where is Vintage Drive? 6 I can't see it. 7 MS. VIERA: This is Vintage Boulevard. 8 COMMISSIONER ROY: SO that's far north 9 section, okay. 10 MS. VIERS: Yes. So this is the proposed 11 location for the amenity center. The applicant has 12 submitted a detailed plan application for us to start 13 reviewing that. However, we cannot proceed with the 14 application until the concept plan allows the amenity 15 center as a permitted use. That's why we brought this 16 application forward and that's why the applicant refers 17 that there's somebody ready to start developing that. 18 However, until the detailed plan for that amenity center 19 is not approved, no development could start. 20 COMMISSIONER ROY: And the amenity plans 21 are acceptable under the -- 22 MS. VIEP,~: For residential? Yes. Amenity 23 centers are compatible with residential uses. Actually, 24 amenity centers are very common uses that new subdivisions 25 are trying to put together as a packet for homeowners. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 134 Page 135 1 don't have it right here in front of me, that you don't 2 need an sue to do gas wells. You can use the i,o process 3 to do than but you still would have to do the development 4 plat -- 5 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And comply with 6 everything else. 7 COMMISSIONER ROY: That's not what the 8 document says. 9 MR. SNYDER: IS that not correct? 10 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Director Powell would 11 like to address that. 12 MR. REICHHART: I can address that. 13 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Yield to Mr. 14 Reichhart. 15 MR. REICHHA_RT: A Planned Development can 16 vary the regulations and the ordinances of the City if 17 it's staled in the approval. The intent would be to 18 follow that ordinance and the condition of approval could 19 be to meet every requirement in that ordinance. But thc 20 PD also would allow you to look at other circumstances and 21 consider something other than what is written in the 22 ordinance. 23 But as with any subdivision, if this came 24 forward, Wilson Ranch, for example, did private drives and 25 a different street section. That didn't follow our Page 136 The second issue of the floodplain, the gas well on the floodplain, let me show you my land use map that is part of your backup, as well. This is the south portion of PD-139. As you see, floodplain is highlighted as a land use within PD-139. Because he is proposing to locate some gas well sites on Section M, and you can compare that with the chart that the staff provided in your backup, the only concern that we have is floodplain should bc out -- I'm sorry, gas wells should be out of the floodplain and that is just a matter of concern. At the detailed plan stage we will double-check that this is actually happening. COMMISSIONER ROY: can I have one more follow-up question on that? COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YOll have the floor, Mr. Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: I understand from the material that because it's a eD that the developer does not have to follow our ordinance for gas well drilling. That's what it said in here. MS. VIERA: It is my understanding that the gas well ordinance will be used to review any gas well proposal. And I believe Mr. Snyder can add to it. MR. SNYDER: I think what it meant, and I 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ~19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 ordinance but it was written into their approval and it's noted and it's written into the approval. So if they vary from the ordinance, we would identify where that variation would occur and it would be up to this body and then eventually the City Council to either approve or deny that variance request with the Planned Development. COMMISSIONER ROY: what are we being asked to approve tonight with regard to the gas wells? MR. REICHHART: That that is a permitted use on this property, not where it's permitted but that gas wells are a permitted use. And we can further go on to say that they will not be permitted in a floodplain. I don't believe the applicant is proposing that but, I mean, we can put additional requirements on that. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: which is what our ordinance says at this point in time anyway. MR. REICHHART: correct. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: SO we'd ask them to comply with everything related to our gas well ordinance. MR. REICHHART: And as part of this approval, we could say gas wells would be permitted as long as they meet the requirements of the gas well ordinance, and then it's done. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: okay. Thank you. Excuse me, I had Mr. Mulroy on my mind, I guess. Mr. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 133 - Page 136 CondcnscItTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 137 Mulroy was next to speak. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I hope not continually. I want to go back to what Director Powell mentioned about conceptually things could be approved conceptually and brought back in the detailed plan. And through the non, al course, I'm in concurrence, but on this issue of reclaiming the floodplain, I'm not. I don't think we have sufficient infon~ation. I don't think our Page 139 we're saying, no, we can't do that because of the new Code, he may have a legal right because he's governed only by the Comp Plan. MR. SNYDER: The other thing, too, that we need to take a look at is it was mentioned at pre-P&Z today that the interim regulations probably apply to this development. I noticed that we called it the detailed plan but it would probably have to meet our interim packet gives us the information and I don't think the applicant is able to relate to us sufficient information and it's not to make a judgment on the reclamation portion. Okay. So in concept we could -- I would not be able to make a judgment tonight because the proportionality is going to be very pertinent or salient 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 regulations, as well, because we did not repeal those as they relate -- and I'm assmning this development is -- what was it -- it had to be over 25 acres. And I can't remember what the floodplain requirmnents were in that. MR. REICHHART: And I'd have to check the original dates of this approval. It might have been one of the approved -- there was date specific that said if to if we would allow anything at all. And my question of staff is will this PD and this request for this concept plan amenchnent, does this fall under the old Code or the new Code? COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Director Powell. MR. POWELL: If I may, it is a named PD under the Development Code so it is following the old regulations. COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. So, therefore, that's why we're referencing the Denton Plan as far as the Page 138 1 prohibiting the reclm2ation of the floodplain area rather 2 than quoting the new Code chapters. 3 MR. POWELL: well, the basis for a zone 4 change should be the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning is 5 the implementation of the Comp Plan. So for a zone 6 change, we want to go back and look and see if there's a 7 policy contained in the Comp Plan. The specific 8 regulations in the Development Code, the new regulations 9 obviously speak directly to that issue. 10 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Right. The new 11 Development Code is very specific on not filling the 12 floodplain and maintaining a natural habitat. The old 13 Code is under the auspices of the environmental sensitive 14 area, to the best of my knowledge, comes under what is 15 said in the Comp Plan, and the Comp Plan does not have a 16 specific prohibition. It just has some what we would like 17 to do. So this gentleman may be legally in thc clear of 18 being able to make this reclamation and that's what I'd 19 like to have that detennination made. 20 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And we don't have 21 enough infonnation to make that type of recolmnendation. 22 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Are you with me, Mr. 23 Snyder? 24 MR. SNYDER: That's true. 25 COMMISSIONER MULROY: So, you know, where 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 your Planned Development or your concept plan was approved after a certain date, I believe this is one of the plans that would not be subject to the interim regulations. MR. SNYDER: okay. So if that's the case, then your statc~ment is correct. It would just be thc Comprehensive Plan. There might be a question about whether we have any regulations to doing this. COMMISSIONER MULROY: That's correct. So on the floodplain area, there's some work for staff to do and some work for the applicant to do before we can take a Page 140 good look at it. MR. SNYDER: Can I point out one other thing here, too? What's this area currently zoned; do you know? No, I mean, the area that's in question, the floodplain. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: it was an old PD. It' s allowed. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Yeah, but what? MR. SNYDER: I krlow, but what is it zoned for, the area that's in the floodplain? MS. VIERA: On that Section M? MR. SNYDER: Yes. MR. POWELL: On page 3. MS. VIEP, A: single-family residential with a maximum density of 12 units per acre. MR. SNYDER: NO, I'm talking about the area that's in the floodplain that he wants to develop. MS. VIERA: Okay. It was shown previously as a greenway corridor/park land. MR. SNYDER: okay. So we could -- this is a legislative act. They originally, I'm assmning, asked for this area to be zoned as a greenbelt so you don't have to rezone the property. It's zoned as a greenbelt. And it was zoned presumably as a package with the original development. So, as I said earlier, the concept plan is a PLANN1NG AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 137 - Page 140 CondenscltTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 141 zoning case so you have broad legislative authority. Now, if you had one single property owner here that was coming forward with a zoning application, he could argue that he was denied development on this property and might have an issue. But because it's part of an overall Planned Development and because they originally had it zoned with this being a greenbelt, and we'll look at it, but you probably have some broad legislative discretion in whether or not to rezone it to single-family. As I understood it, it's now zoned as a greenbelt. But you don't have to change the zoning. But we'll look at it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [0 11 12 Page 143 as a greenway corridor. I, like Cmmnissioner Roy, you know, can't envision filling so we can drill gas wells, filling floodplain. So I am just totally befuddled by this whole case. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Co~ranissioner Apple. Director Powell. MR. POWELL: well, I'm not sure if I can clarify this but in my mind it's clear. Okay. So I'm going to try to impart that onto y'all. On page 3 of the staff rqoort, Attactm~ent 1, there's a table that shows Areas A through M, approved land uses and amended land COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, Mr. Snyder, I'm not talking about changing the zoning. Pill talking about providing permission for reclmmtion of the floodplain. And if it was under the new Code, we have a certain obligation. Under the old Code and under the auspices that this has moved forward as a PD, we may not have any jurisdiction on it. MR. SNYDER: I guess my point is you don't have to grant the zoning at all. So in that way, they cannot reclaim. That was my point. And we'll look at it to see if we think there's an issue here, a legal issue between now and when we come back. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Are you making a Page 142 13 uses. 14 It shows what the concept plan was and then 15 what they want to add in the case. Most of the -- except 16 for the two amenity centers, the gas well operations am 17 added to land that was to be co~mnercial, was to be 18 residential. So it is a combination. 19 Clearly, this case, because it's a eD that 20 was named under the Development Code, is covered by the 21 old Chapter 35 regulations. It is a eD that's being 22 amended, notwithstanding what's in thc Development Code, 23 the new regulations. However, and Mr. Snyder can correct 24 me if I'm wrong, the basis for making that change is a 25 zoning case. Page 144 1 motion that we continue this? 2 MR. SNYDER: NO, but I don't know if I made 3 myself clear and I feel like maybe I didn't. So we'll try 4 to make it clearer when we come back. 5 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. 6 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Thank you very much. 7 COMMISSIONER RIS~EL: Did you get your 8 question answered, Commissioner Mulroy? 9 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes. l0 COMMISSIONERRISHEL: okay. I have several 11 other Commissioners that would like to speak. I want to 12 remind you that this is a public hearing and we have not 13 yet heard from the public. Cmmnissioner Apple. 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I thought that last 15 case was prmnature. I'm thinking this one is really 16 premature. What the gentleman is presenting is not what 17 is in our backup. 18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YOUr question is why 19 is this on our Agenda? 20 COMMISSIONER APPLE: My question is, 21 absolutely, why is this on our Agenda? And I certainly 22 can't make any decisions about this. We can go ahead and 23 hear, you know, certainly, the people who want to talk 24 about it, but, my God, we don't even know what regulations 25 it was undo'. It would seem appropriate that it be zoned 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And as a zoning case, you have great latitude of whether or not you grant zoning. And I would argue that one of the basis for your decision should be to refer back to thc Comprehensive Plan which was in effect prior to even adoption of the Denton Development Code. It does not say that there's -- the Comprehensive Plan does not say that there's an absolute prohibition to filling the floodplains, but it raises it as an issue. Because you have broad authority under rezoning as part of a PD, we think that you have the authority to approve this or deny it or approve it with conditions under the old Code. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Director. Colmnissioner Powell. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since we're giving our coxmnents in form of a question, I'll ask a question. Has anybody else besides me noticed that there's no formal recmmnendation here to go from and that there's no motion here to go from? So, once again -- COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I think you're going to see that to be more of a pattern in the future than -- COMMISSIONER POWELL: But we can't u'lake motions up, sir. I know I'm arguing with you, but I'm doing it in good faith. We can't make motions up on the fly. You've got to give us something to work with here. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 141 - Page 144 CondenseltTM creative. Page 145 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: we think that you're COMMISSIONER POWELL: Bologna. COMMISSIONERRISHEL: Ithink you'll see 5 that to be the trend that we're going to move toward. 6 COMMISSIONER ROY: why? Why is it the 7 trend? 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: well, I think it's 9 probably something we should discuss in a work session and 10 maybe that's something you want to come back to, but I 11 think the posturing that we put this in has sometimes put 12 staff in a position that makes it feel that they're either 13 for a subdivision or against a subdivision or developlnent, 14 and we'd like to avoid that as much as possible. 15 COMMISSIONER ROY: well, I have a lot of 16 concerns with that approach. And rather than airing them 17 now, I would like to discuss this. 18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Appreciate that. You 19 have the floor, Colmnissioner Roy. 20 COMMISSIONER ROY: Yes. It's on the 21 floodplain issue, maybe Director Powell can answer this. 22 For the education of the newer members of the Co~mnission, 23 when has this Conunission ever approved filling in a 24 floodplain? Have there been many cases that this 25 Commission has approved? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 146 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: NO, there have not been many cases. COMMISSIONER ROY: Have there been cases in the last umpteen years that you know of that the Co~runission -- and I'd appreciate maybe later finding out why they approved it. What were the conditions? COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I can't think of any conditions myself unless we have added and subtracted maybe to make sure the floodplain stayed as it was. COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, if I may interject. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Please. COMMISSIONER MULROY: We did just recmmnend filling in the floodplain to solve that gas well problem. So that was a negligible effect on the floodplain or thc purpose of the regulations. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Even within that, we talked about adding and subtracting, where they were getting the borrow from. And we discussed it at length, I think. COMMISSIONER MULROY: But the premise was it wasn't going to raise the water elevation. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Negligible, I think, was the statement. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yeah, it was Page 147 1 negligible. And the disturbance, proportionality of 2 disturbance was pretty negligible so it was a common sense 3 thing to do or it was negative or negligible impact. 4 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I don't remember that 5 specifically and it turned out to be a .063 factor which 6 was extremely small. 7 MR. REICHHART: If I could point out one 8 example, the phase that is under construction now, the 9 northern portion of this single-family phase did reclaim 10 some floodplain. 11 COMMISSIONER ROY: And this Cormnission 12 approved that, knowingly? 13 MR. REICHIqART: Yes, this Commission and 14 City Council. And there are other examples that 15 floodplain has been reclaimed, 16 COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you. 17 COMMISSIONER MULROY: we do also -- Joe, on 18 smaller tracts on infill, we allow channclization and some 19 reclamation in the City. So, generally though, it's 20 discouraged. 21 COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. 22 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further 23 questions, Colmnissioners? 24 Once again, this is a public hearing. Is 25 there anyone who would like to speak either for or against 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 148 this item on our Agenda? This is Item No. 15 on our Agenda and I have a card that says they would like to speak. Is there a Monte or Emery Wilkes. It was written very plainly. I'm not familiar with the name. So if you'd give us your name and address. MS. WIL~CES: Emery Wilkes. I live at 4045 South Bonnie Brae. I live, actually, just across from The Vintage on or right above the flood area on the east side of where The Vintage is. So I'm really concerned about what's going to happen in this area and I think it's a really bad idea. And I have been to several meetings, City Council meetings and Zoning meetings, and I have -- especially City Council has said that, you know, one of the reasons they wanWxl to annex our area and everything was to protect us from any development in these floodways. Well, I'm going to have y'all do this now because it is your job to protect those areas. I see no need. There's 245 houses that are already planned for this area to go to 275. I mean, there's a huge amount of homes at this time being planned to be put in there. Just to add some more and to also affect the floodway, I think is, you know, kind of absurd. There's plenty of homes in that area. I'm also really concerned about the gas PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 145 - Page 148 CondenseltTM Page 149 1 wells. Everybody other than The Vintage homes in that 2 area are on water wells and there is some risk, I think, 3 when there's drilling done that we could have our water 4 wells affected. And I don't know all the details on this 5 but I think it's something that needs to be looked at and 6 definitely is a concern for a lot of the residents in that 7 area. 8 And I have one other request and that is 9 that you postpone this, basically because of lack of 10 notification. I live within the 200-foot notification 11 area and never received a notice and I know that at least 12 six other families have not ever been notified. And there 13 aren't a lot of us. We all have mostly large acreage in 14 this area. 15 And, in essence, it's the majority of 16 people who live within that 200-foot on our Bonnie Brae 17 side, on the east side of that. And I'm not sure why. 18 We've owned this property for about two years and have not 19 ever received a notification about this and I think it 20 would be prudent, according to your own rules, to allow 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Page 151 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, sir. Anyone else who would like -- excuse me, Commissioner Keith. Anyone else who would like to address the Com2nission on Item No. 15 on our Agenda? Anyone else who would like to address either for or against this issue, would you please come forward at this time. Cmmnissioner Keith. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Yeah. I just want to get this clear as to what you're wanting tonight from us again. You have a construction crew out there and you're wanting -- MR. JOWELL: Basically, we're wanting to add as a use NRPD, amenity centers, the ability to drill gas wells, and predicate it on proof that we're not impacting the floodplain, the opportunity to fill this small part of the floodplain. And I didn't bring the studies. I could have brought, I guess, Freeze and Nichols here to explain. But I assumed that under those conditions that we would subnfit our studies to the City and the City would make, the Engineering Department would and make sure that everyone who will be affected by this will find out about it and be able to speak and you can hear their voice on these matters. So for those three reasons, I would ask you to postpone it. And if you are to vote, to vote no, Page 150 1 especially in the floodways and the oil wells, we have no 2 problem with the amenities. We think that would be a nice 3 addition to the subdivision. 4 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YOU would have 5 answered my question when you said you'd been there two 6 years because sometimes our tax records that we draw that 7 information from might be -- 8 MS. WILKES: oh, we're getting om' tax 9 bills. l0 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: -- might be as much 11 as two years old. 12 MS. WILKES: YOU found us on that one. 13 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. Thank 14 you, Ms. Wilkes. 15 MS. WILKES: Thank you. 16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Once again, this is a 17 public hearing. Anyone else who would like to address 18 this Cmmnission, please come forward. If you'd give us 19 your name and address. 20 MR. Gates: Yes, sir. I'm Bob Gates with 21 Lynx Oil Company, 4226 1-35 North here in Denton. I just 22 wanled to address the issue of the water wells. We are 23 one of the more regulated industries in the State and 24 TNRCC absolutely regulates the safety of fresh water zones 25 in that drilling. That should not be an issue at all. 21 make the determination as to whether we could or could not 22 fill, and met the FEMA guidelines. 23 COMMISSIONER KEITH: I think on the latter 24 one, we're going to have to wait until we get that 25 engineering information from you for us to decide on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 152 it. But you mentioned earlier that you're putting in an amenity center and you had someone wanting to start. MR. JOWELL: Right. We have one builder on the north side that's currently building and that we went ahead and filed a detailed plan showing the amenity center that he wishes to build. It's a swim2ning pool and clubhouse and things of that nature. I'd like to move that forward if at all possible. But we have to have, I think, that use approved within the concept plan before we can move forward with it; am I correct? COMMISSIONER RISHEL: counselor Snyder would like to try to clarify. MR. SNYDER: And, Deborah, could you bring forward the current concept plan and put it on the docucam so that we're clear about this? I want to address -- if you don't mind just so we have a clarification, I want to address each of these three issues separately. Let's take the gas wells separately. And I'm going to ask this question very directly. Are you planning on filling in the floodplain for the gas wells? MR. JOWEEL: specifically, we had one site in this area right here which is in the floodplain. MR. SNYDER: SO the answer to that is yes? MR. JOWELL: In one area. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 149 - Page 152 CondcnscltTM Page 153 1 MR. SNYDER: Okay. Now, let's laove on to 2 the issue about reclaiming for the single-fan/lily lots. 3 MR. JOWELL: Right. 4 MR. SNYDER: okay. See that drawing there? 5 This is your current concept plan. You see that line 6 there where it's in orange? 7 MR. JOWELL: Right. § MR. SNYDER: Okay. The bottom line there 9 is the current boundary line between the single-fa/lily and i0 the park. Follow me? 11 MR. JOWELL: Got it. Am I on the witness 12 stand here? 13 MR. SNYDER: NO. I just want to make sure 14 we're current. 15 MR. JOWELL: That is the bottom line. 16 That's exactly right. And you'll notice that some of that 17 floodplain is currently in those lots. 18 MR. SNYDER: Yeah, right, you reclaimed 19 them earlier. Now, 1/ly question is is the part that you 20 want to reclaim, is that going to be into that area that's 21 currently marked as park on the concept plan? 22 MR. JOWELL: Part of it will be. 23 MR. SNYDER: okay. So really what you're 24 asking for in amending the concept plan, you're asking to 25 change a portion of the concept plan from park use to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 154 single-family use. MR. JOWELL: That's correct. MR. SNYDER: okay. MR. JOWELL: NOW let me say this. We've designated that as park. We have not -- and I'd like to make another point here, too. When we originally did this thing, we came in and they agreed to let us fill some items in here for conunercial if we would leave this 20-acre tract donrmnt, not that we were to give it to the Parks Department. There were some misconceptions about that. We never agreed to give this 20 acres to the park. Okay? And didn't designate it as park. And that has COl/le up several times in staff. Our intent was that Councils do change and at some Page 155 1 is. 2 MR. JOWELL: well, he started asking me 3 about the various zoning and this open space was never -- 4 I'm just 1/laking the comment, it was never agreed that we 5 would give that to the City of Denton for park space. 6 When we cm/le in and we wanted to reclaim 7 some of the cmmr~ercial here, we agreed to call this open 8 space and leave it don/lant. Okay. And the reason we did 9 that, that allowed us to fill within the floodplain in 10 this particular area. Okay? That also allowed us to fill 11 in this area here. But at SOl/le point in time, it was our 12 intent possibly, if Council changes and the City's posture 13 changed, to come back and develop that at some point in 14 time. It was never our intent to give that to the City of 15 Denton for park space. And that came up the other day in 16 DRC and it's come up a couple of til/les and I just wanted 17 to clarify that. 18 MR. POWELL: I don't think that was the 19 intent of Mr. Snyder's question. I think his intent was 20 that the floodplain reclan/lation actually is a land use 21 issue outside of the floodplain issue and that they're 22 wanting to decrease the m/lount of park land or open space 23 and increase the amount of lots. So, I mean, it does 24 involve the floodplain -- 25 MR. JOWELL: And, you know, I can't tell 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Page 156 you exactly how much that is until I actually look at the layout and have the engineer calculate the layout, Mr. Snyder. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: SO we could act tonight on the issue of the amenity center. I don't see that as a big issue. It seems like staff is saying that that's okay and so we could act on that. We could also, I think, act on the issue of the use to install gas wells as long as they 1/leet the City ordinances. And, of course, the City ordinance prevents you frol/l installing gas wells in floodplains and have other restrictions that I think we've worked on it and we're comfortable. point in tirne, we very well could have developed this 20-acre tract. So it was to be left as open space and that's what we called it is open space. Okay? MR. SNYDER: what about this down here? MR. JOWELL: It iS Our intent at some point in time to dedicate that to the park, to the City of Denton for a park. And we classified it as such on the plan. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Director, would you care to clarify? MR. POWELL: I'm not sure what the question 15 16 17 118 19 20 21 22 23 !24 And I think on this issue of the water well, we discussed that in some detail and reviewed that and I believe that if the applicant would have the oil company sit down with the residents in the area, I think he could show them very easily why they should not be concerned about at least the well itself. As long as the operation is handled in accordance with our Code, I'm comfortable with that issue and I can understand why the residents would be uncomfortable, but I believe that could be worked by the applicant arranging that discussion. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 153 - Page 156 CondenseltTM Page 157 1 But I don't think we can talk about filling 2 in the floodplain tonight or making any motion on that. 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, 4 Cormnissioner Roy. Co~mnissioner Apple, can you stun this up 5 for us? 6 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Absolutely not. 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I have a question of 9 staff. It says in our backup that 11 notices were sent 10 certified mail to property owners within the 200 feet. Do 11 we have a list of those people and do we have the 12 disposition of those certified letters for Ms. Wilkes' 13 benefit? 14 MS. VIERA: [ can provide a letter, a list 15 of property owners within 200. 16 COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. Thanks. 17 COMMISSIONERRISHEL: co~mnissioners, any 18 further questions or a motion? Let me close the public 19 hearing, if I might. Once again, we are in a public 20 hearing discussion and the petitioner has presented, we've 21 had our discussion, and I will close the public hearing at 22 this time. Coimnissioner Keith, do you have any questions, 23 a clarification? 24 COMMISSIONER KEITH: NO, I'd just like to 25 make a motion, if I may. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 158 COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: Please. COMMISSIONER KEITH: I may need assistance in how to do this. The petitioner is, in essence, asking us for three requests and I think we should -- would it be appropriate if I made a motion that we vote on each one individually? COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YOU have the floor if you want to structure your motion. COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. I make a motion that we vote on his request for amenities, the gas wells, the floodplain each individually and appropriately. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And the motion is? Why don't you put forth one motion at a time. COMMISSIONER KEITH: well, one motion is that I make a motion that we vote on the amenity, to accept it, allow him to move forward for the amenity project. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: IS there a second? COMMISSIONER POWELL: I'll second it. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It's been lllOVed by Colmnissioncr Keith and seconded by Cmmnissioncr Powcll that we move forward with the amenities portion of this proposal. Any further questions or discussion? Co~mnissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: I'lll looking through Page 159 1 here, there's no recommendation, but it's my understanding 2 that staff takes no exception to that and their position 3 is that this is consistent with the Plan. 4 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Director Powell, 5 would you care to clarify in any way, shape, or form? 6 MR. POWELL: That is correct. 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: okay. Commissioner 8 Mulroy. 9 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes, Mr. Chair. I'm 10 going to support that motion but I wasn't quick out of the 11 shoot because my true feeling -- I have doubt on the 12 notification on top of all the other issues. Even though 13 an amenity center is not problematic, still in principle 14 we have the notification. But I'll support this because I 15 don't believe that's very controversial, but the next two 16 I'm going to make a motion that we continue. Thank you. 17 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further 18 discussion? 19 MR. POWELL: May I clarify? 20 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: oirector Powell. 21 MR. POWELL: I want tO make a 22 clarification, and correct me if I'm wrong. I think the 23 applicant has the opportunity to take these three items 24 forward. If one of them or two of them don't go forward, 25 I do believe that they have to open up a new zoning case 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 160 for those because it's a different application, it will be a different request. We can't take -- you know, this has been noticed together and you can't split it at this point in time without creating a new zoning case to represent that split and to renotice. I don't believe that it would need to go back through DRC, the DRC process, so it can get back on P&Z's Agenda subject to the notice requirement. But it would not be, I don't think, the same -- we couldn't keep it as the same -- COMMISSIONER RISHEL: counselor Snyder would like to add to this. MR. SNYDER: I need to make this suggestion because if you make a motion just to approve the amenities, as Mr. Powell said, theoretically the applicant can move forward. And I'm assuming at this point, in essence, you'd be denying the other two aspects of it. So you might want to ask the applicant, so he doesn't have a denial on the other two, if he could come to the podium and he could amend his application just now for the amenities, and that way he wouldn't have to worry about super-majority issue. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Jowell, would you care to address the podimn? Before he does that, did you have a question? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 157 - Page 160 CondenseltTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 161 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes. I just wanted to make a motion to continue all three items for two weeks. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: We have a motion on the floor so I need to find out if Mr. Keith would like to withdraw his motion. COMMISSIONER MULROY: NO. I believe the rules of Robert's when I make the motion, it supersedes the motion on the floor. MR. SNYDER: It does have priority, motion to continue has priority over thc main motion. COMMISSIONER POWELL: SO that basically is an amenchnent -- COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Powell, anything you want to add? COMMISSIONER APeLE: And I'll second his motion. COMMISSIONER KEITH: well, point of order, please. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: cormnissioner Keith. COMMISSIONER KEITH: He was about to come up and amend his petition and the motion could go forward. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: we have a motion on the floor. We have an amended motion on the floor from Connnissioner Mulroy and a second from Colmnissioner Apple. Page 163 1 transpired on filling in floodplain. 2 COMMISSIONER APPLE: well, I'd llke staff 3 to address that because times have changed. And just 4 because something was done in one case to me, doesn't give 5 us carte blanche to repeat it. 6 COMMISSIONER ROY: on this very project. 7 COMMISSIONER ^VVLE: well, but regardless. 8 It was under different times, different knowledge, et 9 cetera. So if staff could address that, I'd appreciate 10 it. l 1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: COlmnissioner Mulroy. 12 COMMISSIONER MULROY: on the floodplain 13 issue, my request of the applicant would bring the 14 information discussed and of the staff to bring a 15 clarification of what rules we would be making our 16 decision under. 17 COMMISSIONER RISt-IEL: I have a continuation 18 motion which supersedes our original motion. Commissioner 19 Keith. 20 COMMISSIONER KEITH: I just want to say to 21 the applicant, I was hoping to make a business decision 22 for him so he could at least proceed on one of them. Can 23 he, once we get past this motion, can we do -- does that 24 just table everything for the next meeting? 25 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: This motion is to Page 162 Any further discussion on the amended motion? Conunissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: I'm not sure, maybe for clarification, if we vote on this, what happens next tonight? I think that it would only be fair for us to somehow smmnarize our current feelings on this issue. Maybe the applicant already understands where we go. But can we provide some guidance of what we expect him to come back with or does staff understand? COMMISSIONER RISHEL: [ think that would be appropriate at this time. Do you want to clarify? COMMISSIONER ROY: well, I can just say what I personally feel, and that is that the amenity center issue is not a big issue to me. Filling in the floodplain was a big issue to me until I found that that this body has already approved it on this very project. And so I assm~e that we'll use the same reasoning and guidance and engineering input that would approve this if it's as the other -- whatever basis was approved the other fill on the floodplain. The third thing on the drilling in the floodplain, I don't think there's any one of us on this body that's going to approve that. So that's my own personal feelings. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It sounds to me like Co~mnissioner Apple would like to clarify for you what has 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 19 20 21 22 23 Page 164 continue everything we have on the table. COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: we have a motion on thc floor. Thc motion was made by Commissioner Mulroy and it was seconded by Co~mnissioner Apple. This is a motion to continue which supersedes our original motion. Any further discussion? Seeing no further discussion, please vote to continue or not to continue at this time. Can we get the vote tally? The vote to continue, is that to continue to a date certain? Let me read the tally and then we'll get your ruling. I have a vote of the Conu~issioners present of five in favor, one opposed, and one not present at this time, Mr. Bill Keith. And Mr. Snyder would like to clarify. (COMMISSIONER POWELL VOTING IN OPPOSITION.) rules, and I guess Mr. Keith isn't here, this is benefit and for all the benefits. ' rules that you can abstain. conflict of tsufficient I think, Dosed to state that on the abstain. And I don't know what happened here but I ' PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 13TH, 2002 Page 161 - Page 164 ATTACHMENT 7 P&Z Commission Minutes March 27, 2002 o Continue a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council concerning the Amended Concept Plan for Planned Development 139 (PD-139). The approximately 400 acre site, commonly known as The Vintage development, is located east of Interstate 35W along both sides of Vintage Boulevard west of Bonnie Brae. An amendment allowing additional single- family dwellings, gas well operations, and amenity centers is proposed. (Z01- 0048, The Vintage, Deborah Viera) Motion by Susan Apple and seconded by Joe Mulroy to recommend approval to City Council with the exception to deny the additional residential lots. *Discussion of item is included in the Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Pages 41 - 105) Motion carries 6-0 ·Ýõrõ ÉjØÉrÚÂÒÓØòôßÇ‹Õ§Qñõ!½:öóõ*/¯ûâÑÊ"€urOÌ õÔnΊb±AΚòõò=Í9Œô\Ïòõ °Fú¿ÌÆòõ‹õ?Ïûõ âÍ^æõòõãÊŠþòš¦Èòõ±ùõxKÚH¶ôrÒ߈òÿØVÄöñóõÏ·pµå^pδòµ¶åº½&Çð½ù÷>ÏbÒð|Ì>·¯ÓÕãÉòõÎõˆ÷ñ¨ëÎÇU÷5¿«ó”òLñõrcê¢óGOt¡ãòužÚ kûÕŸt¡å:ävš‘)'=»;ö=ˆÇÛõ( žX4DË|OÔµ°7]89A³P»…ß¾«‡³ºÅÛŒ•Š‹‹Œ Óð²‘Ï‹€÷ŒÞýÒÔ 7÷½³ß 4”Ò—œ™M›¾ ˜ {À— ÐÕ²Øà ؛Ñ$ZÚt[/kR2·_Üš~Þòýò˜Tª'"ƒ"x—C'5Ë‹ÔÝ›ŒÞÄÞ»”ãµý?[¤<Vhý ’-0,Þ®¶Yǘ«(Ép[ãðîÏKß\¬¥¨\‹œ,c©¼d-&"(!¨\f–a¸ç3¡6·º c5«±cL)ePáK×Ñ×ûrtc¡°ÉD$ŠVj·6_´'¤ë-8Ðke’5[ ÐœãT°²E¤8c;õûr{ÿQcö$ƒ€:F2v-ÚH•BC4Ý( §ù¶ Åër˜ ňDù² ëSy 6¿†ûÖ^ ‹o< À} û²ŒMx’kö; |vxÜJY?#¹<QÏßv°Å6$bÂ($&¡%âNÎXjëì´5Œæ’ÉX¨ÇÑIiá¥-.¡EaÀë’ ë°— (L¤MEhôbÚ¢Œ+ }a–êÍ[wãtfm@_ yd Jtføaai,,bd(1¢[o©Alz¤A= ‰{|Nkîu1ed' LNŒj¢½'ûc\n@ä4qc7j¯ÌZ(,BM(+1ñ°Ñ+&edd<1gdddddddddddd©K¨¨¨¨¨%eÞŠùƒ/vš^X% !äï ^Áø5ä(ó³*¡á Þ¿64†5³TläD'53–h¨ÛǶ6¿Ê™bʹ%~pQ6ßC3%"Îyx^£Å@HùAÞô,DxÒi mrø,¥b;*ͦmŒC7ê¹’½è q*Æ‹œ\‰v©â·ÜD.ƒÊßB õn@¤ÎÈÑ£o–¼ 9i¶ûÈÖSCËѱW ±V̪–²ŒßÕOßš ßß‹7šÂûæµÞ_Ýß÷_ÝßÚŸDßÚ¿¾Gô"K^¯IP)åëMLhŒe@Ù¸¬}‚ ZÒùƃŒÈ ¿ã„f)ïÂ%ñ•=]º\.3w §µ´ÈSát¹\yÖâÌ =ñEHúð„íE¾V"}ï4¸x˜`S¸ ¾}¸§Rða'êcU²l^N*ï"‘,'£@(d¼ ¢Ï¬ì”Caê0&òms¢5%m‚ªE*p¬uŒj|Bä@'¡dà5 'R&ူ@ìDñè@iá!ˆ&5¬0dmÐýQï]dåé€Y?H$Í-¨HÁ0üWŒˆb¦7¦£âª9Ý¢îã¥A hQÌ*sbcqzìbm‰>Ì8‰9ƒyòÉ;L_ fÐ iµr¤¦5ÿ©ªp7OO4ÓHRô¯_e$²±« (Bíb¶LøóÀC¦Ä¢âë³ûTÿx è³29Šîè]:ÂÞ Ÿ³ œ7óÙž×AùžR) múÌA×]-{ܺ•Â Î4ëúh7^,kyûƒ^¸ìèÕ’ŸÀPÑ‘”–©Áí§ .í‡_A@û0Û|:ÛÜ»V×D „ëÞâŽëMºfÑ4f§Of%Ì»[ÿî /)ß?Û ð+ŒÀâŸ×ã’ýD6 \} û-é[¯’ ^¤²¿š0“¦ÚIÔˆƒÀ„w7Ù…˜ÂÞ¨œÀËVÜÞ3’ÑŸ“ßÞׂËÝ¿Þ‹Õ<äNƒÚß,²¦"88s· ¿ Ù ×´<*3Ÿ÷µ¾†__„AâÖŠœ¸˜×¦”…S£Ç›÷§t›Õœ›œ:‹…®‡ž‘ßÑÍß/¹Î¼Ïß…åkîõÝ‘š†ç)ΓŒ?ž½‡æŒÛ‰—Š¼ò‹W }šÖÆšò$BõX¿.ŽšÍ–Ls `º ‘ÏKõžt˜í—¯„ßÚ‘K“Œï¹¦ûšŸ´ŠÈÀ„“—‚Œº0‚¥cZdšœìæ–Ê]3Ú4ñHˆ²5%[“ÌÔ£á¯ßˆç,“]Бšž vm m”ß›šô)˜™œ‹uŒßžmgܒ߈ž‹³c‡ÿQÇß»òýñLâ^ˆßž‘h‹Ó‹†¾%ˆš~¡ãŸŸŸ_‚––ۻߔ‘ÝrÕP‰%Ÿ–œ´ÊБߴ-Ýõ —ç>‚·»›ßÿЊ é‹ß‹ß»‘(žŒ.߯ú˜/u罚ò¬øâ{,–Sl—Ž–*!Ofµ£ŒÿEÁX~ÌÛÞ^gÝ‹%'Ÿ®»e_Q ¶ß– Пðá½*b‹’ZÊ“ÊŒ„ˆ•Š“›çõš‘‹ž–Ã…ŒøКŠžòÐ˲ŸûšÞÏÚ÷šƒÎ«ß–™ÞÎ ß«›°J€ÞÐÙÝ™šš¢Ñ;‰‰ÚÙ… æÁàÀß44Ú/ ÛÌžÒÀÑ›ó®ÀÄ<šÎëƒß“š1Aä˜]ë;¦Z+¾Ÿ€Ü›²”‹ãÌkÒ\yC‡¬ê¤}Ú’Ú\Ü]šÖáVÓÛŒ Ë{}zH·ñT}Ï4 S,åH¥ÛWÂÜv!ÅT¾;Áõ ¡=°oö®ä\a9^™âzÆ×[<öçâ »sé®A|ÝYýy1ŠŸCà³Æ,°<3é7wMg“)d¾5ĸf6E6û&%°}$;ý’÷ 5âãÆ€E?9è*5ÓJ¸†´ƒDù¶ø•ôûÖþ4LBæ Ã{û¦hX&}$’ÃX/-IML(v3 yx±yØÐU.í' WläTM9_¸n0ŒÚÅq¡Hwc£çàSUgÙNT$×ïE^kdïHfx¡Y¤¢´x½³,akè:ú5j/nrox`àC%"2@qcôA E¢2UqnÍz|0I4Þkî=9µH%Ded'gbÑu¡ä4hâ~á8ibáB!Q (|bÏ, ”èxy|ärGç/¨ôiW8èÿ‡sáÂñ…‚ìáîîíúíæü¨øçDnxtb?q¶ró|”–ÇÇÞŠ~,f* Iô@Fb/F iø«»1 =Mr ëhç¿oó¤W¹`$lSÓmké2vÏDxbcy ÷ê£ÒÖ,Gÿ_,mÙ &Ï$H4Ä-Œô'ï ¦ ¶Nì_4l´IëeÒF¡YPL8 472Ïå⣠µž ˜L_ÄÈ_D«_k…ƒX² ê õÎN¤®öΦ¤¦¼æÌòU·üÎË·à"CÌÊR]ltðõò°Û|ò®ŽÖ>s8ཫ•h<ƒÏV”+pP£"lºÉ䃇³ö£Nu¼ËœŸ’ì ²´:NaiìAv±pâS¸¹˜2ÁìE‘2Sx™@€¾ƒww—A!–±!ß7W·±°5Æ â-b .#žløã-n=héb‹@äY¤®=ª¢?44"î!²lBr,Ù~"uNóF~IjðÀóÉx¢2 ç0$xiDçó#ô)·>æVìl¶5XMD6äOWÅ7xieìo j\8;à`°aq"xTÛyO0 î|dë!C (£ƒ_î M|gÆm{`¡ ¬À`möá"ÏÜm}0ÙjwIRÙ.‰o,ÁNÃœåô2Ø^:%¶BYæzðw{7gtDhaej~nywy,\“qk2oãè@1xihCVˆc'‘GÀI{ }(@y&󊬫‡—âÏQ‘òDYpAQò&û·?‘²äL¬ócçi·Ðx/~]Wò9uZW¤ËiÉ¡¢†ØHø Õ½¨«¢»…Ê©BÏŽ—&{ªF¼ÊæBÙ†X½%Ì€ßÎ ¶‚#™õ ÙÊÖ¹‹äð˜iIÑ¿¹²¾EꜵI#ÿú2}×!žÉ%+Ó5^°(y„î(;ûI%ÖsÞ£EÂ\ÝÞ•V˜Ë²÷Í”B•Á ¹dˆ›æü¢áVÞ:Ø=[гÒM¢Æû˜ø‘ÛN“,"š<¶’‘ϳ§²Ý,¾:8’™4“.÷,Ø ÄÏ‘‘‹ˆ›üß¾Ÿ¦$ ‰œ‰ÌšœÓÕ‹þqÕ;ÞÌ·ò š°°Ÿê‘Ï'Æt˜_p´†CŽn•šñ‚o4“ݘR›«ZÚêZëâÑ™2#Êß'“ ß¿¬žV’Žl±ŽœßIËf‰ßD€Q³ñ¼Äñ¿’èzœ—,’É“úš»Ëc¯.’Ïæ·It Ø‘ÏŒàšÝb%9ôkʔߙ2Ð…}“š†èß‚I!`‘ß’Ž–Û„é4r—ß“N¤ÑOPmŠj÷›Ãß «~óõ²‘Õ‘m»‹ÂÔA ÝË5Ñ™¢U òÝÞˆæ‡ß³ô›KÁœ‹8žßvÛž_¼³–kœš²üšL² $µÞ ÃÏ땃/6µžìÛËמjÖÕ‰›ø‰ÿ¸*·/’ˆ «°ÑS=ã¯Þ‹Œò'[Ñ߆¦|—…›ß€ãx‰¢Ë›š‰7ÿ¿$ §‰æ „ÓE¼ Þ¶dZä°qäÞý¶ º“h³™«gûËÐ “¬ïý´O‘ˈš_:ï›rz 0皈“Þ –™–œ¾Œ–™×ƒŽÈ“Q·™äÐß “¯ ƒ—Û™›ècáûšúÚŸàíÑû*¢<‘"ª=¿ÁÛóË‹ÔôøÖ4’Š“™Žœ ÍL¦Ïß2Ÿæ`ä•ÇÊ›X—Óš ÉïOÇ…}!ÚÄŽˆŽËóÚâ—ÅÝ"îŸ[ÛDd’Héˆ"¦ØR~Û¶\‘7ôúÏòA ‰™{q›}3šËWh,¼K§ðÆÉU‚º‹`Úøü””©°•\x ¿ÀšnW¼úâ,a=#ÓY &²X4ÔÛoÚ¿(µãU®Ü’´Ï¬ÛÆœ›ÂÍO/Êúo1…–-ÑÛÀlIN¢œK £3ÓXëÛ¾h]O_ÔB¥×ª¼]o &*’Lé~ä»!W+1F¥®)J/3Ó á <>¢ñ«²U›PðÅL>|.¶ð°âØ»5Hl@qk""@l.7ùÕdæDaç³uuºÄ ³²÷às¹f¢ürk»&;Œ©– Œ§ øÊ-:$‚-: ŒàcÌš%·,ºEví"5ƒJm)4ƒúÆ 'w¹B9n9# N« Ï ¿À·õ?U½‰¡Í*ue51¬+N‚Q(/¹À·z…j%nú /ˆL‚ºò ‰‚R"Ÿ:¿r*·mÚ=>Ëj 8l.lN)11ŽQ-111gddä111qbdä1gddd;Ù²ßßÚ…ÿIÕò[uµt·ÔÍ” •4¦$aAhqŠ ÉÙ…ÌšBêMAëO{Káf,Ð&†D*…âIº-à5@dlS$õN@lö&0eyp‹o 9w#øï€=WL$ryhÄ»8|xOSÖl@g92@C±QõŠrðBÕ!ã~wófª\ÖÀJbsN‚>•C(jCÊisn_ Yjb˜WÆM:Q¹‹ú 1yp¾ÇÚ Â»[?þCó ÿqWI‰ÞÙW ÀßÚêúJª§ˆWÓŠÞÀ’¹öU¹kJœœŸ UöuM¯ÃkšÝkÝšÕ®º’“"8>rÉ ƒê7»jäÁ l¸;ú=¸æ™Y^Wî$]N¬Ö¿Jõ²Ã˜â. 7_I¨Q2ÞRbYgÐ(žw,µÈWdÌè®a* % þ›yZ6 ÌaÃGâiµ¶LåË%W0r r}ÌjYB¦ÞR¡–ù a[Q¶Ÿ@]7\ßÚÕÖ.å:ƈ͢9ç‹Ã•ÛŸN™p–ï^¬¬"ò‰ŒŸ4¡°!1ºû:·"u›žÈ 6…ÇÕž‰æ+£F“ 8›.’M¶‡Ðµ†ûû½Ð$ð'š>y„ÆÈ‘žŽŽKÕž˜Ú›ö…Q»É±7ŸÂŒ¢²ËͳŒ¿¿3šsVžÿýÛn”fvµŠ…FšÎk‚“[”“ZdŒÉó ™’ ܨ·›f%šß3ÁŠ§/™ß˜§Ø2+ßmœ+_1°¾K‚Ö–7$ÉÖ•nÚÏ~™ƒšßËlI“ŽQäõÚßßÿDôŸ>dßÕÉ›oò¬¼x¤cóÕ–Çaï°¦Åk±£x¤ß›š‰š³¹: }Û•—Òøµä²@BžO½’f%^ýÈֶDž „䲨[šâ–%Ùc¥lc•Mxò¸±®ðÌ ‡ÚbuNÜM™ÑØâ²N ¢%8NÏ5Æ…yǪö?²åÒÄkµ=¿’;©Þ?f¾>M×eÛ`/–Ku .½”L.¯#â6ñ1»¥qõ¯x±axèNÞE8×Ì(êv,¨}( ¯ë®wøHÞ%õEÎâv`Nw ž}peDd+1¦ ]y €pkgŽÊEUmÜub6m‹>¨¨2÷0gddd‡õ©ìÄíŸ ø0FÉ]{rŠ&²]q9 )k&/~““ˆÒŠò5<£ÜŠÀ*«# IÔ(V*ÇZ(Ôb‡ël#“˜'Ó6§4:F]G\OF0êHÓ‰ ÷ym5zÜGm$G#3} EÈò¡T¡\0gp~>Ë@ÙÄ _ͨÂIŪ»,‘¬È¶Ž¥”?0ZMQÔ¥aàaŠ²H&@š¬Ï“NŠÝ6I"s„Ú뤊ϙފÈÝÞ+ªöí†1ôšÏªŸßÂK眎êò‹§ß˜KÎ4÷´™ß+7:¸ÔõŸ}²Ë÷™@Zž[.#2áz ¥zµÜã pè«]ÌeIPþuñå^'¤À Üâ2ˆD&wÄÐÓëWÅ€’“+ûùG† Ó½èBݱ|ˆVeöª¿äñz®8UFM©½%QS|ûb`jöJœø|]QtMÍ>Ã7>€‡pfC _ KÌÿe É„£-É$À ¦ró@h¼r 4´@pè0¨*¢0QT(ÆaYÈ0,¢—K.êa'µ¸'Å0a, £@(,ဢEpá(&¥,¡¨ƒ0ͦê x3ã@ ¥§o”+éGj/>%åMÙŽÿ CondenseltTM Page 45 1 there are drainage easements that allow an open style 2 fence, wrought iron style omm~ental fence that would 3 allow, you know, the water to come in and out, but it 4 could not be closed. And, quite honestly, there might not Page 47 moved because it's been resurveyed? MS. VIERA: That's correct. MR. REICHHART: I believe the existing floodplain line that's shown in green that's dashed right 5 even be -- that might not be allowed. 6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further questions 7 or clarification, Commissioners? Ms. Viera. 8 MS. VIERA: This is the proposed concept 9 plan that you are considering tonight. This is the same 10 etch that I showed before. And this is, in purple, this 11 is the new boundary of the single-fmnily residential area. 12 As you see, you will have an increase in acreage and the 13 area for open space has been decreased. If you have any 14 questions, I'm available to answer. 15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: We have several 16 questions. Colmnissioner Mulroy. 17 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes, Ms. Viera. What 18 is the topography of this area that we're encroaching on? 19 MS. VIERA: HOW steep? 20 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes, how steep and 21 also what is the vegetation on there? 22 MS. VIERA: Regarding vegetation, the 23 environmental sensitive area map shows that as a 24 floodplain so probably related to a floodplain, there's 25 some vegetation related to it, but I don't have a list. Page 46 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. I think one of the questions I had last time was what is the exact vegetation. What are we talking about disturbing here? Okay. Thank you. How about the topography, do you know 5 now is what is mapped currently on the FEMA maps. It 6 wasn't, and my understanding is that it wasn't done by a 7 detailed study. And I believe the applicants are 8 proposing to do that detailed study which may change that 9 line. 10 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. That's a 11 lot of help. Thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Roy. 13 COMMISSIONER ROY: Correct me if I'm wrong 14 but this is upstream of the Country Club Estates. It's 15 the stone creek, isn't it? We've been through -- 16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Reichhart. 17 MR. REICHHART: I believe it is. 18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Co~mtaissioner Roy, you 19 still have the floor. 20 COMMISSIONER ROY: I yield. 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. 22 Commissioners, any further questions froln staff or 23 regarding staff? Thank you, Ms. Viera. Is the petitioner 24 here and would they like to present? If you'd please give 25 us your name and address. Page 48 1 MS. HATTON: Good evening. My name is 2 Shelly Hatton. I live at 6109 Estelle Drive in Watauga, 3 Texas. 4 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: IS that Hatton or 1 2 3 4 5 what that -- what the -- 6 MS. VmR~: I believe the applicant is 7 available to answer that. 8 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. Thank you. 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Powell. l0 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, Mr. 11 Chairman. Tell me what the meaning of those purple 12 stripes are. 13 MS. VmRA: this is compared to the edge of 14 the floodplain compared to the edge of the proposed 15 single-family residential development. So this is the 16 area that will be redefined and potentially reclaimed. 17 COMMISSIONER VOWELS.: Reclaimed by filling? 18 Is that what we're saying? 19 COMMISSIONERRISHEL: Mr. Reichhart. 20 MR. REICHHART: The applicant's engineers 21 arc here and I think they would be better suited to 22 identify exactly what they're proposing to do. 23 COMMISSIONER POWELL: okay. Let me ask one 24 more question then to help me a little bit here. Are we 25 saying there's a possibility that the floodplain line is 5 Patton? 6 MS. HATTON: Hatton with an H. 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. 8 MS. HATTON: And I wanted to thank you very 9 much for postponing this so we can come and talk today. 10 First of all, let me show you what has been 11 approved. This is a detailed plan and this is what is 12 shown as approved. And the floodplain line here is the 13 current FEMA map line. And as you can see, we've got the 14 dash, the hatched lines here that are spaced and then 15 we've got the pretty dense spacing right there. One of 16 the questions that one of the Commissioners had was what 17 does that mean. I did a very crude sketch here. 18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: obviously, the David 19 Sahnon school of drawing. 20 MS. HATTON: I guess. If that's the case, 21 I'm in good company. Where this is the front yard, here 22 is your house, and then here is your backyard. Now then, 23 as far as what this represents right here, Larry is 24 correct by saying that it will be put into a drainage 25 easement and there will be no building, but that's PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2002 Page 45 - Page 48 CondcnseItTM Page 49 1 essentially everyone's backyard. And that's what the 2 hatch mark is. There will be minor fill because we have 3 to get those houses up out of the floodplain at least two 4 feet above the 100-year. And just so you know, it will be 5 more than that because we have to make sure, and I'll show 6 you a glimpse of the new layout, but that street itself 7 has to be up out of the 100-year so we'll be well above 8 the minimmn two feet on our finished floor for all the 9 homes that we're proposing to put in this area. So this 10 area right here, the backyards, is the area that's the 11 light striped. The dense is where we're actually putting 12 structures. And that's an explanation as to what's gone 13 on here. 14 Now then, there's a bit of a history on 15 this project. We have done a study. And when we did the 16 study, we found that we did, indeed, find that the 17 floodplain came down south. And let me show you what we 18 have on that. Can you see that? Is that visible? And 19 one of the Cmmnissioners would like to see that a little 20 bit bigger. Is there any -- 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: would you like to 22 zoom in with thc docucam? That's the area you want us to 23 see. 24 MS. HATTON: Yeah. Zoom in over here, if 25 you could, please. Okay. What we found here was this Page 50 1 right here and, again, it's very light, but on the -- you 2 can see it on the exhibit that was given to you guys. I 3 think it's -- I forgot what color it is. But this has 4 moved down quite a bit on this when we did the study. And 5 when we did that, we found -- yeah, that one. And what we 6 found was we had actually a great deal of land that we 7 could use that was outside of the floodplain area and so 8 we reconfigured this to be the way that you're seeing it 9 now. 10 And let me just show you kind of a 11 comparison. As you can see here between this one and this 12 one, we're actually proposing to reclaim less land with 13 this new proposal, even though we are increasing our lots. 14 Now, the dense again, we are actually putting in a 15 structure -- well, that structure right there is going to 16 be the street. And that will be out of the 100-year 17 floodplain. And one of the things that's different and 18 what I think is very nice about the new configuration is 19 it gives a lot more access to the floodplain area and the 20 open space area than the previous one did. 21 For example, if you look here, the only way 22 to access any kind of trails behind here is to actually go 23 through this easement fight here. This easement right 24 there, that's a utility casement, an existing high power 25 line, transmission line easement. And the only way we Page 51 1 could gain access was to go through that to get to this 2 floodplain. Well, now with the new configuration, 3 there's a potential to put in a trail head right there 4 along the -- where that elbow hits the floodplain. We 5 also have the ability to take the trails and even maybe 6 connect up the existing sidewalks that go in front of 7 these homes into the trail system. And we also have 8 increased the amount of frontage that goes along the 9 school property right there. And here's another thing 10 that has changed. 11 We changed the configuration of this 12 cul-de-sac here and we actually pulled the cul-de-sac up 13 to where it actually touches where the pedestrian access 14 area is going to be coming down. So with this new 15 configuration, we're really trying to open this up to have 16 more access for the trails, plus we're using the land 17 that's out of the floodplain there. 18 And if you can see, just visually, and 19 these are to the same scale, we are proposing here to 20 reclaim less land with this new configuration, even though 21 now if we were to keep this old configuration, all of this 22 would be out of the floodplain. That's correct, but we 23 did get approval on this, this previous one, and what 24 we're asking is that you guys give us the ability to go 25 forward and get a detailed study to tell you where exactly Page 52 1 the floodway and the floodplain is and to meet with all of 2 your regulations. And that's why we need the concept plan 3 to be approved at this point. And at that point, do you 4 guys have any questions? 5 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Roy. 6 COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. I think you just 7 answered part of my question. You're saying that the 8 floodplain definition has not been made, the redefinition 9 has not been made. 10 MS. HATTON: That's correct. Well, we've 11 got a preliminary one. The City has not seen it. 12 COMMISSIONER ROY: could you mark on there, 13 I can't tell, with your marker what is -- is it on this 14 map, the new one? 15 MS..^TrON: which map? 16 COMMISSIONER ROY: The plat you have in 17 front of us. 18 MS. H^TTON: Yeah, if you can see right 19 here, it's right here. 20 COMMISSIONER ROY: would you mark that? 21 MS. HATTON: Yeah. And I believe that may 22 be on your -- 23 COMMISSIONER ROY: SO this is what you say 24 is the redefined floodplain? 25 MS. HATTON: Yes. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2002 Page 49 - Page 52 CondenscltTM Page 53 1 COMMISSIONER ROY: And what specific area 2 are you proposing to reclaim that's in the floodplain? 3 MS. HATTON: Specifically, we're reclaiming 4 these little portions fight here where there's an elbow 5 that we need to get reclaimed for a street. There's some 6 backyard area that needs to get reclaimed. And over here 7 near the school, there is a small portion where we have a 8 structure that could potentially be in the floodplain but 9 we'll pull it out. We're going to have to pull it out 10 anyway because this is going to be my low point right here 11 for my street and that's going to be at least a foot above 12 the 100-year. I have to do that for -- not a foot above 13 but I put it at a foot above the 100-year. I have a 14 preliminary design on it which means all of this is going 15 to be up and out, too. 16 COMMISSIONER ROY: Thank you. 17 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Commissioner Keith. 18 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. You've 19 kind of thrown a lot of maps at us here so please follow 20 me. What I'm real concerned about is the certainty that 21 nobody's lots are going to have any flooding in them under 22 your new proposal. Is that what you're presenting, as 23 well? 24 MS. HATTON: That is correct. They're 25 going to be well above the 100-year floodplain. Page 54 1 COMMISSIONER KEITH: who's your engineering 2 on this? 3 MS. HATTON: who does the floodplain 4 engineering on it? 5 COMMISSIONER KEITH: uh-huh. 6 MS. HATTON: Ron Morrison, and I'm going to 7 have him come and talk about that. And he's been doing 8 floodplain, these types of floodway studies for many 9 years. He, in fact, has worked ten years for FEMAjUSt 10 down the road doing exactly this so I think we have a very 11 well qualified gentleman doing the study for us. 12 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Okay. Thank you. 13 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: We have several other 14 questions. Cmmnissioner Apple. 15 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Yes. You mentioned 16 that you had not done a detailed study. What are you 17 basing your assumptions on? 18 MS. HATTON: We have done a detailed study. 19 We've not turned it into the City for their review. Once 20 we found that we had this additional area to develop and 21 we did this new configuration, what we're trying to do is 22 we're trying to make sure that it's something that we can 23 do. That's why we need to get the approval of the concept 24 plan which allows us the usage to go ahead and make us go 25 forward with the next step. Page 55 1 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I'lll sorry. I 2 misunderstood you because I understood you to say we have 3 not yet done a detailed study. So my -- 4 MS. HATTON: I may have said that. I 5 apologize. We have not turned it in. 6 COMMISSIONER APPLE: NO, no, no. I 7 probably misunderstood. 8 MS. HATTON: okay. 9 COMMISSIONER APPLE: My second question is 10 did y'all go out to the property after last Tuesday's 11 rain, per chance, and take a look at where some of this 12 might be accurate? Did y'all -- 13 MS. H^TTON: what we did was -- no, we did 14 not. 15 COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. Thank you. 16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: We have several other 17 questions from Commissioners. Commissioners, let me state 18 this, the petitioner has the floor and they've used about 19 seven minutes of their time. They have 15 minutes on 20 their petitioning. They have several other speakers that 21 are part of their team and I don't know whether you want~xl 22 to hear them or ask your questions at this point in time. 23 So I'm going to address Conunissioner Mulroy. 24 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes. Thank you, Mr. 25 Chair. Do we have a copy of the lower docmnent that Page 56 1 you're pointing to and referencing? 2 MS. HATTON: Is it not part of -- 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Reichhart can 4 answer that. 5 MR. REICHHART: I don't think we do. 6 MS. HATTON: We've never turned this 7 detailed plan in because we have to get the concept first. 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It'S new to you and 9 so we have not been privileged to this information. 10 COMMISSIONER MULROY: SO for us to -- so 11 we're extrapolating or trying to impose one document on 12 the other to see exactly what you're talking about. 13 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And this is the first 14 time you've had a chance to look at that. 15 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes. 16 MS. HATTON: Correct. And, again, the 17 flood study does cost a lot of money to the developer. 18 And if we cannot -- if we can't get the usage -- 19 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I understand. But my 20 point was we don't have the information with clarity to 21 look at. 22 MS. HATTON: Okay. I will be more than 23 happy to provide that for you. 24 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I understood that a 25 couple of weeks ago. Thank you. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2002 Page 53 - Page 56 CondenseltTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 !15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 57 MS. HATTON: Okay. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Commissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: Yes. I realize that under our agreement we're going to let everybody talk, then ask questions as best as possible, but there was a statement made awhile ago that I need to clarify. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: clarification, sure. COMMISSIONER ROY: One of the Commissioners asked you if there were going to be any homes in the floodplain, the newly defined floodplain, and your answer was no. Is that correct? MS. HATTON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ROY: It'S no if we allow you to reclaim some of the newly defined floodplain; is that correct? MS. HATTON: correct. COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further questions of the petitioner, Co~m~aissioners? Corm~issioner Keith. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Just one more question on this redefined floodplain. When I said there would be no houses, the property will be entirely out of the floodplain? MS. HATTON: Yes. COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. $o if they want Page 58 to build a stockade fence, a privacy fence, there would be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 59 to -~ we need a seriously detailed study on that. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Yes, ma'am, I think we do. MS. HATTON: Yeah. And I need to be able to know if I have the ability to get additional lots before my client would like to spend the money to do that. COMMISSIONER KEITH: I think we have a little bit of a, if I may express, we have a little bit of a chicken or egg situation here for us to give you an okay to go ahead and then have the study done. But I think if we're going to do that, then they need to bring it back to us for final approval. Would we have that? MS. HATTON: YOU do with the detailed plan. It has to come back through -- COMMISSIONER KEITH: I'd like to address that to Mr. Reichhart, please. MS. HATTON: oh, sorry. MR. REICHHART: The -- and Mr. Snyder can feel free to jump in, but the -- a condition, I think you could structure an approval of a concept plan that this area could have "X" amount of density and that the final lot configuration will be based on the ultimate FEMA flood study, you know, the ultimate approved flood study, and that the -- I don't know if you could put a condition on it that would say limit the mnount of fill in the floodplain or number of lots in a floodplain. Page 60 no problem for them, correct? MS. HATTON: If the City provisions allow stockade fences in the floodplain, then yeah. COMMISSIONER KEITH: [ lllean, these -- MS. HATTON: I'lI1 unclear as to where our particular development stands on all that. COMMISSIONER KEITH: well, sec, I'm getting a picture here that you're coining in with a study that you're finding that the flood -- that these proposed lots are going to be entirely out of any flood zone. MS. HATTON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KEITH: [ mean, just 100 percent from the street to the back of their property. MS. HATTON: Not to the back of the property. There may be some of their backyard in the floodplain but thc structures thmnsclves will be out. COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. How much backyard footage will they have that will be out of the 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I think Mr. Snyder would like to help us. MR. SNYDER: At prc-P&Z this morning, we discussed that there's a couple of scenarios and we have some language, I think, ready for the Commission if the Commission decided to approve this tonight with some conditions. One of the scenarios would be, if you so chose, you could condition the approval that -- similar to thc one we did on, I think, it was Country Lake Estates -- Country Club Estates, which basically says you approve thc concept plan with this condition that says, similar to what was just handed out, that basically none of the lots, no portion of the lots will be in the new approved FEMA floodplain. The other option would be the one that Larry just pointed out would be that, in addition to that condition, that they would also be allowed to reclaim a floodplain area? Because you have many homeowners, they'd like to put an out building out there and if they don't have room for that because of a flood area, then that could create problems. MS. HATTON: I think a great deal of it -- at this point, I can't really address that because we need 20 certain portion of the floodplain in addition to that. I 21 don't know exactly how to structure that because we don't 22 know how much that will be. I guess what you could do is 23 you could say up to a maximmn of a certain amount of 24 square footage, would be one way to do it. 25 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: A percentage of -- PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2002 Page 57 - Page 60 CondenseltTM Page 61 1 MR. SNYDER: ^nd you could also put in the 2 condition that in no event shall any portion of the lot 3 being reclaimed be in that portion of the lot where any 4 proposed structures are going to be located. But that 5 gets more complicated. 6 MR. REICHHART: But the intent, again, 7 would be, the difference between the top and the bottom, 8 they were proposing originally, where we thought the 9 original floodplain line was, to reclaim a little bit of 10 the floodplain. And, again, on the bottom one they're 11 showing less. Now, the real question we want to make sure 12 there's no net effect upstream or downstream with what is 13 being proposed. 14 Well, backing up, the easy or one of the 15 policy issues could be absolutely no development in the 16 floodplain. The other one could be based on detailed 17 studies, there might be some development allowed, a 18 reclaiming of the floodplain provided that there's no net 19 effect, negative effect upstream or downstremn. It's 20 really a policy decision of what you want to do. 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YOU could plus it or 22 minus it to a no net effect. I still have some questions 23 from Cowanissioners. I presume these are clarification 24 questions. Commissioner Powell. 25 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Yes, sir. We have Page 63 1 their 15-minute time still available to them, so I have 2 been trying to keep track of that for the Commission, if 3 that meets with your approval. Commissioners? Thank you. 4 Okay. Any further questions of this part 5 of the petitioner's presentation? Would you care to 6 introduce -- Commissioner Keith. 7 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Yes. Is the engineer 8 going to be brought forward? 9 MS. HATTON: I'm sorry? 10 COMMISSIONER KEITH: ~xre you going to be 11 bringing the engineer forward? 12 MS. HATTON: Yeah. 13 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Thank you. 14 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, 15 Conunissioner. Would you care to introduce the rest of 16 your staff, and if I could ask, request that the 17 Coaunission hold their questions until the rest of the 18 petitioner has had a chance to present, and then some of 19 those questions would be answered. So if you could 20 present the rest of your petitioning group. 21 MS. HATTON: we're only going to have one 22 more person and that will be Ron Morrison with Freeze and 23 Nichols. And he's a floodplain guru, I guess is the best 24 way to describe him. So Pll have him come up and kind of 25 tell you a little bit of the background for the EEM^ Page 62 1 discussed a lot and questioned a lot and I would like to 2 request tbat we don't penalize the 15 minutes that the 3 petitioner had. I don't think it would be fair. We've 4 taken a lot of their time. That's nmnber one. 5 And, number two, conditions, all of a 6 sudden we've got conditions again and thc other day I was 7 floored to learn we couldn't put conditions and now we've 8 got conditions. I'm really confused now. 9 MR. REICHHART: In the original staff 10 report, it was noted that this is one of the 15 or 16 11 ?lanned Developments that were carried over from the old 12 Code. And with a Planned Development, it's probably one 13 of the only zoning categories recognized in the State 4 statutes that you can put conditions on. 15 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. That 16 helps me out a lot because I was wondering what happened 17 here. 18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Mulroy. 19 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I 20 would look for consensus from the Commission to add ten 21 minutes to the applicant's time and then move the 22 discussion back to the applicant and let them complete -- 23 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Let me show you -- 24 what I show at this point in time is the applicant has 25 spoken seven minutes and they still have the remainder of Page 64 1 stuff. Thank you very much. 2 MR. MORRISON: Ladies and gentlemen, my 3 name is Ron Morrison and I reside at 7137 Canyon Ridge in 4 the city of Dallas and I work for Freeze and Nichols. I 5 am here to answer any questions that you may have or 6 anything else. 7 My background is in floodplain management. 8 I don't refer to myself as a guru, but that's all I've 9 been doing for 30 years. So if I don't know it now, I'm 10 in trouble. 11 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: well, I think we have 12 some questions from the Co~mnissioners, Mr. Morrison. 13 Co~ranissioner Keith. 14 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. On this 15 floodplain area, what' s the width of the current plain as 16 it goes through this development, you know, going from 17 apex to apex across the creek? What kind of -- 18 MR. MORRISON: Mr. Keith, I don't have all 19 the maps in front of me to measure that. I can tell you 20 that the floodplain, the first floodplain we were talking 21 about is the one that FEMA came up with and that's an 22 unstudied floodplain, which I worked up here at the Loop 23 288 Federal Center for about ten years and I did that sort 24 of thing and it's a pretty wild actuarial guess. 25 COMMISSIONER KEITH: what we call a swag. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2002 Page 61 - Page 64 CondonscItTM Page 65 1 MR. MORRISON: Okay. That will work. 2 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Okay. Another 3 question I have -- I just have a lot of concern over -- 4 I've done -- I've said this many times. I'm sorry to 5 sound repetitious to my fellows here, but I've done flood 6 insurance claims, been an insurance adjustor. And I just 7 -- every time I've gone out and I've seen homes built in 8 areas where they shouldn't have been built, it just really 9 infuriates me that developers get by with it. 10 And so justify to me what you're doing. 11 That I'm concerned about -- really, I don't even like to 12 see a fence way to be down in a floodplain because if a 13 person is buying a lot, I think they should have 100 14 percent use of that lot and not have to worry about any 15 water encroaching up into their yard. And so that's kind 16 of where I'm looking at it. So defend to me what your 17 objective is, please. 18 MR. MORRISON: Mr. Keith, I couldn't agree 19 with you more. This is my life and so I'm very concemed 20 when I see cases where floodplains are abused. And it 21 happens all the time. I'm here to tell you that. One of 22 the biggest abuses of floodplains is people build in 23 unstudied areas. Just because FEMA has a gray area on a 24 map, a lot of folks think that really means that that is 25 the floodplain. Page 66 1 When it's unstudied, it's just a guess. 2 And a lot of folks build outside that area, and I see it 3 all the time, and they're really building in the 4 floodplain and don't even know it. So that's -- I mean, 5 your com_ments are absolutely taken -- well taken. 6 But the first thing I do whenever I do any 7 new study anywhere is I have surveys done and I look at -- 8 and I input that into the computer module that the Corps 9 of Engineers developed that FEMA USeS to define 10 floodplains, and I redefine that floodplain. And to my 11 knowledge, I've never done any subdivisions where I've 12 left any houses or any lots in the floodplain, for that 13 matter. I don't like to do that. I would love to be able 14 to fill all the lots in this subdivision so that there was 15 no floodplain at all involved and you could put a fence 16 along the back or anything else you want, and that would 17 not violate FEMA regulations at all. 18 COMMISSIONER KEITH: what I'm also thinking 19 too what would be the -- and this would probably involve 20 the Planning Department. But if this -- if your study 21 comes in and proves that the floodplain is further receded 22 out than what FEMA shows, then what is -- would it be 23 better to assure the full facility of these property 24 owners, future property owners if there was a certain 25 mnount of fill on the back side? Would that be -- Page 67 1 MR. MORRISON: That would not be a problem. 2 And if we submit that to FEMA, they will approve that. I 3 mean, I've submitted hundreds of hundreds of studies to 4 FEMA. i've never had them disapprove any one. So if they 5 approve this study, then FEMA will redraw the floodplain 6 and it will look like what we came up with. 7 COMMISSIONER KEITH: But would you still be 8 willing to come in and do some back fill on those lots to 9 lift them up to assure that they wouldn't be -- 10 MR. MORRISON: Yes, sir. 11 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Give a little bit more 12 insurance. Because water is going to go where it goes 13 regardless of any studies. 14 MR. MORRISON: That's right. Regardless of 15 what we decide here tonight, the water is going to do what 16 it's going to do. 17 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Yeah. I've lived in 18 this area for 40 years and we've had some real floaters, 19 as we say out there, and so I've seen this creek rise 20 pretty high so I'm just very concerned. Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Morrison, long 22 term friend of -- a principle in your company that was 23 deceased, Jo Paul Jones, a good friend of mine, long time 24 Boy Scouter -- 25 MR. MORRISON: Good friend of mine, too. Page 68 1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Bob Nichols, also 2 a good Boy Scouter with us now, retired CEO executive of 3 your company, living in Missouri last time I talked to 4 him. Your company has done a lot of work in this 5 comanunity and for this town through the years including 6 back in the 50's bringing on some of our first non-well 7 water facilities and a lot of our drainage things that we 8 did and has been a big part of the development of our 9 cmmnunity. And so we respect where you're coming from 10 tremendously. 11 I have some concems of the developer. And 12 maybe I should have Ms. Hatton stay up here with us and 13 maybe I can talk to both of you at the same time. Is 14 there a standard from which we draw from when we talk 15 about residential development underneath power lines? 16 MS. HATTON: we're not putting any homes 17 underneath the power lines at all. 18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Keep in mind that I 19 don't have the privilege of the map that you have just 20 presented to us because that's the first time that I've 21 seen that and so that's all new to me. 22 MS. HATTON: well, even in -- okay. 23 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Previous to that, the 24 map that I had showed nothing in that area so I want to 25 make sure that that's still the case. And I can't see PLANNING AND ZONING COMlVIISSION MARCH 27TH, 2002 Page 65 - Page 68 CondenseltTM Page 69 1 your map as well because my monitor doesn't show like 2 everyone else's monitor. 3 MS. HAT'FON: sorry about that. That's an 4 easement so we cannot put anything in that. 5 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And what is the 6 distance that a residential structure would be physically 7 from that power line, the power lines themselves? 8 MS. HATTON: I would have to hazard a 9 guess. Now, it will be -- from right here, that would be 10 40 feet right there because that's about how deep the 11 backyards are. And this particular open space, I don't 12 relnember how wide it is, but I'd say it's about 75 feet. 13 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Okay. I guess my 14 question is is there a national standard with regard to 15 the size of the power lines and whatever else that's been 16 generated by anyone? I know this is something that's been 17 rather controversial, whether transmission lines do or do 18 not affect humans, unlike the cow population that we have 19 been concemed about for some time. 20 MS. HATTON: I ~l'tust achTtit I'm not up to 21 date on that. But I think that -- all I can think of is 22 that when the utility companies come through and they do 23 get the easement, that that's what they're trying to do. 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And, generally, 25 that's a build and service type easement though just so Page 70 they can string additional lines or work in that area or pass through as they need to. MS. HATTON: That's my understanding, too, yes. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: SO at this point in time in this development, this particular area, what sort of cut and fill and where has it been done in this particular area? MS. HATTON: Down in this area, is that what you're talking about? COMMISSIONER RISHEL: The area that we're looking at redrawing, yes. MS. HATTON: We're looking at filling an average of about five feet. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: what have you done so far, I guess is the question. MS. HATTON: There's nothing that's been done. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Nothing has been done so far? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HATTON: NO. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: well, I'm one of those believers also that I don't want to see the floodplain encroached upon, but I do believe that cut and fill to a negative effect downstream can sometimes be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 71 appropriate. I'm concerned, another thing as we look at the property, the greenbelt or the floodway that we show as we were originally presented this some time ago, showed it next to the future school proposal. And one of the things we looked at when we -- at least I believe we looked at as we looked at it as a body of people was that we saw a potential for a park or trails or whatever else that would be able to proceed through there and be right next to a school so that seemed like a natural pairing. One of the co~mnents that you made was that you were not subtracting greenway area from the plan positively or negatively. Is that correct or did I mishear you? MS. HATTON: well, there's going to be less greenbelt area but it's still not going to go completely away. What this particular plan does is allow more access to that greenway than what the other plan did. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I gUeSS I would like to see as you bring back your proposal what the positive or negative, plus or minus of the acreage is going to be or square footage, whatever the case may be as you represent your plan. MS. HATTON: [ do not have a copy of the exhibit that was provided to you. Can I get a copy of that? Page 72 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YOU can't get it from us because we don't have it. Oh, of the original. Yes. MS. HATTON: okay. Very small, you can see here it says that we're showing -- can you please repeat the question, the original question? COMMISSIONER RISHEL: AS I say, the two drawings that you had showed up there at one time, we did not have both of those drawings in our packet so it was totally new information to us as we had not had a chance to review that. I don't know what to tell you at this point in time. But I cannot sec if there's a plusing or a minusing over the amount of greenway area or what you call future greenway corridor and park land. MS. HATTON: okay. There's 6.6 acres that we're taking away from what we had originally said was going to be the greenway. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And how much of the greenway was there totally before? MS. HATTON: 33.13 acres. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And now we've reduced it by 20 something percent. Okay. MS. ~ATTON: oh, it was 39.6 before. And now it's 33.13. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And that kind of sums up my concern is that we show a plan which shows a school PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2002 Page 69 - Page 72 CondenseltTM Page 73 1 site that is dedicated, I presume, at this point in time. 2 Is that correct? 3 MS. HATTON: NO, it is not. 4 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Future potential 5 dedication. 6 MS. HATTON: COITCCt. 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And then we show a 8 plan with potential park areas and now we want to -- we 9 have not consummated the future school site and now we 10 want to take away some of that park land or greenway area 11 that would have been part of your original visual when 12 this was presented to us. I'm a little bit concerned 13 about that procedure. No need to address that. 14 MS. HATTON: Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Commissioner Mulroy. 16 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes, Ms. Hatton and 17 your engineer, I want to repeat that proportionality. If 18 I'm understanding, we're reducing the park land by 17 19 percent. That was one of the questions we had asked was 20 proportionality several weeks ago. 21 Number two, topography and natural features 22 and vegetation, what are you asking us to change? What is 23 the nature of the area? Do you have pictures? I think, 24 was it, several weeks we said we were going to bring 25 pictures. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 1 MS. HATTON: I apologize. I was not here 2 for that meeting. 3 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I don't want to trust 4 my memory in total, but I believe that was the co~mnitment. 5 Okay. 6 MS. HATTON: okay. I apologize. 7 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Does anybody in the 8 room know what -- 9 MS. HATTON: I know what the topography is 10 in that area, and it's basically -- I'm sorry. 11 COMMISSIONER MULROY: In the natural 12 features, is it grass, is it trees? 13 MS. UATTON: It'S grass and, basically, 14 this is one big cow pasture and there's -- the cows have 15 access to the creek itseff and there are some bushy areas, 16 but it's mesquite, very scraggly type stuff. In fact, I 17 believe we've got -- but that's essentially wbat it's 18 like. 19 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. It's not just 20 simply sloping grassland. You do have some growth there? 21 MS. HATTON: There is some growth, yes, but 22 it's very small. 23 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. Now, my 24 question then if -- we do not have all the docmnents that 25 you've been referring to, okay, and it's frustrating. Page 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 no, that's no? Page 75 Now, I'll try to help you through this. I'm understanding that, in principle, you're saying you're not really proposing to fill any greater area than you already had permission to in your original plan. MS. HATTON: NO. We are asking to fill more. COMMISSIONER MULROY: More -- see, originally you were given permission to fill some floodplain. MS. HATTON: Correct. COMMISSIONER MULROY: NOW what you're asking on this revision is an increase in that allowed amount. Is that what I'm understanding? MS. HATTON: I'm sorry. According to this, COMMISSIONER MULROY: Is the answer yes or MS. HATTON: NO. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. So you're coming forward that the principle has been established that you were given permission to fill floodplain and, in fact, under this revision it will be less reclmxaation? MS. HATTON: I cannot specifically answer that without a detailed study. COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. And we -- Page 76 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Can Mr. Morrison answer that for us? MR. MORRISON: I'm sitting over here on pins and needles. Thank you very much. Let me tell you what has happened here. The first study that we did or the first information we got was the FEMA studied area and it was unstudied, it was just a guess. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I understand. MS. MORRISON And so we used the topographic maps that are available from the City and I did some initial computer analysis and found that the floodplain was pretty close to what Shelly, what Ms. Hatton has shown you for the second thing, but I can't be sure because that topographic information is pretty old. And so the developer elected to have that whole area flown and have real good survey data and I just got that. And now I'm in the process of going through, with his permission, and -- COMMISSIONER MULROY: Are we premature at this meeting? MR. MORRISON: well -- COMMISSIONER MULROY: See, my question is not really whether that moves a little bit. You have -- now, we all understand for the record, there is no FEMA revision approved at this time. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2002 Page 73 - Page 76 CondonsoltTM Page 77 i MR. MORRISON: That is correct. 2 COMMISSIONER MULROY: YOU are basing your 3 revision request on rough calculations based on recent 4 data and recent -- either surveys or aerial photography or 5 a hard look at it. I mcan, we all understand that the old 6 FEMA maps are very broad brush. Now, you're a step closer 7 and you're saying this is what it looks like. We may 8 spend thc money to prove this out with a finite study but 9 we want to see how the Colmnission feels about moving 10 things around. ' 11 So, now my question still, in principle 12 in principle under the first plan, concept plan, you were 13 given under the old Code permission to reclaim a 14 quantifiable or roughly quantifiable portion of 15 floodplain. I mcan, when I say roughly quantify, I want 16 to know are we talking about six to eight acres or 600 to 17 800. Are we talking six to eight acres? 18 MR. MOm~ISON: we're not talking 600. 19 We're somewhere in that neighborhood, yes, sir. 20 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. So five, six, 21 seven, eight acres? 22 MR. MORRISON: I haven't calculated it. 23 Shelly probably could tell you that. Ms. Hatton could. 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Reichhart would 25 like to see if he could add to the discussion. Page 78 1 MR. REICHHART: And I did some rough, 2 rough, rough calculations this afternoon and I think I 3 calculated that area that we're looking at on the original 4 floodplain as approximately two and a half, maybe a little 5 bit more than that total acres that was shaded. 6 COMMISSIONER MULROY: That was reclaimed, 7 proposed to be reclaimed. Now, under this revision, how 8 many acres are you proposing to reclaim? 9 MR. MORRISON: May I ask you -- 10 COMMISSIONER MULROY: NO, I'm asking you. 11 Under the revision -- 12 MS. HATTON: 3.6 acres. 13 COMMISSIONER MULROY: SO your number again, 14 Larry, was? 15 MR. REICHHART: I didn't have a computer 16 but I did use the scale the average and measurements and I 17 had about two and a half acres. 18 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. Percentage, 19 you're adding one acre percentage-wise. You know, you're 20 adding 25, 30 percent, 33 percent. So in principle, 21 you're reclaiming, you're asking to reclaim 33 percent 22 more than was previously approved. Okay. Now, I just 23 want to understand this as we go forward. Okay. 24 So, now, the basis of your application here 25 is the finite study isn't done yet. You feel like you're Page 79 1 85 to 90 percent in the realm of where you think it's 2 going to be. You're asking to reclaim more on a 3 floodplain basis. Okay. But the park land that we would 4 give up is six acres something, and that was also part of 5 your original PD was a certain amount of park land. Okay. 6 And that percentage is about 17 to 18 percent reduction. 7 Now, I just want everybody to agree that this is the realm 8 of what we're talking about. Is that pretty fair? 9 MS. HATTON: That is correct, but there's 10 also some other access issues that have been addressed 11 with this new plan. 12 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: MS. Hatton, you have 13 another member of your team that would like to help us on 14 this issue. Would you present him and give us his nmne 15 and address? 16 MS. HATTON: This is Mike Casey and he's 17 with Denton CJW Partnership. 18 MR. CASEY: Hi. I'm Michael Casey, 722 19 North Fielder, Arlington. I'm the manger of the general 20 partner for the partnership. 21 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes, sir. 22 MR. CASEY: The reduction, the only thing 23 that I wanted to bring up is we far exceed what was 24 required under those PD requirements for the percentage of 25 park land. So decreasing this land, we'd still exceed the Page 80 1 requirement under that original PD, that PD-139 that had 2 that percentage requirement for park land. So although 3 three of these acres go away -- 4 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Bt,It it still, at this 5 point, it's still a change in use that we would have to 6 approve? 7 MR. CASEY: Correct. 8 COMMISSIONER MULROY: And the magnitude -- 9 magnitude may not be the correct word. The 10 proportionality is a reduction by 17 percent. 11 MR. CASEY: Right. I just wanted to make 12 sure we had the base line correct, the PD-139 line 13 correct. 14 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. I'm just 15 trying to line up the information so that we all are 16 looking -- 17 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: They want to come to 18 the podium, then they want to get out of there just as 19 soon as possible. 20 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I know. Now, we -- 21 as I understand it, the small map in our packet, I can see 22 where the blue line is representing what we thought the 23 FEMA line was. 24 MS. HATTON: NO, the red line. 25 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. Was the old PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2002 Page 77 - Page 80 CondenseltTM Page 81 1 recorded FEMA line, then we have some closely hashed dark 2 lines and that represents the -- 3 MS. HATTON: Land that's out of the 4 floodplain, that's out of the newly studied floodplain. 5 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. So under your 6 rough study, the closely hashed dark lines was actually 7 moving, would be moving the established the FEMA. You're 8 thinking your study, that dark hashed area, would be the 9 results of your detailed study? 10 MS. HATTON: That is correct. 11 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. And then the 12 widely spaced dark lines is your proposed fill? 13 MS. HATTON: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. So now the 15 problem we have, we don't have the drawing with your lots 16 on it so we don't know -- it looks to me if I'm trying to 17 superimpose, that to the west side, you're filling 18 complete lots, if you're there adjacent to that 19 cul-de-sac. 20 MS. HATTON: That's why we have the area 21 flown to get the aerial because we didn't feel comfortable 22 with that either. 23 COMMISSIONER MULROY: NO, I'm -- what the 24 documents -- I don't want to -- 25 MS. HATTON: You're correct. Page 82 Page 83 1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Reichhart would 2 like to try to clarify a little bit, concept plan, 3 detailed plan for the petitioner, I think. 4 MR. REICHHART: The question has come up 5 regarding the second phase that shows the lots on it that 6 I think articulates a little bit better what is really 7 being proposed, and it is a difficult situation that the 8 applicant has in that this is the concept plan and we're 9 setting the land use and some of the guidelines associated 10 with the floodplain. 11 And the final lot configuration doesn't 12 come until the detailed plan. And it is a little bit 13 clearer picture of what they're proposing and I think it 14 does help identify what they're proposing. But, again, 15 it's -- 16 COMMISSIONER MULROY: with all due respect, 17 Mr. Reichhart, if you'll move your drawing up so we can 18 see it again, the lower drawing, there you go, you'll see 19 the bulb of the radius there and where you were pointing 20 out the access to the park land, the lots immediately 21 adjacent to the east, you're clearly -- if that's your 22 street and the back of curb, you're clearly showing three 23 lots to be totally filled, reclaimed. Okay. We're not 24 just talking about filling in the back of a yard and 25 having the house on original undisturbed soil. Page 84 1 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I don't want to get 2 off on a tangent. The docmnents we're looking at right 3 now, to directly answer my question, you are, with what is 4 in front of us, proposing to fill whole lots; is that 5 correct? 6 MS. HATTON: That is correct. 7 COMMISSIONER MULROY: SO a hous¢ would be 8 on filled area. 9 MS. HATTON: That's correct. 10 COMMISSIONERMULROY: okay. So now that 11 gets me pretty close to where I want to be as far as 12 understanding the facts. Okay. 13 MS. HATTON: But, again, I'd like to state 14 we did not have the very good detailed information in this 15 area around here for the study and that's why -- 16 COMMISSIONER MULROY: MS. Hatton, I would 17 like to say, out of courtesy to the applicant several 18 weeks ago, we suggested, because you seem to be a little 19 shy on documentation and presentation, that you come back 20 in a couple of weeks so we could have a meaningful 21 colmnunication. And what you're saying now is what you're 22 showing us is still in doubt. 23 MS. H^TTON: Yes. We need to be able to 24 get this detailed study. We need the detailed study. 25 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Thank you. 1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: could you point 2 where -- 3 MS. HATTON: He's talking about these three 4 lots right here. 5 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER MULROY: You're clearly 7 showing and anticipating, and even if your rough study 8 moves that line just a little bit, you're currently 9 showing the intention of completely creating these lots 10 with reclmnation. 11 MS. HATTON: Again, until they get 12 everything -- and I hate to be squirrely with you but I 13 really, really, really want to make sure that I tell you 14 exactly what's going on. I don't want to misrepresent 15 anything. 16 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. I've 17 represented to you the facts as I can understand them and 18 I will be glad to listen to any correction of my 19 understanding. 20 MS. HATTON: The information that's in this 21 area right here, that's in this area was not detailed 22 enough for us to feel comfortable to where we knew where 23 this line goes. 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Reichhart would 25 like to help clarify. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2002 Page 81 - Page 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CondcnsoItTM Page 85 MR. REICHHART: I am now confused about those -- let's go back to those three lots that were just questioned. The way I was reading this map, that south of that line, that dashed line is what you're saying would be the future floodplain. MS. HATTON: Right. MR. REICHHART: And then those three lots are in fill or not in the floodplain. And the way I was reading it, and I need to be -- MS. HATTON: This one or this one? MR. REICHHART: NO, the first one you pointed to. MS. HATTON: This one. MR. REICHHART: Those first three lots -- MS. HATTON: That's correct. Again, this -- MR. REICHHART: They're not in the flood -- Page 87 1 fill, okay, when you do fill like that, it's compacted 2 fill. It's engineered fill. We just don't go out there 3 and fill it and build lots. 4 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I understand that. 5 MR. JOWELL: But until we actually do the 6 study, we can't tell you that these lots will be 100 7 percent filled. 8 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Mr. Jowell, I want to you're saying they are not going to be in the floodplain, and not being filled. MS. HATTON: Again, I don't know. The survey information that we had we based this particular one on was not sufficient. COMMISSIONER MULROY: AS you've shown, these two drawings together shows the intention to fill them? Page 86 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 MS. HATTON: Yes. 2 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. That's -- in 3 their totality, the total lot will be filled. 4 MS. HATTON: Yeah. 5 COMMISSIONER MULROY: That's what's shown 6 on these drawings? 7 MS. HATTON: That's correct. 8 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. Thank you. 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: MS. Hatton, you have 10 another part of your petitioning team that would like to 11 speak, obviously. Would you like to introduce him? 12 MS. HATTON: okay. I have another mcmbor 13 of Denton cJw, charles Jowell. 14 MR. JOWELL: I'm Charles Jowell, 1812 15 Woodridge. You know, we're showing these lots now. This 16 is concept only. Okay. Until we do the study, these lots 17 may not even be there. It may show that it's in the 18 floodplain to thc extent that we couldn't fill it so we, 19 therefore, would take it out. These are strictly concept. 20 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Mr. Jowell, in 21 principle, and I stand to be corrected, in principle, you 22 show the willingness or the projection to have lots in 23 their totality be of reclaimed floodplain. 24 MR. JOWELL: see, that's something that's 25 done every day. Now, you mention the fact that it's on make this clear one last time. As you said, that's something that's done every day. In other jurisdictions, it may be done every day. I just want to establish what is shown on your drawing clearly demonstrates that intention to have lots, if the line happens to be up there, that you're reclamation will be for the lot in total and that the house would be on -- MR. JOWELL: But once it's filled, then it has to be approved by FEMA. okay. We just don't go out PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 18 and fill it. 19 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I understand. I'm 20 just trying -- as a jurisdiction -- 21 MR. JOWELL: And you're correct but I want 22 you to know that is concept -- this is a concept -- this 23 plan is -- we may change this plan once we do our study. 24 COMMISSIONER MULROY: But let's say the 25 study comes out exactly as you've drawn it -- Page 88 1 MR. JOWELL: Then it is our intent to fill 2 those lots. 3 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Your intention that 4 the lot in totality would be of reclaimed flood land and 5 all fill? 6 MR. JOWELL: That's correct. 7 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. That's my only 8 point I was trying to establish. That's your intention. 9 MR. JOWELL: That's correct. And our study 10 has to allow us to fill that and we have some guidelines. 11 And once the study is completed, then your Engineering 12 Department will have an opportunity to review our study 13 and make their cmmnents. 14 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I'm not as concemed 15 where the final line is. We know it's going to wiggle and 16 waggle. I'm just trying to understand the information as 17 presented demonstrates your intention, if it comes close 18 to where you are, is to have lots on the market that are 19 entirely of fill. 20 Mn. JOWELL.. That ix certainly our intent. 21 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. Thank you. 22 MR. JOWELL: Okay, sir. 23 COMMISSIONER MULROY: That's all I have, 24 Mr. Chainnan. Thank you. 25 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. Don't mn 27TH, 2002 Page 85 - Page 88 CondenseltTM 23 want to come back and take it back from you. 24 we're trying to give you some guidance on that. 25 hope that's helpful for you. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 91 1 some dollars to meet certain criteria that we totally 2 exceed the requirements for park area with this plan, more 3 so than most plans I think that have been presented. So, 4 I mean, sure, we're taking maybe an acre. Maybe to me 5 that doesn't sound like very much, and it is some, but 6 we're also providing a lot better access to the park with 7 the new plan. 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: We have several 9 Cmmnissioners that would like to address your petition. 10 Commissioner Keith. 11 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. This is 12 for Mr. Morrison, if I may. 13 MR. MORRISON: Yes, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Like I say, all we 15 have is this small map here, small contour map. 16 MR. MORRISON: And I apologize for that. 17 COMMISSIONER KEITH: And I'm looking at the 18 center of the creek. It says, of course, I agree with you 19 that this is a swag arrangement of a contour map, but the 20 center of the creek is going to be pretty close. And I'm 21 watching, looking at it and it comes rather precariously 22 close to what you're wanting to fill in, as I'm looking at 23 it. Am I looking at it well? 24 MR. MORRISON: Yes, sir, it does come 25 pretty close in one place. Page 89 1 off. Don't run off. Thank you, Mr. Mulroy. We have 2 several other Conunissioners that have cmmnents and I too 3 had a couple. I hope that the discussion that we're 4 having here this evening gives you so,ne guidance, and I 5 know that you appreciate that. And what I'm hearing 6 consistently is that we're not in favor of anything that's 7 going to put a plus -- going to change the downstream 8 effect plus or minus one way or the other, unless you want 9 to claim more of the flood capacity there. 10 And the other concern is the fact that wc 11 have a school site plan that is adjoining what was labeled 12 originally for us as future greenway corridor, and we're 13 concerned about presenting a proposal to us that shows 14 park type land adjoining a school which we see as a big 15 asset to the school, as well as to the cormnunity and to 16 your development also, which we hope will help you market 17 that more successfully. And so we're concerned about the 18 representation that you as a developer make coming before 19 us on multiple occasions and how it looks to the rest of 20 the co~mnunity in putting forth the fact that we are going 21 to dedicate land perhaps to a school and we're going to 22 dedicate parks and then we want this approved, and then we And so And I Page 90 MR. JOWELL: It'S helpful. But let's talk about thc school a little bit. Okay. Argyle school came and they wanted a school site. Now, Argyle is trying to deannex this property. Okay. So, I mean, we want to all put a school site in. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: someone would like a school site. MR. JOWELL: ^nd now we're talking about deannexation. So, you know, we don't know what's going to happen there. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: If you have that type of population -- MR. JOWELL: But I wanted to reiterate -- COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: when you have that type of population, we would hope there would be a school site that's going to be there for some school district to operate with. MR. JOWELL: [~ut, you know, they did pretty well hold our feet to the fire and we did agree to that. And now they've come along and said, hey, this is not the case. But I want to -- COMMISSIONER RISHEL: But they're going to be in some school district eventually. MR. JOWELL: I think you have some options here as far as parks go. You have the option of paying Page 92 COMMISSIONER KEITH: In fact, I think some of the fill literally comes into the creek bottom. I mean, we're literally going into the creek now is kind of what I'm saying. MR. MORRISON: AS I recall -- and this is pretty rough stuff you're looking at. And as I recall, that's not the case. We will not fill in the creek at all in everything I've seen so far. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Okay. Moving forward, 10 but seeing that it is -- I think your study is going to 11 probably come to show that it is going to come close. I 12 think that you're -- because as Mr. Jowell presented that 13 if this study proves appropriate, that you would be 14 putting lots down into on those areas and perhaps 15 requiring some fill. I've seen some places where there 16 has been fill within studies. But when you start getting 17 a lot of water coming down in there and you get some big 18 heavy rains, you've got one big topic called erosion. 19 MR. MORRISON: Yes, sir. 20 COMMISSIONER KEITI-I: Now, what would the 21 developer be interested in doing to fill that type of area 22 to prevent erosion other than just raw dirt? 23 MR. MORRISON: YeS, sir. One of the things 24 I made sure of in doing any study, I've never done any of 25 these studies that produces a flow velocity of more than PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2002 Page 89 - Page 92 CondcnscItTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 93 six to eight feet per second, maybe even less than that, 1 and that's a range of erosive velocity. So I've made sure 2 that this creek is not coming up with any kind of 3 velocities like that that might cause erosion. If it is, 4 then we need to do something about it to make sure that 5 doesn't happen. 6 COMMISSIONER KEITH: I think the concept, 7 if you're wanting to go proceed with this, I think that 8 really needs to be very seriously looked at whether or not 9 the velocity of water, the speed of water coming down, 10 velocity of it coining in, that you've got a bend there and 11 any time water makes a bend, it tends to pick up speed. 12 MR. MORRISON: Absolutely. 13 COMMISSIONER KEITH: And I would say I 14 think you need to, if you're going to do it -- if it comes 15 to -- your study comes about, I think more than just dirt 16 is going to be required, either concrete, rock, something 17 to absorb that rush of water. 18 MR. MORRISON: That is possible and I 19 promise you any study that I did would take into account 20 that bend and the additional velocity as a result thereof. 21 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Okay. Thank you. 22 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Colmnissioner Apple. 23 COMMISSIONER APPLE: JUst a comanent to get 24 my two cents on the record. I guess what continually 25 Page 94 concerns me about these developments coining before us is 1 exactly what you alluded to earlier that you've never 2 known one of the studies to come back unapproved. And 3 it's been my experience that often times the computer 4 modules do not effectively represent the water when it 5 rains. Thank you. 6 MR. MORRISON: Yes, rna'mn. I agree with 7 that 100 percent. 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further 9 questions, Colmnissioners, of the petitioner? Thank you 10 very much. If I remember right, this is a public 11 hearing. Is that correct? We have -- we had our 12 presentation from the petitioner. So I'd like to request 13 at this time, since this is a public hearing, and if 14 there's anyone who would like to speak either for or 15 against this item on our Agenda, if they would please come 16 forward at this time. Anyone at this time that would 17 like to speak. And, once again, this, as a reminder, is 18 Item No. 6 on our Agenda. We have already gone through 19 the remainder of our Agenda and moved Item 6 in courtesy 20 to the petitioner who was unable to be here when they were 21 appointed to be here. 22 And so I request at this time, anyone else 23 who would like to speak regarding Item No. 6 on our 24 Agenda, would you please come forward at this time. 25 Page 95 Seeing no one who would like to speak, I will close the public hearing and ask the staff to give us their closing remarks. And I say that, being we had no one that spoke, we will not have a rebuttal from the petitioner. MS. VIERA: staff doesn't have further remarks. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: wise staff. Connnissioners, Commissioner Roy, comments or a question7 COMMISSIONER ROY: I would like to make a colmnent. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Please. You have the floor. COMMISSIONER ROY: I am disappointed that a previous Planning and Zoning Commission or a previous City Council, and Fin not sure which allowed the reclamation of floodplain in this property in the first place. And I believe the applicant's best course of action is to leave well enough alone and not ask us to review that decision. If I'm asked to review that decision, I will vote against it, the original decision. That's my position. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Cmmnissioner Roy. Colmnissioner Powell. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of questions. There's still three parts to this petition; is that correct? I'm going to ask Page 96 a question here on the three part issue then. Can we vote three separate votes or do we have to tie this all into one vote? Can anybody answer mc that, staff?. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Reichhart would like to address that. MR. REICHHART: I would believe that you'd have to tie it into one vote, but it could be approval of A, B with these conditions, denial of C. MR. SNYDER: YOU know, one of the things you could do - COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Snyder. MR. SNYDER: Pill sorry I jumped in there. One of the things you can do here is it appears that the only controversial issue at this point is the single-family development, the increase of 35 lots. So you could make a motion to approve the other two parts and not that part. Keep in mind that we do have a condition we passed out on the gas well that we recommend that you make a part of it. The other option is you could make the same motion or you could make a motion to approve everything with the condition, other condition that was outlined and add no development, colmna, fill or single-family lots would be allowed. And what that would do is that would mean that they would have to stick to whatever the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2002 Page 93 - Page 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CondcnscltTM Page 97 1 ultimate floodplain is in accordance with the FEMA study. 2 And that is, as I understand it, that's 3 what the City Council ultimately did on the Country Club 4 development. So that then they had to come back with the 5 detailed plan at a later date and establish what that 6 actual line is. Or you could just simply deny it in one 7 motion as you approve the other two aspects. But I agree 8 with Mr. Reichhart, it really needs to be in one motion 9 because it's one application. 10 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I understand. So, 11 now -- oh, I've lost it. I thought I had that -- I know 12 Pve got another question and I've lost it. I'm sorry. 13 I'll come up with it. Senior moment, I had a senior 14 moment, sir. I can't help it. 15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further questions 16 or clarification, Commission? Conu~issioner Keith. 17 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Yeah. Okay. I'm 18 still a little fuzzy on this, Mr. Snyder. We can break 19 this down into three parts, yes, no? 20 MR. SNYDER: You have to have one vote, one 21 motion and one vote on this, but the vote would have three 22 parts to it. So you'd make a motion, an example I gave 23 is, I move to approve this application with regard to the 24 gas well development with the condition handed out, and 25 read that condition, and the m~aenity center, but not the Page 98 single-family, 35 lot. COMMISSIONER KEITH: But at this time we have -- COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Just as an exm~ple. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Okay. We've not had any infon~ation given to us on where these wells are going to be drilled at at this time yet either, have we? COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Reichhart would like to make a cormr~ent. MR. REICHHART: And, again, I believe they were identified as to what land areas over in the concept plan. The exact location would have to come back to this body to be approved under a detailed plan. So I think -- and don't hold me, but land Category A would allow, you know, this use and gas wells. Okay. And then when they come forward with the exact locations, this body would approve the exact location of that gas well. COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. So to help me along, Mr. Reichhart, so if we gave them pennission to act on gas wells, then they would still have to comply with coming back to us, correct? MR. REICHHART: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Okay. Thank you. MR. REICHHART: And what we've -- thc condition that was handed out says, basically, that they Page 99 1 would adhere to the regulations that were recently 2 approved. 3 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. 4 MR. REIC~HA~*: SO we would still end up 5 approving that in the detailed plan. 6 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Counselor Snyder 8 would like to add his three and a half cents, allowing for 9 inflation. 10 MR. SNYDER: I just wanted to point out 11 that the condition on the gas wells indirectly constrains 12 the locations with regard to certain things such as 13 floodplain and so forth. 14 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: conunissioner Powell. 15 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I have unclogged my 16 senior lnoment, sir. 17 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I think we all have 18 that. 19 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I understand. The 20 petitioner asked about five or six times, and it was my 21 intent to talk about this, about the concept plan being 22 approved so that it would be financially feasible for them 23 to go through with this full bore flood plan, development, 24 survey, whatever. If we approve the concept plan, lny 25 understanding is, and correct me if I'm wrong, an approved Page 100 1 concept plan does not allow them to fill anything or build 2 anything or change thc floodplain in any direction. We're 3 only approving a concept. The detailed plan would allow 4 them to do that. Tell me if I'm right or if I'm wrong 5 here. 6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Assistant Director 7 Reichhart would like to answer that. 8 MR. REICHHART: TO some extent, that's 9 correct. And I believe if the approval is that we would 10 allow the development of 35 additional lots in that area, 11 that we would have to couch that that it would be subject 12 to whatever, no more additional fill than was previously 13 shown on the original concept plan, no fill at all in the 14 floodplain. You know, you'd have to say something because 15 I believe they could make the argmnent that you said they 16 could do that. FEM^ allows thmn to fill the floodplain; 17 therefore, and again I'll defer to Mr. Snyder, but there 18 might be some question as to exactly what they could or 19 could not do at the detailed plan stage. 20 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. Since I 21 think I still have the floor -- 22 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YOU do. 23 COMMISSIONER POWELL: This is why I was 24 making the argument a couple of weeks ago that we need to 25 have something finx~ to vote on. We've got one more Dr. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2002 Page 97 - Page 100 CondenscltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 101 Wolski situation here. It's happened again and again and again. These people have been here -- this is at least their third trip. It may be the fourth. We never get to the point where I've got something I can get my hands on. Pm always grabbing air here instead of grabbing something concrete. I'm an old concrete man. You know that. I want something to vote on here that I can vote on it and make some sense out of it, even if I tell them, no, I want to be able to tell them no with authority and with responsibility. It just bothers me this continual situation where people come before us and we don't have a way to help them or tell them no. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Colmnissioner. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: cmm~aissioner Apple. COMMISSIONER APPLE: I would like to make a motion. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Let me see if there's any other cmmnents. And I had a cmm~ent. I guess one of my concerns is the fact that petitioners come before us and present a plan that meets the -- is appealing to the eye, and then as we further study it and it's re-presented to us, we see situations where, with a little bit better observations to begin with and maybe a little bit better Page 102 Page 103 1 and gas well operation. So the implication is that the 2 amenity centers, which we were leaning toward agreeing 3 with the applicant, would be in reclaimed land. 4 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I think Ms. Viera can 5 clarify that for us. 6 MS. VIERA: It is my understanding that the 7 intent of the applicant is just to develop single-family 8 lots in the southern part where the floodplain is located. 9 Even though we don't have a final location for the amenity 10 center, that will come later in thc detailed plan stage. 11 But it is my understanding so far that they're proposing 12 the amenity center somewhere in the center of the southern 13 part of this development. 14 COMMISSIONER ROY: SO if we said something 15 along the lines that amenity centers would be allowed but 16 subject to review at the detailed planning stage. 17 MS. VIERA: The amenity center has to be 18 approved by a detailed plan and the location would be one 19 of the considerations. 20 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I believe Mr. 21 Reichhart would like to join in the discussion. 22 MR. REICHHART: AS a matter of fact, it 23 will have to be reviewed as a detailed plan. But if you 24 do have a concern, you can say you recommend approval of 25 the amenity center, it shall not be located within the Page 104 1 study, we could have clarified this and been more 2 forthright in how the presentation was made. It concerns 3 me that someone would come before us and then make an 4 inference that we don't -- we may not dedicate the school 5 site to anybody. And then we have a situation perhaps 6 where we had "X" amount of park land that we saw that was 7 going to be a part of this development that they'd like to 8 reclaim. And so I'm concerned about how this presentation 9 process has gone about and the opportunities we give 10 developers to come back later and relook at how we're 11 going to make a sale to the City of Denton. 12 Commissioner Mu[roy. 13 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I 14 was going to make a motion but I understand that Ms. Apple 15 is on hold. 16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Apple -- 17 excuse me. I have one other comment, I believe, 18 Co~m~issioner Apple, from Co~mnissioner Roy. 19 COMM[SSlONERROY: Yes. Before the motion 20 is made, perhaps we should re-review thc amenity center 21 issue. We talked about it last time and I think we got 22 fairly close to an agreement amongst ourselves. But now, 23 reading the staff report, it says something about the 24 reclamation of approximately six acres of floodplain to 25 develop 35 additional residential lots and amenity centers 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 floodplain. COMMISSIONER ROY: well, the first sentence that's in the material that was handed out is no development or single-family lots shall be built in a floodplain as ultimately identified by FEM^. That would include amenity centers. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I believe Counselor Snyder would like to -- MR. SNYDER: I just wanted to point out, the reason why staff is recommending that you put, if you decide to approve the single-family lots, why you put that condition about the floodplain is because it more impacts the nmnber of lots they can get, and that was the reason why we wanted to make that abundantly clear. I'm not sure it's really necessary with regard to the amenity center that you do that. You can do that if you so choose. But under our regulations, they cannot put that amenity center in the floodplain. But I just wanted to make that point clear, the difference between the single-family and the other uses is that if you approve the single-family uses and say they can put 35 lots and it turns out that they have to reclaim part of the floodplain to get the 35 lots, then you've created an ambiguity. I don't think you have the same concerns with regard to the amenity center. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: conunissioner Apple, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2002 Page 101 - Page 104 CondenseltTM Page 105 1 you have the floor. 2 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I'm still in my 3 holding pattern. I would like to move that we deny the 4 request for the additional residential lots; that we 5 approve thc request for thc gas well development with the 6 following conditions, that it shall comply with Subchapter 7 35.22 of the Development Code, additionally, that the 8 location of gas wells shall be disclosed to any 9 perspective home buyers and that the location of any 10 structure or apparatus related to gas well operations 11 within dedicated park land shall be compatible with future 12 plans for the park land area; and that we approve the 13 amenity center with the condition that it shall not be 14 located in a floodplain area. 15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: IS there a second? 16 COMMISSIONER MULROY: second. 17 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It'S been moved by 18 Colmnissioncr Apple and seconded by Colmnissioncr Mulroy. 19 Any further discussion? Seeing no further discussion~ 20 please vote. Motion carries 6-0 of the Cormnissioners 21 present. Colmnissioners, thank you very much for your 22 attention to this and your concerns for our cormnunity. 23 24 25 Is there a Director's co~mnent that we'd like to present here? MR. REICHHART: NO, sir. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 106 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Even an Assistant Director's comment? MR. REICHHART: NO, sir. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Is there any further business to bring before this Commission? Seeing no further business or comments, we are adjourned. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2002 Page 105 - Page 106 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING ORDINANCES 91-034 AND 99-317, TO CHANGE THE PERMITTED LAND USES FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 139 (PD- 139) ZONING DISTRICT AND LAND USE CLASSIFICATION TO ALLOW AMENITY CENTERS AND THE DRILLING, COMPLETING, OPERATING, REWORKING, RECOMPLETiNG AND PRODUCING OF NATURAL GAS; SAID PD139 CONTAINS APPROXIMATELY 401 ACRES AND IS COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE VINTAGE; PROVIDING FOR A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY iN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z01-0048) WHEREAS, on March 5, 1991, by Ordinance 91-034 the City Council approved a change in zoning for 450.6 acres of land to Planned Development 139 (PD-139) zoning district, as more particularly described therein; and WHEREAS, on September 7, 1999, by Ordinance 99-317 the City Council approved an amendment to the Concept Plan of Planned Development 139 (PD-139) zoning district, as more particularly described therein, and WHEREAS, Denton CJW Partner, Ltd, has applied for an amendment to the concept plan for Planned Development 139 (PD- 139) containing 401.23 acres of land; and WHEREAS, on March, 27, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission concluded a public hearing as required by law, and recommended approval with conditions of the requested amendment to the concept plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the amendment to the concept plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Ordinances No. 91-034 and No. 99-317, providing approval for the rezoning of 450.6 acres to Planned development 139 (PD-139) and the original concept plan, and the amended concept plan for 401.23 acres for said district, are amended by the approval of a new Concept Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference, such property being more particularly described in Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, subject to the following conditions: 1. Gas well development shall comply with Subchapter 35.22 of the Development Code. 2. The location of any structure or apparatus related to gas well operations, within dedicated parkland, shall be compatible with future plans for the parkland area. Page 1 of 3 3. Location of gas wells shall be disclosed to any prospective homebuyers. 4. Amenity cemers shall not be located in a floodplain area. SECTION 2. The provisions of this ordinance as they apply to the amendmems herein approved, shall govern and control over any conflicting provisions of Ordinances No. 91-034 and No. 99-317, but all the provisions of Ordinances No.91-034 and No. 99-317 as they apply to the regulations of the district not herein amended, shall continue in force and effect and shall apply to the remainder of said district. SECTION 3. A copy of this ordinance shall be attached to Ordinances No. 91-034 and No. 99-317 showing the amendmem herein approved. SECTION 4. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid by any court, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. SECTION 5. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Demon Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2002. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR Page 2 of 3 BY: Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A All of the James Edmonson Survey, Abstract No. 401 and the James L. Harris Survey, Abstract No. 555 and a part of the S. A. Pritchett Survey, Abstract No. 1021, situated about 4 miles south 35 degrees west from the courthouse in Denton County, Texas; and embracing all of Parcel No. 1 described in the deed to DeNon CJW Partners, LTD., recorded in Clerks Documem No. 98-R0036601 of the DeNon County, Deed Records. Beginning at the southeast corner of said James Edmonson Survey in the middle of a County Road for the southeast comer of said Parcel No. 1, from which an 8" pipe post bears north 88 degrees-50 minutes 30-seconds west 30-5/10 feet. Thence north 88 degrees-50 minutes-30 seconds west, to and along a fence for the south line of said Parcel No. 1, a distance of 2658-69/100 feet to a 1" iron on the west side ora comer post of a fence, for the southwest comer of said Edmonson Survey and the southeast comer of said S. A. Pritchett Survey and southerly southwest comer of said Parcel No 1. Thence north no degrees-33 minutes-20 seconds east, along the common line of said Edmonson and Pritchett Surveys for the southerly west line of said Parcel No. 1, a distance of 2217-66/100 feet to a 1" iron on the east side of an old 10" Oak comer post of a fence for a reemram comer of said Parcel No. 1. Thence north 89 degrees-06 minutes-19 seconds west, along a south line of said Parcel No. 1, a distance of 1997-71/100 feet to a 1" iron for the westerly southwest corner of said Parcel No. 1 and the southerly southeast comer of the 42-526/1000 acres tract described in the deed to the State of Texas for highway right of way recorded in volume 529, page 538 of the said Deed Records. Thence northerly along the westerly line of said Parcel No. 1 and easterly line of said State of Texas tract: north 27 degrees-24 minutes east, 67-4/10 feet to a 5/8" iron set; north 30 degrees-30 minutes-19 seconds east, 599-93/100 feet to a damaged highway monument; north 77 degrees-36 minutes-05 seconds east, 312-4/10 feet to a highway monument; north 27 degrees-46 monument; north 17 degrees-40 highway monument; north 62 degrees-19 monument; north 27 degrees-26 monument; minutes-04 seconds east, 644-48/100 feet to a highway minutes-05 seconds west, 183-48/100 feet to a damaged minutes-40 seconds west, 138-75/100 feet to a highway minutes-28 seconds east, 425-07/100 feet to a highway north 22 degrees-24 minutes-56 seconds east, 100-27/100 feet to a damaged highway monument; north 27 degrees-39 minutes-15 seconds east, 1271-27/100 feet to a 1" iron in the north line of said Pritchett Survey and for the northwest comer of the said Parcel No. 1. Thence south 89 degrees-01 minutes-54 seconds east, along the said north line of Pritchett Survey, to and along the north line of said Harris Survey, for the north line of said Parcel No. 1, a distance of 3059-35/100 feet to a 1" iron for the northeast corner of said Harris Survey and said Parcel No. 1. Thence south no degrees-07 minutes-20 seconds west, to and along the said middle of County Road, being along the east line of said Harris Survey, to along the east line of said Edmonson Survey for the east line of said Parcel No. 1, a distance of 5300-12/100 feet to the place of beginning and containing 401-203/100 acres of which 3-96/100 acre s lie within said County Road, leaving 397-243/1000 acres exclusive of said Road. Basis for bearings is deed call along the east line of Parcel No. 1. ~IKE,B/K£ ONNECTOR V~#ITY H~P P A R K RCEL 'RD 1J9 Z Attachment 3 U tV B ER MIXED USE TOW CENTER E RESIDENTIAL FAMILY NCL FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ~PROX. m~. A T T A C H E D I DENSITY NOT TO EXCEED I~ UNI T~/ ACRE MAR 0 '7 ZOO2 REVISION - P & D CONCEPT PLAN THE VINTA A MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY DENTON, TEXAS · I I I PD 139 I Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #41 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: May 14, 2002 Planning Department CM/DCM/ACM: David Hill, 349-8314 SUBJECT - Z02-0008 (defferies Center) Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 5.0 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential Mixed- Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning district. The property is generally located along the east side of Highway 377, approximately 900 feet north of Chipping Campden Road. A retail development is proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-0). (Z02-0008) (Jeffries Center) [Property owner initiated rezoning, initially reviewed during the Development Code review process.] BACKGROUND Applicant: Lan Bui Jefferies, Dallas, TX As part of the city wide rezoning related to the Development Code adoption, City Council reviewed this request at the January 15, 2002 Work Session meeting. At that time, a consensus was reached to rezone the property to Neighborhood Residential Mixed-use 12 (NRMU-12). However, at the January 28, 2002 Work Session meeting, City Council reverted the zoning of the property back to Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) due to concerns related to adequate notice. They also directed staff to process a separate zoning petition, at no charge to the applicant. The applicant is requesting the rezoning of the subject property from Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning designation to Neighborhood Residential Mixed-Use 12 (NRMU-12) to develop retail uses. The property was previously zoned Agricultural (A). OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Deny. 3. Postpone consideration. 4. Table item. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-0). ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The subject property is not platted. A final plat is required prior to the issuance of any building permits. 1 PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology of Z02-0008, commonly known as Jefferies Center: Application Date - DRC Date - P&Z Date - Neighborhood Meeting February 21, 2002 March 7, 2002 March 27, 2002 None FISCAL INFORMATION Development of this property will increase the assessed value of the city. short-term public improvements that are the responsibility of the city. It will require no ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Maps 3. Public Notification (Property Notification Map and Property Owner Responses) 4. Photographs 5. March 27, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes 6. Draft Ordinance Prepared by: Deborah Viera, AICP Planner II Respectfully submitted: Douglas S. Powell, AICP Director of Planning and Development ATTACHMENT 1 Staff Analysis Summary_ of Zoning Request The applicant is requesting the rezoning of the subject site to a Neighborhood Residential Mixed- Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning district to develop retail uses along the east side of Highway 377. The NRMU-12 zoning designation would allow limited retail sales and services and professional services and offices. A multifamily development with a maximum of 12 units per acre could also be developed. Existing Condition of Property_ Property History. February 20, 2002 - The subject property was placed in the Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning district and land use classification by Ordinance 2002-040. Previous to the adoption of the Development Code, this property was zoned Agricultural (A). Adjacent zoning. North: Extra-territorial Jurisdiction (ET J) South: Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) East: Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) West: Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) (across Hwy 377) There are no neighborhood services located in the vicinity of this site. The closest neighborhood service provider is located over 5,000 feet away from the subject site. Comprehensive Plan Analysis The Denton Plan identifies the subject site as an Existing Neighborhood/Infill Compatibility area. In such areas, existing neighborhoods must be protected from incompatible uses and new development must be in accordance and complementary to the surrounding land uses. According to the Plan, development guidelines can ensure that diverse land uses coexist together. "Zoning should be used as originally intended, to address extreme incompatibilities between land uses. Zoning should be used to identify performance standards that allow land uses in defined districts based on their ability to mitigate potential negative impacts on neighboring properties. A reexamination of the use of zoning as a planning tool should be conducted to reflect community values successfully." (p. 28) "Development guidelines should be established to allow a wider range of land uses to coexist within close proximity to each other. Site design principles, aesthetic guidelines, and construction standards should be investigated as possible tools to promote land use compatibility and encourage developmental diversity." (p.28) Staff recognizes the lack of neighborhood services in this particular area of the city. However, staff also stresses the importance of controlling the intensity of non- residential uses and the quality of design of non-residential uses adjacent to residential developments. Typical neighborhood services provide for convenience and service uses that do not exceed 4,000 square feet per tenant. The community's visual preferences for new development, incorporated in The Denton Plan, identify strip developments as the less desirable type of development. Top rated developments included human scale developments with a variety of facades that are closer to the street, and that provide pedestrian linkages and landscaping. "... Neighborhood centers will contain small shops and stores that are designed to harmonize with surrounding homes and provide daily necessities for the neighborhood. Residents will be able to walk ... bike ... use transit ... or drive to many destinations throughout the city. There must be a place in the city for all types of development." (p. 31) "One of the overall goals of the land use plan is to limit the amount of strip commercial development along Denton's arterial streets, collectors, and highways." (p. 42) "The quality of developmenL particularly commercial development along the city's corridors, is a significant factor in the quality of neighborhoods, the urban environment, and the sustainability of structures. Adequate public facilities shall be a criterion by which zoning is granted." (p. 42) Neighborhood uses, such as retail uses and professional offices, in conjunction with the site design standards as identified in the Development Code, will make the proposed development compatible with The Denton Plan. Developmem Review Analysis Transportation Trip Generation. Assuming 40 percem building coverage, the proposed developmem would generate approximately 3,600 trips per day. This is approximately 3,400 more trips per day than the traffic that would be generated if the 5 acre site were developed as a 20 residemial lot subdivision. Access. The developmem will have access from Highway 377. Limited number of curb cuts along Highway 377 will be allowed. Road Capacity The DeNon Mobility Plan idemifies Highway 377 as a primary major arterial. This road is designed to be a six (6) lane divided street without parking, providing six (6) lanes of through traffic. As such, its designed traffic capacity allows for a tolerable traffic flow of up to 27,900 trips per day. This section of Highway 377 is curremly constructed with two (2) lanes without parking. No traffic count is available for this road. It is amicipated that adequate road capacity is available. Connectivity Any proposed developmem will be required to provide cross access easemems to adjacem parcels to the north and south. All proposed buildings must have access through shared driveways, cross access easemems, or a road system. Development Code/Zoning Analysis Any proposed development on this site is required to be in compliance with the site design standards of the Development Code, including buffering and screening between the proposed uses and the adjacent single-family subdivision to the east and south. An approved site plan for the proposed development will be required prior to the issuance of any building permit. No neighborhood services are located in the vicinity of the subject site to compare with or to support the proposed zoning request. However, the absence of neighborhood services in this area does support the idea of locating a new neighborhood service provider. Staff Findings 1. The development of neighborhood services as strip developments along major thoroughfares have the potential of turning into cluttered corridors with no cohesive character. Site design standards will play an important role during the permitting stage. 2. Minimizing the number of curb cuts along Highway 377 is a priority to maintain the level of service of the thoroughfare. Cross access easements between lots will be required. 3. Small tracts of land with frontage along Highway 377 will be very difficult to develop as single-family subdivisions. 4. The lack of neighborhood services in this neighborhood and the existing thoroughfare make properties along Highway 377 very attractive to non-residential developments. ATTACHMENT 2 Maps NORTH Location/Zoning Map Scale: None NORTH Land Use Map Scale: None ATTACHMET 3 Public Notification NORTH Notification Map Newspaper Notification Date: March 16, 2002 200' Legal Notices* sent via Certified Mail: 500' Courtesy Notices* sent via 1st Class Mail: Number of responses to 200' Legal Notice · In Opposition: 0 · In Favor: 1 · Neutral: 0 Percent of land within 200' in opposition: 0 % Scale: None *A copy of the notification list can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 Property Owner Responses Property Owner Name In favor Comments and Address /opposed* Hills of Argyle Favor As owner of The Hills of Argyle on Highway 377 Monticello, Ltd. and Bush Creek Road, Hills of Argyle Monticello, Ltd. has no objections to and clearly supports this rezoning effort. *A copy of the original notice can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 ATTACHMENT 4 Photographs Photo 1' View of the site from across Highway 377. Photo 2: Looking north along Highway 377. 10 Photo 3: Looking south along Highway 377. Hills of Argyle Subdivision at the background. ATTACHMENT 5 P&Z Commission Minutes March 27, 2002 o Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding an ordinance rezoning approximately 5.0 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential Mixed-Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning district. The property is generally located along the east side of Highway 377 approximately 900 feet north of Chipping Campden Road. A commercial development is proposed. (Z02-0008, Jefferies Center, Deborah Viera) Motion by Susan Apple and seconded by Joe Mulroy to approve recommendation to City Council. *Discussion of item is included in the Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Pages 29 - 33). CondenseltTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Colmnissioncrs. (COMMISSIONER APPEL AND RISHEL VOTED IN OPPOSITION.) Page 29 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: In theory, that will bring us to Item No. 8 on our Agenda. Item No. 8 is to hold a public hearing and consider making a rcco~mnendation to City Council regarding an ordinance rezoning approximately 5.0 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 4, which is NR-4 zoning district, to a Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12, NRMU-12 zoning district. The property is generally located along the east said of Highway 377, approximately 900 foot north of Chipping Campden Road. A retail development is proposed. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Page 31 MS. VIERA: Good evening, Colmnission. The applicant is requesting a zoning change for NR-4 to NRMU-12 for approximately five acres. As outlined in your backup, the proposed zoning request is COlnpatible with the Denton Plan. However, staff has some concerns about having Highway 377 developed as a strip instead of a mom cohesive, more planned development. However, the staff also recognizes that small parcels along Highway 377 are very difficult to develop as a single-family. And because there's an absence of neighborhood services in that particular area, the idea of having a new neighborhood service provided is, we believe, that is in compliance with the plan. One property owner within 200 feet sent a notification in favor of the request. No opposition so far. Staff is available to answer any questions that you may have. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, any questions of staff? Thank you, Ms. Viera. Is the petitioner here and would they like to present? If you would please give us your name and address. MS. JEFFERIES: Yes. My name is Lan Jeffcries. I'm the owner of the property. Good evening, Page 30 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 retails. So I will try to do my best to answer your questions, if you have any. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Apple. COMMISSIONER APPLE: what type of businesses do you see there? MS. JEFFERIES: The businesses I would see there such as the professional building, for instance, you have orthodontist or dentist or lawyers and accountants, that kind of thing, so the people in the neighborhood could come by, nearby and get that kind of services. COMMISSIONER APPLE: SO you're not thinking of a convenience store. You're thinking more of neighborhood setwices? MS. JE[:FERIES: Neighborhood services and things like that or like a small place for people to do a hair salon, that kind of thing. You know, because that's why I'm asking for NRMU~12 because it's very limited, very controlled from development perspective, from engineering perspective, and also from the size, you know, you can pretty much control a development that way. COMMISSIONER APPLE: And you see the building as being attractive and going along with the development. MS. JEFFERIES: Yes, exactly. COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Good evening, meanbers of P&Z. I have been here last time to request for a zoning change. I'm here -- you know I'm not very good at public speaking; however, ! will do my best to answer your questions. In addition to a letter sent by the Hills of Argyle in favor, I have talked to the owner which is Mr. Richard Burch on the north side of the properties. He is absolutely in favor. The property is very small in size. As you know, it's a five-acm land. And in the area here, there is nothing here to provide these neighborhood centers for the citizens who live in the area. I thought that this would be one of the better locations to just service the citizens in the area for professional services and small Page 32 i COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Cormnissioner Mulroy. 2 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes, Ms. Jeffefies. 3 I just wanted to ask if you were familiar with our site 4 design standards and fully aware of the anticipated manner 5 in which it would develop? 6 MS. JEFFERIES: Yes. I have been reading 7 on the website and I have been coming a lot of time to see 8 Mr. Larry Reichhart and the staff. And it's a very 9 blessing that the City of Denton is very useful in 10 answering my questions from a technical perspective and 11 also from the -- educate me to understand the goals on 12 that, so I have been following up for the last many 13 months. 14 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. 15 MS. JEFFERIES: I'm not declaring I'm an 16 expert or anything but I try my best. 17 COMMISSIONER MULROY: But it's very 18 workable for you then? 19 MS. JEFFERIES: Yes. Yes, sir. 20 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Thank you very much, 21 Ms. Jefferies. 22 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further 23 questions, Commissioners, of Ms. Jefferies? Thank you 24 very much, Ms. Jefferies. 25 MS. JEFFERIES: Thank you, sir. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2002 Page 29 - Page 32 Condens¢ItTM Page 33 1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: This is a public 2 hearing. Anyone who would like to speak either for or 3 against this item on our Agenda, if you'd please come 4 forward and address the Commission at this time. Anyone 5 either for or against Item No. 8 on our Agenda, if you'd 6 please come forward at this time. Seeing no one else who 7 would like to address the Commission, I will close the 8 public hearing and ask for the staff to give us a 9 smmnafion. 10 MS. VIERS: staff doesn't have any further 11 remarks. 12 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very much. 13 Co~mnissioners, any co~mnents or a motion? 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I'd like to move 15 approval of subject property Z02-0008. 16 COMMISSIONER MULROY: second. 17 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very much. 18 Any further -- we have a motion and a second for Item No. 19 8 on our Agenda. Any further co~mnents, Co~mnissioners? 20 Seeing no further comments, please vote. Thank you, 21 Conuni~ioners. Motion carries 6-0. 22 That will bring us to Item No. 9 on our 23 Agenda. Item No. 9, being our docucam is not working, 24 is to hold a public hearing and consider making a 25 reconunendation to City Council concerning the rezoning of Page approximately 0.52 acres from a district to a Downtown Residential 2, DR-2 zonin The property is cotmnonly known as 915 A and 1124 Fannin, and is located in the corner Fannin and Avenue A. An aparUnent ~lex is POWELL: Mr. SSIONER RISHEL: POWELL: couple of more to do after our business meeting COMMISSIONER that. you, sir. I short since we have a get a break me, our work session. I'll go along with No. 9 on our It's bccn I'll poll the rest be fine. requested by two of the Wc will 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 (Short break was taken.) COMMISSIONER RISnEL: I'd like scheduled meeting of the Planning and Let me back up if I can just a little bit and nmke the co~mnent that I probably should have made when first started our meeting. I was notified by 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Holt that she would not be at this meeting. also. She was called away and did notify me that she would not be let : enter that into our records and minutes. And that will bring us back to on our will have of which we have already Gray give us the okay. This at -- actually, Page I know and I request lots at the A. You can see on Eagle Drive is Texas actually owns request is to zone from Residential 2. zoning [-family development, involves northeast corner of this map here, these located here. The this property right here. Downtown Essentially, the districts being whereas DR- 1 not. In ~ the ;is an 1. The subject site is the downtown ' core district. One of the goals Plan is to increase densities core district. This :an see from this map, there is a variety districts already in this area. Although the properties is not zoned DR-2, you do have DR-2 zoning on the same block, basically. You have several apartment complexes general area. Attaclunent 4 of your backup, you'll see 4 . that I have taken of the neighborhood. : are 5 homes currently along Avenue A. of 6 them are of them appear to be rental 7 ire in poor condition, current 8 condition as 9 zoning, staff does feel that this zo request would 10 cause a problem, questions. 11 co~mnissioners, any 12 questions of Mr. CE'ay? you, Mr. Gray. This is a 13 public hearing and is the : and would they 14 like to present? If you', name and address. 15 Mr. of the 16 is Karen Mitchell, 17 address 7823 Road Worth. I am 18 h~re on ,~ you-all to 19 consider on our zoning change 20 the staff stated, this is an area 21 -- I kind of call it a hedge podge which usual to see near the university area. What it is my clients would like to do is to take three lots and these lots. We are very excited looking at the new standards that were approved with the new Denton PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2002 Page 33 - Page 36 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 4 (NR-4) ZON1NG DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL MIXED- USE 12 (NRMU-12) ZON1NG DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 5.014 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 377 APPROXIMATELY 900 FEET NORTH OF CHIPPING CAMPDEN ROAD LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS TRACT 3 OF ABSTRACT J. SEVERE SURVEY; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z002-0008) WHEREAS, Lan Bui Jefferies initiated a change in zoning for approximately 5.0 acres of land from Neighborhood Residemial 4 (NR-4) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residemial Mixed-Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning district classification and use designation; and WHEREAS, on March 27, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission concluded a public hearing as required by law, and recommended approval of the requested change in zoning; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change in zoning is consistem with the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The zoning district classification and use designation of the approximately 5.0 acres described as Tract 3 of the J. Severe Survey as shown on the map attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A" and more particularly described in that certain deed to John Alan Jefferies and Lan Bui Jefferies recorded in Vol. 4220, Page 1373 of the Real Property Records of DeNon County, Texas, is changed from Neighborhood Residemial 4 (NR-4) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residemial Mixed-Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning district classification and use. SECTION 2. The City's official zoning map is amended to show the change in zoning district classification. SECTION 3. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid by any court, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. Page 1 of 2 SECTION 4. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Demon Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2002. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Page 2 of 2 20' Utility Easement--, 0.252 Acres L3 L7 20'. P.O.B. V.D. Burch Vol, 239, Pg. 191 10 Acres Temporory Construction Eosernent 0.379 Acres John Aion Je f'reties and Lan Bui Jefferies Vol, 4220, Pg. 1 3 7 3 5. 014 Acres KENT M, MOBLEY Hills of Argyle Uonticello Ltd. VoL 4075. Pcj, 87 149,985 Acres Eeorif'~(js bosed or observo[ion of True horth by Gtobol Posi[ioning Sys[em ot bose po~nl for Hwy 577 woterline eosemen[ route Survey token July 1999, .UMB[I~ OlflEc~ON DISTANCE L1 N 89"20 5g"E 28.07' L2 s 43~4'43" w i9.o2' L3 S 8g'Og'22" W '25.66' L4 N 43'54'43" E 0,92' L5 N 89*20'59" E 42.11' L§ ~ 43'54'43" W 46.17' L7 S 89*O9'22" W 38.48' EXHIBIT for 20' Utility Easement and 30' Temporary Construction Easement John Alan Jefferies and Lan Bul Jefferies Tract in the J. SEVERE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1164 CITY OF DENTON DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #42 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET May 14, 2002 Planning Departmem Dave Hill, 349-8314 ~/~ SUBJECT - Z02-0020 (711 East Sherman Drive) Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 3.1 acres from a Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residemial Mixed- Use (NRMU) zoning district. The property, commonly known as 711 East Sherman Drive, is generally located along the west side of Sherman Drive approximately 150 feet west of Linwood Drive and Sherman Drive imersection. No developmem is proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-0). (Z02-0020) [Property owner initiated rezoning, initially reviewed during the Developmem Code review process.] BACKGROUND Applicant: Don Frazier, Denton, TX As part of the city wide rezoning related to the Developmem Code adoption, City Council reviewed this request at the January 15, 2002 Work Session meeting. At that time, a consensus was reached to rezone the property to Neighborhood Residemial Mixed-Use (NRMU). However, at the January 28, 2002 Work Session meeting, City Council reverted the zoning of the property back to Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) due to concerns related to adequate notice. They also directed staff to process a separate zoning petition, at no charge to the applicant. The applicam is requesting the rezoning of the subject property from Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) zoning designation to Neighborhood Residemial Mixed-Use (NRMU). The from portion of the subject property is zoned Neighborhood Residemial Mixed-Use (NRMU). No developmem is proposed at this time. The property was previously zoned One-Family Dwelling 7 (SF-7). As of this writing, staff has received two (2) responses in opposition, and one (1) response neutral to the zoning request from property owners within the 200 feet notification boundary. Curremly, less than 7% of the land within 200 feet of the subject property is in opposition to the request. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Deny. 3. Postpone consideration. 4. Table item. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-0). ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The subject property is not platted. A final plat is required prior to the issuance of any building permits. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology of Z02-0020, commonly known as 711 E. Sherman Drive: Application Date - DRC Date- P&Z Date - Neighborhood Meeting March 25, 2002 April 4, 2002 April 10, 2002 None FISCAL INFORMATION Development of this property will increase the assessed value of the city. It will require no short-term public improvements that are the responsibility of the city. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Maps 3. Public Notification (Property Notification Map and Property Owner Responses) 4. Photographs 5. April 10, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes 6. Draft Ordinance Prepared by: Deborah Viera, AICP Planner II Respectfully submitted: Douglas S. Powell, AICP Director of Planning and Development ATTACHMENT 1 Staff Analysis Summary_ of Zoning Request The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject site to a Neighborhood Residemial Mixed-use (NRMU) zoning district. The from portion of the property, totaling approximately 0.15 acres, is zoned NRMU. No developmem is proposed at this time. The NRMU zoning designation would allow retail sales and services and professional services and offices. A multifamily developmem could also be developed if a Specific Use Permit (SUP) is grained. Existing Condition of Property_ Property History. February 20, 2002 - The subject property was placed in the Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) zoning district and land use classification by Ordinance 2002-040. Previous to the adoption of the Developmem Code, this property was zoned One-Family Dwelling 7 (SF-7). Adjacem zoning. North: Neighborhood Residemial 3 & 4 (NR-3 & NR-4) South: Neighborhood Residemial Mixed-Use (NRMU) East: Neighborhood Residemial Mixed-Use (NRMU) West: Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) All properties around the subject site are developed; therefore, access to the property is limited to Sherman Drive only. The odd configuration of the subject site also limits the type of developmem likely to happen on this site. There are retail services, nursing home, and religious uses located along to the north, south, east, and west boundaries. Comprehensive Plan Analysis The Denton Plan identifies the subject site as an Existing Neighborhood/Infill Compatibility area. In such areas, existing neighborhoods must be protected from incompatible uses and new development must be in accordance and complementary to the surrounding land uses. "... Neighborhood centers will contain small shops and stores that are designed to harmonize with surrounding homes and provide daily necessities for the neighborhood. Residents will be able to walk ... bike ... use transit ... or drive to many destinations throughout the city. There must be a place in the city for all types of development." (p. 31) "One of the overall goals of the land use plan is to limit the amount of strip commercial development along Denton's arterial streets, collectors, and highways." (p. 42) "The quality of development, particularly commercial development along the city's corridors, is a significant factor in the quality of neighborhoods, the urban environment, and the sustainability of structures. Adequate public facilities shall be a criterion by which zoning is granted." (p. 42) This site is part of an existing neighborhood center node located at the northwest corner of Sherman Drive and Bell Avenue intersection. However, staff also stresses the importance of controlling the intensity of non-residential uses and the quality of design of non-residential uses along major thoroughfares. The community's visual preferences for new development, incorporated in The Denton Plan, identify strip developments as the less desirable type of development. Top rated developments included human scale developments with a variety of facades that are closer to the street, and that provide pedestrian linkages and landscaping. Neighborhood uses, such as retail uses and professional offices, in conjunction with the site design standards as identified in the Development Code, will make the proposed development compatible with The Denton Plan. Developmem Review Analysis Transportation Trip generation will depend on the type of developmem being proposed. Since no developmem is curremly being proposed for this area, it is impossible to predict how many trips would be generated by this zoning change. Depending on the type and size of developmem, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) may be required at the time of platting. Access. The developmem will have access from Sherman Drive. Road Capacity The DeNon Mobility Plan idemifies Sherman Drive as a primary major arterial. This road is designed to be a six (6) lane divided street without parking, providing six (6) lanes of through traffic. As such, its designed traffic capacity allows for a tolerable traffic flow of up to 27,900 trips per day. This section of Sherman Drive is curremly constructed with four (4) lanes without parking. A traffic count on Sherman Drive east of Bell Avenue Drive indicates an existing volume of 17,498 vehicles per day. Connectivity All proposed buildings must have access through shared driveways, cross access easemems, or a road system. Developmem Code/Zoning Analysis Any proposed developmem on this site is required to be in compliance with the site design standards of the Developmem Code, including buffering and screening between the proposed uses and the adjacem single-family subdivision and retiremem community to the north and west. An approved site plan for the proposed developmem will be required prior to the issuance of any building permit. Adjacem retail and religious land uses adjacem to this site creates a neighborhood cemer for the residemial developmems in close proximity. Staff Findings 1. An existing neighborhood center surrounding the subject site along the north (partially), south, east, and west sides makes this property very difficult to develop as single-family subdivision. 2. The split zoning of the property makes the property difficult to develop. 3. The odd configuration of the property and the limited access also make this property unlikely to be developed for residential uses. ATTACHMENT 2 Maps NORTH Location/Zoning Map N~ Scale: None NORTH Land Use Map Scale: None ATTACHMENT 3 Public Notification NORTH Notification Map Newspaper Notification Date: March 16, 2002 200' Legal Notices* sent via Certified Mail: 500' Courtesy Notices* sent via 1st Class Mail: Number of responses to 200' Legal Notice · In Opposition: 2 · In Favor: 0 · Neutral: 1 17 69 Percent of land within 200' in opposition: Less than 7% Scale: None *A copy of the notification list can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 Property Owner Responses Property Owner Name In favor Comments and Address /opposed* David R. Lindsey, Opposed NRMU zoning would allow almost unrestricted 504 Sunrise Cove development in this area. Denton has a history of not enforcing existing code and zoning restrictions. Sunrise Cove could easily become adjacent to undesirable development, with little regard for the impact upon the neighborhood. Dave Bishop, Opposed No comments. 512 Sunrise Cove Carolyn S. Brim, Neutral No comments. 2200 Bell Ave. *A copy of the original notice can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 ATTACHMENT 4 Photographs 10 ATTACHMENT 5 P&Z Commission Minutes April 10, 2002 16. Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding an ordinance rezoning approximately 3.1 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential Mixed-Use (NRMU) zoning district. The property, commonly known as 711 East Sherman Drive, is generally located along the west side of Sherman Drive approximately 150 feet west of Linwood Drive and Sherman Drive intersection. No development is proposed. (Z02-0020, 711 East Sherman Drive, Deborah Viera) Motion by Bob Powell and seconded by Joe Roy to recommend approval to City Council. *Discussion of item is included in the Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Pages 254 - 258). Motion carries 6-0 CondcnseltTM 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 5 6 17 18 19 20 21 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 but I that on. I passed onto the property, that I think she had a right to come speak. out a card. But I didn't know she was · not apologizing for that because she had a ri in here. This is a public place. So I don't know what you're do from the reaction I see of votes that possibly this could go when you had a like this, it without a Gamble. Commiss Thank you. And fellow you but I want to you, Mr. motion on the ROY: to withdraw RISHEL: Powell. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank, Mr. I'm going to move that we hold until meeting with the hope that we have an seven, so that we can get a vote. That's the I'm doing it and my motion is to hold this open and revisit it at our next regular meeting. Yes, Mr. Chairman. i hate to do this to second. we no longer have a Roy. and I and would you hearing? COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: SO thCrO'S a motion to a date certain, which would be April COMMISSIONER POWELL: That'S r, x for giving me the date. ^nd second the public ~L: Yes, sir. there a second? It'S Co~mnis and seconded by Keith. Seeing no further flease Motion carries 4-2. Thank you, Commissioners. (COMMISSIONERS HOLT AND MULROY VO2rED IN That will bring us to Item No. 16 on our Agenda and Ms. Viera will present. MS. vIErs: oood evening, Commission. By thc way, it's good morning. The applicant is requesting -- COMMtSS[ONER RISHEL: I can assure you we noticed. MS, V/EK~: The applicant is requesting a Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use zoning designation for Page 255 1 the propeaW located at 711 East Sherman Drive. 2 Currently, the subject property has a split zoning and the 3 frontage of the property already has an NRMU designation. 4 The subject site is surrounded by developed properties, 5 limiting the access to Sherman Drive only. A Neighborhood 6 Center is already adjacent to this property. Staff finds 7 that the proposed zoning designation is compatible with 8 the plan and is compatible with adjacent land uses. I'm 9 available to answer any questions that you may have. 10 COMMISSIONER RlSUEL: commissioners, any 11 questions of Ms. Viera? Seeing no questions, thank you, 12 Ms. Viera. And the petitioner is hero and would he like 13 to present.'? I4 MR. FRAZtER: Don Frazier, Frazier 15 Comxnereial Real Estate, 1740 Westminister, Dca~ton. To 16 quickly recap some of tho previous proceedings which you 17 have in your package, this property was brought before 18 City Council at a work session on January the 15th in 19 which thc Councll voted in favor of making the entire site 20 NRMU. on the 28th, tl~y reversed that decision due to 21 some things that I never did quite understand. But on the 22 week of March the 18th, I received first notification that 23 that had been reversed so, indeed, the plan had been 24 passed and the zoning had been placed, unbeknown to us. 25 So at tho recmmnendation of the staff, we have now come Page 256 1 before you to go through the formal process of trying to 2 get this property zoned NRMU. 3 Previously, back under the old zoning, this 4 property had a split zoning. And you can see that the 5 subject project is split in half by the light and the dark 6 green. The bottom half was General Retail. The top half, 7 sv-?. so, in effect, NR-3 downzones half the property 8 from General Retail. NR-3 basically renders this property 9 undevelopable. There's nothing contiguous around it that 10 we can connect to to develop in a residential fashion; 11 thereby, we have a .6 acre frontage that's NRMU and a 2.8 12 acre back that's NR-3. ^nd with that, I'll answer any 13 questions. ] 4 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any questions of Mr. 15 Frasier, Commissioners? Thank you, Mr. Frasier. Mr. 16 Keith. 17 COMMISSIONER KEITH: JUSt a quick question 18 here. With what I got in my packet, what is the access to 19 Sherman Drive? I sec it as an isolated piece of property 20 back them. 21 MR. FRAZIER: The access to Sherman Drive, 22 the property owner that owns the site in question also 23 owns these two little pieces right here, the one with the 24 green square on it which means there's a building there, 25 but there's not. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 253 - Page 256 CondenseltTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 257 COMMISSIONER KEITH: I didn't think there was, MR. FRAZIER: And then there's another little sliver that actually is part of the site as far as legal description goes. So there is access onto Sherman Drive there through those two pieces. COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. MR. FRAZIER: same owners owns these two little pieces and the site behind it. COMMISSIONER KE1TH: okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, any further questions of the petitioner? Thank you, Mr. Frazier. This is a public hearing. I have no cards regarding Item No. 16 on our Agenda. I see no one who would like to speak but I will call for anyone who would like to speak at this time. This is Item No. 16 on our Agenda, and this is a request for anyone who'd like to speak before the Commission regarding Item No. 16. Seeing no one who would like to speak, i will close the public hearing and that means them is no need for rebuttal. I'll ask Ms. Vicm to give us a smmnation. MS. VIERA: staff doesn't have any further colmnents. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very ~nuch. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 258 Co~mnissioners, questions, conunents, clarification? C~OMMISS[ONER POWELL: MOVe tO approve as submitl~l. COMM[SS[OblERRISHEL: conunissioncr Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: second. COMM[SSIOh'ER RISIIEL: It's been movcd by Co~mnissioncr Powell and seconded by Cormnissioner Roy. Any further cmmnents, questions, or clarification? Seeing none, please vote. Motion carries 6-0 of the Commissioners present. MR. RE[CI-]HART: NO, sir. COMMISSIONER R[$HEL: 'thank you. Conunissioners, anyflfing further you'd like to add7 Seeing nothing, we are adjourned. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 257 - Page 258 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 3 (NR-3) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL MIXED- USE (NRMU) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 3.1 ACRES OF LAND, COMMOMLY KNOWN AS 711 EAST SHERMAN DRIVE, AND GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF SHERMAN DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF LINWOOD DRIVE AND SHERMAN DRIVE AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS 3.1 ACRES OF TRACT 47 OF ABSTRACT J. CARTER SURVEY; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY iN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z002-0020) WHEREAS, Don Frazier, on behalf of Jan Hughes, initiated a change in zoning for approximately 3.1 acres of land from Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residential Mixed-Use (NRMU) zoning district classification and use designation; and WHEREAS, on April 10, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission concluded a public hearing as required by law, and recommended approval of the requested change in zoning; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change in zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 2. The City's official zoning map is amended to show the change in zoning district classification. SECTION 3. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid by any court, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. SECTION 4. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. Page 1 of 2 SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Demon Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2002. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Page 2 of 2 Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #43 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: May 14, 2002 Planning Departmem David Hill, 349-8314 SUBJECT - Z02-0007:(3015-3315 N. Bonnie Brae) Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 37 acres from a Neighborhood Residemial 2 (NR-2) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use (NRMU) zoning district. The property is generally located on the west side of Bonnie Brae north of Windsor and south of Riney Road. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) (4-2). [Property owner initiated rezoning, initially reviewed during the Developmem Code review process.] BACKGROUND Applicam: Joyce Poole, DeNon, TX 76207 As part of the city wide rezoning related to the Developmem Code adoption, City Council reviewed this request at the January 15, 2002 Work Session meeting. At that time, a consensus was reached to rezone the property to Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use (NRMU). However, at the January 28, 2002 Work Session meeting, Council reverted the zoning of the property back to Neighborhood Residemial 2 (NR-2) due to concerns related to adequate notice. City Council also directed staff to process a separate zoning petition, at no charge to the applicant. This case involves several properties on the west side of Bonnie Brae totaling approximately 37 acres. The applicam is requesting to rezone the property from Neighborhood Residemial 2 (NR- 2) to Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use (NRMU). No specific developmem is curremly proposed. At its meeting on March 27, 2002, the Planning and Zoning commission recommended that the property be rezoned Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use 12 (NRMU- 12) as an alternative. Public notification and property owner responses are detailed in Attachmem 3. Curremly, 75.5% of the land area within 200 feet of the subject property is in opposition to the zoning change. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Deny. 3. Postpone consideration. 4. Table item. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends (4-2, Apple and Rishel opposed) that the property be rezoned to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12). ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE With the exception of one lot, the subject properties are not currently platted. A final plat is required prior to the issuance of any building permits. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology of Z02-0007, commonly known as 3015-3315 N. Bonnie Brae: Application Date - February 21, 2002 DRC Date - March 7, 2002 P&Z Date - March 27, 2002 No neighborhood meeting was held. FISCAL INFORMATION Development of this property will increase the assessed value of the city. short-term public improvements that are the responsibility of the city. It will require no ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Maps 3. Public Notification 4. Photographs 5. Letter from Applicant 6. Detailed Plan of PD- 115 7. Minutes from March 27, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting 8. Draft Ordinance Prepared by: Thomas B. Gray Planner II Respectfully submitted: Douglas S. Powell, AICP Director of Planning and Development ATTACHMENT 1 Staff Analysis Summary_ of Zoning Request This case involves several properties on the west side of Bonnie Brae totaling approximately 37 acres. The applicam is requesting to rezone the property from Neighborhood Residemial 2 (NR- 2) to Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use (NRMU). No specific developmem is curremly proposed. Existing Condition of Property_ Property History. February 20, 2002 - The subject property was placed in the Neighborhood Residemial 2 (NR-2) zoning district and land use classification by Ordinance 2002-040. Previous to the adoption of the DeNon Developmem Code, the subject property was zoned Agricultural (A). The property is surrounded to the north, south and west by Planned Developmem 115 (PD-115) zoning district (Attachmem 6). Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning is located directly to the east of the property. Comprehensive Plan Analysis The subject site is located within the "Neighborhood Centers" future land use area. These areas may develop in convemional patterns or may be developed in a pattern of 'neighborhood cemers'. Neighborhood cemers are oriemed inwardly, focusing on the cemer of the neighborhood and comaining facilities vital to the day-to-day activity of the neighborhood. A neighborhood center might contain a convenience store, small restaurant, personal service shops, church or synagogue, daycare, individual office space, a small park and perhaps an elememary school. Commercial activity cemers which provide convenience shopping for goods and services to an individual neighborhood are permitted with Neighborhood Cemers. The DeNon Plan specifies that the typical neighborhood mixed-use activity cemer be no larger than 10 acres in size (see p. 44). Due to the size of the NRMU district being proposed by the applicant, staff does not believe that the applicant's request meets the intent of The Denton Plan. Developmem Review Analysis Transportation Trip generation will depend on the type of developmem being proposed. Since no developmem is curremly being proposed for this area, it is impossible to predict how many trips would be generated by this zoning change. Depending on the type and size of development, a TIA may be required at the time of platting. Access. The developmem will have access to Bonnie Brae. Three poims of connectivity are also being provided to the adjacem PD-115 property per the approved PD-115 Detailed Plan (Attachmem 6). Road Capacity Bonnie Brae is idemified as a secondary major arterial road by the DeNon Mobility Plan. This road is designed to be a four (4) lane divided street without parking, providing four (4) lanes of through traffic. As such, its designed traffic capacity allows for a tolerable traffic flow of up to 19,100 trips per day. A traffic count on Bonnie Brae south of Hwy 77 indicated an existing volume of 2,214 vehicles per day. At the platting and permitting stage, the developmem will be required to meet the minimum requiremems for pedestrian linkages; utilities; drainage and topography; signs; landscaping; open space; lighting and environmem quality impacts. Staff Findings The applicam's request would potemially create a neighborhood mixed-use activity center 37 acres in size, which contradicts The DeNon Plan policy that Neighborhood Mixed Use Activity Cemers be no larger than 10 acres in size. As well, the approved Detailed Plan for PD 115 provides for approximately 30 acres of office, retail and multifamily developmem froming Bonnie Brae just to the north of the subject property (Attachmem 6). This could potemially create a very large commercial activity cemer along the eastside of Bonnie Brae and lead to the "stripping out" of Bonnie Brae for commercial purposes, which is in comravemion of The Denton Plan. While staff does agree that Neighborhood Residemial 2 (NR-2) zoning is perhaps no longer appropriate for this area, given the surrounding zoning, staff feels that a 37-acre tract of NRMU zoning is excessive and is not supported by the comprehensive plan. Staff believes that Neighborhood Residemial 6 (NR-6) zoning, which generally matches the residemial densities in the surrounding PD-115 zoning district, or Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning, which matches the zoning directly to the east of this property, would be more appropriate and be supported by the comprehensive plan. ATTACHMENT 2 Maps Location Map NORTH SITE Northlakes Park Scale: None NORTH Zoning Map SI Scale: None ATTACHMENT 3 Public Notification NORTH Notification Map SITE Northlakes Park Scale: None Public Notification Date: 200' Legal Notices* sent via Certified Mail: 500' Courtesy Notices* sent via 1st Class Mail: Number of responses to 200' Legal Notice · In Opposition: 2 · In Favor: 5 · Neutral: 0 March 15, 2002 8 9 Percent of land within 200' in opposition: 75.5 % *A copy of the notification list can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 Property Owner Responses Property Owner Name In favor Comments and Address /opposed* We are basing our request on logical and solid reasoning as well as compatibility to future John and Dorothy Smith development in this area. Bonnie Brae will be a major 3309 N Bonnie Brae in favor traffic artery between the Engineering School and Denton TX 76207 UNT's main campus. Mixed use will allow much more flexibility and will complement the mixed use zoning directly across the street. Wallace B Duke 3315 N. Bonnie Brae in favor none Denton, TX 76207 Rodney Eric Fullerton Maria R Fullerton in favor none 3015 N Bonnie Brae Denton TX 76207 Debbie Collinsworth P O Box 1212 in favor none Denton TX 76202 Joyce A Poole for Adam J Kunzman in favor This is a reasonable request based on nearby zoning 3021 N Bonnie Brae -i.e. RCC-D & NRMU equivalent & NRMU-12 Denton TX 76207 Cary Cobb I ntermandeco opposed none 1401 Burham Drive Piano TX 75093 Philip Baker Rayzor Investments Ltd opposed We will reconsider if provided with information on the 1204 W University #400 proposed use of the site. Denton TX 76201 *A copy of the original notice can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 ATTACHMENT 3021 N. Bonnie Brae Denton, TX 76207 February 21, 2002 Mr. Doug Powell, Director Planning & Zoning Department City Hall West 221 N. Elm Denton, TX 76311 RE: Requested zoning change/Neighborhood Residential District Dear Mr. Powell: I am one of several residents who are in agreement to change the proposed NR-2 zoning on our individual properties to NRMU. Wh~e this request was approved in the Council session of January 15, 2002, the decision was later made that this request along with selected others would need to come through the Planning & Zoning formal process. Therefore, we are attaching the same information and completed Zoning Application forms from each of us. While each of our properties are currently zoned "Agriculture" and vary in size, the combined and related whole of our area is rapidly changing the needs and land uses of our area. Notably, the recent purchase by UNT of the former Texas Instruments property, the northward progression on Bonnie Brae of Retail and 'other than' single family' uses. Ail of our properties front onto north Bonnie Brae, a four-lane primary artedal street. Bonnie Brae will inevitably become a primary direct route from ~UNT north campus at 288, to the western-most edge of the main UNT campus and housing areas. It appears logical that in a very short time, this street will be even more heavily trafficked. The land and uses will be developed to serve currently proposed residential neighborhoods to the west of Bonnie Brae and for the University of North Texas site and other business services in the area. We note that on the east side of Bonnie Brae, directly across the street from our properties, the zoning is to be NRMU-12. The NRMU-12 zoning goes north to the east/west portion of Riney Road, then continues where Riney Road drops south to connect to W~ndsor Road. Each section of Riney Road is sorely lacking in design, width, and weight-carrying ability to sustain and carry heavy traffic loads for commercial-use or multi-family development traffic. On the north side of the east/west portion of Riney Road, approximately 40 acres of land is zoned RCC-D. This is the heaviest-use zoning of the Regional Mixed Use Centers and about 200 feet from our northern edge of NR-2 zoning! Next, please note the Planned Development known as the Smith Tract, PDt115 (see attached). A large section of the northern side of this PD was granted "Commercial and Office" use zoning. These uses under our old zoning would most closely align to the uses allowed in the NRMU district. (Please see copy of' former zoning uses, attached). Because of the approved land uses (on the PD) that affect, and are in direct relationship to our NR-2 status, again, we ask your approval to our request to be designated as NRMU zoning for each of our properties. The zoning change is in line with the Comprehensive Plans' goal to provide a vadety of services within "walking distance" of a neighborhood. Page Two January 11, 2002 The following residents are submitting the signed Zoning Application form(s): John and Dorothy Smith AND Mr. and Mrs. Wallace Duke Joyce A. Poole Edc and Maria Fuller[on 3309 N. Bonnie Brae 3321 N. Bonnie Brae 3315 N. Bonnie Brae 3021 N. Bonnie Brae 3015 N. Bonnie Brae PH. 387-6019 PH. 382-8829 PH. 382-9662 PH. 566-1831 We again have received verbal approval for this change of zoning from Intermandeco (Mr. Kerry Cobb), who are the people involved in the Planned Development PDt115. They have asked for the City to fax them a notification form so they can respond in writing on this issue. Your consideration and approval of the requested changes in zoning and uses are most appreciated. Sincerely, ~oy~ ^. Attachments: PD~115 footprint Zoning regulations that apply to PDt115 CC: Members of Council, City of Denton ATTACHMENT 6 ATTACHMENT 4 Photographs 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 116 17 18 19 20 21 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 24 25 2002. you would CondcnseltTM PROCEEDINGS (COMMISSIONER HOLT NOT PRESENT) COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Good evening, I'd like to welcome you to Planning and Zoning meeting for 27th, start off with the by the Pledge to flag. If oin me. ~n, the Pledges were recited. The first item on our believe that the the docucam shortly. Consent Agenda No. 2, 3, 4, and Thank you very much. is the Consent Agenda and I Agenda will be up on hopefully. Items on the existing Agenda as Items MULROY: no, 3, start with SIONER APPLE: I'll move the Agenda. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I make the minutes of the previous meeting -- I the February 27th meeting. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: We have a motion on the floor to approve the minutes from the COMMISSIONER ROY: I second that. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: r discussion or corrections? P correcting me and that ~ Thank the Consent Agenda. to approve the Consent VOte. carries 6-0 of is no longer inclu to approve the Motion has been made Is there a second?. second, since Item 2 RISHEL: approve the Consent discussion? Excuse me. passes unanimously. So the next item on our Agenda is Item No. 6 has been asked to move in we will move that to the now been moved All in favor please No. and -- any vote. put it after Item No. 9 on our Agenda, if that meets That will bring us to Item No. 7 on our Agenda and Item 7 will be posted shortly on the docucam. And Mr. Gray will present. I think we threw Mr. Gray off Page 3 1 because we changed the Agenda he,ce, so bear with us for a 2 moment. 3 Apparently, we don't have the docucam set 4 up to show the Agenda items at this point in time so we 5 will -- Item No. 7 on our Agenda is hold a public 6 hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City 7 Council concerning the rezoning of approximately 37 acres 8 from a Neighborhood Residential, NR-2 zoning district to a 9 Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use which is NRMU zoning 10 district. The property is generally located on the west 11 side of Bonnie Brae and north of Windsor, south of Riney 12 Road. And Mr. Gray will present. 13 MR. GRAY: Thank you and good evening. The 14 property is located -- you can see on this map, the 15 property, subject property is located here. It is 16 currently zoned ~R-2. the applicant is proposing to 17 rezone it to NRMU. tn your backup we have a staff 18 analysis, an Attachment 1. 19 Staff does not disagree that this property 20 probably should be upzoned from sR-2. It's surrounded by 21 a Planncxl Development zoning district that is 22 single-family residential and it's across the street from 23 an NRMU-12 zoning district. However, staff does have some 24 concerns about zoning this to NRMU. we're concerned that 25 if this goes to t,r~MU, that's going to be 30 acres of large Page 1 neighborhood activity center. That, plus the fact that 2 the existing Planned Development for this subdivision has 3 another several acres of proposed commercial and office 4 located here. 5 It just means that there's going to be a 6 lot of commercial, the potential for a great deal of 7 commercial and office development along Bonnie Brae. And 8 that concerns us mainly because one of the goals of the 9 Comprehensive Plan is to limit strip development and so we 10 have a concern about that. 1 Another conc~n we have is that currently 2 Bonnie Brae is classified as a secondary major arterial. 13 If this development were to occur, it might increase 14 traffic such that we would have to reclassify -- do a 15 Mobility Plan amendment and reclassify Bonnie Brae as a 16 primary major arterial. We don't even have traffic 17 counts. We have no idea as to what the traffic impact of 18 this rezoning would be simply because at this point in 19 time, there's no -- the applicant docs not have any firm 20 plans for development. So with those concerns, staff is 21 concerned that NRMU zoning is probably too intense. We would probably feel more comfortable with NRMU42 or even 23 NR-6 zoning. 24 I do have some responses, property owner 25 responses. I have three in favor and two opposed. I'i1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 2TI'H, 2002 Page 1 - Page 4 Condonselt TM Page 5 1 pass them around but I just want~l to note real quickly 2 that the two prop~ responses opposed, in opposition 3 were from the surrounding Planned D~v¢lopment, as well as 4 some proportics on the other side of the subject property 5 and that will put us way over the 20 percent rule simply 6 because it's surrounded on three sides by this one 7 property. I'll pass these around and I will be happy to 8 answer any questions. 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. Gray. 10 Just as a note, apparently the microphones on the dias may 11 not be working as well as we would hope and if you would 12 speak up, if you address the audience, it might help us. 13 And just wanWxt to make that comment. 14 Any further questions of staff, 15 Commissioners? Mr. Reichhart. 16 MKREICHH,~a~T: I added to the pile of the 17 neighborhood responses, we had one sitting up here when we 18 came in. There is one more in favor and you'll see that 19 as it comes through. 20 COMMISSIO~'~ msuEu: ?hank you, Mr. Gray. 21 Ma. OR~Y: Thank you. 22 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: IS thc petitioner 23 here and would they like to present? Please come forward. 24 And if you have multiple people that are part of the 25 petition, I'd like to remind you that all of that will be Page 6 1 included in your time. So if you have multiple 2 petitioners, it's part of your same block of petition 3 time. 4 MS. i'OOt~E: one of our petitioners is ill 5 this evening and unable to attend. That is the Fullerton 6 that owns the five acres which is the long narrow strip. 7 If you'll look right here, this group here, they are 8 unable to attend tonight due to a severe family illness. 9 And so they have sent their apologies but they are in 10 favor. 11 My name is Joyce Poole. I am representing 12 the group for -- they've asked me to represent all of them 13 and so I am representing four property owners but there 14 are five individual households on the frontage of Bonnie 15 Brae. 16 During the rezoning of the properties 17 across the City, our block of homes were given the 18 designation of NR~2, as you've just learned. Until late 19 December 2001, when tn, rr made their official announcements 20 that their purchase and the plans for the former TI site 21 would change everything from residential more into a very 22 busy street. That street~ however, will -- that caused us 23 all to look at the zoning a little more closely around 24 each of our properties and how it would affect us and 25 carry on from there. Page 7 1 As you will see from this abbreviated view 2 of our immediate area, and I have put that on the top of 3 each of your little packets that I laid on your desk, you 4 will see that there is in this i'D an NRMU zoning to the 5 north of us. There is RCC-D to the northeast of us. 6 There is NRMU-12 that goes not only across from Bonnie 7 Brae but all the way around Riney Road, which is barely 8 one-and-a-half car trail. They're a very undeveloped road 9 site. We are -- obviously, with Bonnie Brae being now in I0 a very direct thoroughfare from the north campus of the 11 twr enlargement directly into their primary campus, as 12 well as any future developments that are going to be, and 113 I understand could be even fight now on the table for the 14 north end of -- the very far north end of Bonnie Brae. It 15 makes our properties no longer viable or usable as a 16 single-family residential home site. 17 We are asking for equity with our 18 surrounding zoning that is already in place based on what 19 the Comprehensive Plan has placed on those properties. 20 The areas fronting Bonnie Brae will be able to comply with 21 the Comprehensive Plan as it has been noted that a central 22 -- neighborhood center, it should have access to any 23 future multi-family or single-family developments. And 24 this will be very tree because even in the m) that is laid 25 probably in your own backups from the City, you would Page 8 27TH, 2002 Page 5 - Page 8 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 1 look, if you look very carefully, there are already road 2 sets cutting into the north, the south, and to the very 3 north section of this property that they had akeady 4 preplanned to have cut throughs into this property that 5 they have underzoned at this point in time. 6 On January 15th, our group request was 7 approved to be ~RMU by the City Council. Unbeknown to us 8 or without any notification, they did reverse their 9 decision a week following that. And they did inform us 10 that we must -- that we would have to come through the 11 Planning and Zoning track for this zoning request, and 12 that's why I'm here tonight. 13 Also, in your packet I have given you the 14 original backups to -- the little signed cards that we 15 presented to Council that night and the reasons why the 16 people in this 37-acre group had requested this change. 17 And it only is, again, asking for equity and not 18 discrimination against everything that has gone around us 19 and the fact that we will be pretty much in compliance 20 with anything in the Comprehensive Plan. 21 Just because they might put the very 22 frontage roads portion into commercial and/or office 23 commercial, which is what's up here, does not mean that 24 behind us they could not put in multi-family and make that 25 blend together in the north -- or west portion of this CondcnseltTM Page 91 1 section that we are looking at. 2 We are very disappointed that we lost the 3 City Council situation and have to come back before you 4 and cause you folks to have to now reconsider this. I 5 think it's kind of a waste of time for our Planning and 6 Zoning Department, as well as your thaae, but we are doing 7 what was directed. 8 Many other cases have gone before the work 9 session of City Council and were granted the change in 10 zoning without having to do this process so we're a little 11 bit concerned as to why we have been requested to do so 12 but here we are. We do so much appreciate your time and 13 consideration of all of this. And I realize it's kind of 14 like thrust upon you. 15 And if you have any questions that I can 16 answer, there are other people here, probably would like 17 to speak to that. But those who are here and have 18 properties that are affected, I would like them to stand, 19 please. And as you can see we have, outside of the 20 Fullertons who are ill, they are here. And thank you so 21 very much for your time. 22 And also I guess I'll give you another -- I 23 don't know what you call this, an aside, I guess. But I 24 did speak with the Rayzor Group who owns the land that's 25 the NRMU zoning directly across from us. Page 10 I COMMISSIONER RISHEL: would you push that 2 up on the podimu little bit so we can see it? 3 MS. PeeLE: oh, I'm sorry. I screwed you 4 up. 5 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: NO. 6 MS. PeeLE: Right here. The Rayzor Group 7 who owns the NRMU zoning, this right in here, I did speak 8 with their group personally and I spoke with a Mr. Phillip 9 Baker. His response was that we never send in anything. 10 We only send in opposed to any request like this. I do 11 not have time to play with this. And that was his 12 response. So if you have that as a consideration in your 13 debate, I would appreciate that. 14 Also, prior to this time, the folks that 15 own the PD around us, when we went before the City 16 Council, they had given Mr. and Mrs. John Smith their 17 absolute approval on this. And I believe Mr. Smith will 18 speak to you about that personally because I did not speak 19 with him personally. I think it's a little more valid 20 from him. Again, if I can answer any further questions, 21 I'd be happy to do so at this time. 22 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: we have a couple of 23 questions, Ms. Peele. 24 MS. PeeLE: Thank you. 25 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Keith. Page 11 1 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. Yes, Ms. 2 Peele, what was the original zoning before the rezoning? 3 MS. ?OOLE: we were all AgricultLLre and all 4 of us, except for - well, I guess I would be considered 5 Agriculture in the fact that I was there. I did have a 6 kennel, breeding kennel when I moved into town of Oerman 7 Shepherd pure bred dogs, showing and breeding and 8 obedience kennel. The people next door to me, the 9 Fullertons right here, have longhorn cattle and still are 10 in that business, as well as organic fanning business. 11 And, of course, the Smiths have cattle and 12 a ranching business here. The Dukes have a private home 13 situation in retirement and they do their own little 14 farming area. And I believe it's Todd -- no, maybe Shawn, 15 Shawn and his wife who are the Smith's son and 16 daughter-in-law are co-farmer people with the Smiths, so 17 they are the Smith's farming interest right there. But, 18 again, that's all under the Smith's name for the two major 19 properties there. 20 COMMISSIONER KEITH: And what was it you 21 said about the property on the back side? 22 MS. PeeLE: EXCUSe me? 23 COMMISSIONER KEITH: who's the company that 24 owns the property on the back side? 25 MS. PeeLE: It's shown on your backups Page 1 1 probably as Braywood. At the time we were going through 2 several processes a couple of years earlier, and I believe 3 it was '99, it was known to us as Intermandeco/Mesa Group. 4 And they also have properties down on Ryan Road. 5 COMMISSIONER KEITH: SO you're indicating 6 there's a conflict in opinion on this within -- 7 MS. PeeLE: NO. Like I say, we don't 8 understand -- I understand Mr. Smith does have a phone 9 call into those because we only learned about 4:30, a 10 quarter to five tonight that they had sent in an 11 opposition vote. And in the prior two times that they had 12 spoken with them, I'm speaking of the Smiths speaking with 13 them, they had sent in a no problem, we would approve. 14 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Thank you. 15 MS. POOLE: Thank you. 16 COMMISSIONERRISHEL: commissioner Apple. 17 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Yes. Ms. Peele, I'm 18 just - I'm perplexed and I'm wondering if you could help 19 me out. 20 MS. POOLE: sure. 21 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I've been sitting on 22 this body for five years and you have probably come before 23 us on more than a dozen occasions to violently oppose 24 exactly this sort of thing saying that it was dangerous 25 for the children crossing over to North Lakes, saying that PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 2TI'H, 2002 Page 9 - Page 12 CondcnsoltTM Page 13 1 it was a residential neighborhood, saying that it would 2 ruin the value of your home, saying that that street was 3 not made to handle that kind of traffic, and, you know, a 4 violent opposer of anyone ever trying to do anything on 5 this street. What has changed? 6 MS. eOOLE: The whole thing that has 7 changed is the fact that UNT has changed the whole 8 complexion of our neighborhood. As you will obviously 9 see, that we had not come in before you during all the 10 time that the Comprehensive Plan zoning changes were going 11 in place up until the time that we were made aware that 12 UN~r had purchased that Property. That is going to change 13 the fact that Bonnie Brae had been, even though it's an 14 arterial street, it's going to change it to be a very busy 15 street as a main thoroughfare between those two campuses. 16 We also feel like that as citizens and as residents who 17 live facing Bonnie Brae, it's going to be very dangm'ous 18 for us to even consider it being single-family. It 19 certainly will never been usable as a single-family home 20 to anyone else. I mean, we are there because we own the 21 land now. i22 And, yes, we woe very violently opposed 23 because at the time that we went through, and I know the 24 Smiths will stand here and back me up, we stood hoe as 25 the Westgate Home Association and very violently approved Page 14 1 having that much density on that PD for the very reasons 2 you're stating, that it's going to increase the number of 3 people, now that was people living all the way around 4 that. 5 This property to this point in time has not 6 been developed. We have no idea, at least I have no idea 7 when that development is going to occur. I thoroughly 8 believe that with the economy being what it is, it's only 9 God's guess as to when that company will find the 10 opportune time to develop that. And, certainly, no one 11 has a crystal ball as to what's going to happen in any 12 part of our City. I had fought long and hard behind the 13 scenes to try and retain the Agricultural zoning districts 14 within our Comprehensive Plan for this very reason, that 15 no one has a crystal ball. We cannot foresee four to five 16 to two years out what development is coming in that will 17 change the complexity of a neighborhood, and we need to 18 have that flexibility within our zoning opportunities in 19 any community and with any block. 20 COMMISSIONER APPLE: well, I was just very 21 concerned because you have always opposed anyone else 22 using their property to try to, you know, further the use. 23 And so now that it was your property, I found it 24 interesting that now you're on the complete other side. 25 And as far as the UNT, I know a lot of that Page 15 1 -- it's my understanding it's going to be used for office 2 space and administrative purposes. 3 MS. POOLE: There will be students there. 4 COMMISSIONER APPLE: But I don't think it's 5 going to be any, you know, huge -- it would be more 6 accessible for a lot of those to just go off the freeway 7 onto the main read that it's on as opposed to coming up 8 your way. I'm sure some might. 9 But I was just very -- I was so, so l0 surprised when I read this because of you -- MS. POOLE: I'm sure you were. I thought 11 12 about you when this was coming up. 13 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Because of your 14 history. Thank you very much. 15 MS. POOLE: Yes. No problem. And, again, 16 understand, I am a non-traditional current student at UNT 17 right now so the old lady on the block is standing down 18 there going, oh, my God, because I fight traffic every day 19 just going from my house into getting into the campus. 20 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Mulroy. 21 MS. POOLE: Excuse me? 22 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Mulroy 23 has a question for you. 24 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes, I do. And, Ms. 25 Peele, if you'll bear with me just for a moment. Page 16 1 MS. POOLE: NO problem. 2 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I want to get a 3 clarification from Mr. Reichhart. 4 MS. POOLE: YOU bet. 5 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Larry, on the 6 decision by Council to rescind that earlier designated 7 upzoniug and to bring it back through, my understanding, 8 and please correct me, is that they tried to delineate to 9 the level of upzoning and it was beyond two upzonings that 10 they felt they wanted to come back with a public process. 11 Was that the dividing point? 12 MR. REICHHART: correct. During the zoning 13 process for the whole City, any request that came in were 14 categorized in four different categories. This request 15 fell into what's commonly referred to as the A Category 16 because it was more than a two-category jump. And Council 17 did, at one time, reach a consensus to take it up. But 18 then at the next meeting thought that -- rescinded a 19 number of them, I believe there woe at least six, if not 20 more, with the idea that it would be better to take them 21 through the regular process to get the public input 22 because they were such a big jump. 23 COMMISSIONER MULROY: And this is part of 24 that group and this is -- 25 MR. REICHHART: This is the first of -- the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2002 Page 13 - Page 16 CondcnseltTM Page 17 1 next one on the Agenda falls under that, then you'll see 2 at least two next week, too, in two weeks. 3 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. And this is a 4 Council-initialed zoning request and you're not paying any 5 fees, are you, Ms. Poole? 6 MS. POOLE: NO, sir. 7 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. Now my 8 question is -- 9 MS. POOLE: we're doing what Council told 10 us to do. i 1 MR. REICHHART: Can I clarify because I 12 don't -- it's a little misleading to say it's a 13 Council-initiated zoning. The Council said upon receipt 14 of a zoning application, the City would waive any fees 15 associated with this zoning, but it's not a City-initiated 16 zoning. And there's a big difference. 17 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. And that's the 18 clar/fication I was looking for. Okay. Thank you very 19 much, Mr. Reichhart. 20 Ms. Poole, my question for you would be, 21 would an NRMU-12 be satisfactory to your group? 22 MS. POOLE: well, I don't -- have not 23 spoken with all of the people in my group but I would 24 assume that that would probably be an acceptable mediary. 25 And I will let each of them come up and speak to that, if Page 18 1 you'd like, because they're all here tonight except for 2 the one family. 3 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. And then we 4 want to be conscience of your time as the applicant, too. 5 MS. POOLE: Yes. So if I'm out of time so 6 they can all have a little moment to speak, I'll shut up. 7 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. Thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: we still have another 9 question. Commissioner Roy. I 0 COMMISSIO~mR ROY: actually, my question is 11 for Larry. In our backup, it said it's been brought to us 12 because Council was concerned about adequate notice being 13 given. So I think that's a correct -- that's an important 14 point. 15 MS. POOLE: Yes. And at that time we had 16 all the people surrounding us and, again, you will see it 17 in your backup that all the people that arc involved in 18 this were in support, as well as a verbal support by the 19 PD group. 20 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. 21 Commissioners, any further of questions of Ms. Poole? Ms. 22 Poole, would you care to introduce the other part of your 23 petitioners? And I say that, we've used six and a half 24 minutes of your presentation time, I don't know how much 25 they'll need but I just want to point that out. Page 19 1 MS. POOLE: Perhaps John Smith who owns the 2 largest share of the eD land would like to come down and 3 speak and verify what I've tried to support. This is John 4 Smith. 5 MR. SMITH: Ladies and gentlemen of the 6 Planning and Zoning, I'm John Smith. I live at 3309 North 7 Bonnie Brae. I'm, I guess, the owner of the larger tract, 8 30 acres. And the main thing we're asking for is fair 9 zoning. I mean, there is no zoning around us very close 10 that is NR-2. ^nd that across the road, of course, is 11 NRMU-12. 12 And so we thought that -- I mean, we just 13 needed to be compatible with the land around us. I am not 14 trying to sell the property at present but the zoning we 15 had, of course, was Ag and the Ag was fine. But then when 16 they changed it to NR-2, that's sort of scary because 17 there's not any areas out there hardly that have two 18 houses per acre. And I understand this is what that 19 zoning requires. And so we would just like to be treated 20 fairly and have zoning equal to the zoning that's around 21 us. And this is our main reason for the petition. And do 22 you have any questions? ,23 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: conunissioners, any 24 questions of Mr. Smith? Thank you, Mr. Smith. Anyone 25 else in your group that would like to be part of the Page [ 1 petition speaking part, if you'd please come forward at 2 this time. 3 MR. DUKE: My name is Wallace Duke and I 4 live at 3315 North Bonnie Brae. And I think everything 5 has been said that needs to be said so I approve. Thank 6 you. 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, sir. Once 8 again, anyone else who was part of the petitioning group, 9 if they would care to speak at this time? Okay. Anyone 10 who would like to speak either for or against this item on 11 our Agenda, if you would come forward at this time. 12 Anyone who would like to address the Commission either for 13 or against this item, if you'd come forward at this time. 14 Once again, this is a public hearing. 15 Anyone who would like to address the Commission regarding 16 this item on our Agenda, if you'd come forward at this 17 time. Seeing no -- 18 MR. SMITH: one thing that I forgot, my 19 wife -- I didn't -- 20 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: would you come 21 forward and address us at the podium? 22 MR. SMITH: I'm sorry. I was trying to 23 save time and so I forgot about -- but my wife talked to 24 Intermandeco. This was, oh, prior to when we were trying 25 to get it through the City Council. And they verbally ?LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 2TI'H, 2002 Page 17 - Page 20 CondenseIt m Page 21 1 approved and I don't know what has happened. I tried to 2 call thmn today after I found out that they were in 3 disapproval and I don't know what has happened and I want 4 to know. But they have much more than, you know, two 5 houses per acre so I don't know what their problem is but 6 they did approve it v~rbally, but they would not give us a 7 letter, but they approved it verbally back in January, the 8 middle of January, something like that. 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. Smith. l0 MR. SMITH: Thank y, ou. 11 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: once again, anyone : 12 else who would like to address the Commission regarding il3 this item on our Agenda? Anyone else? Seeing no one else 14 that would like to address this item, and I have had no 15 one that addressed in opposition so we will not need a 16 rebuttal from the petitioner, if I could get our staff 17 person, Mr. Gray, to review for us where we are and 18 specifically the 20 percent rule. Excuse me, Commissioner 19 Mulroy. 20 COMMISSIONER MULROY: YeS. Thank you for 21 recognizing me, Chairman. P~rhaps I wasn't paying 22 attention, but would Ms. Poole state for the record 23 whether the NRMU-12 would be agreeable to her and the 24 group? 25 MS. POOLE: I can only talk to the three avenues. question. question. Page 22 1 folks that are here because the fourth owner of the 2 properties is not here, they are ill, I feel that they 3 would be willing to go along with us, but we are all in 4 approval to take NRMU-12 if that is a compromise that the 5 Commission feels is appropriate. 6 COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, I don't know 7 about compromise. I'm just looking for reasonable 8 Thank you, Ms. Poole, for answering my 9 10 i1 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Keep her for my 12 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Apple. 13 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I have a question of 14 either Ms. Poole or Mr. Smith, either one. 15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: woLlld you join us? 16 COMMISSIONER APPLE: whoever wants to trek 17 back to the podium. Thank you. We're giving you your 18 exercise. 19 MS. POOLE: I need this exercise. 20 COMMISSIONER APPLE: My question, I just 21 want to make sure because the NRMU-12 does permit 22 multi-family just across -- so y'all no longer have a 23 problem with multi-family in that neighborhood? 24 MS. POOLE: I believe what they would 25 probably do in this, because it's not only multi-fmuily Page 23 1 but it's office commercial thatis also accepted within 2 that zone as I understand it, is just a little bit less 3 opportunity. Perhaps, Mr. Reichhart can confirm that. 4 But, no, I believe that that would be fine because I 5 really foresee, in my perspective, that the frontage of 6 that land would probably be what I would call a pure 7 commercial office professional. 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: well, actually, in my 9 thinking, if you're correct about all the students, it 10 would be an ideal place for student apartments. 11 MS. POOLE: And, of course, across the 12 street, which Mr. Rayzor owns, would also. But as -- my 13 thinking is that with the multi-family zoning also in 14 place across the street, there is a very need, much of a 15 need there for NRMU which is a little better commercial 16 opportunity to serve that neighborhood as a neighborhood 17 center. 18 COMMISSIONER APPLE: But that would be 19 totally up to whoever developed it? 20 MS. POOLE: Exactly. 21 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I just wanted to make 22 sure that everyone who is so in favor understood that that 23 was included. 24 MS. POOLE: Yes. Well, none of us feel 25 like that long term, and no one is saying that -- no one Page 24 1 has got an offer, no one expects an offer tomorrow or the 2 next day or the next year, but at the time when it does 3 happen to come, none of us plan to live here forever in 4 that area just because it's no longer a single residential 5 family situation. I have grandchildren that come out 6 there and I certainly don't want them playing on that 7 street. 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: SO the answer to my 9 question is y'all do not have a problem with the 10 multi-family? 11 MS. POOLE: I don't and I can only say that 12 the rest have said NRMU~12 is fine by them and I believe 13 they understand that, too. 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. Thanks a lot. 15 MS. POOLE: You're welcome. 16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Gray. 17 MR. GRAY: staff has no further comments. 18 I'll be happy to answer any questions. 19 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Let me close the 20 public hearing then. Any further questions of Mr. Gray? 21 And I see a light from Commissioner PowelL 22 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, Mr. 23 Chairman. This is a question for staff and maybe it woul¢ 24 be Mr. Gray or maybe Mr. Reichhart, I'm not sure, 25 whichever wants to jump in here. Describe to me the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 2TrH, 2002 Page 21 - Page 24 CondenscltTM Page 25 1 differences or difference in the intended use in NRMU-12 2 and NRMU. what does that 12 really mean? Or help me out 3 here. I can look in the book and see the numbers but 4 what' s the intent? 5 MR. REICHHART: The intent is that an NRMU 6 district is the more intense of the two and it really 7 should be the eom of a neighborhood center. And that 8 does allow for multi-family development with an suP. I 9 believe it's 30 units per acre that you could develop that 10 if you got the additional approvals. But the intent, 11 basically, is you start at the core with the NRMU. YOU :12 support that a little bit with NRMU-12 which is very 13 similar but just lighter, if you will. The density is 14 less. It's 12 units per acre. Typically, the size of 15 retail establishments are a lot less, you know, in the 16 5,000, 4,000 square foot range as opposed to 10,000 to 17 15,000 in the other district. 18 So the intent is really that it's supposed 19 to be a small area that would be the node of your 20 neighborhood, and then you'd develop around it with the 21 single-family and multi-family residential to support that 22 node. 23 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. Very good 24 description. Thank you. 25 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. Page 26 1 Reichhart. I have several cards from either people in our 2 audience that may have not wished to speak or just filled 3 out cards. One from Martha Duke and she indicated that 4 she was in support of it but did not wish to speak. 5 One from William Darby. Once again, that 6 he was in support of it but did not wish to speak. And 7 then I have a card from Sherri Darby who was in favor. 8 She did not wish to speak but indicated that she wanted us 9 to consider the consistencies in the other locations 10 around them. 11 Okay. Commissioners, any further questions 12 of staff?. And we have closed the public hearing. 13 Commissioner Powell. 14 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you again, Mr. 15 Chairman. You mentioned earlier that you were going to 16 get Mr. Gray to describe that 20 percent rule and how it 17 affects us. 18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Gray. 19 MR. GRAY: okay. The 20 percent does not 20 affect the Planning and Zoning Commission. It does affecl 21 City Council. What it basically means is that if 20 22 percent of the land area is in opposition, the land area 23 within 200 feet of the subject property is within 24 opposition, then at theix meeting, City Council must 25 approve the zoning request by a super majority of six Page 27 1 votes as opposed to a simple majority of four votes. The 2 20 percent rule, however, does not affect the Planning and 3 Zoning Commission as to the number of votes they require. 4 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. Gray. 5 Commissioners, any further questions, comments, a motion? 6 Commissioner Mulroy. 7 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I 8 make a motion -- I'd like to make a motion to change file 9 zoning of the subject property to NRMU-12. 10 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Keith. 11 COMMISSIONER KEITH: I'd like to second the i12 motion, please. 13 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It' s been moved by 14 Commissioner Mulroy and seconded by Commissioner Keith. 15 Any further discussion or comments? Commissioner Apple. 16 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I'll be voting against 17 the motion. I don't necessarily agree with the premise 18 that since somebody else did it, let's just say to heck 19 with the -- you know, there goes the neighborhood so let's 20 just do some more of it. It still is very predominantly a 21 single-family neighborhood. It is directly across the 22 street from NR-2. It is adjacent to NR-2. trod at the 23 very least, I would think that with the recommendation 24 that these areas not be larger than ten acres and that 25 this one is four times that size, I just can't in good Page; 1 conscience vote for that. 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, 3 Commissioner Apple. I have some concerns also and in this 4 particular case will be voting against it. I appreciate 5 the direction that City Council is going as they make 6 changes on things and notification to the public, that we 7 try to do these in increments of what we would consider 8 two steps of zoning classifications. I think that not to 9 have proper notification of specifically where we're going 10 with this is a disservice to the public. So Pd like for 11 people to be as informed as possible about where we are 12 and how we go about changing the map. 13 I think it's a dynamic document and it 14 needs to be flexible, but in this particular case, I would 15 like to see us looking at things that have a little bit 16 more concrete direction that this piece of property could 17 go and perhaps a developer come forth with it in the 18 future. And I know we could probably take this both ways 19 but I think we give better notice to the public when we 20 have something that's a plan that might be a direction 21 that might be more final as opposed to dreaming what this 22 could be or couldn't be in the future. 23 Any further comments? Seeing no further 24 comments, if you'd please vote on the motion. Motion 25 carries 4-2 of the Conunissioners present. Thank you, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2002 Page 25 - Page 28 8 9 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 CondcnscltTM Page 29 ~ Page 31 [ Commissioners. (COMMISSIONER APPEL AND RISHEL VOTED IN OPPOSITION.) bring us to Item No. 8 on our Agenda. Item No. 8 is ~ hold a public hearing and consider making a to City Council regarding approximately 5.0 acres from a 4, which is NR-4 zoning district, to a Residential Mixed Use 12, district. The is east said of Hi 377, Chipping Campden MS. VIERA: applicant is requesting NRMU- 12 backup, the Denton Plan. having the north of is proposed. Commission. The change for NR-4 to staff has 377 developed as a planned development. However, the staff also along Highway 377 are v~ As outlined in your compatible with the about of a more as a single-family· And because there's an absence of neighborhood services in that particular area, the idea of having a new neighborhood service provided is, we believe, that is in compliance with the plan. One property owner within 200 feet sent a in favor of the request. No opposition so available to answer any questions that t. ISHEL: any ql Thank you, Ms. Viera. petitioner here would they like to If you would p name and ~ Jefferies. I'm the owna Mr. Chairman. Good h~re last time to -- you I will do my best to In to a letter Hills I have talked to the is Mr. the north side of the He is ab., ' in favor. The property is very small in size. five-acre land. And in the area here :here to provide these neighborhood centers : citizens who live in the area. I thought that this would be one of the better locations to just service the citizens in the area for professional services and small Lan Good evening, of P&Z. I have been :. I'm here speaking; however, 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 t4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 retails. So I will try to do my best to answer your uestions, if you have any. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Appl COMMISSIONER APPLE: what type of see there? The businesses I there such professional building, for you or dentist or lawyers .ccountants, that kind of 'the people in thc could come by, and d of services. not thinking more of of a convenience store. neighborhood services? things like that or hair salon, that why I'm controlled pretty services and de to do a thing. You because that's because limi~t, very development perspective, ~ engineering ~nd also from the size, you can control a development that way. COMMISSIONER APPLE: And you see the as being attractive and going along with the MS. JEFFERIES: Yes, exactly. COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. Thank you. in on the Mr. Larry blessing that answering my also from the -- that, so I have been months. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes, Ms. to ask if you were familiar with standards and fully aware of the it would develop? EFFERIES: Yes. I have and I have been and the staff. of Denton expert or workable Ms MS. tge manner of time to see a very useful in perspective and the goals on up for the last many okay. I'm I'm an Jut I try my MULROY: it's very then? JEFFERIES: Yes. Yes, sir. MULROY: Thank very much, COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further Commissioners, of Ms. Jefferies? very much, Ms. Jefferies. MS. JEFFERIES: Thank you, sir. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2002 Page 29 - Page 32 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 2 (NR-2) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE 12 CNRMU-12) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 37 ACRES OF LAND GENERALY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH BONNIE BRAE ROAD NORTH OF WINDSOR DRIVE AND SOUTH OF NORTH ELM STREET; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE, (Z02-0007) WHEREAS, Joyce Poole, on behalf of Adam Kunzman, Eric and Marla Fullerton, Wallace B. Duke, and John and Dorothy Smith, initiated a change in zoning for approximately 37 acres of land from Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-2) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use (NRMU) zoning district classification and use designation; and WHEREAS, on March 27, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission concluded a public hearing as required by law, after which the commission recommended approval of a change in zoning to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU- 12) zoning district classification and use designation; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change in zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The zoning district classification and use designation of the approximately 37 acre property located on the west side of North Bonnie Brae approximately between Windsor Drive and North Elm Street, surrounded on the north, west and south sides by the Planned Development 115 (PD-115) zoning district, and legally described as Tracts 30, 31, 32, 34 and 35 in the N. Wade Survey, Abstract No. 1047, Tract 1 of the F. Batson Survey, Abstract No. 43, and Lot I, Block 1 of the John Smith Addition and as shown on the map attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A", is hereby changed fi:om Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use (NRMU-12) zoning district classification and use designation under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas. SECTION 2. The City's official zoning map is amended to show the changes in zoning district classifications. Page 1 of 2 SECTION 3. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid by any court, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. SECTION 4. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days fi.om the date of/ts · passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2002. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBE~Y,.x ~~ CITY ATTORNEY BY: Page 2 of 2 EXhibit A ~_ 'RCC'D PD.tfS NR. 2 NR.2 This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #44 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: May 14, 2002 Planning Department David Hill, 349-8314 SUBJECT - Z02-0015 (Ave A and Fannin) Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 0.52 acres from a Downtown Residential 1 (DR-l) zoning district to a Downtown Residential 2 (DR-2) zoning district. The property is commonly known as 915 Avenue A, 917 Avenue A and 1124 Fannin and is located at the northeast comer of Fannin and Avenue A. An apartment complex is proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-0). BACKGROUND Applicant: CCi investments, Denton TX The applicant is requesting a change from Downtown Residential 1 (DR-l) zoning to Downtown Residential 2 (DR-2) zoning to allow the construction of an apartment complex with a maximum of 16 dwelling units. Public notification and property owner responses are detailed in Attachment 3. Currently, 0.2% of the land area within 200 feet of the subject property is in opposition to the zoning change. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Deny. 3. Postpone consideration. 4. Table item. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning request. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The subject property is platted. However, a replat may be required prior to the issuance of any building permits. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology of Z02-0015, commonly known as Avenue A & Fannin: Application Date - February 20, 2002 DRC Date - March 7, 2002 P&Z Date - March 27, 2002 No neighborhood meeting was held. FISCAL INFORMATION Development of this property will increase the assessed value of the city. It will require no short-term public improvements that are the responsibility of the city. As a form of infill development, no extension of public infrastructure is necessary to service this site. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Maps 3. Public Notification 4. Photographs 5. Letter from applicant 6. Planning and Zoning Commission minutes, March 27, 2002 7. Draft Ordinance Prepared by: Thomas B. Gray Planner II Respectfully submitted: Douglas S. Powell, AICP Director of Planning and Development ATTACHMENT 1 Staff Analysis Summary_ of Zoning Request The applicaN is requesting a change from DowNown ResideNial 1 (DR-l) zoning to DowNown ResideNial 2 (DR-2) zoning to allow the construction of an apartmeN complex. DR-2 zoning allows a maximum of thirty dwelling units per acre. On this approximately 0.52- acre property, the applicaN could construct a maximum of 16 dwelling units. The existing zoning, DR-l, does not allow multifamily developmeN and allows a maximum density of eight dwelling units per acre; this would yield a density of four units on the subject property. Existing Condition of Property_ Property History. February 20, 2002 - The subject property was placed in the DowNown ResideNial 1 (DR-1) zoning district and land use classification by Ordinance 2002-040. Previous to the adoption of the DeNon DevelopmeN Code, this property was zoned One-Family Dwelling (SF-7). The subject property (which consists of three lots) curreNly coNains three single-family homes. There are other single-family homes within the immediate area. Most of these homes appear to be renal properties, and some are in dilapidated condition. There are several vacaN lots in the vicinity as well. The University of North Texas is located one block to the north. The zoning immediately adjaceN to this property on all sides is Downtown ResideNial 1 (DR-l). However, other zoning districts, such as DowNown ResideNial 2 (DR-2) and DowNown Commercial General (DC-G) are scattered throughout the general vicinity of the subject property (see AttachmeN 2). Comprehensive Plan Analysis The subject site is located in the "Downtown University Core District" future land use area. This area is iNended to have a mix of educational, resideNial, retail, office, service, govemmeN, cultural and entertainment development. It is a place where residents can live, work, learn, and play in the same neighborhood. The DeNon Plan specifically states that higher densities should be located near schools and other activity ceNers, and that the number of housing units should be increased and higher housing densities achieved within the Downtown University Core District (p. 40). The developmeN of a multifamily complex on this site would further the goals of the Plan. The proposed use is consisteN with the Comprehensive Plan. Development Review Analysis Transportation Trip Generation. Assuming a maximum density of 16 dwelling units, the proposed developmeN would generate approximately 105 trips per day. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will not be required. Access. The development will have access to Fannin Street and Avenue A. Road Capacity The Denton Mobility Plan identifies Avenue A as a collector street. This street is designed to be a four (4) lane undivided street with parking, providing two (2) lanes of through traffic. As such, its designed traffic capacity allows for a tolerable traffic flow of up to 7,500 trips per day. The Denton Mobility Plan identifies Fannin Street as a local street. This street is designed to be a two (2) lane undivided street with parking, providing one (1) lane of through traffic. As such, the designed traffic capacity allows for a tolerable traffic flow of up to 4,500 trips per day. There are no recent traffic counts for either Fannin Street or Avenue A. At the replatting and permitting phase, the development will be required to meet minimum requirements for pedestrian linkages; utilities; drainage and topography; signs; landscaping; open space; lighting and environment quality impacts. Findings As was noted previously, The Denton Plan encourages higher densities within the Downtown University Core District. The requested DR-2 zoning designation would also permit the development of small (up to 5,000 square feet) retail and office uses, thus allowing opportunities for mixed-use development, which is also encouraged by The Denton Plan. The neighborhood in which the subject property is located appears to be primarily a rental community that serves the University of North Texas. Most of the existing single-family homes in this area are small and some are in poor condition. While there are no multifamily dwellings along this section of Avenue A, there are other multifamily dwellings in the general vicinity of the subject property. Given the current condition of the neighborhood as well as the proximity of other apartment complexes in the vicinity, staff does not feel that the establishment of a multifamily development on this site will be a detriment to the surrounding neighborhood. ATTACHMENT 2 Maps Location Map NORTH Scale: None Zoning Map NORTH IJ II I I I I I ~==~®~! DR..2 ~ )R- Scale: None ATTACHMENT 3 Public Notification NORTH Notification Map Scale: None Public Notification Date: 200' Legal Notices* sent via Certified Mail: 500' Courtesy Notices* sent via 1st Class Mail: Number of responses to 200' Legal Notice · In Opposition: 1 · In Favor: 2 · Neutral: 0 March 16, 2002 17 74 Percent of land within 200' in opposition: 0.19 % *A copy of the notification list can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 Property Owner Responses Property Owner Name In favor Comments and Address /opposed* Craig Irwin 525 S. Carroll BIvd in favor none Denton TX 76201 Frank Chang 3102 Wren Ln in favor none Richardson TX 75082 James W Bowery 103 S 8th St opposed traffic congestion Sanger TX 76266 *A copy of the original notice can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 ATTACHMENT 4 Photographs Photographs Photographs ATTACHMENT 5 MITCHELL PLANNING GROUP, L.LC. 78:2~1 Nine Mile Bridge Road Fort Worth, Texas 76135 (S 17) Case It is exciting for us to design this site in the manor in which the goals and strategies of the City can be implemented. Our proposal is a great example of what can be achieved by understanding the desires of the community for this particular area as stated in /'/e' Denton ,a/an. If our case is approved, we will be able to greatly improve the area and bring upscale redevelopment to this community. Our proposal is to redevelop three (3) lots at the comer of Avenue A and Fannin Street. These lots are clearly within walking distance to The University of North Texas and the Fry Street Area cultural dbt~'t. We have reviewed The/Tena~n ?lan as well as dm [~wt~ Z:L~v~t C~d'e standards and we fad well within the goals of the City for this particular area. This site is currently zoned Downtown Residential I, "DR-I "~ As you can see from the zoning map, this entire area is a mixture of "DR-~ ' and "DR-2" residential designations, which is not unusual due to the proximity tu The University of North Texas. The City identifes this area as the "Downtown University Core District" and says these areas should be a mixture of educational, residential, retail, office, service, government, cultural, and entertainment development. Although there are existing multifamily developments to the north and to the east of our site, we desire to redevelop this area by utilizing the design guidelines and criteria recently adopted by the City Coundl. as sheen in both the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance of the Oty of Denton. The Downtown University Core Area as stated in the Denton Development C~/e, is a pedestrian friendly district. /'Ac Oent~n P/an further states that this area should be a place where residents can live, work, learn and play in the same neighborhood. One of the "Reddential Land Use Density Goals" as stated in /7~ Dentaw ,a/an says" High densities should be concentrated where infrastructure can support them and near jobs, schools, shopping and cultural centers.". Another goal states to "Increase the number of housing units and achieve higher housing densities in the downtown university core and mixed use districts.". The strategy to achieve these goals is to "Allow high-density urban style housing in appropriate areas within the downtown university core and other activity centers.". We are proposing to achieve this goal by using this very strategy. Because the site is relatively small, our allowable density will be limited; however, with proper design we will blend in well with the surrounding residential uses. The existing area contains older single family residential houses which area being used as rental property, more than likely for those who attend the University of North Texas or who are employed there or in nearby retail areas. The architectural design of this area is predominantly older lap board style structures mixed with masonry constructed homes and apartments. We are proposing to enhance this area by building urban style housing units with parking in the rear, and plenty of landscaping. We hope that you will see this design as one that is not only architecturally pleasing and one that agrees with the comprehensive plan. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 22 23 24 25 please would like to ~s the public hearing and summation. MS. VIERA: remarks. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: This is a public Anyone who would like to speak either for or item on our Agenda, if address the Commission at this Item No. 8 on at this time. Seeing: have any farther much. Commissioners, or a t APPLE: I'd , move ect property Z02-0008. MULROY: second. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you further -~ we have a motion and a second for our Agenda. Any further comments, Seeing no further comments, please vote. Thank you, That will bring us to Item No. 9 on our Agenda. Item No. 9, being our docucam is not working, is to hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council concerning the rezoning of Page 34 1 approximately 0.52 acres from a Downtown Residential, DR-1 2 zoning district to a Downtown Residential 2, DR-2 zoning 3 district. The property is commonly known as 915 and 917 4 Avenue A and 1124 Fannin, and is locat~l in the northeast 5 corner of Fannin and Avenue A. An apartment complex is 6 proposed. 7 COMMISSIONF_~ POWELL: Mr. Chairman. 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Powell. 9 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, sir. I 10 would respectfully request a short break since we have a 11 couple of more to do at this time, we didn't get a break 12 after our business meeting -- excuse me, our work session. 13 COMMISSIONER rmITH: Vll go along with 14 that. 15 COMMISSIONER mSHEL: okay. It's been 16 requested by two of our Commissioners. I'll poll the rest 17 of the Commission and everyone says that would be fine. 18 We will resume Item No. 9 on our Agenda after a 19 ten-minute break. 20 (Short break was taken.) 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Pd like to resume 22 the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and 123 Zoning. Let me back up if I can just a little bit and 24 make the conmaent that I probably should have made when we 25 first started our meeting. I was notified by Commissioner CondensoltTM Page 35 Holt that she would not be at this meeting. I knoTM that staff was notified also. She was called away for family business and did notify me that she would not be here. S~ 1 2 3 4 let me enter that into our records and minutes. 5 And that will bring us back to Item No. 9 6 on our Agenda of which we have already introduced and I 7 will have Mr. Gray give us the staff report. 8 MR. OP, A¥: Okay. This zoning request 9 involves properties at -- actually, three lots at the 10 northeast corner of Fannin and Avenue A. You can see on 1 this map here, these properties here. Eagle Drive is 2 located here. The University of North Texas actually owns 13 this property right here. The request is to zone from 14 Downtown Residential 1 to Downtown Residential 2. 15 Essentially, the main difference between those two zoning 16 districts being that DR-2 allows multi-family development, 17 whereas DR-1 does not. 18 In your backup, the staff analysis is an 19 Attachment 1. The subject site is located in the downtown 20 university core district. One of the goals of the 21 Comprehensive Plan is to increase densities in the 22 downtown university core district. This would do so. As 23 you can see from this map, there is a variety of zoning 24 districts akeady in this area. Although the properties 25 is not zoned DR-2, you do have DR-2 zoning on the same 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 i17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page '~ block, basically. You have several apartment complexes ~ akeady in the general area. Attachment 4 of your backup, you'll see pictures that I have taken of the neighborhood. There are single-family homes currently along Avenue A. Many of them are, most of them appear to be rental properties, many of them are in poor condition. Given the current condition of the neighborhood, as well as the surrounding zoning, staff does not feel that this zoning request would cause a problem. I'll be happy to answer any questions. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, any questions of Mr. Gray? Thank you, Mr. Gray. This is a public hearing and is the petitioner here and would they like to present? If you'd give us your name and address. MS. MITCHELL: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, my name is Karen Mitchell, address 7823 Nine Mile Bridge Road in Fort Worth. I am here on behalf of the property owner requesting you-all to consider favorably on our zoning change request. As the staff stated, this is an area that -- you know, I kind of call it a hodg~ podge which is pretty usual to See near the university area. What it is that my clients would iike to do is to take three lots and redevelop these lots. We are very excited looking at the new standards that were approved with the new Denton 'LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 27'1'14, 2002 Page 33 - Page 36 CondenscltTM Page 37 1 Development Code as far as things that we would be able to 2 do with this piece of property by making sure that when we 3 do design it, bringing up the complex close to the street 4 with the parking behind, lots of landscaping. So when we 5 get to that point, and I'm glass half full syndrome right 6 now, when we get to this point, we're going to be very 7 excited about being able to redevelop this property in 8 accordance with the design criteria approved by the City 9 Council. 10 As stated in a letter that I presented to 11 you-all in your backup that the staff put in the backup, 12 this is an area that is Very close to UNT, within what we 13 call a stone's throw of us~. we do encourage -- the 14 Denton Phn encourages pedestrian friendly environment in 15 this specific area and this is something -- I'm sorry I'm 16 moving it out of the way. This is an area where this is 17 perfect for what it is that the Comprehensive Plan goals 18 try to achieve. And with that being said, I'm here to 19 answer any questions that you-all may have. 20 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, any 21 questions of Ms. Mitchell? Thank you, Ms. Mitchell. Is 22 there anyone else, part of your party, that would like to 23 present? 24 MS. MITCHELL: Mr. Irwin is here in case 25 you-all have any questions. I believe that there are some Page 38 1 surrounding property owners present. 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: would he like to 3 present as a petitioner, also? 4 MS. MITCHELL: NO. 5 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. Okay. 6 This is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to speak 7 either for or against this item on our Agenda, if you'd 8 please come forward at this time. Once again, this is 9 Item No. 9 on our Agenda. Anyone who would like to 10 address the Commission regarding Item No. 9, would you 11 please come forward. This is a public hearing. Seeing no 12 one else who would like to present. That will teach them. 13 Would you please give us your name and address? 14 MR. BUCKW^~,~.: Rudy Buckwail, 917 Creekdaie 15 Drive, Richardson, Texas. And I'd just like to say that 16 I'm in favor of this change. I attended the long meeting 17 that you had a couple of months ago and I wrote a letter 18 afterwards suggesting that this might be a good thing to 19 do and never heard back from anyone. So I just came up 20 tonight to say I'm in favor of it. 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Okay. Thank you. 22 MR. BUCKWALL: EXCU~ me. My three lots 23 and house are on 1016 Avenue A at Eagle and -- 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: would you point out 25 where you arc on the map? Page 39 1 MR. BUCKWALL: I'm not sure I can find it. 2 Right here. 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: okay. Great. Thank 4 you very much. 5 MR. BUCKWALL: surely. 6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any questions of Mr. 7 Buckwall. Thank you, Mr. Buckwall. Once again, anyone 8 else who would like to address the Commissioner either for 9 or against, if you'd please become forward at this time. i0 Give us your name and address. 11 MR. CHIN: My name is Frank Chin. I live 12 in 3102 Renden, Richardson. I support in favor to change 13 the zoning. I'd like them to change the zoning. 14 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: DO you have property 15 in this area? 16 MR. CmN: Yes. I have property in here. 17 I have two houses here and one apartment here. So because 18 this is the whole street, the buildings are so old, it's 19 not good looking. So I hope -- because it's a beautiful 20 and it's good for the City. Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. Chin. 22 Any questions, Commissioners, of Mr. Chin? Thank you, 23 sir. Once again, this is a public hearing. Anyone else 24 who would like to speak either for or against Item No. 9 25 on our Agenda, if you'd please come forward at this time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 40 Anyone either for or against Item 9 on our Agenda. Seeing no one else that would like to speak, I will close the public hearing and ask Mr. Gray to give us a summation. MR. GRAY: Staff has no further comments. We have not received any letters of opposition at this time. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: conunissioners have some questions. Let me see if we can address those and where they would like to address those questions to. Commissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: I have no questions. I was going to make a motion, but I'll wait. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Let me see if Commissioner Mulroy has a question. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I will make a motion. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YOWl have the floor, Mr. Roy. 9. COMMISSIONER ROY: I move approval of Item COMMISSIONER MULROY: second. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Itt s been moved by Commissioner RoY and seconded by Commissioner Mukoy. I said that all in one breath. Any further comments? Commissioner Apple. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2002 Page 37 - Page 40 CondenseItTM Page 41 I COMMISSIONER APPLE: I just wanted to say 2 I'll be voting in favor of the motion. I'm very much in 3 favor of revitalizing this area and I'm glad to see this 4 project. Thank yom 4 5 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. You 5 6 summarize what I would say, also. Any further questions? 6 7 We have a motion on the floor regarding Item No. 9 on 7 8 our Agenda. If there's no further questions or comments 8 9 -- excuse me, Commissioner Mukoy. 9 10 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I would like to 10 11 underscore what Commissioner Apple has said. We really do 1 12 welcome the investment and the revitalization of that area 2 13 of town. Thank you. 13 14 COMMISSIONER PdSHEL: Thank you, 14 15 Commissioners, for kee?ing your comments short. Any 15 16 further comments? Motion is on the floor regarding Item 16 ~17 No. 9. Please, vote. Motion carries 6-0 of the 17 18 Commissioners present. 18 .19 2O 21 because we had a petitioner that notified us t 21 the~ ' but were dealing 22 factors and so we 6 to the 23 end of Agenda 24 and Item No. 6 on It's that the docucam does public is able to see it on TV. So, once this is Item No. 6 on our Agenda and Ms. present. 4 MS. VIERA: commission, this public'. 4 5 was the last P&Z meeting. 5 6 little bit what is the request, applicant 6 7 ~ amend PD-139. The 7 8 amendment in three ~ is to allow 8 9 amenity second item is to 9 10 allow gas well areas within the PD 10 11 area, and those areas in your backup. And I 1 12 the third item is to number of residential 12 13 lots allowed in the ED. the lots would 13 14 entail to reduce the' space park land area 14 15 that was shown plan. 15 16 The 16 17 allowing the: in density is ' ' a 17 18 legislative that the Planning 18 19 Commis~ is allowed to make. 19 20 your backup is 20 21 of This is the second amendment concept plan. As you can concept plan has been amended have been different policies. The tn'st policy was in 1988. The second one was in 1998. And this third amendment we rewewing it under the '1999 Denton Plan. I have some diagrams that shows the of the floodplain. One of the : staff -- that Planning and Zoning the reclamation or floodplain as a part And I would like to show ~utlines that shows approved in 1999 proposed right now. Section the one t for single-family see, the dashed green line shows the edge of the floodplain. At that time, City Council them to include some of the floodplain in the Howewr, the majority of that area drainage easement. That that even it was part of the lot, it developed. It need some Mr. Reichhart. MR. REICHHART: If yOU could )lan because I think that shows it ; happened. And if you look at that, the gn:en on that is still areas that were floodplain that wen: designated as a drainage easement, which I believe are not -- as a drainage easement, you can't do fill. .1 Page The darker area at the top of that little -- fight -- was area of the floodplain that was filled. rough calculations with 6,000, 7,000 and I'm MR those green easements, I They're part of it. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I think questioning the word :to seek Right. or "built on" again, as as drainage t build on them. not be building on sense that it's of the lot but you prohibition easement. ilONER ROY: Can I a that? COMMISSIONER RISHEL: COMMISSIONER ROY: when on it, does that mean you can't put a It's developed in the a plat and shown as part on it. There' s a lain or drainage a follow-up MR. REICHHART: Occasionally, and I'm sure of the full details of this drainage easement, but Roy. it at i PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2002 Page 41 - Page 44 S :\Om- Docmnen*s\Ordinences\02~Z02 0015.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL 1 (DR-l) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL 2 (DR-2) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 0.52 ACRE OF LAND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF AVENUE A AND FANNIN; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY 1N THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z02-0015) WHEREAS, CCI investmems, Inc., initiated a change in zoning for approximately 0.52 acres of land from Dowmown Residential 1 (DR -1) zoning district classification and use designation to Dowmown Residemial 2 (DR -2) zoning district classification and use designation with the intern to develop a multifamily complex on the site; and WHEREAS, on March 27, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission concluded a public hearing as required by law, after which the commission recommended approval of the requested change in zoning; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change in zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The zoning district classification and use des ignation of the approximately 0.52 acre property located on the northeast comer of Fannin and Avenue A, legally described as Block 2, Lot 5 of the Wattam Addition and commonly known as 1124 Fannin, 915 Avenue A and 917 Avenue A, is hereby changed from Dow Mown Residemial 1 (DR-1) zoning district classification and use designation to Downtown Residemial 2 (DR -2) zoning district classification and use designation under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas. SECTION 2. The City's official zoning map is amended to show the changes in zoning district classifications. SECTION 3. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid by any court, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. SECTION 4. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day t hat a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. Page 1 of 2 S :\Om- Docmnen*s\Ordinences\02~Z02 0015.doc SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the capti on of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record -Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,200 2. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Page 2 of 2 This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #45 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET May 14, 2002 Planning & Developmem CM/DCM/ACM: Dave Hill, 349-8314 SUBJECT A02-0001 (Loop 288 & Locust) Hold the first of two public hearings to consider the volumary annexation and service plan for approximately 345.5 acres of land generally located north of Loop 288, east of Bonnie Brae, and west of Locust in the northern section of the City of DeNon extraterritorial jurisdiction (ET J). (A02-0001) BACKGROUND Applicam: Visiquest Phoenix, AZ A volumary annexation proceeding is being considered by the City of DeNon for the Loop 288 & Locust annexation. In accordance with the City's annexation policy plan, approved in June 1993, the City will "access on a case by case basis" the annexation of areas in the ETJ when significam developmems are proposed. On April 12, 2002, Mark Donaldson, Carter and Burgess Inc., submitted a petition for voluntary annexation. Developmem potemial for the site includes single-family dwelling units, multi-family dwelling units, commercial developmem, a park and a high school. Pre-design applications for developmem were submitted on August 31, 2001 and May 25, 2002. The applicants met with the Development Review Committee to review and discuss the proposed developmem, to make a determination of what information and studies may be required for the zoning and platting application submittal, and to receive additional information requirements necessary to facilitate processing of the plat application. Development of the property is subject to the requiremems and procedures of the DeNon Developmem Code. The subject property is located in the extra territorial jurisdiction and is not zoned at this time. The property is undeveloped at this time. The Comprehensive Plan idemifies this property to be within the "Neighborhood Cemers". The applicam is proposing to develop residemial and commercial uses, including a park and a high school. The applicam will submit a separate comprehensive plan amendmem and zoning application. OPTIONS 1. Maimain land area. 2. Delete land area. 3. Amend Service Plan. 4. Deny. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the first public hearing for A02-0001 is held as commems received; determine if additional information is needed. Staff recommends that the public hearings proceed as scheduled, finding that: 1. scheduled, and pending The need to manage and coordinate developmem in an orderly manner is a significam city objective that the City of DeNon will pursue. The annexation tract also contains acreage designated as Environmentally Sensitive Area, which have very importam water quality and flood control implications. The City of DeNon intends to preserve these areas to act as a natural flood channels, rather than allowing filling of floodplains and paying for expensive concrete-lined channels at a later date. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The annexation process will be completed by August 6, 2002 (see Attachmem 2). PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW Application Date DRC Review 1 st CC Public Hearing April 12, 2002 April 25, 2002 May 14, 2002 FISCAL INFORMATION Developmem of this property will increase the assessed value of the city, county, and school district. It will require no short-term public improvemems that are the responsibility of the city. ATTACHMENTS 1. Service Analysis 2. Location Map 3. Annexation Schedule 4. Draft Annexation Service Plan Prepared by: Dedra Dende Ragland, AICP Small Area Planning Manager Respectfully submitted: Douglas S. Powell, AICP Director of Planning and Developmem ATTACHMENT 1 Service Analysis by Department Police. When Fully developed as proposed, additional police personnel will be needed. It is amicipated that at a minimum, 2 additional police officers and a school resource office (if proposed high school is built) will be needed. While the currem police departmem facility has no room for expansion, a new facility will not be needed as a result of the annexation. Engineering and Transportation. The following roads will be impacted by the proposed annexation and developmem in terms of needed improvemems or upgrades: Name and location Bonnie Brae (to Hwy 77) N Locust St (to south of Windsor) Highway 77 Type of Improvement Capacity* & Pavemem Capacity* Capacity* Approximate Cost up to $600,000 up to $2,000,000 $13,000,000 At this time, Highway 77 is being upgraded from a two lane to a four lane divided highway, which is funded by TxDOT. *As proposed, this developmem will be required to submit a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Those improvemems (in part or in whole) noted above will be required and Funded by the developmem as recommend by the TIA Additional equipmem and facilities will also be needed as a specific result of this annexation and developmem. While no additional facility will be required at this time, the operation and maimenance Funds for Streets & Drainage will need to be increased by $ 400,000 each to handle additional workloads. Fire. The main concern of this annexation is the availability of water for firefighting purposes. Stations 5 and 4 will service this area with assistance from Station 1. Parks and Recreation. Curremly, there are no city parks within the proposed annexation. The closest DeNon Park properties are North Lakes Park and Evers Park, which are approximately 1.5 miles away. Residems will be able to use existing City of DeNon parks, facilities and programs. The 2000 Park and Recreation Master Plan indicates a need for community and neighborhood parks in this general area. Population projections propose 3,274 people living in 1,512 housing units. Based on service standards set in the Park and Recreation Master Plan, 11 acres or more of new parkland will be needed for neighborhood parks. If additional park facilities are developed to serve this area, $103,620 in additional Funding and 2 new staff members will be needed to properly serve this area. Library. There is no direct impact of this annexation and proposed developmem on library services. Amicipated service demands can be met using existing materials, facilities and personnel. Solid Waste. Residemial and commercial solid waste services are available to the proposed area. waste services must be requested. Solid Water. There are no existing City of Denton water lines in the proposed annexation area. The area lies within the City of DeMon's Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) service area for both water and wastewater service. The nearest available water lines that could be extended by the developer to serve the property are an existing 12" waterline on North Locust (FM 2164) approximately 2000 ft south of Loop 288 and a 16" waterline at the northeast comer of the UNT property (old Texas Instrumems facility). The water distribution system upgrade program required to provide for the imroduction of water supplies from the new Lake Ray Roberts Water Treatment Plant also calls for the installation of a 42"/36" transmission line to be installed along Loop 288 from Sherman Drive (FM 428) to the 16" line at the UNT property. This project is funded in the FY 2002 Water Utilities Capital Improvemems Program (CIP) and the city has recemly hired Freese and Nichols, Inc., to do the engineering design, plans and specifications and to provide inspection services for the project. The currem schedule for the project is for plans to be released for bids during the summer of 2002 with completion of construction scheduled for the spring of 2003. This project will improve the water supply capacity in the area sufficiem to support the proposed land uses in the proposed annexation area and reduce the length of the extension of waterlines necessary to serve the property. Waste Water. There are no existing City of DeNon sanitary sewer lines in the proposed annexation area. The proposed area to be annexed is part of a larger tract with a total acreage of approximately 750 acres. Staff has been working with the developer Wator'l Sewor' Map ~ and their engineer to determine the level of service required and to idemify the existing city sewer lines that can accommodate the wastewater flows to be generated from the proposed annexation area as well as the entire 750- acre tract. Several meetings have been held to determine possible connection poims in the existing wastewater collection system. Staff has requested the developer's engineer to provide projected phasing and estimated time of completion of each phase, the projected land use, and wastewater loads from each phase. A meeting with the engineer is scheduled on Thursday, May 2, where the engineer will provide the above requested information. With this wastewater loading data, the Hydroworks Model used to develop the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan will be used to determine the impact of the proposed developmem on the downstream wastewater collection system. Curremly there are no existing sewer lines on the north side of the Loop 288 to serve the proposed developmem. There is an existing 18-inch sewer line in the Pecan Creek basin that was constructed to serve the TI facility. This 18-inch sewer line is south of the Loop 288. The proposed developmem drains naturally to the Clear Creek basin. There are no existing city sewer facilities in the Clear Creek basin. The proposed developmem will need a lift station to lift all wastewater flows imo the Pecan Creek or a combination of Pecan Creek and Cooper Creek basins. However, the density proposed for the developmem creates a challenge to accommodate all of the wastewater flows in the existing sewer system downstream of the development. Computer modeling of the wastewater system will provide the direction. Drainage. Since the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Neighborhood Cemers, denser developmem patterns are allowed. Dense developmems usually result in increased impervious cover. Mitigation measures may be needed to address drainage. The Environmemally Sensitive Areas map shows that the northwestern most portion lies within a stream buffers area. This property may be affected by the 100-year floodplain in that area. The stream buffer areas shall remain natural and not be disturbed per the Denton Development Code and Drainage Criteria Manual. 100-year water surface elevations shall not increase as a result of any reclamation of the floodplain. Other floodplain criteria will apply. Electric. DeNon Municipal Electric (DME) has an existing main line circuit in the TMPA easemem running through the property. If property develops as proposed, DME would have to extend a main line on Bonnie Brae from Loop 288. DME is planning to construct a distribution substation at the Denton North Interchange. ATTACHMENT 2 Location Map A02-0001 (Loop 288 & Locust) NORTH =. ETJ ETJ Proposed Annexation Area (Survey) ~% % LOCATION MAP Scale: None ATTACHMENT 3 ANNEXATION SCHEDULE FOR Loop 288 & Locust Annexation Area Tuesday, May 14, 2002 City Council conducts first public hearing Tuesday, May 21, 2002 City Council public hearing conducts second Wednesday, June 12, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission public hearings - make a recommendation to City Council regarding the proposed annexation and the proposed zoning. Tuesday, June 18, 2002 First reading of annexation ordinance - City Council by a 4/5th vote institutes annexation proceedings. Tuesday, August 6, 2002 Second reading and adoption of annexation ordinance and public hearing for zone change request- City Council by a 4/5th vote takes final action on annexation. City Council by simple majority vote takes final action of zone change request. ATTACHMENT 4 CITY OF DENTON DRAFT SERVICE PLAN FOR A02-0001 (Loop 288 & Locust) i. AREA ANNEXED The annexation area is located in the northern portion of Denton's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and comains approximately 345.5 acres generally located north of Loop 288, east of Bonnie Brae and west of Locust. II. INTRODUCTION This service plan has been prepared in accordance with the Texas Local Govemmem Code, Sections 43.021, 43.065, and 43.065(b)-(o) (Vernon 1999, as amended). Municipal facilities and services to the annexed area described above will be provided or made available on behalf of the City in accordance with the following plan. The City shall provide the annexed tract the levels of service, infrastructure, and infrastructure maintenance that are comparable to the levels of service, infrastructure, and infrastructure maimenance available in other parts of the city with similar topography, land use, and population density. iii. AD VALOREM (PROPERTY OWNER) TAX SERVICES Police Protection, Code Enforcement, and Animal Control Police service, including patrolling, response to calls, and other routine functions, will be provided to the property upon the effective date of the annexation using existing personnel and equipmem. If annexed and developed as proposed, additional personnel and equipmem will be needed. Code enforcemem and animal control services will also be provided to the property upon the effective date of the annexation. Fire Protection Fire protection (within the limits of existing hydrams) and emergency medical services will be provided to the property upon the effective date of the annexation. The estimated emergency response time in this area is 5 minutes, which is similar to responses for surrounding properties within the city limits. The City of DeNon will provide emergency medical services ("EMS"). Roads and Streets Roads and streets, which have been properly platted, duly dedicated, and accepted by the City of DeNon and/or DeNon County shall be maimained by the City of DeNon on the effective date of the annexation. Installation and maintenance of street signs, street lighting and traffic control devices will be maimained by the City of DeNon on the effective date of the annexation. Parks and Recreation Facilities Parks and recreational facilities in the area to be annexed will begin upon the effective date of the annexation according to the 2000 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. No parks are curremly located within the proposed annexation area. DeNon neighborhood me Fe Ge park facilities are located within reasonably close distance of the proposed annexation area. Residems of the proposed annexation area will be able to use existing City of DeNon park and recreation facilities and programs. Library Services Library services will be made available on the effective date of the annexation on the same basis and at the same level as similar library facilities are maimained throughom the city. Building Inspections and Consumer Health Services Building inspections and consumer health services will be made available on the effective date of the annexation on the same basis and at the same level as similar facilities are maimained throughom the City. Both services are provided on a "cost recovery" basis, and permit fees offset the costs of services delivered. Incomplete construction must obtain building permits from the Building Inspections Department of the City of DeNon. Planning and Development Services Planning and developmem services will be made available on the effective date of the annexation. The Planning and Development Department currently services this property by way of administration of Chapter 34 of the Code of Ordinances, concerning subdivision and land developmem regulations. City Council adopted The DeNon Plan, the city's 1999-2020 comprehensive plan, by Ordinance 99-439 on December 7, 1999. The Future Land Use Plan addresses both land in the city and its ETJ, and the subject tracts comain Neighborhood Cemers and 100 year Floodplain/ Environmemally Sensitive Areas. The DeNon Plan designates future land uses to manage the quality and quamity of growth by organizing the land use patterns, by matching land use imensity with available infrastructure, and by preserving floodplains as environmemal and open space corridors. The DeNon Plan will be used as a basis for final zoning classifications after the properties are annexed. IV. UTILITY (RATEPAYER) SERVICES Ae Solid Waste Collection The City of DeNon is the exclusive residemial and commercial Solid Waste service provider within DeMon's city limits. The City Ordinance requires Solid Waste services for all residences and commercial businesses located in the City. The City of DeNon Solid Waste Departmem is fully funded through the service fees charged, and receives no funding from city tax revenues. Solid waste refuse collection services will be provided to the newly annexed property immediately upon the effective date of the annexation. To request Solid Waste collection services, please telephone the City of DeNon Customer Service Department at 940-349-8210 and submit an application to initiate service. To obtain City of DeNon Solid Waste schedule, service, and rate information, please telephone the Solid Waste Customer Relations office at 940-349-8420. Commercial customers are required to complete and submit a Service Agreement to Solid Waste Customer Relations prior to commencing service. Residemial Comainerized Refuse Service Each residemial address will be provided a 96-gallon wheeled refuse cart, which will be serviced one time per week. Residems are required to place their refuse cart(s) at the curb prior to 7:00 a.m. on their collection day. Carts should be placed at the curb for collection no earlier than 6:00 p.m. the evening prior to their collection day. Carts are to be removed from the curb no later than 6:00 a.m. on the day following their collection day. All refuse placed in the cart for collection must be bagged to eliminate wind blown debris and littering. Refuse that is not placed in the cart with the lid closed will not be collected. Additional carts may be provided for an additional monthly charge. Smaller carts are available for a lower monthly charge. Weekly brush service is provided. Recycling services are available. Commercial Refuse Service Each commercial business will be provided with a commercial comainer(s), which are available in a variety of sizes and frequencies of collection, based on the waste generated. All refuse placed in the comainer for collection must be bagged to eliminate wind blown debris and littering. Refuse that is not placed in the comainer with the lid closed will not be collected. Refuse placed outside the comainer is subject to code enforcement regulations, including potential fines. Landfill Service The City of DeNon Solid Waste Landfill hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; and 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Saturdays. For information regarding disposal charges, call the Landfill Office at 940-349-7510. Water/Wastewater Facilities The area lies within the City of DeMon's Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) service area for both water and wastewater service. The nearest available water lines that could be extended by the developer to serve the property are an existing 12" waterline on North Locust (FM 2164) approximately 2000 ft south of Loop 288 and a 16" waterline at the northeast comer of the UNT property (old Texas Instrumems facility). The water distribution system upgrade program required to provide for the introduction of water supplies from the new Lake Ray Roberts Water Treatment Plant also calls for the installation of a 42"/36" transmission line to be installed along Loop 288 from Sherman Drive (FM 428) to the 16" line at the UNT property. This project is funded in the FY 2002 Water Utilities Capital Improvemems Program (CIP) and will improve the water supply capacity in the area sufficiem to support the proposed land uses in the proposed annexation area and reduce the length of the extension of waterlines necessary to serve the property. Curremly there are no existing sewer lines on the north side of the Loop 288 to serve the proposed developmem. There is an existing 18-inch sewer line in the Pecan Creek basin that was constructed to serve the TI facility (See Map Exhibit I). This 18-inch sewer line is south of the Loop 288. The proposed developmem drains naturally to the Clear Creek basin. There are no existing city sewer facilities in the Clear Creek basin. 10 The proposed developmem will need a lift station to lift all wastewater flows imo the Pecan Creek or a combination of Pecan Creek and Cooper Creek basins. Compmer modeling of the wastewater system will provide the means necessary to accommodate all of the wastewater flows in the existing sewer system downstream of the development. Maimenance of water and wastewater facilities in the area to be annexed that are not within the service area of another water or wastewater mility will begin upon the effective date of the annexation using existing personnel and equipmem. The City shall provide a level of water and wastewater service, infrastructure, and infrastructure maintenance that is comparable to the level of services, infrastructure, and infrastructure maimenance available in other parts of the city with topography, land use, and population density similar to those reasonably comemplated or projected in the area. Ce Drainage Services Drainage maimenance will be provided to the property upon the effective date of the annexation. The City shall provide a level of drainage services, infrastructure, and infrastructure maintenance that is comparable to the level of services, infrastructure, and infrastructure maimenance available in other parts of the city with topography, land use, and population density similar to those reasonably comemplated or projected in the area. Ve VI. D. Electrical Services Denton Municipal Electric is certified by the State and is obligated to provide electric mility service to the annexation area should a request be made by a property owner. Electric mility service will be made available on the effective date of the annexation on the same basis and at the same level as similar facilities are maimained throughom the city. DeNon Municipal Electric is the currem electric service provider for this site. OTHER SERVICES Other services that may be provided by the City, such as municipal and general administration will be made available on the effective date of the annexation. The City shall provide a level of services, infrastructure, and infrastructure maintenance that is comparable to the level of services, infrastructure, and infrastructure maintenance available in other parts of the City with topography, land use, and population density similar to those reasonably comemplated or projected in the area. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (CIP) No new construction of additional water, sewer, street, and drainage facilities is comemplated within the annexed area as a result of this annexation because the annexed area on the date of annexation will have a level of full municipal services equal to other areas within the City having similar characteristics of topography, land use, and population density. Thus, no construction of public improvemems is comemplated as a result of this annexation that would begin within two and a half (2 lA) years after the effective date of the annexation. The City shall consider construction of other public improvemems as the 11 needs dictate on the same basis as such public improvements are considered throughout the City for areas having similar characteristics of topography, land use, and population density. Vii. UNIFORM LEVEL OF SERVICES MAY NOT BE REQUIRED Nothing in this plan shall require the City to provide a uniform level of full municipal services to each area of the City, including the annexed area, if different characteristics of topography, land use, and population density are considered a sufficient basis for providing different levels of service. Viii. TERM This service plan shall be valid for a term of ten (10) years. shall be at the discretion of City Council. Renewal of the service plan IX. AMENDMENTS The service plan may be amended if the City Council determines at a public hearing that changed conditions or subsequent occurrences make this service plan unworkable or obsolete. The City Council may amend the service plan to conform to the changed conditions or subsequent occurrences pursuant to Texas Local Government Code, Section 43.056 (Vernon Supp. 2000). 12 Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #46 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: May 14, 2002 Planning Department David Hill, 349-3350 SUBJECT - SD02-0001 (Denton Park 35 Addition) Hold a public hearing to consider adoption of an ordinance creating a Special Sign District on 7.52 acres of land in a Downtown Commercial General (DC-G) zoning district. The site is located on the north side of Interstate 35E, approximately 210 feet west of Centre Place and east of Meadow. The proposal is to create a Special Sign District for the entire tract that includes six lots. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0) BACKGROUND Applicant: T. Weldon Davis Dallas, Texas The applicant is proposing the creation of a Special Sign District. Chapter 33 of the Code of Ordinance, Sign Ordinance, authorizes the City Council to create such district if it finds that the five criteria (Attachment 1) are met and that the proposal is "clearly superior" to what would be permitted without the plan. As opposition is currently at 27.5 % (Attachment 3), a super majority vote (6-1) will be required to approve this request. The Planning and Zoning Commission, at its meeting of April 24th, unanimously approved the Special Sign District as proposed, for a six-lot subdivision plat. Since the meeting, the applicant has decided to pursue platting of the property into five lots instead of the six lots originally proposed. The applicant intends to pursue the six-lot option eventually, and requests approval of the sign district allowing signs for five or six lots. Staff has structured the sign district ordinance accordingly, providing language that the approved signage will correspond with the total number of lots approved in a final plat, not to exceed six. As a point of clarification, Attachment 8 was submitted by the applicant at the April 24th Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to indicate signage allowed if the property was subdivided using flag lots. Although the property could be subdivided in that configuration, the three driveways depicted in the rendering would not be allowed. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Deny. 3. Postpone consideration. 4. Table item. 5. Approve an alternate plan. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously (7-0) recommended approval of the Special Sign District (SD02-0001). ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The subject property is not platted. The property is currently in the process of being preliminary and final platted into six lots with only two lots fronting on a public street. A final plat is required prior to the issuance of any building permits. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Maps 3. Public Notification (Property Owner Notification Map and Responses) 4. Special Sign District Site Plan 5. Special Sign District Sign Elevations 6. Proposed Sign District Requirements 7. Applicant's Analysis 8. Applicant's Graphics presented to Planning and Zoning Commission 9. Ordinance Prepared by: Donna Bateman Assistant Building Official Respectfully submitted: Douglas S. Powell, AICP Director of Planning and Development 2 ATTACHMENT 1 Staff Analysis Summary_ of Request The applicant is proposing the creation of a Special Sign District. Chapter 33 of the Code of Ordinance, Sign Ordinance, authorizes the Planning and Zoning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council if it finds the five criteria are met and that the proposal is "clearly superior" to what would be permitted without the plan. The ordinance states: The council may approve the creation of a sign district for any property which has more than three hundred (300)feet of continuous street frontage on one (1) public street if it finds the district: (1) Provides a comprehensive plan for signs that would be clearly superior to what wouM be allowed without the plan; (2) Would be compatible with surrounding properties. In considering whether a district and sign plan is "compatible" and "clearly superior", the commission and council shall consider, but are not limited to considering the following: 1. Scale. The relationship between and compatibility of sign scale, site scale and the scale of nearby buildings. 2. Color. The relationship between and compatibility of sign color to the color of nearby buildings and landscaping: The degree to which sign colors are complimentary to its surroundings. 3. Material The materials of the signs and how they relate to their surroundings. 4. Shape. The shape and design of the signs and how they relate to their surroundings. 5. Landscaping. The relationship of signs to landscaped features in and outside the district. 6. Traffic Safet~ and Traffic Circulation. The impact of the signs on driver's view, the degree to which view obstructions are created or improved, avoidance of confusion with or obstruction of traffic control signs and devices, and the time it takes a motorist to read the sign. 7. Illumination. The impact and compatibility of sign illumination within the district and in relation to neighboring properties. The avoidance of glare and light pollution. 8. Integration. How the signs in the district are integrated into a unified development concept with the topography, building design, other signs, landscaping, traffic circulation and other development features on the district and nearby property. (3) Is not being used merely to avoid or gain a variance of the sign regulations; (4) Does not violate the spirit or intent of the sign regulations; and (5) Complies with the requirements of this for a special sign district. 3 Existing Condition of Property_ Property History. February 20, 2002 - The subject property was placed in the Downtown Commercial General (DC-G) zoning district and land use classification. The subject property was the previous location for a miniature golf course and vacant land until its recent demolition. The property is currently going through the platting process. April 24, 2002 - The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended (7-0) to approve the Special Sign District, as submitted. Adjacent Zoning and Land Uses North: Downtown Residential 2 (DR-2) - Campus Park Student Housing South: Downtown Commercial General (DC-G) - 1-35 East: Downtown Commercial General (DC-G) - Center Place, Johnny Carino's West: Downtown Commercial General (DC-G) - Self Storage Sign District Plan Analysis The subject site is located in the "Downtown University Core District". This area is intended to have a mix of educational, residential, retail, office, service, government, cultural and entertainment development. It is a place where residents can live, work, learn, and play in the same neighborhood. Staff's analysis for the Special Sign District requires the review of the criteria stated in the ordinance and reiterated in the summary above. The requirement or criteria is underlined, the initial response is taken from analysis provided by the applicant (Attachments 6 & 7) and then followed by a Staff finding: The council may approve the creation of a sign district for any property which has more than three hundred (300) feet of continuous street frontage on one (1) public street if it finds the district. Staff finding: The subject property has approximately 425 meeting this requirement. feet of street frontage along Interstate 35, 2. Provides a comprehensive plan for signs that would be clearly superior to what would be allowed without the plan; · A site plan and proposed sign district ordinance have been prepared by the applicant (Attachment 4). · A comparison of what is proposed to what is permitted by the sign ordinance is shown in the following tables: 4 Based on Proposed Lot Configuration ~itted Permitted by Requested per Tyg~ ~ $~g Permitted by Requested by ~ ~i~ce qu ~ Ordinance per Sign Sign Ordinance ro ~i~ i 1 Pole Sign ~feet sigl~ Pole = 250 sq. ft. 1 sign at 600 sq. ft. Monu~n ~ie) 2 Si~s S ~1 oI1 ~-3 2 Mon~ent Mon~ent = 300 sq. ft. 2 si~s at 300 sq. ft. ~ro ~ on ft 2 si~s at 75 sq. ft. ~ vat ~eet 0 6Mon~ent ~ at~ft 0 4si~satl20sq. ft. Based on current lot ~ ~ ~ ~io~ Based on current lot configuration, the total configuration, seven more ~ ~ig ~ft~ ~ig~ ft, size of all signs permitted by ordinance is :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: signs are requested then ~ si~ ~ ft, ~ ~ ~ig~ ~ ft 600 square feet versus the 1830 square feet permitted, e ~t~ ~ (~ ~ft. requested. Based on Flag-Shaped Lot Configuration p~ittefl Permitted by Requested per Tyg~ ~($!~g Permitted by Requested Ordinance per Sign Sign Ordinance Monu~en~ ~ty!e) ro ~i~ i 6 Signs 1 Pole Sign feet ensi Pole = 250 sq. ft. 1 sign at 600 sq. ft. ~ on!-3 2 Monument Monument = 300 sq. ft. 2 signs at 300 sq. ft. ~ro ~ oi1 ft 2 signs at 75 sq. ft. ~ vat ~tl'e~ 0 6 Monument gnat 0 4 signs at 120 sq. ft. Based on all lots heing nag ~i~ ~p a ~ ~a~ ~ ~ Vlag shaped lots would inerease the :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: shaped, each lot would have a ~pa~i~ minimum of thirty feet of R~qu~a ~ ~ ~ ft ~ ~ig~ ~ fi, allowable square footage between 1,500 and :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: street frontage in order to ~ si~ 8 ft, ~ ~ ~ig~ ~ ft 1,800 square feet for six signs versus the allow for a separate sign. ~ mi~ted ~ ~ig~ ~ ft. 1830 square feet requested. Staff Finding: The applicam's proposal would decrease the number of signs along 1-35 but increases the total number of signs on the property. Additionally, the total square footage of signs increases with the applicam's proposal. As proposed in the final plat, two lots will from on 1-35. Flag shaped lots are not proposed. 3. Would be compatible with surrounding properties. Surrounding property includes mini warehouse units to the west, multi-family apartment units to the north, Johnny Carino's Restaurant to the east, and Interstate 35 to the south. Staff Finding: Within the surrounding area, there is a variety of building and sign styles and materials. With the exception of the proposed ground sign (sign A) the monumem sign will have compatible materials and style. 5 In considering whether a district and sign plan is "compatible" and "clearly superior", the commission and council shall consider, but are not limited to considering the following: 4. Scale. The relationship between and compatibility of sign scale, site scale and the scale of nearby buildings. The subject property is elevated above the interstate and slopes downward on the north side of the property. Johnny Carino's, immediately south of the property, has one pole sign forty feet (40') in height and one hundred ninety (190) square feet. Staff Finding: Although the proposed monument signs are similar in scale and material, without building elevations it is unknown at this time if the proposed signs will be in proportion to the proposed buildings. o Color. The relationship between and compatibili_ty of sign color to the color of nearby buildings and landscaping: The degree to which sign colors are complimentary_ to its surroundings. The applicant states in their sign plan that "ground signs shall be done in colors and appearance that are compatible with or complementary to their respective proposed buildings within the sign district." Staff Finding: While the signs would compliment nearby buildings, they may not compliment the other signs within the district. This statement may possibly be construed as vague and difficult to enforce. 6. Material. The materials of the signs and how they relate to their surroundings. The proposed sign plan states "monument signs shall use only masonry, HDO materials, or metal panels finished with a masonry appearance in the supporting structure of the sign." Staff Finding: While eight of the nine signs proposed are "monument" signs, one pole sign is proposed that would not be constructed of masonry material. 7. Shape. The shape and design of the signs and how they relate to their surroundings. Staff Finding: Signs proposed would be of standard geometric shapes that are comparable to other signs throughout Denton. 6 8. Landscaping. The relationship of signs to landscaped features in and outside the district. The proposed sign plan states "Except for Ground Sign "A", the proposed ground (monument) signs shall be placed within a landscaped area equal in area to the effective area of the sign." Staff Finding: Although the exact type of landscaping is not proposed at this time, the applicant is proposing to locate the monument signs in a landscaped bed. Further clarification may be necessary. Traffic Safety and Traffic Circulation. The impact of the signs on driver's view, the degree to which view obstructions are created or improved, avoidance of confusion with or obstruction of traffic control signs and devices, and the time it takes a motorist to read the sign. The proposed sign plan states "The proposed ground signs will have no negative impact on driver's view along the 1-35E frontage road or nearby connecting streets or driveways. The signs will not result in undue obstructions, confusion, or time required to read the signs." Staff Finding: Monument Sign C is 5 foot high and 15 foot long and Monument Sign D is 8 foot high and 15 foot long. The proposed locations of these sign will impact a driver's vision and screen parking spaces and driveways. For example, the proposed monument sign screens the parking spaces along the private drive on Lot 1. (Attachment 4) 10. Illumination. The impact and compatibili_ty of sign illumination within the district and in relation to neighboring properties. The avoidance of glare and light pollution. The proposal states the following regarding illumination of signs: a. Signs may be illuminated internally or externally. If signs are illuminated with external light fixtures, the fixtures shall be shielded to contain direct illumination to the effective area of the sign. Illuminated signs are not permitted if they are illuminated in such a manner, to such intensity, or without proper shielding, so as to constitute a hazard to the operation of motor vehicles upon a public street or substantially interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of residential property; or if they have any time of intermittent illumination, including flashing, fading, revolving or blinking lights, or any type of moving, traveling or changing message by means of illumination, excluding temporary Christmas lights and changeable message signs that meet the standards described in the next section. Staff Finding: In addition to the language proposed by the applicant, the following statement could be added to ensure diffusion of light into the night sky: "Lights shall have shields installed to prevent the upward diffusion of light." 7 11. Integration. How the signs in the district are integrated into a unified development concept with the topography, building design, other signs, landscaping, traffic circulation and other development features on the district and nearby property. The applicam is proposing the use of four styles of signs. Sign style "A", which is the sixty (60) foot high sign, does not have features that are consistem with the remaining eight signs. All other signs proposed (style B, C, and D) will maimain the same features. If the Special Sign District is approved and created, no other ground signs would be permitted on the six lots. Staff Finding: At this stage of developmem, it is difficult for staff to further analyze the imegration with other features (i.e. building design, landscaping, traffic circulation) due to unknown developmem that will occur on the lots. While the proposed location for signs are shown on the site plan, the exact placement may change in order to allow for adequate traffic circulation. 12. Is not being used merely to avoid or gain a variance of the sign regulations; Staff Finding: Approval of five sign variances would be necessary if the property is platted as curremly proposed. This is due largely in part to the private road that will be constructed to access the four back lots. As memioned above, the applicant could build six 40 foot high signs along the 1-35 Fromage Road if the property was platted with flag lots. 13. Does not violate the spirit or imem of the sign regulations; and The spirit and intent of the sign regulations is to regulate signs according to type, number, size, setback, classification and height. The "spirit" of the ordinance, as noted on the ordinance at the time of adoption stated "WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of DeNon finds that the use of signs and other omdoor advertising devices and structures, if unregulated, can, because of their number, placemem, and characteristics, adversely affect property values; aesthetically damage the overall environmem; create an unfavorable business climate which hampers attempts to attract and retain desirable commercial and business emerprises; and foster conditions that lessen the enjoymem and desirability of the City of DeNon as a place in which to visit, live and work." Staff Finding: The proposed special sign district will regulate signs according to type, number, size, setback, classification and height. 14. Complies with the requiremems of the ordinance for a special sign district. Staff Finding: All submittal requiremems of the Special Sign District have been met. This section of the ordinance allows the Planning and Zoning Commission to recommend and the City Council to impose appropriate conditions concerning the placemem, design or use of signs in the district in order to protect surrounding properties, the community, and comply with the imem of the sign ordinance. 8 ATTACHMENT 2 Maps NORTH Location Map Scale: None 9 ATTACHMENT 3 Public Notification NORTH Notification Map Limits of 500' Notification Limits of 200' Notification Public Notification Date: April 12, 2002 200' Legal Notices* sent via Certified Mail: 2 500' Courtesy Notices* sent via 1st Class Mail: 13 Number of responses to 200' Legal Notice · In Opposition: #0 · In Favor: #2 · Neutral: #0 Percent of land within 200' in opposition: 27.5 % Scale: None *A copy of the notification list can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 ]0 Property Owner Responses Property Owner Name and In favor Comments Address /opposed* W.A. Sanford Sandford Investment In Favor Company Teasley Partners, LTD Opposed 401 S. 1-35E Johnny Carino's Opposed 1516 Centre Place *A copy of the original notice can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Due to a staff error, two property owners within two hundred feet were not notified prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The applicant noticed the mistake and notified staff and the affected property owners. Both property owners in question, RAB Partners, Ltd and Internacional Realty, Inc. have indicated that they will waive their rights of legal notification under State Law. As of the writing of this staff report, RAB Partners, Ltd and Internacional Realty, Inc have submitted written waivers. It should be noted that all properties within 500 feet of the subject site were sent a courtesy notice. OPPOSITION CALCULATIONS FOR SD02-0001 (Denton Park 1-35 Special Sign District) Calculated By: LCR A. TOTAL AREA (Site and 200' Notice Area): B. AREA OF SITE ONLY C. AREA WITHIN 200' NOTICE AREA (A - B) Date Calculated: 4~24~02 941,581.7 sq. ft. 334,750.5 s,q. ft. 606,831.2 sq. ft. 1. PROPERTIES WITHIN 200' OPPOSED TO REQUEST Location / Address Area* Teasley Partners, LTD. 401 S 135E 104,625.8 sq. ft. Johnny Carino's 1516 Centre Place Dr. 62,441.8 sq. ft. Total 167,067.6 sq. ft. 2. PERCENT OF NOTICE AREA IN OPPOSITION (1/C) 27.5 % 11 ATTACHMENT 4 DENTON PARK 35 ADDITION Special Sign District SIGN SITE PLAN S 89'30'09" E 424.62' Ld 0 Z 1.1'3 © 12 DENTON ATTACHMENT 5 PARK 35 ADDITION Special Sign. District SIGN ELEVATIONS I 1 Sign - 600 sq. ft. GROUND SIGN A 15'-0' 2 Signs -i 300 sq.ft . MONUMENT SIGN B ONUMENT SIG MASONRY APPEARANCE TRIM 4 Signs - 120 SCl. ft. MONUMENT SIGN D 13 ATTACHMENT 6 Denton Park 35 Addition Special Sign District Sign Plan Evaluation Criteria The proposed sign plan for the Denton Park 35 Addition Special Sign District provides a comprehensive plan for signs on the property that is superior to what would be allowed without the plan. Current allowable signage for the lots within the Denton Park 35 Addition, if using current commercial flag lot development regulations, could result in the construction of up to six (6) new ground signs, within an overall 425' distance along 1-35E, with each sign being 40' high and each sign having an effective area of 250 square feet, yielding a total of six (6) new signs and 1,500 square feet of new elevated signage; or, with each of the six (6) signs being constructed as a monument sign with an individual allowable area of 300 square feet, yielding a total of six (6) new signs and 1,800 square feet of new elevated signage. All of these signs require a minimum setback of 20' from the curbline of adjacent 1-35 frontage road. Additionally, more signs could be painted, affixed to or erected on the buildings or lots, along the interior of the property. Proposed Special Sign District Sign Plan will result in one (1) 60' tall ground sign (Ground Sign "A") with an effective area of 600 square feet; plus two (2) 20' high monument signs, with an effective sign height of 18', (Monument Sign "B"), with each having an effective area of 176 square feet, yielding a total of three (3) new signs and 952 square feet of new elevated signage within a 425' distance along 1-35E. Additionally, two (2) new 5' high monument signs, with an effective sign height of 4' (Monument Sign "C"), with each having an effective area of 39 square feet, and four (4) new 8' high monument signs, with an effective height of 7' (Monument Sign "D"), with each having an effective area 78 square feet, may be erected along the interior of the Special Sign District, remote from the adjacent public roadway. Total effective area of signage fronting 1-35, within the Special Sign District, will be 952 square feet. Total effective area of all ground signage within the Special Sign District will be 1,342 square feet. Minimum setback of Ground Sign "A" will be 60' from the curbline of adjacent 1-35 frontage road. Minimum setback of Monument Signs "B' will be 20' from the curbline of adjacent 1-35 frontage road. Minimum setback of Monument Signs "C" will be 80' from the curbline of adjacent 1-35 frontage road. Minimum distance from eurbline of adjacent 1-35 frontage road to locations of Monument Signs "D" will be 380'. Compatible with Surrounding Properties. The proposed sign plan is compatible with surrounding properties with respect to the following considerations: 1. Scale. The proposed signs will be compatible with the scale of surrounding signs, the property and nearby buildings along the 1-35E corridor. 2. Color. The proposed signs will be compatible with the color of adjacent surrounding buildings or landscaping along the 1-35E corridor. 3. Material. The proposed monument signs shall incorporate masonry, or masonry appearance materials, in their supporting structure and trim. 4. Shape. The proposed ground signs shall have effective sign areas that are simple, geometric shapes. 5. Landscaping. Except for Ground Sign "A", the proposed ground signs shall be placed within a landscaped area. No other ground signs along 1-35E are required to do so. 6. Traffic safety and circulation. The proposed ground signs will have no negative impact on driver's view along the 1-35E frontage road or nearby connecting streets or driveways. The signs will not result in undue obstructions, confusion, or time required to read the signs. 7. Illumination. The signs will be not be illuminated in such a manner, to such intensity, or without proper shielding, so as to constitute a hazard to the operation of motor vehicles upon a public street or substantially interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of nearby residential property. 14 ATTACHMENT 7 1-35 DENTON LAND, LTD. March 20, 2002 Ms. Donna K. Bateman Assistant Building Official CITY OF BENTON 221 N. Elm Street Benton, Texas 76201 Re: Request for Creation of Special Sign District Denton Park 35 Addition Dear Ms. Bateman: 1-35 Denton Land, Ltd. is the owner and developer of a 7.52 acre parcel of land, located along the northbound 1-35E Service Road, between Teasley Lane and Fort Worth Drive, approximately 200' west of the intersection of Centre Place Drive and the northbound 1-35E Service Road. As you know, we have been working, for some time, toward gaining appropriate City approvals to proceed with our development of this land. We have now submitted, simultaneously, for our Preliminary and Final Plats. Our intended development of Denton Park 35 Addition includes subdividing the land into a maximum of six marketable sites by plat; and then (1) cutting, filling and leveling the sites, (2) extending off-site and on-site utilities to each of the sites, and (3) constructing an access easement roadway to access each of the sites. After completion of the land development, we will be selling the individual sites to be further developed as restaurants, hotels and/or office buildings. Due to the location and configuration of our site, we will be developing and platting the property with actual public thoroughfare frontage, on 1-35E Service Road, on only two of the sites. The remaining four sites do not have direct adjacency to a public roadway and access will be accomplished via either "Flag Lot" configurations or via an access easement. The total street frontage of our property, along 1-35E Service Road, is approximately 425'. In analyzing our signage requirements and our signage rights for this project, we have come to the conclusion that the creation of a "Special Sign District" will result in an alternative comprehensive plan that is clearly superior to what we can accomplish under standard Chapter 33 regulations. By submittal of this letter and the enclosed "Sign Plan", we are hereby requesting and applying for the creation and approval of the Denton Park 35 Addition Special Sign District. Following and enclosed is supporting data which justifies and confirms our position that the requested Special Sign District provides a superior signage comprehensive plan. 8150N. CentralExpressway + Suite835 + Dallas, Texas 75206 214/3094000 + fax 2141987-4000 ]5 page 2 Ms. Donna K. Bateman March 20, 2002 Current allowable signage for the lots within the Denton Park 35 Addition, if using current commercial flag lot development regulations, would allow us to erect up to 6 new ground signs, within our overall 425' of street frontage, with each sign being 40' high and each sign having an effective area of 250 square feet, yielding a total of 1,500 square feet of new elevated signage; or, with each of the 6 signs being constructed as monument signs with an individual allowable area of 300 square feet, yielding a total of 6 new signs and 1,800 square feet of new elevated signage. Our proposed Special Sign District will reduce the quantity and overall area of new signage allowed along the 1-35 frontage of our property, resulting in only 3 new elevated signs along the 1-35 frontage. As part of our Special Sign District, we are asking for one common sign for identity of the property owners on the interior of our project who do not have frontage along 1-35. We are requesting a sign of 60' tall, with an overall area of 600 square feet. Although this is a sign that is larger that the standard allowable sign, both in height and area, its approval will dramatically reduce the overall quantity of, and area of, new signage allowed along the 425' of 1-35 frontage within our project. This large sign will serve up to 4 sites and 4 entities or businesses. As further supporting precedence of the ability to vary height restrictions, the Cracker Barrel sign on 1-35 is 70' high. We are submitting, enclosed herewith: 1. Check, in the amount of $225.00 as Special Sign District Application Fee 2. Sign Plan Evaluation Criteria 3. Submittal Copy of Denton Park 35 Addition Special Sign District Sign Plan (including Site Location Map, Site Plan, Sign Elevations & Site Legal Description) 4. Highlighted Copy of Denton Park 35 Addition Special Sign District Sign Plan (including Site Location Map, Site Plan, Sign Elevations & Site Legal Description) 5. Site Plan Showing Available Signs with Flag Lot Configuration and Chapter 33 Please note that the Highlighted copy of the Sign Plan shows all items excerpted from and repeated as stated in Chapter 33 highlighted in yellow. The un-highlighted portions of the document are those items inserted to specialize the document for our specific use. Please proceed with reviewing our documentation and with scheduling hearings for approval of our requested Special Sign District as quickly as possible. We hope to have Staff's support for our requested Special Sign District. Please let us know if you need additional information. encl. ATTACHMENT 8 1"7 ATTACHMENT 8 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, CREATING AN OVERLAY DISTRICT (SD- 1) AND APPROVING A SPECIAL SiGN DISTRICT PLAN ON AN APPROXIMATE 7.52 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 1-35 BETWEEN TEASLEY AND MEADOW iN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; PROViDiNG FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Focus Service Group, has applied for adoption of a Special Sign District on real property containing approximately 7.52 acres of land in Downtown Commercial General (DC-G)zoning district, such real property being more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, on April 24, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission, after a public heating, recommended approval of the Special Sign District; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Special Sign District is in compliance with the City of Denton Sign Ordinance, Chapter 33 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, and is consistent with the Denton Plan; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The Special Sign District is hereby approved on the Property subject to the following conditions: Signage on the Property shall be developed, constructed, used, and maintained in accordance with and limited to the Special Sign District Plan attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "B" and the Special Sign District Regulations attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "C". The Special Sign District Plan calls for signage associated with six lots. A final plat of the Property has been approved which consolidates into one lot the most northerly two lots, being lots 5 and 6 (the "Consolidated Lots"). Until such time as the Consolidated Lots are re-platted into two lots, one of the Monument D signs will not be authorized and the authorized sign face for Ground Sign A shall be reduced to 500 square feet. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall supercede all requirements of the Sign Ordinance affecting the Property that are in conflict with or addressed by the Special Sign District Plan and the Special Sign District Regulations established by this ordinance. All other provisions of the Sign Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect against the Property. PAGE SECTION 3. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be freed a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record Chronicle, the official newspaper of the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2002. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY Exhibit A DENTON PARK 35 ADDITION Special Sign District SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION BEGINNING AT A I/2 INCH IRON PIN FOUND AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID 2.455 ACRE TRACT ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF INTERSTATE HIGH,lAY 35-E 5ERVICE ROAD, SAID POINT BEING TH£ SOUTHWEST CORNER OF A CERTAIN (CALLED) 9.595 ACRE TRACT DESCRIBEO IN A DEED TO CENTRAL FREIGHT LINE5 INC., RECORDED IN VOLUME 486, PAGE 542, DEED RECORD5 OF 5AID COUNTYt THENCE NORTH 80 DEGREE5 35 MINUTES 08 SECONDS ~tEST, WITH THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF INTERSTATE HIGHFAY 35-E A DISTANCE OF 201.87 FEET TO A I/2 INCH IRON PIN FOUND AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID 2,455 ACRE TRACT AND THE 50UTHEAST CORNER OF A CALLED TRACT TWO IN THE ABOVEMENTIONED FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORA TION ~ THENCE NORTH 80 DEGREES 35 MINUTE5 08 5ECONO5 WEST, WITH THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF INTERSTATE HIGH~tAY 35-E A DISTANCE OF 40,44 FEET TO A 1/2 INCH IRON PIN FOUND AT THE SOUTHERNMOST 50UTHEEST CORNER OF SAID 2.912 ACRE TRACT TWO AND THE 50UTHEAST CORNER OF A CALLED 2. 1495 ACRE TRACT DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO JERQLD 5, FORD ET UX, RECORDED IN VOLUME 2964, PAGE 773, REAL PROPERTY RECORD5 OF SAID COUNTY~ THENCE NORTH 80 DEGREES 44 MINUTES 54 SECONDS WEST, ALONG AND NEAR A FENCE, AND WITH THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 35, A DISTANCE OF 186.68 FEET TO AN IRON PIN FOUND FOR THE 50UTHWEST CORNER OF SAID JEROLD S. FORD TRACT~ THENCE NORTH O0 DEGREES 54 MINUTES 57 SECONDS EAST, WITH THE EAST BOUNDARY LINE OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1 OF THE ACI ADDITION, BEING RECORDED IN CABINET L, PAGE 245, A DISTANCE OF 496.14 FEET TO A IRON PIN FOUND FOR A NORTH~/EST CORNER~ THENCE NORTH O0 DEGREES 01 MINUTE5 11 SECONDS WEST, ALONG AND NEAR A FENCE, A DISTANCE OF 245.25 FEET TO AN IRON PIN FOUND IN AN INNER ELL DF 5AID INMAN TRACT AND THE NORTHWEST CORNER DF SAID 2.912 ACRE TRACT TWO~ THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 09 5ECONO5 EAST, ALONG AND NEAR A FENCE AND A SOUTH LJNE OF SAID INMAN TRACT, A DISTANCE OF 424.62 FEET TO A 1/2 INCH IRON PIN FOUND IN A FENCE CORNER POST AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT TWO, AND IN THE WEST LINE OF A CERTAIN (CALLED) 9.595 ACRE TRACT DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO CENTRAL FREIGHT LINE5 INC., RECORDED IN VOLUME 486, PAGE 542, DEED RECORD5 OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE 50UTH O0 DEGREE5 36 MINUTES 37 5ECONO5 WEST, WITH A FENCE, AND THE WEST LINE OF SAID 9.595 ACRE TRACT, A DISTANCE OF 257.78 FEET TO A 1/2 INCH IRON PIN FOUND IN A NORTH SOUTH FENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT ONE~ THENCE SOUTH O0 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 07 SECONDS ~/EST, ALONG AND NEAR 5AID FENCE PASS AT 550.6 FEET A FENCE CORNER AND CONTINUING A TOTAL DISTANCE OF 549.56 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING AND CONTAINING IN ALL 7.52 ACRES OF LAND. DENTON PARK 35 ADDITION Special Sign District SITE LOCATION MAP LOCATION MAP Exhibit B DENTON PARK 35 ADDITION Special Sign District SIGN SITE PLAN S 89'30'09' E 424.62' § z Lot 6 Lot 5 I,,~ I I :~--z---.,--~ r X c~"~ ~ I - · -- LLJ Exhibit C DENTON PARK 35 ADDITION SPECIAL SIGN DISTRICT CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS DENTON PARK 35 ADDITION Special Sign District SIGN ELEVATIONS 30'~" GROUND SIGN A MONUMENT SIGN B -~~,I ,, /~'ON~'~_N, I~ASONRY APPI:'ARANCE TRIM , 15'~ SIGN C MONUMENT SIGN D SIGN PLAN Art. L Art. II. Art. III. In General Sign Regulations Technical Requirements Article 1. IN GENERAL Sec. 1.1 Purpose and intent. (a) The purpose and intent of the creation of this Special Sign District for Denton Park 35 Addition is to grant and regulate a signage plan that will allow properties within Denton Park 35 Addition to deviate from the sign regulations of Chapter 33 of the Denton Code (thc "Denton Sign Ordinance") in compliance with an alternative comprehensive plan that is standardized in design, and which is equal to or superior to what could be accomplished under the standard rcgnlations of the Denton Sign Ordinance. It is the intent of the creation of this Special Sign District for Denton Park 35 Addition (the "Special Sign District") that the Denton Park 35 Addition, and the six (6) lots to be developed, platted and sold therein, shall be allowed to construct, erect and maintain signage therein and thereon, jointly and on each of the individual lots, as defined herein, perpetually, when in compliance with permitting procedures, permitting fees and renewals as required and/or as defined by the Denton Sign Ordinance, as revised and amended from time to time. (c) Alt signage defined herein may be deemed to be dual faced, except for signage mounted on the fagade of a building or fence. Sec. 1.2 Types of Signs. 1.2.1 Sign. A sign is an outdoor structure, sign, display, light device, figure, painting, drawing, message, plaque, poster, billboard, or other thing that is designed, intended, or used to advertise or inform. "One sign" or % sign" means any number of signs located on or supported be a single or common supporting structure. 1.2.2 Attached Sign. An attached sign is a sign, other than a wind device sign, attached to or supported by any part of a building, including but not limited to a wall, roof, window, canopy, awning, or marquee. Wall, roof, and projecting signs shall be considered attached signs. 1.2.3 Flag. A flag is a wind device sign. No permit shall be required to display one (1) U.S. or one (I) Texas flag, or both, on any one (1) premise. If the exempted flags are displayed on flagpotes in the manner of a ground sign, the number, height, size and spacing requirements applicable to ground signs shall not apply, but the flags and poles shall maintain the required setbacks for ground signs. In addition, on a premise, no permit shall be required to display one (1) flag that is displayed on a flagpole in the manner of a ground sign, the number and spacing requirements applicable to ground signs shall not apply, but the flag and poles shall maintain the required setbacks for ground signs; and the exempted flag shall have a maximum effective area of fifly (50) square feet and a maximum height of thirty (30) feet, unless it is flown on the same flagpole used to display a U.S. or Texas flag. 1.2.4 Ground Sign. A ground sign is a sign, other that a wind device sign, whose principal support is provided by burying, anchoring or otherwise connecting the sign, or supporting structure thereof, to the ground and which is not a portable sign or attached sign. 1.2.5 Holiday Sign. A holiday sign is a ground or attached sign containing only holiday messages and no commercial advertising. 1.2.6 Monument Sign. A monument sign is a ground sign, other than a wind device sign, whose framing is solid from the ground up, and is made of stone, concrete, metal, wood planks or beams, brick or similar materials. Any pole(s) or support of this sign shall be concealed. 1.2.7 Off-premises Sign. An off-premises sign is a sign displaying advertising copy that pertains to a business, person, organization, activity, event, place, service, or product not principally located or primarily manufactured or sold on the premises on which the sign is located. 1.2.8 Private Traffic Control Sign. A private traffic control sign is an on-premise ground sign which directs the movement of traffic on private property or warns of obstacles, overhead clearances, or control parking, including, but not limited to, entrance and exit signs. The sign must be less than ten (10) square feet in effective sign area, less than six (6) feet in height, and be placed where they will not interfere with the safe movement of vehicles or pedestrian. The sign may contain directional or warning language, including contact telephone numbers, and may contain a company logo or symbol. 1.2.9 Projecting Sign. A projecting sign is an attached sign, other than a wind device sign, which is wholly erected on, affixed to, or supported by any building wall and which extends beyond the building wall by more than twelve (12) inches, but not more than six (6) feet; and, which shall not extend upward to a height greater than the highest portion of the roof or any exterior wall, whichever is highest. 3 1.2.10 Roof Sign. A roof sign is an attached sign, other than a wind device sign, wholly erected on, affixed to, or supported by a roof or roof structure of a building. 1.2.11 Signs not visible from street. A sign not visible from street is any sign where no part of such sign is visible from any public street. 1.2.12 Signs on mailboxes and/or newspaper racks. A sign located on mailboxes, newspaper vending machines which identify the owner and address of the premises or the name of the newspaper sold or subscribed to, provided that such devices are not placed so as to interfere with the safe movement of pedestrians or vehicular traffic. 1.2.13 Signs on outdoor machines, devices and/or equipment. A sign located on an outdoor machine, device, or equipment which displays the trademark, trade name, manufacturer, cost, or operating or service instructions or similar information but does not advertise the business where located. This includes but is not limited to signs on vending machines, fuel dispensing pumps, telephone facilities, automatic teller machines, automotive vacuum cleaners and similar machines, devices or equipment. 1.2.14 Temporary Sign. A temporary sign is a ground sign that is used to communicate or advertise a single event which has not yet occurred and which is temporary in nature. Examples of temporary signs include, but are not limited to, signs advertising grand openings, future construction projects, and real estate listings. A temporary sign shall have not more than thirty-two (32) square feet of effective sign area and be mounted on poles or posts less than four inches in width or diameter. A temporary sign shall not be located within any public street median or within ten (10) feet of any curb line, and shall be removed within ten (10) days after the event being communicated or advertised on the sign. No more than one (1) off-premise sign advertising the sale or lease of one (1) piece of real property or one (1) real estate subdivision or development sign shall be placed on any one (1) premise. 1.2.15 Utility Sign. A utility sign is a sign marking utility or underground communication or transmission lines. 1.2.16 Vehicle Sign. A vehicle sign is a sign displayed or used upon vehicles, trailers or aircraft, unless such vehicle, trailer or aircraft on which such sign is displayed is permanently stationed or regularly used as a fixed location to serve the same or similar purpose of a permanent or portable sign not affixed to a vehicle, trailer or aircraft. 1.2.17 Wall Sign. A wall sign is an attached sign, other that a wind device sign, wholly affixed to, supported by, or painted upon the wall of any building and which is not a projecting sign. 1.2.18 Wind Device Sign. A wind device sign is a flag, banner, pennant, streamer, inflatable balloon or similar device made of cloth, canvas, plastic, or other similar flexible material, with or without a frame or other supporting structure, and used as a sign. 4 Article 2. SIGN REGULATIONS Sec. 2.1 Types of Signs Allowed. Ground, monument, attached, wall, roof, wind device, and projecting signs are allowed within this Special Sign District. The existing off-premise sign is allowed within the Special Sign District as a registered non-conforming off-premises sign, registered under Sign Permit #91051; and, its allowance in the Special Sign District does not change is classification as registered non-conforming. In addition, the following types of signs exempt from permit requirements of the City of Demon are allowed within the Special Sign District, including: flags; holiday signs; private traffic control signs; signs not visible fi.om street; signs on mailboxes and newspaper racks; signs on outdoor machines, devices and equipment; temporary signs; utility signs; and, vehicle signs. Sec. 2.2 Signs Not Requiring a Permit. The following signs shall be allowed but shall be exempt from the permit requirements of the City of Denton: 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7 2.2.8 2.2.9 2.2.10 2.2.11 2.2.12 Flags meeting the requirements in Section 1.2.3 of this sign plan Holiday signs Private traffic control signs Signs not visible from street Signs on mailboxes and/or newspaper racks Signs on outdoor machines, devices and/or equipment Temporary signs Utility signs Vehicle signs Wall signs fifteen (15) feet or less in height Legal notices Signs painted on glass surfaces of windows and doors. Sec. 2.3 Number of Signs Allowed. The number of ground signs allowed is limited to those shown on the approved sign site plan. There is no limit on the number of wall, roof, temporary, wind device, and projecting signs. Sec. 2.4 Maximum Effective Area Allowed. 2.4.1 Ground Signs. The effective sign area for each type of ground sign shall be as follows: Ground Sign "A" Monument Sign "B" Monument Sign "C" Monument Sign "D" 600 sq. ft. 176 sq. ft. 39 sq. ft. 78 sq. ft. 2.4.2 Projecting Signs The total effective sign area of all projecting signs on a building shall not exceed twenty (20) percent of the wall area on which such signs are located. 2.4.3 Roof Signs Roof signs shall not extend laterally beyond the exterior walls of the building and shall have a maximum height and effective area as follows: Number of Stories Maximum Maximum Height Effective Area 1 55% of bldg. height 60 sq.fi. 2 36% ofbtdg, height 75 sq.fi. 3 to 6 30% of bldg. height * *For each story above 2 stories, the effective area of the sign may be increased by fifleen (15) square feet per story, to a maximum ofi35 square feet. Sec. 2.5 Maximum Height Allowed. 2.5.1 Ground Signs. The maximum height for each type of ground sign shall be as follows: Ground Sign "A" Monument Sign "B" Monument Sign "C" Monument Sign "D" Overall Height Effective Sign Height 6O ft. 60 ft. 20ft. 18 fi. 5ft. 4ft. 8ft. 7fl. 2.5.2 Projecting Signs. Projecting signs shall not extend upward to a height greater than the highest part of the roof or any exterior wall, whichever is higher. Sec. 2.6 Location & Minimum Setbacks of Ground & Projecting Signs. 2.6.1 Ground Sign "A'. There shall be a maximum total of one (1) Ground Sign "A" within the Special Sign District. Ground Sign "A" shall be located as shown on the Sign Site Plan, centered on the common property line between Lots 1 & 2. The minimum setback shall be sixty (60) feet from the curbline of the frontage road of 1-35E, adjacent to thc property, or forty-five (45) feet from the property line adjacent to the frontage road of 1-35E, whichever is greater. There shall be a minimum setback of ten (10) feet from any rear yard property line. There shall be no side yard setback. 2.6.2 Monument Sign "B". There shall be a maximum total of two (2) Monument Signs "B", with one located on Lot 1 and one located on Lot 2, within the front yard area of each lot, between the property line at the adjacent 1-35E service road and the building. The minimum setback shall be twenty (20) feet from the curbline of the frontage road of 1-35E, adjacent to the property; and, there shall be a minimum ten (I0) foot setback from any side and rear yard property line. The minimum setback may be reduced to a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the curbtine of the fi:ontage road of 1- 35E, adjacent to the property, if the height of the sign is no higher than the setback. (i.e. setback = 15', height = 15' or less) 6 2.6.3 Monument Sign "C". There shall be a maximum total of two (2) Monument Signs "C", with one located on Lot 1 and one located on Lot 2, within the side yard of each lot, between the 40' Private Access Easement and thc building. Thc minimum setback shall be eighty (80) feet from the curbline of the frontage road of 1-35E, adjacent to the property; and, there shall be a minimum ten (10) foot setback from any side and rear yard property line. 2.6.3 Monument Sign "D". There shall be a maximum total of four (4) Monument Signs "D", with one located on each of Lots 1 thru 4, within the front yards of each lot, between the 40' Private Access Easement and the building. The minimum setback shall be twenty (20) feet from the front property line, within the 40' Private Access Easement; and, there shall be a minimum ten (10) foot setback from any side and rear yard property line.. 2.6.4 Projecting Signs. Projecting signs shall maintain a minimum setback of twenty (20) feet from the curbline of any public street and a minimum setback often (10) feet from any side or rear yard property line. 2.7 Signs on a Multi-Tenant Building. When one of more attached signs are located on a building that is divided and contains more than one (1) business or use, the regulation of such attached signs as to size shall apply proportionally according to the gross floor area of each respective business or use. Article 3. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS. Sec. 3.1 Setback Measurement. A minimum setback from a curb line or edge of pavement shall be the horizontal distance from a vertical line extending upward from the back of curb or edge of pavement toward the sign. A ground or projecting sign may not encroach into that horizontal distance. Sec. 3.2 Height Measurement. The maximum height of a ground or roof sign shall be the vertical distance extending upward to the maximum height allowed for the sign. From that point extend a horizontal line to where the sign is located. The horizontal line is the maximum height allowed at that location. Within the sign district, the height may be measured from the principal lanes of 1-35E, its frontage road, or the adjacent ground, whichever allows the greater height. The natural ground height shall be measured at the center of the horizontal line extending to the outer extremities of the sign. Sec. 3.3 Effective Sign Area Measurement. The effective sign area is the area enclosed by the smallest imaginary regular shape (e.g. parallelogram, triangle, circle, trapezoid) or combination of regular shapes that will encompass the extreme limits of the writing, representation, emblem, or other display, together with any material or color forming an integral part of the display or used to differentiate the sign from the backdrop or structure against which it is placed. Effective area includes such features as decorative or ornamental elements or features, borders, trims, but not including any supporting structure which is used solely for the support of the sign, such as 7 poles, trim covering poles (such as masonry or metal trim), masonry structural members, columns and cable, or decorative fence, screening device or wall. 3.3.1 Sign copy mounted or painted on a background panel or area distinctively painted, textured or constructed as a background for the sign copy shall be measured as the area contained within the outside dimensions of the background panel or surface. 3.3.2 Sign copy mounted as individual letters and or graphics against a wall, fence, screening device, awning, or fascia of a building or other structure that has not been painted, textured or otherwise altered to provide a distinctive background of the sign copy shall be measured as the area enclosed by the smallest regular shape or combination of shapes that will enclose all sign copy. 3.3.3 Where there are a number of sign faces or more than one (1) sign on a supporting structure, the following shall apply: 3.3.3.1 Where there is a single sign face, the effective sign area will be the area of the single face only. 3.3.3.2 Where there are two (2) sign faces, if the interior angle between the two (2) faces is forty-five (45) degrees or less, the effective sign area will be the area of one (1) face only; if the angle between the two (2) sign faces is greater than forty-five (45) degrees, the effective sign area will be the sum of the area of the two (2) faces. 3.3.3.3 Where there are three (3) or more sign faces, the effective sign area will be the sum of the areas of each of the faces. 3.3.3.4 All signs on a single supporting structure shall be measured together as though they were one (1) sign to determine the total effective area, except that signs separated by more than thirty-six (36) inches of air space at every point between the signs shall be measured separately and added together to determine the total effective area. Sec. 3.4 Illumination. 3.4.1 Signs may be illuminated internally or externally. If signs are illuminated with external light fixtures, the fixtures shall be shielded to contain direct illumination to the effective area of the sign. 3.4.2 Illuminated signs are not permitted if they are illuminated in such a manner, to such intensity, or without proper shielding, so as to constitute a hazard to the operation of motor vehicles upon a public street or substantially interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of residential property; or if they have any type of intermittent illumination, including flashing, fading, revolving or blinking lights, or any type of moving, traveling or changing message by means of illumination, excluding temporary Christmas lights and changeable message signs that meet the standards described in Section 3.5. Sec. 3.5 Changeable Message. 3.5.1 A changeable message shall be allowed on Ground Sign "A", so long as the effective area of the changeable message is less than 50% of the total effective sign area of the sign. 3.5.2 Effective sign area of Ground Sign "A" with changeable copy may be translucent with internal or back lighting if the translucent material is white and if the internal or back lighting produces illumination that is uniform and does not create a hazard for motorists or pedestrians. 3.5.3 No illuminated portion of Ground Sign "A" or any element thereof may turn on or off, change brightness, or otherwise: (a) produce apparent continuous motion; (b) cause any time or temperature message to change more than once each five (5) seconds; or (c) cause any other message or picture to change more than once each twenty (20) seconds. Sec. 3.6 Inflatable Devices. The following regulations shall apply to any balloon or other type of inflatable device used as a sign: 3.6.t It shall be securely anchored at all times. 3.6.2 It shall not extend to a height greater than thirty (30) feet above ground level unless it is attached to the roof of a building, in which case it shall not extend more than ten (10) feet above the highest part ora roof. 3.6.3 It shall not be allowed to extend over any public street, right-of-way, or access easement or over any other property not under the control of the permitee. Sec. 3.7 Color. Ground signs shall be done in colors and appearance that are compatible with or complementary to their respective proposed buildings within the sign district. 3.7 Landscaping. Except for Ground Sign "A", ground and monument signs shall be surrounded by a landscaped area equal in area to the effective sign area of the sign. 3.8 Material Monument signs shall use only masonry, HDO materials, or metal panels finished with a masonry appearance in the supporting structure of the sign. Agenda 02-016 05/14/02 #47 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET May 14, 2002 Legal Department Herb Prouty, City Attorney SUBJECT: Consider and approve a resolution of the City of DeNon, Texas, authorizing intervention in Gas Utilities Docket 9292 at ~he Railroad Commission; authorizing participation in a Steering Committee with other cities served by TXU and requiring reimbursemem from TXU Lone Star Pipeline of the Cities' reasonable rate case expenses; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND: On April 5, 2002, TXU Lone Star Pipeline (TXU LSP), a division of TXU Gas, filled a statement of imem with the Railroad Commission (GUD 9292) to surcharge residemial ratepayers 37¢ per momh and commercial ratepayers $2.10 per month to cover the costs associated with a new $76.5 million gas pipeline to serve the TXU cities in the DallasFort Worth area. This rate will affect more than 1.4 million residential and commercial customers served by TXU Gas. The surcharge, if approved, will increase the annualrevenues of TXU LSP by approximately $9.8 million or 8%. The order that TXU LSP is seeking would authorize it to recover $64 million in construction and maintenance costs associated with this gas transportation pipeline known as the Northside Project, which is to be located in counties north of Dallas including Denton County, that will not be constructed and in operation for several years. TXU Gas Distribution (TXU GD) is, today, the sole firm subscriber to the Northside project. TXU GD anticipates it hll recover the costs of the project for all its distribution customers over a sever~year period through a rate surcharge. Although TXU LSP indicates that it will not make the surcharge effective until the pipeline is actually in construction and operation, it is attempting to recover its anticipated investment at a time before the actual construction of the pipeline. This is a very unusual if not unprecedented request. Such a request contains various inconsistencies with the usual procedure for an adjustment of rates. This includes failing to establish a test year for cost and revenues, failing to adequately meet the utilities burden of proving that the proposed costs are reasonably necessary and potential piecemeal rate making and a piecemeal rate ofeturn. There are at least two coalitions of cities that are being formed to intervene in this GUD Docket No. 9292. Unlike the recemly filed TXU Gas Distribution case where you suspended the effective date of the rate for 90 days and joined a coalitionof cities to investigate the case, you do not have original rate making jurisdiction of this TXU LSP case. In this pipeline case, the Texas Railroad Commission has original rate making jurisdiction. But cities like DeNon can intervene in the pipeline case. The City of DeNon is an affected person and has a substantial interest in the outcome of this proceeding pursuant to the definitions established under the Texas Utility Code, Section 101.003(1) and 16 Texas Administrative Code, Section 1.64. The first coalition of cities to be formed is the Association of TXU Municipalities (ATM) curremly consisting of three cities, the cities of Gatesville, Greenville, and Longview, Texas. Those cities have hired the Law Offices of Jim Boyle to represent them in this proceeding. Jim's firm currently represents Denton in several different utility matters. Another coalition of cities which S:\Our Docmments~Miscellaneous~agenda infbrmarion sheer LSP.doc is in the process of being formed is a coalition that being headed up by Jay Doegey, City Attorney of Arlington. This coalition will most likely employ Geoffrey Gay of the Lloyd, Gossilink, Blevins, Rochelle, Baldwin & Townsend law firm who also has represemed the City of Denton in the past. The City of Denton has until May 31, 2002 to intervene in this proceeding. Additional information on this case is comained in the City Attorney's status report. OPTIONS: 1. Pass the resolution authorizing joining the ATM coalition of cites and imervene in the case. 2. Pass a resolution authorizing the joinder in the coalition of ciies formed by the City of Arlington and intervene in this case. 3. Do not pass the resolution, join a coalition, or intervene in this proceeding. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend Option 1 that you pass the resolution to join in the ATM coalition of cities. Although both coalitions involve a number of cities who will be represemed by able consultants and attorneys who are experienced in gas utility law, the ATM coalition has already filed a motion to dismiss the case. The Law Offices of Jim Boyle have ree:ntly added Kate Sanford, who was in charge of all Railroad Commission Administrative Law Judges. More information on Ms. Sanford is included in the status report. If the Council does not chose to join the ATM Coalition, then I would recommend that you ohose Option 2 and join the Arlington Coalition. We would not recommend Option 3 that you do not pass a resolution and do not intervene in this proceeding. The impact of such a surcharge for the costs of this gas pipeline on DeNon ratepayers and ratepayers of other cities, especially coming on top of a recent increase granted to TXU GD and the currently pending significant request for another increase by TXU GD, could have a significant adverse impact on both residemial and commercial ratepayers. Accordngly, it is important that the City of DeNon be represented in this proceeding. FISCAL INFORMATION: Under the Texas Utility Code, all reasonable rate case expenses of all rate consultants and attorneys necessary to investigate this matter are reimbmsable by TXU. The recent Gas Franchise, which you approved, does make the City responsible for the first $25,000 of rate case expenses. Rate case expenses will be spread among the cities who joined the coalition probably based on some factor such as population. TXU has the right to recover rate case expenses that it reimburses through a surcharge to ratepayers. Respectfully submitted, Herb Prouty, City Att0~ney Page 2 S:\Our DocamentskMiscellaneous~agenda infbrmarion sheer LSP.doc S:\Our D ocmm ent s~es olurion s\02 ~LSP Rare Increase Request.doc\ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING iNTERVENTION IN GAS UTILITIES DOCKET 9292 AT THE RAILROAD COMMISSION; AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN A STEERING COMMITTEE WITH OTHER CITIES SERVED BY TXU AND REQUIRING REIMBURSEMENT FROM TXU LONE STAR PIPELINE OF THE CITIES' REASONABLE RATE CASE EXPENSES; AND PROViDiNG AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, TXU Lone Star Pipeline (LSP) filed a Statement of Intent with the Railroad Commission (designated as GUD 9292) on April 5, 2002, lo surcharge residential and commercial gas customers who are residents of the City of Denton, Texas, to cover costs associated with a new pipeline to serve the Metroplex; and WHEREAS, the requested surcharges of 37¢ per month and $2.10 per month on residential and commercial customers, respectively, will adversely impact the City of Denton, Texas, and its residents; and WHEREAS, Cities served by TXU have a history of cooperation in gas rate matters and such cooperation in GUD 9292 will be efficient and cost effective in evaluating whether the proposed pipeline is reasonable and necessary and whether associated costs should be recovered in piecemeal ratemaking through a surcharge; and WHEREAS, the Cities of Gatesville, Greenville, and Longview, Texas, ~he Association of TXU Municipalities (ATM) have already filed Motions to Intervene and Motions to Dismiss proceeding GUD 9292 and the City of Denton, Texas, wishes to join this coalition of Cities in intervening in this proceeding; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, authorizes the City Attorney to represent the City on the Steering Committee of ATM (hereinafter called "Steering Committee") and authorizes the Steering Committee of which the City is a participating member, to retain legal counsel and engage consultants, and to intervene on behalf of the City in GUD 9292 and in related dockets and appeals. The City Manager is hereby authorized to ex,:ute a Professional Services Agreement with the Law Offices of Jim Boyle and any other consultants engaged by the Steering Committee and to make any expenditures necessary under such agreements. SECTION 2. That the Steering Committee formed to oversee his effort on behalf of ATM is authorized to take all reasonable steps before the Railroad Commission and before the Courts as may be necessary in an appeal of a Commission Order. S:\Our D ocmm ent s~es olurion s\02 ~LSP Rare Increase Request.doc SECTION 3. That LSP is hereby directed to promptly pay Cities' rate case expenses as they are incurred. SECTION 4. The City Secretary shall cause copies of this resolution to be sent to the TXU representative: Autry L. Warren, CPA Rates Manager TXU Business Services 1601 Bryan Street, Suite 32-052 Dallas, TX 75201-3411 and to: Jim Boyle, Attorney at Law Law Offices of Jim Boyle, PLLC 1005 Congress, Suite 550 Austin, TX 78701 for forwarding to the Steering Committee. SECTION 5. That this resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2002. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Page 2 of 2