HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 21, 2002 AgendaAgenda 02-017 05/21/02
AGENDA
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL
May 21, 2002
After determining that a quorum is present, the City Council will convene in a Work Session on
Tuesday, May 21, 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 regarding the City of Denton
Watershed Protection Program and Drainage Fee issues.
Requests for clarification of consent agenda iems listed on the consent agenda for today's
City Council regular meeting of May 21, 2002.
Following the completion of the Work Session, the Council will convene in a Closed Meeting to
consider specific items when these items are listed below under the Closed Meeting section of
this agenda. When items for consideration are not listed under the Closed Meeting section of the
agenda, the City Council will not conduct a Closed Meeting and will convene at the time listed
below for its regular or special called meeting. The City Council reserves the fight to adjourn
into a Closed Meeting on any item on its Open Meeting agenda consistent with Chapter 551 of
the Texas Government Code, as amended, as set forth below.
1. Closed Meeting:
A. Consultation with Attorney -- Under TEX. GOV'T. CODE Section 551.071
(1)
Discuss, deliberate and consult with the City's attorneys the claim of R.N.
Realty and potential litigation conceming alleged water infiltration and
subsequent damage to the Bank Building at Locust and Hickory in
Denton, Texas claimed to have been caused by the Downtown
improvement Project, where to discuss such issues and matters in a public
meeting would conflict with the attorneys' duties and professional
responsibilities to their client under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of
Professional Conduct."
(2)
Receive update and give staff direction regarding litigation styled Binkert
v. Phillips, et al., Cause No. 4:02cv131, currently pending in the U.S.
District Court, Eastem District, Sherman Division.
ANY FINAL ACTION, DECISION, OR VOTE ON A MATTER DELIBERATED IN A
CLOSED MEETING WILL ONLY BE TAKEN iN AN OPEN MEETING THAT IS HELD IN
COMPLIANCE WITH TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, CHAPTER 551, EXCEPT TO THE
EXTENT SUCH FINAL ACTION, DECISION, OR VOTE IS TAKEN IN THE CLOSED
MEETING IN ACCORDANCE WiTH THE PROViSiONS OF §551.086 OF THE TEXAS
GOVERNMENT CODE (THE "PUBLIC POWER EXCEPTION"). THE CiTY COUNCIL
RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADJOURN iNTO A CLOSED MEETING OR EXECUTIVE
SESSION AS AUTHORIZED BY TEX. GOV'T. CODE, §§551.001, ET SEQ. (THE TEXAS
OPEN MEETINGS ACT) ON ANY iTEM ON iTS OPEN MEETING AGENDA OR TO
RECONVENE IN A CONTINUATION OF THE CLOSED MEETING ON THE CLOSED
MEETING ITEMS NOTED ABOVE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS OPEN
MEETINGS ACT, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LiMITATiON §§551.071-551.086 OF THE
TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT.
City of Denton City Council Agenda
May 21, 2002
Page 2
Regular Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, May 21, 2002 at 6:30 p.m. in
the Council Chambers at City Hall, 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas at which the
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. May Yard-of-the-Month Awards
3. Proclamations
4. Recognition of staff accomplishments.
CITIZEN REPORTS
5. Dessie Goodson regarding deception.
Ross Melton regarding code enforcement, lawsuits, the budget, and a review of prior
citizen reports.
CONSENT AGENDA
Each of these items is recommended by the Staff and approval thereof will be strictly on
the basis of the Staff recommendations. Approval of the Consent Agenda authorizes the City
Manager or his designee to implement each item in accordance with the Staff recommendations.
The City Council has received background information and has had an opportunity to raise
questions regarding these items prior to consideration.
Listed below are bids, purchase orders, contracts, and other items to be approved under
the Consent Agenda (Agenda items 7 - 14). This listing is provided on the Consent Agenda to
allow Council Members to discuss or withdraw an item prior to approval of the Consent Agenda.
if no items are pulled, Consent Agenda items 7 - 14 below will be approved with one motion, if
items are pulled for separate discussion, they will be considered as the tn'st items following
approval of the Consent Agenda.
Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas authorizing an interlocal
agreement between the City of Denton, Texas and the University of North Texas (UNT)
for the replacement, installation and maintenance of emergency warning sirens;
authorizing the expenditure of funds for labor and authorizing the City of Denton to be
reimbursed by UNT for materials purchased; and providing an effective date.
Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a public
works contract for the construction of the Spencer/Woodrow 138 Kv Transmission Line
Upgrade; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective
date. (Bid 2838 - Spencer/Woodrow 138 Kv Line Upgrade awarded to Ernest P. Breaux
Electrical, inc. in the amount of $475,648.20).
City of Denton City Council Agenda
May 21, 2002
Page 3
Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a public
works contract for the construction of Mayhill Road Box Culvert and Drainage
improvements; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an
effective date. (Bid 2843 - Mayhill Road Box Culvert and Drainage improvements
awarded to DBR Construction the base bid amount of $78,157.25 and Alternate 1 in the
amount of $38,766.50 for a total bid award of $116,923.75).
10.
Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting sealed proposals and awarding a contract for
the services of an insurance consultant for the City of Denton; providing for the
expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (RFSP 2829 - insurance
Consultant Services awarded to McGriff, Seibels & Williams of Texas, inc. in the
amount of $145,500 over a three-year period).
11.
Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding an annual
contract for the purchase of Underground Supervisor Electric Distribution Switchgear;
providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid
2827 - Annual Price Agreement for Underground Supervisor Electric Distribution
Switchgear awarded to Priester Supply Co., in the estimated amount of $300,000).
12.
Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas authorizing deferment of
rental payments for certain leases at the Denton Municipal Airport; and providing an
effective date.
13.
Consider approval of a resolution granting approval to the Denton County Housing
Finance Corporation for the use of the proceeds of its Series 2002 Single Family
Mortgage Revenue Bonds to finance home mortgages for single-family homes located
within the City and providing an effective date.
14.
Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas authorizing the City
Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Kimley-Hom & Associates,
inc. for professional engineering services related to the final design of the southwest
booster pump station and storage facilities; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefor;
and providing an effective date.
PUBLIC HEARING
15.
Continue 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)
16.
Hold the second 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
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). (A02-O00O
City of Denton City Council Agenda
May 21, 2002
Page 4
17.
Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 46
acres from an Agriculture (A) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6)
zoning district. The site is generally located on the south side of Blagg Road,
approximately 1000' west of Lakeview Boulevard. The rezoning is required to bring
property into compliance with the Development Code zoning classifications. The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of Neighborhood Residential 1
(NR-1) (7-0). (Z02-O010)
18.
Hold a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately
2.67 acres from a Commercial (C) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential Mixed
Use (NRMU) zoning district. The site is generally located north of Crawford Road, east
of interstate Highway 35W and west of John Paine Road. The rezoning is required to
bring property into compliance with the Development Code zoning classifications. The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0). (Z02-0012)
19.
Hold a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 300
acres from an Agriculture (A) zoning district to a Rural Residential 5 (RD-5) zoning
district. The site is generally located north of Lively Road, south of FM 2449 and west of
C. Wolfe. The rezoning is required to bring property into compliance with the new
Development Code zoning classifications. The Planning and Zoning Commissions
recommends approval (7-0). (Z02-0013)
20.
Hold a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately
67.7 acres from an Agriculture (A) zoning district to an industrial Center Employment
(lC-E) zoning district. The site is generally located north of Jim Christal Road, south of
University and west of Masch Branch Road. The rezoning is required to bring property
into compliance with the new Development Code zoning classifications. The Planning
and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0). (Z02-0014)
ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION
21.
Consider approval of a resolution establishing maximum permitted rates that Charter
Communications may charge its Denton cable television subscribers for basic cable
service, associated equipment, changing tiers, and the hourly service charge; providing a
severability clause; and providing an effective date.
22.
Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager or his designee to
execute a Quit Claim Deed to abandon an all purpose utility easement consisting of a
0.427 acre tract of land being a part of Shadow Brook Place, an addition to the City of
Denton, as recorded in Cabinet T, Page 171 of the Plat Records of Denton County, Texas;
and providing an effective date.
23.
Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager or his designee to
execute a Quit Claim Deed to abandon a sanitary sewer easement consisting of a 0.293
acre tract of land being a part of Shadow Brook Place, an addition to the City of Denton,
as recorded in Cabinet T, Page 171 of the Plat Records of Denton County, Texas; and
providing an effective date.
City of Denton City Council Agenda
May 21, 2002
Page 5
24.
New Business
This item provides a section for Council Members to suggest items for future agendas or
to request information from the City Manager.
25.
items from the City Manager
A. Notification of upcoming meetings and/or conferences
B. Clarification of items on the agenda
26.
Possible Continuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas
Open Meetings Act.
27.
Official Action on Closed Meeting item(s) under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas
Open Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE
I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall of the
City of Demon, 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.
This page left blank intemionally.
Agenda02-017 05/21/02 WS#1
AGENDA DATE:
DEPARTMENT:
ACM:
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
May 21, 2002
Utility Administration
Howard Martin, 349-8232 ~
SUBJECT
Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the City of Denton
Watershed Protection Program and Drainage Fee issues.
BACKGROUND
The Drainage Fee was established in January 2002. The fee is collected to pay for the
costs associated with providing drainage services to the community. This fee will also
provide funding to comply with the Federally mandated Storm Water Phase ii
requirements. The basis of the fee is designed to maximize fairness among all users by
basing the fee on the amount of impervious coverage each property has. Since
impervious coverage is directly tied to the amount of runoff an area produces this is the
most equitable basis for such a fee.
The Watershed Protection Program (WPP) at the City of Denton was established in
January 2001. The Watershed Protection Program is part of a 5-year plan to reduce
overall pollutant loadings in Pecan, Cooper, and Hickory Creek watersheds. Numerous
parameters will be analyzed over the five-year time period to document changes in
overall water quality. Since the majority of pollutants are of a non-point source origin, it
is likely that public outreach will play a significant role in the success of this program, in
addition to public outreach, the program will recommend and evaluate Best Management
Practices (BMPs) that will assist in improving problem areas around the City of Denton.
The Watershed Protection Program is also developing an informative web-page that will
help citizens understand the dynamics of water quality in their city as well as their
neighborhood. These activities and others will provide for compliance with the
upcoming Storm Water Phase ii Regulations while meeting the 'greater environmental
benefits' of the XL designation awarded to the Pre-Treatment program in 2000.
The Watershed Protection Program (WPP) was developed through an USEPA grant
received in October 2000 and was co-authored with professors in the institute of Applied
Sciences at UNT. The WPP also integrates portions of the USEPA EMPACT grant
(received in 1999) with UNT into the monitoring and public outreach portion of the
Program.
FISCAL INFORMATION
The City of Denton received an USEPA 104 (b)3 grant in the amount of $94k in October
2000. The USEPA EMPACT grant referenced above was for $485k. Both grams were
written in conjunction with the University of North Texas.
EXHIBITS
1. Drainage Presemation
Respectfully submitted:
Jim Coulter
Director of Water Utilities
This page left blank intemionally.
Agenda02-017 05/21/02 #7
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE:
DEPARTMENT:
ACM:
May 21, 2002
Fire Department
Jon Fortune, Assistant City Manager, Public Safety
SUBJECT
Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of DeNon, Texas, authorizing an Imerlocal
Agreemem between the City of DeNon, Texas, and the University of North Texas (UNT) for
the replacement, installation and maintenance of emergency warning sirens; authorizing the
expenditure of funds for labor and authorizing the City of DeNon to be reimbursed by UNT for
materials purchased; and providing an effective date.
BACKGROUND
The City of DeNon maimains an outdoor warning siren system of eleven (11) sirens. A twelfth
siren will soon be added to the City's system at Robson Ranch. The University of North Texas
has an amiquated system with three (3) sirens, which are about 30 years old and that is outside
our system. One of the issues the City faces is the coordination between UNT and the City on
setting off the sirens - both for emergencies and testing. We have improved the
communication between our organizations substantially over the past two years. However,
both agencies still have concerns about having two separate warning systems.
This proposal will upgrade UNT's system so it is compatible with the City's as well as add it to
the City's system. UNT will replace their three (3) sirens and actually install an additional
siren. UNT's coverage will also enhance the coverage of the City's system in the UNT
neighborhoods. The proposed Imerlocal agreemem clearly establishes the responsibilities of
each organization and how the enhanced system will be financed. In addition, the City will
assume the ongoing maintenance costs of UNT's system as its own system.
RECOMMENDATION
After several meetings between UNT and City staff to discuss the maintenance problems, UNT
and City officials agree that it would be in the best interests of both entities to replace the siren
heads on the three old sirens and add a fourth siren after tests are made to determine the best
location for it. City staff also recommends that the City take over the maintenance and
activation of the sirens in order to increase public confidence in all of the sirens.
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions)
The legal departmems f,or the City of, DeNon and UNT have reviewed this Imerlocal
Agreement.
FISCAL INFORMATION
The University of North Texas will provide electrical requiremems needed to install three new
warning heads on existing poles and a new warning siren at a site to be determined after the
three siren heads have been installed and tested f,or db level. The University will also
reimburse the City f,or the cost of, materials necessary to install the three warning siren heads
and an additional siren. Following is the fiscal breakdown on the costs of, this system:
UNT
Reimburse the City f,or 3 siren warning heads and additional siren
$68,738
City of Denton
Removal of, 3 old siren heads
Installation of, 3 new siren heads
Provision of, mapping software f,or UNT system into City system
Total cost to City of, Denton
$2,280
$16,075
$300
$18,655
EXHIBITS
Ordinance approving an Interlocal Agreement between the City of, Denton and the
University of North Texas
Imerlocal Agreemem between the City of'Demon and the University of North Texas f,or
replacemem of'three sirens and adding an additional siren and approving the City
maintaining those sirens.
Respectfully submitted:
Ross Chadwick
Fire Chief`
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AND
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS FOR THE REPLACEMENT, INSTALLATION
AND MAINTENANCE OF EMERGENCY WARNING SIRENS; AUTHORIZING
THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR LABOR AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF
DENTON TO BE REIMBURSED BY UNT FOR MATERIALS PURCHASED; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. The City Manager or his designee, is hereby authorized to execute,
on behalf of the City of DeNon, an Imerlocal Agreement between the City of DeNon,
Texas and University of North Texas for the replacemem, installation, and maimenance
of emergency warning sirens, substantially in accordance with the Interlocal Agreement
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. The expenditure of funds as set forth in the Interlocal Agreement is
hereby authorized.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upm 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\lnterlocal Agrmt-UNT-sirens.doc
IJVTERL OCAL A ;REE IEJVT FOR WARNING SIREN PLA CE IEJVT
between
Ci , of Denton
and
Universi , of North Texas
The following Imerlocal Agreemem (the Agreemem) sets forth the terms of agreemem between
the University of North Texas (UNT) and the City of DeNon, Texas (City), with regard to
emergency warning sirens at UNT.
L Purpose of Agreement
The purpose of this Agreemem is to establish responsibilities of the parties as they relate to the
paymems for replacemem of three existing sirens, installation of an additional siren and a
maimenance agreemem for said sirens at UNT.
iL Duration o£ Agreement
The Agreemem is effective upon signature of the UNT Vice Presidem for Finance and Business
Affairs and the Demon City Manager, or his designee, and shall remain in effect umil one, or
both, party's cancel, in accordance with the terms set forth herein.
iii. Program Description
In this instance, UNT needs to replace three sirens on their campus. The City comracting with
Gilford Electric will provide the installation costs for those sirens and UNT will reimburse the
City for the cost of the materials. UNT will also reimburse the City for the cost of a new siren.
Once installed all sirens will be turned over to the City of DeNon to be maimained. To the
extem the sirens are on UNT property, the City shall be grained access to the sirens.
IV. General ProvJsJons
It is understood by both the University of North Texas and the City that each agency should be
capable of fulfilling its responsibilities under this Agreemem. If at any time either party is
unable to perform its functions under this agreemem, the affected party shall immediately
provide notice to the other.
Ir. ResponsibJlJtJes o£ the PartJes Llnder Agreement
In consideration of the mutual covenants of the parties to this Agreement, the City of Denton,
Texas and UNT agree that their responsibilities under this agreement are as follows:
A. City o£ Denton. Texas agrees to:
(1) Contract with Gilford Electric to replace the existing three warning sirens at
UNT and install an additional warning siren.
(2) Pay for the labor to remove the old siren heads on three existing siren poles.
Amount estimated is $2,280.
(3)
Pay for the labor to install three new warning siren heads on the existing siren
poles and the installation costs for a new warning siren. Labor costs estimated
to cost $16,075.
(4)
Provide the mapping software upgrade to include the four sirens within the
City of Denton's current system. Software system to cost approximately
$300.
(5) Assume the maintenance of the four UNT sirens once the installation is
complete. The City will also test the sirens as part of the current testing
program.
B. The University of North Texas agrees to:
(1) Provide electrical requirements needed to install three new warning heads on
existing poles and a new warning siren at a site to be determined after the
three siren heads have been installed and tested for db level.
(2) Keep the emergency siren sites in a neat and orderly fashion.
(3) Reimburse the City for the cost of materials necessary to install the three
warning siren heads and an additional siren. Estimated cost is $68,738.
Such reimbursement of costs shall be made to the City no later then 30 days
after UNT's receipt of an invoice for same.
Irl. Amendment or Cancellation o£ Agreement
This Agreement may be amended at any time by written instrument signed by both parties.
Either the City or UNT may terminate this Agreement in writing at any time upon at least six
months written notice. In the event this Agreement is terminated within five years of the
effective date of this Agreement, the City shall be reimbursed for its costs of installation under
this Agreement.
VII. Points of Contact
POC for the City is John Hudson, Emergency Management Program Manager, or his successor
or designee and the POC the University of North Texas is Police Chief Richard Deter, or his
successor or designee.
Viii Dispute Resolution Process
The following clause is added as a term of the Agreement:
"Chapter 2260 of the Texas Government Code establishes a dispute resolution process for
contracts involving goods, services and certain types of projects. If Chapter 2260 applies to this
Agreement, the parties must use the statutory dispute resolution process to attempt to resolve
disputes arising under this Agreement."
APPROVED:
The undersigned parties bind themselves to the faithful performance of this Agreement.
City of Denton, Texas University of North Texas
City lqanager Vice President for Finance and
Business Affairs,
By: By:
Jon Fortune
Assistant City Manager/Public Safety
Phil Diebel,
Vice President for Finance and
Business Affairs, University of
North Texas
Date:
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY:
This page left blank intemionally.
Agenda02-017 05/21/02 #8
AGENDA DATE:
DEPARTMENT:
ACM:
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
May 21, 2002
Materials Management
Questions concerning this
acquisition may be directed
Sharon Mays 349-8487
Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services~~i~
SUBJECT
An Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a public works contract for the
construction of the Spencer/Woodrow 138Kv Transmission Line Upgrade; providing for the
expenditure of funds therefore; and providing for an effective date (Bid 2838 -
Spencer/Woodrow 138 Kv Line Upgrade awarded to Ernest P. Breaux Electrical, Inc. in the
amount of $475,648.20).
BID INFORMATION
This bid is for the upgrade of the existing 69Kv line to connect the new Spencer Switch to the
new Woodrow Substation. The project consists of fifteen steel poles and 2100 feet of
transmission line. The project will resolve ERCOT planning criteria violations.
It has been our policy that any 69Kv pole line that is reconstructed be built for 138 Kv operations
in the event that conversion to the higher voltage is necessary in the future. Poles for this
purchase have been sized for the 138Kv operating voltage. A side benefit of the greater
clearances and higher insulation level for 138Kv is better lightning performance (fewer outages).
Poles were purchased for this project on Bid# 2753 for a total amount of $ 230, 902. Additional
material such as wire, insulators, distribution cross arms and other miscellaneous items will still
need to be purchased.
PRIOR ACTION OR APPROVAL
The Public Utility Board considered this project on May 6, 2002 and recommended approval.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend bid award to the lowest responsible bidder, Ernest P. Breaux Electrical, Inc. in
the amount of $475,648.20.
Agenda Information Sheet
May 21, 2002
Page 2
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS
Ernest P. Breaux Electrical, Inc.
New Iberia, LA
ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT
Construction is scheduled to start in July 2002 and to be completed by December 2002.
FISCAL INFORMATION
Funding for this project is available from Electric Revenue Bonds designated for transmission
and distribution line cost.
Respectfully submitted:
Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100
Purchasing Agent
Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet
1-AIS-Bid 2838 Spencer/Woodrow
Z
uJ
W
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A PUBLIC WORKS
CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SPENCER/WOODROW 138KV
TRANSMISSION LiNE UPGRADE; PROViDiNG FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
THEREFORE; AND PROViDiNG AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2838-SPENCER/WOODROW
138 KV TRANSMISSION LiNE UPGRADE AWARDED TO ERNEST P. BREAUX, INC. iN
THE AMOUNT OF $475,648.20).
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
2838 Ernest P. Breaux, Inc. $475,648.20
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 2838 Spencer Woodrow
This page left blank intemionally.
Agenda02-017 05/21/02 #9
AGENDA DATE:
DEPARTMENT:
ACM:
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
May 21, 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 Mayhill Road Box Culvert and Drainage improvements; providing for the
expenditure of funds therefore; and providing for an effective date (Bid 2843 - Mayhill Road
Box Culvert and Drainage Improvements awarded to DBR Construction in the base bid amount
of $78,157.25 and Alternate 1 in the amount of $38,766.50 for a total bid award of
$116,923.75).
BID INFORMATION
This bid is for the installation of 65' of 8' X 8' box culvert and approximately 430' of various
size storm sewer pipe, three 4 sided inlets and headwalls on Mayhill Road just south of Gayla
Lane. Alternate 1 includes the driveway repairs and street construction associated with the
drainage improvements installation.
PRIOR ACTION OR APPROVAL
The Public Utility Board will consider this project on May 20, 2002. Council will be advised of
their recommendation prior to the Council meeting of May 21, 2002.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, DBR Construction, in the
amount of $116,923.75 including Alternate 1.
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS
DBR Construction
Denton, TX
ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT
Construction is scheduled to start the second week in June 2002 and be completed on or before
the second week of August 2002.
Agenda information Sheet
May 21, 2002
Page 2
FISCAL INFORMATION
Funding for this drainage improvement is available from account 65002900.
Respectfully submitted:
Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100
Purchasing Agent
Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet
1-AIS-Bid 2843 Mayhill Road Box Culvert
I--
Z
ILl
ILl Z 0 LLI LLI
('-'1 Z o0'
W Z ¢
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A PUBLIC WORKS
CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF MAYHiLL ROAD BOX CULVERTS AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
THEREFORE; AND PROViDiNG AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2843- MAYHiLL ROAD BOX
CULVERTS AND DRAINAGE iMPPROVEMENTS AWARDED TO DBR CONSTRUCTION iN
THE BASE BID AMOUNT OF $78,157.25 AND ALTERNATE 1 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$38,766.50 FOR A TOTAL BiD AWARD OF $116,923.75).
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
2843 DBR Construction $116,923.75
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
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
EULINE BROCK, MAYOR
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY:
3-ORD- BID 2843 Mayhill Road
This page left blank intemionally.
Agenda02-017 05/21/02 #10
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE:
DEPARTMENT:
ACM:
May 21, 2002
Materials Management
Questions concerning this
acquisition may be directed to
Robert Waggoner 349-7836
Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services
SUBJECT
Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting sealed proposals and awarding a contract for the
services of an insurance consultant for the City of Denton; providing for the expenditure of funds
therefore and providing an effective date (RFSP 2829 - insurance Consultant Services awarded to
McGriff, Seibels & Williams of Texas, inc. in the amount of $145,000 over a three year period).
BACKGROUND
The objective for this insurance Consultant Services contra ct is to organize and coordinate all the
City's insurance coverages, obtain competitive and advantageous proposals for employee
insurance coverage, and to provide additional administrative services. The City of Denton
provides or offers the following insurance coverage: a choice of a fully insured HMO or PPO
medical plan, a PPO dental plan, a PPO vision plan, Life/AD&D insuxance, supplemental life
insurance, and short-term and long-term disability. The City pays the cost of HMO employee
only coverage on all eligible employees, basic Life/AD&D, and long-term disability. There are
approximately 1,200 employees eligible for one or more of these benefits. Additionally,
employees may voluntarily enroll qualified dependents in one or more of these benefits.
Qualified retirees are also eligible for continued coverage. The City is responsible for the proper
administration of these plans under applicable State and Federal regulations, including HIPAA,
COBRA, and IRS regulations.
An Insuxance Consultant is primarily responsible for assisting the City in obtaining health, dental,
vision, and life and disability insurance policies. The insurance Consultant shall represent the
City and act in an advisory and consulting role involving the City's benefit programs. The
Insurance Consultant shall assist in the evaluation and analysis of the City's benefit program to
include plan design, benefit utilization, claims analysis, funding analysis and budgetary impact.
The insurance Consultant will represent the City in renewal negotiations and act as a liaison
between the City and its insurance carriers, as well as coordinate the proposal process for
competitive bids, assist in the transition and implementation of benefits and advise the City
regarding new developments in employee benefits and developing law.
The insurance Consultant will assist the City in the research, development and implementation of
future benefit projects and programs such as comprehensive benefit brochures, feasibility of self -
insured programs and retiree funding options.
Agenda Information Sheet
May 21, 2002
Page 2
BACKGROUND(CONTINUED)
The City has utilized the services of Mercer Human Resource Consulting (formerly William M.
Mercer, inc.) for over 5 years. Their renewal was evaluated along with the RFSP proposals. The
proposals were evaluated based on the following criteria: (1) References, (2) Experience, and (3)
Capability to provide the services outlined. The selected proposer's fees are approximately
$21,500 less annually than the incumbent's fees. in addition, the selected proposer has included
all potential services in their proposed fees, whereas the incumbent has listed additional services
as additional costs to the proposed fee schedule.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff'recommends awarding to McGriff, Seibels & Williams of Texas, Inc. The
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS
McGriff, Seibels & Williams of Texas, Inc.
Dallas, Texas
ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT
Contract is to begin July 1, 2002, for three years with two, additional one-year options to
renew.
FISCAL INFORMATION
Funds for insurance Consultant are available within the Employee Health insurance Fund.
Respectfully submitted:
Robert A. Waggone~,, r~qaM
Risk Manager
Reviewed by:
Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M
Purchasing Agent
Attachment # 1: Evaluation of Proposals
Attachment #2: Municipalities/Public Entity Service Comparison
AIS-RFSP 2829 Consultant Services
0
Z
>,
~ oE
B <
x
E ~ ~ :~
x
(..) ._~ ~
x
ORDINANCE NO.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING SEALED PROPOSALS AND
AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE SERVICES OF AN INSURANCE CONSULTANT FOR
THE CITY OF DENTON; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (RFSP 2829 - INSURANCE CONSULTANT
SERVICES AWARDED TO MCGRiFF, SEiBELS & WILLIAMS OF TEXAS, INC. iN THE
AMOUNT OF $145,000 OVER A THREE YEAR PERIOD).
WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and evaluated competitive sealed proposals for
the purchase of insurance Consultant Services in accordance with the procedures of STATE law and
City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has received and reviewed and
recommended that the herein described proposals are the most advantageous to the City considering
the relative importance of price and the other evaluation factors included in the request for proposals;
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 items in the following numbered request for proposal for materials,
equipment, supplies or services, shown in the "Request Proposals" on file in the office of the
Purchasing Agent, are hereby accepted and approved as being the most advantageous to the City
considering the relative importance of price and the other evaluation factors included in the request
for proposals.
RFSP
NUMBER CONTRACTOR AMOUNT
2829 McGriff, Seibels & Williams of Texas, Inc. $145,000
SECTION 2. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the
submitted proposals, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the proposals 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 Proposal invitations,
Proposals, and related documents.
SECTION 3. That should the City and person submitting approved and accepted items and
of the submitted proposals wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the acceptance,
approval, and awarding of the proposals, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby
authorized to execute the written contract; provided that the written contract is in accordance with
the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained in the
Proposal and related documents herein approved and accepted.
SECTION 4. That by acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted
proposals, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount and in
accordance with the approved proposals 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 the
day of ., 2002.
EULINE BROCK, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY:
4-ORD-RFSP 2829
Agenda02-017 05/21/02 #11
AGENDA DATE:
DEPARTMENT:
ACM:
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
May 21, 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 contract for the purchase of
Underground Supervisor Electric Distribmion Switchgear; providing for the expenditure of funds
therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2827 - Annual Price Agreemem for Underground
Supervisor Electric Distribution Switchgear awarded to Priester Supply Co., in the estimated
amount of $300,000).
BACKGROUND
This bid is for an annual price agreemem to supply underground supervisor electric distribmion
switchgear for DeNon Municipal Electric. These units will be milized in the maimenance and
new construction of the electric distribution system.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder Priester Supply Co. as listed
on Exhibit A to the Ordinance.
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS
Priester Supply Co.
Arlington, TX
ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT
Each item is quoted to be delivered within 104 days of receipt of an order.
FISCAL INFORMATION
Funding for the purchase of these units will come from Warehouse Working Capital account
(800001.6402) and charged to the appropriate job work order when placed in service.
Agenda Information Sheet
May 21, 2002
Page 2
Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet
1-AIS-Bid 2827 Underground Supervisor Switchgear
Respectfully submitted:
Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100
Purchasing Agent
ATTACHMENT 1
BID # 2827 Date: 3~26~02
ANNUAL PRICE AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF UNDERGROUND SUPERVISOR
DISTRIBUTION SWITCHGEAR
Principle Place of Business: Corinth, TX Arlington, TX
1 8 UNDERGROUND SUPERVISOR DISTRIBUTION SWITCHGEAR (8
FOR IMMEDIATE PURCHASE) $29,020.51 $28,872.45
2 1 3.06 (f) (1) CONTROL $1 1,486.00 $11,428.00
3 1 3.06 (F) (2) DISTRIBUTED INTELLIGENCE Incl. in Item 2 Incl. in Item 2
4 1 3.06 (F) (3) SCADA Incl. in Item 2 Incl. in Item 2
5 1 3.06 (F) (4) AUTO "RETURN TO NORMAL" Incl. in Item 2 Incl. in Item 2
6 1 Incl. in Item 2 Incl. in Item 2
3.06 (F) (5) AUTO TEAM SYNCHRONIZATION
7 1 3.07 MOTOR OPERATIONS $6,662.00 $6,628.00
8 1 3.08 (A)VOLTAGE INDICATOR $1,286.00 $1,230.00
9 1 3.08 (B) VOLTAGE INDICATION/LOW VOLTAGE PHASING $1,472.00 $1,464.00
10 1 3.09 (A) THREE-PHASE CURRENT SENSING $472.00 $462.00
11 1 3.09 (B) SINGLE-PHASE VOLTAGE SENSING N/A N/A
12 1 3.09 (C) THREE-PHASE VOLTAGE SENSING $1,482.00 $1,474.00
13 1 3.09 (D) PORTABLE REMOTE CONTROL FOR MOTOR OPERATOR $209.74 $208.67
14 1 4.01 UNDERCOVER STYLE NO Bid NO Bid
15 1 4.02 WET-VAULT STYLE NO Bid NO Bid
16 1 4.03 DRY-VAULT STYLE NO Bid NO Bid
17 1 4.04 PAD - MOUNTED NO Bid NO Bid
DELIVERY 140 DAYS 140 DAYS
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING AN ANNUAL
CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF UNDERGROUND SUPERVISOR ELECTRIC
DISTRIBUTION SWiTCHGEAR; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2827- ANNUAL PRICE
AGREEMENT FOR UNDERGROUND SUPERVISOR ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION
SWiTCHGEAR AWARDED TO PRIESTER SUPPLY CO., iN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF
$300,000).
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
2827 All Priester Supply Co. 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 2827 Annual Price Underground Supervisor Sxvitchgeax
EXHIBIT A
BID # 2827 Date: 3~26~02
ANNUAL PRICE AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF UNDERGROUND
SUPERVISOR DISTRIBUTION SWITCHGEAR
Principle Place of Business: Arlington, TX
1 8 UNDERGROUND SUPERVISOR DISTRIBUTION SWITCHGEAR (8
FOR IMMEDIATE PURCHASE) $28,872.45
2 1 3.06 (f) (1) CONTROL $1 1,428.00
3 1 3.06 (F) (2) DISTRIBUTED INTELLIGENCE Incl. in Item 2
4 1 3.06 (F) (3) SCADA Incl. in Item 2
5 1 3.06 (F) (4) AUTO "RETURN TO NORMAL" Incl. in Item 2
6 1 Incl. in Item 2
3.06 (F) (5) AUTO TEAM SYNCHRONIZATION
7 1 3.07 MOTOR OPERATIONS $6,628.00
8 1 3.08 (A) VOLTAGE INDICATOR $1,230.00
9 1 3.08 (B)VOLTAGE INDICATION/LOW VOLTAGE PHASING $1,464.00
10 1 3.09 (A) THREE-PHASE CURRENT SENSING $462.00
11 1 3.09 (B) SINGLE-PHASE VOLTAGE SENSING N/A
12 1 3.09 (C) THREE-PHASE VOLTAGE SENSING $1,474.00
13 1 3.09 (D) PORTABLE REMOTE CONTROL FOR MOTOR OPERATOR $208.67
14 1 4.01 UNDERCOVER STYLE NO Bid
15 1 4.02 WET-VAULT STYLE NO Bid
16 1 4.03 DRY-VAULT STYLE NO Bid
17 1 4.04 PAD - MOUNTED NO Bid
DELIVERY 140 DAYS
Agenda02-017 05/21/02 #12
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE: May 21, 2002
DEPARTMENT:
ACM:
Airport and Transit Department
Jon Fortune, Public Safety and Transportation Operations
SUBJECT
Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Demon, Texas authorizing defermem of remal
for certain leases at the Denton Municipal Airport; providing an effective date.
BACKGROUND
In April and May of 2002 the Demon Municipal Airport closed the runway twice for a total of
seven (7) days and staff is scheduling an additional two-day (2) closure at the end of May as a
result of the Airport Improvemem Project (ALP). Additionally, the AlP has resulted in the
decommissioning of the instrument landing system and reduction of the overall length of the
runway periodically since construction began in late January.
Business Air Managemem (BAM), the primary facility providing aviation services to the flying
public, has requested that the City consider a defermem of their April and May rems due to the
adverse financial impact the AlP construction has caused to their business. Essentially, BAM
has requested that the City provide them an opportunity to recover from financial loss
experienced during this timeframe and repay the aforementioned rental payments through a
payment plan that will conclude during the current fiscal year.
To assist with the short-term financial strains that have been placed on BAM, staff is
recommending that a two-momh rem deferral be considered. The proposal would provide BAM
the opportunity to defer their April and May rem paymem and use a four-momh paymem plan
beginning June 15, 2002 adding one-fourth of the combined April and May rem to each of the
next four months rental payments.
ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT
The proposed deferral for BAM would be for the momhs of April and May with a four-momh
paymem plan beginning June 15, 2002 and cominuing through September 15, 2002.
Agenda Item
May 21, 2002
Page 2
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW
The City Attorney and staff have reviewed the proposed rent deferral. The Airport Advisory
Board unanimously recommended approval of the proposed rem deferral at their April meeting.
FISCAL INFORMATION
The proposed lease deferral would apply only to BAM and would result in a maximum deferral
of $5,200. All rems would be collected in the same fiscal year, FY 2001-2002.
Respectfully submitted:
Mark Nelson, Director
Airport and Transit Operations
S:\Our Documents\Ordinances\02~Airport-Rent BAMl.doc
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING DEFERMENT OF RENTAL
PAYMENTS FOR CERTAIN LEASES AT THE DENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT; PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, due to the adverse impact on Denton MunicipalAirport due to certain runway
closures, BAM Denton Management Ventures, L.L.C.("Tenant") a tenant under an FBO lease has
requested that its rental payments for months of April and May of 2002 (the "Deferred Amounts") be
deferred so that the Deferred Amounts are paid in four equal installments with the June, July, August and
September rental payments (the "Rental Deferment"); and
WHEREAS, the Denton Airport Advisory Board recommended the approval of the Rental
Deferment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Rental Deferment is in the public interest; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. The Rental Deferment is hereby authorized. No penalty or interest shall be charged
for the Rental Deferment.
SECTION 2. 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:
This page left blank intemionally.
Agenda02-017 05/21/02 #13
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE: May 21, 2002
DEPARTMENT:
ACM:
Fiscal Operations
Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services
SUBJECT
Consider approval of a resolution granting approval to the Denton County Housing Finance
Corporation for the use of the proceeds of its Series 2002 Single Family Mortgage Revenue
Bonds to finance home mortgages for single-family homes located within the city and
providing an effective date.
BACKGROUND
Approval of the attached resolution allows the City of Denton and its first time homebuyer
constituency to participate in the County's 2002 single-family mortgage revenue bond
program. The program will offer first time homebuyers of moderate income an opportunity
to access a below market interest rate currently estimated at 7.00% with three points of down
payment and closing cost assistance. This requirement is only for cities with a population
greater than 20,000 in the county.
In the early 1980's, the City of Demon formed a local housing finance corporation to provide
housing assistance for low and moderate-income individuals. The primary method for
providing for such assistance was to issue tax-exempt bonds, which could be made available
at a reduced interest cost to first time homebuyers.
The City of Demon program merged with Demon County, who had also established such a
housing corporation. As a result, the Housing Finance Corporation consists of eleven
members. In addition, the bylaws were amended so that citizens of Denton occupy five seats
of the Corporation. The County appointed members are: Lee Baker, Jim Carter, Charles
Emery, Greg Leveling and Ray Roberts. The City appoimed members are: Phil Gallivan,
Mark Chew, Kathy DuBose, Linnie McAdams, and Harold Perry.
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commission)
Demon County Housing Finance Corporation previously made an application for these bond
allocations from the State. The application has been approved.
Agenda Information Sheet
May 21, 2002
Page 2
FISCAL INFORMATION
The City of Demon has no financial responsibility in relation to this resolution, nor, are the
assets of the City pledged towards this transaction. There is no fiscal impact to the City of
Denton.
EXHIBITS
Resolution
Respectfully submitted:
Diana G. Ortiz
Director of Fiscal Operations
S:\Our Documents\Resolutions\02\Denton County Housing Finance Resolution.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL TO THE DENTON COUNTY HOUSING
FINANCE CORPORATION FOR THE USE OF THE PROCEEDS OF ITS SERIES 2002
SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS TO FINANCE HOME MORTGAGES
FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES LOCATED WiTHiN THE CITY; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Texas Housing Finance Corporations Act, Chapter 394,
Local Govemmem Code, V.T.C.A. (the "Act"), the creation of the Denton County Housing
Finance Corporation (the "Corporation"), was approved by the governing body of Denton
County, Texas (the "County"), to provide a means of financing the cost of residemial ownership
and developmem that will provide decem, safe and sanitary housing for residems of the County
at prices they can afford; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Act the Corporation is not permitted to provide
financing of home mortgages for homes which are located within a municipality with more than
20,000 inhabitants as determined by the Corporation's rules, resoluticns relating to the issuance
of bonds, or financing documents relating to such issuance, unless the governing body of the
municipality approves the application of the Act to the property located within the municipality;
and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Corporation has requested the approval of the
governing body of the City of DeNon, Texas (the "City") to provide financing for home
mortgages for homes within the City with the proceeds of the issuance of the Corporation's
proposed Series 2002 Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds (the "Bonds"); NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY RESOLVES:
SECTION 1: That the preambles to this Resolution are hereby adopted in their entirety
and incorporated herein as though set forth in full herein.
SECTION 2: The governing body of the City hereby approves the application of the Act
to the property within the City and grants its approval to the Corporation for the use of proceeds
of the Bonds to finance home mortgages for single family homes located within the City.
SECTION 3: 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
BY:
Agenda02-017 05/21/02 #14
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE:
DEPARTMENT:
ACM:
May 21, 2002
Utility Administration
Howard Martin, 349-8232
SUBJECT
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KIMLEY-
HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
RELATED TO THE FINAL DESIGN OF THE SOUTHWEST BOOSTER PUMP STATION
AND STORAGE FACILITIES; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BACKGROUND
The Preliminary Design Report (PDR) for the Southwest Booster Pump Station and Storage
Facilities was recently presented to the Public Utilities Board for review and approval. The PDR
identified the desired design and capacity criteria for the new pump station facilities, it also
determined the estimated construction costs for these facilities, requiting revised funding for the
project to be incorporated into the FY 2003 - 2007 Water Utilities Capital improvements Plan.
The PDR also provided the basis for staff to identify the scope of services and negotiate a
professional services agreement with Kimley-Hom & Associates, Inc., for completing the final
design of the facilities.
Near the completion of the PDR, staff instructed Kimley-Hom & Associates, Inc., to prepare a
proposal for engineering services to complete the detailed design of the facilities. The proposal
provides for basic and special services during the design phase, including the preparation of
engineering plans and specifications, preparing contract and bid documents, and provisions for
basic services during the construction phase. After receiving the original proposal, staff
requested revisions and made suggested changes to this proposal to reduce the total cost and to
negotiate a fair and reasonable fee for the City of Denton to complete this project. The
Professional Services Agreement (PSA) (Exhibit ii) represents the results of these negotiations
with staff that resulted in a reduction of $ 41,000 from the original design fee proposed by
Kimley-Hom & Associates, Inc.
In negotiating engineering services agreements for projects, staff uses a widely recognized
reference document prepared by the Consulting Engineers Council of Texas (CEC) and the
Texas Society of Professional Engineers (TSPE) titled A Guide to the Selection and Negotiation
Process for Professional Engineering Services, (1993). Engineering fees for construction
projects are frequently negotiated on the basis of a percentage of the estimated construction cost
of the project. The PDR estimated the construction cost of the facilities to be 3.045 million
dollars (assuming a 2.0 million gallon steel ground storage tank). A detailed breakdown of the
estimated construction cost for these facilities is included in Exhibit iii.
In negotiating engineering fees, basic services are typically identified and represent engineering
services that are expected to occur for most projects. Special services include scope items that
are sometimes desired by the client or recommended by the consulting engineer to meet the
special needs of a particular project or individual end user. Exhibit iV comes from the
CEC/TSPE manual and describes what is commonly included in basic engineering services for
construction projects and lists examples of scope items that would be considered additional or
special services. Similarly, Exhibit V describes the common fee negotiations that are used to
determine a fair and reasonable charge for engineering services. Using the method related to
construction costs, full basic engineering services for a project of this size, cost and complexity
would typically be about 9.76% of construction cost (approximately $ 297,000). Exhibit VI
details the fee factor assumptions that were used by staff to calculate this percentage. Using the
older ASCE Manual 45 cost curves would suggest a lower fee of 6.7% of construction cost
(approximately $ 204,000). However, staff's recent experience with engineering consulting fee
negotiations suggests that many of the most qualified engineering consulting la'ms are reluctant
to provide their services at a fee negotiated using these older cost curve methods to provide a set
of plans that will meet the owners expectations during the bidding process.
Full basic services typically includes preliminary design, detailed design, and basic
representation through the construction phase. The professional services agreement with
Kimley-Hom & Associates, Inc., for the preliminary design report was $ 24,500. The negotiated
proposal for basic engineering services for final design and construction services is $ 255,800.
Including the preliminary design expenses incurred to date, this would result in a total fee for
basic engineering services for this project of $ 280,300. This fee for basic services would
represent approximately 9.3% of the estimated construction value.
The proposal from Kimley-Hom & Associates, Inc., also included special services that would be
necessary for this project and that would be considered additional services beyond the
CEC/TSPE scope of services interpretations for basic services. The special services include:
· $ 18,000 for preparing a floodplain reclamation study and a Letter Of Map Revision
(LO MR).
· $ 9,000 for site survey and platting of the property.
· $ 6,200 for geotechnical investigations.
The total fee proposal for the special services during the design phase is $ 33,200.
Staff obtained information from Kimley-Hom & Associates, Inc., on four water storage and
booster pump station projects they have completed recently in the Dallas/Ft Worth area to
compare fees that were negotiated with different cities. These projects included two pump
stations in Carrollton, the Stonehill Pump Station in Flower Mound, and a booster pump station
in Corinth. Exhibit VIi lists the construction costs and engineering fees for each of the major
phases of the project and compares these to the revised fee proposal from Kimley-Hom &
Associates, inc., for the Southwest Booster Pump Station project. The engineering fees for basic
services on these four projects ranged between 6.90 and 14.90 % of the engineer's estimate and
between 6.88 and 17.36 % of the actual bid cost plus change orders. The proposed total fee for
basic services of 9.3% is consistent with the fees that were charged for these four other pump
station projects.
The total engineering fees for the project including preliminary and final design, special services
during the design phase and basic services during the construction phase would be $ 313,500.
2
The total engineering fees for these services on these four projects ranged between 7.12 and
15.41% of the engineer's estimate and between 7.10 and 17.96 % of the actual bid cost plus
change orders. The proposed total fee for basic services of 10.4 % is consistent with the fees that
were charged for these four other pump station projects.
Based upon the scope of services negotiated for the project and the information provided herein,
staff feels the fee is consistent with industry standards and market conditions and is a fair and
reasonable price for the work needed to carry the project forward through the bidding and
construction phase. Accordingly, staff is requesting approval for the following items:
1. The Final Design Services Proposal in the amount of.
2. The Special Services Proposal during the design phase in the amount off
Total lump sum amount:
$ 255,800
$ 33,200
$ 289,000
OPTIONS
Approve the professional services proposal for the final design as submitted.
Recommend desired changes to the proposal for consideration by staff and request renegotiations
with Kimley-Hom & Associates, Inc.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the professional services proposal as negotiated by staff and
submitted by Kimley-Hom & Associates, Inc. This item was presented to the Public Utilities
Board on May 6, 2002. The Public Utilities Board approved it by a vote of 7-0.
PRIOR ACTION REVIEW (COUNIL, BOARDS, COMMISSION)
PUB: March 4, 2002 - Consider Approval of the Preliminary Design Report by Kimley -Horn
and Associates, Inc. for the Southwest Booster Pump Station.
May 6, 2002 - Consider Approval of the Professional Services Proposal from Kimley-
Horn & Associates, Inc., for the Final Design of the Southwest Booster Pump Station and
Storage Facilities in the amount of $ 289,000.
ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT
The booster pump station should be operational by the December of 2003. ~lhe current schedule
for the project is detailed in Exhibit VIII.
FISCAL INFORMATION
The estimated construction cost for the project is $ 3,045,000.
The pump station site is currently being conveyed to the City of Denton as a part of the service
agreement with the developer of the Country Lakes North project (Wynne Jackson, Inc.). This
project will need additional funding beyond the current FY 2002 CIP amount of 1.32 million
dollars to construct the initial facilities as recommended in the Preliminary Design Report. Staff
is proposing that the funding for the project be included in the FY 2003 CIP as a part of the
annual budget process.
This project should also be included in the impact fee capital improvements plan to allow
funding for this through the use of impact fees that will be collected from new customers,
including those located in the southwest service area. This would include the proposed ground
storage and booster pump station facilities and elevated storage tank improvements for the
southwest service area. This approach is consistent with the inclusion of the elevated storage
facilities for the northwest service area that were included in the initial impact fee capital
improvements plan.
MAP
See Exhibit I
EXHIBITS
Exhibit I
Exhibit II
Exhibit 11I
Exhibit 1V
Exhibit V
Exhibit VI
Exhibit VII
Exhibit VIII
Exhibit IX
Exhibit X
Location Map
Professional Services Agreement with Kimley-Hom & Associates, Inc., for Final
Design and Construction Phase Services.
Construction Cost Summary
CEC/TSPE Services for Construction Projects
CEC/TSPE Fee Negotiation
Fee Calculation Spreadsheet
Fee Comparisons with Other Projects
Project Schedule
Meeting Minutes for May 6, 2002 Public Utilities Board Meeting.
Ordinance
Respectfully submitted:
Jim Coulter, Director
Water/Wastewater Utilities
Prepared by:
Timothy S. Fisher, P.E.
Assistant Director of Water Utilities
I SOUTHWEST BOOSTER
~ PUMP LOCATION
::::;' -
/? ./'
PROPOSED SOUT~WEST L,:.,~,
~:,: / I ., , ....
/ : ,; '....~
/ ,:': :, ...... / ,,, -
CITY OF DENTON 0
WA TE R UT/ L J T Y ~IS~GW~Lj~S ~ EXHIBIT I
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DENTON
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
FOR THE DESIGN, BDDING AND CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NOTIFICATION
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED DENTON SOUTHWEST PUMP STATION
AND GROUND STORAGE TANK
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the __ day of
2002, by and between the City of Den{bn, Texas, a Texas Municipal Corporation, with its
principal offices at 215 East McKinney Street, Denton, Texas 76201 (hereafter "OWNER") and
Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., a North Carolina Corporation, with its offices at 801 Cherry
Street, Suite 1100, Fort Worth, Texas 76102 (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 independent contractor, and
the CONSULTANT hereby agrees to perform the services herein in connection with the Project
as stated in the Articles to follow, with diligence 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 engineering services pertaining to the design, bidding and construction
contract administration associated with the proposed Denton Southwest Pump Station and
Ground Storage Tank.
ARTICLE II
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The CONSULTANT shall perform the following Basic Services in a professional
manner:
A. To perform those professional services as set forth in the Scope of Work and Fee Proposal -
Denton Southwest Pump Station for the City of Denton, dated ,2002,
prepared by CONSULTANT for OWNER; which document is attached hereto as Exhibits
"A" and "B" and are incorporated herein by reference; which document is comprised of, and
subdivided into the following three(3) sections:
1. Basic Services
Page 1 of 11
2. Special Services
3. Additional Services
If there is any conflict, or if any conflict arises between the terms of this Agreement and
Exhibits "A" and "B" attached to this Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Agreement
shall control over the terms and conditions of the Exhibits.
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-)n the above-described Scope of Services, set forth as
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.
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 its Assistant City Manager for Utilities.
ARTICLE V
COMPENSATION
A. COMPENSATION TERMS:
"Subcontract Expense" is defined as those expenses, if any, incurred by
CONSULTANT in the employment of others in outside firms, for services in the area
of professional engineering, or related services. Any subcontractor or sub-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
performance of this Agreement for long distance telephone charges, telecopy charges,
messenger services, printing and reproduction expenses, out-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.
Page 2 of 11
hereinabove. Statements for Basic Services and any Additional Services shall be submitted
to OWNER no more frequently than once monthly.
PAYMENT: If the OWNER fails to make payments due the CONSULTANT for services
and expenses within forty-five (45) days after receipt of the CONSULTANT'S undisputed
statement thereof, the amounts due the CONSULTANT will be increased by the rate of one
percent (1%) per month from and after 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 )erein 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 CONSULTANT'S 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 services 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'S
subcontractors or sub-consultants) pursuant to this Agreement are instruments of service and
shall become the property of the OWNER upon the termination of this Agreement. The
CONSULTANT is entitled to retain copies of all such documents. The documents prepared and
fumished 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 documents in another project or for other purposes than specified
herein any of the information or materials developed pursuant to this Agreement,
CONSULTANT is released from 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 fight arising from
employee status.
Page 4 of 11
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 incurred 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, sub-consultants, attorneys,
and/or employees in the execution, operation, or performance of this Agreement.
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create a liability to any person who is not
a party to this Agreement and nothing herein shall waive any of the 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 Agreement, CONSULTANT shall
maintain the following insurance with an insurance 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 Carriers of at least an "A-" or above:
mo
Comprehensive General Liability Insurance with bodily injury limits of not less than
$1,000,000 for each occurrence and not lcss 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
$100,000 in the aggregate.
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 $100,000 for each accident.
C. Worker's Compensation Insurance in accordance with statutory requirements and Employer's
Liability Insurance with limits of not less than $100,000 for each accident.
D. Professional Liability Insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000 annual aggregate.
CONSULTANT shall furnish insurance certificates or insurance policies to the OWNER to
evidence such insurance coverage. Except Professional Liability Insurance, the insurance
policies shall name the OWNER as an additional insured on all such policies, and shall
contain a provision that such insurance shall not be cancelled or materially modified without
at least thirty (30) 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
Page 5 of 11
coverage, deliver copies of certificates for 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 alternate dispute resolution arising out of or relating to, this Agreement involving
one party's disagreement, may include the other party to the disagreement without the other's
approval.
ARTICLE XII
TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, either party may terminate this
Agreement by providing thirty (30) days advance written notice to the other party.
This Agreement may alternatively be terminated in whole or in part in the event of either
party substantially failing to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement. No such termination
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 forth 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 consultation with the terminating party prior to
termination.
Co
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
termination 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 turn over the Project to a new
consultant. CONSULTANT shall turn 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 services 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
Page 6 of 11
services 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 services performed by the CONSULTANT, its principals, officers, employees, agents,
subcontractors, and sub-consultants.
ARTICLE XIV
NOTICES
All notices, communications, and reports required or permitted under this Agreement
shall be personally delivered to; or telecopied to; or mailed to the respective parties by depositing
same in the United States mail at the ad_dresses shown below, postage prepaid, certified mail,
return receipt requested, unless otherwise specified herein:
To CONSULTANT:
To OWNER:
Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc.
801 Cherry Street, Unit 11
Suite 1100
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Fax: (817) 335-5070
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 upon their actual receipt by the
party to whom such notice is given.
ARTICLE XV
ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement consisting of eleven (11) pages and two (2) Exhibits constitutes the
complete and final expression of the agreement of the parties and is intended as a complete and
exclusive statement of the terms of their agreements, and supersedes all prior contemporaneous
offers, promises, representations, negotiations, discussions, communications, understandings,
and agreements which may have been made in connection with the subject matter of this
Agreement.
ARTICLE XVI
SEVERABILTY
If any provision of this Agreement is found or deemed by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, it shall be considered severable from the remainder of
this Agreement, and shall not cause the remainder to be invalid or unenforceable. In such event,
the parties shall reform this Agreement, to 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 respecting any such stricken provision.
Page 7 of 11
ARTICLE XVII
COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
The CONSULTANT shall comply with federal, state, local laws, rules, regulations, and
ordinances applicable to the services performed by CONSULTANT hereunder, as they may now
read or as they may hereafter be amended.
ARTICLE XVIII
DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED
In performing the services require~ 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
Ao
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 contractual relations with the OWNER.
CONSULTANT shall immediately inform the OWNER in writing of any conflict of interest
or potential conflict of interest that CONSULTANT may discover, or which may arise during
the term of this Agreement.
All services required hereunder will be performed by CONSULTANT or under its direct
supervision. All personnel engaged in performing the work provided for in this Agreement,
shall be qualified, and shall be authorized and permitted under state and local laws to perform
such services.
ARTICLE XX
AS SIGNABILITY
The CONSULTANT shall not assign any interest in this Agreement and shall not transfer
any interest in this Agreement (whether by assignment, novation or otherwise) without the prior
written consent of 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, limitation
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 between the parties hereto arising out of, or affecting this Agreement, or
the rights or obligations of the parties hereunder, unless such waiver or modification is in
Page 8 of 11
writing, duly executed. The parties further agree that the provisions of this Article will not be
waived unless as herein set forth.
ARTICLE XXII
MISCELLANEOUS
A. The following Exhibits are attached to, incorporated herewith by reference, and are made a
part of this Agreement for all purposes pertinent:
Exhibit "A" --- Scope of Services --- Dated:
Exhibit "B"--- Compensation --- .Dated:
,2002
,2002
Bo
CONSULTANT agrees that OWNER shall, until the expiration of four (4) years after the
final payment made by OWNER under this Agreement, 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.
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 State of Texas.
For purposes of this Agreement, the parties agree that the Project Principal shall be Charles
M. Staples, Principal, P.E., and the key persons who will perform most of the work as the
Project Team, include the Project Manager, Glenn A. Gary, P.E., under, and in accordance
with this Agreement, shall be as specifically identified and set forth in the "Scope of
Services" document attached hereto as Exhibit "A." This Agreement has been entered into
with the understanding, expectation, and the OWNER'S reliance, that the above-stated
employees of CONSULTANT shall perform or direct all or a significant portion of the
services 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 firm to perform the other incidental
services required herein, under its supervision or control.
Eo
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
reasonably appropriate so that the services involved are properly coordinated with related
work being carded on by the OWNER.
Page 9 of 11
The OWNER shall assist the CONSULTANT by placing at the CONSULTANT'S disposal
all available information pertinent to the Project, including previous reports, any other data
relative to the Project and arranging for the access to, and make all provisions for the
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 t.he 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 ,2002.
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
A Texas Municipal Corporation
By:
Michael A. Conduff
City Manager
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
By:
Page 10ofll
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
By:
"CONSULTANT"
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, 1NC.
A North Carolina Corporation
ATTEST:
By.
Glenn A. Gary
Vice President
By:
Charles M. Staples
Senior Vice President
Page 11 ofll
EXHIBIT A to Agreement Between the
City of Denton, Texas (OWNER) and
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
(CONSULTANT) for Professional Services.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
This is an exhibit attached to, made a part of and incorporated by reference into the Agreement between
OWNER and CONSULTANT providing for professional engineering services.
Project understanding
The proposed Pump Station site is approximately 2.25 acres generally located northwest of the
intersection of Crawford Rd. and John Paine Rd. in the proposed Country Lakes West Subdivision. The
pump station is intended to serve the Southwest 900-service area that is currently served by the OWNER
through the use of a groundwater system owned by the Robson Ranch Communities and operated by the
OWNER. This area is not currently served by elevated storage so alternate means of pressure
maintenance should be included in the station design until such time that elevated storage is constructed.
It is the OWNER's desire that the pump station be operational by the summer of 2003. Once the
OWNER approves the Preliminary Design Report, this agreement will provide for professional services
associated with the design, bidding and limited construction phase services for the proposed pump station.
The Scope of Services is separated into Basic Services and Special Services as follows:
BASIC SERVICES
Task 1 - Final Design of the Southwest Booster Pump Station
Once the OWNER has approved the Preliminary Design Report, the CONSULTANT will
proceed with the following professional services to complete the Final Design as follows.
The Consultant will prepare engineering plan sheets, specifications and construction contract
documents in accordance with the Preliminary Design Report and for project bidding and
regulatory approval. Final Plans will consist of approximately forty (40)-22" x 34" plan
sheets. Preliminary Plans (50% and 95% submittals) will be submitted on 11" x 17" plan
sheets. The CONSULTANT will provide technical specifications for materials and
installation of the proposed facilities as follows:
Initial Site Plan - The OWNER will provide input about the preferred site plan layout
alternatives shown in the Preliminary Design Report. This input will include, but is not
limited to, ground storage tank size, general building alignment and location, discharge
piping alignment. The CONSULTANT will make necessary revisions and present an
ultimate site plan configuration to be used as the guide for the location of facilities for the
final design.
Pumping Facilities - The proposed pump station is anticipated to include 1 or 2 - 600
gpm end suction pumps and 2 - 2,800 gpm horizontal split case pumps. The pump station
will be designed so that future expansions can accommodate up to 6 - 6,000 gpm pumps.
The pump station mechanical piping in the building will include isolation valves, air
release valves, and pump control valves. This piping will be ductile iron or welded steel.
Page 1 of 10
o
Suction and discharge headers, one discharge meter and vault, and associated yard piping
appurtenances will be designed for the ultimate capacity as indicated in the Preliminary
Design Report. The design of pressure maintenance facilities are anticipated to include
Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs) with recirculation piping.
Ground Storage Tank - The proposed ground storage tank is anticipated to be welded
steel with a capacity of 1.0 to 2.0 million gallons. The OWNER will provide the
CONSULTANT with the size of tank within 2 weeks after notice to proceed for this
agreement. The tank is proposed to be designed with a 40 foot head range. The
foundation for the tank is anticipated to be designed as a reinforced concrete spread
footing based upon recommendations from the October 2001 Geotechnical Study
prepared by CMJ Engineering, Inc. The welded steel tank design will incorporate
cathodic protection.
Electrical - The pump station site will be designed with appropriate electrical facilities.
The OWNER will be responsible for providing the CONSULTANT with the type of
electrical service to be designed: Dual Feed Primary Service, Dual Feed Secondary
Service, or Single Feed Service. Design of the electrical facilities will include building
lighting (interior and exterior), switch gear, electrical supply, variable frequency drives,
site lighting, fire detection and alarms, and telemetry. The pump station's telemetry will
conform with the OWNER'S existing SCADA system. This scope does not include
telemetry modification at the OWNER'S master site except for the specification of
configuration for changes to the Human Machine Interface (HMI) database and graphic
screens. The telemetry system will include pump controls, tank levels, intrusion alarms,
pressure, flow, chlorine residual coming in and out of the station, pH, and temperature.
Mechanical - The pump station design will also include Heating, Ventilation, and Air
Conditioning (HVAC) and plumbing elements to provide proper functioning of the
pumping facilities.
Architectural/Structural - The building will be of CMU construction in a long, single
story structure with a gable end. The roof will be designed for standing seam metal
construction. The interior of the building will be divided into two separate rooms with an
exterior personnel door for access to the electrical room. The building will be designed
with one exterior overhead coiling door with an internal door connecting to the electrical
room. Other items included in the design of the building will include windows, painting
of walls and floors, and a manual hoist system to aid in removal of the pumps. Based
upon recommendations from the October 2001 Geotechnical Study prepared by CMJ
Engineering, Inc, a concrete thickened slab foundation is recommended for the building
foundation.
Disinfection Facilities - Disinfection facilities will be designed to be located on the site.
Facilities will be designed in accordance with a Technical Memorandum, approved by the
OWNER, issued as part of the Preliminary Design Report.
Site Plan- A site plan will be designed based upon the layout agreed upon for the initial
site layout. Initial services will include topographic and boundary survey of the site for
preparation of the site plan and for preparation of a plat to be submitted to the OWNER.
This site plan will address site drainage, grading, water and sanitary sewer services,
fencing, and landscaping. Fencing and landscaping will follow guidelines set forth in the
February 2002 agreement between the OWNER and Wynne/Jackson Lakes Development
Page 2 of 10
LP (WJ Lakes) as well as any guidelines set forth by the OWNER's landscaping
ordinances. These guidelines should be similar in concept with the following: landscape
screening along John Paine Road, which will consist of a wall and landscaping along the
western side of the right of way of John Paine Road. The wall will be of a substantially
similar design, construction, and materials as that installed by WJ Lakes on the eastern
side of the right of way. The landscape screening will also be of a similar material and
amount as installed by WJ Lakes on the eastern side of the right of way. The landscaping
will include at a minimum one (1) four (4) inch caliper tree for every forty (40) lineal feet
of frontage on John Paine Road plus five (5) gallon shrubs spaced between 30 - 36 inches
on-center along the wall.
B. Submit to the OWNER 50% complete plans, specifications, contract documents, and an
opinion of probable construction cost for review and comment.
C. Submit to the OWNER 95% complete plans, specifications, contract documents, and an
opinion of probable construction cost for review and comment.
D. Submit variance request to TNRCC for pressure maintenance facilities.
E. Submit final plans to OWNER Building Inspection Department, utility companies for
relocation of adjacent or affected facilities, and to the TNRCC.
F. Submit to the OWNER final bidding documents.
G. Deliverables provided by CONSULTANT.
1. Eight (8) copies of 50% Plans and Specifications (11" x 17" format), Contract
Documents and an Opinion of Probable Construction Cost.
2. Eight (8) copies of 95% Plans and Specifications (11" x 17" format), Contract
Documents and an Opinion of Probable Construction Cost.
3~ Eight (8) copies of Final Plans and Specifications (22" x 34" format), Contract
Documents and an Opinion of Probable Construction Cost.
H. Meetings attended by CONSULTANT.
1. One (1) meeting with the OWNER to discuss Initial Site Plan for proceeding with Final
Design.
2. One (1) meeting with the OWNER to present 50% Plans and Specifications, Contract
Documents and an Opinion of Probable Construction Cost.
3. One (1) meeting with the OWNER to present 95% Plans and Specifications, Contract
Documents and an Opinion of Probable Construction Cost.
4. One (1) meeting with the OWNER to present Final Plans and Specifications, Contract
Documents and an opinion of Probable Construction Cost.
Page 3 of 10
Task 2 - Bidding
Ao
Bid Document Preparation and Contractor Notification. CONSULTANT will prepare and
assemble construction bidding documents, including specifications for the subject Work and
the construction contract, based on "Standard General Conditions of the Construction
Contract" (EJCDC No. 1910-8, 1996 edition) prepared by the Engineers Joint Contract
Documents Committee. Additionally, CONSULTANT will issue bid packages for the
submittal of quotations to perform the work and conduct pre-bid meetings with potential
bidders. CONSULTANT will attend the bid opening, tabulate the bids received, and evaluate
the compliance of the bids received with the bidding documents. CONSULTANT will
prepare a written summary of this tabulation and evaluation together with a recommendation
for the award of the construction contract. If requested by the OWNER, CONSULTANT
will notify the Contractor selected to begin work. CONSULTANT will prepare contract
documents for execution by the Contractor, receive and review such documents for
completeness, and forward the documents to the OWNER for review and execution.
B. Deliverables provided by CONSULTANT.
1. Notice to Bidders for advertising by the OWNER.
2. Thirty (30) sets of bid documents distributed to prospective bidders.
3. Addenda as required.
4. Bid Tabulation and Recommendation for Award.
5. Six (6) copies of contract documents for review and execution by the OWNER and
execution by the Contractor.
C. Meetings attended by CONSULTANT
1. Pre-bid meeting.
2. Bid opening.
Task 3 - Construction Phase Services
CONSULTANT will provide professional construction phase services for the Proposed Pump
Station for the purpose of providing assistance to OWNER during construction. These services
are as follows:
A. Pre-Construction Conference. Conduct a Pre-Construction Conference prior to
commencement of work at the site.
B. Visits to Site and Observation of Construction.
Provide monthly on-site construction observation services during the construction phase
of the subject project. Observations will vary depending on the type of work being
performed by the contractors, the location, and the contractors' schedules.
Page 4 of 10
Co
Do
Make monthly visits to the site in order to observe the progress of the work. Such visits
and observations by CONSULTANT are not intended to be exhaustive or to extend to
every aspect of Contractor's work in progress. Observations are to be limited to spot
checking, selective measurement, and similar methods of general observation of the work
based on CONSULTANT's exercise of professional judgment. Based on information
obtained during such vis/ts and such observations, CONSULTANT will determine if
Contractor's work is generally proceeding in accordance with the Contract Documents,
and CONSULTANT will keep OWNER informed of the general progress of the work.
The purpose of CONSULTANT's visits to the site will be to enable CONSULTANT to
better carry out the duties and responsibilities assigned in this Agreement to
CONSULTANT during the construction phase by OWNER, and, in addition, by the
exercise of CONSULTANT'~~ efforts, to provide OWNER a greater degree of confidence
that the completed work will conform in general to the Contract Documents and that the
integrity of the design concept of the completed project as a functioning whole as
indicated in the Contract Documents has been implemented and preserved by Contractor.
CONSULTANT shall not, during such visits or as a result of such observations of
Contractor's work in progress, supervise, direct, or have control over Contractor's work,
nor shall CONSULTANT have authority over or responsibility for the means, methods,
techniques, equipment choice and usage, sequences, schedules, or procedures of
construction selected by Contractor, for safety precautions and programs incident to
Contractor's work, nor for any failure of Contractor to comply with laws and regulations
applicable to Contractor's furnishing and performing the work. Accordingly,
CONSULTANT neither guarantees the performance of any Contractor nor assumes
responsibility for any Contractor's failure to fumish and perform its work in accordance
with the Contract Documents.
Shop Drawings and Samples. Review and approve or take other appropriate action in respect
to Shop Drawings and Samples and other data which Contractor is required to submit, but
only for conformance with the information given in the Contract Documents and
compatibility with the design concept of the completed project as a functioning whole as
indicated in the Contract Documents. Such review and approvals or other action will not
extend to means, methods, techniques, equipment choice and usage, sequences, schedules, or
procedures of construction or to related safety precautions and programs.
Applications for Payment. Based on CONSULTANT'S observations and on review of
applications for payment and accompanying supporting documentation: Determine the
amounts that CONSULTANT recommends Contractor be paid. Such recommendations of
payment will be in writing and will constitute CONSULTANT'S representation to Client,
based on such observations and review, that, to the best of CONSULTANT'S knowledge,
information and belief, Contractor's work has progressed to the point indicated, such work-
in-progress is generally in accordance with the Contract Documents (subject to an evaluation
of the Work as a functioning whole prior to or upon Substantial Completion, to the results of
any subsequent tests called for in the Contract Documents, and to any other qualifications
stated in the recommendation), and the conditions precedent to Contractor's being entitled to
such payment appear to have been fulfilled insofar as it is CONSULTANT'S responsibility to
so determine. In the case of unit price work, CONSULTANT'S recommendations of
payment will include final determinations of quantities and classifications of Contractor's
work, based on observations and measurements of quantities provided with pay requests.
Page 5 of 10
SPECIAL SERVICES
Task 1 - Floodplain Reclamation Study
The CONSULTANT will investigate and propose modifications to the floodplain located on
the subject property in order to construct the proposed Pump Station. The OWNER does not
require that a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) be submitted in order to modify
the Floodplain. The Proposed Pump Station site is adjacent to Graveyard Branch, which
flows from west to east. The mapped floodplain(s) occupy the southern portion of the
property. The current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designation for the
creek is Zone A, which means the floodplain is approximate and the encroachment will
require a detailed study. A rece.n~t Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) submitted
by Carter Burgess has been granted by FEMA for the subject stream reach, along with
development along that reach to the east of the subject property.
B. The CONSULTANT will perform the following subtasks to produce a Floodplain
Reclamation Study:
The CONSULTANT will gather FEMA-specific and fully developed hydrologic and
hydraulic data available for Graveyard Branch from FEMA, Carter & Burgess, and/or the
OWNER. This scope assumes that data is available via one of these three sources. The
CONSULTANT will conduct one meeting with the OWNER to gather data and
determine the OWNER'S specific requirements for this project.
The CONSULTANT will obtain the FEMA effective hydraulic models for Graveyard
Branch. The data found in these models may vary from what is currently represented on
the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The CONSULTANT will use these models to re-
map the FEMA 100-year floodplain through the project area.
o
Upon obtaining the data from FEMA and the OWNER, the CONSULTANT will
duplicate, then modify the FEMA effective model to reflect existing conditions on the
property. Such modifications would be based on topographic survey of the site
performed under a separate task in this Agreement.
Based on the OWNER-approved development plan and associated construction
documents (prepared under separate tasks), the CONSULTANT will prepare a proposed
condition hydraulic model of the planned grading/improvements. The CONSULTANT
will explore modeling two alternatives for reclaiming the floodplain on the property. The
CONSULTANT will coordinate the reclamation plan with the construction documents
for the site. The hydraulic modeling will respect both FEMA (existing watershed) and
OWNER (fully developed watershed) hydraulic profiles.
Co Deliverables provided by the CONSULTANT.
1. Five (5) copies of the preliminary Floodplain Reclamation Study Report.
2. Five (5) copies of the final Floodplain Reclamation Study Report.
D. Meetings attended by the CONSULTANT.
1. One (1) meeting with the OWNER to gather data and determine OWNER-specific
Page 6 of 10
requirements for this Task.
2. One (1) meeting with the OWNER during the review of the Floodplain Study Report.
E. Services Provided by the OWNER
1. Attend meeting to establish OWNER'S requirements.
2. Review preliminary Floodplain Reclamation Study Report.
Task 2 - Letter of Map Revision (LOMR)
A. CONSULTANT will compile and submit to FEMA a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR)
request based on the completed site improvements. This submittal will occur when the
grading of the site has been completed and surveyed.
B. CONSULTANT will utilize the effective model obtained from the OWNER, the Carter
Burgess CLOMR or LOMR, or FEMA as the effective model for the LOMR. The modified
existing condition hydraulic model from the Floodplain Reclamation study will be used as the
revised existing condition model for the LOMR submittal.
C. After the on-site grading is substantially complete, on-ground topographic survey of the
proposed improvements is required as part of the LOMR submittal to FEMA. This survey
effort will involve the following tasks:
1. Topographic survey of the natural ground (and/or structural improvements, i.e. retaining
walls) in the area of the on-site grading (approximately 1.5 acres).
2~ Generation of one-foot contours in the area of the on-site grading.
D. CONSULTANT will modify the proposed condition hydraulic model from the Floodplain
Reclamation Study to reflect the as-built drainage improvements as reported by the survey.
CONSULTANT will then produce a LOMR submittal for the OWNER to submit to FEMA.
E. Deliverables provided by the CONSULTANT.
1. Five (5) copies of the LOMR submittal.
F. Meetings attended by the CONSULTANT.
1. One (1) meeting with the OWNER to deliver and obtain the proper signatures for the
LOMR.
Go Services provided by OWNER.
1. Submit LOMR to FEMA for approval.
2. Pay LOMR review fee to FEMA.
Page 7 of 10
Task 3 - Site Survey and Platting
Topographic Survey. Surveying services will be performed by the CONSULTANT for
functional preparation of the Site Plan. These services will include obtaining contours at one
(1) foot intervals, spot elevations on approximately a one hundred (100) foot grid, location of
existing above ground improvements, and location of utilities on or adjacent to the site.
Platting. A metes and bounds description prepared by Carter Burgess will be obtained for the
site and used in preparation of a Final Plat. The Final Plat will be prepared in accordance
with the OWNER's requirements and generally accepted surveying practices, suitable for
presentation and filing purposes. The Plat will include the following: plat title, survey,
abstract, and boundary lines, metes and bounds description, building setback lines, zoning of
subject and adjoining tracts, existing a proposed street rights-of-way, 100-year flood plain per
Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) approved by FEMA, Surveyor's Certificate,
and OWNER's certificate and dedication statement.
C. Deliverables provided by the CONSULTANT.
1. Six (6) copies of the Final Plat.
Task 4 - Geotechnical Evaluation
Geotechnical services, consisting of soil borings, will be performed for the pump station
building and ground storage tank locations. A geotechnical evaluation for the building will
be conducted, consisting of no more than two (2) soil borings, prior to completion of the final
design to obtain soil boring information for two locations within the projected foundation of
the building. A geotechnical evaluation for the ground storage tank will be conducted prior to
completion of the final design to obtain soil boring information for two (2) locations within
the projected foundation of the tank.
B. Deliverables provided by the CONSULTANT.
1. Three (3) copies of Geotechnical Report.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Additional Professional Services to be performed if authorized by the OWNER, but which are not
included in the above-described Scope of Professional Services, are as follows:
Ao
Accompanying the OWNER's personnel when meeting with the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission (TNRCC), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or other
regulatory agencies during the course of either the design or construction of the project.
Kimley-Horn will assist the OWNER's personnel on an as-needed basis in preparing
compliance schedules, progress reports, and providing general technical support for the
OWNER's compliance efforts.
Page 8 of 10
Bo
Co
Go
Ho
Jo
Lo
Mo
O°
Plan or specification revisions resulting in a design concept change related to the denial of a
variance request to TNRCC for pressure maintenance facilities.
Design of an on-site generator for emergency power supply with an automatic transfer
system.
Design of water lines or sewer lines not located on the site. This includes design associated
with an emergency water line connection to the City of Argyle/Upper Trinity Regional Water
District elevated storage tank.
Any services related to preparation of an amendment to thc existing CLOMR, or a new
CLOMR. ._~
Assisting OWNER or Contractor in the defense or prosecution of litigation in connection
with or in addition to those services contemplated by this Agreement. Such services, if any,
shall be furnished by Kimley-Horn on a fee basis negotiated by the respective parties outside
of and in addition to this Agreement.
Sampling, testing, or analysis beyond that specifically included in the ScoPe of Services
referenced herein above whether provided by CONSULTANT or coordinated with an
independent firm hired by either CONSULTANT, the OWNER, or the Contractor.
Preparing applications and supporting documents for government grants, loans, or planning
advances, and providing data for detailed applications.
Appearing before regulatory agencies or courts as an expert witness in any litigation with
third parties or condemnation proceedings arising from the development or construction of
the project, including the preparation of engineering data and reports for assistance to the
OWNER.
Providing professional services associated with the discovery of any hazardous waste or
materials in the project route or on the proposed site.
Providing additional presentations to City Council concerning this project or any matter
associated with this project.
Providing construction staking or any survey for the re-establishment of property boundaries,
easements, sub-division or any other surveying activity not described as a part of the Scope of
Services.
Providing any easement, right-of-way, or property acquisition services.
Attending additional public meetings during the design and construction of the project and
not provided as a part of the Scope of Services.
Providing any other professional services requested by the OWNER and as a part of this
project that are not listed in the Scope of Services.
Page 9 of 10
SCIt~DULE
CONSULTANT will begin services for the above scope of services upon receipt of notice to
proceed. This project is scheduled so that advertisement for bids can be made in the Fall of 2002.
Construction to be completed in the Summer of 2003.
END OF EXtHBIT A
Page 10 of 10
EXltlBIT B to Agreement Between the
City of Denton, Texas (OWNER) and
Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc.
(CONSULTANT) for Professional Services.
COMPENSATION
This is an exhibit attached to, made a part of and incorporated by reference into the Agreement
between OWNER and CONSULTANT providing for professional engineering services.
CONSULTANT will accomplish the w0[~k outlined in Tasks 1, 2, and 3 of Basic Services and Tasks
1, 2, 3, and 4 of Special Services presented as the Scope of Services in Exhibit "A" of this Agreement
for a lump sum fee of $289,000 including direct expenses associated with the same.
The lump sum fee for Basic Services is composed of the following:
Task 1 - Final Design of the Southwest Booster Pump Station
$196,000
Task 2 - Bidding $14,200
Task 3 - Construction Phase Services
$45,600
Basic Services Total
$255,800
The lump sum fee for Special Services is composed of the following:
Tasks 1 and 2 - Floodplain Reclamation Study/LOMR
$18,000
Task 3 - Site Survey and Platting
$9,000
Task 4 - Geotechnical Evaluation
Special Services Total
$6,200
$33,2OO
CONSULTANT will invoice the OWNER for the value of the partially completed services, according
to the serdces accomplished each month on a proportional basis to the overall project.
Due to the difficulty in defining a finite Scope of Services for Additional Services. CONSULTANT
will provide the services described in Additional Services on a labor fee plus expense basis. Labor
fees are to be computed on the basis of labor hours charged to the project and the CONSULTANT's
Billing Rate Schedule in effect at the time services are rendered. The current CONSULTANT Billing
Rate Schedule is shown below. The CONSULTANT recommends that the OWNER budget $15,000
for Additional Services associated with the design of an on-site generator and automatic transfer
switch for emergency power supply. Direct reimbursable expenses such as express mail, fees, out-of-
town mileage (trips in excess of 100 miles), and other direct expenses will be billed at 1.t0 times
cost. An amount equal to six percent (6%) of the labor fees will be added to each invoice to cover
certain other direct expenses such as in-house duplicating and blueprinting, facsimile, local mileage,
telephone, postage, and word processing computer time. Technical use of computers for design,
Page 1 of 2
analysis, and graphics, etc. will be billed at $25.00 per hour. All permitting, application, and similar
project fees will be paid directly by the OWNER.
CURRENT HOURLY RATE SCI~DULE
Principal
Senior Professional
Registered Professional
Professional
Support Staff
Technical Support
$150- $170
$9O - $135
$95- $115
$55- $95
$40- $60
$45- $90
Effective January 1, 2002
END OF EXmBIT B
Page 2 of 2
TOTAl,,
2~
2)
w~h in 0 '~:~,m'~i~i: ~ny~- of ~;~}~i
PROFESS!ONAL ENGiNEER!NG FEE CALCULATIONS
based on 'Method Re!ated [.o Co~qstruction Costs'
PROFESS IONAL ENGiNEER!NG SERVICES
A Gu',!de to the Se!ec~ion and: Nego!.!abon Process
1993
A ioint publication of: the
Consulting Engineers Counci! of Texas
a nd
'Texas Society of Professio ns! E ngi nee~rs
Souihwes[ Booster Pump Sta~:ion
TEC:HN ICAL FACTORS
1, Levi of' infom~atior~ recluired on plans/drawings
2. Projec~ requirements
3, Exastir~g da~a
OWNER CONTROLLED FACTORS
Risk/Liability (base standard: of risk !imiited to fee)
'Time required fo~ owne~ review/approvals
Number* of submi[~als/ow~er reviews
Schedule for compleiin9 work
Paymen[ schedule
Owner request, ed subca, nsuJ~a:n~ts
Owner padicipa~ion in project/pa~tnerin9
ConstruciJon inspec(i:on limiBa9 padicipation of engineer
;EXTERNAL FACTORS
Coor.dinatio~ with other en~ities
E.n~,,irenmema! cegulations
'Not i~ my bac~ yard'/CitizerCs invoivement
4, Gove~nme~ta~ consiraiats
TOTAL FEE FACTOR
TOTAL CONS YRUCTION COST
FEE PERCENTAGE
TOTAL FEE
$3,045,000
9~ 76%
$297,186
P~'epared By:'
Tim Fisher
1-71 1 B 1"17'
0.00
0,00
-0~ t 5
0,.00
0,00
0,0,5
0,00
0,00
0-00
0 0 0 0
r4D I.~ 6~1
· ~- 6NI or) ~
69- 69- 69- ~-
0 0 0
0 ~ ~
69- 69- 69- ~-
0 0 0
0 0 0 ~'
0 00 r4D
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
mmm
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
9)
Consider approval of the professional services proposal from Kimley-Horn
& Associates, Inc., for the final design of the Southwest Booster Pump
Station and Storage Facilities in the amount of $289,000.
Tim Fisher, Assistant Director of Water Utilities, presented this item. Total fee
percentage is approximately 8.5% in the design phase based on the estimate. The total
engineering fees, which include the special services component and preliminary design
expenses already paid are approximately 10.4%. Fisher reported that the special services
and fee negotiations are in line with cost comparisons of other projects they have
designed.
Board Member George Hopkins commented that he was interested in how the fees would
compare with the percentages at completion of the project. He mentioned that all of these
projects come in under the estimated fee, which he considered to be an advantage at one
time. Hopkins stated that he had come to consider them a cushion that costs the city
considerably more for engineering fees.
Board Member Charldean Newell confirmed her understanding that staff had reviewed
Kimley Hom's fees and found them to be consistent for this firm. She asked if Denton
Municipal Utilities had compared the fees to other companies' fees? Fisher responded
that he had not specifically researched that aspect. Fisher also explained that past
experience with Freese & Nichols indicated they were not comfortable using the older
cost curve formulas.
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
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Fisher then presented an evaluation of the pros and cons of trying to manage the
engineering fee component or the overall project costs. Fisher explained that engineering
firms are selected based upon qualifications brough the RFP process and not on the basis
of lowest bid for engineering fees.
Board Member Dick Norton stated that there is not necessarily a correlation between
engineering fees and bids. Fisher responded that well designed projects that address all
the details of construction tend to remove bidder risks often result in lower contingencies
or less change orders. When engineering fees are negotiated based solely on price, there
is a greater risk of errors or omissions on the plans that will either show up in the bids as
greater contingencies or as change order claims by the contractor.
Board Member Don White asked was it not staff's responsibility to review the plans and
make sure that the project is released for bids correctly? Fisher responded that it was but
still felt that it was his experience that there was much more variability in costs at the
time of bid opening rather than variability in the costs for engineering fees and it was not
in the city's best interests to manage the total project's cost by negotiating the lowest
possible engineering fee. That is one of the reasons that Texas State law does not allow
engineering selection on the basis of fees but requires selection on the basis of
qualifications.
Board Member Dick Smith asked if it was possible to tie engineering fees to actual
construction costs. Fisher responded that this was possible and it is referred to as a fee
based as a negotiated percentage of construction cost. Some engineering firms still use
this type of fee negotiation and one of the firms that was invited to respond to the RFP
(Biggs and Mathews from Wichita Falls ) still uses this approach for fee negotiations.
The chief problem with using this approach is there is little incentive for the engineering
to lower the construction cost of the project since it generally takes more time and effort
in the design to accomplish this but it also lowers their engineering fee as well.
Both Newell and Norton complimented Fisher on the informative and thorough
presentation.
Board Member Bill Cheek moved to approve the professional services proposal with
Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., with a second from Newell. The motion was
approved unanimously with a vote of 7-0.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES RELATED TO THE FINAL DESIGN OF THE SOUTHWEST BOOSTER
PUMP STATION AND STORAGE FACILITIES; AUTHORIZING THE
EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council deems that it is in the public interest to engage
Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. a--Corporation ("K-H"), to provide professional
engineering services related to the final design of the Southwest Booster Pump Station and
Storage Facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City staff has reported to the City Cotmcil that there is a
substantial need for the above-referenced professional engineering services, and that
limited City staff cannot adequately perform the specialized 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; 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 Kimley-Hom & Associates, Inc., a Corporation, for
professional engineering services relating to the final design of the Southwest Booster
Pump Station and Storage Facilities, in a lump-sum fee of $289,000; 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 K-H and the demonstrated
ability of K-H to perform the services needed by the City for a fair and reasonable price.
SECTION3: 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.
EXHIBIT X
EULINE BROCK, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
By:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
S:\Our Documents\Ordinances\02XKimley-Hom & Associates-Final Design-SW Booster- PSA 2002.doc
This page left blank intemionally.
Agenda02-017 05/21/02 #15
MEMORANDUM
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DOUG POWELL~ PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: Z02-0015
DATE: MAY 15, 2002
CC: MIKE CONDUFF, CITY MANAGER
DAVE HILL, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
At the May 15, 2002 City Council meeting, the request for rezoning (Z02-0015) for property on Avenue
A was continued to your May 21, 2002 meeting. The attached staff report has not been changed as no new
information was presented.
Please contact Dave Hill if you have any questions.
City of Denton 22/ North EImStreet Denton Texas 76201 9403498350 fax 9403497707
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
Agenda02-017 05/21/02 #16
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE:
DEPARTMENT:
May 21, 2002
Planning & Developmem
CM/DCM/ACM: Dave Hill, 349-8314
SUBJECT -A02-0001: (Loop 288 & Locust)
Hold the second of two public hearings 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 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 May 14, 2002, City Council will hold the first public hearing. As of this writing, the first
public hearing has not been held. To date, no responses in favor or in opposition have been
received regarding this request.
On May 6, 2002, Mark Donaldson, Carter and Burgess Inc., submitted a comprehensive plan
application and zoning application, which will be scheduled for City Council at a future date.
On June 12, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider
the annexation and zoning.
On April 12, 2002, Mark Donaldson, Carter and Burgess Inc., submitted a petition for
volumary 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 need to submit a separate comprehensive plan amendmem and
zoning application.
OPTIONS
1. Proceed with annexation as presemed.
2. Proceed with annexation with changes.
3. Discontinue annexation process.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the second public hearing for A02-0001 is held as scheduled, and pending
commems received; determine if additional information is needed.
Staff recommends that the annexation proceed as scheduled, finding that:
1. The need to manage and coordinate developmem in an orderly manner is a significam city
objective that the City of DeNon will pursue.
2. 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
2nd CC Public Hearing
April l2,2002
April25,2002
May14,2002
May21,2002
FISCAL INFORMATION
Developmem of this property will increase the assessed value of the city, county, and school district.
will require no short-term public improvemems that are the responsibility of the city.
It
ATTACHMENTS
1. Service Analysis
2. Location Map
3. Annexation Schedule
4. Draft Annexation Service Plan
Prepared by:
Dedra Den6e Ragland, AICP
Small Area Planning Manager
Respectfully Submitted:
Douglas S. Powell, AICP
Director of Planning and Development
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. Solid
waste refuse collection services will be provided immediately to the newly annexed area upon
the effective date of the annexation.
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 corner 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
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 Denton 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 ! 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
contains 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 Government 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 maintenance 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 equipment. If annexed and developed as proposed, additional personnel
and equipment will be needed. Code enforcement 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 hydrants) 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 Denton 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 Denton and/or Denton County shall be maintained by the City of Denton on
the effective date of the annexation. Installation and maintenance of street signs, street
lighting and traffic control devices will be maintained by the City of Denton 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 currently located within the proposed annexation area. Denton 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 throughout
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 throughout 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 quantity 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 DeNon' 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 corner 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
DeNon 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
Agenda02-017 05/21/02 #17
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE:
DEPARTMENT:
CM/DCM/ACM:
May 21, 2002
Planning and Development
David Hill, 349-8314
SUBJECT - Z02-0010: (Blagg Road)
Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 46 acres of
land from an Agriculture (A) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residemial 6 (NR-6) zoning
district. The site is generally located on the south side of Blagg Road, approximately 1000' west
of Lakeview Boulevard. The rezoning is required to bring property imo compliance with the
new Developmem Code zoning classifications. The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval of Neighborhood Residemial 1 (NR-1) (7-0). (Z02-0010)
BACKGROUND
Applicant:
Property Owner:
City of DeNon
Brian Page
Denton, TX
Denton, TX
This property is one of five properties that were annexed imo the City during the Developmem
Code process and therefore have retained their old zoning designation (Section 35.1.5.C of the
Developmem Code, page 3). This application is to give this property a zoning designation that is
in compliance with the new regulations
Annexation of the property was triggered by a pre-design conference in January 2001. During
the public hearings for the annexation, adjacem property owners, Planning and Zoning
Commissioners and City Council members expressed concern over the potemial density of the
parcel. Since the pre-design conference, no additional action towards developing the property
has taken place. Following the city-wide rezoning, the property owner comacted staff to request
that the property be considered for the Neighborhood Residemial 6 (NR-6) zoning classification.
In keeping with the property owner's request, the rezoning application was advertised as NR-6.
However, the Ci_ty of DeNon requested to rezone the 49 acres from an Agriculture (A) zoning
district to a Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district.
At the recem Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing, adjacem property owners
expressed additional concerns regarding the potemial density allowed by the NR-6 zoning
designation. The Planning and Zoning Commission indicated that the future land use
designation in this area may need to be re-evaluated and that the zoning classification should
more closely reflect the current use
Public notification and property owner responses are provided in Attachment 3. Currently, 7% of
the land area within 200 feet of the subject property is in opposition to the zoning change. As
opposition is less than 20%, a simple majority vote is required to approve this request.
Subsequent to the Planning and Zoning meeting, the property was sold. The new property owner
has expressed a concern towards the NR-1 zoning classification and indicated that he would
submit written protest to City Council prior to the hearing. If the property owner does submit a
letter in opposition to a NR-1 zoning classification, a super majority vote (6-1) would be required
to approve that zoning classification.
OPTIONS
1. Approve as submitted.
2. Deny.
3. Postpone consideration.
4. Table item.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval ofNR-1 (7-0).
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 the zoning case Z02-0010, commonly known as Blagg Road:
Application Date - March 4, 2002
DRC Date - March 14, 2002
P&Z Commission Date- April 24, 2002
CC Public Hearing May 21, 2002
No neighborhood meeting was held.
FISCAL INFORMATION
Development of this property will increase the assessed value of the city, county, and school
district.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Analysis
2. Maps
3. Public Notification (Property Owner Notification Map and Property Owner Responses)
4. Opposition letter to P&Z recommendation by Brian Page, property owner
5. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, April 24, 2002
6. Draft Zoning Ordinance
Prepared by:
Tiffanie Willis
Planner I
Respectfully submitted:
Douglas S. Powell, AICP
Director of Planning and Development
ATTACHMENT 1
Staff Analysis
Summary_ of Zoning Request
The City of DeNon is requesting to rezone approximately 46 acres from an Agriculture (A)
zoning district to a Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) zoning district. The NR-3 zoning district
allows single-family and agricultural uses. Livestock uses are permitted with certain limitations.
Existing Condition of Property_
Property History.
January 18, 2001 - A pre-design conference was held regarding the subject property. At that
time, the applicam was proposing 142 residemial lots on 46 acres, a density of 3.08 units/acre.
The property was located outside the city limits.
July 17, 2001 - Prior to the adoption of the DeNon Developmem Code, the subject property was
annexed (A01-0002) and zoned (Z01-0004) Agriculture by Ordinance 2001-244.
February 20, 2002 - Ordinance 2002-040 left the subject property in the Agricultural (A)
zoning district and land use classification.
Adjacem zoning.
North:
South:
East:
West:
Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use 12 (NRMU- 12) and Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction (ET J)
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ET J)
Neighborhood Residemial 6 (NR-6)
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ET J)
The site is curremly undeveloped.
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 cemer might comain a convenience store, small restauram, personal service shops,
church or synagogue, daycare, individual office space, a small park and perhaps an elememary
school.
While residemial uses are encouraged to occur at higher densities in neighborhood cemers,
single-family detached developmems are also consistem with neighborhood cemers
development.
Developmem Review Analysis
Any proposed developmem:
1) Must meet the minimum requiremems for transportation and road capacity; pedestrian
linkages; utilities; drainage and topography; signs; landscaping; open space; lighting and
environmem quality impacts and
2)
Will be required to be in compliance with the site design standards of the DeNon
Developmem Code, including buffering and screening. Prior to the issuance of any
building permit, an approved site plan for the proposed developmem is required.
Developmem Code/Zoning Analysis
The Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) zoning classification allows single-family developmem
at 1 unit per acre.
STAFF FINDINGS
Mixed use and mixed housing types are encouraged to develop in neighborhood cemers
where they make sense. Geographically, this site is located in the cemer of this
neighborhood cemer. Higher density developmems and service oriemed retail developmem
are typically appropriate for the cemer of a neighborhood. There presemly exists a large
concemration of Neighborhood Residemial 6 (NR-6) and Neighborhood Residemial Mixed
Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning designations surrounding the subject property.
2. High densities should be concentrated where infrastructure can support them and near jobs,
schools, shopping and cultural cemers.
3. The NR-3 zoning designation is consistem with the Comprehensive Plan.
ATTACHMENT 2
Maps
NORTH
Location/Zoning Map
Scale: None
NORTH
Land Use Map
Scale: None
ATTACHMENT 3
Public Notification Map
NORTH
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: 3
· In Favor: 0
· Neutral: 0
April 13, 2002
14
11
Percent of land within 200' in opposition: less than 5.4 %
*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 within In Favor Comments
200' Name and Address /Opposed*
6 units per acre is just too dense for this rural area.
Blagg Road is made up of all private residences on
Lancer E Thames Opposed multiple acreage. Also any type of commercial
5533 Blagg Road development would adversely affect our rural
Denton,TX environment. Blagg Road cannot handle a high traffic
impact without major improvement
Michel P. Giles Opposed Area Rural- we do not need the congestion
5555 Blagg Road
Denton, TX
Doug Giles Opposed Blagg Road can not handle the added traffic of this
5511 Blagg Road proposed zoning. The six house per acre will not keep
Denton,TX the integrity of the existing neighborhood, Blagg Road
is a rural area and any development would take away
from that
Additional Property
Owner Response Name
and Address
Ernest Parsons Opposed Property is located outside the city limits;
4014 Blagg Road
June Kirkpatrick Opposed The NR-6 zoning allows 6 houses per acre with
7800 Stallion St. supportive commercial use. This destroys the rural
nature of the area, which we values additionally
Richard C. Bartz Favor With provision that homes are limited to 3-4 per acre
7508 Stallion with a minimum square feet of 220 square feet
Raymond Gage Opposed See response sheet
7600 Stallion St.
Sonya Terry Opposed No response given
7908 Rodeo Drive
Jeffery E. Zerburyth Opposed Mayhill road is to capacity and to handle additional
8100 stallion Street traffic for NR-6 zoning designation would far exceed
the design
Juli Mohan Opposed The rezoning of the property to the Neighborhood
3991 Blagg Road Residential 6 zoning designation would adversely
affect our family's lifestyle and rural life
*A copy of the original notice can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Demon TX 76201
10
P&Z
ATTACHMENT 4
Commission Minutes
March 24, 2002
20.
Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council
concerning the rezoning of approximately 46 acres of land from an Agriculture
(A) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning district. The
site is generally located on the south side of Blagg Road, approximately 1000'
west of Lakeview Boulevard. The rezoning is required to bring property into
compliance with the new Development Code zoning classifications. (Z02-0013,
Robson Ranch North, Tiffanie Willis)
Motion with recommendation by Bob Powell was second by Bill Keith to recommend
approval to the City Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval of the straight zone change to the Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning
district.
*Discussion of item is included in the Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of
minutes (Page 133 - 165).
Motion carries -7-0
CondonscltTM
Page 133
1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Ladies and gentlemen,
2 that will bring us to -- I'm trying to see where that will
3 bringusto. We just did ltem 16, wasthat? ItemNo.
4 17 was postponed to a date certain, the 22nd. And Item
5 No. 18 was pulled. That should bring us to Item No.
6 19 on our Agenda. And Item No. 19 is posted on our
7 docucam. Ms. Ragland will present.
8 COMMISSIONER ROY: Could we have a short
9 break?
10 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I have several people
11 that are in agony. With that note, we will hold for a
12 second and adjourn for about eight minutes. We will come
13 back about two or three minutes after the hour. So we
14 will resume on Item No. 19 and continue at that point.
15 (Break.)
16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Comanissioners. Item
17 No. 19 on our Agenda and this will be presented by Ms.
18 Ragland, followed by Ms. Willis.
19 MS. RAGLAND: Good evening, Chair and
20 Commissioners. Dedra Ragland, Small Area Planning
21 Manager. Tiffanie Willis and I will be presenting the
22 next four zoning cases. The presentations will be very
23 short. However, I did want to give you a brief
24 introduction regarding why we're doing the rezoning for
25 these particular items.
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
These cases have been initiated by the City
of Denton. As part of a Citywide rezoning, a public
hearing was held on December 4th, 2001. The notice for
the public hearing was sent to all property owners on the
approved tax roles. The roles were approved on September
4th, 2001. We believe that the following four recently
annexed properties were not on the tax roles and the
property owners were not notified of the public hearing
for the Citywide rezoning. Therefore, these properties
retained their zoning under the 1969 Zoning Code. The
proposed zoning designation indicated in each staff report
for each of the cases will bring the zoning of these
Page 135
1 have helped you with that. Ms. Ragland will help you with
2 that.
3 MS. WILLIS: In your hand, you should have
4 a copy of some of the citizen response. In total, we
5 received nine responses. Six of these responses are not
6 within the 200-foot area and three are within. We have
7 three within the 200-foot who are in opposition to this
8 case, two residing in the City limits and one in the far
9 eastern ETJ area. At this time, staff encourages you to
10 see the backup. Any questions at this time?
11 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Yes, we have several
12 questions. Commissioner Roy.
13 COMMISSIONER ROY: I'm a little bit
14 confused. The opposition page you handed out, they're
15 opposed to the NR-6 or to tho proposed NR-3?
16 MS. WIn[IS: I believe they're opposed to
17 the NR~6 and/or additional comments were made and staff
18 featured those. They basically provided some strong
19 detail on thc density, as well as maintaining the rural
20 character in that area, as well as making sure that the
21 provision for the acreage that is existing in that area is
22 maintained.
23 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Mulroy.
24 COMMISSIONER MULROY: YeS. IS this one
25 property owner or several property owners to this
Page 136
1 property?
2 MS. WILLIS: One property owner of 46-acre
3 tract.
4 COMMISSIONER MULROY: could I have the
5 nmne, please?
properties into compliance with the Development Code.
Tiffanie will present Item No. 19.
MS. WILLIS: :thank you, Manager Ragland.
I'm Tiffanie, Planner with the City of Denton. We're
looking and taking into account Blagg Road, 46-acre tract.
The backup provides the infon:aation entailed. This is a
straight zoning case, as Ms. Ragland indicated. Staff is
wanting you to review the fact that we did advertise this
case at NR-6 and staff shows that NR-3 to be a possible
use that should be considered. We did receive several
correspondents from the citizens. I'll provide those to
your attention.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: MS. Ragland would
6
7 is -- Ms.
8
9 Page.
10
11 position
12
MS. WILLIS: I believe the gentleman's name
Ragland, do you recall?
MS. RAGLAND: The property owner is Brian
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And what is his
on this?
MS. RAGLAND: Mr. Page, as Tiffanie
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
indicated, we notified it as NR-6. That was at the
property owner's request. So NR-6 is what he would like
to see the property zoned as.
COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay.
MS. RAGLAND: And just to go back to
Commissioner Roy's question, because the advertisement
indicated NR-6, these cormx~ents are in response to that
advertising.
COMMISSIONER ROY: But we're being asked to
consider NR-3?
MS. RAGLAND: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER ROY: without it being
advertised as NR-3?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL
24TH, 2002
Page 133 -Page 136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
LO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CondonsoltTM
Page 137 Page
MS. RAGLAND: Well, the NR-6 will allow you 1 tonight.
to go down. 2 MS. RAGLAND: I've never actually met with
COMMISSIONER ROY: Oh, okay. 3 the property owner.
MS. RAGLAND: That's why we advertised it
at a higher -- in addition to the property owner
requesting.
MR. REICHHART: If I may, if a property
owner request is --
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Reichhart.
COMMISSIONER POWELL: Didn't he have his
light on?
MR. REICHHART: I'm learning from you, I
think. And I apologize for that. If a property is
noticed for rezoning at a certain zoning classification,
thc Commission can always recormnend that or a lesser
zoning classification. But you can't go from a zoning
classification and recommend a higher. So if it was
advertised for NR-3, you would not have the ability to go
NR-4 or NR-6 or even higher. And that is the intent,
again, although without any input from the property owner,:
staff would have just advertised for NR-3. That is our
analysis indicated, NR-3 was appropriate based on the
history of this site. But in respect for the applicant's
wishes, we advertised for the NR-6 which would give you
the flexibility to do anything in between or less.
here?
please.
Roy.
COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Is the property owner
MS. RAGLAND: NO, he's not here.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KEITH: SO we're to just take
Page 138
COMMISSIONER ROY: Follow up question,
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Yes, Commissioner
1
2
3
4
5 COMMISSIONER ROY: Does the property owner
6 realize that the City is requesting NR~3 even though it
7 was advertised as NR-6?
8 MR. REICHHART: Yes, sir.
9 COMMISSIONER ROY: Thank you.
10 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Once again, these are
11 basically what we saw as mapping errors and the City is
12 the petitioner so there's no cost to the petitioner with
13 regard to this?
14 MS. WILLIS: That's correct.
15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Okay. Commissioner
16 Keith.
17 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. Do we have
18 anything in writing from the property owner regarding his
19 approval or collaborating with on the classification for
20 the zoning?
21 MS. WILLIS: Our backup does not maintain
22 documents from the owner of the property.
23 COMMISSIONER KEITH: We have no writing
24 from -- and the property owner, is he here, are they here?
25 MS. WILLIS: I'm not sure if he's here
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24TH, 2002
i0 it from on your advice that the property owner is in favor
11 of this?
12 MS. WIt~LIS: well, I think what should be
13 considered is that the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the
14 Development Code and the February 5 adoption gives us
15 direction as to how we should go in this matter.
16 COMMISSIONER KE[TH: well, I just feel a
17 little uncomfortable voting on something on zoning without
18 the property owner's input or him being represented, his
19 words without any documentation. I just feel very
20 uncomfortable with that.
21 MS. WILLIS: okay. At this time, staff is
22 presenting to you a straight zoning change to accommodate
23 the Development Code and/or discrepancies that occurred
24 during its processing. So it would -- the onus would be
25 upon the property owner who probably was aware of this
Page 140
I process to provide documentation and come before you with
2 his particular position.
3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: counselman Snyder
4 would like to see if he can help clarify.
5 MR. SNYDER: Let me just clarify this. I
6 think it was presented earlier by Ms. Ragland. What we
7 have here is a situation where this property would have
8 been zoned NR-3 with the zoning map that was adopted back
9 in February. Because of the fact that this property owner
10 was not notified during that process, this property was
11 held out and kept as Ag classification and mnotified in
12 an individual zoning case. This is a City-initiated
13 zoning case. This is not initiated by the property owner,
14 just like the Development Code wasn't initiated by the
15 property owner. The property owner was given written
16 notice of this change and given an opportunity to file a
17 protest. I'm assuming he has not filed a protest.
18 So the reason we would not have something
19 from the applicant is this is not his application, this is
20 the City's application. But he was notified and he hag --
21 hc does have an opportunity to file a written protest.
22 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Keith,
23 you still have thc floor.
24 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you, sir. Yes,
25 I understand the process. I think this is probably one of
Page 137- Page 140
Condens¢ItTM
Page 141
1 the first cases like this we've had come down the pike in
2 regarding all of this rezoning. Well, we've had them but
3 this is the first time we've had one come down the pike in
4 which the property owner wasn't here. I'm glad you helped
5 me to clarify that. And I just think that our voting on
6 this without the input, direct input or written input from
7 the property owner, this should be taken into
8 consideration.
9 I move that we put this on a continuation
10 until next time. And if he doesn't show up, then we just
11 push it on through. But I would give him a chance to show
12 or make a written. And I think in the future, I'd
13 recommend to the staff that we have these in writing for
14 them as to what they think about the issue.
15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: We had the exact same
16 situation last week, Mr. Allents property, and he wasn't
17 here either, same type of situation. Did you want to put
18 forth a motion?
19 COMMISSIONER KEITH: YeS.
20 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And do I hear a
21 second? Is there a motion? What is that motion?
22 COMMISSIONER KEITH: My motion is that we
23 put this on continuation until the next meeting, whatever
24 date that is, and give the property owner the chance to
25 respond to this either in writing or in person at the
Page 142
1 meeting.
2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: IS there a second to
3 the motion? Seeing no second, the motion dies.
4 Commissioner Mulroy.
5 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes. Tiffanie, our
6 action tonight, if we go forward with the staff
7 recommendation, NR-3, does this preclude the owner from
8 initiating his own action anytime in the ilmnediate future
9 to request whatever he would desire?
10 MS. WILLIS: Oh, no, he can certainly apply
11 to the P&Z for a zoning change.
12 COMMISSIONER MULROY: SO he wouldn't be
13 precluded. He could, next week, next month, next year he
14 could come in on his own merit, on his own initiative and
15 present the merits of upzoning this?
16 MS. WILLIS: Yes.
17 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. Thank you.
18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Co~mnissioner Keith.
19 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. And just
20 in follow up to his inquiry, would the property owner then
21 be required to file any fees for that petition?
22 MS. WILLIS: Yes, because it would be their
23 desire to gain a zoning classification that is not on our
24 land use map.
25 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you.
Page 143
1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Apple.
2 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Yes, question of staff
3 in regard to Mr. Keith's concern. The applicant -- not
4 the applicant but the owner is aware that there is a
5 public hearing on this tonight and he would have had an
6 opportunity to speak tonight had he so chosen. Is that
7 correct?
8 MS. WILLIS: That's correct.
9 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you.
[0 MS. WILLIS: I would say so.
11 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Okay. Commissioners,
12 any further questions of staff?. And we do have a public
13 hearing here. Okay. Thank you very much, Ms. Willis.
14 Once again, this is a public heating. I have several
15 cards of people who would like to speak and I'd like to
16 address them at this time. If there's anyone who would
17 like to speak to the Commission, if you'd please fill out
18 a card and I'll know which Agenda item that that reflects.
19 Cards are posted out front.
20 The first person that I have is a Sharon
21 Spiess, S-P-I-E-S-S. I'll let you resay that when you
22 come up here. Ms. Spiess, if you'd please give us your
23 name and address.
24 MS. SPIESS: I'm Sharon Spiess. I live at
25 7501 Stallion Street, Lakeview Ranch, which is the
Page 144
1 property that is adjacent to the 46 acres. Based on what
2 you-all have told me I've just completely changed what I
3 was going to say. Brian Page is my neighbor. He is very
4 aware of this ~neeting. Everybody in my neighborhood is
5 aware of this meeting. I was asked to come here kind of
6 as an unofficial spokesperson. Two of the faxes that
7 you-all received, one from a June Kirkpatrick and the
8 other one is Mr. and Mrs. Cage, I believe, are two of my
9 neighbors. I did not put on there their physical property
10 address. They didn't write it down. But they are also
11 Lakeview Ranch residents.
12 The main reason why most of us that live in
13 Lakeview Ranch are opposed to this zoning change is
14 that --
15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: could you scoot the
16 document over a little bit and we can sham that with you?
17 There you go. Docucam, can you zoom in a little?
18 MS. SPICE: This is the proposed change,
19 the 46 acres. It's 1,000 feet from Lakeview Boulevard.
20 And this is Lakeview Ranch which is where we live. All of
21 these properties here are one-acm lots. Some of them
22 that are down at the end that arc adjacent to thc Corps
23 property are a little bit more, but all of these lots up
24 here are one-acm lots, which is adjacent to the 46 acres
25 that is proposed.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL
24TH, 2002
Page 141 - Page 144
CondonscltTM
Page 145
1 When these people and when we purchased
2 this land, purchased our property, this was not zoned into
3 the City. It came in last year as Agricultural and we
4 came and opposed it then because at that time, I think, it
5 was being proposed to have it be multi-family residents.
6 And you-all, from your -- I think you call it Development
7 Code zoning classifications, as a City, you're trying to
8 have more satellite neighborhoods is what you call them.
9 This is going to really greatly detrimentally impact the
10 residents that live on Blagg Road and those of us that
11 live in Lakeview Ranch. There is a lot of traffic that is
12 coming onto Lakeview Boulevard now as it is because you
13 closed off Trinity. This has become a main thoroughfare
14 as a speedway.
15 You have some speed zone signs that are up
16 there that have been up for the last couple of weeks that
17 have shown people how fast they're driving. And I'm not
18 sure how that is impacting your decision as to what the
19 traffic is there but at the end of Lakeview, we've had two
20 wrecks within two weeks where two cars have gone into the
21 creek at Lakeview and Trinity and Mills where that
22 intersection joins. So we're having enough of a problem
23 of an impact of Lakeview Boulevard because it is the
24 thoroughfare to go to Mills and to Ryan High School and
25 off onto McKinney.
Page 147
1 consideration. So if you're going to vote on it, I think
2 you should vote yes or no to the NR-6. And then if you
3 want to rezone it to NR-3, do that.
4 And the last thing is Mr. Page, he does not
5 care what the zoning is as long as he can sell the land
6 because he has it for sale now. That's the only reason
7 why he bought the property was to sell it to make money.
8 And he lives in Lakeview Ranch and his house is for sale
9 right now. So if he doesn't think it's going to have an
10 impact on his co~mnunity, on the value of his house in
11 Lakeview Ranch, why would he have it for sale?
12 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. We may
13 have some questions from Commissioners.
14 MS. SPICE: Sure.
15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Commissioner Keith.
16 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. Mr.
17 Powell, I've got your button, apparently.
18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Commissioner Keith.
19 COMMISSIONER KEIT~: Okay. I'm just asking
20 a question. I don't know if these people are here or not.
21 Ernest Pierceson, Lancer Thomas, or Michael Giles, are
22 they here? Okay. I was going to ask you a question
23 regarding them, but since they're here, I'll -- are they
24 planning on speaking? Okay. Thank you.
25 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Ms.
Page 146
i And the other impact that would cause
2 people that came out here and built at Lakeview, we bought
3 out here because we wanted more of a rural environment.
4 lived in Lewisville for ten years. I was in a
5 neighborhood that had six houses per acre. I thoroughly
6 enjoyed it. But the reason why I left and moved up here
7 was because I was tired of the congestion and the traffic
8 and the noise.
9 And there are some people that live in
10 these lots here, there are other lots that are not sold
11 yet, and if you're talking about an economic impact to the
12 City of Denton because of this developmental zoning
13 classification code, this program that you-all have come
14 up with, when this was annexed in last year as
15 Agricultural, we asked the City if they even came out
16 there then to look at this and how did they decide that
17 this would be a good neighborhood. And they said that's
18 what the progrmn told them, that economically it would be
19 a good area for a satellite cormuunity, but it's not. If
20 you go up and down Blagg Road, you'll see there is going
21 to be a great detrimental impact to the wildlife and to
22 the people that live out there.
23 And as a change that you-all are
24 considering not to have NR-6 but to be able to make it
25 NR-3, I don't think anybody out here realizes that was a
Page 148
1 Spiess.
2 MS. SPIESS: Thank you.
3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Once again, this is a
4 public hearing. I have another card from a Thomas
5 Beitinger. Mr. Beitinger. Commissioner Mulroy.
6 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes. Excuse me for
7 interrupting but it might be helpful if staff very briefly
8 explained again that the NR-3, the fact that the City is
9 the petitioner for NR-3 doesn't mean that the City's
10 advocating immediate build out of a residential
11 neighborhood. It's just that the NR-3 is the equivalent
12 of our old Ag designation and that's the only choices they
13 have.
14 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Reichhart.
15 MR. REICHHART: We could do NR-3 but we
16 feel -- and, again, I mean, this will be an area that wilt
17 be developed eventually, we believe. And with respect to
18 sprawl and all the other things, we do believe the NR-3 is
19 very comparable to the Ag. It is a Single-Family zoning
20 designation.
21 COMMISSIONER MULROY: But there is no Ag
22 left.
23 MR. REICHHART: NO, there is no Ag and Ag
24 uses are allowed by right in all the neighborhood
25 residential zoning districts.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIl
24TH, 2002
Page 145- Page 148
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
CondonseltTM
Page 149
COMMISSIONER MULROY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER RISI-IEL: would you give us
your name and ad&ess?
MR. BEITINOER: My name is Thomas
Beitingcr. I live at 1201 Lakeview Drive. I just had
the opportunity to move that in the last two months.
After spending at least six months looking for land in the
City of Denton, extensively looking all over, we finally
found a place of land that we thought would be good. It
would get us out in the country, away from people. And we
Page 15
1 zoning when it was turned into the City Development Code
2 was going to be 12 units an acre, multi-use.
3 And I ditto everything that they've said
4 already but some other concerns that I have are that Blagg
5 is a very short road. It's one mile from where it starts
6 at Mayhill to where you get to Lakeview, and then this
7 just right here is a gravel road. We're not talking about
8 an area that there's a lot of property to develop. Almost
9 everyone that lives down Blagg wouldn't have even gotten
l0 notice of this because they don't live in the City. Only
found it, actually, here, one of these lots right here on
Lakeview Boulevard. We're out here. All of the lots --
in fact, the lots on this side, as Sharon mentioned,
they're one-aere, they're more than one-acre. Our lot
happens to be 1.65. Some of them are two acres out here.
We're out in the country and it's wonderful. We've been
there for eight weeks. It's beautiful. And now we found
out about this potential development here.
Already we're getting a little concerned
about the traffic on Lakeview Boulevard. In addition,
Blagg is in need of extensive work already. Apparently,
the Sununer Smmnits course is out here in which there's a
fair amount of traffic. And there's generally pretty good
traffic along here already. If we have a situation where
we have three houses per acre and we have 46 acres, we're
11 these few areas right here live in the City. There are
12 probably eight to ten residences that are well
13 established, people have lived there from, you know, two
14 to five to ten plus years and have multiple acreage, they
15 have cattle, some of them are raising hay. And they're
16 not even getting a voice here.
17 This is not a City neighborhood. We live
18 out in the country. I drive down Blagg and at least once
19 a week I have to stop for chickens in the middle of thc
'20 road. Every couple of weeks we find someone's cows in our
21 front yard. Now, what are thc people that move here are
22 going to think when someone's cows arc wandering down
23 their streets? My horses get out occasionally and we havc
24 to go chase them down. I don't want to chase them into
25 even more traffic than we have now. Blagg can't handle
Page 150
1 talking about somewhere from 125 to 250 houses out here.
2 Most houses are talking about two cars. We're talking
3 about increasing the traffic here something horrendous.
4 In addition, it's really going to take us
5 from a rural situation and it's going to put us back where
6 we moved from. I didn't work for a long time to get out
7 here to be back in the city. And I think a lot of us that
8 are living out here like thc ruralncss of the area. We
9 have horses out here. We have a lot of trees. We have
10 ponds. We have a beautiful living area here and we'd like
11 to keep it like that, if at all possible.
12 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr.
13 Beitinger. I have another card from a Cynthia Thomas who
14 did not wish to speak, unless she would like to speak at
15 this time. And her card says, "The addition of this many
16 houses would be detrimental to the area. The roads are
17 much too narrow, Mayhill and Blagg, to handle this kind of
18 traffic. Also, the environmental impact is negative."
19 So I appreciate your conunents and cards. I
20 see no one else at this time that would like to speak.
21 You turned a card in? Would you come forward and address
22 the Commission. Please give us your name and address.
23 MS. TIMMS: I'm Lynn Tinuns and I live at
24 5533 Blagg Road which is right there. We were here last
25 year opposing this before when y'all were -- the suggested
Page 152
1 the traffic.
2 When we were here last year, actually not
3 here, when we were at City Council last year, one of the
4 Council members made the comment that Blagg probably
5 wouldn't be improved until 2020. Well, in one of the
6 conversations I had with one of the planning employees,
7 they told me that the developer, if they ever did develop,
8 would have to improve the road, only to find out later
9 that they would only have to improve the road on their
10 frontage which is a very short part of the problem.
1 There's areas of Blagg where you can't even
2 really drive, two cars can't drive down at the speed limit
13 without one of them pulling over. And in order to improve
14 it and to make it bigger, if you've ever driven down
15 there, I mean, it's just gorgeous trees all the way down.
16 Well, when you go to improve it, you're going to have to
17 take easements and down are going to come all those trees
18 and you're just going to be in the middle of town again.
19 I moved out there because I didn't want to
20 be in the middle of town. And I'm not against developing.
21 I love Lakeview Ranch which is only about maybe a quarter
22 of a mile away, but it has a rural feel to it. And what I
23 would really like is for you to be able to keep it at a
24 lower density. And I don't understand why the Argyle
25 subdivision can have an NRq when we can't because I
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24TH, 2002 Page 149 - Page 152
CondcnseltTM
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 153
thought that Agriculture was an automatic, you know,
minimum one per acre. So I don't understand why we
couldn't be going from -- like to something that's closer
to what's already there.
And one other comment. My property is the
property that is listed as a NR-12 after the Development
Code and some of the backup documentation that you have
that I got a copy of says that that's why they feel like
NR-6 fits here is because it's surrounded by NR-12 and
other NR-6. I didn't get notice. I can promise you. I
was here last year. I was here at City Council. If I had
gotten notice that I was being changed to NR-12, I would
have been here. Now, I'm not planning on moving so that
NR-12 could be there and it's not going to affect anything
because I'm not putting 12 houses on my one and a half
acres.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: would you show us
Page 155
1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: If yOU could hold
2 your comments from the gallery.
3 MS. TIMMS: Oh, if you said Parsons, I
4 thought you said Carson.
5 COMMISSIONER KEITH: NO, Parsons.
6 MS. TIMMS: Mr. Parsons lives across the
7 street from me and he is the one that's closest to it.
8 And my husband has spoken to him about it. I haven't.
9 But he said that he's most displeased with it, as well.
10 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Thank you very
11 much.
12 MS. TIMMS: Can I ask one question? I'm
13 sorry. If they are within this 500-foot notification but
14 they do not live in the City, do they still get -- okay.
15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: NO, ma'am, they do
16 not.
17 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Mr. Chairman.
again where your property is and where the NR-12 is
related?
MS. TIMM8: I mi1 exactly right across the
street from the zoning change site.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: off of Blagg.
MS. TIMMS: On Blagg right there. I'm this
longer lot right here.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KEITH: I know I released the
floor but I would like to ask --
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YOU have the floor.
COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Thank you.
This lady says they didn't get any notification, they're
NR-12 and everything like that. Are the other neighbors
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Okay. Thank you very
Page 154
1 much. We have some Commissioners that have some
2 questions. Conuilissioner Keith.
3 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. Ms. Timms,
4 are you familiar with the property owners, most of the
5 property owners in that area?
6 MS. TIMMS: All of them that got notices, I
7 am.
8 COMMISSIONER KEITH: I'm talking about
9 what's on the east and west side and south side of this
10 site.
11 MS. TIMMS: Yes, I'm familiar with the
12 gentleman that lives here, the lady that lives here. She
13 was here last year and spoke. And I don't know where she
14 is this evening.
15 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Okay. They're not --
16 are their nmnes on here, by chance? I see Parsons and
17 Giles on Blagg Road. Are you familiar with them at ali?
18 MS. TIMMS: NO. I mean, I am familiar with
19 them but they're not the ones that live there.
20 COMMISSIONER KEITH: All right. So as --
21 I've been out there and I've seen the site. I was just
22 wanting to know, get a feel for people that live in the
23 area as to what some of the feedback everybody is getting
24 on this.
25 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Parson --
25 in the stone predicament?
Page 156
1 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I think those other
2 neighbors are thc same way because they're not annexed
3 into the City. This one piece of property was annexed
4 into the City last year.
5 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I believe Mr.
6 Reich_hart would like to clarify. And I'm going to limit
7 your comments from the gallery because I cannot record
8 that on my speaker here. Mr. Reichhart, would you clarify
9 where we give notice and where we don't give notice so we
10 can all know.
1 1 MR. REICHHART: Regarding the rezoning to
12 the existing SRMtJ-12, that would have been part of the
13 Citywide rezoning and notice was sent to everybody that we
14 had on our approved tax rolls. It was, I believe, a
15 postcard type of notice. That would have been back in
16 early December, I believe, or late November.
17 MR. SNYDER: she was outside the City
18 limits, is that what I heard?
19 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: when it was brought
20 it, it would have been noticed. But if could have been
21 that notice is a year and a half to two years behind.
22 COMMISSIONER KE[TH: well, it's apparent
23 that this lady said she didn't get it. For whatever
24 reason, she didn't receive it. Is there any recourse for
25 these property owners out there that have these
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24TH, 2002 Page 153 - Page 156
CondcnscltTM
Page 157
1 classifications can come and straighten this out?
2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Counseler Snyder.
3 MR. SN-¥t)ER: These people can correct me if
4 I'm wrong, but I think I heard them say that they're not
5 in the City limits. This must be the future zoning nmp.
6 She's in the City limits?
7 COMMISSIONER KEITH: SO I don't know if
8 there is recourse, any way they can come in and straighten
9 this out.
10 MR. SNYDER: NO. Those properties have
11 been rezoned. We gave the legal opinion when the rezoning
12 was done that the individualized notice was not absolutely
13 required by law but the City Council decided to make that
14 notice anyway. Those properties have been properly
15 rezoned. Now, they can always come back in. If they want
16 the property to be downzoned, they can come back in and
17 make an application to have it downzoned to some other
18 classification if they're not happy with it. But it would
'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
Page 159
to initiate a zoning change.
COMMISSIONER APPLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. REICHHART: And that would have to be
brought back at a future Agenda item.
COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Commissioner Keith.
COMMISSIONER KEITH: MS. Apple brought
something up, a question of mine. What's the history of
that property? Let me direct this to Mr. Reichhart. The
NR-6 is to the east of this site. I'm curious how that
was determined to be zoned that way. Was that requested
by the property owner?
MR. REICHHART: NO. Again, and it goes
back to the Comprehensive Plan of trying to develop
neighborhood centers where if you lived in this area, you
wouldn't have to drive out to University or into the City
in order to get all your services, but that there would be
some neighborhood-oriented services in that area. And
have to go through the process.
COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. But they would
have to file a filing fee and all of that to go with it,
correct?
MR. SNYDER: That's right.
COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Commissioner Apple.
Page 158
19
2O
21
1 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I have a question of
2 Mr. Reichhart just for clarification on this. In looking
3 at Attachment 2 which is on page 5, I noticed after
4 listening to that speaker and looking at this that the
5 area in between Lakeview Ranch and the site we're looking
6 at is zoned NR-6, which is troubling to me because that is
7 kind of the antithesis of transifioning to go from NR-2 to
8 NR-6 and then to NR-3. And then across the street is
9 NRMU~12 and then next to that is again NR-6 next to the
10 NR-3. And I guess I'd just like to ask him is that
11 possibly an error?
12 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Reichhart.
13 MR. REICHHART: I believe the original
14 intent of that higher zoning classification, in addition
15 to the NRMU-12 which is now on the screen north of this
16 property, was to try to identify one of those neighborhood
17 centers where some services would be available. I don't
18 know if I'd say it's a mistake. It might be an area that
19 needs to be revisited in light of what the residents are
20 saying.
21 COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. And I know
22 that's not appropriate for this but would it be possible
23 for me to revisit that at the end of our meeting?
24 MR. REICHHART: Yes. The Development Code
25 . does allow the Planning and Zoning Commission thc ability
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
then to support those services, you need some higher
density in order to make those services viable.
So the intent, and we're seeing a piece of
this puzzle with this, is the future zoning map would have
identified what the remainder of the ETJ would be when
it's eventually rezoned into or annexed into the City, and
that would create a better picture, if you will, of what
Page 160
that neighborhood, that core would be. So what we're
seeing as a portion of a neighborhood center and with the
ETJ you don't see the whole picture. But to answer maybe
a little bit quicker, the NR-6 is intended to provide a
little bit more density to support the neighborhood
services.
COMMISSIONER KEITH: SO it's my impression
that it was the City staff that made that detriment?
MR. REICHHART: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Powell.
COMMISSIONER POWELL: IS the public hearing
still open? It's just a question because I'm ready to
move but I can't move during the hearing.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I do not believe that
I have closed the public hearing at this point in time. I
have still some more comments that I was going to read.
COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Appreciate your
asking. If you have a card, if you'd bring it forth. And
while he's doing that, I have also a public notification
sheet that says -- this is from a Jody Mohan, M-O-H-A-N,
and she says this development would adversely affect the
fmnily lifestyle and rural life. Mr. Giles.
MR. GILES: First of all, I'm not listening
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24TH, 2002 Page 157 - Page 160
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 161
to a ball game. This is my hearing aid for hearing here.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, sir.
Appreciate your clarification.
MR. GILES: I have this property --
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Giles, would you
give us your name and address?
MR. GILES: Michael Giles, 5555 Blagg Road.
We're at this spot right here. We've got about 20 acres
Page 163
get a second.
COMMISSIONER KEITH: second.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Let me get
clarification. Who was the second? Commissioner Keith.
Okay. It's been moved by Commissioner Powell and seconded
by Commissioner Keith. Cormnissioner Powell, you have the
floor.
COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. For
that goes right in here and all of this back behind all of
this. Okay. We did not get any kind of notice that there
was a hearing to change the zoning out there. I find it
very disturbing that there's not an Agriculture zone
anymore. I've got horses and cows and hay, plus some
coyotes. This is not a center city. I don't know what --
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Giles, once
again, are you not in the City?
MR. GILES: We are in the City, yes. We
got annexed as soon as I bought the property.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Okay. But you did
not get notice?
MR. GILES: We did not get a notice. Okay.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: HOW long have you
owned the property?
MR. GILES: Part of this property belongs
to a company and part of it belongs to me. Neither one of
Page 162
us got a notice.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: How long have you
owned the property?
MR. GILES: Seven years, seven or eight
name?
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Is it in a corporate
MR. GILES: Part of it is, part of it's in
a personal name. But the fact remains that this is rural
area. It's been a rural area, was a rural area when we
moved out there. It's still a rural area. And I sure
hope we don't change it. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. Giles.
Anyone else who has a card or would like to speak
regarding Item No. 19 on our Agenda? Once again, this
is a public hearing and anyone else who has presented us
with a card that would like to speak? Seeing no one else
who has a desire to speak to the Cmmnission, I will close
the public hearing and ask the City, who is the
petitioner, to give us a closing statement.
MS. WILLIS: The City just encourages you
to refer to the information in your backup.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Coszanissioner Powell.
COMMISSIONER POWELL: I would move to zone
this NR-1 and I'm ready to talk about why if and after I
9 discussion, I have spent a lot of time out here riding in
i0 a patrol car and I'm here to tell you Blagg Road is not
11 ready to support any kind of neighborhood centers. A lot
12 of things are going to have to happen out here before you
13 can install any kind of business out here. Blagg Road,
14 it's just a mess. It's not ready for that. Lakeview is
15 but the people out there on Lakeview are not either.
16 They're not looking for neighborhood centers. They're
17 looking to maintain their rural atmosphere. And I think
18 for thc betterment of thc area and the betterment of the
19 City, NR-1 is what we should go for here.
20 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, any
21 further discussion? We have a motion on the floor. Any
22 further discussion? Commissioner Roy.
23 COMMISSIONER ROY: I guess I'm a little
24 concerned about the parcel to the east. NR-1, I don't
25 have a problem with that but we've got NR-2 at Lakeview
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 164
and NR-6 in between. There's something wrong here. Just
a cormnent.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Commissioner Keith.
COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. And a
question to Mr. Reichhart, we have this motion on this
property at NR-1, we've got adjacent to it, NR-6. Can the
City come in and petition to change that?
MR. REICHHART: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KEITH: The City can?
MR. REICHHART: The City can.
COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Would that have
any adverse effect for the property owner as it stands?
MR. REICHHART: I'm not prepared to answer
that without doing some analysis.
COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Commissioner Apple.
COMMISSIONER APPLE: I just want to say
I'll be supporting the motion because I have always been
in favor of leaving rural areas rural and not imposing
subdivisions in those areas.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I'd like to get
clarification from counsel and make sure that -- just to
review where we are and where NR-1 fits into what we have
requested and notification on that, that we are in
compliance.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24TH, 2002 Page 161 - Page 164
CondcnscltTM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1!
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 165
MR. SNYDER: AS Mr. Reichhart mentioned
earlier, your notice for NR-6, this is a lesser
classification so you're within the notice, you can make
that recommendation. It's properly noticed.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Once again, we have a
motion on the floor. Motion was by Commissioner Powell.
The second was by Commissioner Keith. If I could get
Commissioner Powell to restate his motion.
COMMISSIONER POWELL: Motion to rezone this
property NR- 1.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Commissioner Keith.
Okay. Motion is on the floor. Seeing no one else who
would like to speak, please vote. Motion carries 7-0.
Page 166
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 167
Page 168
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24TH, 2002 Page 165 - Page 168
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ZONING A TRACT OF LAND,
COMPRISING APPROXIMATELY 46 ACRES IN THE CITY OF DENTON FROM
AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DiSTRiCT CLASSiFiCATiON TO NEIGHBORHOOD
RESiDENTiAL 6 (NR-6); THE TRACT BEING GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SiDE
OF BLAGG ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 1000' WEST OF LAKEViEW BOULEVARD, WiTHiN
THE M. FORREST SURVEY. ABSTRACT NO. 417 iN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS;
PROVIDING A PENALTY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE (Z02-0010).
WHEREAS, the City of Demon has initiated a change in zoning for an approximate 46 acres of
land from Agricultural (A) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood
Residemial 6 (NR-6); and
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval
of the requested zoning; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the 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 approximate 46 acre
property described in the legal description attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" is
hereby changed from Agricultural (A) zoning district classification and use designation to
Neighborhood Residemial 6 (NR-6) under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Demon,
Texas.
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 Demon Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Demon, 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 4
Exhibit "A"
Being a tract of land situated in the M. Forrest Survey, Abstract No. 417, Denton County, Texas and
being part of a tract of land described in a deed to Nell Musgrave, et al., recorded in Volume 293, Page
418, of the Deed Records of Demon county, Texas and being more particularly described by metes and
bounds as follows:
BEGINNING at a fence post on the south right-of-way line of Blagg Road (variable width right-of-
way being the northeast corner of said Musgrave tract and being the northwest corner of a tract of land
described in a deed to Lakeview Ranch L.P. recorded in Volume 4391, Page 1738 of the Deed Records
of Denton County, Texas;
THENCE South with the east line of said Musgrave tract and a wire fence, and the west line of said
Lakeview Ranch tract, a distance of 1643.50 feet to a fence post being the northeast corner ora tract of
land described in a deed to Doug Prewitt and Anna Kay Prewitt recorded in Volume 1965, Page 834 of
the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas;
THENCE West with the south line of said Musgrave tract, and the north line of said Prewitt tract, and
the north line of the H.O. and Lavonia Jo Prewitt tract recorded in Volume 820, Page 614, of the Deed
Records of Denton County, Texas, a distance of 1421.00 feet to a point on the north line of a tract of
land described in a deed to Doug Prewitt and Anna Kay Prewitt recorded in Clerk's File No. 93-
R0057448 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas, also being the southeast corner of a 15 foot
road easement conveyed to Beatrice J. Peterman, recorded in Volume 481, Page 526, Deed Records of
Denton County, Texas, from said point a "T" post bears North 32 degrees 01 minutes 38 seconds East,
a distance of 5.34 feet;
THENCE North with the west line of said Musgrave tract, and the east line of said road easement, a
distance of 710.41 feet to a ½"iron rod found for a corner;
THENCE East, a distance of 165.00 feet, to a ½ inch iron rod set with a cap stamped "Precise Land
Surv." being an ell corner of said Musgrave tract;
THENCE North, a distance of 261.78 feet, to a ½ inch iron rod set with a cap stamped "Precise Land
Surv." being an ell corner of said Musgrave tract;
THENCE West, a distance of 165.00 feet, to a ½ inch iron rod found for a corner, on the east line of
the aforesaid 15 foot road easement;
THENCE North, with said eat line, a distance of 247.72 feet, to a 3/8 inch iron rod found being the
southwest corner of a tract of land described in a deed to Arch Oldham and Jonnie Kathleen Dunn
Oldham recorded in Volume 2860, Page 802 of the Deed Records of Demon County, Texas;
THENCE North 89 degrees 59 minutes 36 seconds East, with the south line of said Oldham tract and
a wire fence, a distance of 676.35 feet to a fence post being the southeast corner of a tract of land
described in a deed to Ernest B. Parsons recorded in Clerk's File No. 97-068152 of the Deed Records
of Denton County, Texas;
Page 3 of 4
THENCE North 00 degrees 05 minutes 17 seconds West, with the east line of said Parsons tract and a
wire fence, a distance of 416.59 feet to a fence post on said south right-of-way line being the northeast
comer of said Parsons tract;
THENCE North 89 degrees 28 minutes 01 second East, said south fight-of-way line, a distance of
745.32 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, and containing 2,003,300 square feet or 45.989 acres of
land.
Page 4 of 4
Agenda02-017 05/21/02 #18
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE:
DEPARTMENT:
CM/DCM/ACM:
May 21, 2002
Planning & Developmem
David Hill, 349-8314
SUBJECT - Z02-0012: (Crawford Rd/Schrader)
Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 2.67 acres
from a Commercial (C) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use (NRMU)
zoning district. The site is generally located north of Crawford Road, east of Interstate Highway
35W and west of John Paine Road. The rezoning is required to bring property imo compliance
with the new Developmem Code zoning classifications. The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval (7-0). (Z02-0012)
BACKGROUND
Applicam:
Property Owner:
City of DeNon
1-35 & Crawford Partners
Denton, TX
Dallas, TX
This property is one of five properties that were annexed imo the City during the Developmem
Code process and therefore have retained their old zoning designation (Section 35.1.5.C of the
Developmem Code, page 3). This application is to give this property a zoning designation that is
in compliance with the new regulations.
To date, no responses in favor or in opposition have been received regarding this request. As
there is no opposition, a simple majority vote is required to approve this request. In
conversations with staff, the property owner raised no concerns regarding this application.
OPTIONS
1. Approve as submitted.
2. Deny.
3. Postpone consideration.
4. Table item.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0).
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 Z02-0012, commonly known as Crawford Road/Schrader:
Application Date -
DRC Date-
P&Z Commission Date -
CC Public Hearing Date -
March 4, 2002
March 14, 2002
April 24, 2002
May 21, 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. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, April 24, 2002
5. Draft Zoning Ordinance
It will require no
Prepared by:
Dedra Den6e Ragland, AICP
Small Area Planning Manager
Respectfully submitted:
Douglas S. Powell, AICP
Director of Planning and Development
ATTACHMENT 1
Staff Analysis
Summary_ of Zoning Request
The City of Denton is requesting to rezone approximately 2.67 acres from a Commercial (C)
zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use (NRMU) zoning district. The NRMU
zoning designation is comparable with the existing Commercial zoning classification and would
allow limited retail sales and services. Limited multi-family uses are also permitted with the
approval of a Specific Use Permit.
Existing Condition of Property_
Property History.
January 8, 2002 - Prior to the adoption of the Denton Development Code, the subject property
was annexed (A01-0006) and zoned (Z01-0028) Agriculture by Ordinance 2002-024 and 2002-
025 respectively. The property owner proposes a neighborhood retail services.
February 20, 2002 - Ordinance 2002-040 left the subject property in the Commercial (C)
zoning district and land use classification.
Adjacent Zoning.
North: Planned Development 138 (PD- 138)
South: Argyle City Limits
East: Extra-territorial Jurisdiction (ET J)
West: Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use (NRMU)
The property is currently undeveloped. There are no neighborhood services located in the
vicinity of this site.
Comprehensive Plan Analysis
The subject site is 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
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 proposed NRMU zoning district is consistent with The Denton Plan.
Development Code/Zoning Analysis
Any proposed development:
1) Must meet the minimum requirements for transportation and road capacity; pedestrian
linkages; utilities; drainage and topography; signs; landscaping; open space; lighting and
environment quality impacts and
2)
Will be required to be in compliance with the site design standards of the Denton
Development Code, including buffering and screening. Prior to the issuance of any
building permit, an approved site plan for the proposed development is required.
STAFF FINDINGS
The proposed Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use (NRMU) zoning designation is consistent
with The Denton Plan commercial land use goals and strategies, is comparable to the previous
Commercial (C) zoning classification and is compatible with surrounding zoning classifications.
ATTACHMENT 2
Maps
NORTH
Location/Zoning Map
Scale: None
NORTH
Land Use Map
ghborhood Center
CITY OF ARGYLE
Scale: None
ATTACHMENT 3
Public Notification
NORTH
Notification Map
OF ARGYLE
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: 0
· In Favor: 0
· Neutral: 0
April 12,2002
3
3
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 4
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2002
21.
Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council concerning
the rezoning of approximately 2.67 acres from a Commercial (C) zoning district to a
Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use (NRMU) zoning district. The site is generally
located north of Crawford Road, east of Interstate Highway 35W and west of John Paine
Road. The rezoning is required to bring property into compliance with the new
Development Code zoning classifications. (Z02-0012, Crawford Rd/Schrader, Dedra
Ragland)
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
(Page 181-183).
Motion carries -7-0
CondcnscItTM
Page 181
1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: That will bring us to
2 Item No. 21 on our Agenda. Thank you, Cormnissioners.
3 And Itmn No. 21 will be presented by Ms. Ragland and Ms.
4 Willis.
5 MS. RAC3LAND: The proposed NRMU zoning
6 designation is compatible with the surrounding zoning
7 classifications, is comparable to the previous Commercial
8 zoning classification, and it is compatible with the
9 Denton Development Code -- I'm sorry, the Denton Plan.
10 There has becn no opposition to this request and I can say
11 that the property owner is in full support of NRMU.
12 COMMISSIONERRISHEL: Great. Commissioner
13 Roy.
14 COMMISSIONER ROY: YeS. We reviewed a case
15 in this very area once before. Was that the property just
16 to the left, just to the west?
17 MS. P, AGLAND: If I understand you
18 correctly, it would have been the annexation and it would
19 have been the same property.
20 COMMISSIONER ROY: The property that we am
21 currently discussing?
22 MS. RAGLAND: uh-huh.
23 COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you.
24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I SeC no fllrther --
25 is that the staff report? Okay. Thank you. I see no
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 182
further questions of Commissioners. Is the owner of the
property here and would they like to present? Is the
owner of the property -- and this is Item No. 21 on our
Agenda. Okay. I have no cards with regard to I~n No.
21 on our Agenda so I presume that no one would like to
speak. I will open the public hearing. Anyone who would
1 carries 7-0.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
like to speak with regard to Item No. 21 on our Agenda,
if you'd please come forward. This is a public hearing.
This is Item No. 21 on our Agenda. I seC no one who
would like to speak to the Colmnission. I will close the
public hearing and ask Ms. Ragland to give us a closing
comment.
MS. RAQLAND: Again, the proposed NRMU
zoning is in compliance with the Denton Plan.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: colmnissioner Mulroy.
COMMISSIONER MULROY: £ lI1OVe approval as
submitted.
COMMISSIONER HOLT: second.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It's been moved by
7
8
9
[0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Commissioner Mulroy and seconded by Conunissioner Holt.
Any further comanents, questions, clarification? Seeing
none -- Commissioner Holt.
COMMISSIONER HOLT: NO.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: seeing no other
comments or clarification needed, please vote. Motion
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 183
Page 184
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24TH, 2002 Page 181 - Page 184
ATTACHMENT 5
Draft Zoning Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ZONING A TRACT OF LAND,
COMPRISING APPROXIMATELY 2.67 ACRES IN THE CITY OF DENTON FROM
COMMERCIAL (C) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION TO NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE (NRMU); THE TRACT BEING GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH
OF CRAWFORD ROAD, EAST OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 35W AND WEST OF JOHN PAINE
ROAD, WITHIN THE E. PIZANO SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 994, IN THE CITY OF DENTON;
PROVIDING A PENALTY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE (Z02-0012).
WHEREAS, the City of Denton has initiated a change in zoning for an approximate 2.67 acres
of land from Commercial (C) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood
Residential Mixed Use (NRMU); and
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval
of the requested zoning; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the 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 approximate 2.67
acre property described in the legal description attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A"
is hereby changed from Commercial (C) zoning district classification and use designation to
Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use (NRMU) under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City
of Denton, Texas.
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
__ 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 3
Exhibit "A"
All that certain tract of land situated in the E. Pizano Survey, Abstract Number 994, Denton County,
Texas, and being part of the called 7.597 acre tract described in the deed from One Longhorn Land,
L.L.C., to 1-35 Crawford Road Partners recorded by County Clerks file Number 98-R0077377 Real
Property Records of Denton County, Texas and being more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point for the Northwest comer of the herein described tract of land, said point also
being the northwest comer of said 7.597 acre tract;
THENCE South 00 Degrees 37 Minutes 35 Seconds West with the East line thereof, a distance of
458.89 feet to a point for the northeast comer of the called 0.378 acre tract described in the deed from
Leslie B. Moorman to Mary Alice Moorman recorded in Volume 924, Page 890, Deed Records,
Denton County, Texas;
THENCE North 88 Degrees 57 Minutes 53 Seconds West with the North line of said 0.378 acre tract
a distance of 92.56 feet to a point for the Northwest comer of said 0.378-acre tract;
THENCE South 01 Degrees 18 Minutes 12 Seconds West with the West line thereof a distance of
149.73 feet more or less to a point for a comer on the North line of Crawford Road;
THENCE West with the North line of said road a distance of 293.94 feet more or less to a point for a
comer;
THENCE North 30 Degrees 27 Minutes 35 Seconds East along the existing Denton city limits line
established by Ordinance Number 74-36, a distance of 702.75 feet more or less to a point for the
Northwest comer;
THENCE South 86 Degrees 46 Minutes 04 Seconds East with said North line, a distance of 38.70 feet
to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 2.67 acres of land more or less.
Page 3 of 3
Agenda02-017 05/21/02 #19
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE:
DEPARTMENT:
CM/DCM/ACM:
May 21, 2002
Planning and Developmem
David Hill, AICP, 349-8314
SUBJECT - Z02-0013: (Robson Ranch North)
Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 300 acres
of land from an Agriculture (A) zoning district to a Rural Residemial 5 (RD-5) zoning district.
The site is generally located north of H. Lively Road, south of FM 2449 and west of H. Lively
Rd. The rezoning is required to bring property imo compliance with the Developmem Code
zoning classifications. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0).
(Z02-0013)
BACKGROUND
Applicam:
Property Owner:
City of DeNon
Robson Communities Developmem
Denton, TX
Sun Lakes, AZ
This property is one of five properties that were annexed imo the City during the Developmem
Code process and therefore have retained their old zoning designation (Section 35.1.5.C of the
Developmem Code, page 3). This application is to give this property a zoning designation that is
in compliance with the new regulations.
To date, no responses in favor or in opposition have been received regarding this request. As
there is no opposition, a simple majority vote is required to approve this request. In
conversations with staff, the property owner raised no concerns regarding this application.
OPTIONS
1. Approve as submitted.
2. Deny.
3. Postpone consideration.
4. Table item.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0).
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 Z02-0013, commonly known as Robson Ranch North:
Application Date -
DRC Date-
P&Z Commission Date -
CC Public Hearing
March 4, 2002
March 14, 2002
April 24, 2002
May 21, 2002
No neighborhood meeting was held.
FISCAL INFORMATION
Development of this property will increase the assessed value of the city, county, and school
district.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff'Analysis
2. Maps
3. Public Notification (Property Owner Notification Map)
4. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, April 24, 2002
5. Draft Zoning Ordinance
Prepared by:
Tiffanie Willis,
Planner I
Respectfully submitted:
Douglas S. Powell, AICP
Director of Planning and Development
ATTACHMENT 1
Staff Analysis
Summary_ of Zoning Request
The City of DeNon is requesting to rezone approximately 300 acres from an Agricultural (A)
zoning district to a Rural Residemial 5 (RD-5) zoning district. The RD-5 zoning district allows
agriculture and livestock uses, and some residemial, commercial and institutional land uses.
Industrial land uses are limited to feed lots, wholesale nurseries, kennels, veterinary clinics and
gas wells.
Curremly, natural gas well drilling and production is proposed for the subject property. Gas well
drilling and production is a permitted use in the Rural Residemial 5 (RD-5) zoning district.
Existing Condition of Property_
Property History.
January 8, 2002 - Prior to the adoption of the DeNon Developmem Code, the subject property
was annexed (A01-0007) and zoned (Z01-0026) Agricultural (A) by Ordinance 2002-027 and
2002-028, respectively.
February 20, 2002 - Ordinance 2002-040 left the subject property in the Agriculture (A) zoning
district and land use classification.
Adjacem zoning.
North:
South:
East:
West:
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ET J)
Planned Developmem 173 (PD- 173), Robson Ranch
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ET J)
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ET J)
The property is curremly undeveloped. The property is being used for gas well drilling and
production and maimained as ranchland/agrarian uses.
Comprehensive Plan Analysis
The Comprehensive Plan designates the area as a Rural District and a small portion as a 100-
Year Flood Plain/Environmentally Sensitive Area (Attachment 2). Rural Districts are intended
for agricultural uses and large lot residential uses utilizing septic systems. 100-Year Flood
Plain/Environmentally Sensitive Areas are to be preserved in their natural condition.
The proposed RD-5 zoning designation is consistem with The Denton Plan.
Development Review Analysis
Any proposed developmem:
1) Must meet the minimum requiremems for transportation and road capacity; pedestrian
linkages; utilities; drainage and topography; signs; landscaping; open space; lighting and
environmem quality impacts and
2)
Will be required to be in compliance with the site design standards of the DeNon
Developmem Code, including buffering and screening. Prior to the issuance of any
building permit, an approved site plan for the proposed developmem is required.
Gas well developmems must meet the minimum requiremems for platting as idemified in the
Development Code.
STAFF FINDINGS
The proposed Rural Residemial 5 (RD-5) zoning district is consistem with the Comprehensive
Plan, is compatible with surrounding zoning classifications and allows for gas well developmem.
ATTACHMENT 2
Maps
NORTH
Location/Zoning Map
Land Use Map
NORTH
~ITE
ATTACHMENT 3
Public Notification Map
NORTH
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: 0
· In Favor: 0
· Neutral: 0
April 12, 2002
1
1
Percent of land within 200' in opposition: 0 %
*A copy of the notification list can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201
P&Z
ATTACHMENT 4
Commission Minutes
March 24, 2002
20.
Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council
concerning the rezoning of approximately 300 acres of land from an Agriculture
(A) zoning district to a Rural Residential 5 (RD-5) zoning district. The site is
generally located north of H. Lively Road, south of FM 2449 and west of H.
Lively Road. The rezoning is required to bring property into compliance with the
new Development Code zoning classifications. (Z02-0013, Robson Ranch North,
Tiffanie Willis)
Motion by Bob Powell and second 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 185 - 191).
Motion carries -7-0
CondcnscltTM
Page 185
1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: That will bring us to
2 Item No. 22 on our Agenda. Item No. 22 will be
3 presented by Ms. Willis. Ms. Willis.
4 MS. WILLIS: The zoning case before you is
5 the Robson Ranch. We are proposing that they be rezoned
6 to Rural Residential 5 from the Agricultural zoning
7 category at this time. Staff has provided adequate
8 information in your backup. Again, this is a straight
9 zoning change per the Development Code.
10 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And, once again, this
11 also allows for gas exploration; is that correct?
12 MS. WILLIS: I believe the original intent
13 and proposal from the applicant was gas wells.
14 MR. REICHHART: It is a permitted use.
15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Right. Just wanted
16 to point that out.
17 MS. WILLIS: And it is a permitted use,
18 yes, sir.
19 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Yes. Okay.
20 Conunissioners, any questions of staff? Okay. Thank you
21 very much, Colmnissioners. This is a public hearing. This
22 is Item No. 22 on our Agenda. Anyone who would like to
23 speak either for or against this item on our Agenda -- you
24 have a card? Okay. Would you please give us your name
25 and address.
Page 186~
Page 187
1 lived in Lewisville for a long time. We've lived in
2 Lewisville and Highland Village for a long time. We live
3 in a real nice neighborhood in Highland Shores. However,
4 we want to move out to where it's a little more rural and
5 kind of get away from all the hustle and bustle. The
6 reason why we went out there is that it's real peaceful,
7 it's quiet.
8 If I understand the zoning correctly with
9 the 300 acres that's proposed, that that equates to about
10 1,500 houses on that 300 acres. 2449 is the road that
11 runs through there. It's a two-lane road. Definitely
12 cannot handle that kind of traffic. We also -- H. Lively
13 is not a paved road at this time at all. It runs all the
14 way -- it's a gravel road the whole way. I just think the
15 quality of life would really suffer out there. There's
16 very few neighbors. I have one 400 feet away from me.
17 But, I mean, the quality of life is really going to suffer
18 because of that type of concentration.
19 Robson Ranch, you can see if you go to the
20 top of H. Lively, you can see it about two miles away and
21 you can see all the rooftops and how concentrated they
22 are. And I don't have anything against golf courses and
23 nice cormnunities but I think that the concentration when
24 it gets down to where 2449 is is really not acceptable.
25 Thank you.
Page 188
1 MR. RICHARDSON: Yes. My name is Steve
2 Richardson, 500 Sheldon Court, Highland Village. I happen
3 to own 10.66 acres on H. Lively Road that backs up to
4 where the proposed zoning change is.
5 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: IS thc're a map that
6 we could put on the docucam, Ms. Willis, and maybe he
7 could show us where his property is on Lively Road? Would
8 you put this into the docucam? Maybe the docucam can zoom
9 for us a little. And your property is located
10 approxilnately -- okay. And are you in the City or outside
11 the City?
12 MR. RICt-r~mON: we're outside the City.
13 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: outside the City so
14 notification was not given to you; is that correct?
15 MR. RICHARDSON: Correct. We just
16 purchased this prop~:y February.
17 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Richardson, would
18 you address your co-presenter.
19 MR. RICHARDSON: oh, I'm sorry. This is my
20 wife, Anita Richardson.
21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very much.
22 MR. RICHARDSON: OUr whole reason for
23 wanting to move out there, and we also have a building
24 permit pending at this time to build out there. We just
25 did that because somebody else earlier had said they had
1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr.
2 Richardson. We have a couple of questions for you, Mr.
3 Richardson or Ms. Richardson. Commissioner Powell.
4 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Actually, my question
5 is for staff.
6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Let me come back to
7 you while we have the --
8 COMMISSIONER POWELL: That's fine. Thank
9 you.
i0 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Roy.
11 COMMISSIONER ROY: Yes. What was your
12 understanding of the acreage requirements for RD-5?
13 MR. RICHARDSON: My understanding, and
14 correct me if I'm wrong here, my understanding was that
15 that represents five houses per acre. Is that correct?
16 COMMISSIONER ROY: NO.
17 MR. RICHARDSON: I apologize for our
18 ignorance on this.
19 COMMISSIONER ROY: Mr. Reichhart, perhaps
20 it would be helpful for him to understand.
21 MR. REICHHART: Certainly.
22 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Reichhart.
23 MR. REICHHART: The RD-5 is basically a
24 single-fmnily residential. It's one unit per five acres
25 so it's just the opposite, quickly do the math, it would
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24TH, 2002 Page 185 - Page 188
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
20
21
22
23
24
25
be 150 houses on the 300 acres maximum.
COMMISSIONER ROY: 60.
MR. REICHHART: 60, I'm not very good at
math.
COMMISSIONER ROY: 60 houses.
MR. RICHARDSON: 60 in 300 acres.
MR. REICHHART: Yeah, that's true. So
that's even better for you. So that is our most
restrictive designation regarding density. It does -- and
the applicant, the property owner, although Robson Ranch
Page 189
Page 191
1 close the public hearing and ask for staff to give us
2 closing comments.
3 MS. WILLIS: staff has no comments. Just
4 encourage you to reconsider rezoning the property from
5 Agricultural zoning to RD-5 residential.
6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very much.
7 Conunissioncrs, what is your discretion on this particular
8 itmn? Colmnissioner Powell.
9 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I don't have a light
10 on. But I would move to --
docs own it, they have not proposed any major development
on it. They are proposing some gas wells at this time.
They have started their development in the southern of
theirs and working towards the north. I did talk to a
representative of Robson Ranch earlier this week regarding
this property and they currently have no development plans
in the near future. They're looking maybe 20 years plus
before they'd even consider anything up on that property.
But that would take a zoning change. But right now it's a
five-acre requirement per lot, or density of such. They
could cluster it. But there isn't any utilities.
MS. RICHARDSON: That makes it the same as
Amex Estates across 2499. They're broken up into
five-acre lots per home. Is that right?
MR. REICHHART: similar but -- yes. As far
Page 190
as density, I mean, quite honestly, they could cluster the
units and leave a great deal of it open and do a little
subdivision, but it would be the same number of houses.
MR. RICHARDSON: I appreciate the
clarification.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: we still have some
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very much,
Mr. Powell.
COMMISSIONER POWELL: I would move, since
you mentioned my name, Mr. Chairman, I would move to
accept this as presented.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER POWELL: Approve this as
presented.
COMMISSIONER MULROY: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It's been moved by
Commissioner Powell and seconded by Commissioner Mulroy.
Any further questions, clarifications, or comments?
Seeing none, please vote. Motion carries 7-0.
Commissioners that might have some questions.
Commissioner Apple.
COMMISSIONER APPLE: oh, I'm sorry. I
literally had my light on just to tell them that it was
just thc opposite.
7
8
9
10
i1
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very much,
Mr. and Ms. Richardson.
MR. RICHARDSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Powell.
COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. My
question was whether Robson Ranch was extending out that
way at this time and the answer has been given. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And just wait till
they start to frack those wells and you'll know they're
there. Okay. Any further comments or questions,
Commissioners? Once again, this is a public hearing.
Anyone else who would like to speak before the Co~mnission?
Seeing no one who would like to speak at this time, I will
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 192
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24TH, 2002 Page 189 - Page 192
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ZONING A TRACT OF LAND,
COMPRISING APPROXIMATELY 300 ACRES IN THE CITY OF DENTON FROM
AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DiSTRiCT CLASSiFiCATiON TO RURAL RESiDENTiAL 5
(RD-5); THE TRACT BEING GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF H. LIVELY ROAD, SOUTH
OF FM 2449 AND WEST OF H. LIVELY ROAD, WiTHiN THE C. MANCHACA SURVEY,
ABSTRACT NO. 789 1N THE CITY OF DENTON. TEXAS; PROVIDING A PENALTY CLAUSE
AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE (Z02-0013).
WHEREAS, the City of Demon has initiated a change in zoning for an approximate 300 acres
of land from Agricultural (A) zoning district classification and use designation to Rural Residemial 5
(RD-5); and
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval
of the requested zoning; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the 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 approximate 300
acre property described in the legal description attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A"
is hereby changed from Agricultural (A) zoning district classification and use designation to Rural
Residemial 5 (RD-5) under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Demon, Texas.
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 Demon Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Demon, 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 3
Exhibit "A"
All that certain tract or parcel of land lying and being situated in the C. Manchaca Survey, Abstract
number 789, DeNon County, Texas, and being a portion of a certain called 100.00 acre tract described
in the deed to M. T. Cole from Henry Lively and wife, Lillian Lively recorded in volume 247, page
529, Deed Records of Denton County, Texas, and being all of a certain called 193.57 acre tract
described in the deed to M. T. Cole from Henry Lively and wife, Lillian Lively recorded in volume
247, page 594, of said Deed Records and being more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at the poim in the presem city limits line as established by Ordinance No. 99-220,
said poim being the Northeast comer of said Ordinance 99-220 also being the Southeast comer of said
C. Manchaca survey
THENCE West, along the north line of said Ordinance a distance of 2,120.0 feet, more or less, to a
poim lying in the south line of H. Lively Road and being the POINT OF BEGiNNiNG of the herein
described tract of land;
THENCE West, along the south line of said road and the north line of said Ordinance a distance of
3,580.3 feet to a point for a comer;
THENCE North, across said road a distance of 50.0 feet, more or less, to a point on the north line of
said road;
THENCE West, along the north line of said road a distance of 292.66 feet, more or less, to a point for a
comer lying in the west boundary line of said 100.00 acre tract;
THENCE North, along the west boundary line of said 100.00 acre tract a distance of 3,276.85 to a
point for a comer being the northwest comer of said 100.00 acre tract;
THENCE East, along the north boundary line of said 100.00 acre tract and passing at 1,319.26 feet the
northeast comer of said 100.00 acre tract and also being the northwest comer of said 193.57 acre tract
and then cominuing along the north boundary line of said 193.7 acre tract a total distance of 3,872.96
feet to a point being the northeast comer of said 193.7 acre tract;
THENCE South, along the east boundary line of said 193.7 acre tract a distance of 3,326.85 feet to the
POINT OF BEGiNNiNG and comaining 295.46 acres of land, more or less.
Page 3 of 3
This page left blank intemionally.
Agenda02-017 05/21/02 #20
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE:
DEPARTMENT:
CM/DCM/ACM:
May 21, 2002
Planning and Developmem
Dave Hill, AICP, 349-8314
SUBJECT - Z02-0014: (Trio Operating Company)
Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 67.7 acres
of land from an Agriculture (A) zoning district to an Industrial Cemer Employmem (lC-E)
zoning district. The site is generally located north of Jim Christal Road, south of University and
west of Masch Branch Road. The rezoning is required to bring property imo compliance with
the Developmem Code zoning classifications. The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval (7-0). (Z02-0014)
BACKGROUND
Applicam:
Property Owner:
City of DeNon
Margaret Lybbert
Denton, TX
Demon, TX
This property is one of five properties that were annexed imo the City during the Developmem
Code process and therefore have retained their old zoning designation (Section 35.1.5.C of the
Developmem Code, page 3). This application is to give this property a zoning designation that is
in compliance with the new regulations.
Public notification and property owner response are provided in Attachmem 3. Curremly, less
than 5% of the land area within 200 feet of the subject property is in opposition to the zoning
change. As opposition is less than 20%, a simple majority is required to approve this request. In
conversations with staff, the property owner had questions regarding the proposed zoning
classification, which were answered to her satisfaction.
OPTIONS
1. Approve as submitted.
2. Deny.
3. Postpone consideration.
4. Table item.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commissions recommends approval (7-0).
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 Z02-0014, commonly known as Trio Operating Company:
Application Date -
DRC Date-
P&Z Commission Date -
CC Public Hearing
March 1, 2002
March 14, 2002
April 24, 2002
May 21, 2002
No neighborhood meeting was held.
FISCAL INFORMATION
Development of this property will increase the assessed value of the city, county, and school
district.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Analysis
2. Maps
3. Public Notification (Property Owner Notification Map)
4. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, April 24,2002
5. Draft Zoning Ordinance
Prepared by:
Tiffanie Willis
Planner I
Respectfully submitted:
Douglas S. Powell, AICP
Director of Planning and Development
ATTACHMENT 1
Staff Analysis
Summary_ of Zoning Request
The City of DeNon is requesting to rezone approximately 67.7 acres from an Agricultural (A)
zoning district to an industrial Cemer Employmem (lC-E) zoning district. Uses allowed in the
iC-E zoning district include agricultural and limited livestock (the only residemial land uses
allowed); some commercial land uses, such as hotels, motels and restaurams; and light industrial
and manufacturing uses.
Curremly, natural gas well drilling and production is proposed for the subject property. Gas well
drilling and production is a permitted use in the industrial Cemer Employmem (lC-E) zoning
district.
Existing Condition of Property_
Property History.
January 8, 2002- Prior to the adoption of the DeNon Developmem Code the subject property
was annexed (A01-0009) and zoned (Z01-0029) Agricultural (A) by Ordinance 2002-029 and
2002-030, respectively.
February 20, 2002 - Ordinance 2002-040 left the subject property in the Agricultural (A)
zoning district and land use classification.
Adjacem zoning.
North: Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ)
South: industrial Cemer General (lC-G)
East: Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ET J)
West: industrial Cemer Employmem (lC-E)
The property is curremly undeveloped. The property is being used for gas well drilling and
production and maimained as ranchland/agrarian uses.
Comprehensive Plan Analysis
The subject site is located in an "Industrial Cemers" future land use area. Industrial Cemers are
imended to provide locations for a variety of work processes and work places such as
manufacturing, warehousing and distributing, indoor and outdoor storage, and a wide range of
commercial and industrial operations. The industrial cemers may also accommodate
complementary and supporting uses such as convenience store shopping and child-care centers.
Adequate public facilities shall be a criterion by which zoning is granted. There will be light
manufacturing and low impact industrial uses which are allowed in this category.
The developmem of this area is also subject to the Airport Compatibility Land Use Districts
(ACLUD-1 & ACLUD-2).
The proposed iC-E zoning is consistem with The Denton Plan.
Developmem Review Analysis
Any proposed developmem:
1) Must meet the minimum requiremems for transportation and road capacity; pedestrian
linkages; utilities; drainage and topography; signs; landscaping; open space; lighting and
environmem quality impacts and
2)
Will be required to be in compliance with the site design standards of the DeNon
Developmem Code, including buffering and screening. Prior to the issuance of any
building permit, an approved site plan for the proposed developmem is required.
Gas well developmems must meet the minimum requiremems for platting as idemified in the
Developmem Code.
STAFF FINDINGS
The proposed Industrial Cemer Employmem (1C-E) zoning district is consistem with the
Comprehensive Plan, is compatible with the surrounding zoning classifications and allows for
gas well developmem.
ATTACHMENT 2
Maps
NORTH
Location/Zoning Map
NORTH
Land Use Map
ATTACHMENT 3
Public Notification Map
NORTH
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: 0
· Neutral: 0
April 12, 2002
9
9
Percent of land within 200' in opposition: ~.¢ss than 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*
Sally Jane Opposed Safety and the environment
2200 Fork Street
*A copy of the original notice can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201
P&Z
ATTACHMENT 4
Commission Minutes
March 24, 2002
20.
Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council
concerning the rezoning of approximately 67.66 acres from an Agriculture (A)
zoning district to an Industrial Center Employment (lC-E) zoning district. The
site is generally located north of Jim Christal Road, south of University and west
of Masch Branch Road. The rezoning is required to bring property into
compliance with the new Development Code zoning classifications. (Z02-0014,
Trio, Tiffanie Willis)
Motion by Joe Mulroy and second by Susan Apple to recommend approval to City
Council.
*Discussion of item is included in the Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of
minutes (Page 169 - 177).
Motion carries -7-0
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
CondenseItTM
Page 169
1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: That will bring us to
2 Item No. 20 on our Agenda. Thank you very much,
3 Commissioners. Please. We have business we need to
4 conduct. We appreciate your enthusiasm. Staff, Item No.
5 20 on our Agenda and Ms. Ragland will present -- Ms.
6 Willis will come forth and present for us.
7 MS. WILLIS: Commission, the case before
8 you is the trio operations. They too are zoned
9 Agricultural zoning and staff is encouraging IC-E at this
10 time. We did receive one petition of opposition and I'll
11 present that to you at this time.
12 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Okay. Commissioners,
13 any questions of Ms. Willis? Cmrnuissioner Roy.
14 COMMISSIONER ROY: MS. Willis, on the
15 zoning map, page 5, there's kind of a shading on the
16 property just to the west of that. What does that
17 indicate? The whole area seems to be shaded.
18 MS. WILLIS: Excuse me, Mr. Roy.
19 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YOU're talking the
20 area just west of the proposed property?
21 COMMISSIONER ROY: WeSt and east of the
22 property, it's shaded, a light shading.
23 MS. WILLIS: IC-E here?
24 COMMISSIONER ROY: Yes. Do you see the
25 shading on that property? Okay. I guess one of them is
Page 170
Page 171
1 centers cmployment. And then there's an IC-O which is
2 industrial centers general. So it's IC-O or IC-E, it's
3 cunployment or general.
4 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you very much
5 and I'm sorry to take your time.
6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Not a problem. We
7 appreciate clarification anytime. It helps all
8 Commissioners. Any further questions, Commissioners, of
9 staff.9 Seeing no further questions, thank you very much,
10 staff.
11 This is a public hearing and I will open
12 the public hearing at this time. I have no cards that
13 want to speak with regard to Item No. 20 on this Agenda.
14 I've called for cards numerous times. Is there someone
15 who would like -- Commissioners, would you care to hear
16 from the public at this point in time? Okay. Please,
17 would you come forth and address the podium. I don't know
18 what more I can do. Would you give us your name and
19 address, please?
20 MS. LYBBERT: well, actually I'm a novice
21 but I do own all this property. Had I been here in
22 October when it was annexed --
23 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Are you the owner of
24 the property?
25 MS. LYBBERT: Yes.
Page 172
NR-2. SO I guess that little sliver of land is NR-2 and
to the right is IC-E and then the site. Okay. So that
shading doesn't mean floodplains or stuff like that like
it usually does on these drawings?
MS. WILLIS: oh, no.
COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: thank you,
Commissioner. Commissioners, any further questions?
Connnissioner Powell.
COMMISSIONER POWELL: Yes, Mi. Chairman,
I'm going to show my ignorance and ask somebody who knows
more than me what is an IC-E. Help me out here.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: okay.
COMMISSIONER POWELL: could you tell us
your name and address, please?
MS. LYBBERT: Margaret Lybbert.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Margaret what?
MS. LYBBERT: Margaret Lybbcrt,
L-Y-B-B-E-R-T.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Ms.
Lybbert.
MS. LYBBERT: The address is 6031 West
University. We are annexed into the City now. We were
County and I would prefer we were still County but my
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: okay. I don't know
if anybody knows more than you but I would ask Mr.
Reichhart to accept that question.
COMMISSIONER POWELL: Just generally.
MS. WILLIS: Industrial center.
COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: Mr. Keith would like
to field that, in fact. Mr. Reichhart, please.
COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay, Go ahead, Mr.
Rcichhart. Don't want to steal your thunder.
MR. REIC~HmqT: within the industrial
centers land use category in the Comprehensive Plan, we've
identified two zoning districts. The IC stands for
industrial centers and IC-E is employment, industrial
13 husband wasn't here at thc time that this was taking
14 place. So what I'd just like to know is just what is the
15 difference, as you were saying, with the general, you
16 know, the industrial general and thc industrial
17 employment? What does that mean so I kind of understand
18 before you --
19 COMMISSIONERRISHEL: Mr. Reichhart will
20 address that for you.
21 MR. REICHHART: And we can go over this in
22 detail but in general, if you would, the industrial
23 centers cunployment is really envisioned more as business
24 parks and that type of thing where thc industrial centers
25 general takes everything that typically is allowed within
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24TH, 2002 Page 169 - Page 172
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
CondenseltTM
Page 173
the employment center district but allows some additional
light industrial type of developments. And the main
difference in the industrial centers general,
manufacturing of non- odoriferous food that's permitted by
right, and there's a limitation in the employment
district. Food processing is permitted in the general but
not the employment. But there is very little difference.
It's the intensity. The industrial centers general is
just a little bit more intense than the employment
centers. They both allow very similar uses.
MS. LYBBERT: I see. So it's not a
disadvantage except you say just a little, a few less
advantages.
MR. REICHHART: Yes.
Page 175
1 a little disappointed with staff that staff has not helped
2 to clarify and spoken with you earlier to tell you what
3 they're proposal was. And I hope this doesn't happen
4 again because I think that it's important for you to
5 understand what the City's proposing. I think it's
6 probably the right direction to go but I think that it's
7 important that the owner of the property know what the
MS. LYBBERT: Okay. Well, I just -- since
I'd never heard the difference between the two, I thought
I'd like to know. But I understand the staff suggests the
IC-E then?
MR. REICHHART: That's correct. And,
again, the IC-E doesn't allow as much on the industrial
side but it would allow a little bit more commercial land
use category such as indoor recreation, major event
entertainment, and different categories like that and
different restaurants and such. So you could get a little
bit more lighter stuff but not as much of the heavy
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
City is petitioning for them. So I'm a little bit
concerned about that.
Do you agree that this is a direction that
you and your co-owner of this property might --
MS. LYBBERT: well, since I don't have a
co-owner, why, I hope it is.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: IS there anything we
Page 174
1 industrial. And we'll be happy to give you a copy of
2 this, the Code, this section so you can really just look
3 at it right through. And in addition, your existing uses
4 are permitted. It does not affect any of the existing
5 uses you have on your property. So the agricultural use
6 is -- gas wells, all that would still be permitted.
7 MS. LYBBERT: BUt in the future if we were
8 to sell it, it's not a disadvantage then, really, to have
9 it E instead of G?
10 MR. REICHHART: NO, I don't believe it is.
11 And, again, in the future if someone wanted to rezone it
12 to one of the other categories because they had a specific
13 use in that area, they could bring a petition into the
14 City for a vote on that.
15 MS. LYBBERT: Thank you for your time.
16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: MS. Lybbert, we may
17 have some questions. Ms. Apple.
18 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Mr. Reichhart
19 addressed my question. I was just going to ask that staff
20 provide her hard copies of the uses in both of those so
21 that you can take a look and see for yourself.
22 MS. LYBBERT: Thank you.
23 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I'd like to ask you
24 is this a zoning classification that you think that you
25 want for this property? Let me make this statement. I'm
15 can do to help clarify why this might be advantageous and
16 why this fits into the Denton Plan?
17 MS. LYBBERT: well, I don't think it's a
18 disadvantage. It's just that I wasn't sure between the
19 IC-E and the IC-G, and I didn't want to be surprised.
20 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Okay.
21 MS. LYBBERT: Thank you.
22 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very much.
23 Once again, this is a public hearing. Please.
24 MS. LYBBERT: The staff has been most
25 considerate and I have been away.
Page 176
1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: okay. ~'nflank you very
2 much. That may have clarified my question. At least I
3 hope it does. This is a public heating. Anyone else who
4 would like to speak regarding Item No. 20 on our Agenda?
5 I have one other public comment sheet that
6 was submitted from an Edith Lindley and it says, we are
7 opposed to any type of industrial use that would add to
8 the high rock truck traffic like something rocks facility.
9 Maybe it's Mega Rocks facility. Or any asphalt plants or
10 air pollution businesses. And we will note that in our
11 minutes.
12
Once again, this is a public hearing.
13 Anyone else who would like to address the Commission?
14 Seeing no one else who would like to address the
15 Cmranission, I will close the public heating. The City is
16 the petitioner and the City's closing comments are -- Ms.
17 Willis, closing conu~ents?
18 MS. WILLIS: staff has no comments at this
19 time.
20 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very much.
21 Commissioners, what is your -- Commissioner Mulroy.
22 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yeah. I'll move
23 approval as presented.
24 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Second.
25 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It'S been moved by
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24TH, 2002 Page 173 - Page 176
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
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 177
Commissioner Mulroy and seconded by Cmmnissioner Apple.
Any further co,inherits, questions, or clarification? Seeing
none, please vote. Motion carries 7-0.
Page 178
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 179
Page 180
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24TH, 2002 Page 177 - Page 180
CondcnscItTM
Page 181
1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: That will bring us to
2 Item No. 21 on our Agenda. Thank you, Cormnissioners.
3 And Itmn No. 21 will be presented by Ms. Ragland and Ms.
4 Willis.
5 MS. RAC3LAND: The proposed NRMU zoning
6 designation is compatible with the surrounding zoning
7 classifications, is comparable to the previous Commercial
8 zoning classification, and it is compatible with the
9 Denton Development Code -- I'm sorry, the Denton Plan.
10 There has becn no opposition to this request and I can say
11 that the property owner is in full support of NRMU.
12 COMMISSIONERRISHEL: Great. Commissioner
13 Roy.
14 COMMISSIONER ROY: YeS. We reviewed a case
15 in this very area once before. Was that the property just
16 to the left, just to the west?
17 MS. P, AGLAND: If I understand you
18 correctly, it would have been the annexation and it would
19 have been the same property.
20 COMMISSIONER ROY: The property that we am
21 currently discussing?
22 MS. RAGLAND: uh-huh.
23 COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you.
24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I SeC no fllrther --
25 is that the staff report? Okay. Thank you. I see no
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 182
further questions of Commissioners. Is the owner of the
property here and would they like to present? Is the
owner of the property -- and this is Item No. 21 on our
Agenda. Okay. I have no cards with regard to I~n No.
21 on our Agenda so I presume that no one would like to
speak. I will open the public hearing. Anyone who would
1 carries 7-0.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
like to speak with regard to Item No. 21 on our Agenda,
if you'd please come forward. This is a public hearing.
This is Item No. 21 on our Agenda. I seC no one who
would like to speak to the Colmnission. I will close the
public hearing and ask Ms. Ragland to give us a closing
comment.
MS. RAQLAND: Again, the proposed NRMU
zoning is in compliance with the Denton Plan.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: colmnissioner Mulroy.
COMMISSIONER MULROY: £ lI1OVe approval as
submitted.
COMMISSIONER HOLT: second.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It's been moved by
7
8
9
[0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Commissioner Mulroy and seconded by Conunissioner Holt.
Any further comanents, questions, clarification? Seeing
none -- Commissioner Holt.
COMMISSIONER HOLT: NO.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: seeing no other
comments or clarification needed, please vote. Motion
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 183
Page 184
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24TH, 2002 Page 181 - Page 184
CondcnscltTM
Page 185
1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: That will bring us to
2 Item No. 22 on our Agenda. Item No. 22 will be
3 presented by Ms. Willis. Ms. Willis.
4 MS. WILLIS: The zoning case before you is
5 the Robson Ranch. We are proposing that they be rezoned
6 to Rural Residential 5 from the Agricultural zoning
7 category at this time. Staff has provided adequate
8 information in your backup. Again, this is a straight
9 zoning change per the Development Code.
10 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And, once again, this
11 also allows for gas exploration; is that correct?
12 MS. WILLIS: I believe the original intent
13 and proposal from the applicant was gas wells.
14 MR. REICHHART: It is a permitted use.
15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Right. Just wanted
16 to point that out.
17 MS. WILLIS: And it is a permitted use,
18 yes, sir.
19 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Yes. Okay.
20 Conunissioners, any questions of staff? Okay. Thank you
21 very much, Colmnissioners. This is a public hearing. This
22 is Item No. 22 on our Agenda. Anyone who would like to
23 speak either for or against this item on our Agenda -- you
24 have a card? Okay. Would you please give us your name
25 and address.
Page 186~
Page 187
1 lived in Lewisville for a long time. We've lived in
2 Lewisville and Highland Village for a long time. We live
3 in a real nice neighborhood in Highland Shores. However,
4 we want to move out to where it's a little more rural and
5 kind of get away from all the hustle and bustle. The
6 reason why we went out there is that it's real peaceful,
7 it's quiet.
8 If I understand the zoning correctly with
9 the 300 acres that's proposed, that that equates to about
10 1,500 houses on that 300 acres. 2449 is the road that
11 runs through there. It's a two-lane road. Definitely
12 cannot handle that kind of traffic. We also -- H. Lively
13 is not a paved road at this time at all. It runs all the
14 way -- it's a gravel road the whole way. I just think the
15 quality of life would really suffer out there. There's
16 very few neighbors. I have one 400 feet away from me.
17 But, I mean, the quality of life is really going to suffer
18 because of that type of concentration.
19 Robson Ranch, you can see if you go to the
20 top of H. Lively, you can see it about two miles away and
21 you can see all the rooftops and how concentrated they
22 are. And I don't have anything against golf courses and
23 nice cormnunities but I think that the concentration when
24 it gets down to where 2449 is is really not acceptable.
25 Thank you.
Page 188
1 MR. RICHARDSON: Yes. My name is Steve
2 Richardson, 500 Sheldon Court, Highland Village. I happen
3 to own 10.66 acres on H. Lively Road that backs up to
4 where the proposed zoning change is.
5 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: IS thc're a map that
6 we could put on the docucam, Ms. Willis, and maybe he
7 could show us where his property is on Lively Road? Would
8 you put this into the docucam? Maybe the docucam can zoom
9 for us a little. And your property is located
10 approxilnately -- okay. And are you in the City or outside
11 the City?
12 MR. RICt-r~mON: we're outside the City.
13 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: outside the City so
14 notification was not given to you; is that correct?
15 MR. RICHARDSON: Correct. We just
16 purchased this prop~:y February.
17 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Richardson, would
18 you address your co-presenter.
19 MR. RICHARDSON: oh, I'm sorry. This is my
20 wife, Anita Richardson.
21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very much.
22 MR. RICHARDSON: OUr whole reason for
23 wanting to move out there, and we also have a building
24 permit pending at this time to build out there. We just
25 did that because somebody else earlier had said they had
1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr.
2 Richardson. We have a couple of questions for you, Mr.
3 Richardson or Ms. Richardson. Commissioner Powell.
4 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Actually, my question
5 is for staff.
6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Let me come back to
7 you while we have the --
8 COMMISSIONER POWELL: That's fine. Thank
9 you.
i0 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Roy.
11 COMMISSIONER ROY: Yes. What was your
12 understanding of the acreage requirements for RD-5?
13 MR. RICHARDSON: My understanding, and
14 correct me if I'm wrong here, my understanding was that
15 that represents five houses per acre. Is that correct?
16 COMMISSIONER ROY: NO.
17 MR. RICHARDSON: I apologize for our
18 ignorance on this.
19 COMMISSIONER ROY: Mr. Reichhart, perhaps
20 it would be helpful for him to understand.
21 MR. REICHHART: Certainly.
22 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Reichhart.
23 MR. REICHHART: The RD-5 is basically a
24 single-fmnily residential. It's one unit per five acres
25 so it's just the opposite, quickly do the math, it would
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24TH, 2002 Page 185 - Page 188
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
20
21
22
23
24
25
be 150 houses on the 300 acres maximum.
COMMISSIONER ROY: 60.
MR. REICHHART: 60, I'm not very good at
math.
COMMISSIONER ROY: 60 houses.
MR. RICHARDSON: 60 in 300 acres.
MR. REICHHART: Yeah, that's true. So
that's even better for you. So that is our most
restrictive designation regarding density. It does -- and
the applicant, the property owner, although Robson Ranch
Page 189
Page 191
1 close the public hearing and ask for staff to give us
2 closing comments.
3 MS. WILLIS: staff has no comments. Just
4 encourage you to reconsider rezoning the property from
5 Agricultural zoning to RD-5 residential.
6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very much.
7 Conunissioncrs, what is your discretion on this particular
8 itmn? Colmnissioner Powell.
9 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I don't have a light
10 on. But I would move to --
docs own it, they have not proposed any major development
on it. They are proposing some gas wells at this time.
They have started their development in the southern of
theirs and working towards the north. I did talk to a
representative of Robson Ranch earlier this week regarding
this property and they currently have no development plans
in the near future. They're looking maybe 20 years plus
before they'd even consider anything up on that property.
But that would take a zoning change. But right now it's a
five-acre requirement per lot, or density of such. They
could cluster it. But there isn't any utilities.
MS. RICHARDSON: That makes it the same as
Amex Estates across 2499. They're broken up into
five-acre lots per home. Is that right?
MR. REICHHART: similar but -- yes. As far
Page 190
as density, I mean, quite honestly, they could cluster the
units and leave a great deal of it open and do a little
subdivision, but it would be the same number of houses.
MR. RICHARDSON: I appreciate the
clarification.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: we still have some
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very much,
Mr. Powell.
COMMISSIONER POWELL: I would move, since
you mentioned my name, Mr. Chairman, I would move to
accept this as presented.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER POWELL: Approve this as
presented.
COMMISSIONER MULROY: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It's been moved by
Commissioner Powell and seconded by Commissioner Mulroy.
Any further questions, clarifications, or comments?
Seeing none, please vote. Motion carries 7-0.
Commissioners that might have some questions.
Commissioner Apple.
COMMISSIONER APPLE: oh, I'm sorry. I
literally had my light on just to tell them that it was
just thc opposite.
7
8
9
10
i1
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very much,
Mr. and Ms. Richardson.
MR. RICHARDSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Powell.
COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. My
question was whether Robson Ranch was extending out that
way at this time and the answer has been given. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And just wait till
they start to frack those wells and you'll know they're
there. Okay. Any further comments or questions,
Commissioners? Once again, this is a public hearing.
Anyone else who would like to speak before the Co~mnission?
Seeing no one who would like to speak at this time, I will
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 192
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24TH, 2002 Page 189 - Page 192
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
Page 193
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Commissioners, I'd
just like to say thank you very much for your decorum this
evening in helping us to move this session along. I
really appreciate the efforts we've taking in trying to
discipline ourselves so we can get as much business done
as possible. So thank you, once again, Commissioners, one
and all. We appreciate your time on this Conunission and
your efforts and all the dedication that you have to serve
Page 195
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I think that would be
the proposal, work session item.
COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. I
appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Commissioners, does
that meet with your approval? I think that would give us
good clarification. Commissioner Keith.
COMMISSIONER KEITH: Yes, sir. Thank you
this community. Thank you again.
Staff, any further closing conunents?
MR. REICHHART: We just wanted to point
out --
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Reichhart.
MR. REICHHART: -- we did leave a couple of
handouts for you to take. One is an update on
transportation projects throughout the City. It might be
very helpful. I know y'all get a lot of questions
regarding that. And then the second one is regarding
9 very much, Ms. Apple, for bringing that to light. I don't
10 know if we can do it in Planning and Zoning, but I think
11 this is very neat but I'd like to know what this costs the
12 citizens of the City of Denton, especially -- I think it's
13 very informative but I think it's coming out as a little
14 untimely considering one of the candidates is very much
15 featured in the article. But I'd like to know what the
16 cost of this was. Thank you very much.
17 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: If there's no further
18 cormnents or questions from the Commissioners, we are
parking standards that just came out in a recent planning
article and I thought you might find it interesting.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Con~nissioner Apple.
COMMISSIONER APPLE: I have a request for
future Agenda items.
COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Please.
COMMISSIONER APPLE: Actually, it goes back
Page 194
19 adjourned.
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 to -- well, I'm not sure which Agenda item it was. 19,
2 the Blagg Road. I would like to have us take a look at
3 some of those designations in that area, have a rclook at
4 the area in between Lakeview and the site that we
5 reconunended NR-1 zoning for, since that's sitting in the
6 center there at NR-6. I'd like to have us take a look at
7 that NRMU-12 sitting on Blagg Road, as Conunissioner Powcll
8 has already told us that's probably not the best idea to
9 have a lot of use there. And also a look at the tqR-6
10 that's next to ETJ Ag and next to NR-2. If I could have
11 those somehow, and I'll look for Mr. Reichhart's direction
12 in looking at those three and seeing if there's something
13 we can do about those.
14 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Iwouldjust further
15 want to say, and adjacent areas, so we're not limited in
16 our discussion to those specific three.
17 MR. REICmtART: what I would recolmnend or
18 propose is that we -- excuse me, that we might bring that
19 back as a work session item and then we can have a larger
20 map and we can look at zoning and we can give you some
21 background.
22 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I thought that was
23 Ms. Apple's suggestion.
24 MR. REICHHART: I don't know if it was to
25 have a work session or at a public hearing.
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 196
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24TH, 2002 Page 193 - Page 196
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ZONING A TRACT OF LAND,
COMPRISING APPROXIMATELY 67.66 ACRES iN THE CITY OF DENTON FROM
AGRICULTURE (A) ZONING DiSTRiCT CLASSiFiCATiON TO AN iNDUSTRIAL CENTER
EMPLOYMENT (lC-E); THE TRACT BEING GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF JiM
CHRISTAL ROAD, SOUTH OF UNIVERSITY AND WEST OF MASCH BRANCH ROAD IN THE
MYERS BRUMMET JOHNSON SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1699; PROVIDING A PENALTY
CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE (Z02-0014).
WHEREAS, the City of DeNon has initiated a change in zoning for an approximate 67.66 acres
of land from an Agriculture (A) zoning district classification and use designation to industrial Cemer
Employmem (lC-E) zoning district; and
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval
of the requested zoning; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the 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 approximate 67.66
acre property described in the legal description attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A"
is hereby changed from Agriculture (A) zoning district classification and use designation to industrial
Cemer Employmem (lC-E) under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of DeNon, Texas.
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 DeNon Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of DeNon, 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 4
Exhibit "A"
All that certain tract or parcel of land lying and being situated in the Myers Brummet Johnson Survey,
Abstract number 1699, Denton County, Texas, and being a portion of a certain called 45,000 acre tract
described in the deed to Verl C. Lybbert and Margaret J. Lybbert from Real Property Exchange, L.C.
recorded by County Clerks File Number 94-R0060135, Real Property Records, DeNon county, Texas
and being a portion of a certain called 24.265 acres described in the deed to Verl C. Lybbert and
Margaret J Lybbert from David H. Steiner and Mary K Steiner recorded by County Clerks File
Number 94-R0060133 of said Real Property Records. And being more particularly described as
follows:
BEGINNING at a pain in the preseN city limit line as established by Ordinance No. 86-102, said
pain being the Southeast comer of said Ordinance 86-102 a distance of 3,090.50 feet, more or less, to
a pain lying in the north survey line of the Myers Brummett Johnson Survey, Abstract Number 1699 a
d being the Northwest comer of said 45.000 acre tract;
THENCE
calls;
1.
in an Easterly direction along the North line of said Survey the next following 3 (three)
Thence South 89 Degrees 49 Minutes 18 Seconds East, along the north line of said 45.000
acre tract a distance of 394.07 feet to a point for a comer;
Thence South 88 Degrees 25 minutes 54 Seconds East, across said 45.000 acre tract a
distance of 59.94 feet, more or less, to a point for a comer;
Thence South 89 Degrees 37 Minutes 36 Seconds East, along the north line of said 45.000
acre tract a distance of 659.22 feet to a point for a comer;
THENCE south 00 Degrees 05 Minutes 23 Seconds East, with an west line of the tact of land
described in the deed to Mark E. Cole and wife Linda J. Cole, recorded in volume 4750 page 737, Real
Property Records Denton County, Texas, a distance of 1,698.40 feet, more or less, to a point for a
comer being a Southeast comer of said 45.000 acre tract;
THENCE South 89 Degrees 03 Minutes 32 Seconds West, with an north line of said Mark E. Cole and
wife Linda J. Cole tract and along a south line of said 45.000 acre tract a distance of 143.14 feet to a
point for a comer;
THENCE South 00 Degrees 33 Minutes 00 Seconds East, with an east line of said Mark E. Cole and,
wife Linda J. Cole tract and with a west af said 45.000 acre tract a distance of 16.57 feet to a point for
a comer being a Southeast comer of said 45.000 acre tract and the Northeast comer of said 24.265 acre
tract;
THENCE South 00 Degrees 33 Minutes 00 Seconds East, with an east line of said 24.265 acre tract a
distance of 992.15 feet to a point for a comer being a Southeast comer of said 24.265 acre tract and
being the Northeast comer of the tract of land described by the deed to Larry Manning, recorded in
Volume 1321 Page 230 of said Real Property Records;
THENCE North 89 Degrees 50 Minutes 43 Seconds West, with a south line of said 24.265 acre tract a
distance af 792.69 feet to a pin for an inner ell comer af said 24.,265 acre tract and being the
Page 3 of 4
Northwest comer of the tract of land described in the deed to JHR Construction Co., Inc .recorded by
County Clerks File number 99-R0110735;
THENCE South 00 Degrees 28 Minutes 20 Seconds East, with an east line of said 24.265 acre tract
and the west line of said JHR construction Co., Inc. Tract a distance of 452.00 fee, more or less, to a
point lying in the centerline of Jim Christal Road;
THENCE Northwesterly, with the centerline of said road and the north line of present city limits line
as established by Ordinance No. 69-40, a distance of 198.10 feet, more or less, to the POINT OF
BEGINNING and containing 67.66 acres of land, more or less.
Page 4 of 4
Agenda02-017 05/21/02 #21
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE:
DEPARTMENT:
CM/DCM/ACM:
May 21, 2002
General Government
Betty Williams, Director of Management & Public Information
Michael A. Conduff, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Consider approval of a resolution establishing maximum permitted rates that Charter
Communications may charge its Denton cable television subscribers for basic cable service,
associated equipment, changing tiers, and the hourly service charge; providing a severability
clause; and providing an effective date.
BACKGROUND:
The City is certified to regulate cable television rates for basic cable service, equipment,
changing tiers, and the hourly service charge. Under the current franchise agreement, Charter
Communications has agreed to file for new rates only once per year. The city received the
appropriate rate adjustment filing Federal Communications Commission Forms (1240 and 1205)
on March 1, 2002. The City has one year from that date to issue a rate order establishing the
Maximum Permitted Rates (MPR) that Charter Communications may charge. However, Charter
has the right to implement these proposed rates on June 1, 2002 until City Council sets the new
MPR's.
In their filing, Charter Communications indicates that the new rates are the result of "certain
extemal costs, (i.e., programming, channel changes, copyright), inflation, tree-up adjustments
and increased cost associated with delivering cable service." FCC Form 1240 calculates the
maximum permitted rate for basic cable service. Form 1205 calculates maximum permitted rates
for equipment, changing tiers, and the hourly service charge.
We contracted with Connie Cannady of C2 Consulting to assist staff with the rate analysis. Ms.
Cannady is familiar with Charter Communication's cost analysis practices and has done our rate
analysis for the past several years. Ms. Cannady has analyzed the cable operator's proposed rates
for basic cable service, converters, remote controls, changing tiers, and the hourly service charge.
Staff is in agreement with her recommendations listed in the last column of the table below. Her
report is also attached for your review.
ADA/EOE/ADEA www.cityofdenton.com (TDD 800-735-2989)
5/14/02 Cable Rates Page 2 of 5
A comparison table of Charter Communications existing Maximum Permitted Rates (MPR),
their proposed MPR's and staff's recommended MPR's follows:
Item Current MPR Proposed MPR Recommended MPR
Basic $9.78/month $10.19/month $9.80/month
Non-Basic Only Converter $3.96/month $6.60/month $6.60/month
Basic Only Converter $0.98/month N/A $0.77/month
Remote Control $0.20/month $0.20/month $0.20/month
Changing Tiers $2.00 $1.99/month $1.99/month
Hourly Service Charge $22.12/hour $26.79/hour $26.79/hour
Unwired Install-Aerial $39.37 $46.09 $46.09
Unwired Install-
Underground $42.02 $50.11 $50.11
Install-Prewired
Reconnect $23.66 $29.47 $29.47
A/O at time of Installation $12.83 $14.20 $14.20
A/O Return Trip $23.66 $29.47 $29.47
Analog Prewired A/O None $25.46 $25.46
Analog Relocate A/O None $29.47 $29.47
Truck Roll $20.57 $24.12 $24.12
Digital Install-Aerial $47.11 $55.47 $55.47
Digital Install-
Underground $49.76 $59.48 $59.48
Digital Upgrade $31.40 $38.85 $38.85
Digital A/O at time of
Installation $18.58 $17.42 $17.42
Digital A/O Return Trip $28.75 $34.30 $34.30
Digital Prewired A/O None $29.47 $29.47
Digital Relocate A/O None $32.96 $32.96
Digital Truck Roll $20.57 $27.60 $27.60
Modem Install $44.70 N/A N/A
Charter proposes to increase the basic service rate from $9.78 to $10.19 per month per
subscriber. The primary reasons for the proposed increase were due to the tree up of the
inflation factor calculated by Charter, which was significantly greater than was projected. (2.29%
versus 1.62%), and some channel programming costs that were added to the basic service rate.
Ms. Cannady noted that the February subscriber count used by Charter was 9% lower than the
year end subscribers count, indicating a downward trend in subscribers subsequent to the tier rate
increase. March subscriber counts also showed a continued decline. This continued lower level
of subscribers brings into question the manner in which Charter projected subscribers for the
projected period. The Company projected a 1% increase in the average counts for the tree-up
period. However, the level of subscribers as of March does not support any increase. To
increase the number of subscribers during the projected period lowers the rate for this filing, but
when trued-up, could result in a higher increase, (plus 11.25% interest) in the next filing.
ADA/EOE/ADEA www.cityofdenton, com (TDD 800-735-2989)
5/14/02 Cable Rates Page 3 of 5
Further, Charter initially proposed to remove the Weather Radar channel and replace it with The
Hallmark Channel. Subsequent to discussions with the City, Charter committed that this change
would not take place. In addition, during follow-up discussions by Ms. Cannady with Charter
representatives, she leamed that Charter had plans to potentially remove WGN from the Basic
Service line-up. Both of these channel line-up issues are important in the development of the
Basic Service rate in that each of the channels (The Hallmark Channel and WGN ) have
programming costs that were included by Charter in the Form 1240 filing. Ms. Cannady has
therefore removed these costs.
A final issue relates to the inflation factor used for both the true-up period and the projected
period. The Form 1240 methodology allows for an inflation adjustment to be projected for each
rate year. Such projection becomes part of the true-up computation in the next rate filing. Based
on FCC regulations, a cable operator is to use the most recent information published by the FCC
concerning quarterly inflation factors to be applied. At the time of Charter's current Form 1240
filing, the latest published inflation factor was for the third quarter 2001. Since Charter's true-up
period is from March 2001 through February 2002, the inflation factors used were the first,
second and third quarter 2001. The third quarter factor of 2.25% continued to be used for the
fourth quarter 2001 and the first quarter 2002 component of the tree-up period. Additionally,
this third quarter factor was used for the entire projected period. However, on April 9, 2002,
shortly after Charter filed its current Form 1240, the FCC published the fourth quarter factor of
negative. 11%.
If the franchising authority finds adjustments need to be made other than those attributable to the
inflation factors, the FCC has found that the inflation factors can be adjusted with data that
became available subsequent to the date of the filing. Therefore, because Ms Cannady is
recommending that adjustments be made to Charter's filed Form 1240 computation, the true-up
period inflation factor should be refreshed to include the fourth quarter factor. With respect to
the projected period, the rules state that the latest published factor is to be used. However, in Ms.
Cannady's opinion, it is unlikely that we will continue to have negative inflation during the
projected period. To include a decline in the rate now may result in a significant tree-up amount
in the next filing, plus 11.25% interest. Therefore, using an average factor for the last four
quarters produces a more reasonable factor for the projected period.
The impact of making the above adjustments is to reduce the current Form 1240 proposed basic
service rate calculation from $10.19 to $9.80.
Ms. Cannady also noted one key issue with respect to the Form 1205 rate filing. Charter
continues to inappropriately aggregate equipment costs for converters. In 1996, the FCC issued
a ruling that allowed cable operators to aggregate equipment and installation costs at a level
higher than the systems. In the instant filing, Charter has again aggregated all types of
converters into one converter category. In the prior filing, the City ordered the Company to
provide a separate rate for the basic-only customer of $.98 because the Company could not
provide actual data related to boxes that might be used by a basic-only subscriber without a cable
ready television.
ADA/EOE/ADEA www.cityofdenton.com (TDD 800-735-2989)
5/14/02 Cable Rates Page 4 of 5
The Company did not originally file for any converter rate for the basic-only subscriber.
However, in the information provided during the course of the analysis, Charter provided a
computed rate of $.77 per month per subscriber. Therefore, any subscriber who receives only the
basic service and does have a converter box should only pay $.77 per month rather than the
$6.60 filed.
OPTIONS:
1) Approve the rates as filed by Charter Communications prior to June 1, 2002 and they will
go into effect on June 1, 2002.
2)
Approve the rates recommended by C2 Consulting prior to June 1, 2002, and those rates
must be implement by Charter on June 1, 2002. However, Charter Communications may
attempt to obtain an order by the FCC or a court staying the effectiveness of the City's rate
order and thus allowing implementation of the filed rates.
3)
Take no official action prior to June 1, 2002 and Charter Communications may implement
their filed rates on June 1, 2002. If Charter Communications implements their filed rates
on June 1, 2002, and if Council approves lower rates after June 1, 2002, then Charter
Communications must implement the lower rates immediately. Again, Charter
Communications may attempt to obtain an order by the FCC or a court staying the
effectiveness of the City's rate order and thus allowing implementation of the filed rates.
However, if the FCC or the courts uphold the lower rates, Charter Communications would
have to rebate the difference to subscribers or factor the overcharges into next year's
calculations.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends option #2, approving rates as determined by C2 Consulting.
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commission):
City Council Work Session April 2, 2002.
Public Heating held April 16, 2002.
FISCAL INFORMATION:
Higher rates would impact subscribers. City receives 5% of Charter Communications gross
revenues as franchise fees.
Respectfully submitted:
B~tty Wilqiams
Director of Management and Public Information
ADA/EOE/ADEA www.cityofdenton, com (TDD 800-735-2989)
5/14/02 Cable Rates Page 5 of 5
J~fi~brales Jr. ' (~
1~.~ Information Officer ND
Attachments
1. May 9, 2002, Report from C2 Consulting
ADA/EOE/ADEA www.cityofdenton.com (TDD 800-735-2989)
SERVICES, INC.
7 80 ! Pen cross
D~llas. Texns 75248
(912) 72E-n21z
May 9, 2002
Mr. John Cabrales
Public Information Officer
City of Denton
215 E. McKinney
Denton, Texas 76201
Dear Mr. Cabrales:
Pursuant to your request, C2 Consulting Services, Inc. ("C2") provides the following findings
with respect to the FCC Form 1240 and Form 1205 filed with the City of Denton ("City") by
Charter Communications ("Charter" or the "Company"). Based on the analysis, C2 has identified
the following issues with respect to Charter's proposed basic service and equipment and
installation rotes.
Form 1240 - Basic Service Rate
Charter proposes to increase the basic service rote from $9.78 to $10.19 per month per subscriber.
The primary reasons for the proposed increase are:
1. The inflation factor calculated by Charter for the tree-up period in this filing (the
projected period from the previous filing) is significantly greater than was projected.
(2.29% versus 1.62%)
2. The Company originally proposed to replace Weather Radar with The Hallmark
Channel in June 2002. This channel has programming costs that have been added to
the basic service rote.
There remain three primary issues with respect to Charter's proposed Form 1240 rote:
· Reasonableness of the number of subscribers proposed for the true-up and projected
period
· Reasonableness of the proposed channel line-up changes in light of the possible
revisions since the filing was made
· Refreshing the inflation factor to the most recent information available
Mr. John Cabrales
May 9, 2002
Page 2
1. Subscriber Counts
As with past filings, the Company files the Form 1240 with the City prior to the end of February.
This becomes an issue in that February is the last month of the true-up period, and only actual
counts can be used for any of the true-up months. Due to the timing of the filing, the Company
does not have the actual number of customers as of the month end.
In the instant filing, the Company used the subscriber count as of February 26. Based on follow-
up requests for information, the Company stated that this number was the same as on February
28. This would necessarily mean that there were no installations or disconnects on February 27
and February 28, a Wednesday and Thursday. At this time, C2 has no additional information to
support or reject Charter's position. However, C2 notes that the February count used is 9% lower
than the year end subscribers count, indicating a downward trend in subscribers subsequent to the
tier rate increase. C2 asked for the March counts, which showed a continued decline in the
subscriber levels. April counts (provided via telephone) showed only slight increase over March.
This continued lower level of subscribers brings into question the manner in which Charter
projected subscribers for the projected period. The Company projected a 1% increase in the
average counts for the tree-up period. However, the level of subscribers as of March and April
does not support any increase. To increase the number of subscribers during the projected period
lowers the rate for this filing, but when trued-up, could result in a higher increase, (plus 11.25%
interest) in the next filing.
2. Channel Line=Up Changes
Initially, Charter proposed to remove the Weather Radar channel and replace it with The
Hallmark Channel. Subsequent to discussions with the City, Charter committed that this change
would not take place. In addition, during follow-up discussions by C2 with Charter
representative, C2 learned that Charter had plans to potentially remove WGN from the Basic
Service line=up. Both of these channel line=up issues are important in the development of the
Basic Service rate in that each of the channels (The Hallmark Channel and WGN ) have
programming costs that were included by Charter in the Form 1240 filing. C2 has removed these
costs.~
3. Refresh the Inflation Factor
The third issue relates to the inflation factor used for both the tree=up period and the projected
period. The Form 1240 methodology allows for an inflation adjustment to be projected for each
rate year. Such projection becomes part of the true-up computation in the next rate filing. Based
on FCC regulations, a cable operator is to use the most recent information published by the FCC
concerning quarterly inflation factors to be applied.2 At the time of Charter's current Form 1240
filing, the latest published inflation factor was for the third quarter 2001. Since Charter's true-up
~ C2 notes that there is also the issue of whether the residual costs for WGN should be removed. It is C2's
position that this issue should remain open for next year's filing, depending on whether the total number of
channels ultimately received during the projected period in this filing are less than 27. If so, the City
should reserve the fight to '~a~ue-up" the channel deletion/movement accordingly.
2 FCC Form 1240 Instructions, Part I: Module C [Revised July 1996].
Mr. John Cabrales
May 9, 2002
Page 3
period is from March 2001 through February 2002, the inflation factors used were the first,
second and third quarter 2001. The third quarter factor of 2.25% continued to be used for the
fourth quarter 2001 and the first quarter 2002 component of the true-up period. Additionally,
this third quarter factor was used for the entire projected period. However, on April 9, 2002,
shortly a~er Charter filed its current Form 1240, the FCC published the fourth quarter factor of
negative. 11%.
Typically, if the inflation factor used is the only issue found in a franchising authority's review of
a Form 1240 filing, the FCC has found in favor of the cable operator using what was the most
recent data available at the time the filing was made. This policy was detailed by the FCC in the
Third Order on Reconsideration as follows:
We share National Cable Television Association's concern that rates adopted in an effort
to comply with our roles as quickly as possible may become unreasonable solely as a
result of using later data to refresh the calculations. Operators should not be penalized
for making good faith attempts to comply with our rules in a timely manner.
When current rates are accurately justified by analysis using the old data (and that data
was accurate at the time), cable operators will not be required to change their rates...
When current rates are not justified by analysis using the old data (so that a rate
adjustment would be necessary in any event), cable operators will be required to correct
their rates pursuant to cmrent data. In these circumstances, the resulting rates must be
based on current data.s [emphasis added]
Clearly, if the franchising authority finds adjustments need to be made other than those
attributable to the inflation factors, the FCC has found that the inflation factors can be adjusted
with data that became available subsequent to the date of the filing. The FCC's position on this
issue is evidenced in the above-cited Portland Order (DA 97-1852). In that decision, the FCC
found error with Paragon's use of estimated data in its true-up computation for CPST rates and
also made an adjustment to reflect current inflation factor data:
This adjustment required that we refresh Operator's inflation factors 4
Therefore, because C2 is recommending that adjustments be made to Charter's filed Form 1240
computation, the hue-up period inflation factor should be refreshed to include the fourth quarter
factor. With respect to the projected period, the rules state that the latest published factor is to be
used. However, in C2's opinion, it is unlikely that we will continue to have negative inflation
during the projected period. To include a decline in the rate now, may result in a significant hue-
up amount in the next filing, plus 11.25% interest. Therefore, in C2's opinion, using an average
factor for the last four quarters produces a more reasonable factor for the projected period.5
The impact of making the above adjustments is to reduce the current Form 1240 proposed basic
service rate calculation from $10.19 to $9.80.
See Third Order on Reconsideration, FCC 94-40, released March 30, 1994, paragraphs 93 and 94.
See Order, DA 97-1852, released August 29, 1997, paragraph 10.
If the actual -. 11% fourth quarter inflation factor is used for the entire projected period, the resulting rate
is $9.61, or $.17 less than the current rate.
Mr. John Cabrales
May 9, 2002
Page 4
Form 1205 - Equipment and Installation Rates
C2 notes one key issue with respect to the Form 1205 rates:
· Charter continues to inappropriately aggregate equipment costs for converters
1. Improper Aggregation of Equipment
In 1996, the FCC issued a ruling that allowed cable operators to aggregate equipment and
installation costs at a level higher than the systems. Additionally, cable operators could aggregate
the costs of equipment as follows:
Customer equipment may instead be listed in broad categories, provided that each
category includes only equipment of the same type, regardless of the levels of
functionality of the equipment within each broad category... Further, customer
equipment which is used by subscribers who receive only a rate regulated basic service
tier, shall not be aggregated into broad cost categories with the costs of equipment used
by subscribers who receive programming services in addition to the basic tier... An
alternative approach to allocating costs to basic-only subscribers is to assume that all
such customers are using the lowest cost model of equipment in service regardless of
whether that is actually true and thus to charge aH basic-only subscribers based on the
lowest cost equipment models. [emphasis added]6
In the instant filing, Charter has again aggregated all types of converters into one converter
category. In the prior filing, the City ordered the Company to provide a separate rate for the
basic-only customer of $.98 because the Company could not provide actual data related to boxes
that might be used by a basic-only subscriber without a cable ready television.?
The Company did not originally file for any converter rate for the basic-only subscriber.
However, in the information provided during the course of the analysis, the Company provided a
computed rate of $.77 per month per subscriber. Therefore, any subscriber who receives only the
basic service and does have a converter box, should only pay $.77 per month rather than the $6.60
filed.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the above discussion, the City should consider the following:
· Adjust the projected period subscribers to show no growth.
· Adjust the projected period programming costs to exclude the costs for The Hallmark
Channel and WGN.
· Refresh the true-up period inflation to include the actual fourth quarter inflation
factor.
· Use the average inflation factor for the last four quarters for the projected period.
6 Form 1205 Instruction for Schedule C: Capital Costs of Leased Customer Equipment
? During the 2001 analysis, Charter provided a five-year schedule of the impact of annual depreciation on
the 1999 level of standard converters to support a rate for basic-only subscribers. It was this information
that was used to calculate the estimated $.98 rate per month. It is also this information, depreciated an
additional year, that supports the $.77 rate per month.
Mr. John Cabrales
May 9, 2002
Page 5
· Consider a Form 1240 rate of $9.80 rather than Charter's proposed
permitted Form 1240 rate of $10.19.
· Adopt a basic only converter rate of $.77 per month.
C2 greatly appreciates this opportunity to assist the City of Denton in its review of the Form 1240
and Form 1205 filing. If you have any questions concerning these findings and
recommendations, please contact Ms. Connie Cannady at 972-726-7216.
Very truly yours,
C2 Consulting Services, Inc.
Please call me if you have any questions or need further information concerning the analyses.
Very truly yours,
Constance T. Cannady
President
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE MAXIMUM RATES THAT CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS MAY CHARGE ITS DENTON CABLE TELEVISION SUBSCRIBERS
FOR THE BASIC SERVICE TIER, CHANGING TIERS, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT;
ESTABLISHING A MAXIMUM HOURLY SERVICE CHARGE; PROVIDING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Denton ("City") is the Grantor of a cable television franchise by
a franchise ordinance, Ordinance No. 88-189 passed and executed on or about November 15,
1988, by and between the City and Sammons Communications, Inc. ("Sammons"), and the City,
by Ordinance No. 95-191, passed by the City Council on September 19, 1995, approved the
transfer of the Franchise Ordinance along with attached amendments to Marcus Cable
Associates, L.L.C. ("Marcus"); and
WHEREAS, on March 23, 1999, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 99-094
(Ordinance Nos. 88-189, 95-191, and 99-094, and the Acceptance Agreements of September 12,
1995 and March 23, 1999, are hereinafter referred to as the "Franchise"), transferring the
Franchise from Marcus to Paul G. Allen dba Vulcan Cable, Inc., Vulcan Cable II, Inc., Charter
Communications, Inc., and Charter Communications Holdings, Inc. ("Charter"); and
WHEREAS, on May 17, 1994, the City Council passed Resolution No. R94-019
authorizing the regulation of basic service tier rates and related equipment, installation, and
service charges for any cable television system operating within the City in accordance with.the
applicable Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") regulations; and
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2001, the City Council passed Resolution No. R2001-025
authorizing changes in the rates that Charter may charge its Denton cable television subscribers
for the basic service tier, associated equipment, and installation charges; and
WHEREAS, the City, pursuant to the Cable Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992 ("Cable Act") and the rules and regulations adopted thereunder by the FCC and other
applicable laws, is certified as a franchising authority to regulate the rates for the basic cable
service, equipment, and installation rates; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 8-136 "Rates", of the Code of Ordinances of the
City of Denton, Texas and in accordance with Section XXI "Rates" of the Franchise, Charter
filed a petition with the City on or about March 1, 2002, along with FCC Forms 1205 and 1240,
in conformance with this section and all applicable laws, requesting a change in its basic cable
service, changing tiers, equipment, and installation rates as above described, which the City is
certified to regulate; and
WHEREAS, the City held a public hearing in conformance with Section 8-136 of the
Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton on April 16, 2002, after all interested citizens had
been properly notified in accordance with the law, and all interested members of the public had
an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, to assure the rates requested by Charter are fair and reasonable, the City
employed C2 Consulting Services, Inc. to review the rates, and C2 Consulting has filed its
recommendations and report; and
WHEREAS, as the local regulator of rates for the basic service tier, the City desires to
make a rate ruling on the proposed rates submitted by Charter to be charged to subscribers of the
basic service tier; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY RESOLVES:
SECTION 1. Findings:
(A) The City is the Grantor of a Franchise executed on or about November 15, 1988, by
and between the City and Sammons.
(B) The Franchise, as amended, was transferred to Marcus, in accordance with the terms
and conditions of that ordinance on or about September 19, 1995.
(C) In accordance with the applicable provisions of the Cable Act, the rules adopted by
the FCC, Chapter 8 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Resolution No. R94-019,
and other applicable laws, the City has undertaken all appropriate procedural steps to regulate the
basic cable service tier, changing tiers, related equipment, and installation charges.
(D) In accordance with the applicable FCC regulations, on or about January 7, 1994, the
City filed FCC Form 328 - Certification of Franchising Authority to Regulate Basic Cable
Service Rates and Initial Finding of Lack of Effective Competition - with the FCC.
(E) In accordance with applicable FCC regulations, on or about May 17, 1994, the City
passed and adopted a resolution providing for the regulation of rates charged by cable television
operators within the City for the basic service tier and related equipment and installation charges.
(F) On or about March 23, 1999, the City Council transferred the Franchise from Marcus
to Charter.
(G) On or about March 1, 2002, Charter submitted FCC Form 1205 and Form 1240 to
the City.
(I-l) Pursuant to FCC regulations and applicable law, on or about April 16, 2002, the City
held a public hearing and gave the public adequate opportunity to comment on the proposed rate
request. Thc City regularly conducted a meeting which was open to the public, in accordance
with the Texas Open Meetings Act, Tex. Gov't Code ch. 551, and provided an opportunity for
interested parties to present information to the City during the meeting of April 16, 2002.
Page 2
(I) The City must act upon the pending rate request consistent with current FCC roles
and regulations and other applicable laws.
SECTION 2. Conclusions:
(A) That for the period beginning June 1, 2002, until May 31, 2003, the maximum
permitted rate for basic cable service (these numbers do not include the 5% franchise fee) of
$9.80 per month, is approved. But as noted in C2 Consulting Services, Inc.'s (C2) May 9, 2002
reports, Charter used projected subscriber counts that were not supported by actual subscriber
counts, and included programming costs for channels that are to be removed from the basic
channel tier. C2 reports that this is clearly inappropriate since FCC regulations request that all
true-up computations be based on actual data. Accordingly, this resolution and the rates
approved hereby are conditioned on Charter using projected subscriber counts that reflect actual
experience and exclude removed programming costs in future filings.
(B) That for the period beginning June 1, 2002, until May 31, 2003, the maximum
permitted charge for installation and hourly service (these numbers do not include the 5%
franchise fee) of $26.79 per hour, is approved.
(C) For the period beginning June 1, 2002, until May 31, 2003, the maximum fee (these
numbers do not include the 5% franchise fee) for leased customer equipment of: remote control
- $0.20, basic only converter - $.77, non-basic only converter - $6.60 per month and changing
tiers - $1.99 is approved.
(D) In accordance with C2 Consulting Services, Inc.'s report, the City finds that digital
converters are used to receive the basic service tier in accordance with FCC regulations, §76.923,
that the City has a right to regulate rates charged for the use of this piece of equipment as a part
of the basic cable service tier.
SECTION 3. Incorporation of Findings and Conclusions. That the Findings and
Conclusions set forth in Sections I and II of this resolution are found to be tree and correct and
are made a part of this resolution for all purposes.
SECTION 4. Orders for Action. Based on the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the
City Council hereby enters the following orders adopting the rates and requiring the following
actions:
(A) Pursuant to current FCC regulations and applicable law, for the period commencing
June 1, 2002, until May 31, 2003, or until further order of the City, Charter will be permitted to
charge a maximum rate for the basic cable service of $9.80 per month (these numbers do not
include the 5% t~anehise fee).
(B) Pursuant to current FCC regulations and applicable law, for the period commencing
June 1, 2002, until May 31, 2003, or until further order of the City, Charter will be permitted to
Page 3
charge the following maximum equipment and installation rates (these numbers do not include
the 5% franchise fee):
Equipment & Installation
Maximum Permitted Rate
Hourly Service Charge
Average Charge for Unwired
Installation-Aerial
Average Charge for Unwired
Installation-Underground
Average Charge for Install-Prewired/Recormect
Average Charge for A/O at a time of
Installation
Average Charge for A/O Return Trip
Analog Prewired A/O
Analog Relocate A/O
Average Charge for Service Requiring
A Tmck Roll
Average Charge for Digital Installation-
Aerial
Average Charge for Digital Installation-
Underground
Average Charge for Digital Upgrade
Average Charge for Digital A/O at time
of Installation
Average Charge for Digital A/O Return
Trip
Digital Prewired A/O
Digital Relocate A/O
Digital Truck Roll
Changing of Service Tiers
$26.79
$46.09
$50.11
$29.47
$14.20
$29.47
$25.46
$29.47
$24.12
$55.47
$59.48
$38.85
$17.42
$34.30
$29.47
$32.96
$27.60
$ 1.99
Equipment Charges
Remote Control
Basic-Only Converters
Non-Basic Only Converters
$ 0.20
$ 0.77
$ 6.60
future
future
(C) This resolution shall not be reconsidered should any further analysis pursuant to
FCC rules and regulations result in or indicate higher rates to subscribers, unless such
FCC Rules and regulations mandate that the City order such an upward adjustment.
(D) The City Manager and the City Attorney, or their designees, are hereby authorized
and directed to take action necessary to enforce the orders contained in this resolution, including,
without limitation, to execute and file with the FCC such certification form documents or other
Page 4
instruments or take any other actions as are now or hereafter may be required by the FCC rate
regulations or applicable laws to enforce the rate ruling set forth herein, to defend this rate ruling
in any appeal to the FCC, administrative proceeding or litigation involving this matter.
(E) That Charter shall fully comply with the Franchise and the recent case of City of
Dallas v. FCC, 118 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 1997), which requires cable television franchise holder to
make its franchise payments on all gross receipts, including money collected from and charged
to customers that is ultimately allocated to pay the franchise fees.
(F) That the City Secretary is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this resolution
to Charter.
SECTION 5. That if any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or word
in this resolution, or application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid by any
court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this resolution, and the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas hereby declares it
would have enacted such remaining portions despite any such validity.
SECTION 6. That the City Council has found and determined that the meeting at which
this resolution is considered is open to the public and that notice thereof was given in accordance
with the provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act, Tex. Gov't Code ch. 551, as amended.
SECTION 7. 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
Page 5
This page left blank intemionally.
Agenda 02-017 05/21/02 #22
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE: May 21, 2002
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
CM/DCM/ACM: Dave Hill, 349-8314
SUBJECT
Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a Quit
Claim Deed to abandon a All Purpose Utility Easement consisting of a 0.427 acre tract of land Being A
Part Of Shadow Brook Place, An Addition To The City Of Denton, As Recorded In Cabinet T, Page
171 of the Plat Records of Denton County Texas; and providing an effective date.
BACKGROUND
A request to abandon an unused All Purpose Utility Easement.
Landowner has requested an ordinance to abandon All Purpose Utility Easement located in Shadow
Brook Place. The City originally acquired the easement from John and Wylie Koiner in 1975. The
property has since been sold and re-platted. The easement has not been utilized by the City and there
are no utilities existing within the easement.
OPTIONS
Approve the Ordinance, or
2 Denial, or
3. Table for future consideration
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Ordinance.
ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE
N/A
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW
None
FISCAL INFORMATION
N/A
ATTACHMENTS
Location Map
Ordinance
Quick Claim Deed
Exhibits
Prepared by:
Tod J. Taylor
Real Estate Specialist
Respectfully submitted:
David Salmon, Assistant Director
Engineering Department
Lo :~o,n Map
S:\Our Documents\Ordinances\02\Shadow Brook PUE Ordinance.doc
ORDINANCE NO.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE A QUIt CLAIM DEED TO
ABANDON AN ALL PURPOSE UTILITY EASEMENT CONSISTING OF A 0.427
ACRE. TRACT OF. LAND BEING A PART OF SHADOW BROOK PLACE, AN
ADDITION TO THE CITY OF DENTON, AS RECORDED IN CABINET T, PAGE
171 OF THE PLAT RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY TEXAS; AND PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, WBB&B Holdings, Ltd., a Texas limited partnership, has made a
request to the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas to close and abandon a sanitary
sewer easement containing approximately 0.427 acre of land as more particularly
described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the
"Property"); and
WHEREAS, the City of Denton Engineering Department has reviewed the
Property and determined that it is excess easement and is not needed for future sanitary
sewer purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and determines that the Property is not
needed for sanitary sewer easement purposes and it is in the public interest to abandon
the Property and quit claim the City's interests therein to the landowner, WBB&B
Holdings, Ltd., a Texas limited partnership ("Current Owner"); NOW, THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby abandons the Property. The City
Manager, or his designee, is authorized to execute a quit claim deed to the Current
Owner of the Property.
SECTION 2. 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:
Page 2
EXHIBIT A
0.427 ACRE
ALL PURPOSE UTILITY
EAS MEN'f AB AND ONMEN~
SHADOW BROOK PLACE
CITY OF DENTON
DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS
BEING a part of Shadow Brook Place, an addition to the City of Denton, as recorded in
Cabinet T, Page 171 of the Plat Records of Denton County Texas, and being part ora
25.00 foot All Purpose Utility Easement as recorded in Volume 752, Page 404 of the
Deed Records of Denton County, Texas, and being more particularly described as
follows:
BEGPq2NTNG at a point in the west line ofs~d 25.00 foot eascmmt and in the south line
of Lamplighter Drive, same being South 89 degrees 22 rrfinutes 2g seconds Ea~, from the
nor'&west corner of Lot 1, Block B of ~d Shadow Brook Place;
THENCE South 89 degrees 22 minutes 28 seconds East, with the south line of said
Lamplighter Drive, a distance of 25.00 feet to a point for comer in the east line of said
25.00 foot easement;
lt-IENCE South 00 degrees 37 minutes 35 seconds West, with the east line of said 25.00
foot easement, a distanoe of 744.17 feet to the southeast comer of said 25.00 foot
easement;
THENCE North 89 degr~s 22 minutes 25 seconds West, with the south line of said
25.00 foot easement a distance of 25.00 feet to the southwest comer of said 25.00 foot
easement;
THENCE North 00 degrees 37 minutes 35 seconds West, with the west line of said 25.00
foot easement, a distance of 744.17 fed to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing
0.427 of an acre of land more or less.
QUIT CLAIM DEED
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF DENTON §
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
THAT the City of Denton, Texas, a municipal corporation of the County of Denton, State
of Texas (the "Grantor"), in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars and No Cents ($10.00) and
other good and valuable consideration in hand paid by WBB&B Holdings, Ltd., a Texas limited
partnership of the County of Denton, State of Texas (the "Grantee"), the receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged, does by these presents, QUIT CLAIM unto Grantee, its successors and
assigns, all its right title and interest in and to that certain tract or parcel of land lying in the
County of Denton and State of Texas, described in Exhibit "A" and illustrated in Exhibit "B"
attached hereto and made a part by reference (called the "Property").
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD all of Grantor's right, title and interest in and to the Property
unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever, so that neither Grantor nor its successors or
assigns shall have, claim or demand any right or title to the Property or appurtenances or any part
thereof.
Wimess my hand, this the __
day of ,2002,
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
By:
Michael A. Conduff
City Manager
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF DENTON §
This instnmaent was acknowledged before me on
Michael A. Conduff, City Manager, City of Denton.
, 2002 by
Notary Public, in and for the State of Texas.
My Commission Expires:
EXHIBIT A
0.427 ACRE
ALL PURPOSE UTILITY
EASEMENT ABANDONMENT
SHADOW BROOK PLACE
CITY OF DENTON
DEl,ri'ON COUNTY, TEXAS
BEING a part of Shadow Brook Place, an addition to the City of Denton, as recorded in
Cabinet T, Page 171 of the Plat Kecords of Demon County Texas, and being part ora
25.00 foot All Purpose Utility Easement as recorded in Volume 752, Page 404 of the
Deed Kecords of Denton County, Texas, and being more particularly described as
follows:
BEGINNING at a point in the west line of said 25.00 foot easement and in the south line
of Lamplighter Drive, same being South 89 degrees 22 minutes 25 seconds East, from the
northwest comer of Lot 1, Block B of said Shadow Brook Place;
~CE South 89 degrees 22 minutes 28 seconds East, with the south line of said
Lamplighter Drive, a distance of 25.00 feet to a point for comer in the east line of said
25.00 foot easement;
THENCE South 00 degrees 37 minutes 35 seconds West, with the east line of said 25.00
foot easement, a distance of744.17 feet to the southeast comer of said 25.00 foot
easement;
THENCE North 89 degrees 22 minutes 25 seconds West, with the south line of said
25.00 foot easement a distance of 25.00 feet to the southwest comer o£said 25.00 foot
easement;
THENCE North 00 degrees 37 minutes 35 seconds West, with the west line of said 25.00
foot easement, a distance of 744.17 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and comaining
0.427 of an acre of land more or less.
EXHIBIT B
IAMPLIGHTEi~ ~ D,RIVE
This page left blank intemionally.
Agenda 02-017 05/21/02 #23
AGENDA DATE:
DEPARTMENT:
CM/DCM/ACM:
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
May 21, 2002
Engineering
Dave Hill, 349-8314
SUBJECT
Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a Quit
Claim Deed to abandon a Sanitary Sewer Easement consisting of a 0.293 acm tract of land Being A
Part Of Shadow brook Place, An Addition To The City Of Denton, As Recorded In Cabinet T, Page
171 Of The Plat Records Of Denton County Texas; and providing an effective date.
BACKGROUND
A request to abandon an unused Sanitary Sewer Easement.
Landowner has requested an ordinance to abandon Sanitary Sewer Easement located in Shadow Brook
Place. The City originally acquired the easement from John and Wylie Koiner in 1975. The property
has since been sold and re-platted. The easement has not been utilized by the City and there are no
utilities existing within the easement.
OPTIONS
1. Approve the Ordinance, or
2. Denial, or
3. Table for future consideration
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Ordinance.
ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE
N/A
PRIOR ACTION/REV!EW
None
FISCAL INFORMATION
ATTACHMENTS
Location Map
Ordinance
Quick Claim Deed
Exhibits
Prepared by:
Tod
Real Estate Specialist
Respectfully submitted:
David Salmon, Assistant Director
Engineering Department
Lo
n Map
S:\Our Documents\Ordinances\02~Shadow Brook SSE Ordinance.doc
ORDINANCE NO.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE A QUIT CLAIM DEED TO
ABANDON A SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT CONSISTING OF A 0.293 ACRE
TRACT OF LAND .BEING A PART OF SHADOW BROOK PLACE, AN ADDITION
TO THE CITY OF DENTON, AS RECORDED IN CABINET T, PAGE 171 OF THE
PLAT RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY TEXAS; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, WBB&B Holdings, Ltd., a Texas limited parmership, has made a
request to the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas to close and abandon an all
purpose utility easement containing approximately 0.293 acre of land as more particularly
described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the
"Property"); and
WHEREAS, the City of Denton Engineering Department has reviewed the
Property and determined that it is excess easement and is not needed for future utility
purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and determines that the Property is not
needed for utility easement purposes and it is in the public interest to abandoned the
Property and quit claim the City's interests therein to the landowner, WBB&B Holdings,
Ltd., a Texas limited parmership ("Current Owner"); NOW, THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. The
Manager, or his designee,
Owner of the Property.
City Council hereby abandons the Property. The City
is authorized to execute a quit claim deed to the Current
SECTION 2. 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
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
Page 2
EXHIBIT A
0.293 ACRE
SANITARY SEV~-K
EASEMENT ABANDONMENT
SHADOW BROOK PLACE
CITY OF DENTON
DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS
BEING a part of Shadow Brook Place, an addition to the City of Denton, as recorded in
Cabinet T, Page 171 of the Plat Records of Denton County Texas, and being part ora
20.00 foot Sanitary Sewer Easement as recorded in Volume 752, Page 408 of the Deed
Records of Denton County, Texas, and being more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point at the northeast comer of said 20 foot easement, same being
South 02 degrees 31 minutes 45 seconds East, from the northwest comer of Lot 1, Block
B of said Shadow Brook Place same being in the south line of Lamplighter Drive;
THENCE South 00 degrees 04 minutes 39 seconds East, with the east line of said 20.00
foot easement, a distance of 367.10 feet to a point for comer;
IHENCE South 38 degrees 18 minutes 1 $ seconds East, continuing with the east line of
said 20.00 foot easement, a distance of 270.97 feet to a point in the south line of Lot 11,
Block A of said Shadow Brook Place;
THENCE North $9 degrees 49 minutes 29 seconds West, with the south line of said Lot
11, a distance of 25.55 feet to a point for comer;
THENCE North 38 degrees 18 minutes 18 seconds West, with the west line of said 20.00
foot easement, a distance of 262.00 feet to a point for comer;
THENCE North 00 degrees 04 minutes 39 seconds West, continuing with the west line of
said 20.00 foot easement, a distance of 374.27 feet to the northwest comer of said 20 foot
easement;
THENCE North 89 degrees 22 minutes 25 seconds West, with the north line of said
20.00 foot easement a distance of 20.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and
containing 0.293 of an'acre of land more or less.
QUIT CLAIM DEED
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF DENTON §
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
THAT the City of Denton, Texas, a municipal corporation of the County of Denton, State
of Texas (the "Grantor"), in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars and No Cents ($10.00) and
other good and valuable consideration in hand paid by WBB&B Holdings, Ltd., a Texas limited
partnership of the County of Denton, State of Texas (the "Grantee"), the receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged, does by these presents, QUIT CLAIM unto Grantee, its successors and
assigns, all its right title and interest in and to that certain tract or parcel of land lying in the
County of Denton and State of Texas, described in Exhibit "A" and illustrated in Exhibit "B"
attached hereto and made a part by reference (called thc "Property").
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD all of Grantor's right, title and interest in and to the Property
unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever, so that neither Grantor nor its successors or
assigns shall have, claim or demand any right or title to the Property or appurtenances or any part
thereof.
Wimess my hand, this the
day of ,2002.
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
By:
Michael A. Conduff
City Manager
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF DENTON §
This instrument was acknowledged before me on
Michael A. Conduff, City Manager, City of Denton.
_, 2002 by
Notary Public, in and for the State of Texas.
My Commission Expires:
EXHIBIT A
0.293 ACRE
SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT ABANDONMENT
SHADOW BROOK PLACE
CITY OF DENTON
DEKI'ON COUNTY, TEXAS
BEING a part of Shadow Brook Place, an addition to the City of Denton, as recorded in
Cabinet T, Page 171 of the Plat Records of'Denton County Texas, and being part ora
20.00 foot Sanitary Sewer Easement as recorded in Volume 752, Page 408 of the Deed
Records of Denton County, Texas, and being more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point at the northeast comer of said 20 foot easement, same being
South 02 degrees 31 minutes 45 seconds East, from the northwest comer of Lot 1, Block
B of said Shadow Brook Place same being in the south line of Lamplighxer Drive;
TI-[ENCE South 00 degrees 04 minutes 39 seconds East, with the east line of said 20.00
foot easement, a distance of 367.10 feet to a point for comer;
13[ENCE South 38 degrees 18 minutes 18 seconds East, continuing with the east line of
said 20.00 foot easement, a distance of 270.97 feet to a point in the south line of Lot 11,
Block A of said Shadow Brook Place;
THENCE North $9 degrees 49 minutes 29 seconds West, with the south line of said Lot
11, a distance of 25.55 feet to a point for comer;
THENCE North 38 degrees 18 minutes 18 seconds West, with the west line of said 20.00
foot easement, a distance of 262.00 feet to a point for comer;
THENCE North 00 degrees 04 minutes 39 seconds West, continuing with the west line of
said 20.00 foot easement, a distance of 374.27 feet to the northwest comer of said 20 foot
easement;
TftLZNCE North 89 degrees 22 minutes 25 seconds West, with the north line of said
20.00 foot easement a distance of 20.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and
containing 0.293 of an'acre of land more or less.
EXHIBIT B
8~
i