Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 16, 2002 AgendaAgenda 02-022 07/16/02 AGENDA CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL July 16, 2OO2 After determining that a quorum is present, the City Council will convene in a Work Session on Tuesday, July 16, 2002 at 5:00 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 and hold a discussion regarding the City of Denton Mosquito Control Program. Requests for clarification of consent agenda items listed on the consent agenda for today's City Council regular meeting of July 16, 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: Deliberations regarding real property - Under TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE Section 551.072 and Consultation with the City Attorney - Under TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE Section 551.071 1. Deliberate the purchase and value of real property, located in the W. Loving Survey, Abstract No. 759 being approximately 0.42 acre, 350 feet north of the intersection of South Locust Street and Eagle Drive, east side of street, within the City and County of Denton, Texas; which acquisition is for a public purpose. (Eagle Drive Drainage) 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. Regular Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, July 16, 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: City of Denton City Council Agenda July 16, 2002 Page 2 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. Recognition of staff accomplishments. CITIZEN REPORTS 3. Dessie Goodson regarding Code Enforcement and City ordinances. 4. Ross Melton regarding the lawsuit of Ross Melton vs. the City of Denton, Code Enforcement, and the lawyers. 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 5 - 27). 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 5 - 27 below will be approved with one motion. If items are pulled for separate discussion, they will be considered as the fa'st items following approval of the Consent Agenda. 5. Consider approval of the minutes of June 4, June 11, and June 18, 2002. Consider approval of a resolution approving the fiscal year 2003 Financial Plan of the Denco Area 9-1-1 District, pursuant to the Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 772, as amended; and providing an effective date. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton authorizing a memorandum of understanding between the City of Denton and the American Red Cross of Denton regarding the implementation of an emergency evacuation plan; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date. Consider approval of resolution providing for the approval of the service plan and proposed tax rate as previously approved by the Denton County Transportation Authority; and providing an effective date. Consider approval of a resolution of the City of Denton, Texas, approving the 2003 Budget of the Denton Central Appraisal District; and declaring an effective date. City of Denton City Council Agenda July 16, 2002 Page 3 10. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas approving a real estate contract between the City of Denton and James H. Barrow and wife, Gayla R. Barrow, relating to the purchase of an approximate 0.42 acre tract or parcel of land being a part of Lot 5, Block B of the Blount Addition, an addition to the City of Denton, for use as a drainage channel; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date. 11. Consider adoption of an ordinance for a "No Right Turn on Steady Red, from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. on school days" for southbound Lillian Miller Parkway onto Teasley Lane and for westbound Wind River Lane onto Lillian Miller Parkway. 12. Consider approval of tax refund for the following property taxes: Name Reason Tax Year Amount A. Murray Ricks Duplicate Payment 2001 $1,638.61 13. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton authorizing the City Manager to execute on behalf of the City of Denton Amendment No. 1 to an Airport Project Participation Agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation dated December 4, 2001 relating to the construction of improvements at the Denton Municipal Airport; and declaring an effective date. 14. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute change order number one to the contract between the City of Denton and Seneca Contracting, Inc.; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2629 - North Lakes Park Football and Parking improvements Change Order One awarded to Seneca Contracting inc. in the amount of $212,673). 15. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute change order number one to the contract between the City of Denton and Seneca Contracting, Inc.; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2690 - North Lakes Park Soccer Restroom/Concession Building Change Order One awarded to Seneca Contracting inc. in the amount of $32,582.35). 16. Consider adoption of an ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds for the emergency purchase of a public health and safety vehicle replacement in accordance with provisions of state law exempting such purchases from requirements of competitive bidding; and providing an effective date (Purchase Order 105580 to Prestige Ford in the amount of $29,379). 17. Consider adoption of an ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds for the emergency purchase of a remount on a new chassis for an ambulance (FD9967) in accordance with provisions of state law exempting such purchases from the requirements of competitive bidding; and providing an effective date (Purchase Order 105701 to Jack Roach Ford in the amount of $40,000). City of Denton City Council Agenda July 16, 2002 Page 4 18. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a public works contract for the construction of the Hwy 380 Water and Sewer Relocation; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2840 - Hwy 380 Water and Sewer Relocation awarded to Texas Electric Utility Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1,313,483.95). 19. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive sealed proposals and awarding a public works contract for the construction of Spencer Switch Station Site Work; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2866 - Spencer Switch Site Work awarded to Can-Fer Construction Company in the not to exceed amount of $219,000). 20. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Denton authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute an agreement on behalf of the City of Denton to purchase a Public Library Data Management System from Innovative Interfaces Inc., a Qualified Information Services Vendor (QISV) of the State of Texas; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Purchase Order 105714 awarded to Innovative Interfaces, Inc. in the amount of $220,576). 21. Consider adoption of an ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds for the purchase of legal advertising and notices available from only one source in accordance with the provision for state law exempting such purchases from requirements of competitive bids; and providing an effective date (File 2869 - Contract for Legal Advertising awarded to Denton Record Chronicle). 22. Consider adoption of an ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds for the purchase of an annual maintenance contract for continued support and upgrades for the VisionAIR Public Safety Suite software package available from only one source in accordance with the provision for state law exempting such purchases from requirements of competitive bids; and providing an effective date (Purchase Order 105715 awarded to VisionAIR in the amount of $125,000). 23. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding an annual contract for the purchase of sewer line chemical root control; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2856 - Annual Price Agreement for Sewer Line Chemical Root Control awarded to Duke's Sewer Root Control Specialists in the estimated amount of $35,000). 24. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of an Automatic Meter Reading System; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (RFP 2858 - Automatic Meter Reading System awarded to Itron, Inc. in the amount of $86,017). 25. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas authorizing the City Manager to execute a Second Amended Contract for Professional Legal Services with the Law Firm of Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky, L.L.P. for services pertaining to the Denton Municipal Electric Divestiture; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefor; providing for retroactive approval of the agreement; and providing an effective date. City of Denton City Council Agenda July 16, 2002 Page 5 26. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement for professional legal services with the law firm of Booth, Ahrens & Werkenthin, P.C., a Texas Professional Corporation. for services pertaining to the application of the Upper Trinity Regional Water District for reuse of Lake Chapman and Lake Lewisville Water, legislative and regulatory matters, and other related matters; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefor; providing for retroactive approval of the agreement; and providing an effective date. 27. Consider removing this item from the table and the adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas authorizing the Mayor to execute a Compromise Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims in a claim filed against the City of Denton by Lark Schutte; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefore. PUBLIC HEARINGS 28. Hold a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance granting approval of a sub- surface use of a portion of the Denton Branch Rail/Trail at milepost 723.9 adjacem to the north side of Loop 288 for the purpose of a public utility easemem in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code; providing for a public utility easement; and providing an effective date. 29. Hold a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance granting approval of an off- site sub-surface use of South Lakes Park for the purpose of oil and gas drilling operations in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code; providing for an oil and gas lease; and providing an effective date. 30. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 35 "DeNon Developmem Code", of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas, to add Conservation Districts to protect neighborhoods that do not qualify for historic district status but have significant architectural, historic merit and distinct character. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (5-1). (SI02-O00O 31. Hold a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 18 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residemial 6 (NR-6) zoning districts. The property is generally located west of Bonnie Brae approximately 1,300 feet south of Windsor commonly referred as 2201 and 2205 N. Bonnie Brae. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial (4-2). (Z02-0019) 32. Hold a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 46 acres of land from an Agriculture (A) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) 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 Developmem Code zoning classifications. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) (4-1-1). (ZO2-O010) City of Denton City Council Agenda July 16, 2002 Page 6 33. Hold a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 1.1 acres of land from the Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning district. The site is generally located west of Hinkle Drive, between Haggard Lane and Greenbriar Street commonly known as 2309 Hinkle Drive. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial (6-0). (Z02-0028) ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 34. Consider approval of a resolution nominating a member to the Board of Directors of the Denton Central Appraisal District; and declaring an effective date. 35. Consider approval of a resolution of the City of Denton, Texas, authorizing intervention at the Railroad Commission of Texas in the TXU Lone Star Pipeline request to establish rates, GUD Docket No. 9304; authorizing the hiring of attorneys and consultants; requiting reimbursement of rate case expenses incurred by the City; funding that the meeting complied with the Open Meetings Act; making other fundings and provisions related to the subject; and declaring an effective date. 36. New Business This item provides a section for Council Members to suggest items for future agendas or to request information from the City Manager. 37. Items from the City Manager A. Notification of upcoming meetings and/or conferences B. Clarification of items on the agenda 38. Possible Cominuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. 39. 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. Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 WS#1 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: July 16, 2002 DEPARTMENT: Water Utility ACM: Howard Martin, 349- 8232 SUBJECT Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding the City of Denton Mosquito Control Program. BACKGROUND Mosquitoes have been tSught for decades with a variety of methods and chemicals and the result has always been the same; some measure of control is provided, but it always fails to eradicate this organism and fails to please all persons affected. The City of Denton has not sprayed for mosquitoes since 1995 and has instead relied on practices that get to the heart of the mosquito control issue. Namely, the City focus has been on eliminating mosquito breeding grounds also known as source reduction. The elimination of breeding grounds is approached using a strong public education campaign including tips in the local paper, interviews with regional media, and public information tapes running on DTV (Cable Channel 26). The focus of this public information campaign is to provide citizens with the information to police their yards and homes for areas that can trap water and thus provide breeding habitat for mosquitoes. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) source reduction "remains the most effective and economical method of providing long term mosquito control in many habitats" (CDC 2001). The elimination of mosquito larval habitats is also cited by the Texas Department of Health as "an effective means of controlling most mosquito species" (Disease Prevention News 1999; TDH Press Release, no date). The EPA also states that "it is especially important to conduct effective mosquito prevention programs by eliminating breeding habitats or applying pesticides to control the early life stages of the mosquito. Prevention programs, such as elimination of any standing water that could serve as breeding sites, help reduce the adult mosquito population and the need to apply other pesticides for adult mosquito control" (EPA 2000a). In addition to source reduction of mosquito breeding grounds, the City of Denton makes a larvicide (Bti) available to the public, a step taken by few, if any, other municipalities in the region. This larvicide is a type of bacteria q~acillus thuringiensis israelensis) that when ingested by mosquitoes reacts with their gut to produce a toxin that kills the mosquito before it can become a biting adult (Porter 1996, EPA 2000a). It is highly specific to mosquitoes, but may affect a few other types of flies as well (Dickman 2000). The important aspect is that it does not affect fish, frogs or other predatory insects (non-target organisms) that might feed on mosquito larvae (Becker 1997, Dickman 2000). It is relevant to note that protecting these natural predators of mosquitoes is important in managing mosquito populations, should a non-specific larvicide or adulticide be used these non-target organisms could be reduced and mosquitoes would be provided larger areas of safe breeding grounds. The CDC states that larviciding "is typically more effective and target specific than adulticiding, but less permanent than source reduction" (CDC 2001) This is not to say that spraying is not conducted elsewhere in the State of Texas, it is done with some regularity in coastal areas and under the oversight of mosquito control districts. Surveillance is used fa'st to determine if and where spraying may be necessary based on the risk to public health from mosquito bom diseases. These districts typically do not spray unless they have detected mosquito borne diseases, such as St Louis Encephalitis. They then stop spraying when indicators for the specific disease are negative (Parsons 2002). Such coastal locations typically have large areas that provide significant habitat for mosquito breeding. A good example of this is found in Houston where rice fields and large wetland areas are located near expanding population centers. Apart from major differences in the natural surroundings between Houston and Denton and the relevance this has on mosquito habitat, mosquito density and the potential for disease transmission, citizens may still wonder why we don't spray for nuisance mosquito control. There are a number of important reasons why spraying adulticide to control mosquitoes is not done in response to nuisance mosquito complaints. The fa'st factor is effectiveness. For a spraying or fogging of adulticide to be effective it must in'st actually contact the mosquito (EPA 2000b). TNs means the mosquito must be in relative proximity to the vehicle doing the spraying. It also means that mosquitoes that hatch within a short time of a fogging vehicle passing will be unaffected, as will those that are hiding within some form of vegetation and those who may fly in from another area. The CDC states that adulticiding "is usually the least efficient mosquito control technique"(CDC 2001). In addition to the obvious issues mentioned above there are several other concerns regarding the use of an adulticide to respond to nuisance mosquito complaints, insects typically have large numbers of offspring (mosquitoes may lay between 100-300 eggs at a time) which allows them to quickly develop resistance to various chemical pesticides. "The acquiring of resistance to insecticides by the pest insects is a serious problem to combat in pest control" (Chui et al 1995). For example, if group of 10,000 mosquitoes are exposed to a pesticide, some will survive based on some type of resistance or life strategy that counters the effectiveness of the pesticide. As survivors of this pesticide application they will breed the next generation of mosquitoes which will likely have more survivors in the next application of pesticides who will in turn breed the next generation. Each successive generation will be more immune to the effects of the pesticide causing the application to be less and less effective which may ultimately result in a rather? resistant local population of mosquitoes. At least one mosquito specie in the Houston area had developed resistance to Malathion. (Parsons 2002). The obvious danger is that if at some point in the future a true public health concern emerged in our area we will be at a disadvantage to combat this pest because we have strengthened their abilities to resist available pesticides to satisfy nuisance complaints, incidentally, Bti has been identified as a compound with low risk for resistance development (Becker 1997). Finally, fogging or spraying an adulticide also introduces a certain volume of a pesticide or poison into the air in a form that is made to stay adrift for the longest time possible. While spraying is done to affect mosquitoes the chemicals used are not mosquito-specific and can have affects on non-target organisms as well. The most common adulticides are of two pesticide classes; organophosphates (Malathion, Naled) and synthetic pyrethroids (Permethrin, Sumithrin, Resmethrin). When adulticides were used in New York City to respond to threats of West Nile Virus it resulted in several lawsuits alleging harm to citizens (CNN 2000), workers (Saulny 2001) and even lobsters (Olert 2000). The EPA has a substantial website dedicated to the risk assessment and registration of the pesticide Malathion and as well as Naled. While we are not in New York, it is still of some relevance to examine their strategy and note where in their plan they have placed the use of adulticide for mosquito control in the context of combating the West Nile Vires. in New York State's plan the use of an adulticide is first considered "when quantitative measures indicating West Nile Vires epizootic activity at a level suggesting high risk of human infection (for example, high dead bird densities, high mosquito infection rates, multiple positive mosquito species including bridge vectors, horse or mammal cases indicating escalating epizootic transmission, or a human case with evidence of epizootic activity) and abundant adult vectors." (NYSDOH 2001 :Appendix A) New York State will use an adult control program if there are multiple confirmed cases of West Nile Vires in humans, it is important to note that as a footnote to their response plan New York State indicates that, "in general, the funding of a West Nile Vires positive bird or mosquito pool does not by itself constitute evidence of an imminent threat to human health and warrant mosquito adulticiding. Adulticiding should be considered only after careful consideration of the WNV risk to human health by taking into account multiple factors, including documentation of the presence of WNV in the area, the numbers and species of the vector populations, the vector's physiologic age, the density and proximity of human populations, the time of year, weather conditions, physiography of and accessibility to the area where the vector is located, rapidity of response required as determined by the seriousness of the public health threat, potential impact on people and environment, and the likelihood that vectors in nearby areas not subject to control measures will migrate from the area if not subject to control." (NYSDOH 2001: Appendix A) The City of Denton focuses it's efforts in combating mosquitoes in the two areas that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identify as most effective, economical and target specific, namely source reduction of mosquito breeding habitat and larviciding. There are a number of drawbacks to using adulticides to respond to nuisance mosquito complaints, including overall effectiveness, mosquito resistance, and public perception/response to the use of pesticides. Adulticides are justified in the context of public disease prevention when there is a high risk of transmission to humans, however, New York still experienced significant public resistance to the use of such adulticides even in light of a public health threat. There are several measures that individuals can take to minimize the impact of nuisance mosquitoes. These include obvious items such as repellants, appropriate clothing as well as some newer mosquito trapping technologies based on heat, moisture and other mosquito attractants to trap and kill mosquitoes. It may be possible for a neighborhood to contract with a licensed pesticide applicator to treat for mosquitoes, however, the liability will rest with the neighborhood and contractor (need to check on this) send this comment to legal. OPTIONS Maintain current program and associated expenses Eliminate the mosquito control program Modify mosquito program to include adulticide control FISCAL INFORMATION Current approximate annual costs of mosquito control program: Drainage Field Operations Public Information/Education* 2304.80 850.00 Total Expenses $3154.80 (*public Information cost do not include production expenses.) EXHIBITS Mosquito Control Presentation References Respectfully submitted: Howard Martin, ACM/Utilities References Cited Becker, Norbert. 1997. "Microbial Control of Mosquitoes: Management of the Upper Rhine Mosquito Population as a Model Programme". Parasitology Today, Vol. 13, No. 12. pp 485- 487. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2001. "Epidemic/Epizootic West Nile Virus in the United States: Revised Guidelines for Surveillance, Prevention, and Control". From a Workshop Held in Charlotte, North Carolina, January 31- February 4, 2001. Chui V.W.D., K.W. Wong, and K.W. Tsoi. 1995. "Control of Mosquito Larvae (Diptera Culicidae) Using Bti and Teflubenzuron: Laboratory Evaluation and Semi-Field Test". Environment International, Vol. 21, No. 4. pp 433-440. CNN. 2000. "Twelfth Case of West Nile Vires Reported in New York City". Associated Press. September 24. http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/09/24/westnile.ap Dickman, M. 2000. "Impacts of a Mosquito Selective Pesticide, Bfi, on the Macro-Invertebrates of a subtropical stream in Hong Kong". Chemosphere, Vol 41. pp 209-217. Disease Prevention News. 1999. "Mosquitoes--More Than Just Pests". Vol. 59, No. 14, Austin, TX. http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/phpep/dpn/issues/dpn59n 14.pdf EPA. 2000a. For Your Information: Larvicides for Mosquito Control. Washington D.C. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/citizens/larvfs.pdf 735-F-00-002. EPA. 2000b. Questions and Answers: Pesticides and Mosquito Control. Washington D.C. htlp://www.epa.~ov/pesticides/citizens/pmcfs.pdf New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). 2001. New York State West Nile Vires Response Plan~Guidance Document. May. http://www.health.state.n¥.us/nysdoh/westnile/2001/responseplan/200 lwnv responseplan.pdf Olert, Chris. 2000. "West Nile Afflicts 87 Year Old". Associated Press. ABCNEWS.com. August 25. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DaileyNews/westnile000825.hlml Parsons, Ray. 2002. Personal Communication/phone conversation in May 2002. Harris County Mosquito Control, Houston, Texas. Porter, Alan G.. 1996. "Mosquitocidal Toxins, Genes and Bacteria: The Hit Squad." Parasitology Today, Vol. 12, No. 5. pp 175-179. Priest, F.G. 1992. Biological Control spahaericus and Bacillus thurengiensis. 357-369. Quoted in: Porter, A.G. 1996. of Mosquitoes and Other Biting Flies by Bacillus Journal of Applied Bacteriology. Vol. 21, No. 4, pp EXHIBIT II Texas Department of Health News Release. "TDH Takes Action Against Dengue Fever Threat Along Border". Austin, TX. http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/news/b%5Fnews7.htm EPA web sites relevant to mosquito control General Mosquito Control http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/citizens/mosquitocontrol.htm http://www.epa.~ov/pesticides/citizens/mosquitoioint.htm http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/citizens/mo squito.htm http ://www.epa.gov/pesticides/citizens/insectrp.htm http ://www.epa.gov/pesticides/citizens/pmcfs.pdf http ://www.epa.gov/pesticides/citizens/larvfs.pdf EPA information on Malathion http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/citizens/malfs.pdf http ://www.epa.gov/pesticides/op/malathion.htm EPA information for Naled http ://www.epa.gov/pesticides/citizens/naledfs.pdf http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/op/naled/hed revassmt.pdf Synthetic Pyrethroids http ://www.epa.gov/pesticides/citizens/synpyfs.pdf Other web sites relevant to mosquito control http://co.jefferson.tx.us/jcmcd/summary.htm http://www.tmc.edu/tmcnews/07 01 01Cage_ 17.html http://www.hd.co.harfis.tx.us/ http ://health. ci.brownsville .tx.us/en/mo squitocontrol.htm http://www.planotx.org/health/water/hvector.html http ://www.tdh. state .tx .us/phpep/dpn/is sues/dpn59n 14.pdf http ://www.tdh. state .tx .us/news/b %5 Fnews7.htm http://www.health.state.n¥.us/nysdoh/westnile/2001/responseplan/200 lwnv responseplan.pdf h tip ://www.health. state.ny, us/nvsdo h/pest/malathi o.htm http://www.mosquito.org/mosquito.html http ://www'rci'rutgers'edu/-insect s/links'htm Some product pages http://www.scapest.com/mosquito control.htm Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #5 CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 4, 2002 After determining that a quorum was present, the City Council convened in a Work Session on Tuesday, June 4, 2002 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Brock; Mayor Pro Tem Burroughs; Council Members Fulton, McNeill, Montgomery, Phillips, and Redmon. ABSENT: None 1. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave staff direction regarding the quarterly report on the Development Code. (SI02-0003) Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Development, stated that as part of the adoption of the Development Code, a quarterly report to Council was required. Back-up materials included activities to date, a table of Comprehensive Plan changes, issues identified by staff that needed to be addressed, comments from the public forum held by the Planning and Zoning Commission and documents presented from the public to be included in the quarterly report. Council Member McNeill felt that there were zoning map issues that still needed to be addressed. Council Member Fulton suggested a study on the NRMU and NRMU-12 designations and what categories were involved with those zoning districts. Council discussed the NRMU and NRMU-12 designations and the pros and cons of assigning conditions to the zoning categories. Consensus of the Council was to have the Planning and Zoning Commission review the policy issues and report back to Council. Added to study list would be the application of NR-1 and an in-depth study of NRMU and NRMU- 12. 2. The Council considered appointments to City Council Committees. Council discussed the committees and made assignments as noted in Attachment A. 3. Staff responded to requests for clarification of Consent Agenda items listed on the Consent Agenda for the City Council regular meeting of June 4, 2002. Regular Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, June 4, 2002 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Brock; Mayor Pro Tem Burroughs; Council Members Fulton, McNeill, Montgomery, Phillips, and Redmon. ABSENT: None 1. Pledge of Allegiance The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flags. City of Denton City Council Minutes June 4, 2002 Page 2 PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS 2. Proclamations Mayor Brock presented a proclamation for National Hunger Awareness Week. 3. Recognition of staff accomplishments. City Manager Conduff presented staff accomplishments to the Council. CITIZEN REPORTS 4. Ross Melton regarding Code Enforcement and City Manager contacts. Mr. Melton stated Code Enforcement had again come to his mother's home with a warning regarding high weeds and trash on the site. He had a difference of opinion regarding what was trash and what was not trash. He did not see how the Code Enforcement officers could have viewed items in his backyard without trespassing on his property. 5. Dessie Goodson regarding "deception". Ms. Goodson felt that there had been deception regarding the 2000 bond election and the proposed water park. She questioned how the water park was going to be financed. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Brock stated that Item #7 would be considered separately. Burroughs motioned, McNeill seconded to approve the Consent Agenda and accompanying ordinances and resolutions with the exception of item #7. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", Redmon "aye", and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 6. NO. 2002-164 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A COMMERCIAL OPERATOR AIRPORT LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AND JOHN KRISTOFERSON AND PROViDiNG AN EFFECTIVE DATE. NO. R2002-022 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN ABSTRACT 616 OF THE S. C. HIRAM, TRACT 66, ACRES 0.150, OLD DCAD TRACT 29D BY THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AS TRUSTEE FOR THE TAXING ENTITLES PURSUANT TO TEXAS PROPERTY TAX CODE SECTION 34.05 FOR LESS THAN THE MARKET VALUE OR TOTAL AMOUNT OF JUDGMENT AGAINST THE PROPERTY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City of Denton City Council Minutes June 4, 2002 Page 3 NO. 2002-165 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND DENTON COUNTY FOR COMPLETION OF DESIGN AND CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION COMPONENTS FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD BRIDGE OVER U.S. HIGHWAY 377 (FT. WORTH DRIVE); AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 10. NO. 2002-166 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (PSA) WITH DUNKIN, SIMS, STOFFELS, INC. FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR PARK AND ATHLETIC FIELD PARK1NG LOTS AS SET FORTH IN THE CONTRACT; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTiVE DATE (PSA 2861TO DUNKIN, SIMS, STOFFELS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $109,190). 11. NO. 2002-167 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE SEALED PROPOSALS AND AWARDING A BEST VALUE ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR COLLECTION SERVICES FOR MISCELLANEOUS ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (RFP 2768 - COLLECTION SERVICES AWARDED TO CREDIT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC.). 12. NO. 2002-168 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DENTON TO PURCHASE CiSCO HARDWARE FROM FORSYTHE SOLUTIONS GROUP, A QUALiFiED iNFORMATiON SERVICES VENDOR (QiSV) OF THE STATE OF TEXAS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (PURCHASE ORDER 104957 TO FORSYTHE SOLUTIONS GROUP, iN THE AMOUNT OF $375,490). 13. NO. 2002-169 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DENTON TO PURCHASE INFORMIX DATABASE SOFTWARE LICENSING FROM IBM, A QUALIFIED INFORMATION SERVICES VENDOR (QiSV) OF THE STATE OF TEXAS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND City of Denton City Council Minutes June 4, 2002 Page 4 PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (PURCHASE ORDER 104958 TO IBM IN THE AMOUNT OF $150,000). 14. NO. 2002-170 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DENTON TO PURCHASE A HIGH TECH MICROWAVE DATA SYSTEM DESIGNED FOR IMPROVED TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROL FROM CES NETWORK SERVICES, INC., A QUALiFiED INFORMATION SERVICES VENDOR (QiSV) OF THE STATE OF TEXAS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (PURCHASE ORDER 104959 TO CES NETWORK SERVICES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $38,736.88). 15. NO. 2002-171 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A SKID STEER LOADER AND 4 WHEEL DRIVE TRACTOR; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2845 AWARDED TO CONLEY LOTT NICHOLS OF TEXAS, INC. FOR ITEM 1 IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,375.63 AND ZiMMERMAN KUBOTA FOR ITEM 2 IN THE AMOUNT OF $43,074.00 FOR A TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF $67,449.63). 16. NO. 2002-172 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF CONCRETE UTILITY POLES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2850 - ANNUAL PRICE AGREEMENT FOR CONCRETE UTILITY POLES AWARDED TO LONESTAR PRESTRESS MANUFACTURING IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $100,000). Item #7 was considered. TNs item was considered separately as a revised resolution was presented to Council. 7. NO. R2002-021 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN 1184A H. CiSCO SURVEY, TRACT 104-25, 2.611 ACRES, BY THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AS TRUSTEE FOR THE TAX1NG ENTITLES PURSUANT TO TEXAS PROPERTY TAX CODE SECTION 34.05 FOR LESS THAN THE MARKET VALUE OR TOTAL AMOUNT OF JUDGMENT AGAINST THE PROPERTY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City of Denton City Council Minutes June 4, 2002 Page 5 Redmon motioned, Burroughs seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", Redmon "aye", and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carded unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING 17. The Council held a public heating to consider a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for approximately 0.3 acres, commonly known as 1022 Stanley Street. The site was in a Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district. The subject property was located on the east side of Stanley Street south of Crescent and north of Linden. A home-occupation barbershop was proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial (7-0). (Z02-0021) Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Development, reviewed the background information regarding the proposal. A specific use permit was required for the type of home use requested at the location. The request had been denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission and a supermajority vote by the council was needed. The Mayor opened the public heating. The following individuals spoke during the public heating: Robert Lawson, 1022 Stanley Street, Denton, 76201 - favor Bob McFarling, 915 Stanley, Denton, 76201 - opposed George Watkins, 1128 Stanley, Denton, 76201 - opposed Rebuttal from Mr. Lawson The following comment cards were submitted: Leta Lawson, 1022 Stanley, Denton, 76201 - favor Kenneth Powell, 1106 Stanley, Denton, 76201 - opposed The Mayor closed the public heating. Phillips motioned, Burroughs seconded to deny the request for a specific use permit. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", Redmon "aye", and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 18. New Business The following items of New Business were suggested by Council for future agendas: Council Member McNeill requested a work session discussion on demeanor and procedures for individuals addressing the council. Council Member Redmon asked for a discussion the procedures to dedicate public right-of-way to the city such as in the case of the Villas of Piney Creek. City of Denton City Council Minutes June 4, 2002 Page 6 Council Member Fulton asked for a discussion regarding water conservation and watering regulations. Council Member Fulton asked for a discussion on mosquito abatement. Council Member Redmon asked for information conceming sick birds relative to mosquitoes. 19. Items from the City Manager City Manager Conduff did not have any items for Council. 20. There was no continuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. 21. There was no official action on Closed M~eting Item(s) under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEES 2002-03 AGENDA COMMITTEE Mayor Brock City Manager Conduff Mayor Pro Tem Burroughs Council Member Redmon AUDIT COMMITTEE Mayor Brock Council Member Phillips INVESTMENT POLICY COMMITTEE Mayor Brock Council Member Phillips LALOR FUND COMMITTEE Mayor Brock Council Member Phillips Council Member Redmon Council Member Montgomery COMMUNITY JUSTICE COUNCIL Council Member Redmon LAKE RAY ROBERTS P & Z Council Member Montgomery CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU Council Member Montgomery Council Member Fulton JOINT TAX ABATEMENT COMMITTEE Council Member Phillips Council Member McNeill ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE Council Member Fulton Council Member Phillips Mayor Brock DALLAS REGIONAL MOBILITY COALITION Mayor Pro Tem Burroughs REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL Mayor Pro Tem Burroughs COUNCIL MOBILITY COMMITTEE Mayor Pro Tem Burroughs Council Member Montgomery Council Member McNeill Mayor Brock CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 11, 2002 After determining that a quorum was present, the Denton City Council convened in a Closed Meeting on June 11, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall, 215 East McKinney Street. PRESENT: Mayor Brock; Mayor Pro Tem Burroughs; Council Members Fulton, McNeill, Montgomery, and Redmon. ABSENT: Council Member Phillips 1. The Council considered the following in Closed Meeting: A. Consultation with Attomey -- Under TEX. GOV'T. CODE Section 551.071 The Council discussed, deliberated and consulted with the City's attorneys regarding the claim filed against the City of Denton by Lark Schutte, where to discuss such issues and matters in a public meeting would conflict with the attomeys' duties and professional responsibilities to their client under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Following the completion of the Closed Meeting, the Council convened in a Special Called Session. 1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas authorizing the Mayor to execute a compromise settlement agreement and release of all claims in a claim filed against the City of Denton by Lark Schutte; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefor. Burroughs motioned, McNeill seconded to table the ordinance indefinitely. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Redmon "aye", and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carded unanimously. The Council convened in a Planning Session on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 4:30 p.m. in the City Council Work Session Room at City Hall. 1. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave staff direction regarding Neighborhood Preservation. Dedra Ragland, Small Area Planning Manager, made a presentation on neighborhood preservation-toward sustainable neighborhoods. She reviewed the "life cycle" of a neighborhood and tools to be used to address problems on a prioritized basis. The following invited individuals spoke on the issue: Jay Thomas - J. Thomas Custom Homes John Van Son - First State Bank of Texas Linnie McAdams - Denton Affordable Housing Corporation James McDade - Habitat for Humanity of Denton Stan Ingrnan-University of North Texas City of Denton City Council Minutes June 11, 2002 Page 2 Rosemary Rodriguez - Denton Housing Authority Council consensus was to allow speakers from the audience. The following individuals spoke on the issue: Billy Redmon Bob Ralph Council discussed and made comments on the following points of consideration: There are active and viable neighborhood associations o Promote their neighborhood o Protection of borders o Have successful parmerships with city staff A good neighborhood is: o Safe o Low crime o Orderly traffic flow o Well maintained-high quality construction o Stable o Friendly o Small amount of rental property Council O O O O would not support these items to facilitate neighborhood preservation: Programs that favor non-profit organizations over the profit organizations Assistance for rental units - have only for owner-occupied homes Programs based on ethnicity Programs that would encourage demolition of well preserved existing older neighborhoods With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 18, 2002 After determining that a quorum was present, the City Council convened in a Work Session on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Brock; Council Members Fulton, McNeill, and Montgomery ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Burroughs; Council Members Phillips and Redmon 1. The Council considered a report, held a discussion and gave staff direction regarding the proposed transportation service plan adopted by the Interim Executive Committee of the Denton County Transportation Authority. Jon Fortune, Assistant City Manager for Public Safety and Transportation Operations, presented a review of the proposed service plan developed by the Denton County Transportation Authority. Included in the review were the goals and objectives for the plan and the proposed services. Council Member Redmon joined the meeting. Fortune detailed the regional rail plan, the regional connector service, the feeder/local bus service, demand response service, local assistance/corridor preservation, funding scenarios, and future deadlines/considerations. Council Member Burroughs joined the meeting. The following individuals spoke during the meeting: Dr. Norval Pohl, UNT President Dr. Lee Ann Nutt-NCTC Provost for Corinth Campus Bob Haley-CEO Denton Regional Medical Center Dr. Ann Stuart-TWU President Chuck Carpenter-Denton Chamber of Commerce Ray Bejarano-Golden Triangle Mall Council Member Phillips joined the meeting. Consensus of the Council was to proceed with a resolution of support for consideration at the July 16th meeting. 2. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction regarding the use of a sales tax option to fund local street maintenance and repair, and to assess other municipal sales tax options. Dave Hill, Assistant City Manager for Development Services, reviewed the regionally significant roadways and local streets components of roadway improvement programming. He stated that the city had the capacity to increase local sales tax by % or 1A% to support regional transit. The recommendation was to approve the implementation of a pavement management system to enable clear and concise evaluation of city streets. Staff was requesting direction on whether or not to pursue this option of adding the 1A% sales tax for street maintenance and repair. City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 2002 Page 2 3. The Council discussed the nomination process for the City's Boards and Commissions. Jennifer Walters, City Secretary, updated the Council on the process for board and commission nominations. 4. Staff responded to requests for clarification of consent agenda items listed on the consent agenda for the City Council regular meeting of June 18, 2002. Following the completion of the Work Session, the Council convened in a Closed Meeting to consider the following: 1. The Council considered the following in Closed Meeting: A. Deliberations regarding real property---Under TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE Section 551.072 and Consultation with the City Attorney---Under TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE Section 551.071 Deliberated the purchase and value of real property interests of certain real property comprising a tract of land containing approximately 0.565 acres for street purposes, and two Slope Easements containing approximately 0.203 acre and 0.134 acre, respectively, all of which are located in the D. Lambert Survey, Abstract No. 784 in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas and being part of Lot 1, Block A, Lombard Addition, an addition to the City of Denton, Texas, as part of the Colorado/Mayhill/Edwards Paving and Drainage improvements Project. Deliberations regarding real property---Under TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE Section 551.072 and Consultation with the City Attorney---Under TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE Section 551.071 Deliberated the purchase and value of real property interests of certain real property comprising tracts of land containing approximately 3.172 acres for Public Utility Easements and 2.655 acres for Temporary Construction Easements from the Denton independent School District, all of which are located in the S. McKracken Survey Abstract Number 817, City of Denton, Denton County, Texas as part of the Lake Ray Roberts Water Transmission Line Project and the Loop 288 Water Line Project. Deliberations regarding real property---Under TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE Section 551.072 and Consultation with the City Attorney---Under TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE Section 551.071 Deliberated the purchase and value of real property interests of certain real property comprising of tracts containing approximately 0.807 acres, 0.036 acres, 0.089 acres, 0.124 acres, and 0.028 acres of land, located in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas in the Stephen A. Venter Survey, Abstract No. 1315, located on the south side of Hickory Creek Road, just east of the intersection of Livingstone Drive and Hickory Creek Road, City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 2002 Page 3 which acquisition is for public purpose; receive legal advise from the City Attorney or his staff conceming legal issues regarding the acquisition and/or condemnation of such real property interest. (Hickory Creek Road Improvements Project); and Deliberated the purchase and value of real property interests of certain real property comprising a tract containing approximately 1.043 acres of land, located in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas in the Stephen A. Venter Survey, Abstract No. 1315, located on the south side of Hickory Creek Road, just west of the intersection of Teasley Lane and Hickory Creek Road, which acquisition is for public purpose; receive legal advise from the City Attomey or his staff conceming legal issues regarding the acquisition and/or condemnation of such real property interest. (Hickory Creek Road improvements Project); and Deliberated the purchase and value of real property interests of certain real property comprising of tracts containing approximately 0.769 acres and 0.089 acres of land, located in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas in the Eli Pickett Survey, Abstract No. 1018, located on the north side of Hickory Creek Road, just west of the intersection of Teasley Lane and Hickory Creek Road, which acquisition is for public purpose; receive legal advise from the City Attomey or his staff conceming legal issues regarding the acquisition and/or condemnation of such real property interest. (Hickory Creek Road improvements Project); and Deliberated the purchase and value of real property interests of certain real property comprising of a tract containing approximately 0.352 acres of land, located in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas in the Eli Pickett Survey, Abstract No. 1018, located on the north side of Hickory Creek Road, approximately 750' west of the intersection of Teasley Lane and Hickory Creek Road, which acquisition is for public purpose; receive legal advise from the City Attorney or his staff conceming legal issues regarding the acquisition and/or condemnation of such real property interest. (Hickory Creek Road improvements Project); and Deliberated the purchase and value of real property interests of certain real property comprising of tracts containing approximately 0.589 acres and 0.043 acres of land, located in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas in the Eli Pickett Survey, Abstract No. 1018, located on the north side of Hickory Creek Road, approximately 400' east of the intersection of Livingstone Drive and Hickory Creek Road, which acquisition is for public purpose; receive legal advise from the City Attorney or his staff conceming legal issues regarding the acquisition and/or condemnation of such real property interest. (Hickory Creek Road improvements Project); and City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 2002 Page 4 Deliberated the purchase and value of real property interests of certain real property comprising of tracts containing approximately 0.062 acres and 0.016 acres of land, located in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas in the Eli Pickett Survey, Abstract No. 1018, located on the north side of Hickory Creek Road, approximately 150' east of the intersection of Livingstone Drive and Hickory Creek Road, which acquisition is for public purpose; receive legal advise fi~om the City Attorney or his staff conceming legal issues regarding the acquisition and/or condemnation of such real property interest. (Hickory Creek Road Improvements Project) Consultation with the City Attorney- Under TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE Section 551.071. Discussed and considered strategy, status, and possible settlement of litigation with the City's attorneys in litigation styled City of Denton, et al v. TXU Electric Company, et al, Cause No. 009383 currently pending in the 134th District Court of Dallas County, Texas, and discussed legal issues concerning this litigation with the attorneys where to discuss these matters in public would conflict with the duty of the City's attorneys to the City Council under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas. Regular Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. 1. Pledge of Allegiance The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flags. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS 2. Mayor Brock presented the June Yard-of-the-Month Awards: Ed and Sue Maglaughlin Mark and Loretta Keaton Eric and Cheryl Fritsch Ann and Dan Neal Inez Kelly Laurie J. Hammett Robert and Elinor Hughes-Xeriscaped Yard Calloway' s Nursery- Commercial Award 3. Recognition of staff accomplishments. City Manager Conduff presented staff accomplishments to the Council. City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 2002 Page 5 CITIZEN REPORTS 4. Nell Yelldell regarding the DISD school taxes. Ms. Yelldell stated that the taxes for the DISD were too high. concrete company and the dumping of concrete in the creek next to her house. 5. Willie Hudspeth regarding citizen concems with the City. Mr. Hudspeth again complained about the smoking outside the building. there were no African American firefighters employed by the City of Denton. for clarification on the rules for speaking before the Council. 6. Dessie Goodson regarding the City's involvement with low-income people. She also complained about the He stated again that He again asked Ms. Goodson stated that she found clothes in the dumpster behind Calhoun Middle School. She felt they should have been given to poor people rather than putting them in the dumpster. She asked the Council to get involved with the DISD and not throw the clothes in the dumpster. 7. Ed Soph regarding the Good News and the Bad News. Mr. Soph stated that the EPA had published the toxic chemical air emissions for businesses in the City. Peterbilt Motors and Acme Brick had a reduction in their emissions but Safety Kleen had increased its emissions from 1999-2000. 8. Dick Hershberger regarding healthcare needs. Mr. Hershberger was not present at the meeting. 9. Dave Harper regarding deregulation. Mr. Harper was not present at the meeting. 10. Ross Melton regarding Code Enforcement and criminal trespass. Mr. Melton stated he was still having problems with Code Enforcement and felt that the officers had trespassed on his property in noting violations in his backyard. CONSENT AGENDA Burroughs motioned, Montgomery seconded to approve the Consent Agenda and the accompanying ordinances and resolution. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", Redmon "aye", and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 11. Approved the minutes of May 7, May 9, May 14, May 20, May 21, and May 28, 2002. City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 2002 Page 6 12. NO. 2002-173 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH JAMES DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING SERVICES PERTAINING TO THE PREPARATION OF AN UPDATED IMPACT FEE STUDY FOR THE WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITIES; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 13. NO. 2002-174 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE AND EXECUTE A TOWER/GROUND LEASE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY, AS LESSOR, AND CINGULAR WIRELESS, AS LESSEE, FOR THE LEASE OF TOWER SPACE ON THE MCKENNA PARK TOWER AND ON THE GROUNDS; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE AND RECEIPT OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 14. This item was pulled from consideration. 15. NO. R2002-023 A RESOLUTION NOMINATING A MEMBER TO THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE DENCO AREA 9-1-1 DISTRICT; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 16. NO. 2002-175 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (PSA) WITH EMCON/OWT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE (CQA) PROFESSIONAL OF RECORD (POR) FOR SOIL LINER QUALITY CONTROL AT THE DENTON MUNICIPAL LANDFILL AS SET FORTH IN THE CONTRACT; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (PSA 2862 TO EMCON/OWT IN THE AMOUNT OF $117,564). 17. NO. 2002-176 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE SEALED PROPOSALS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR COLLECTION SERVICES FOR DELINQUENT TAXES ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DENTON; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTiVE DATE (RFSP 2847 - DELINQUENT TAX ATTORNEY AWARDED TO LiNEBARGER, GOGGAN, BLAIR, PENA, & SAMPSON, LLP AND GREGORY & CONNER, P.C). City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 2002 Page 7 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. NO. 2002-177 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE CIVIC CENTER HVAC SYSTEM; PROViDiNG FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BiD 2852 - CiVIC CENTER HVAC REPLACEMENT AWARDED TO BCi MECHANICAL, iNC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $89,410). NO. 2002-178 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF LANDFILL CELLS IN PHASE 2 OF THE CITY OF DENTON LANDFILL; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BiD 2859 - CONSTRUCTION OF LANDFILL CELLS IN PHASE 2 AWARDED TO L.D. KEMP CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $878,497.50). NO. 2002-179 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF OUTDOOR WARNING SIRENS AND PERIPHERAL ITEMS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE FROM ONLY ONE SOURCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION FOR STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDS; AND PROViDiNG AN EFFECTIVE DATE (PURCHASE ORDER 105276 TO GiFFORD ELECTRIC, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $87,393 FOR THREE ADDiTiONAL SIRENS FOR OUTDOOR WARNING SYSTEM). NO. 2002-180 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DENTON TO PURCHASE INSTALLATION, CONFIGURATION, AND ASSOCIATED SUPPORT HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE FOR A XIOTECH STORAGE AREA NETWORK FROM THE HARDING GROUP, INC., A QUALiFiED iNFORMATiON SERVICES VENDOR (QiSV) OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. (PURCHASE ORDER 105224 -THE HARDING GROUP, iNC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $169,930). NO. 2002-181 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A WATER MA1N PRORATA REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND PULTE HOMES TO REIMBURSE OWNER FOR THE COSTS OF BUILDING A WATER MAiN THROUGH PRORATA CHARGES PAID TO THE City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 2002 Page 8 CITY; AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 23. NO. 2002-182 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SEWER MAIN PRORATA REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND PULTE HOMES TO REIMBURSE OWNER FOR THE COSTS OF BUILDING A SEWER MA1N THROUGH PRORATA CHARGES PAID TO THE CITY; AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 24. NO. 2002-183 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO ENTER iNTO A REAL ESTATE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND RAY HALLFORD RELATING TO THE PURCHASE OF A 0.565 ACRE TRACT OF LAND IN FEE SIMPLE FOR STREET PURPOSES, AND TWO SLOPE EASEMENTS CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.203 ACRE AND 0.134 ACRE, RESPECTIVELY, ALL OF WHICH ARE LOCATED iN THE D. LAMBERT SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 784, IN THE CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS, AND BEING PART OF LOT 1, BLOCK A, LOMBARD ADDITION, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AS PART OF THE COLORADO/MAYHiLL/EDWARD S PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 25. NO. 2002-184 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF 3.172 ACRES OF LAND FOR PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS AND 2.655 ACRES FOR TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT LOCATED IN THE S. MCKRACKEN SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 817, CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (LAKE RAY ROBERTS WATER TRANSMiSSiON LINE PROJECT AND THE LOOP 288 WATER LINE PROJECT). 26. NO. 2002-185 AN ORDINANCE DECLARING A PUBLIC NECESSITY EXISTS AND FINDING THAT PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE REQUIRES THE TAKING AND ACQUIRING OF AN APPROXIMATE 0.807 ACRE TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND IN FEE SIMPLE FOR STREET PURPOSES SUCH TITLE TO BE IN THE NAME OF THE CITY OF DENTON AND A DRAINAGE AND ACCESS EASEMENT CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.036 ACRE AND THREE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION, GRADING, AND ACCESS EASEMENTS CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.089 ACRE, 0.124 ACRE AND 0.028 ACRE, RESPECTIVELY, City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 2002 Page 9 ALL OF WHICH ARE LOCATED iN STEPHEN A. VENTURE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1315 IN THE CiTY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS AND BEING PART OF A TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO GARY JAY MADRIGAL BY QUITCLAIM DEED RECORDED IN VOLUME 4155, PAGE 1004, DEED RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO MAKE AN OFFER TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FOR ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE AND IF SUCH OFFER IS REFUSED, AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO iNSTiTUTE THE NECESSARY PROCEEDINGS IN CONDEMNATION IN ORDER TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY NECESSARY FOR THE PUBLIC PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING STREET, DRAINAGE, UTILITY AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PARCEL 3) 27. NO. 2002-186 AN ORDINANCE DECLARING A PUBLIC NECESSITY EXISTS AND FINDING THAT PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE REQUIRES THE TAKING AND ACQUIRING OF AN APPROXIMATE 1.043 ACRE TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND IN FEE SIMPLE FOR STREET PURPOSES SUCH TITLE TO BE iN THE NAME OF THE CITY OF DENTON AND SAID PROPERTY LOCATED IN STEPHEN A. VENTURE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1315 IN THE CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS AND BEING PART OF A TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO ALVIN E. MEREDITH ET UX BY DEED RECORDED iN VOLUME 829, PAGE 474 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO MAKE AN OFFER TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FOR ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE AND IF SUCH OFFER IS REFUSED, AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO INSTITUTE THE NECESSARY PROCEEDINGS IN CONDEMNATION IN ORDER TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY NECESSARY FOR THE PUBLIC PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING STREET, DRAINAGE, UTILITY AND RELATED iMPROVEMENTS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTiVE DATE. (PARCEL 4) 28. No. 2002-187 AN ORDINANCE DECLARING A PUBLIC NECESSITY EXISTS AND FINDING THAT PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE REQUIRES THE TAKING AND ACQUIRING OF AN APPROXIMATE 0.769 ACRE TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND IN FEE SIMPLE FOR STREET PURPOSES SUCH TITLE TO BE IN THE NAME OF THE CITY OF DENTON AND A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION, GRADING, AND ACCESS EASEMENT CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.089 ACRE OF LAND, LOCATED iN THE ELI PICKETT SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1018 iN THE CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS AND BEING A PORTION OF PARCEL 2, CONVEYANCE PLAT LEXINGTON PARK SOUTH, RECORDED IN CABINET S, PAGE 299, PLAT RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS, CONVEYED TO DWIGHT THOMPSON MINISTRIES, iNC. BY DEED RECORDED iN VOLUME 3135, PAGE 439, DEED RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO MAKE AN OFFER TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FOR ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE AND IF SUCH OFFER IS REFUSED, AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY, OR HIS DESIGNEE, City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 2002 Page 10 TO INSTITUTE THE NECESSARY PROCEEDINGS IN CONDEMNATION IN ORDER TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY NECESSARY FOR THE PUBLIC PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING STREET, DRAINAGE, UTILITY AND RELATED iMPROVEMENTS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PARCEL 5) 29. NO. 2002-188 AN ORDINANCE DECLARING A PUBLIC NECESSITY EXISTS AND FINDING THAT PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE REQUIRES THE TAKING AND ACQUiRiNG OF AN APPROXIMATE 0.352 ACRE TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND IN FEE SIMPLE FOR STREET PURPOSES SUCH TITLE TO BE IN THE NAME OF THE CITY OF DENTON AND SAID PROPERTY BEING LOCATED IN THE ELI PICKETT SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO.1018 IN THE CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS AND BEING A PORTION OF A TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE MLM FAMILY TRUST BY DEED RECORDED UNDER COUNTY CLERKS FILE NUMBER 96-0059630, REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; AUTHORiZiNG THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO MAKE AN OFFER TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FOR ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE AND IF SUCH OFFER IS REFUSED, AUTHORiZiNG THE CITY ATTORNEY, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO INSTITUTE THE NECESSARY PROCEEDINGS IN CONDEMNATION iN ORDER TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY NECESSARY FOR THE PUBLIC PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING STREET, DRAINAGE, UTILITY AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PARCEL 6) 30. NO. 2002-189 AN ORDINANCE DECLARING A PUBLIC NECESSITY EXISTS AND FINDING THAT PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE REQUIRES THE TAKING AND ACQUiRiNG OF AN APPROXIMATE 0.589 ACRE TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND IN FEE SIMPLE FOR STREET PURPOSES SUCH TITLE TO BE IN THE NAME OF THE CITY OF DENTON AND A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION, GRADING, AND ACCESS EASEMENT CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.043 ACRE, BOTH OF WHICH ARE LOCATED iN THE EL1 PICKETT SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1018 IN THE CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS AND BEING PART OF A TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO GEORGE T. CONNELL, JR. BY DEED RECORDED IN VOLUME 3135, PAGE 436, DEED RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; AUTHORiZiNG THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO MAKE AN OFFER TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FOR ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE AND IF SUCH OFFER IS REFUSED, AUTHORiZiNG THE CITY ATTORNEY, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO iNSTiTUTE THE NECESSARY PROCEEDINGS IN CONDEMNATION iN ORDER TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY NECESSARY FOR THE PUBLIC PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING STREET, DRAINAGE, UTILITY AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PARCEL 7) 31. NO. 2002-190 AN ORDINANCE DECLARING A PUBLIC NECESSITY EXISTS AND FINDING THAT PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE REQUIRES THE TAKING AND City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 2002 Page 11 ACQUIRING OF AN APPROXIMATE 0.062 ACRE TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND IN FEE SIMPLE FOR STREET PURPOSES SUCH TITLE TO BE IN THE NAME OF THE CITY OF DENTON AND A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION, GRADING, AND ACCESS EASEMENT CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.016 ACRE, BOTH OF WHICH ARE LOCATED iN THE EL1 PICKETT SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1018 IN THE CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS AND BEING A PORTION OF A TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO TiNA M. LAUER BY DEED RECORDED IN VOLUME 4468, PAGE 744, DEED RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO MAKE AN OFFER TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FOR ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE AND IF SUCH OFFER IS REFUSED, AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO INSTITUTE THE NECESSARY PROCEEDINGS iN CONDEMNATION IN ORDER TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY NECESSARY FOR THE PUBLIC PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING STREET, DRAINAGE, UTILITY AND RELATED iMPROVEMENTS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTiVE DATE. (PARCEL 8) 32. APPROVED AN EXACTION VARIANCE OF SECTION 35.20.3(B.) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES CONCERNING PERIMETER SIDEWALK FOR THE LIVERPOOL ADDITION, BEING A 5.1 ACRE SINGLE FAMILY RESiDENTiAL PARCEL LOCATED IN A NEIGHBORHOOD RESiDENTiAL 2 (NR-2) ZONING DISTRICT AND ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF BONNIE BRAE APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET SOUTH OF CORBIN ROAD. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF A FULL VARIANCE (5- 2) (vo2-ooo$) 33. APPROVED AN EXACTION VARIANCE OF SECTION 35.20.2(L.3.A.) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES CONCERNING PERIMETER PAVING FOR THE LIVERPOOL ADDITION, BEING A 5.1 ACRE SINGLE FAMILY RESiDENTiAL PARCEL LOCATED 1N A NEIGHBORHOOD RESiDENTiAL 2 (NR-2) ZONING DISTRICT AND ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF BONNIE BRAE APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET SOUTH OF CORBIN ROAD. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF A FULL VARIANCE (5- 2) Wo2-ooo7) 34. NO. 2002-191 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDERS TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND PHARLAP CONSTRUCTION, INC.; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (CHANGE ORDER ONE IN THE AMOUNT $139,613, CHANGE ORDER TWO iN THE AMOUNT OF $3,058 AND CHANGE ORDER THREE IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,392.) 35. NO. 2002-192 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AND SOUTH RIDGE RECREATION CLUB FOR THE REPAIR OF SWIMMING POOLS TO BE OPEN TO RESIDENTS City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 2002 Page 12 OF THE CITY OF DENTON UPON PAYMENT OF PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MEMBERSHIP FEES; THEREFORE; AND 36. NO. 2002-193 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DENTON A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RELATING TO OBTAINING FUNDS FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF A VEHICLE (BUS) FOR THE TRANSIT SYSTEM; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 37. NO. 2002-194 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AND THE JUNETEENTH COMMITTEE TO SUPPORT THE JUNETEENTH PAGEANT; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. PUBLIC HEARINGS 38. The Council cominued a public heating and considered adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 37 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use (NRMU) zoning district. The property was generally located on the west side of Bonnie Brae north of Windsor and south of Riney Road. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) (4-2). (ZO2-OOOD [Property owner initiated rezoning, initially reviewed during the Development Code review process.] Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Development, presented the details of the proposal. The Mayor opened the public heating. The following individuals spoke during the public heating: Eric and Marla Fullerton, 3015 North Bonnie Brae, Denton, 76207 - favor John Smith, 3309 North Bonnie Brae, Denton, 76207 - favor Commem cards were submitted by: Martha and Wallace Duke, 3315 North Bonnie Brae, Demon, 76207 - favor Dorothy Smith, 3309 North Bonnie Brae, Demon, 76207 - favor The Mayor closed the public heating. The following ordinance was considered: City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 2002 Page 13 NO. 2002-195 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 2 (NR-2) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE (NRMU) ZON1NG DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 37 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH BONNIE BRAE ROAD NORTH OF WINDSOR DRIVE AND SOUTH OF NORTH ELM STREET; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z02-0007) Fulton motioned, Phillips seconded to approve the zoning designation as NRMU. On roll vote, Burroughs "nay", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", Redmon "aye", and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carried with a 6-1 vote. 39. The Council held a public heating and considered adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 0.8 acres generally located at the southeast comer of Taliaferro Street and Elm Street, from a Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential Mixed-Use (NRMU-12) zoning district. Attached single-family dwellings were proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7-0). (Z02-0005) Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Development, presented the details of the proposal. The Mayor opened the public heating. The following individuals spoke during the public heating: Karen Mitchell, representing the petitioner- favor Diana Hatch, 2117 North Locust, Denton, 76209 - opposed A comment card opposing the proposal was submitted by Michael Hatch, 2117 N. Locust, Denton, 76209. The Mayor closed the public heating. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2002-196 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 3 (NR-3) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE 12 (NRMU- 12) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 0.8 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ELM STREET AND TALAFERRO STREET INTERSECTION AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS TRACTS 95 AND 96 OF ABSTRACT N. MEISENHEIMER SURVEY; PROVIDING FOR A City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 2002 Page 14 PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (z02-0005) Burroughs motioned, Phillips seconded to adopt the ordinance with NRMU-12 zoning. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", Redmon "aye", and Mayor Brock "nay". Motion carded with a 6-1 vote. 40. The Council held a public heating and considered adoption of an ordinance amending Ordinance 99-439, regarding a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, from Community Mixed Use Center to Neighborhood Center. The area for amendment encompassed approximately 9.1 acres. The site was generally located southeast of the intersection of Loop 288 at Sherman Drive, approximately 510 feet east of Poinsettia Boulevard. The area for amendment was part of a larger development containing a variety of single-family, multifamily, retail, office and commercial uses. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (6-1). (CA02- ooo0 Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Development, presented the details of the proposal and noted that Item #41 was a companion of this item. Council might want to consider the two items at the same time. The Mayor opened the public hearings for items g40 and g41. The following individual spoke during the public hearings: Jeff Crandell spoke in favor. The Mayor closed the public hearings for Items #40 and #41. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2002-197 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DENTON PLAN 1999-2020 BY ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN OF THE LAND ELEMENT OF THE DENTON PLAN FOR THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; THE AREA FOR AMENDMENT ENCOMPASSING APPROXIMATELY 9.1 ACRES AND GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF LOOP 288 AT SHERMAN DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 510 FEET EAST OF POINSETTIA BOULEVARD; PROVIDING A SAVINGS AND REPEAL CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (CA-02-0001) Redmon motioned, McNeill seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", Redmon "aye", and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carded unanimously. 41. The Council held a public heating and considered adoption of an ordinance rezoning multiple parcels totaling approximately 11.3 acres from Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) and Community Mixed Use General (CM-G) zoning districts to Neighborhood Residential Mixed- Use 12 (NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning districts. The property was City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 2002 Page 15 generally located approximately 200 feet east of Sherman Drive and Poinsettia Boulevard intersection. Town homes and detached single-family dwelling units were proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (6-1). (Z02-0024) The public heating was held in conjunction with Item The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2002-198 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 3 (NR-3) AND COMMUNITY MIXED-USE GENERAL (CM-G) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATIONS AND USE DESIGNATIONS TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE 12 (NRMU- 12) AND NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 6 (NR-6) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATIONS AND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR APPROXIMATELY 11.3 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET EAST OF SHERMAN DRIVE AND POINSETTIA INTERSECTION AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS PORTION OF TRACT 5 OF ABSTRACT S. MCCRACKEN SURVEY, PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z02-0024) Burroughs motioned, Phillips seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", Redmon "aye", and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carded unanimously. 42. The Council held a public heating and considered adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 72.3 acres from an Agriculture (A) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district. The site was generally located north of Loop 288, south of Long Road, east of Stuart Drive and west of Sherman Drive. The rezoning was required to bring property into compliance with the new Development Code zoning classifications. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7-0). (Z02-0023) Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Development, stated he would answer any questions from Council. The Mayor opened the public heating. The following individual spoke during the public heating: Allen Bussell, 1668 Amanda Court, Ponder, 76259 - favor The Mayor closed the public heating. The following ordinance was considered: City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 2002 Page 16 NO. 2002-199 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ZONING A TRACT OF LAND, COMPRISING APPROXIMATELY 72.3 ACRES IN THE CITY OF DENTON FROM AGRICULTURE (A) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 3 (NR-3); THE TRACT BEING GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF LOOP 288, SOUTH OF LONG ROAD, EAST OF STUART DRIVE AND WEST OF SHERMAN DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF DENTON; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z02-0023) Burroughs motioned, Fulton seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", Redmon "aye", and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carded tmanimously. 43. The Council held a public heating and considered adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 3.0 acres of land from a Regional Center Residential 1 (RCR-1) zoning district to a Regional Center Commercial Downtown (RCC-D) zoning district. The site was generally located at 4011 Interstate 35 E northbound, on the easterly side of the service road adjacent to the Finfer Furniture Outlet. Future commercial development was proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commissions recommended approval (7-0). (Z02-0025) Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Development, presented the details of the proposal. The Mayor opened the public heating. No one spoke during the public heating. The Mayor closed the public heating. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2002-200 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ZONING A TRACT OF LAND, COMPRISING APPROXIMATELY 3 ACRES OF LAND FROM A REGIONAL CENTER RESIDENTIAL 1 (RCR-1) ZONING DISTRICT TO A REGIONAL CENTER COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN (RCC-D) ZONING DISTRICT, SAID TRACT LOCATED TO THE EAST SIDE OF INTERSTATE I35-E ADJACENT TO THE FINFER FURNITURE OUTLET, IN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Phillips motioned, McNeill seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", Redmon "aye", and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carded unanimously. City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 2002 Page 17 44. The Council held a public heating and considered adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 35, Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas; "Development Code" by adding Subchapter 15, "Signs and Advertising Devises"; providing for a cumulative provision; providing for a severability clause; providing for a penalty in the amount of $2,000 for violations thereof; and declaring an effective date. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7-0). (SI02-0004) Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Development, presented the details of the proposal. The Mayor opened the public heating. No one spoke during the public heating. The Mayor closed the public heating. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2002-201 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AMENDING CHAPTER 35, CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, "DENTON DEVELOPMENT CODE" BY ADDING SUBCHAPTER 15, "SIGNS AND ADVERTISING DEVICES" PROVIDING FOR A CUMULATIVE PROVISION; PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABiLiTY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Burroughs motioned, Fulton seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", Redmon "aye", and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carded unanimously. Mayor Brock left the meeting with a conflict of interest. 45. The Council held a public heating to receive public comments and evidence on TXU Gas Distribution's request to change rates in the North Texas Metroplex Distribution System including the City of Denton, Texas. City Attorney Prouty briefed the Council on items #45 and #46. The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public heating. The following individual spoke during the public heating: Elizabeth Dedmon, 2102 Fair Oaks Circle, Corinth, 76210 - spoke in favor of denial. The public hearing was closed. City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 2002 Page 18 ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 46. The Council considered approval of a resolution denying TXU Gas Distribution's request to change rates in the North Texas Metroplex Distribution System as recommended by the coalition of cities' consultants and counsel; requiring prompt reimbursement of cities' rate case expenses; and providing for an effective date. The following resolution was considered: NO. R2002-024 A RESOLUTION DENYING TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION'S REQUEST TO CHANGE RATES IN THE NORTH TEXAS METROPLEX DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AS RECOMMENDED BY THE COALITION OF CITIES' CONSULTANTS AND COUNSEL; REQUIRING PROMPT REIMBURSEMENT OF CITIES' RATE CASE EXPENSES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Montgomery motioned, Fulton seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", and Redmon "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 47. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas authorizing settlement of litigation styled City of Denton v. Texas Utilities Company, et al., Cause No. 009383 currently pending in the 134th District Court of Dallas County, Texas; authorizing the City Manager and the City Attorney to act on the City's behalf in executing any and all documents necessary to effect such settlement under the terms set forth in the attached compromise settlement and release agreement, and to take such other actions deemed necessary to finalize the settlement; and declaring an effective date. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2002-202 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING SETTLEMENT OF LITIGATION STYLED CITY OF DENTON F. TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY, ET AL., CAUSE NO. 009383 CURRENTLY PENDING IN THE 134TM DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY ATTORNEY TO ACT ON THE CITY'S BEHALF IN EXECUTING ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO EFFECT SUCH SETTLEMENT UNDER THE TERMS SET FORTH IN THE ATTACHED COMPROMISE SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT, AND TO TAKE SUCH OTHER ACTIONS DEEMED NECESSARY TO FINALIZE THE SETTLEMENT; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. McNeill motioned, Phillips seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", and Redmon "aye". Motion carried unanimously. City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 2002 Page 19 48. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance appointing Municipal Judge, Robin Ramsay, as Administrative Law Judge for discovery purposes and delegating to the Administrative Law Judge the authority to prepare discovery guidelines in the proceeding entitled "TXU Gas Distribution's Statement of Intent to Increase Rates in the North Texas Metroplex Distribution System"; providing the Administrative Law Judge the powers set forth in the body of this ordinance; and providing an effective date. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2002-203 AN ORDINANCE APPOINTING MUNICIPAL JUDGE, ROBIN RAMSAY, AS ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY PURPOSES AND DELEGATING TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE THE AUTHORITY TO PREPARE DISCOVERY GUIDELINES iN THE PROCEEDING ENTITLED "TXU GAS DiSTRIBUTiON'S STATEMENT OF iNTENT TO INCREASE RATES IN THE NORTH TEXAS METROPLEX DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM"; PROVIDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE THE POWERS SET FORTH IN THE BODY OF THIS ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Fulton motioned, McNeill seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", and Redmon "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brock returned to the meeting. 49. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance on first reading to voluntarily annex 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). (n02-O00~) Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Development, presented the details of the proposal. Burroughs motioned, Montgomery seconded to adopt the ordinance on first reading. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", Redmon "aye", and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 50. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance conceming the Alternative Development Plan for Chuck E Cheese and Denton Park 35 development. The approximately 7.5 acre property was in the Downtown Commercial General (DC-G) zoning district and was generally located on the north side of interstate 35E, approximately 210 feet west of Centre Place and east of Meadow. Alternative site design standards, including stacking, connectivity and pervious parking requirements were proposed. (The Planning and Zoning Commission will make a recommendation on June 12, 2002.) (SP02-0003) Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Development, presented the details of the proposal. The Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval with the condition that the City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 2002 Page 20 internal connectivity not be applied to the entire site and review as the inner parcels were made available. Fulton motioned, Mayor seconded to approve the proposal with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation. Nick Nicholas spoke on the issue Fulton revised her motion to approve the internal connectivity provided for all six lots by the four-lane road as noted on page two of the agenda backup with the exception of#4 and #5. Brock withdrew her second. Burroughs seconded the revised motion. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2002-204 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING AN ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CHUCK E. CHEESE, BEING AN APPROXIMATE 1.6 ACRE SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF iNTERSTATE 35E, APPROXIMATELY 210 FEET WEST OF CENTRE PLACE AND EAST OF MEADOW LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1, OF THE DENTON PARK 35 ADDITION, PROVIDING FOR A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; PROVIDING A SEVERABiLiTY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", Redmon "aye", and Mayor Brock "nay". Motion carded with a 6-1 vote. 51. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance concerning the Alternative Development Plan for the Denton Crossing development. The approximately 54-acre site was generally located at the southwest comer of Loop 288 and Spencer Road. Alternative site design standards, including parking requirements and architectural elevations, were proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7-0). (SP02-O00O Burroughs motioned, Redmon seconded to amend the Council rules to allow speakers. There were no objections from Council. The following individuals spoke on the issue: Kevin Caldwell, representing the petitioner - favor Allen Bussell, 1668 Amanda Court, Ponder, 76259 - favor The following ordinance was considered: City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 2002 Page 21 NO. 2002-205 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING AN ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR DENTON CROSSING DEVELOPMENT, BEING AN APPROXIMATE 54 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOOP 288 AND SPENCER ROAD LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1, BLOCK A, OF THE LONE STAR PAR 3 ADDITION, TRACTS 1, 2, AND 3 OF THE J. TAFT SURVEY, TRACT 6 OF THE J. CHEEK SURVEY, AND TRACTS 39, 40, 41, 42, AND 43 OF THE M. AUSTIN SURVEY; PROVIDING FOR A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. McNeill motioned, Burroughs seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", Redmon "aye", and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carded unanimously. 52. New Business The following items of New Business were suggested by Council Members for future agendas: A. Council Member Phillips requested information on how to readdress the denied SUP on Stanley Street for a home business with the possibility of a limited SUP on a temporary trial period of limited scope. B. Council Member Redmon requested information on Ms. Yelldell's concern regarding the concrete company. city holiday. Council Member Redmon requested information on how to make Juneteenth a D. Council Member Fulton requested that the issue of the timing of watering of yards be brought forward as soon as possible. E. Council Member Fulton requested a work session on the time line on how long it took developers/contractors to work through all the development steps until finally approved. 53. Items from the City Manager City Manager Conduff did not have any items for Council. 54. There was no continuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. 55. There was no official action on Closed Meeting Item(s) under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 2002 Page 22 With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #6 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: July 16, 2002 Fiscal and Municipal Services Kathy DuBose, Assistam City Manager, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT Consider a resolution approving the fiscal year 2003 Financial Plan of the Denco Area 9-1-1 District, pursuant to the Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 772, as amended; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND On June 18, 2002 the City of Demon received a memo from Mike Pedigo, Executive Director of the Denco Area 9-1-1 District, requesting we review their "Draft" fiscal year 2003 Financial Plan. The Texas Health and Safety Code require emergency communication districts to submit the draft budget to its participating jurisdictions for a 45-day review and commem period. For your review, a copy of the "Draft" Financial Plan is attached to the Resolution. FISCAL INFORMATION There are no costs to the City of Denton directly associated with the approval of the Denco Area 9-1-1 District's Financial Plan. EXHIBITS Memo from Mike Pedigo Resolution "Draft" Financial Plan Respectfully submitted: Kathy DuBose Assistam City Manager, Fiscal and Municipal Services To: Date: Subject: DENCO AREA 9-1-I DISTRICT P,O. Box 293058, Lewisville. Texas 75029-3058 Phor~eFFTY: 972-221-0911 · FAX: 972-420-0709 · Webpage: www. denco,org Denco Area 911 District Participating Jurisdictions 1~~~t June 7, 2002 FiNANCE t Denco Area 911 District Fiscal Year 2003 Financial PI Enclosed is a copy of the "Draft" Denco Area 9-1-1 District Fiscal Year 2003 Financial Plan for your jurisdiction's review and comment, The Texas Health and Safety Code require emergency communication districts to submit the draft budget to its participating jurisdictions for a 45-day review and comment period. After the review and comment period, the district's board of managers adopts a budget for the next fiscal year. A copy of the statute and approval policy is included in Section 5 of the draft plan, At its June 6, 2002 regular meeting, the Denco Area 9-1-1 District Board of Managers unanimously approved the enclosed financial plan for fiscal year 2003. The district requests that your jurisdiction review the fiscal year 2003 proposed budget and submit comments to the Denco board prior to July 31, 2002. At its regular meeting on August 8, 2002, the Denco board will consider approving the Denco Area 9-1-1 District Fiscal: Year 2003 Financial Plan:. At that time the board will consider responses on the draft budget, If the district does not receive a response from individual jurisdictions, it will consider, according to statute, that those jurisdictions support the dra~ budget. Please fax responses to (972) 420-0709 or mail them to P.O. Box 293058, Lewisville, Texas 75029-3058. you need additiona! information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (972) 221-0911. Thanks for your continued support of the Denco Area 9-1-1 District. Mike Pedigo Executive Director Enclosure 1075 Princeton Street, Lewisville, Texas 75(J67 S:\Our Docmments~esolurions\02~911 budget.doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2003 FiNANCiAL PLAN (BUDGET) OF THE DENCO AREA 9-1-1 DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO TEXAS HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §772.309 AS AMENDED; AND PROViDiNG AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Demon has been presented the 2003 Draft Financial Plan (Budget) of the Denco Area 9-1-1 District for approval, in accordance with Tex. Health & Safety Code §772.309 (Vernon 1999) as amended; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Demon hereby approves the 2003 fiscal year Draft Financial Plan (Budget) of the Denco Area 9-1-1 District attached to this Resolution. SECTION 2. That this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2002. EULiNE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: DENCO AREA 9- 1 - 1 DISTRICT FISCAL Year 2003 (DRAFT) FINANCIAL PLAN DENCO AREA 9-1-1 DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2003 FINANCIAL PLAN SECTION 1 PREFACE To: Denco Area 911 District Participating Jurisdictions Date: June 6, 2002 Subject: Denco Area 911 District Fiscal Year 2003 Financial Plan Enclosed is the "draft" copy of the Denco Area 9-1-1 District Fiscal Year 2003 Financial Plan for your jurisdiction's consideration. Chapter 772.300, Texas Health and Safety Code, requires emergency communication districts to send a draft budget to participating jurisdictions seeking comments. After a 45-day review and comment period, the district's board of managers will consider approval of a final budget. Even though it is not required for your governing body to vote on the budget, the Denco board requests that you review the budget and provide feedback prior to the August 8, 2002 district board of managers' meeting. At that time the board will approve a final budget for fiscal year 2003, which begins October 1, 2002. If there is no change from the draft budget, the district will notify its members that the budget is approved. If there is a change, the district will request each jurisdiction to consider the final budget and a copy of that budget will be sent to members. A copy of the approval process and the state legislation that applies to the Denco Area 9-1-1 District is included under Section "5" in the enclosed financial plan. You will find that the proposed financial plan includes additional services provided by the district, such as additional training and equipment service. Also included is the replacement of two new public safety answering point (PSAP) controller switches. These new switches will replace older technology and are designed to better balance the call volume at the district's eleven 9-1-1 answering points. Phase II Enhanced Wireless 9.1-1 Service is also included in this financial plan. Denco should be operational with Phase II service for both VoiceStream and Sprint PCS wireless carriers prior to the end of this current fiscal year. The district is in the process of planning for the deployment of Phase II with the other wireless carriers operating within the district. Phase II provides the approxi mate location of 9-1-1 callers using a wireless telephone. The Denco Area 9.1-1 District is here to serve its participating jurisdictions. The district's mission is "to assist its member jurisdictions respond to police, fire and medical emergency calls by providing an efficient, effective enhanced 9-1-1 emergency telecommunications system". It continues to provide more services each year at the same service fee rate since its beginning in 1987. Please call on any board member or the district staff if you have any comments or questions concerning this proposed budget. The district's executive director, Mike Pedigo, would welcome the opportunity to make a presentation to your governing body regarding this budget or any other Denco related matter. Again, thanks for your support of the Denco Area 9-1-1 District. Harlan Jefferson Chairman, Board of Managers To~ Denco Area 911 District Participating Jurisdictions Date: June 6, 2002 Subject: Denco Area 911 District Fiscal Year 2003 Financial Plan The Denco Area 9-1-1 District's Board of Managers, at its June 6, 2002 regular meeting, ~ ~ th approved the Draft Denco Area 9-1-1 District Fiscal Year 2003 Financial Plan. The 76 Texas Legislature passed House Bill 1984 which defined the budget approval process for Chapter 772.300 series emergency communication districts. The following documents are included in Section V, the Appendix of this financial plan, defining the budget approval process: · A copy of the Denco Area 9-1-1 District Mission, Values and Goals Statement. · A copy of the section in House Bill 1984 that pertains to budget approval. · A copy of a resolution approved by the Denco Area 9-1-1 District Board of Managers defining procedures for consideration and approval of a budget. · A copy of Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 772.300; the statute under which Denco operates. Denco's draft financial plan provides for the continued provision of state-of-the-art enhanced 9- 1-1 services at the same rate that Denco has collected from district residents since its inception in 1987. The emergency service fee, collected by the telephone service providers is $0.27 per month for residential, $0.71 per month for business service and $1.13 per month for PBX trunks. This fee is equal to three percent of the 1987 base telephone rate. Denco continues to provide excellent services to its member jurisdictions at one of the lowest rates in the state. In addition to the emergency service fee collected by local telephone service providers, the State of Texas collects $0.50 per month per wireless telephone. Those fees are remitted to the state. The state then sends a portion of the wireless fund to Denco based on the district's percent of the total population of Texas. Included in the fiscal year 2003 budget are the following projects: · The purchase and installation of two new ECS 1000 PSAP Controller Switches. These switches are the backbone to the 9-1-1 network. They share the load of all 9-1-1 calls routed to Denco Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP). · The transition of the 9-1-1 databases to a new, more robust and redundant database platform. The new platform will house both wireless and wireline databases. · The configuration and deployment of a back- up 9-1-1 network that is more diverse and more redundant than the current back-up system. · The completion of Phase II enhanced 9-1-1 wireless services. This enhancement will assist telecommunicators in locating wireless 9-1-1 callers. The district has set aside funds for the last several years for Phase II services. The fiscal year 2003 direct services budget includes $1,000,000 for non-recurring expenditures for the purchase of these enhanced wireless services. · The addition of new training programs designed to meet the special training needs of PSAPs across the district. The Denco Area 9-1-1 District Board of Managers and staff continue to work to provide its member jurisdictions the best-enhanced 9-1-1 services available at one of the lowest rates in Texas. The district appreciates the professionalism, cooperation and support of the dispatchers and emergency response agencies that make the 9-1-1 systems successful. If, at any time, you have any questions or would like additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at (972) 221-0911. Thanks for your continued support of the Denco Area 9-1-1 District. Mike Pedigo Executive Director DENCO AREA 9-1-1 DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2003 FINANCIAL PLAN SECTION 2 DISTRICT OVERVIEW DENCO AREA 9-1-1 DISTRICT DISTRICT OVERVIEW Background Information What is E9-1-17 Enhanced Nine-One-One (E9-1-1) is a single, easy-to-remember number used when reporting emergencies to fire, police and emergency medical service providers. The E9-1-1 system, operational in the Denco Area 9-1-1 District, is designed to automatically route any 9-1-1 call, placed from a telephone instrument (including wireless) within the district's geographical boundaries, to the proper public safety answering point (PSAP) responsible for dispatching emergency services to the caller. 9-1-1 Terminoloqy 9-1-1. Nine-one-one. An easy-to-remember, easy-to-dial three-digit emergency telephone number developed to provide citizens a reliable, fast and convenient way to access fire, police, or medical service providers in the event of an emergency. District. Denco Area 9-1-1 District. The entity that provides enhanced 9-1-1 service in Denton County. A board of managers appointed by participating jurisdictions governs the district. The district serves Denton County and that portion of Carrollton in Dallas County. E9-1-1. Enhanced 9-1-1. The system that is operational in Denton County providing SR, ANI and ALI (defined below). GIS. Geographic Information Systems. The technology used to develop the mapped display of Denton County. PSAP. Public Safety Answering Point. The location of the equipment used to answer 9-1-1 emergency calls. The following are the twelve (12) PSAPs that are currently capable of answering 9-1-1 calls in the Denco Area 9-1-1 District: City of Carrollton Police Department City of Denton Police Department Denton County Sheriff's Office Town of Flower Mound Police Department City of Highland Village Police Department City of Roanoke Police Department City of Lake Dallas Police Department City of Lewisville Police Department City of The Colony Police Department University of North Texas Police Department Texas Woman's University Police Department Denco Backup and Training PSAP SR. Selective Routing. The system that provides automatic routing of 9-1-1 calls based on the caller's location to the appropriate PSAP. The caller is not required to determine which public safety agency to call. ANI. Automatic Number Identification. The feature that provides the caller's telephone number on a console at the PSAP. ALI. Automatic Location Identification. The feature that provides the caller's name and address on a computer monitor at the PSAP. Database. The information accompanying a 9-1-1 call at the PSAP. The information provided is the caller's name, address and telephone number, as well as the emergency service providers designated to respond to the caller's address. Public Safety Telecommunicator. The individual answering the 9-1-1 calls; trained to communicate with persons seeking emergency assistance and with agencies and individuals providing such assistance. Phase I. The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) mandate to the wireless telephone industry and 9-1-1 requiring the proper routing of wireless 9-1-1 calls to PSAPs and the provision of the callers' ANI to the telecommunicators. Phase II. The feature that provides the approximate geographic location of wireless callers, in addition to the FCC's Phase I enhancements. IWS. Integrated Workstation. The computerized 9-1-1 answering equipment provided by Denco. The equipment has the capacity to include dispatcher tools in addition to the 9-1-1 function, such as computer-aided dispatch, paging, mapping, etc. Denco has 52 integrated workstations at its 12 PSAPS. Benefits of E9-1-1 The E9-1-1 system has enhanced the ability of emergency service providers to save the lives and property of citizens in the Denco Area 9-1-1 District. Some of the direct benefits of the emergency communications system provided by Denco are the following: · Only one three-digit number to remember in an emergency situation. · The 9-1-1 call is routed to the proper agency responsible for dispatching help to the caller. · Trained telecommunicators answer 9-1-1 calls. (In the Denco Area 9-1-1 District, telecommunicators are trained to provide emergency medical dispatch, thus reducing response time for medical emergencies.) · Telecommunicators have the equipment and training necessary to communicate with hearing/speech impaired callers. · The caller's name, address and telephone number, as well as the proper fire, police and emergency medical service designated to respond to the caller's address, is automatically provided to the telecommunicator, thus reducing total response time. In the event the caller is unable to speak, the telecommunicator has the ability to dispatch help to the caller's location that is provided by the E9-1-1 system. · ANI/ALI information provides a means to control and reduce prank calls. · The public education programs associated with E9-1-1 promote citizen awareness and involvement with emergency service providers. · The E9-1-1 system enhances local government's ability to meet the ever-growing public expectation of emergency services created by popular television programming. · The E9-1-1 system is designed to allow PSAPs the ability to directly transfer a caller to another public safety agency or poison control center. · The E9-1-1 system will identify calls from wireless phones, advising the telecommunicator to ask proper questions to determine the location of the emergency. Phase I provides the caller's telephone number so that the telecommunicator has the ability to reconnect if the call is terminated. Phase II will provide additional location information to telecommunicators. · The system has the ability to identify telephone companies serving 9-1-1 callers, thus streamlining the process for reconciling routing and database errors. Structure of the Denco Area 9-1-1 District Legislation During its 1985 legislative session, the 69th Texas Legislature passed Article 1432e (Section 772, Texas Health and Safety Code), Emergency Telephone Number Act, which provided for the creation, administration, expansion, funding and dissolution of emergency communication districts in certain counties in Texas. The Emergency Telephone Number Act is the legislation under which the Denco Area 9-1-1 District operates. Purpose Section 772.302, Texas Health and Safety Code states the purpose of the Act to be the following: To establish the number 9-1-1 as the primary emergency telephone number for use by certain local governments in this state and to encourage units of local governments and combinations of those units of local government to develop and improve emergency communication procedures and facilities in a manner that will make possible the quick response to any person calling the telephone number 9-1-1 seeking police, fire, medical, rescue and other emergency services. Creation of Denco Area 9-1-1 District On August 8, 1987, Denton County held a special election to confirm the creation of the Emergency Communication District of Denton County and authorize a 9-1-1 emergency service fee, not to exceed three (3%) percent of the base rate of the principal service supplier per service year per month, to be charged by the district for the purpose of establishing E9-1-1 in Denton County. By a margin of 13,086 to 3,024, the voters favored the creation of the emergency communication district. After the special election, the city and county governing bodies within Denton County passed resolutions of participation. The resolutions stated that the city or county would become a participating jurisdiction in the district pursuant to the provisions of the Emergency Telephone Number Act. The participating jurisdictions of the district are the following: Argyle Hackberry Little Elm Aubrey Hebron Marshall Creek Bartonville Hickory Creek Northlake Carrollton Highland Village Oak Point Clark Justin Pilot Point Copper Canyon Krugerville Ponder Corinth Krum Roanoke Corral City Lake Dallas Sanger Cross Roads Lakewood Village Shady Shores Denton Lewisville The Colony Double Oak Lincoln Park Trophy Club Flower Mound Unincorporated Denton County On December 8, 1987, the district's board of managers ordered the levy and collection of the emergency fee to commence with the January 1988 billing cycle. The board ordered the service fee, collected by the telephone companies, to be charged at a rate of three (3%) percent of the base rate of GTE Southwest. The emergency service fee for basic levels of telephone service charged to customers in the district was capped at $.27 for residential customers, $.71 for business customers and $1.13 for trunks. (The same cap remains in effect today.) On June 28, 1988, the board of managers named the Emergency Communications District of Denton County, Denco Area 9-1-1 District. Structure Board of Manaqers. The board of managers is the governing body for the Denco Area 9-1-1 District. The county, participating cities and the Denton County Fire Chiefs Association appoint the board. The current board of managers is made up of the following members: Board Member Mr. Harlan Jefferson, Chairman Mayor Olive Stephens, Vice Chairman Mr. Al Brown, Secretary Mr. Jack Miller, Denton Chief Bruce Varner, Carrollton Mr. Melvin Willis Represents Participating Cities Participating Cities Denton County Commissioners Court Denton County Commissioners Court Fire Chiefs Association Verizon, Advisory Board members serve staggered two-year terms and are eligible for reappointment. The Emergency Telephone Number Act states "the board shall manage, control and administer the district. The board may adopt rules for the operation of ~he district." The legislation also allows the board to appoint a director of communications for the district who serves as its general manager. The director, with approval from the board, provides for the service necessary to carry out the purposes of the Emergency Telephone Number Act. The Denco Area 9-1-1 District's staff is responsible for performing all the duties that may be required for the district to accomplish its mission within the framework provided by the board. The "Draft" Denco Area 9-1-1 District Fiscal Year 2003 Financial Plan provides for eleven full time staff members that provide the planning, operations and maintenance functions for the district. The organizational structure of the district includes three direct service program areas that serve the 9-1-1 PSAPs and emergency service providers within the district. Included in the organizational chart are names of staff members in each program area. i Patty Cross Public Education/ Training Manager Sandy Arnesen Public Education/ Training Secretary Board of Managers Mike Pedigo Executive Director Carla Flowers Business Manager Mark Payne 9-1-1 Systems Manager Clint Cranford 9-1-1 Systems Technician David Connel Information Systems Manager Kandy Jones Information Systems Secretary RogerGisROSe Coordinator TBD CPS Field Technician Vanessa Feagins Rural Addressing Specialist Mission, Values and Goals Mission The Denco Area 9-1-1 District has defined as its mission: The mission of the Denco Area 9-1-1 District is to assist its member jurisdictions respond to police, fire and medical emergency calls by providing an efficient, effective enhanced 9-1-1 emergency telecommunications system. Values The Denco Area 9-1-1 District pledges to uphold the following values: Value 1' Control of district operations is the responsibility of member jurisdictions and the board of managers. Value 2: The district will provide the most reliable, efficient, cost-effective and proven state-of-the-art technologies available at the lowest service fee rate possible. Goals The Denco Area 9-1-1 District has the following goals that support its endeavor to carry out its mission. Goal 1: To provide the policy, direction and control mechanisms necessary to assure that the Denco Area 9-1-1 District accomplishes its mission within the financial resources provided. Goal 2: To manage the Denco Area 9-1-1 District in an objective, efficient, effective and responsive manner. Goal 3: To increase public awareness of 9-1-1 issues and promote the proper use of the 9-1-1 system. Goal 4: To provide training programs which enable Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) personnel to effectively use the 9-1-1 system. Goal 5: To provide and maintain a dependable, state-of-the-art enhanced 9-1-1 network. Goal 6: To assure that PSAPs have the most accurate, reliable and useable data at all times. DENCO AREA 9-1-1 DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2003 FINANCIAL PLAN SECTION 3 FINANCIAL PLAN SUMMARY SUMMARY OF COST CLASSIFICATIONS DENCO AREA 9-1-1 DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2003 FINANCIAL PLAN SUMMARY Strategic Overview Fiscal Year 2002 The terrorist acts of September 11,2001, had a profound impact on the strategic direction of 9-1- 1 administrative agencies across America. It heightened their awareness to the need for more effective and reliable 9-1-1 services and the threat to the security of the 9-1-1 systems. Because of this "wake-up-call", the Denco Area 9-1-1 District decided to re-examine its existing strategy and to take a new look at its purpose for existence. In December 2001, the Denco Area 9-1-1 District Board of Managers began evaluating the district's mission statement and in April 2002, approved a new mission, values and goals statement. The previous mission statement was adopted in 1992. The district was in its 15th year, it had matured, and it was now time to reevaluate the emergency communications needs in Denton County and provide focus for its resources in future years. The district plans to review its mission statement at least every five years in the future. A copy of the mission, values and goals statement is included in Section 5 of this financial plan. As of September 11th, the Denco Area 9-1-1 District had already begun evaluating its network and was developing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for network and database services. The RFP had been in the planning stages for two years to coincide with the termination of an existing agreement for those services. The RFP was issued on October 8, 2002 and the district has spent much of the current fiscal year evaluating the response. Even though Denco was disappointed that only one telecommunications service provider responded to the document, the proposal was very thorough. The primary changes from the existing services that were included in the network and database proposal were increases in redundancy and diversity to the 9-1-1 networks and a more advanced, robust and redundant database platform. The response proposed duplicating the existing network with a secondary selective routing tandem and a second back-up network between the telephone company switching offices and the duplicate tandem. Even though the proposed network is too costly and cannot be supported within the existing service fee rate structure, Denco is working with the carrier to develop an alternative plan that will provide the redundancy needed to assure continued service in the event of a disaster. The district is moving forward with the transition to the proposed database services. The enhanced database platform will provide two mated database storage systems, with one located in Texas and the other in California. All 9-1-1 answering poiMs will have the ability to retrieve 9-1-1 location information from both sites. The new platform will also accommodate the retrieval of location information for wireless 9-1-1 calls. Denco is curreMly in the process of migrating its wireless database to the new system and will move the wireline database in fiscal year 2003. In October 2001, the Denco Area 9-1-1 District began maintaining all of the district's 9-1-1 systems. In past years, it has contracted these services with incumbent telephone companies and that arrangement had served the district well. With the constant change in technology and the desire of Denco to remain responsive to member jurisdiction needs, the district's board decided that Denco member jurisdictions would be better served by the district maiMaining the 9-1-1 systems. Since taking over the maiMenance of the systems, the district staff has replaced all fifty-three workstations and monitors at its 9-1-1 answering points. Staff has also installed wide-area network servers at all twelve public safety answering poiMs (PSAPs), implemeMed an online training and communications network and deployed map display software at all workstations. The district also trained more than 150 telecommunicators from across the district in the use of these new systems. As the district implemented new computer hardware, software and network enhancements, it standardized the configuration at all PSAPs. This standardization has coMinued to decrease the number of calls for service. Not only does the district respond to calls for service from its answering points in a timely manner, it also has procedures in place to do preventative maintenance on the equipment and test systems on a regular basis. The move to internal 9-1-1 systems management has proven to be more efficient and cost effective. In the past, contractors were required to respond within two hours of a call for service. Denco staff frequeMly responds by telephone within five minutes and often can resolve problems over the phone. MaiMenance personnel also have the ability to obtain coMrol of tl~ 9-1-1 computers from a remote location, via the district's wide area network, and often resolve problem in less time by not having to drive to the PSAP. In addition to revising its mission statemeM, evaluating its network and database systems and implemeMing a maiMenance program for the 9-1-1 systems during fiscal year 2002, the Denco Area 9-1-1 District will have accomplished by September 30th other objectives that were planned for fiscal year 2002, including, bM not limited to, the following: · Added an additional call taker position at the supervisor's desk in the DeMon County Sheriff's Office PSAP. · Relocated the Roanoke, UNT and Lake Dallas PSAPs to new facilities. · Publish its second annual report and quarterly issues of The Denco Update newsletter. · Implement a wireless contingency routing network at three small cities that do not have around-the-clock staffing. If there is a system failure, 9-1-1 calls will be roMed to a PSAP over the wireless network. Other systems are in place for the remainder of the district. · Begin the deploymeM of Phase II enhanced wireless 9-1-1 services. Plans are to complete the deploymeM with VoiceStream and SpriM PCS, and begin deploymeM with other wireless carriers during the curreM fiscal year. · Participate in a statewide wireless education campaign. · Provide a compMer based testing tool that will be used by all agencies when evaluating potential telecommunicators. Fiscal Year 2003 The Denco Area 9-1-1 District has planned for five years for fiscal year 2003, which will deplete the majority of the reserve funds that it has been accumulating. The most visible and the most costly plans for the district during fiscal year 2003 include the deploymeM of Phase II enhanced wireless 9-1-1 services, the renewal of a ne twork and database service agreemeM and the purchase and installation of two new PSAP equipment servers. Denco will begin deploying Phase II enhanced wireless services during fiscal year 2002, bM expects the financial impact of the service to be during fiscal year 2003. The district has budgeted $1,000,000 during fiscal year 2003 for non-recurring costs associated with the deployment of Phase II services. The district has set these funds aside in a Designated Phase II Wireless account. Denco signed a seven-year agreemeM in 1995 with GTE (now Verizon) for the purchase of selective routing and database services. At that time, the district moved to digital selective roMing software that provided services not available previously. The digital platform was the first provided in Texas and the cost for the services were negotiated prior to a tariff being approved by the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC). The PUC approved the agreemeM on an individual case basis. The cost for the services were fixed for the term of the agreemeM and not allowed to escalate with growth in the district. The contract expires in fiscal year 2003 and Denco will be required to pay the tariff rate for the services, increasing its annual costs by close to $300,000. The district requested bids from vendors during the curreM year for the purchase of two new CML ECS 1000 PSAP CoMroller switches. The switches provide the iMelligence for the fifty- three 9-1-1 call taker positions that Denco supports. Over the past five years, Verizon has maiMained these switches for the district. Beginning next fiscal year, Denco will assume that function with the installation of the two new PSAP Controller switches. At the time of installation, Denco will program the switches with matching databases so that they will be consisteM and more easily maiMained. One switch will be located in Carrollton and serve the Carrollton, The Colony, Lewisville, Flower Mound and Highland Village PSAPs. The second switch will be located in DeMon and serve the City of DeMon, DeMon County Sheriff' s Department, Lake Dallas, Roanoke, UNT and TWU PSAPs. The existing switch located in Carrollton will be relocated to the Denco facility and be used as a coMroller for the district's training PSAP and lab for research purposes. In addition, the district will be evaluating the poteMial of using it as a back-up server for PSAPs. It will require some upgrade, depending on the exteM of its use. Denco has budgeted $510,000 in its fiscal year 2003 capital expenditure budget for the purchase and delivery of the two new switches and the relocation and upgrade of the existing switch. In addition to the projects discussed and the ongoing services Denco provides its member jurisdictions, fiscal year 2003 plans include the following: · Actively participate in legislative and regulatory issues that might have an affect on the operations of the Denco Area 9-1-1 District. · Conduct a public hearing that is required every three years regarding the continuation or dissolution of the emergency communication district. · Continue with the development and distribution of a wireless 9-1-1 public awareness campaign. There are many misconceptions regarding the accuracy and reliability of enhanced wireless 9-1-1 services. · Offer additional classes that provide state certification at the intermediate level for telecommunicators. · Provide district-wide training that might assist PSAPs decrease the turnover of telecommunicators. · Audit the 9-1-1 networks to assure that diverse and redundant voice and data paths are operational. · Move wireline database to new platform. · Implement new statistical gathering and reporting software. Financial Overview Revenue Hiqhlights · Service fee revenue is expected to increase in fiscal year 2003 by $117,335. · Projected interest earned for FY2003 is anticipated to be close to that of the current fiscal year. Interest revenue in fiscal year 2002 is expected to be lower than budgeted because of lower interest rates. · Denco received a pre-paid maintenance refund this year of $148,417. The financial plan for 2003 projects a refund of $47,808. This lower refund accounts for the small increase in total revenue anticipated in fiscal year 2003. · Denco expects to receive $61,044 for contract services provided to the county for addressing maintenance in unincorporated Denton County. · Denco estimates a net increase of $16,767 in total revenues in FY 2003. Expenditure Highlights · Total Personnel expenditures are proposed to increase by $101,605 in fiscal year 2003. Reasons for the increase include the following: · The budget includes a four percent increase in total salaries for existing personnel. · Also included is the addition of a GPS Field Technician. This will be a new staff position responsible for the gathering of data to be included in the 9-1-1 database. This position will eliminate two contract personnel positions that have been included in the last two fiscal years. The software the district is using to gather GIS data is special purpose software that requir es advanced training that is not available to independent contract personnel. · Also included in personnel cost is an increase in health benefit costs. Due to the small number of its staff, the district expects a 50 percent increase in health benefits next fiscal year. The budget includes a 20 percent increase in the district's contribution to healthcare insurance benefits. · Operations expenditures are expected to increase by $11,866 in fiscal year 2003. Most of the increase is included in office space/maintenance, insurance and costs related to the legislative session that begins in January 2003. · Direct Service expenditures are expected to increase by $1,079,992. The major reasons, as explained earlier, are the $1,000,000 that are set aside for the implementation of Phase II enhanced wireless 9-1-1 services and the $280,224 increase in network and database services required by the new tariff rates. · Capital expenditures are expected to increase by $345,359. $568,000 of the total $580,000 capital budget is for the purchase of PSAP equipment. Included is the purchase of the two new ECS 1000 PSAP Controller switches and the upgrade to the existing switch. · Debt Service drops to zero. During fiscal year 2002, Denco will complete its five-year lease purchase agreement for the 9-1-1 equipment that it bought in 1997. · The ending fund balance projected for the next five years provides a strong financial position for the district at the existing service fee rate. The Denco Area 9-1-1 District Board of Managers is committed to providing the best service available within the present day funding structure. DENCO AREA 9-1-1 DISTRICT SUMMARY OF COST CLASIFICATIONS Personnel Includes staff salary, deferred compensation, health care and retiremem benefits. Also included are costs for state unemployment tax and employer's contribution to Medicare. Operations Includes overhead costs for ongoing 9-1-1 emergency network support services. Communications Includes telecommunication, priMing/publishing and postage/shipping costs necessary for the district to disseminate information. Telecommunication costs includes local and long-distance office telephone and wireless service, internet, pager, and telephone equipment expense. PriMing/Publishing includes all costs of outside priming, binding, collating, design, layout, photography, art work, and similar costs related to the preparation and publication of primed material such as letterhead, newsletter shells, envelopes, business cards and video presentations. Postage/Shipping includes all general and overnight postage, insurance, freight, delivery, meter renal and other related costs except when postage and shipping are included in the total purchase price of a specific item. Expendable Supplies Includes the cost of routine expendable office supplies and commercially available software. Supplies also include the costs associated with service awards and meetings. Professional Services Includes the cost of legal fees, accounting services, independem audit and professional development cost for conference registration, tuition reimbursement, reimbursement paid to new employees as part of recruitment agreement, and staff training. Includes cost of all service, repair, support and maimenance incurred after initial purchase of furniture, fixtures, and equipmem. Office Space/Maimenance Includes the cost of utilities, building services, maimenance and repair expense for office and training facility owned by district. Memberships/Subscriptions Includes individual and organizational memberships to professional organizations such as National Emergency Number Association (NENA), Association of Public Safety Communications Officials-International (APCO), and American Society for Training and Development (ASTD). Includes subscriptions to newspapers, periodicals, information services, technical support publications and the purchase or rental of books, videos and recordings. Advertising Includes the cost of public service announcements, required legal notices, public meeting notices, solicitation for bids, job announcements, and other costs related to the media. Insurance Includes general liability, errors and omissions, property and workers compensation insurance required for the district board and staff. Also, includes property insurance for PSAP equipment owned by district not located at Denco facilities. Travel Includes out of district travel costs such as, but not limited to mileage reimbursement, airfare, food, lodging, local transportation, parking, telephone, etc. when such costs are reasonable and when they are incurred in conjunction with board and authorized staff travel out of the district. Also included is reimbursement for the use of personal vehicles on official business within the district. DIRECT SERVICES Includes all non-recurring and recurring costs attributed directly to the operations, maintenance, equipment, network and database required in the provision of 9-1-1 services. Does not include the cost for equipment purchased and owned by the district. Also included are direct costs for information system services, public education and training for telecommunicators. 9-1-1 Systems Includes operations, service and direct maintenance costs required for Denco to maintain the 9-1- 1 systems. Also included are non-recurring and monthly recurring costs for network and database services, language interpretation and other recurring services. Information Systems Includes operations, service and direct maintenance costs required to develop and distribute 9-1- 1 GIS and other database information to public safety answering points and emergency response agencies. Included are costs for contract personnel, the purchase of aerial photography files and the service and maintenance of hardware and software required to provide the data. Public Education Includes operating costs required for the development, purchase and distribution of public information and education materials for special focus groups and district at large. Also includes costs for special functions such as National Telecommunicator Week recognition and 9-1-1 Day activities. Trainin~ Includes cost for materials, instructors, registration, etc., associated with meeting the training needs of9-1-1 call takers. Also included are direct costs required for Denco to sponsor telecommunicators from across the district to the State of Texas annual awards and appreciation activities and recipients of the Dr. Allen Groff Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) Scholarship to the national EMD conference. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES Includes all capital expenditures for the purchase of fixed assets such as land, building, furniture and fixtures and equipment. Land Includes all costs associated with the purchase of land including purchase price, real estate commissions and all related professional fees. Building Includes all costs associated with the improvement, construction or purchase of building facilities. Includes all construction costs, professional fees and permits. Furniture and Fixtures Includes purchase price plus all expenditures related to the shipping, freight, transportation and installation of furniture and fixtures. Office Equipment Includes the cost of office equipment including the purchase price plus all expenditures connected with the acquisition and installation of the equipment. PSAP Equipment Includes the cost of computer and other PSAP equipment that is purchased by the district and carried as a fixed asset. DEBT SERVICE Includes principal, interest, and other payments directly related to the repayment of debt. DENCO AREA 9-1-1 DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2003 FINANCIAL PLAN SECTION 4 ANITCIPATED REVENUES PROPOSED EXPENDITURES DENCO AREA 911 DISTRICT FINANCIAL PLAN Beginning of Year Fund Balance $1,483,949 Anticipated Revenues 9-1-1 Service Fee Revenue Interest Revenue Contract Services Revenue Miscellaneous Revenue (Expense) Total Anticipated Revenues $2,703,614 95.21% $27,101 0.95% $61,044 2.15% $47,808 1.68% $2,839,568 100.00% Proposed Expenditures Personnel Operations Direct Services Capital Expenditures Debt Service Total Proposed Expenditures Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $833,271 21.31% $136,263 3.48% $2,360,751 60.37% $580,000 14.83% $0 O.OO% $3,910,285 100.00% ($1~070~717) End of Year Fund Balance $413,232 DENCO AREA 911 DISTRICT FINANCIAL PLAN F iS ~ al Ye a r2003 Service Fee Revenue Verizon SBC Sprint CenturyTel Other Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) Private Switch Service Fees Telephone Company Administrative Charges Telephone Company Uncollectible Charges Telephone Company Adjustments Net Wireline Service Fee Revenue Wireless Service Fee Revenue Total Service Fee Revenue $930,052 32.7! $157,704 5.51 $34,897 1.2; $59,021 2.0; $192,826 6.7! $5,398 0.1 ! ($12,000) -0.4; ($1,2oo) -o.o, ($15,000) -0.5; $1,351,697 47.6~ $1,351,918 47.6' $2,703,614 95.2' Non Service Fee Revenue Interest Revenue Contract Service Revenue Miscellaneous Revenue (Expenses) Total Non Service Fee Revenue $27,101 0.9~ $61,044 2.1~ $47,8O8 1.6~ $135,953 4.7,( Total Revenue $2,839,568 100.0( F is cai ye a 2003 Personnel Expenditures Salaries Benefits Total Operations Expenditures Communications Telecommunications Printing Postage/Shipping Supplies Professional Services Legal Services Independent Audit Professional Development Other Professional Service Office Space/Maintenance Memberships/Subscriptions Advertising Insurance Travel Out of District In District Total Direct Service Ex 9-1-1 Systems Information Systems Public Education/Training Total Capital Expendit~, Building Furniture and Fixtures Office Equipment PSAP Equipment Total Debt Service Exp PSAP Equipment Debt Total $613,742 15.70% $219,528 5.61% $833,271 21.31% $11,171 $2,060 $5,872 $11,500 $16 000 $2 800 $7 101 $9 970 $32 830 $1 359 $900 $11,400 $16,650 $6,650 $136,263 $2,228,191 $37,715 $94,845 $2,360,751 $3,000 $2,000 $7,000 $568,000 $580,000 $0 0.29% 0.05% 0.15% 0.29% 0.00% 0.41% 0.07% 0.18% 0.25% 0.84% 0.03% 0.02% 0.29% 0.43% 0.17% 3.48% 56.98% 0.96% 2.43% 60.37% 0.08% 0.05% 0.18% 14.53% 14.83% 0.00% 0.00% $3~910~285 100.00% DENCO AREA 911 DISTRICT FINANCIAL PLAN oo ~2oo ~ ~ oo ~2oo PR Oj EC T IO NS ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ro ~i ~i~J Beginning of Year Fund Balance $172607856 $174837949 $4137232 $5137875 $5987841 $6547718 Revenue Net Service Fee Revenue $2,586,279 $2,703,614 $2,865,831 $3,037,781 $3,220,048 $3,413,251 Interest Revenue $27,101 $27,101 $10,331 $12,847 $14,971 $16,368 Miscellaneous Revenue (Expense) $611044 $611044 $611044 $611044 $611044 $611044 Contract Services Revenue $148,377 $47,808 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Revenue $2,822,801 $2,839,568 $2,937,206 $3,111,672 $3,296,063 $3,490,663 Expenditures Personnel $731,665 $833,271 $888,047 $948,575 $1,014,557 $1,086,633 Operations $124,397 $136,263 $142,013 $148,364 $155,331 $162,033 Direct Services $1,280,759 $2,360,751 $1,544,503 $1,662,767 $1,790,297 $1,927,826 Capital Expenditures $234,641 $580,000 $262,000 $267,000 $280,000 $280,000 Debt Service $228,245 $0 $ 0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenditures $2,599,707 $3,910,285 $2,836,563 $3,026,706 $3,240,186 $3,456,492 Revenue over (Under) Expenditures $223,094 ($1,070,717) $100,643 $84,966 $55,877 $34,171 End of Year Fund Balance $174837949 $4137232 $5137875 $5987841 $6547718 $688?889 DENCO AREA 9-1-1 DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2003 FINANCIAL PLAN SECTION 5 APPENDIX MISSION STATEMENT HB 1984 RESOLUTIONS DISTRICT LEGISLATION DENCO AREA 9-1-1 DISTRICT Mission, Values and Goals Statement Mission The mission of the Denco Area 9-1-1 District is to assist its member jurisdictions respond to police, fire and medical emergency calls by providing an efficient, effective enhanced 9-1-1 emergency telecommunications system. Values The Denco Area 9-1-1 District pledges to uphold the following values: Value 1: Control of district operations is the responsibility of member jurisdictions and the board of managers. Value 2: The district will provide the most reliable, efficient, cost-effective and proven state-of-the-art technologies available at the lowest service fee rate possible. Goals The Denco Area 9-1-1 District has the following goals that support its endeavor to carry out its mission. Goal 1 :To provide the policy, direction and control mechanisms necessary to assure that the Denco Area 9-1-1 District accomplishes its mission within the financial resources provided. Goal2:To manage the Denco Area 9-1-1 District in an objective, efficient, effective and responsive manner. Goal 3:To increase public awareness of 9-1-1 issues and promote the proper use of the 9-1-1 system. Goal 4:To provide training programs which enable Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) personnel to effectively use the 9-1-1 system. Goal 5 :To provide and maintain a dependable, state-o f-the-art enhanced 9-1-1 network. Goal 6:To assure that PSAPs have the most accurate, reliable and useable data at all times. H.B. No. 1984 AN ACT relating to the consolidation of emergency communication districts and to the approval of proposed budgets of certain emergency communication districts. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: SECTION 1. Section 771.001(3), Health and Safety Code, is amended to read as follows: (3) "Emergency communication district" means: (A) a public agency or group of public agencies acting jointly that provided 9-1-1 service before September 1, 1987, or that had voted or contracted before that date to provide that service; or (B) a district created under Subchapter B, C, [~-~] D, or F, Chapter 772. SECTION 2. Sections 772.309(b), (c), and (d), Health and Safety Code, are amended to read as follows: (b) The board shall submit a draft of the proposed budget to the governing bodies of the participating iurisdictions not later than the 45th day before the date the board adopts the budget. The participating iurisdictions shall review the proposed budget and submit any comments regarding the budget to the board. (c) If the governing body of a county, municipality, or other participating iurisdiction does not approve or disapprove the budqet before the 61st day after the date the body received the proposed budget for review, the budget is approved by operation of law. (d) A revision of the budget must be approved in the same manner as the budget. (e) [(c---}] As soon as practicable after the end of each district fiscal year, the director shall prepare and present to the board and to each participating jurisdiction in writing a sworn statement of all money received by the district and how the money was used during the preceding fiscal year. The report must show in detail the operations of the district for the fiscal year covered by the report. _(_.0_ [(-~-)] The board shall have an independent financial audit of the district performed annually. DENCO AREA 9-1-1 DISTRICT RESOLUTION DEFINING THE DENCO AREA 9-1-1 DISTRICT BUDGET APPROVAL POLICY WHEREAS, the Denco Area 9-1-1 District was created under Texas Health and Safety Code and the voters of Denton County to design, implement and operate a 9-1-1 system for all participating jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the Board of Managers is appointed by participating jurisdictions to manage, control and administer the district; and WHEREAS, under the direction of the Board of Managers, the executive director prepares an annual budget that must be approved by the board, the commissioners court and the majority of participating cities; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE DENCO AREA 9-1-1 DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS THAT: 1. The Denco Area 9-1-1 District approved budget shall include specific revenue and expenditure projections by department. Budget departments as defined in district's annual audit include service fee revenue, interest revenue and miscellaneous revenue. Expenditure departments include personnel services, operations, direct services, capital outlay and debt service. The board, at its discretion, may add or delete budget departments. 2. The executive director shall submit to the Board of Managers requests for amendments, revisions or modifications to the district's annual budget that require an increase in any budget department's expenditures in excess of five percent of the total department budget. Any increase of expenditures in excess of the approved department budget, up to five percent, shall be offset by a decrease of an equal amount in another department budget. 3. Without limiting the Board of Managers authority under Section 772, Texas Health and Safety Code, the Board of Managers may approve amendments, revisions or modifications to the District's annual budget as deemed reasonable and necessary as long as such budget amendments, revisions or modifications do not require that the total expenditures budgeted exceed the amount previously approved and adopted by the Board of Managers, the Denton County Commissioners Court and the majority of participating cities' governing bodies. APPROVED and ADOPTED on this 6th day of April 2000. Chairman, Board of Managers Secretary, Board of Managers DENCO AREA 9-1-1 DISTRICT RESOLUTION DEFINING PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERATION AND APPOVAL OF A BUDGET WHEREAS, Sections 772.309(b)&(c), Texas Health and Safety Code have been amended by the Texas Legislature to specify certain procedures for the consideration and approval of a budget by the Board and governing bodies of participating jurisdictions. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE DENCO AREA 9-1-1 DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS: The Board's procedures for consideration and approval of a budget shall include the following: 1. Not later than the 45th day before the Board adopts a budget, the Executive Director on behalf of the Board will submit a draft of the proposed budget to each of the governing bodies of the participating jurisdictions. In a transmittal letter accompanying the draft of the proposed budget, the Executive Director will include a statement requesting that the governing bodies of each of the participating jurisdictions review the draft of the proposed budget and submit any comments to the Board prior to or on the date the budget is scheduled for consideration and adoption by the Board. 2. Once the Board adopts the budget, the Executive Director on behalf of the Board will within three days either 1) send a letter to each of the governing bodies of the participating jurisdictions stating that the Board adopted the proposed budget without any changes or 2) send a copy of the budget adopted by the Board and include in a letter the differences between the proposed and adopted budget. In the letter to the governing bodies of the participating jurisdictions, the Executive Director will include a statement requesting approval of the Board's adopted budget by the governing bodies of participating jurisdictions within sixty days of receipt. APPROVED and ADOPTED on this 2nd day of December 1999. Chairman, Board of Managers Secretary, Board of Managers SUBCHAPTER D. EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION DISTRICTS: COUNTIES WITH POPULATION OVER 20,000 § 772.301. Short Title This subchapter may be cited as the Emergency Telephone Number Act. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1989. § 772.302. Purpose It is the purpose of this subchapter to establish the number 9-1-1 as the primary emergency telephone number for use by certain local governments in this state and to encourage units of local government and combinations of those units to develop and improve emergency communication procedures and facilities in a manner that will make possible the quick response to any person calling the telephone number 9-1-1 seeking police, fire, medical, rescue, and other emergency services. To this purpose the legislature finds that: (1) it is in the public interest to shorten the time required for a citizen to request and receive emergency aid; (2) there exist thousands of different emergency telephone numbers throughout the state, and telephone exchange boundaries and central office service areas do not necessarily correspond to public safety and political boundaries; (3) a dominant part of the state's population is located in rapidly expanding metropolitan areas that generally cross the boundary lines of local jurisdictions and often extend into two or more counties; and (4) provision of a single, primary three-digit emergency number through which emergency services can be quickly and efficiently obtained would provide a significant contribution to law enforcement and other public safety efforts by making it less difficult to notify public safety personnel quickly. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1989. § 772.303. Definitions In this subchapter: (1) "Board" means the board of managers of a district. (2) "Director" means the director of communication for a district. (3) "District" means an emergency communication district created under this subchapter. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1989. § 772.304. Application of Subchapter (a) This subchapter applies only to a county with a population of more than 20,000 or to a group of two or more contiguous counties each with a population of 20,000 or more in which an emergency communication district was created under Chapter 288, Acts of the 69th Legislature, Regular Session, 1985, before January 1, 1988, or to a public agency or group of public agencies that withdraws from participation in a regional plan under Section 771.058(d). (b) This subchapter does not affect the authority of a public agency to operate under another law authorizing the creation of a district in which 9-1-1 service is provided. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1989. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1405, § 32, eft. Sept. 1, 1999. § 772.305. Additional Territory (a) If a municipality that is part of a district annexes territory that is not part of the district, the annexed territory becomes part of the district. (b) A public agency located in whole or part in a county adjoining the district, by resolution adopted by its governing body and approved by the board of the district, may become part of the district and subject to its benefits and requirements. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1989. § 772.306. Board of Managers (a) A district is governed by a board of managers. (b) If the most populous municipality in the district has a population of more than 140,000, the board consists of: (1) one member for each county in the district appointed by the commissioners court of each county; (2) two members appointed by the governing body of the most populous municipality in the district; (3) one member appointed by the governing body of the second most populous municipality in the district; (4) one member appointed as provided by this section to represent the other municipalities located in whole or part in the district; and (5) one member appointed by the principal service supplier. (c) If Subsection (b) does not apply to a district, the board consists of: (1) the following members representing the county or counties in the district: (A) if the district contains only one county, two members appointed by the commissioners court of the county; (B) if the district originally contained only one county but contains more than one county when the appointment is made, two members appointed by the commissioners court of the county in which the district was originally located, and one member appointed by the commissioners court of each other county in the district; or (C) if the district originally contained more than one county and the district contains more than one county when the appointment is made, one member appointed by the commissioners court of each county in the district; (2) two members appointed jointly by all the participating municipalities located in whole or part in the district; (3) one member appointed jointly by the volunteer fire departments operating wholly or partly in the district, with the appointment process coordinated by the county fire marshal or marshals of the county or counties in the district; and (4) one member appointed by the principal service supplier. (d) The board member appointed by the principal service supplier is a nonvoting member. If the board is appointed under Subsection (c), the principal service supplier may waive its right to appoint the board member and designate another service supplier serving all or part of the district to make the appointment. (e) The board member appointed under Subsection (b)(4) is appointed by the mayor's council established to administer urban development block grant funds, if one exists in the district. Otherwise, the member is appointed by the other members of the board on the advice and recommendation of the governing bodies of all the municipalities represented by the member. (f) The initial board members appointed by municipalities under Subsection (c)(2) are appointed by all the municipalities located in whole or part in the district. (g) Board members are appointed for staggered terms of two years, with as near as possible to one-half of the members' terms expiring each year. (h) A board member may be removed from office at will by the entity that appointed the member. (i) A vacancy on the board shall be filled for the remainder of the term in the manner provided for the original appointment to that position. (j) Board members serve without compensation. The district shall pay all expenses necessarily incurred by the board in performing its functions under this subchapter. (k) The board may appoint from among its membership a presiding officer and any other officers it considers necessary. (I) The director or a board member may be appointed as secretary of the board. The board shall require the secretary to keep suitable records of all proceedings of each board meeting. After each meeting the presiding officer at the meeting shall read and sign the record and the secretary shall attest the record. (m) Voting members of the board may meet in executive session in accordance with Chapter 551, Government Code. (n) A majority of the voting members of the board constitutes a quorum. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1989. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 76, § 5.95(82), eft. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 638, § 15, eft. Sept. 1, 1995. § 772.307. Powers and Duties of Board (a) The board shall control and manage the district. (b) The board may adopt rules for the operation of the district. (c) The board may contract with any public or private entity to carry out the purposes of this subchapter, including the operation of a 9-1-1 system. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1989. § 772.308. Director of District (a) The board shall appoint a director of communication for the district and shall establish the director's compensation. The director must be qualified by training and experience for the position. (b) The board may remove the director at any time. (c) With the board's approval, the director may employ any experts, employees, or consultants that the director considers necessary to carry out the purposes of this subchapter. (d) The director shall perform all duties that the board requires and shall supervise as general manager the operations of the district subject to any limitations prescribed by the board. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1989. § 772.309. Budget; Annual Report; Audit (a) The director shall prepare under the direction of the board an annual budget for the district. To be effective, the budget must: (1) be approved by the board; (2) be presented to and approved by the commissioners court of each county in the district; (3) be presented to and approved by the governing body of the most populous municipality in the district, if that municipality has a population of more than 140,000; and (4) be presented to the governing body of each other participating jurisdiction and approved by a majority of those jurisdictions. (b) The board shall submit a draft of the proposed budget to the governing bodies of the participating jurisdictions not later than the 45th day before the date the board adopts the budget. The participating jurisdictions shall review the proposed budget and submit any comments regarding the budget to the board. (c) If the governing body of a county, municipality, or other participating jurisdiction does not approve or disapprove the budget before the 61 st day after the date the body received the proposed budget for review, the budget is approved by operation of law. (d) A revision of the budget must be approved in the same manner as the budget. (e) As soon as practicable after the end of each district fiscal year, the director shall prepare and present to the board and to each participating jurisdiction in writing a sworn statement of all money received by the district and how the money was used during the preceding fiscal year. The report must show in detail the operations of the district for the fiscal year covered by the report. (f) The board shall have an independent financial audit of the district performed annually. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1989. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1406, § 2, eft. Aug. 30, 1999. § 772.310. Establishment of 9-1-1 Service (a) A district shall provide 9-1-1 service to each participating jurisdiction through one or a combination of the following methods and features: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (b) the transfer method; the relay method; the dispatch method; automatic number identification; automatic location identification; selective routing; or any equivalent method. A district shall provide 9-1-1 service using one or both of the following plans: (1) the district may design, implement, and operate a 9-1-1 system for each participating jurisdiction with the consent of the jurisdiction; or (2) the district may design, implement, and operate a 9-1-1 system for two or more participating jurisdictions with the consent of each of those jurisdictions if a joint operation would be more econo mically feasible than separate systems for each jurisdiction. (c) Under either plan authorized by Subsection (b), the final plans for the particular system must have the approval of each participating jurisdiction covered by the system. (d) The district shall recommend minimum standards for a 9-1-1 system. (e) A service supplier involved in providing 9-1-1 service, a manufacturer of equipment used in providing 9-1-1 service, or an officer or employee of a service supplier involved in providing 9-1-1 service is not liable for any claim, damage, or loss arising from the provision of 9-1-1 service unless the act or omission proximately causing the claim, damage, or loss constitutes gross negligence, recklessness, or intentional misconduct. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1989. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 638, § 16, eft. Sept. 1, 1995. § 772.311. Primary Emergency Telephone Number The digits 9-1-1 are the primary emergency telephone number in a district. A public safety agency whose services are available through a 9-1-1 system may maintain a separate number or numbers for emergencies and shall maintain a separate number or numbers for nonemergency telephone calls. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1989. § 772.312. Transmitting Requests For Emergency Aid (a) A 9-1-1 system established under this subchapter must be capable of transmitting requests for fire-fighting, law enforcement, ambulance, and medical services to a public safety agency or agencies that provide the requested service at the place from which the call originates. A 9-1-1 system may also provide for transmitting requests for other emergency services such as poison control, suicide prevention, and civil defense. (b) A public safety answering point may transmit emergency response requests to private safety entities. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1989. § 772.313. Powers of District (a) The district is a body corporate and politic, exercising public and essential governmental functions and having all the powers necessary or convenient to carry out the purposes and provisions of this subchapter, including the capacity to sue or be sued. (b) To fund the district, the district may apply for, accept, and receive federal, state, county, or municipal funds and private funds and may spend those funds for the purposes of this subchapter. The board shall determine the method and sources of funding for the district. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1989. § 772.314. 9-1-1 Emergency Service Fee (a) The board may impose a 9-1-1 emergency service fee on service users in the district. (b) The fee may be imposed only on the base rate charge or its equivalent, excluding charges for coin-operated telephone equipment. The fee may not be imposed on more than 100 local exchange access lines or their equivalent for a single business entity at a single location, unless the lines are used by residents of the location. The fee may also not be imposed on any line that the Advisory Commission on State Emergency Communications excluded from the definition of a local exchange access line or an equivalent local exchange access line pursuant to Section 771.063. If a business service user provides residential facilities, each line that terminates at a residential unit and that is a communication link equivalent to a residential local exchange access line shall be charged the 9-1-1 emergency service fee. The fee must have uniform application and must be imposed in each participating jurisdiction. (c) The rate of the fee may not exceed six percent of the monthly base rate in a service year charged a service user by the principal service supplier in the participating jurisdiction. For purposes of this subsection, the jurisdiction of the county is the unincorporated area of the county. (d) The board shall set the amount of the fee each year as part of the annual budget. The board shall notify each service supplier of a change in the amount of the fee not later than the 91 st day before the date the change takes effect. (e) In imposing the fee, the board shall attempt to match the district's revenues to its operating expenditures and to provide reasonable reserves for contingencies and for the purchase and installation of 9-1-1 emergency service equipment. If the revenue generated by the fee exceeds the amount of money needed to fund the district, the board by resolution shall reduce the rate of the fee to an amount adequate to fund the district or suspend the imposition of the fee. If the board suspends the imposition of the fee, the board by resolution may reinstitute the fee if money generated by the district is not adequate to fund the district. (f) In a public agency whose governing body at a later date votes to receive 9-1- 1 service from the district, the fee is imposed beginning on the date specified by the board. The board may charge the incoming agency an additional amount of money to cover the initial cost of providing 9-1-1 service to that agency. The fee authorized to be charged in a district applies to new territory added to the district when the territory becomes part of the district. (g) For the purposes of this section, the jurisdiction of the county is the unincorporated area of the county. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1989. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 936, § 14, eft. Aug. 30, 1993; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1203, § 5, eft. June 18, 1999. § 772.315. Collection of Fee (a) Each billed service user is liable for the fee imposed under Section 772.314 until the fee is paid to the service supplier. The fee must be added to and stated separately in the service user's bill from the service supplier. The service supplier shall collect the fee at the same time as the service charge to the service user in accordance with the regular billing practice of the service supplier. A business service user that provides residential facilities and owns or leases a publicly or privately owned telephone switch used to provide telephone service to facility residents shall collect the 9-1-1 emergency service fee and transmit the fees monthly to the district. (b) The amount collected by a service supplier from the fee is due monthly. The service supplier shall remit the amount collected in a calendar month to the district not later than the 60th day after the last day of the calendar month. With each payment the service supplier shall file a return in a form prescribed by the board. (c) Both a service supplier and a business service user under Subsection (a) shall maintain records of the amount of fees it collects for at least two years after the date of collection. The board may require at the board's expense an annual audit of a service supplier's books and records or the books and records of a business service user described by Subsection (a) with respect to the collection and remittance of the fees. (d) A business service user that does not collect and remit the 9-1-1 emergency service fee as required is subject to a civil cause of action under Subsection (g). A sworn affidavit by the district specifying the unremitted fees is prima facie evidence that the fees were not remitted and of the amount of the unremitted fees. (e) A service supplier is entitled to retain an administrative fee from the amount of fees it collects. The amount of the administrative fee is two percent of the amount of fees it collects under this section. (f) A service supplier is not required to take any legal action to enforce the collection of the 9-1-1 emergency service fee. However, the service supplier shall provide the district with a n annual certificate of delinquency that includes the amount of all delinquent fees and the name and address of each nonpaying service user. The certificate of delinquency is prima facie evidence that a fee included in the certificate is delinquent. A service user account is considered delinquent if the fee is not paid to the service supplier before the 31st day after the payment due date stated on the user's bill from the service supplier. (g) The district may institute legal proceedings to collect fees not paid and may establish internal collection procedures and recover the cost of collection from the nonpaying service user. If the district prevails in legal proceedings instituted to collect a fee, the court may award the district court costs, attorney's fees, and interest in addition to other amounts recovered. A delinquent fee accrues interest at an annual rate of 12 percent beginning on the date the payment becomes due. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1989. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 936, § 15, eft. Aug. 30, 1993; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 638, § 17, eft. Sept. 1, 1995. § 772.316. District Depository (a) The board shall select a depository for the district in the manner provided by law for the selection of a county depository. (b) A depository selected by the board is the district's depository for two years after the date of its selection and until a successor depository is selected and qualified. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1989. § 772.317. Allowable Expenses Allowable operating expenses of a district include all costs attributable to designing a 9-1-1 system and to all equipment and personnel necessary to establish and operate a public safety answering point and other related answering points that the board considers necessary. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1989. § 772.318. Number and Location Identification (a) As part of computerized 9-1-1 service, a service supplier shall furnish current telephone numbers of subscribers and the addresses associated with the numbers on a call-by-call basis. (b) A business service user that provides residential facilities and owns or leases a publicly or privately owned telephone switch used to provide telephone service to facility residents shall provide to those residential end users the same level of 9-1-1 service that a service supplier is required to provide under Subsection (a) to other residential end users in the district. (c) Information furnished under this section is confidential and is not available for public inspection. (d) A service supplier or business service user under Subsection (b) is not liable to a person who uses a 9-1-1 system created under this subchapter for the release to the district of the information specified in Subsections (a) and (b). Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1989. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 936, § 16, eft. Aug. 30, 1993; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 638, § 18, eft. Sept. 1, 1995. § 772.319. Public Review (a) Periodically, the board shall solicit public comments and hold a public review hearing on the continuation of the district and the 9-1-1 emergency service fee. The first hearing shall be held three years after the date the order certifying the creation of the district is filed with the county clerks. Subsequent hearings shall be held three years after the date each order required by Subsection (d) is adopted. (b) The board shall publish notice of the time and place of the hearing once a week for two consecutive weeks in a daily newspaper of general circulation published in the district. The first notice must be published not later than the 16th day before the date set for the hearing. (c) At the hearing, the board shall also solicit comments on the participation of the district in the applicable regional plan for 9-1-1 service under Chapter 771. After the hearing, the board may choose to participate in the regional plan as provided by that chapter. (d) After the hearing, the board shall adopt an order on the continuation or dissolution of the district and the 9-1-1 emergency service fee. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1989. § 772.320. Dissolution Procedures (a) If a district is dissolved, 9-1-1 service must be discontinued on the date of the dissolution. The commissioners court of the county in which the district was located or, if the district contains more than one county, the commissioners courts of those counties acting jointly, shall assume the assets of the district and pay the district's debts. If the district's assets are insufficient to retire all existing debts of the district on the date of dissolution, the commissioners court or courts acting jointly shall continue to impose the 9-1-1 service fee, and each service supplier shall continue to collect the fee for the commissioners court or courts. Proceeds from the imposition of the fee after dissolution of the district may be used only to retire the outstanding debts of the district. (b) The commissioners court or courts shall retire the district's debts to the extent practicable according to the terms of the instruments creating the debts and the terms of the orders and resolutions authorizing creation of the debts. (c) The commissioners court or courts by order may adopt the rules necessary to administer this section. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1989. § 772.321. Issuance of Bonds The board may issue and sell bonds in the name of the district to finance: (1) the acquisition by any method of facilities, equipment, or supplies necessary for the district to begin providing 9-1-1 service to all participating jurisdictions; and (2) the installation of equipment necessary for the district to begin providing 9-1- 1 service to all participating jurisdictions. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1989. § 772.322. Repayment of Bonds The board may provide for the payment of the principal of and interest on the bonds by pledging all or any part of the district's revenues from the 9-1-1 emergency service fee or from other sources. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1989. § 772.323. Additional Security for Bonds (a) The bonds may be additionally secured by a deed of trust or mortgage lien on part or all of the physical properties of the district and the rights appurtenant to those properties, vesting in the trustee power to sell the properties for payment of the indebtedness, power to operate the properties, and all other powers necessary for the further security of the bonds. (b) The trust indenture, regardless of the existence of the deed of trust or mortgage lien on the properties, may include provisions prescribed by the board for the security of the bonds and the preservation of the trust estate and may make provisions for investment of funds of the district. (c) A purchaser under a sale under the deed of trust or mortgage lien is the absolute owner of the properties and rights purchased and may maintain and operate them. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1989. § 772.324. Form of Bonds (a) A district may issue its bonds in various series or issues. (b) Bonds may mature serially or otherwise not more than 25 years after their date of issue and shall bear interest at any rate permitted by state law. (c) A district's bonds and interest coupons, if any, are investment securities under the terms of Chapter 8, Business & Commerce Code, may be issued registrable as to principal or as to both principal and interest, and may be made redeemable before maturity, at the option of the district, or contain a mandatory redemption provision. (d) A district may issue its bonds in the form, denominations, and manner and under the terms, and the bonds shall be signed and executed, as provided by the board in the resolution or order authorizing their issuance. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1989. § 772.325. Provisions of Bonds (a) In the orders or resolutions authorizing the issuance of bonds, including refunding bonds, the board may provide for the flow of funds and the establishment and maintenance of the interest and sinking fund, the reserve fund, and other funds and may make additional covenants with respect to the bonds, the pledge revenues, and the operation and maintenance of any facilities the revenue of which is pledged. (b) The orders or resolutions of the board authorizing the issuance of bonds may also prohibit the further issuance of bonds or other obligations payable from the pledged revenue or may reserve the right to issue additional bonds to be secured by a pledge of and payable from the revenue on a parity with or subordinate to the lien and pledge in support of the bonds being issued. (c) The orders or resolutions of the board issuing bonds may contain other provisions and covenants as the board may determine. (d) The board may adopt and have executed any other proceedings or instruments necessary and convenient in the issuance of bonds. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1989. § 772.326. Approval and Registration of Bonds (a) Bonds issued by a district must be submitted to the attorney general for examination. (b) If the attorney general finds that the bonds have been authorized in accordance with law, the attorney general shall approve them. On approval by the attorney general, the comptroller shall register the bonds. (c) After the approval and registration of bonds, the bonds are incontestable in any court or other forum for any reason and are valid and binding obligations according to their terms for all purposes. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1989. § 772.327. Refunding Bonds (a) A district may issue bonds to refund all or any part of its outstanding bonds, including matured but unpaid interest coupons. (b) Refunding bonds shall mature serially or otherwise not more than 25 years after their date of issue and shall bear interest at any rate or rates permitted by state law. (c) Refunding bonds may be payable from the same source as the bonds being refunded or from other sources. (d) The refunding bonds must be approved by the attorney general as provided by Section 772.326 and shall be registered by the comptroller on the surrender and cancellation of the bonds refunded. (e) The orders or resolutions authorizing the issuance of the refunding bonds may provide that they be sold and the proceeds deposited in the place or places at which the bonds being refunded are payable, in which case the refunding bonds may be issued before the cancellation of the bonds being refunded. If refunding bonds are issued before cancellation of the other bonds, an amount sufficient to pay the principal of the bonds being refunded and interest on those bonds accruing to their maturity dates or to their option dates if the bonds have been duly called for payment before maturity according to their terms shall be deposited in the place or places at which the bonds being refunded are payable. The comptroller shall register the refunding bonds without the surrender and cancellation of bonds being refunded. (f) A refunding may be accomplished in one or in several installment deliveries. Refunding bonds a nd their interest coupons are investment securities under Chapter 8, Business & Commerce Code. (g) In lieu of the method set forth in Subsections (a)-(f), a district may refund bonds, notes, or other obligations as provided by the general laws of this sta~e. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1989. § 772.328. Bonds as Investments and Security for Deposits (a) District bonds are legal and authorized investments for: (1) a bank; (2) a savings bank; (3) a trust company; (4) a savings and loan association; (5) an insurance company; (6) a fiduciary; (7) a trustee; (8) a guardian; and (9) a sinking fund of a municipality, county, school district, and other political subdivision of the state and other public funds of the state and its agencies, including the permanent school fund. (b) District bonds are eligible to secure deposits of public funds of the state and municipalities, counties, school districts, and other political subdivisions of the state. The bonds are lawful and sufficient security for deposits to the extent of their value when accompanied by all unmatured coupons. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1989. § 772.329. Tax Status of Bonds Because a district created under this subchapter is a public entity performing an essential public function, bonds issued by the district, any transaction relating to the bonds, and profits made in the sale of the bonds are exempt from taxation by the state or by any municipality, county, special district, or other political subdivision of the state. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, elf. Sept. 1, 1989. This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #7 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: July 16, 2002 Fire Department Jon Fortune, Assistant City Manager, Public Safety and Transportation SUBJECT Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of DeNon authorizing a memorandum of understanding between the City of DeNon and the American Red Cross of DeNon regarding the implementation of an emergency evacuation plan; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND The American Red Cross of DeNon has requested that the existing documem be updated due to an expansion in duties of the Red Cross for sheltering and the upkeep of those shelters. This Memorandum of Understanding is to replace the documem already in force at this time. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that this agreement be established in order to allow the Red Cross and the City of Denton to coordinate the evacuation and shelter of Denton residents during or immediately after an emergency event PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions) This Memorandum of Understanding has been reviewed by the legal departmems for the City of Denton and the Red Cross. FISCAL INFORMATION The emergency evacuation and/or shelter facilities shall be made available free of charge for the duration of the event. Should other costs be incurred, such costs will be the full responsibility of the participams who incur them. EXHIBITS Ordinance Memorandum of Understanding Respectfully submitted: Ross Chadwick Fire Chief ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON AUTHORIZING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE AMERICAN RED CROSS OF DENTON REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AN EMERGENCY EVACUATION PLAN; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Denton (the "City") and the American Red Cross of Dallas (the "Red Cross") desire to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the implementation of an emergency evacuation plan in substantially the same form as the document attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the "MOU"); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the MOU is in the public interest; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The findings set forth in the preamble of this ordinance are incorporated by reference into the body of this ordinance as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2. The City Manager, or his designee, is hereby authorized to execute the MOU and to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the City under the MOU, including the expenditure of funds as provided in the MOU. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ., 2002. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: EULINE BROCK, MAYOR RAND OF UNDERSTANDING: E ,IER GEN¢ )' $$ CARE OF DENTON Dallas Area Chapter of the American Red Cross and City of Denton, Texas The following Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) sets forth the terms of an emergency action plan between the Dallas Area Chapter of the American Red Cross (RED CROSS) and the City of Denton, Texas (DENTON), with regard only to implementation of an evacuation plan. L Purpose of i'q'/OU The purpose of this MOU is to establish a plan of action for the parties as they relate to a COOP situation, which would cause the Dallas Area Chapter of the American Red Cross, hereafter referred to as the Red Cross to occupy one or more facilities for the purpose of sheltering and/or mass feeding of Denton residents after a natural or technological disaster. Notwithstanding Denton's present expressed intention to follow this plan as stated, it is understood by all parties that DENTON or the Red Cross may be unwilling or unable to carry out these tasks as contemplated, and that no legal or equitable penalty or remedy, nor any incidental or consequential damages, are anticipated or bargained for in the event that DENTON or the American Red Cross chooses, for whatever reason, not to participate under the circumstances contemplated herein. I1. Duration of NOU The MOU is a document stating the understanding of the City of Denton and the American Red Cross in regard to sheltering and mass care in the City of Denton. It is understood that no legally enforceable contractual rights or equitable enforceable promissory rights arise under the MOU, unless and until the parties make a more formal agreement. Furthermore, this MOU does not reflect the extent of the assistance that the Red Cross will provide to residents of the City of Denton or its emergency workers. It does not limit the or exclusively prohibit the Red Cross from conducting its disaster relief and recovery activities. IlL General Provisions It is understood by both senior management officials that each agency should be capable of fulfilling its prescribed plan of action under this MOU. If at any time either party is unable to perform its planned functions under this MOU, the affected party shall immediately provide notice to the other. IV'. Mobilization The Red Cross, when notified, will begin sheltering and mass feeding operations for the population affected by the disaster. For better communication between the American Red Cross and the City of Denton, the American Red Cross may send a Liaison to the City's EOC to coordinate communications between the two parties. Services Provided: Emergency mass care assistance: Providing emergency assistance with food for disaster victims and emergency workers. B. Providing emergency assistance with temporary shelter. C. Medical and nursing aid to the shelter residents. D. Providing emergency assistance with clothing. V. Sta#dard OperatJ#g Procedures The American Red Cross will be notified before any impending disaster and notified immediately for those disasters that occur with no advance warning. In either event, the Red Cross will initiate a response in accordance with the procedures outlined in its disaster response plan. During the disaster response phase, the Red Cross will coordinate with the following City of Denton departments concerning shelters: With coordination from the City of Denton, the American Red Cross will start mass care operations. Red Cross will retain financial and administrative control of the mass care activities it provides. If possible, shelters will be opened prior to the beginning of an evacuation to allow Red Cross to establish the shelter. Red Cross will coordinate with the Police department for security at shelters. The emergency management agency will be kept informed on a recurring basis of the status of all shelters used, to include: 1. Shelter location. 2. Number of sheltered individuals. 3. Special requirements. VI. Disaster Recovery The Red Cross, since it's beginning, has served as the community agent for disaster relief. Its ability to respond to the needs of the community is based on the organized efforts of many volunteers, on community groups, and on the recognized fields of responsibility of the individual, the family, the community, and the components of the community. The availability of each of these groups to function in a disaster represents a vital community resource that must be considered when combating the efforts of disaster and bringing about an orderly recovery. It is also during this phase that the Red Cross has a vital role in providing assistance to help alleviate human suffering. A. Immediate assistance on individual family basis may provide for: 1. Social services and information services referral. Emergency assistance for food, clothing, rent, bedding, selected furnishings, transportation, medical needs, temporary home repairs, occupational supplies, and other essentials. In doing so, the Red Cross utilizes all available resources, including those of the family, if they can be used without causing undue hardship; the resources of federal, state, and local government; and private agencies' disaster relief capabilities, in addition to the resources of the Red Cross. 3. The Red Cross refers families to available governmental resources and, if necessary, assists families in making application for such aid In those instances where other resources are not available to the family or prove inadequate to meet basic disaster-caused needs, the Red Cross may provide for additional recovery assistance. This is accomplished by working with each family or individual. All Red Cross help to disaster victims is an outright grant. No repayment is required or requested. No Red Cross disaster supplies are sold. V/1. Respo#sJbJlJ~Jes of the Par~Jes U. der Pla. In consideration of the mutual aims and desires of the parties to this MOU, the City of Denton, Texas, and Red Cross plan as follows: A. CJ~/ of De#co#. Texas pla#s co: The City of Denton and the Red Cross will cooperatively conduct and maintain an inventory of all buildings, which could potentially serve as mass care shelters. The City of Denton may use Parks and Recreation Department in COOP situations via the most economical, but prudent, manner available. (2) Provide an emergency contact number for making this request. Red Cross agrees to: Execute the mass care annex of its disaster response plan in order to facilitate its mass care activities. (2) Follow city-established rules for parking and facility entry. (3) Whenever possible, Red Cross help is channeled through normal commercial establishments in the community in an effort to help restore the disrupted local economy. Families are given disbursing orders that they can take to a merchant of their choice. VIII. Allocatio# of Costs As stated above, when a request is made to the City of Denton, Texas, it may provide evacuation facilities in the most economical and prudent fashion. The Red Cross will retain financial and administrative control of the mass care activities it provides. IX. Amendment or Cancellation of Offer This offer contained in this MOU may be amended or cancelled at any time by either the City of Denton, Texas or the Red Cross. APPROVED: The undersigned parties do not bind themselves to the faithful performance of this plan at this time; however, it is presently the intention of the parties to proceed in this fashion, should the need arise. It is mutually understood that and agreed that, even upon approval of both parties, this plan shall not become an enforceable contract, except that, for consideration of BENTON's performance. City of Denton, Texas Dallas Area Chapter of the American Red Cross By: By: Michael A. Conduff City Manager Tanya Mahoney Director Denton County Branch Dallas Area Chapter of the American Red Cross Date: Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY By: Dan Robeson Disaster Specialist Denton County Branch Dallas Area Chapter of the American Red Cross Date: BY: This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #8 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET July 16, 2002 Transportation Operations Jon Fortune, ACM Public Safety & Transportation Operations SUBJECT Consider approval of a resolution providing for the approval of the service plan and proposed tax rate as previously approved by the Denton County Transportation Authority; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND Last year the Texas Legislature passed HB3323 which allows counties to create transit authorities to provide public transit and transportation services when they are adjacent to a county with a population of one million or more. Denton County Commissioners approved a petition to create a transit authority on September 4, 2001, which included designating the name of the authority [Denton County Transportation Authority (DCTA)], del'ming its jurisdiction, and stating that the authority be established only after it is confmned by election. An interim executive committee (IEC) consisting of representatives for the entire county was created to develop a service plan and determine a f'mancing strategy for the DCTA. The goveming bodies of the various municipalities within the County were responsible for appointing members to the IEC. Though the Interim Committee has drafted a service plan, the actual transportation authority has yet to be confmned. The process to confmn the DCTA requires two confmnation elections: one for the confirmation of the authority and service plan, and one for a potential sales tax increase. The Interim Committee has a statutory deadline of 180 days from their fa'st meeting, which was December 13, 2001, to adopt a service plan. The IEC has conducted two series of public meetings and has held over 70 public meetings throughout Denton County. In the first set of meetings, the IEC sought public input on the general transportation needs for the County. Based on this input, the IEC developed a draft service plan that was presented during the second set of public meetings to obtain public comment. The IEC adopted the final draft of the service plan on June 13, 2002. Once the service plan was adopted by the IEC, it was sent to Denton County cities with a population over 12,000, who have 60 days to approve the plan. If a city does not approve the service plan, they may not participate in the confnTnation election or service plan if implemented. The Denton City Council reviewed the service plan at the June 18 work session, and directed staff to place this resolution on the July 16 agenda for approval. The deadline to adopt the service plan is August 9, 2002. If the service plan is approved, the County Commissioners will call an election, which will be scheduled for November 5, 2002 to determine if the DCTA will be confmned. Confmnation of the DCTA as an authority requires successful passage by at least one city with a population over 12,000 and at least a majority of all County residents voting to confitTn the DCTA. The service plan may be adjusted based on which cities approve participation and the November 5 election. A separate election must be held to allow voters an opportunity to authorize a sales tax to finance the service plan. Cities that do not confirm the existence of the DCTA nor approve the sales tax may not participate as a member of the authority. OPTIONS 1. The City Council can approve the resolution adopting the service plan and participate in a November 5 County confmnation election. This option allows the City of Denton to be apart of DCTA if confmned by Denton County voters. This option will require an additional election to adopt a sales tax increase to provide funding for the DCTA. 2. The City Council can deny approval of the resolution to accept the service plan and not participate in the November 5 County confmnation election. The City of Denton may not participate in any transportation services offered by DCTA if confirmed by Denton County voters. An additional sales tax election for transportation is not required with this option. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT The following is the schedule to confirm the DCTA and a subsequent sales tax increase. · Jun 13, 2002 · Aug 9, 2002 · Aug 12, 2002 · Sep3,2002 · Nov 5, 2002 · TBD Interim Committee approved service plan Deadline for city councils to approve service plan Interim Committee notifies Commissioners Court to call election Commissioners Court orders confirmation election Uniform election date Sales tax election FISCAL INFORMATION There is no fiscal impact associated with the approval of the resolution to adopt the service plan. A separate election must be held to allow voters an opportunity to authorize a sales tax to finance the service plan. Respectfully submitted: Jon Fortune, Assistant City Manager Public Safety & Transportation Operations S:\Our Documents\Resolutions\02\Service Plan Resolution.doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE SERVICE PLAN AND PROPOSED TAX RATE AS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE DENTON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Demon, is a municipal corporation duly and legally formed in the State of Texas; and WHEREAS, the City is a home rule city with specific powers to protect the health, safety and general welfare of its citizens; and WHEREAS, the Demon County Transportation Aulhority ("Authority") was authorized by passage of House Bill 3323 by the 77th Texas Legislature (Acts of May 25, 2001, 77th Leg., R.S., elf. Sept. 1, 2001); and WHEREAS, the Authority was by Resolution of the Denton County Commissioners Court duly and legally Designated on October 16, 2001, having met all requiremems of §460.053 TEX. TRANSPORTATION CODE; and WHEREAS, the Authority by action of the Imerim Executive Committee did duly and legally adopt Resolution 04-02 on the 13th day of June 2002 providing for the approval of the transportation Service Plan and proposed tax rate for the County of Denton; and WHEREAS, a copy of the Service Plan and proposed tax rate has been provided to the governing body of the City of Demon; and WHEREAS, the City of Demon is a municipal corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Texas, and is not a member of a subregion of a transportation authority governed by a board described in Chapter 452, Subchapter O, TEX. TRANSPORTATION CODE; and WHEREAS, the City of Demon is a municipality with a population of 12,000 or more located in Denton County as documented by the "Annual Population Estimates" for municipalities published by the North Central Texas Council of Governmems; and WHEREAS, the City of Denton appointed a person to represent the City on the Interim Executive Committee in accordance with the provisions of §460.054, TEX. TRANSPORTATION CODE; and WHEREAS, the governing body of the City of Demon does hereby emertain and consider this Resolution of Approval not later than the 60 days after the date Demon County Transportation Authority approved the Service Plan and proposed tax rate; and WHEREAS, the Service Plan and proposed tax rate approved by the Denton County Transportation Authority met all legal requirements, notices, hearings and other statutory criteria of §460.055, TEX. TRANSPORTATION CODE; AND WHEREAS, the Service Plan and proposed tax rate will only be implememed and levied in the City of Demon if a majority of votes received at the tax authorization election within the City of Demon favor the authorization of a tax levy by the Authority, as provided by §460.106, TEX. TRANSPORTATION CODE; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1: The City of Demon finds all legal requiremems of Chapter 460 TEX. TRANSPORTATION CODE relating to the adoption of the service plan and proposed tax rate have been met and further finds all statements set forth in the preamble of this resolution to be true and correct, and are adopted and incorporated herein for all purposes. SECTION 2: The City of Demon does hereby approve the service plan and proposed lA percent tax rate which are attached as Exhibit "A" hereto, and incorporated herein for all purposes. SECTION 3: A signed copy of this Resolution will be forwarded to the Demon County Transportation Authority and to the Commissioners Court of Denton County, Texas, thereby permitting the City of Denton to participate in the Service Plan and the confirmationelection for the Authority as provided by §460.057, TEX. TRANSPORTATION CODE; SECTION 4: This Resolution shall be effective immediately on and after its adoption. The above Resolution Denton, Texas by a vote of__ to was adopted by the City Council of the City of __ on the __ day of ,2002. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULiNE BROCK, MAYOR BY: Page 2 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: the The City Council of the City of Demon, Texas in acting on Resolution __ day of ,2002 vote as follows: Euline Brock, Mayor Raymond Redmon, District 1 Jane Fulton, District 2 Michael Phillips, District 3 Perry McNeill, District 4 Bob Montgomery, Member at Large Mark Burroughs, Mayor Pro Tem FOR AGAINST , did on Page 3 DENTON COUNTY Transportation Authority Service Plan June 13, 2002 Denton COUnty Transportation Authority TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................ I LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................... II OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................ 1 Goals, Guiding Principles, and Concepts .................................................................................... 2 SERVICE PLAN ................................................................................................................................. 3 Regional Rail Plan ....................................................................................................................... 3 Park-and-Rides/Regional Rail and Bus Facilities ........................................................................ 9 Regional Connector Service ........................................................................................................ 9 Feeder and Local Bus Service ................................................................................................... 10 Demand Response Service ......................................................................................................... 11 Local Assistance/Corridor Preservation .................................................................................... 14 Short-Term Capital and Operating Costs ................................................................................... 14 Financing Plan ........................................................................................................................... 14 Recommended Sales Tax Rate .................................................................................................. 15 Phasing and Staging ................................................................................................................... 15 NEXT STEPS ................................................................................................................................... 16 BACKGROUND TECHNICAL REPORT .............................................................................................. 17 COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION ................................................................................................. 17 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: REGIONAL RAIL- SEGMENT ] ........................................................................................5 FIGURE 2: REGIONAL RAIL - SEGMENT 2 ........................................................................................ 6 FIGURE 3: REGIONAL RAIL - LONGER-TERM EXPANSION ALTERNATIVES ..................................... 8 FIGURE 4: PARK-AND-RIDES/REGIONAL RAIL AND BUS FACILITIES AND REGIONAL CONNECTOR SERVICE .................................................................................................................................. ]0 FIGURE 5: FEEDER AND LOCAL BUS SERVICE ............................................................................... 12 FIGURE 6: DEMAND RESPONSE SERVICE ....................................................................................... ] 3 i Denton COUnty Transportation Authority ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The URS consultant team wishes to thank the following individuals, whose hard work and countless hours of volunteer effort greatly contributed to the success of this project. Interim Executive Committee: Representing Large Cities with Populations Greater than 12, 000: · Charles Emery, Lewisville, Chair (January 2002-present) · Van James, Flower Mound · Kelvin Knauf, Corinth · Mike Leavitt, Highland Village · Joe Roy, Denton · Tom Terrall, The Colony Representing Small Cities with Populations between 500 and 12, 000: · George Purefoy, Frisco · Tom Spencer, Shady Shores · Bill Walker, Roanoke Representing Unincorporated Areas of Denton County: · Charles Correll, Argyle · Rick Salazar, Aubrey Representing Denton County At-Large: · Jason Pierce, Aubrey Former Chair: · Hon. Scott Armey, Denton, Chair October 2001-January 2002 Denton Count}: Staff: Shala Geer Cheryl Hammons ii Denton COUnty Transportation Authority OVERVIEW Introduction House Bill 3323 was approved by the 77a~ Texas Legislature and signed into law by the Governor in 2001. The law allows creation of a Coordinated County Transportation Authority in urban "collar" counties surrounding core counties with populations of 1,000,000 or more, which includes Denton County. The legislation requires that a Service Plan, an outline of the services that would be provided by an authority when confirmed by the voters, be developed by the Transportation Authority. The Denton County Commissioners Court initiated the process to form the Denton County Transportation Authority (DCTA) in October 2001. The commissioners court and large municipalities in the County (those with populations above 12,000) made appointments to the DCTA Interim Executive Committee (IEC); the remaining positions were selected by a vote of municipalities with populations between 500 and 12,000. This document represents the DCTA's proposal for transportation facilities, services, and funding options for the citizens of Denton County under the provisions of House Bill 3323. Purpose and Need The concept for a Denton County Transportation Authority was developed with several basic purposes in mind. The idea for the Authority arose primarily as a result of several issues that, while not unique to Denton County, are problems of major concern: · Denton County is forecast to experience unprecedented growth in the next two decades. According to the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), the County's population is anticipated to increase by 145 percent between now and 2025, compared to the entire North Central Texas region's projected growth rate of 67 percent. In addition, employment in the County is forecast to increase by 158 percent, compared to the 67 percent growth rate forecast for the entire region. · Highway congestion is also forecast to increase dramatically in Denton County. According to NCTCOG, 41 percent of all lane miles in Denton County will experience "severe peak period congestion" by 2010, and Denton County drivers will spend 40 percent of their travel time in congested traffic by 2010. · Finally, highway funding in Denton County is forecast to be unable to keep with demand to help reduce anticipated congestion. Regionwide, NCTCOG's Mobility 2025 report noted that the region will experience a $3.4 billion shortfall (the difference between what is needed and what is available in funding) in freeway and toll road funding between now and 2025. 1 Denton COUnty Transportation Authority The Authority can provide Denton County with a method of addressing many of those short-term and long-range mobility and growth problems by: · Providing administrative mechanisms for implementing transportation improvements throughout the County; and · Creating a dependable funding base for transportation improvements. Additionally, once confirmed by the voters, the authority may plan, design, and construct transportation improvements, including but not limited to: · Fixed guideway (commuter rail or light rail); · Bus transit and associated high-occupancy vehicle lanes; · Dedicated thoroughfare (high-occupancy vehicle) lanes; · High-occupancy toll lanes; and · Traffic management systems. Goals, Guiding Principles, and Concepts Service Plan Goals Four goals have been developed by the Interim Executive Committee to help focus the development of the Service Plan: 1. Improve transportation for the County and region; 2. Maintain and improve Denton County's quality of life; 3. Contribute to air quality improvement; and 4. Promote economic development. Guiding Principles Six guiding principles have been used throughout the creation of the Denton County Transportation Authority Service Plan. 1. Provide maximum coverage; 2. Provide a moderate level of service depending on demand; 3. Promote maximum cost-effectiveness and opportunities for federal funding; 4. Focus on linkages between local service and regional bus and rail; 5. Focus on activity centers; and 6. Focus on future expansion of the transportation system as population and demand warrant. Service Plan Development Concepts and Trade-Offs A number of concepts were kept in mind as the Service Plan was developed: 1. There should be a mix of service concepts; 2. The Service Plan must be affordable; 3. The Service Plan should be flexible and able to adapt to changing conditions in the short-term and long-term; 4. The Service Plan should benefit the entire County; and 5. The Plan should maximize ridership. 2 Denton COUnty Transportation Authority As the Service Plan was developed, the Interim Executive Committee discussed a number of trade-offs. These trade-offs help ensure that the Service Plan is balanced demographically and fiscally. They include: 1. Providing maximum coverage vs. cost-effectiveness (cost per rider); 2. The extent of using passenger rail service as opposed to bus service; 3. The balance between serving transit-dependent riders vs. serving choice (new) transit riders; and 4. The emphasis on local service vs. regional service. SERVICE PLAN The Service Plan includes a rail component and three layers of bus service, including Regional Connector Service, Feeder/Local Routes and Demand Response Service, as well as a network of Park-and-Rides/Regional Rail and Bus Facilities to serve Denton County. Together, these elements provide some type of service to virtually every community in the County, helping to mitigate and improve many mobility issues immediately, as well as linking the County's larger cities to rail when that service is implemented. The DCTA plan recognizes that Denton County is part of the greater Dallas-Fort Worth region and respects the importance of its part as a component in the regional transportation system. In implementing the plan, DCTA will seek to work closely with Dallas Area Rapid Transit, the Fort Worth Transportation Authority, and the North Central Texas Council of Governments to make connections to regional services. Regional Rail Plan Overview Regional rail is the central element of the Denton County Transportation Authority's Service Plan. Initial rail service in Denton County can be implemented in conjunction with the opening of DART's Northwest Corridor to Frankford Road in North Carrollton in 2008, with future extensions to Denton and other key areas of the county as additional sales tax and other funding permits. Rail service is initially conceived as operating at 30-minute headways during peak periods and 60-minute headways during off-peak times and weekends. Vehicles The vehicle being considered for this service is "regional rail," a type of Diesel-Multiple Unit (DMU) vehicle. DMU's are self-propelled diesel-powered trains that operate in trainsets of one to three passenger cars. Newer generations of DMU's, called "regional rail" vehicles, are approaching light rail vehicles in service characteristics. For purposes of this Service Plan, the estimated capital cost for regional rail is $12 million per mile, similar to NCTCOG's regionwide per-mile cost for commuter rail. Denton COUnty Transportation Authority Proposed Short Term Service Segment One--Carrollton to Corinth/HickorF Creek/Lake Dallas' This segment (see Figure 1) is approximately eleven miles long. This service would use the former Union Pacific (UP) right-of-way that runs generally parallel to 1-35E from North Carrollton to FM 2181 (Teasley Drive/Swisher Road) at the southern boundary of Corinth and the northern boundary of Hickory Creek and Lake Dallas. The line would run from the DART Frankford Road LRT station to a proposed passenger rail station at 1-35E and FM 2181 to intercept commuters coming from the northern parts of Denton County. One advantage of extending the first operational segment to FM 2181 is allowing passengers to avoid the bottleneck of the Lake Lewisville bridge on IH 35E. Additional stations would be provided in downtown Lewisville east of I-35E near the City's Old Town redevelopment area, and at the railroad's intersection with the SH-121 bypass on the south side of Lewisville. Estimated capital cost: $132 million. Se,~ment Two--Extension to Denton This segment (approximately nine miles long) would provide for the extension of rail service to Denton. There are two options for this extension (see Figure 2). One option is to continue along the former Union Pacific railroad right of way into Downtown Denton from the end of Segment 1 at FM 2181. This would serve North Central Texas College and more of the County's population and would have a more logical terminus in the center of Downtown Denton. This segment of the line is now in use as a trail in the "Rails to Trails" program. The property is owned by the City of Denton, and DART owns the passenger rail operating rights for the former railroad right of way. The alternative option is to use the Kansas City Southern (KCS) railroad line just north of FM- 407. This would terminate west of downtown Denton near the University of North Texas (UNT) campus. There is also an opportunity to exit the KCS railroad corridor just south of Denton, and use the Union Pacific (UP) railroad right-of-way into downtown Denton. The exact alignment will be determined in a future alternatives analysis process. Any alternatives for this segment will consider impacts on adjacent properties before a final alignment decision is made. Estimated capital cost: $108 million. 4 Denton COUnty Transportation Authority FIGURE 1: REGIONAL RAIL - SEGMENT 1 Por~der / Denton North Lake ~ucj.rville Crossroads Pilot Point FHSCO Segment 1' North Carrollton to Corinth/Hickory Creek/ Lake Dallas Denton COUnty Transportation Authority FIGURE 2: REGIONAL RAIL - SEGMENT 2 Por~e~ Segment 2: Alternative Route fmm North Lewisville to Denton Pilot Point Segment 2' Corinth/ Hickory Creek/ Lake Dallas to Denton Frisco Segment 1' North Carrollton to Corinth/Hickory Creek/ Lake Dallas Denton COUnty Transportation Authority Proposed Longer-Term Expansion Alternatives Several corridors are proposed for potential implementation after Segments 1 and 2 of regional rail service (see Figure 3). At the appropriate time in the future, the Authority will decide on which segments to prioritize for implementation. The proposed potential future expansion corridors are: Lewisville to DFW International Airport This future line would follow the SH-121 alignment from South Lewisville to DFW Airport. Service on the line would interconnect to Denton and North Carrollton. This new segment would be approximately seven miles long and would be coordinated with DFW Airport's rail access plans on the northwest side of the Airport. While DART is considering the use of the Cotton Belt Railroad alignment from Downtown Carrollton to DFW Airport, this stand-alone alignment is proposed to provide direct one-seat rail access to the Airport for Denton County residents. Lewisville to Richardson (KCS railroad r(ght-of-wap) and Carrollton to The Colonp/Frisco (BNSF railroad right-of-wqv) Future rail service to the east side of Denton County will depend in part on the development of these two corridors. This will be one of the better opportunities to partner with neighboring counties or authorities to accelerate funding and development of services. Carrollton to Dallas (same seat service) This future segment will be explored at a time when technology is available to provide same-seat service from Denton to downtown Dallas. Denton to Fort Worth There are two possible alignments to serve this corridor between Denton and Fort Worth. The primary option is to use the UP railroad right-of-way that runs parallel to US-377. However, an alternative could use the 1-35W right-of-way. The exact alignment would be determined in a future alternatives analysis process. Other Expansion Alternatives · Denton to McKinney (US 380 right-of-way) · Lewisville to The Colony/Frisco/McKinney (SH 121 right-of-way) · South County Line through Justin, Ponder, Krum, and Sanger (BNSF railroad right-of-way) · Denton to Aubrey/Pilot Point (UP railroad right-of-way) · Remaining Kansas City Southern line northwest of Denton (KCS railroad right-of-way) 7 Denton COUnty Transportation Authority FIGURE 3: REGIONAL RAIL - LONGER-TERM EXPANSION ALTERNATIVES BNSF ROW along western portion of County Denton NoAh_ake Remainder of KCS ROW northwest of Denton UP ROW to Fort Worth Denton to Plot Point al on g UP ROW Denton to Mckinney along U$-380 ROW BNSF ROW along eastern edge of County Lewisvill e to Richardson ~i ong KCS ROW Lewisville to The Colony/ F ris co/M cki n ney along SH-~I21 ROW South Lewisville to DFWAirport along SH-121 Railroad Corridor High,~ay Corridor Altemative Routes to Dallas To F~'~Wo~h CBD To Dallas CBD 8 Denton COUnty Transportation Authority Park-and-Rides/Regional Rail and Bus Facilities Regional Park-and-Rides/Regional Rail and Bus Facilities are recommended at 31 key locations countywide (see Figure 4). The Park-and-Ride transfer network is a key element to the Authority's success, as those sites will be the key transfer points for all of the other recommended services. The three photos below demonstrate the range of options for Park-and-Rides--from a shared lot at a regional shopping center, to a regional transit center with a covered waiting area, to a multi-level parking structure. Park-and-Ride facilities along the future rail corridors can be built to initially serve local and regional buses, but could later serve as Regional Rail Stations. If some Park-and-Ride locations can be shared with other commercial uses, those funds can go to help finance other transit related projects in the community. It must be stressed that no specific address locations are recommended at this time for these sites. Each individual community must work with the Authority and with local landowners to find a location that incorporates the Park-and-Ride facility into the rest of the area and provides convenient access for potential patrons. Land availability will also be an important element in deciding where these facilities are placed in each community. In addition, the location of major Park-and-Rides, especially those that are also designated as potential rail stations, will be subject to a future alternatives analysis process. The size assumptions used for the Park-and-Rides are for planning purposes only and will change as future studies are implemented. Regional Connector Service Regional Connector Service (see Figure 4) will focus on cost-effective regional connections to the Carrollton Park-and-Ride, Dallas Central Business District (CBD), DFW International Airport, Fort Worth CBD and Frisco. The Regional Connector Service will rely heavily on the Park-and-Ride lots along 1-35E and 1-35W, SH-121, as well as the transit hub in Denton. Headways for the Regional Service are recommended at 30-minutes during peak and 60-minutes during off-peak. Over-the-road coaches are recommended for the Regional Connector Service component of the plan, and buses will be able to use the HOV/Bus Lanes on 1-35E planned from Lewisville to the Dallas CBD. The Regional Connector Service is recommended as an interim measure in the corridors where rail service will be implemented. As rail service is introduced and expanded in the County, these routes will be discontinued or changed to provide additional feeder service into the rail lines. Denton COUnty Transportation Authority FIGURE 4: PARK-AND-RIDES/REGIONAL RAIL AND BUS FACILITIES AND REGIONAL CONNECTOR SERVICE North Lake i/ Pilot Point '-. Crossroads To McK innw/ Piano Frisco O Se§ment I and 2 Rail Stations (interim Regional Bus Park-and-Pides) m Othe~ Regional Bus Ra rk-and-Rlfles Demand Raspnase~eeder Bus Intaface To F ortW otth CBD DFW Airport To Dallas CBD Denton COUnty Transportation Authority Feeder and Local Bus Service Feeder and Local Bus service is also recommended for Denton County (see Figure 5). The service will become the key connector between the smaller communities in the periphery of the County with the larger cities and towns. The feeder and local routes will rely on the Park-and- Ride transfer points throughout the County for connections to other modes and services. These routes will also be a key element to the Regional Connector Bus Service through timed transfers. The Service is conceived to operate at 30-minute headways during peak periods and 60-minute headways during off-peak times. The City of Denton's LINK service will continue to operate, with possible additional routes to better serve the University of North Texas (UNT) and Texas Women's University (TWU), and an extended line to serve the North Central Texas College campus in Corinth. Local bus service is also recommended for Lewisville. The local routes were developed using 30-minute headways, consistent with the current LINK service. Small buses (20-30 passengers) are recommended for both the Feeder and Local Service. Demand Response Service Demand response service is currently available for elderly and disabled residents of Denton County through SPAN and the City of Denton. The current service will be expanded so that the general public will also be able to use the service. Because this service is required to give seniors and disabled residents mobility, it must be included in the plan. The expanded service will also give the transit-dependent and those who choose not to drive added mobility as well. The demand response service that is recommended for Denton County is made up of twelve zones (see Figure 6). Each zone will be served by one to three vans and can be expanded as demand warrants. The Demand Response zones will provide On-call service (one hour response time) similar to DART On Call, The T Rider Request, and LINK Dial-a-Ride Zones. Each zone will be focused around at least one Park-and-Ride transfer point to provide access to the rest of the County and the region. Denton COUnty Transportation Authority FIGURE 5: FEEDER AND LOCAL BUS SERVICE ~ ~ ., Denton Ponder ': ..... ,:t ~',,~ ,, Segm~tland2~ St~ons Denton COUnty Transportation Authority FIGURE 6: DEMAND RESPONSE SERVICE Denton COUnty Transportation Authority Local Assistance/Corridor Preservation The plan also recommends Local Assistance funding for communities to help facilitate the public transportation system, in addition to funding for corridor preservation for the travel corridors described earlier. Funding for the local assistance program would range between $1 million and $1.5 million annually. The Local Assistance program will allow communities to enhance the public transportation system through: · Roadway, intersection, and interchange improvements; · Ramp metering; · Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) improvements; · Rideshafing; · HOV lanes on arterials and freeways in selected areas; · Vanpools; · Environmental mitigation; and · Signalization upgrades. Short-Term Capital and Operating Costs Capital and operating costs have been developed for each of the recommended services for Denton County for the first 10 years of services. Capital and annual transit operating costs, assuming an aggressive funding scenario (see the "Financing Plan" section) are shown below. Note: the operating and maintenance costs shown do not include debt service. Regional Rail (Segments 1 & 2) $240.0 million $4.3 million Park-and-Ride $15.8 million N/A* Regional Connector Service $6.0 million $2.7 million Feeder/Local Bus $4.8 million $2.3 million Demand Response $1.3 million $1.5 million Local Assistance/Corridor Preservation $13.5 million N/A Total $ 281.4 million $10.8 million *Operating and maintenance costs for park-and-fide facilities are included in annual operating costs for transit elements Financing Plan In the planning effort, two 25-year plans were developed for consideration. The two scenarios for Authority funding are labeled "Conservative" and "Aggressive." The Conservative funding scenario assumes an across-the-board ¼-percent sales tax for all communities in Denton County eligible to participate. This results in a first-year sales tax intake of approximately $9 million. The Aggressive scenario also includes the across-the-board ¼- percent sales tax, but assumes that cities with populations above 12,000 contribute an extra ¼- percent increment of sales tax in return for extra services, as permitted by law. Cities currently eligible to contribute the additional sales tax include Denton, Lewisville, Corinth, Flower Mound, and Highland Village; in addition, The Colony is technically eligible under HB 3323 to contribute the extra ¼-percent sales tax but currently does not have the sales tax capacity to do so, though it may have such capacity in the future. 14 Denton COUnty Transportation Authority Economic growth is also important in developing the financing plan for Denton County. Denton County has seen significant sales tax growth over the past few years (an increase of 5-8 percent annually from 1998-2000). With the slowing of the economy in 2001 and 2002, it is assumed that this high growth rate in sales tax cannot be expected to sustain itself. Keeping that in mind, the project team has used an annual sales tax growth rate of 2.5 percent. It is important to note that this only accounts for population growth and does not account for inflation. Several other factors are important contributors to the financial analysis in support of the financial plan: · Debt service is included in both the Conservative and Aggressive scenarios. Debt financing of $188 million is included in the conservative scenario in two series of debt issuances beginning in years 1 and 9 of the overall plan. The Aggressive scenario includes $170 million in debt financing in one issuance series in years 1 through 6. · Federal funds are included in the financial plan in two ways. Formula funds (available to transit agencies based on population and ridership) are included at a growth rate of approximately 2.5 percent over 25 years. In addition, federal "new starts" funding for major transportation projects is included at approximately one-third the cost of all rail components of the plan. · Farebox revenues are included at different rates depending on the type of service provided. Using national standards, it is assumed that farebox revenues will pay for 50 percent of all regional connector bus operating costs, 25 percent of all feeder/local bus and demand-response operating costs, and 40 percent of all regional rail operating costs. The financial scenarios developed for this Service Plan are conceptual and preliminary in nature using a wide range of assumptions that may vary once the overall plan is implemented. The Service Plan, both proposed services and financial arrangements, may change in the future subject to modifications based on election results. Recommended Sales Tax Rate HB 3323 requires that the Service Plan recommend a proposed sales tax rate. This Service Plan proposes a ¼ percent uniform sales tax to support the authority's services. The Aggressive financial scenario is predicated on cities of 12,000 or more population contributing an additional ¼-percent sales tax. HB 3323 states, "The imposition of an authority's sales and use tax must be approved at an election and may not be imposed in an area that has not confirmed the authority." As noted below in "Next Steps," the election to confirm the authority is planned for November 5, 2002; a later election is required to impose the sales tax. Phasing and Staging The two financial scenarios described above are directly related to a phasing and staging (or implementation) schedule for the Service Plan's various elements. The following tables describe the proposed implementation plan for the Service Plan using the Conservative financial scenario and the Aggressive scenario. The first year in the milestones shown below will be the year following voter approval of the sales tax to finance the Authority's services (note: these assumptions may change depending upon the number of entities that participate in the Authority). 15 Denton COUnty Transportation Authority MILESTONES USING CONSERVATIVE FINANCIAL SCENARIO 1 1~t half opens 1/3 open 1~t half opens 1~t half opens 2 1/3 open 3 1/3 open 4 2nd half opens 2nd half opens 2nd half opens 7 Segment 1 Opens 13 Segment 2 '/2 fleet replaced '/2 fleet replaced '/2 fleet replaced Opens 16 '/2 fleet replaced '/2 fleet replaced 25 '/2 fleet replaced '/2 fleet replaced '/2 fleet replaced MILESTONES USING AGGRESSIVE FINANCIAL SCENARIO 1 Entire system 1/3 open Entire system Entire system opens opens opens 2 1/3 open 3 1/3 open 5 Segment 1 Opens 7 Segment 2 Opens 10 13 Fleet replaced Fleet replaced Fleet replaced 25 Fleet replaced Fleet replaced Fleet replaced NEXT STEPS The Authority's Interim Executive Committee (IEC) approved this Service Plan on June 13, 2002. Before August 9, 2002, each of the city councils in communities with more than 12,000 population will consider a resolution to approve the Service Plan and proposed tax rate. In an election on November 5, 2002, Denton County voters will consider the confirmation of the Authority. If confirmed by the voters, the IEC becomes the DCTA Executive Committee. The Executive Committee will then refine the service plan and proposed finance plans to reflect voting results and request that Denton County cities schedule an election for approval of a sales tax to support development of the regional transportation services. Detailed planning and implementation of the system will begin following an affirmative vote to establish the sales tax. 16 Denton COUnty Transportation Authority BACKGROUND TECHNICAL REPORT More detailed information on all aspects of the Service Plan is included in a separate document, Denton County Transportation Authority Service Plan Technical Report. COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION HB 3323 specifies a number of issues for the Authority to consider as it developed its Service Plan. Those issues are aimed at ensuring that the Plan meets certain minimum requirements for service delivery, cost-effectiveness, and neighborhood compatibility. The table below lists those issues and specifies where in the Technical Report those issues are addressed. 1. Regional thoroughfare plans 2. Traffic counts 3. Feasible alternative modes 4. Location of collection and transfer points 5. Alternative routes linking access and discharge points 6. Alternative alignments using least populous areas if right-of-way acquisition is required 7. Estimates of capital expenditures 8. Costs and cost-effectiveness 9. Administrative overhead costs 10. Load factors (ridership) 11. Fare structure Listed in Section 2.3 Listed in Section 2.3 Section 3 lists all potential modes Section 4.2 details park-and-rides Section 4.2 details park-and-rides Section 4; alignments focus on highways and railroads, minimizing right-of-way needs Section 4.7 lists capital costs Discussed in Section 5 and Appendix Section 4.7 discusses operating costs; administrative costs are part of that factor Section 4.8; NCTCOG trip tables were used to determine ridership estimates Section 5.1 discusses farebox recovery assumptions for each element 12. Revenue from all sources Financial plan in Section 5.1 13. Cost per rider Appendix 2 analyzes cost per rider 14. Joint use of other transit systems Joint use to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis; financial plan assumes costs and revenues regardless of which entity administers ~lan 15. Segment revenue (profit-loss) analysis Section 5.1 discusses farebox recovery assumptions for each element 17 This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #9 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET July 16, 2002 Fiscal Operation Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT Consider approval of a resolution of the City of Denton, Texas, approving the 2003 Budget of the Denton Central Appraisal District; and declaring an effective date. BACKGROUND The Texas Property Tax Code requires taxing jurisdictions to approve or disapprove their Appraisal District budget within 30 days after its adoption by the Appraisal District's Board of Directors. The Appraisal District's Board of Directors met on June 27, 2002, to discuss and adopt the budget. The City's comribution toward the Appraisal District's 2003 Budget is included in the 2002-03 proposed General Fund budget. FISCAL INFORMATION The proposed budget comribution required by the City of Demon is $17,884 greater than last year, (2002 allocation = $168,554; 2003 allocation = $186,438). The tax unit comributions are based on a percentage of each taxing unit's current year levy. EXHIBITS "Summary" of Proposed DCAD Budget Budget Allocations Worksheet Notice of Public Hearing Resolution Respectfully submitted: Diana G. Ortiz Director of Fiscal Operations Exhibit A Summary of Denton Appraisal District 2003 Budget The proposed budget has been reviewed and is summarized below as a quick reference: - 2003 proposed budget for DCAD is $466,180 greater than the prior year or 8.7%. Of the total increase, the "Personnel Services" category accounts for the majority of the overall increase including $234,015 for salaries and $117,020 for health insurance. There are four new positions included for next year. The new positions are in the appraisal services division. A large remainder of the increase is in the "Services Received" category with specific increases in "Appraisal Review Board" ($39,975), "Legal Services" ($15,000) and "Postage" ($16,330). - The "Utilities and Maintenance" category also includes an increase of $53,284 for "Data Processing Maintenance". 3LrPdSDI~ 8~OOL DISTRICTS: S0t ARGYLE lSD S02 AUBREY [SD 805 DENTON lSD S07 KRL~ 1SD S08 LA~ DALLAS lSD S09 LE~S~LLE iSD SI0 LI~ ELM SI I NOR~ISD $~2 HLOT ~O~ ISD S~3 PO~ER lSD S~4 SANGER 1SD SCHOOL DISTRICTS TOTALS G0! DENTON COb~qTY CITIES: C26 CITY OF ~JtGYLE COl CITY OF AUBREY C31 TOWN OF BARTONVILLE C42 TO',&~'4 DP CLARK C03 CI~ OF THE COLONY C04 TOW OF CDR/NTH C27 TOW OF COPPER CAP~*ON C05 CITY OF D~NTON C30 CITY OF DOUBLE OAK CO7 ~ OF FLOWER MOLrND C22 TOWN OF ~ACKBERRY C19 TOWN OF HICKORY CREEK C08 cITY OF HIGHLAND VILLAGE C09 CFFf OF KJSTIN C18 CITY OF KRUOERVILL5 C]0 CiTY OF KRUM C11 CITY OF LAKE DALLAS C25 CITY OF LA.WOOD VILLAGE CI2 CITY OF LEWISYqLLE CI3 CITY OF LITrLE ELM C23 CI~ OF MARSHALL CREEK C33 CITY OF NORTHLAKE C14 C~TY OF OAK ?OI%.FF C~4 CITY OF PILOT POINT C~5 CITY' OF POND~ C17 CITY OF ROANOKE C ~ 6 CITY OF SANGSR C34 TOW74 OF SHADY SHORES C28 CITY OF TROPHY CLb~ 2003 BUDGET ALLOCATIONS WORKSHEET % OF DEbFfON OU~f OF 2001 TOTAL COUNTY COLrNTY TAX LE~ LEVIES ~GES ~G..E~ $7,811,26165 1.4009% $80,41739 $3,191,875.11 0.5724% $32,860.77 $77,843,60830 t3.9~8% $801,410.~ $3,033,231.65 0. 54400.4 $31,227.51 $13,640,596.01 2.4464% $140,431.70 $222,051,732.65 39.8237% $2,286,051.37 $6,616,943.34 1.1867% $68, I22,29 $51,849,927,07 9,2990% $533,801,72 ~,189,723.19 0.7514% $43,133+74 $3,096,385.64 0.5553% $31,877+69 $4,934,~5.13 0.8850% $50,800.75 $69,025.00 $15,096.00 2003 BUDGET AL__LOCATION~$. $80,417.99 $32,860.77 $801,410.04 $31,227,51 $140,431,70 $2,286,051.37 $68,122.29 $602,82&72 $58,22934 $31,877.69 $50,800~75: $398,259,733.73 71.4256% $64,464,354~44 I 1.56 ! 3% $4,!00.135~57 $663,668.89 $84,I21.~ $4,184,25&57 8663,668.119 $689,152~36 0,1236% $7,094.91 $255,948.07 0.0459% $2,63!02 $193,729~87 0~0347% $1,994.47 $27,550.51 0.~9% $283~64 $9,156,150.82 1.~21% $94,263.76 $34,999,407.38 0.8966% $51,469.55 $144,492.71 0.0259% $ ! ,487,57 $I7,961,383~01 3,22t3% $184,914.77 $408,048.78 0.0732% $4,20032 $18,040,965.41 3.2355% $185,734.08 $53,347.07 0,0096% $549.21 $526,653J6 0,0945% $5,421 37 $5,479,046.27 0.9826% $56,407,49 $368,507.61 0.0661% $3,793.83 $93,839,20 0,0168% $96&09 $185,764.26 0.0333% $1,912A7 $1,270,992.57 0.2279% $13,085.03 $75,629.39 0~0136% $778.6I 520,146,183.75 3,6131% $207,407.57 $I,054,958.95 0,1892% $10,860.94 $13,834,78 0.0025% $I42.43 $93,369. ! 0 0.0167% $96! ,25 $841,160.42 0A509% $8,659,86 $568,821.20 0.1020% $5,856 09 567,967.52 0.0122% $699.73 $I~039,557.26 0.1864% $10,702.38 $844,052.31 0.1514% $8,689.63 $316,653.57 0.0568% $3,25939 52,157,603.84 0.3870% $22~212.8I 2O2.00 $7,094,9I $2,635.02 $1,994.47 $283.64 $94,263.76 ,. $51,469,55 $1,487.57 $184,914.77 $4,200.92 $185,734.08 $549,2! $5,421.97 $56,407,49 $3,793,83 $966.09 $I,912.47 $ !3,085~03 $778,61 $207,609.57 $10,86034 $I42A3 $961,25 $8,65936 $5,856.09 8699,73 510,702,38 $8,689.63 $3,259.99 CITIES TOTALS $87,074,771.75 15.6164% $896,44&07 $202,00 $896,648.07 2003 BUDGET ALLOCATIONS WORKSHEET rdRlSP. LCrlC. X~ % OF DENTON Ob% OF 2001 TOTAL CO~ COUNTY TAX LE'v~. LE~qES CI4¢&RGES CHARDES SPECIAL DISTRICTS: W04 CLEARCREEK WATERSHED AUTHORITY $42,990,74 0~0077% $~42.60 W07 COR/NTH MLrD 5207,833,83 0.0373% $2,139.68 F01 DENTON COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT $I 12,944,61 0.0203% $1,I62.78 LO I DENTON COU~NTY LEVY IMPROVEMENT DIST #1. $284,334.9I 0.0510% $2,927.26 W05 TROPIC' CLUB MUD #2 $931,842.58 0.I671% $9,593.44 RL~D DENTON COUNTY ROAD & U~LITY DISTRICT #I. $2,208,305.85 0,3960% $22,734,80 W03 TROPHY CLUB MUD,#1 $996,585.78 0.1787% $10,259.98 WI0 DENTON CO; ~SH WA TF, R DIST #lB $1,563,862.52 0.2805% $16,100.17 Wl I DE?qTON CO. FRESH WATER DIST #lC $40,950,06 0.0073% $421.59 Wl:2 DENTON CO. FRESH WATER DIST. #ID $424,385.50 0.0761% $4,369.10 W! 3 DENTON CO. WATER DIS g6 $794,I06.85 0.1424% $8,175.43 Wi5 DENTON CO. ~SH WATER DIST. #IE $t80,038.52 0.0323% $1,853,52 SPECIAL DIS~CTS TOTALS GRAND TOTALS 2003 BUDGET ~AL L O C3_TIO_N ~ $7,788,181.75 L3968% $80 180,35 $5,740,4}0~88 $408,12 $442.6O $2,139.68 $1,162~75 $2,927.26 $9,593.44 $22,734~80 $I0~668.10 $16,t00,17 $421.59 $4,369.10 $8,175:~43 ·$I,853.52 $408.12 $80,588.47 84,731.152 $5,825, ! 62.00 u.~u~.u.~..~a ~,u ~u~u~y~/.~uu~, uu~umly uocumems~ persone!/;,.-'uDIIc ldeenr~9 I-or Mudget NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON DENTON CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT 2003 BUDGET The Denton Centrat Appraisaf District witl hold a public hearing on a proposed budget lot the 2003 fiscal year, The pubiic hearing will be held on June 27, 2002, at 4:00 P,M, at 3911 Morse, Denton, Texas. A summaW of the appraisal district budget follows: The total amount of the proposed budget. $6,075,162 29 The totat amount of increase over the current year's budget. $464~656.07 The number af employees compensated under the proposed budget, 72 The number of employees compensa(ed under the currenl budget. 68 The appraisal district is supported soteiy by payments from the local t~xing units served by the appraisal district. If approved by the appraisal district board of directors at the public headeg, this proposed bud(jet will take effect automatically unless disapproved by the governing bodies o¢ the county, school districts, cities and [owns served by the appraisal distric:t. A copy of the proposed budget is available fo~ public inspection in the office of each of those governing bodies, A copy is also availabie for public inspection at [he appraisa~ district Denton Centraf Appraisal District 3911 Morse Denton, Texas 76208 (940) 566-0904 S:\Our Docmments~esolurions\02\central appraisal district burger, doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING THE 2003 BUDGET OF THE DENTON CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the 2003 proposed budget of the Denton Central Appraisal District vas submitted to the City of Denton on June 28, 2002; and WHEREAS, the proposed budget contains a list showing each proposed position, the proposed salary for the position, all benefits proposed for the position, each proposed capital expenditure, and an estimate of the amount of the budget that will be allocated to the City of Denton, Texas; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1. That the City Council, pursuant to Article 6.06 of the Texas Tax Code, approves the 2003 proposed budget of the Denton Central Appraisal District. SECTION 2. That this resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2002. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #10 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: July 16, 2002 DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: Engineering Dave Hill, 349-8314 ~'~ SUBJECT Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas approving a real estate contract between the City of DeNon and James H. Barrow and wife, Gayla R. Barrow, relating to the purchase of an approximate 0.42 acre tract or parcel of land being a part of Lot 5, Block B of the Blount Addition, an addition to the City of DeNon, for use as a drainage channel; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND Presemly, we are undertaking drainage improvemems in phased segmems within the Pecan Creek drainage basin. In 1998, a substamial portion of the PEC-4 tributary was improved from Bell Avenue at Robertson Street, eastward to the Woodrow Lane bridge. Acquisition of the subject parcel is necessary to provide connection of the eastern terminus of the pending Eagle Drive Drainage Improvemem project to the existing and recemly improved channel at Bell Avenue and Robertson Street. Mr. James Barrow, the landowner, and City staff have been in positive negotiations and have reached an equitable agreement. The Cleveland Street Drainage Improvemem project was completed a few months ago, the project limits being from the detemion pond drainage outfall at the south side of Collins Street (Arbors Apartmems), east to Cleveland, then along Cleveland and terminating at Eagle Drive. The limits of the pending Eagle Drive Drainage project begin at Cleveland Street at Eagle Drive, then proceed east in Eagle Drive across Carroll Boulevard to Myrtle Street, then north in Myrtle Street to Maple Street, then east in Maple Street, across Elm & Locust Streets to the subject purchase tract. The subject tract will be the transition poim between underground drainage box installations from the west to open channel design eastward to existing channel improvements. OPTIONS 1. Approve the Real Estate Agreemem, or 2. Denial, or 3. Table for future consideration RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Real Estate Agreement. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Closing Date: On or before July 31, 2002 PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW None FISCAL INFORMATION $92,000.00 plus closing costs of aborn of $1,000 ATTACHMENTS Draft Ordinance Real Estate Agreement Location Map Prepared by: Tod J. Taylor Real Estate Specialist Respectfully submitted: Charles Fiedler, Director Engineering Department ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVING A REAL ESTATE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND JAMES H. BARROW AND WIFE, GAYLA R. BARROW, RELATING TO THE PURCHASE OF AN APPROXIMATE 0.42 ACRE TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PART OF LOT 5, BLOCK B OF THE BLOUNT ADDITION, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF DENTON, FOR USE AS A DRAINAGE CHANNEL; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HERBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a Real Estate Contract between the City and James H. Barrow and wife, Gayla R. Barrow, in substantially the form of the Real Estate Contract which is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance for all purposes, for the purchase of approximately 0.42 acre for use as drainage. SECTION 2. The City Manager is authorized to make the expenditures as set forth in the attached Real Estate Contract. SECTION 3. passage and approval. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its 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: REAL ESTATE CONTRACT STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DENTON THIS CONTRACT OF SALE is made by Gayla R. Barrow and James H. Barrow (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Seller") and CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, a home rule municipality, of Denton, Denton County, Texas, (hereinafter referred to as "Purchaser"), upon the terms and conditions set forth herein. PURCHASE AND SALE Seller hereby sells and agrees to convey, and Purchaser hereby purchases and agrees to pay for all that certain tract, lot or parcel of land described in "EXHIBIT A", attached herein, with all rights and appurtenances pertaining to the said property, including any right, title and interest of Seller in and to adjacent streets, alleys or rights-of-way (all of such real property, rights, and appurtenances being hereinafter referred to as the "Property"), together with any improvements, fixtures, and personal property situated on and attached to the Property, for the consideration and upon and subject to the terms, provisions, and conditions hereinafter set forth. PURCHASE PRICE Amount of Purchase Price. The total purchase price for the Property shall be the sum of Ninety Two Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($92,000.00) (the "Purchase Price"). Payment of Purchase Price. The full amount of the Purchase Price shall be payable in cash at the closing. PURCHASER'S OBLIGATIONS The obligations of Purchaser hereunder to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby are subject to the satisfaction of each of the following conditions any of which may be waived in whole or in part by Purchaser at or prior to the closing. 1. Preliminary Title Report. Within twenty (20) days after the date hereof, Seller, at Seller's sole cost and expense, shall have caused the Title Company (hereinafter defined) to issue a owner's policy commitment (the "Commitment") accompanied by copies of all recorded documents relating to easements, rights- of-way, etc., affecting the Property. Purchaser shall give Seller written notice on or before the expiration of ten (10) days after Purchaser receives the Commitment that the condition of title as set forth in the Commitment is or is not satisfactory. In the event Purchaser states the condition of title is not satisfactory, Seller shall, at Seller's option, promptly undertake to eliminate or modify all unacceptable matters to the reasonable satisfaction of Purchaser. In the event Seller is unable to do so within ten (10) days after receipt of written notice, this Agreement shall thereupon be null and void for all purposes; otherwise, this condition shall be deemed to be acceptable and any objection thereto shall be deemed to have been waived for all purposes. 2. Survey. Purchaser may, at Purchaser's sole cost and expense, obtain a current survey of the Property, prepared by a duly licensed Texas land surveyor acceptable to Purchaser. The survey shall be staked on the ground, and shall show the location of all improvements, highways, streets, roads, railroads, rivers, creeks, or other water courses, fences, easements, and rights-of- way on or adjacent to the Property, if any, and shall contain the surveyor's certification that there are no encroachments on the Property and shall set forth the number of total acres comprising the Property, together with a metes and bounds description thereof. Purchaser will have ten (10) days after receipt of the survey to review and approve the survey. In the event the survey is unacceptable, then Purchaser shall within the ten (10) day period, give Seller written notice of this fact. Seller shall, at Seller's option, promptly undertake to eliminate or modify the unacceptable portions of the survey to the reasonable satisfaction of Purchaser. In the event Seller is unable to do so within ten (10) days after receipt of written notice, Purchaser, at its option may elect to terminate this Agreement (in which event this Agreement shall be null and void), grant Seller additional time to cure, or proceed to closing. Purchaser's failure to give Seller this written notice shall be deemed to be Purchaser's acceptance of the survey. 3. Seller's Compliance. Seller shall have performed, ob- served, and complied with all of the covenants, agreements, and conditions required by this Agreement to be performed, observed, PAGE 2 and complied with by Seller prior to or as of the closing. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF SELLER Seller hereby represents and warrants to Purchaser as follows, which representations and warranties shall be deemed made by Seller to Purchaser also as of the closing date: 1. There are no parties in possession of any portion of the Property as lessees, tenants at sufferance, trespassers or other parties. 2. Except for the prior actions of Purchaser, there is no pending or threatened condemnation or similar proceeding or assessment or suit, affecting title to the Property, or any part thereof, nor to the best knowledge and belief of Seller is any such proceeding or assessment contemplated by any governmental authority. 3. Seller has complied with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, statutes, rules and restrictions relating to the Property, or any part thereof. 4. To the best of the seller's knowledge, there are no toxic or hazardous wastes or materials on or within the Property. Such toxic or hazardous wastes or materials include, but are not limited to, hazardous materials or wastes as same are defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended. CLOSING The closing shall be held at the office of Texas Title Company, 2215 S. Loop 288, Suite 320, Denton, Texas 76205 on or before July 31, 2002, or at such title company, time, date, and place as Seller and Purchaser may mutually agree upon (which date is herein referred to as the "closing date"). CLOSING REQUIREMENTS 1. Seller's Requirements. At the closing Seller shall: A. Deliver to the City of Denton a duly executed and PAGE 3 acknowledged General Warranty Deed conveying good and marketable title in fee simple to all of the Property, free and clear of any and all liens, encumbrances, conditions, assessments, and restrictions, except for the following: 1. General real estate taxes for the year of closing and subsequent years not yet due and payable; 2. Any exceptions approved by Purchaser pursuant to Purchaser's Obliqations here- of; and 3. Any exceptions approved by Purchaser in writing. B. Deliver to Purchaser a Texas Owner's Policy of Title Insurance at Seller's sole expense, issued by Texas Title Company, Denton, Texas, (the "Title Company"), or such title company as Seller and Purchaser may mutually agree upon, in Purchaser's favor in the full amount of the purchase price, insuring fee simple title for the City of Denton to the Property subject only to those title exceptions listed in Closinq Requirements hereof, such other exceptions as may be approved in writing by Purchaser, and the standard printed exceptions contained in the usual form of Texas Owner's Policy of Title Insurance, provided, however: 1. The boundary and survey exceptions shall be deleted if required by Purchaser and if so required, the costs associated with same shall be borne by Purchaser; 2. The exception as to restrictive cove- nants shall be endorsed "None of Record"; 3. The exception for taxes shall be limited to the year of closing and shall be endorsed "Not Yet Due and Payable"; and 4. The exception as to liens encumbering the Property shall be endorsed "None of Record". C. Deliver to Purchaser possession of the Property on the day of closing. PAGE 4 2. Purchaser's Requirements. Purchaser shall pay the consideration as referenced in the "Purchase Price" section of this contract at Closing in immediately available funds. 3. Closing Costs. Seller shall pay all taxes assessed by any tax collection authority through the date of Closing. All other costs and expenses of closing in consummating the sale and purchase of the Property not specifically allocated herein shall be paid by Purchaser, except for Seller's attorney fees. REAL ESTATE COMMISSION Seller and Purchaser represent and warrant to each other that neither has retained a broker for this transaction and that there are no broker or real estate fees due as a result of the consummation of this contract. BREACH BY SELLER In the event Seller shall fail to fully and timely perform any of its obligations hereunder or shall fail to consummate the sale of the Property except Purchaser's default, Purchaser may either enforce specific performance of this Agreement or terminate this Agreement by written notice delivered to seller. BREACH BY PURCHASER In the event Purchaser should fail to consummate the purchase of the Property, the conditions to Purchaser's obligations set forth in PURCHASER'S OBLIGATIONS having been satisfied and Purchaser being in default Seller may either enforce specific performance of this Agreement, or terminate this Agreement by written notice delivered to purchaser. MISCELLANEOUS 1. Assignment of Agreement. This Agreement may be assigned by Purchaser without the express written consent of Seller. 2. Survival of Covenants. Any of the representations, war- ranties, covenants, and agreements of the parties, as well as any rights and benefits of the parties, pertaining to a period of time following the closing of the transactions contemplated PAGE 5 hereby shall survive the closing and shall not be merged therein. 3. Notice. Any notice required or permitted to be delivered hereunder shall be deemed received when sent by United States mail, postage prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to Seller or Purchaser, as the case may be, at the address set forth beneath the signature of the party. 4. Texas Law to Apply. This Agreement shall be construed under and in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas, and all obligations of the parties created hereunder are performable in Denton County, Texas. 5. Parties Bound. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, legal representatives, successors and assigns where permitted by this Agreement. 6. Legal Construction. In case any one or more of the pro- visions contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, said in- validity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision hereof, and this Agreement shall be construed as if the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein. 7. Prior Aqreements Superseded. This Agreement constitutes the sole and only agreement of the parties and supersedes any prior understandings or written or oral agreements between the parties respecting the within subject matter. 8. Time of Essence. Agreement. Time is of the essence in this 9. Gender. Words of any gender used in this Agreement shall be held and construed to include any other gender, and words in the singular number shall be held to include the plural, and vice versa, unless the context requires otherwise. 10. Memorandum of Contract. Upon request of either party, both parties shall promptly execute a memorandum of this Agreement suitable for filing of record. 11. Compliance. In accordance with the requirements of the Texas Real Estate License Act, Purchaser is hereby advised that it should be furnished with or obtain a policy of title insurance or Purchaser should have the abstract covering the Property examined by an attorney of Purchaser's own selection. PAGE 6 12. Time Limit. In the event a fully executed copy of this Agreement has not been returned to Purchaser within ten (10) days after Purchaser executes this Agreement and delivers same to Sel- ler, Purchaser shall have the right to terminate this Agreement upon written notice to Seller. 13. Effective Date. The term "Effective Date" means the latter of the dates on which this Contract is signed by either Sellers or Purchaser, as indicated by their signature below. If the last party to execute this Contract fails to complete the date of execution below that party's signature, the date the Title Company acknowledges receipt of a copy of this fully executed contract is the Effective Date. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Seller and Purchaser have executed this contract as follows: SELLER: SELLER: BY: BY: Gayla R. Barrow James H. Barrow DATE: DATE: PURCHASER: CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS: BY: Michael A. Conduff City Manager 215 E. McKinney Denton, Texas 76201 DATE: PAGE 7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DENTON § This instrument is acknowledged before me, on this day of , 2002 by Michael A. Conduff, City Manager, of the City of Denton, a municipal corporation, known to me to be the person and officer whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that the same was the act of the said City of Denton, Texas, a municipal corporation, that he was duly authorized to perform the same by appropriate ordinance of the City Council of the City of Denton and that he executed the same as the act of the said City for purposes and consideration therein expressed, and in the capacity therein stated. Notary Public in and for the State of Texas STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DENTON § This instrument is acknowledged before me, on this day of , 2002 by Gayla R. Barrow and James H. Barrow. Notary Public in and for the State of Texas PAGE 8 TITLE COMPANY ACCEPTANCE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Title Company acknowledges receipt of the fully executed Contract on day of , 2002. TITLE COMPANY: Name: Texas Title Company Address: 2215 S. Loop 288, Suite 320 Denton, Texas 76205 Telephone: 940-382-8251 By: Printed Name: Title: PAGE 9 EXHIBIT "A" LOT 5, BLOCK B, BLOUNT ADDITION, an Addition to the City of Denton, DENTON COUNTY, Texas, according to the Plat recorded in VOLUME 75, PAGE 54, Deed Records, Denton County, Texas; SAVE AND EXCEPT that portion conveyed to the City of Denton by Deed recorded in VOLUME 575, PAGE 451, Deed Records, Denton County, Texas. 0 :IS .~auul.~S ro X d~ 0 0 0 :IS u ell",¢ ~S l~P~snpul Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #11 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: July 16, 2002 Engineering David Hill, 349 - 8314 SUBJECT Consider adoption of an ordinance for a "No Right Turn on Steady Red, from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. on school days" for southbound Lillian Miller Parkway onto Teasley Lane and for westbound Wind River Lane onto Lillian Miller Parkway. BACKGROUND The City received a request from Teresa Andress, Principal of Sam Houston Elementary School to consider a No Right Turn on Steady Red, from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. on school days" for southbound Lillian Miller Parkway onto Teasley Lane and for westbound Wind River Lane onto Lillian Miller Parkway. Staff observed the site and felt the request was reasonable given the make-up of the traffic (high vehicle turning volumes and substantial school related pedestrian volumes). It should be noted that a crossing guard has been provided since the first part of this year. OPTIONS 1. Approve ordinance 2. Deny ordinance RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Ordinance concerning a "No Right Turn on Steady Red, from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. on school days" for southbound Lillian Miller Parkway onto Teasley Lane and for westbound Wind River Lane onto Lillian Miller Parkway. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The Traffic Safety Committee reviewed this item at their March 4, 2002 meeting and voted 5-0 to recommend that the City Council approve an Ordinance concerning a "No Right Turn on Steady Red, from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. on school days" for southbound Lillian Miller Parkway onto Teasley Lane and for westbound Wind River Lane onto Lillian Miller Parkway. FISCAL INFORMATION Manufacture of signing and installation costs estimated at less than $500. Page 1 ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map 2. Applicant's letter 3. Traffic Safety Commission minutes 4. Ordinance Prepared By: David Salmon, Assistant Director Engineering Respectfully submitted: Charles Fiedler Director, Engineering Page 2 / LILLIAN. I~ M~ ~ FR %~_~_IAN.I~ MILLER Minutes Traffic Safety Commission March 4th, 2002 PRESENT: Silvia Lesko, Pat Cheek, Harry Phillips, Geof Bissell, and Chairman Barry Walters. STAFF: David Salmon, Staff Liaison Bernard Vokoun, Traffic Engineer Lois Scobee, Engineering Assistant Chairman Walters called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM. ITEM #2 Review and Consider a request for a No Turn on red during the school hours of 7:30 AM - 8:30 AM and 2:30 PM - 3:30 PM Monday through Friday for southbound Lillian Miller Parkway to Teasley Lane and from Wind River Lane to Lillian Miller Parkway. Vokoun said the City received this request from the principal of Sam Houston Elementary, Teresa Andress, requesting a No Right Turn on Red during school hours of 7:30 AM - 8:30 AM and 2:30 PM - 3:30 PM Monday through Friday for southbound Lillian Miller Parkway to Teasley Lane and from Wind River Lane to Lillian Miller Parkway. This restriction would be during the hours of 7:30 AM - 8:30 AM and 2:30 PM - 3:30 PM Monday through Friday and would be signed accordingly. Staff has no objections to this request and recommends approval to have signs installed restricting No Right Turn on Red during school for the of 7:30 AM - 8:30 AM and 2:30 PM- 3:30 PM periods Monday through Friday. Phillips said there should be a crossing guard at the intersection. Vokoun said the request goes to City Counsel in the form of a proposed ordinance. If City Counsel approves the request, signs will be put up. They will be yellow school signs, saying "right turn", below that a panel saying "on red", and below that the times will be indicated. Phillips said it is a dangerous corner. There are about 76 kids living in the Wind River Addition. They cross 6 lanes of traffic if coming from the side with no sidewalk. Those 6 lanes carry traffic traveling 60 mph down to 35 mph before the light and through the light. It Traffic Safety Commission - March 4, 2002 Page 2 of 2 should be 25 mph, with lights during school hours like any place else. Vokoun said staff agreed. Phillips said staff needs to put a full court press on TXDOT to do it and if they don't, the City should. Vokoun said staff would discuss it with Jerry Clark. Bissell asked what the flashing lights were on the signals. Vokoun said its "machine vision". A snapshot is taken of the roads neutral part when cars are not there. As changes occur, it takes a snapshot assuming a car and changes the signal accordingly [replaces what used to go into the pavement]. Phillips said FM 2181 is not a 60MPH road anymore. Walters asked if anyone was speaking for or against the request. No one came forward and the session closed. Cheek made a motion to accept the request. Phillips seconds the motion. Motion passed unanimously. S:\Our D ocmm ent s\Or din an ces\02kNo Right T~n LillianMiller. doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROHIBITING ANY DRIVERS FROM TURNING RIGHT ON RED FROM LILLIAN MILLER PARKWAY ONTO TEASLEY LANE AND FROM WIND RIVER LANE ONTO LILLIAN MILLER PARKWAY FROM 7:30 A.M. - 8:30 A.M. AND FROM 2:30 P.M - 3:30 P.M. ON SCHOOL DAYS; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. When signs or markings are in place giving notice thereof, no person shall mm right when facing a steady red light from 7:30 a.m~8:30 a.m. and from 2:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m. on school days upon the following street in the City of Demon: On southbound Lillian Miller Parkway at its intersection with Teasley Lane. On Wind River Lane at its intersection with Lillian Miller Parkway. SECTION 2. That all provisions of the ordinances of the City of Demon in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are herebyrepealed, and all other provisions of the ordinances of the City of Demon, not in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance, shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. That if any provision of this ordinance or application thereof to any pcson or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. SECTION 4. Any person adjudged guilty of parking a vehicle in violation of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punished by a fine not to exceed Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00). SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby direced to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Demon Record-Chronicle, the official newspaper of 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 S:\Our D ocmm ent s\Or din an ces\02hNo Right Tarn LillianMiller. doc ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Page 2 Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #12 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: July 16, 2002 Fiscal Operations, Tax Department Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT Consider approval of a tax refund for the following property tax: Name Reason A. Murray Ricks Duplicate Payment Tax Year Amount 2001 $1,638.61 BACKGROUND Chapter 31.11 of the Texas Property Tax Code requires the approval of the governing body of the taxing unit for refunds in excess of $500.00. This account falls under Chapter 31.11. FISCAL INFORMATION The total tax overpayment revenue fund would be reduced by $1,638.61. Respectfully submitted: Diana G. Ortiz Director of Fiscal Operations This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #13 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: July 16, 2002 DEPARTMENT: ACM: Airport and Transit Operations Jon Fortune, Public Safety and Transportation Operations SUBJECT Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of DeNon authorizing the City Manager to execute on behalf of the City of DeNon Amendmem No. 1 to an Airport Project Participation Agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation dated December 4, 2001 relating to the construction of improvements at the Denton Municipal Airport; and declaring an effective date. BACKGROUND On December 4, 2001 the City of DeNon approved Ordinance 2001-463 authorizing the City Manager to execute on behalf of the City of Denton an Airport Project Participation Agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation, Aviation Division (TxDOT) relating to the construction of improvements at the Denton Airport. The FY 2001 project included the following infrastructure and safety improvemems: rehabilitate and mark Runway 17/35, rehabilitate and mark hangar access taxiways, install medium imensity taxiway lights and edge reflectors, rehabilitate taxiway system, rehabilitate apron, construct helipad, upgrade Runway signage, and install security fencing at the Denton Airport. The improvements that were made to the runway and taxiway lighting infrastructure have undermined the integrity of the original system. A significant part of the system was put in place in 1964 and the Airport has experienced several failures of the lighting system since the completion of the improvements. TxDOT has agreed that the Airport lighting system should be replaced and has offered to amend the current grant agreement by the maximum of 15 percent to allow for the repair or replacemem of the faulty lighting system. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT TxDOT is requesting the City to provide an ordinance agreeing to the amendment of the original grant amount by July 26, 2002. This will allow TxDOT an opportunity to issue a notice to proceed to Carter & Burgess to begin engineering and design services within 30 days. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The City Attorney's Office has reviewed and Airport staff recommends approval of this ordinance. The Airport Advisory Board unanimously recommends approval of the amendmem. July 16, 2002 Agenda Information Sheet Page 2 FISCAL INFORMATION The original construction budget for this project was $1,958,000 of which the City of Demon provided $195,800 as the sponsor's ten-percem (10%) match. A fifteen-percem (15%) increase to the currem project will increase the agreemem by $264,330 for a total of $2,251,700. The sponsor's remaining ten-percem match for the amended gram would be $29,370. EXHIBITS Ordinance Proposed Amendment Respectfully submitted: Mark Nelson Director of Airport and Transit Operations StOw Document s\OrdLnmces\02\Txdot Atrport R~way 17 35( Axnendment 1) doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DENTON AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AN AIRPORT PROJECT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DATED DECEMBER 4, 2001 RELAT1NG TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS AT THE DENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Pursuant to Ordinance No. 2001-463 the City of Denton entered into an Airport Project Participation Agreement, dated December 4, 2002 with the Texas Department of Transportation ("TxDot") related to the construction of improvements at the Denton Municipal Airport (the "Existing Agreement"); and WHEREAS, TxDot and the City desire to enter into Amendment No. 1 to the Existing Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference ("Amendment No. 1") calling for an increase in financial assistance and City participation; NOW, THEREFORE; THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDA1NS: SECTION 1. The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to execute Amendment No. 1 on behalf of the City of Denton. SECTION 2. The City Manager or his designee is the City's authorized representative who is directed to comply with any assurances, conditions, or agreements required to be executed to receive the funds provided under Amendment No. 1, including payment of the City's share of the estimated construction costs. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2002. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EUL1NE BROCK, MAYOR APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: TO: FROM: TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AIRPORT PROJECT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (Federally Assisted Airport Development) TxDOT Project No.:AP DENTON 2 TxDOT CSJ No.: 0218DNTON TxDOT Comract No.: 2XXAV028 Amendmem No.01 to the Agreemem Part I - Identification of the Project The City of Demon, Texas The State of Texas, acting through the Texas Departmem of Transportation The City of DeNon, Texas, hereinafter referred to as the "Sponsor," and the Texas Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the "State," have entered into an Airport Project Participation Agreement TxDOT CSJ Number 0218DNTON, executed by the Sponsor on December 4, 2001, and by the State on December 11,2001, for the development of the Denton Municipal Airport, hereinafter referred to as the "Airport". The project is described as follows: construction services to rehabilitate and mark Runway 17-35; reconstruct partial parallel taxiway; rehabilitate and mark parallel and stub taxiways to Runway 17-35; rehabilitate and mark hangar access taxiways; install medium intensity taxiway lights and edge reflectors; rehabilitate apron; reconstruct apron; construct helipad; upgrade Runway signage; and install security fencing at the Denton Municipal Airport. It is in the mutual interest of the Sponsor and the State to increase the agreement by $264,330 for the inclusion of engineering and construction services to replace the runway lighting system. Part II - Offer of Financial Assistance, estimates total project costs to be $1,958,000; and financial assistance is curremly limited to $1,762,200 in federal funds and $195,800 in local sponsor funds. The following amendmem to the Airport Project Participation Agreemem shall become effective upon execution of this Amendment by the Sponsor and the State. The Airport Project Participation Agreemem is amended as follows: 1. On Part II, Item No. 2 of the Agreemem, change Amoum A, estimated total construction Page 1 of 4 costs, and any further references in the Agreement to Amount A, to $2,251,700.00. 2. On Part II, Item No. 2 of the Agreement, change Amount B, estimated construction costs eligible for federal financial assistance, and any further references in the Agreement to Amount B, to $2,251,700.00. 3. On Part II, Item 3 of the Agreement, change Amount C, the maximum obligation of the United States payable under this offer, and any further references in the Agreement to Amount C, to $2,026,530.00. 4. On Part II, Item 4 of the Agreement, change Amount D, Sponsor's share of the estimated construction costs, and any further references in the Agreement to Amount D, to $225,170.00. Page 2 of 4 All other terms and conditions of the agreemem are unchanged and remain in full force and effect. This Amendmem to the Airport Project Participation Agreemem between the City of DeNon, Texas, and the Texas Departmem of Transportation is mutually agreed to and accepted. Executed this day of ., 20 The City of DeNon, Texas Sponsor Witness Signature Sponsor Signature Witness Title Sponsor Title Page 3 of 4 Execution by the State Executed by and approved for the Texas Transportation Commission for the purpose and effect of activating and/or carrying out the orders, established policies or work programs and grants heretofore approved and authorized by the Texas Transportation Commission. STATE OF TEXAS TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By: Date: Page 4 of 4 This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #14 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET July 16, 2002 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Ed Hodney 349-8271 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT An Ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute change order number one to the contract between the City of Demon and Seneca Contracting, inc.; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2629-North Lakes Park Football and Parking Improvements Change Order One awarded to Seneca Contracting inc. in the amount of $212,673). CHANGE ORDER INFORMATION Council approved the contract for North Lakes Park Football and Parking Improvements on May 8, 2001 in the amount of $910,130.30. Change order one is a request to add a 90' X 60'concrete parking area south of the existing picnic area parking lot and to replace the asphalt parking lot with concrete and to add additional spaces at the North Lakes Park Recreation/Tennis Center. This includes 41,500 square feet of 6" concrete, 6400 square feet of 4" concrete sidewalk, 9 ADA ramps, and a decorative rock island. The total cost is $212,673. RECOMMENDATION We recommend this change order be approved and Seneca Contracting Inc. authorized to proceed. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Seneca Contracting Inc. Denton, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT This change order will not affect the scheduled completion date of summer 2002. FISCAL INFORMATION Change Order One will funded from project account 40000700.1360.40100. Agenda Information Sheet July 16, 2002 Page 2 Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Change Order/Contract Revision 1-AIS-Bid 2629 Change Order One Attachment 1 CI~A31CE ORDER / CONTRACT REVISION City of Denton, Texas Owner Distributed to: Owner/ / Contractor/ / Seneca Contracting Inc. Bid #2629 PO:LGFS #14510.J-DE#100150Change Order #2 Project:North Lakes Park Football and Parkine hnuv. Dated:6-21-02 Contractor: Seneca Contractine Co. Contract Date:5-8-01 P.O. Box 1470 Denton~ T~,,76202-1470 This Change Order/Revision makes the following chnnges in this contract. Item #1: Add; 90' x 60' foot concrete parking area south of existing Picnic area parking lot. Item ~2: Add; replace asphalt-parking lot with concrete and additional spaces per drawings at North Lakes Park Recreation/Tennis Center. The Original (Contract Sum) ............................................................. $910 130.30 ~Net Change byp_reviously authorized change orders ......................... $909,111.0~.. The (Contract s~m'}'Pri°r to this chnnge order .................................. $909,111.30 The (Contract Sum) will be 0nceased) by this cJaange order ............. $212,673.00 The New(Contract Sum) including this change order will be ........ $~1,121~784.30 The contract time will be (increased) by ............................................ __ N/A The date of substantial completion as of the date of this change order therefore is ............................................. N/A Seneca Com'racting. Inc. Contractor (as above) P.O. Box 1470 Address Denton`TX76202-1470 Signature HARRY M. LOTHRIDGE - PRESIDENT Print Name and Title JUNE 24, 2002 Date H;~Wovd ~ r,o~, Lilts sad ~mmtdSa~3~NOIc O~DIgR Ci~ of Demon. Owner 901-B Texas Street Address Demon. TX 76201 Signature Print Name and Title Date FROM : FAX HO. ;9405@20950 Jun. 20 2002 05:20PM P1 SENECA CONTRACTING CORPORATION 251~ EAST MCKINNEY Q. O. BOX 1470 DENTON~ TX 7~202-1470 TEL: (940) 5~-1147 - FAX: (~40) E-MAIL: hlothridgt~AOL, com FACSIMILE 'NOi. OF PAGES (INCLUDRqG TI~S SHEET) ~ DATE: 06/20/01 TO: CITY OF DENTON PARK & REC DEPT, ATTENTION: BOB TICKNEK FROM: HARKY LOTHRJI~E SUBTECT: CITY OF DENTON NOKTH LAKES PARKING LOT REVISED CHAN(3EORDER PROPOSAL We revise our original quo'cation per MeSa Design Cvroup drawings (dated 06/19/02) for the parking lot located south of Windsor Drive at the R~ou Centez. Notable changes iaclude c. oncurreac~ with Mesa' squar~ footage on th~ parking area to 41,500; changing the ADA ramps to (11) miaus (2) included in the $' trail for total of (9); adding the pavestone for the deoorativ¢ radius and dub-down edging zt the e~; and ad, st the concrete material only quantity to rdle~ 41,500 SI:. 6" concrete wftrttegral 6" C&G, 2" cushion sand 41,500 SF $ 3.25 = $134,875.00 Excavation, ~h 1,100 CY $ 6.00 = 6,600.00 HMAC/oon~r~t~ demo 1 LS *** = 3,000.00 '4" sidewall% 2" cushion sand 6,400 $'F $ 3.00 = 19~00.00 ADA ramps 9 EA $500.00 = 5,500.00 Striping, ILS '" = 2,~00.00 Handicap Sigas 1,315 SF $ 6.00= 7,890.0.0. Decorative Rock Island/Due~lown Cu~o (~ Entrance $30.00 Subtotal AdJustment for 6" concrete vs. original 5" (material only) (I2~ c¥ ® $6i.oo) Silt fencing, barricades, construction signs included in original bid General Conditions overall pricing 7,808.00 2,000.00 Total $189,3 73.00 If you have any 'qu.~tions, pl.ca.sc advi$~ at your ~li=.~ convmiicnc~. FROM : FAX NO. :9403820950 Jun. 25 2~02 02:10PM P2 SENECA CONTRACTING CORPORATION 2513 EAST MCKINNEY P. O. BOX 1470 DENTON~ TX ..76202-1470 TEL: (940) 565-1147 - FAX: (940) 382-0950 E~MAIL:. hlothridg~OL, com FACSIMILE NO. OF PAGES (INCLUDING THIS SI-~,ET).~__!~_.I DATE: 02/20/02 TO: CITY OF DENTON PAKK -&'KEC DEPT. ATTENTION: BOB TICKNEK FP, OM: I-IAKR.Y LOTI-IltlDGE SUBJECT: CITY OF DENTON-NORTH LAKES PICNIC PARKING LOT PROPOSAL Basis original bid Prices, we propose to construct a new concrete parldng pe~ the sketch and discussions we had ~onnevfing to the newly constructed parking area just located north of Windsor Drive as lbllows: 5" coacrete wAutegral 6" C&G, 2" cushion Sand ' 5,850 SI: $ Excavation, earth 1 LS Striping ILS Total 3.25 = $19,012.50 *** = 3,800.00 *** = 487.50 If you have any questions, please advise at your ear)iest convenience. ' Thal~, ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDER NUMBER ONE TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND SENECA CONTRACTING; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2629- NORTH LAKES PARK FOOTBALL AND PARKING IMPROVEMENTS CHANGE ORDER ONE AWARDED TO SENECA CONTRACTING INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $212,673). WHEREAS, on April 3,2001 by Ordinance No. 2001-137, the City awarded a public works contract to Seneca Contracting Inc., in the amount of $910,130.30 for the North Lakes Football and Parking Improvements; WHEREAS, the Staff having recommended, and the City Manager having recommended to the Council that a change order be authorized to amend such contract agreement with respect to the scope of work and an increase in the payment amount, and said change order fees under the proposed contract are fair and reasonable and are consistent with and not higher than the recommended practices and fees published by the professional associations applicable to the Provider's profession and such fees do not exceed the maximum provided by law; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The Change Order No. One increasing the amount of the contract between the City and Seneca Contracting Inc., which is on file in the office of the Purchasing Agent, in the amount of Two Hundred Twelve Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Three and 0/100 ($212,673) Dollars, is hereby approved and the expenditure of funds therefore is hereby authorized in accordance with said change order. The total purchase order amount increases to $1,122,803.30. SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2002 ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #15 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET July 16, 2002 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Ed Hodney 349-8271 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT An Ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute change order number one to the contract between the City of Demon and Seneca Contracting, Inc.; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2690- North Lakes Park Soccer Restroom/Concession Building Change Order One awarded to Seneca Contracting Inc. in the amount of $32,582.35). CHANGE ORDER ONE INFORMATION Council approved the contract for the construction of the North Lakes Park Soccer Restroom/Concession Building on September 4, 2001, in the amount of $339,275. Change order one is a series of additions and deletions with a total addition of $32,582.35. The change order/ contract revision (Attachmem 1) lists the seven major revisions. The new contract sum including this change order will be $371,857.35 RECOMMENDATION We recommend change order one be approved in the amount of $32,582.35 and that Seneca Contracting be authorized to proceed. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Seneca Contracting Inc. Denton, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT This change order will not affect the scheduled project completion date of summer 2002. FISCAL INFORMATION Change order one will be funded from project account 4000200.1360.40100. Agenda Information Sheet July 16, 2002 Page 2 Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Change Order/Contract Revisions 1-AIS-Bid 2690 Change Order One Bid .#2d690 __ Contra~or: Se~ueca C~. C°. ',~tract'Date:~J-0l Denton. TX 76a02-1470 This Item Item Itc~n Item Item Item Item Chan~e Order/Revision makes the followlns chanses in this contract. #1: Delete Landscaping, item #3 in bid, $26,645.20 #2: Delete Post Tension slab from bid. $3,675.20 ~3 De, IL-to F..,leouic, el ~n to li~ frrafion. $2,205.00 #4 Delete: Electrical conduit instal]a~on for lift station. $5t7.25 #5 Delete: Conduit matedah for lift station $275.00 ~: Add Sandbla~l masomy block for bufldin8 $10,300.00 #7: Add 1,910 Ex 8', 5" thick concrete sidewai~ W-xndsor Dr. $55~600.00. The Original (Contract Sm) ........................................ Net Chan~ by previo~ authorized chan~e orders .......................... $~.~..~ The (COntract Sum) pmr to this change order ................................. $339 275 00 i The (Contract:Sm) win be (Increased) by this chan~e order ......... ~Z_q82.~$ '~ The New(Contract Sm) indudin~ this change order will be ........ ~371,857.35 The contract time will be (increased) by, .............................. N/A The date of snlmtan~ completion as of the date Ofthischange order therefore is .................. , ........................N/A Seneca Contr~__ Inc.__ Contractor (as above) P.O. Box 1470 Address Denton. TX 76202-1470 Signature ~ARRY M. LOTHRIDGE - PRESIDENT Name and Title $..U~qE 2.~ ,......2002 Date 901-B Texas Street Address I~t, On TX 76201 S namr Print Nme and Title Date GROVES ELECTRICAL .SERVI CE INC. 972~84a717 F~ 972~46-214~ OR 972-4~-2263 S~YICE CE~ER 972-242-7439 ~NCE 1968 June 19, 2002 BOB TICKNER CITY OF DENTON BID #JLrN1902A SCOPE OF WORK: RUN CIRCUIT FOR LIFT STATION NORTH LAKE ,PARKS LIFT STATION GROVES ELECTRICAL SERVICES, PROPOSES TO EXTEND CONDUIT TO THE LIFT STATION, PULL THE WIKE FROM THE LIFT STATION TO THE EXISTING PANEL LOCATED BY THE PAVILION AND INSTALL BREAKER IN THE EXISTING PANEL. ENERGIZING THE CIRCUIT WILL BE .THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OTHERS. TOTAL PR[CE: $2205.00 AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE PO # ESTIMATOR, BILL GROVES FOP- ACCI~PTANC~ PL£A.qE $~GN AND RETURN ONE COPY. PAYMENTS TO BE COD OR NET 10TM PROXY MONTH WITH APPROVI~D CRED[T, 70~ ROUGH AND 30~ ON COMPLETION WHEN APPLICABLE. TAX..4~OWER CO C[4ARGF.~S, AND PERMIT FI~E ARE NOT INCLUDED UNLESS SPEC[FIF. D. PRICE IS VOIDAFTER 30 DAYS SENECA CoN~CTING CORlq)RATiON 2/~13' EAST"M~~EY' " P. o, ox. DENTON, TX 76202.1470 TEL: (~)~.~1147 - No. or PAOES 0N~~O TI-US S~ET) l_.. DATE: TO: CITY OF DENTON PAKK & l~C DEPT. ATTENTION: BOB TICKNF, K FROM: HARILY LOTHR1D(~ SUBJECT: CITY' OF D~ON ~SOR TO BO~ B~' 8' ~E T~ PKOPOS~ Center to the intersection ofltfmdsor and B°nnie'Brae alon~ thc sort& side of llfmdsor Drive as follows: 5" concrete,2' cushion sand 8' wide, (I,910L~ :Excav~n, earth ADA. Handicap ramps, 8' 24" RCP culve~t extension/low Water cxosSing Driveway e~t.r~oe (~ Rec Center 15,280 SI?. $ 3.00 = $ 45,840.00 1 LS *** = 5,000.00 3 EA S ~00.oo = 1;500.00 t LS $3,0fi0.00 = 3,06~).00 50 SF $ 4.00 = 200.00 Toal S. 55.6®. oo If you have any que,stionS, please advise at your ear{lest convenience. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDER NUMBER ONE TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND SENECA CONTRACTING, INC.; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2690- NORTH LAKES PARK SOCCER RESTROOM/CONCESSION BUILDING CHANGE ORDER ONE AWARDED TO SENECA CONTRACTING INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $32,582.35). WHEREAS, on April 3, 2001 by Ordinance No. 2001-307, the City awarded a public works contract to Seneca Contracting Inc., in the amount of $339,275 for the North Lakes Soccer Restroorn/Concession Building; WHEREAS, the Staff having recommended, and the City Manager having recommended to the Council that a change order be authorized to amend such contract agreement with respect to the scope of work and an increase in the payment amount, and said change order fees under the proposed contract are fair and reasonable and are consistent with and not higher than the recommended practices and fees published by the professional associations applicable to the Provider's profession and such fees do not exceed the maximum provided by law; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The Change Order No. One increasing the amount of the contract between the City and Seneca Contracting Inc., which is on file in the office of the Purchasing Agent, in the amount of three Hundred Thirty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Five and 0/100 ($339,275) Dollars, is hereby approved and the expenditure of funds therefore is hereby authorized in accordance with said change order. The total purchase order amount increases to $371,857.35. SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2002 ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: EULINE BROCK, MAYOR 3-ORD-Bid 2690 Change Order One This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #16 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET July 16, 2002 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Cary Tower 349-8424 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT An Ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds for the emergency purchase of a public health and safety vehicle replacement in accordance with provisions of state law exempting such purchases from the requirements of competitive bidding; and providing an effective date (Purchase Order 105580 to Prestige Ford in the amount of $29,379). PURCHASE ORDER INFORMATION See Attachment 1 for details. RECOMMENDATION We recommend that Purchase Order 105580 to Prestige Ford be approved in the amount of $29,379. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Prestige Ford Garland, Texas ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT The unit is in stock and being held until July 17, 2002, pending approval by Council. FISCAL INFORMATION This vehicle will be funded by Motor Pool account 810001.8535. Similar vehicles were purchased on Bid 2785 in the amount of $26,390 in FY 2002 as part of our fleet acquisition. No fleet discount or municipal concessions are available for "out of stock vehicles". Agenda Information Sheet July 16, 2002 Page 2 Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Declaration of Emergency Memo Attachment 2: Purchase Order 105580 1-AIS-Purchase Order 105580 Attachment 1 WATER UTILITIES ! WATER PRODUCTION DMSION 1701 B. SPENCER RD., DENTON, TEXAS 76205 (940) 349-7501 * FAX (940) 349-7506 To: Tom Shaw, Purchasing Agent Through: Howard Martin. Assistant City Manager, Utilities Jim Coulter, Director of Water Utilities, Traffic and Streets T'~F~, ,~. C. From Randy Markham, Water Production Superintendent Date: June 7, 2002 Subject: Emergency Purchase Order for the Replacement of a Vital Water Utility Electrical Staff Utility Truck. ha order to continue protecting the public's health and safety, an emergency purchase order is required to obtain a replacement vehicle for the Water Utilities Electrical staff. This vehicle is necessary to respond to electrical malfunctions on both Water Production and Water Reclamation division equipment, twenty-four hours a day - seven days a week. Without this vehicle at their disposal, vital tools would not be readily accessible to repair electrical equipment necessary for the proper treatment of drinking water and wastewater for the City of Denton. A diesel utility truck must meet two of the three replacement criteria: 1 ) Maintenance costs of at least 75% of the ofiglnal purchase price. 2) 10 Years old. 3) 150,000 miles. This vehicle was not projected to meet two of the three replacement criteria for the coming budget year. As of the beginning of calendar year 2002, this vehicle had a life- to-date maintenance cost of 61% of its original purchasc pricc and was nine years old. This vehicle has had its engine replaced once, while under warranty, and the transmission replaced once. This spring, the truck began having problems rtmning and starting, so the track was sent to Fleet Services for repairs. The malfunction was determined to be a bad fuel pump. The fuel pump was replaced, but it was faulty as well and another one was installed. While test-driving the repaired track, the mechardc said the engine locked-up. After inspecting the engine, it was determined that the track required a new engine at a cost of $9,500. "Dedicated to Quality Service" www. cityofdenton, corn Emergency Purchase Order for Water Utility Vehicle June 7, 2002 Page 2 of 2 To-date, this 1993 one-ton utility track has maintenance costs totaling $17,266 or 87% of the original purchase price. If a new engine wore installed, thc maintcnancc cost would increase to 135% of the original vehicle cost. Considering this information, it is in the city's best interest to purchase a replacement vehicle instead of repairing this one that contilmcS to bc plagued wiflx p~obl~m~. The accumulated motor pool fund for the replacement of this vehicle is $32,700. The total price of the replacement vehicle is $29,379.00. Please expedite a purchase order for $29,379.00 for the replacement of this vehicle. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Approval signature Mike Conduff, C'.itf~_~ "Dedicated to Quality Service" www. cityofdenton, corn Attachment 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROViDiNG FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE EMERGENCY PURCHASE OF A PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY VEHICLE REPLACEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BiDD1NG; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (PURCHASE ORDER 105580 TO PRESTIGE FORD IN THE AMOUNT OF $29,379). WHEREAS, state law requires that certain contracts requiring an expenditure or payment by the City in an amount exceeding $25,000 be by competitive bids, except for certain exempt purchases as set forth in Section 252.022 of the Local Government Code; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended to the City Council that it is necessary to purchase goods or services because of unforeseen damage to public machinery, equipment, or other property as more fully outlined in the file of the office of the City's Purchasing Agent, which is incorporated herein by reference and is in compliance with the requirements of Subsection 252.022 (a)(3) of the Local Government Code; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby determines that this procurement is necessary because of unforeseen damage to public machinery, equipment, or other property, and the following emergency purchases of materials, equipment, supplies or services, as described in the "Purchase Orders" referenced herein and on file the office of the Purchasing Agent, are hereby approved: PURCHASE ORDER VENDOR AMOUNT 105580 Prestige Ford $29,379 SECTION 2. Because of such emergency, the City Manager or designated employee is hereby authorized to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services as described in the attached Purchase Orders and to make payment therefore in the amounts therein stated, such emergency purchases being in accordance with the provisions of state law exempting such purchases by the City from the requirements of competitive bids. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. Page 1 PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2002. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: PO 105580 EMERGENCY PURCHASE ORDER ORDINANCE Page 2 This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #17 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET July 16, 2002 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Ross Chadwick 349-8101 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT An Ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds for the emergency purchase of a remount on a new chassis for an ambulance (FD9967) in accordance with provisions of state law exempting such purchases from the requirements of competitive bidding; and providing an effective date (Purchase Order 105701 to Jack Roach Ford in the amount of $40,000). PURCHASE ORDER INFORMATION This purchase order is for the emergency purchase of a new chassis and remounting expenses associated with repairs to a 1999 model ambulance built by Frazer Inc. To comply with the Texas Motor Vehicle Commission Code, the order for a new cab/chassis must be sent through a licensed franchise dealer. Frazer Inc. is a manufacturer of ambulance units; therefore, this order will be to Jack Roach Ford. The original equipment manufacturer is best equipped to rebuild and remount this unit, and their associated franchise dealer has a chassis in stock. Due to the need to place this unit back in service, an emergency has been declared and time does not permit competitive bidding. The purchase price for a complete new unit is over $92,500. RECOMMENDATION We recommend that Purchase Order 105701 to Jack Roach Ford be approved in the amount of $4O,OOO. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Jack Roach Ford Houston, Texas ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT The chassis is in stock and the remount can be completed within 3 weeks. FISCAL INFORMATION This vehicle will be funded by Risk Management account 860002.6550. Agenda Information Sheet July 16, 2002 Page 2 Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Declaration of Emergency Memo Attachment 2: Purchase Order 1-AIS-Purchase Order 105580 ATTACHMENT ! TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Tom Shaw, Materials Management Ross Chadwick, Fire Chief June 25, 2002 REPLACEMENT OF WRECKED AMBULANCE FD9967 - Emergency Purchase Request As you know, one of our newer Frazer ambulances (FD9967) was wrecked recently. Frazer has given us an estimate of $40,000 for the remount on a new chassis. Since all of our front line ambulances are now Frazer's, we wish to continue using Frazer's. One of our major concerns is time. We need to get a reliable ambulance back into service as soon as possible. Our reserve ambulances mechanically are not in great shape due to the fact we have not kept up with OUR replacement schedule. In addition, Fraser has one chassis available and when it's gone, they will not have another until the new models in September. They have put a hold on this chassis pending our purchase. Therefore, I am requesting your assistance in getting an emergency purchase of the $40,000 through the City Council at the soonest Council meeting. Robea Waggoner is coordinating our efforts through the City's Risk Management Department and has given us account # 860002.6550. Please give me (8101) or Joe Harris (7319) a call if you need further information. ROSS CHADWICK Fire Chief ATTA~I~ENY ~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE EMERGENCY PURCHASE OF A REMOUNT OF A NEW CHASSIS FOR AMBULANCE (FD9967) IN ACCORDANCE WiTH PROViSiONS OF STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (PURCHASE ORDER 105701 TO JACK ROACH FORD IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,000). WHEREAS, state law requires that certain contracts requiring an expenditure or payment by the City in an amount exceeding $25,000 be by competitive bids, except for certain exempt purchases as set forth in Section 252.022 of the Local Government Code; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended to the City Council that it is necessary to purchase goods or services because of unforeseen damage to public machinery, equipment, or other property as more fully outlined in the file of the office of the City's Purchasing Agent, which is incorporated herein by reference and is in compliance with the requirements of Subsection 252.022 (a)(3) of the Local Government Code; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby determines that this procurement is necessary because of unforeseen damage to public machinery, equipment, or other property, and the following emergency purchases of materials, equipment, supplies or services, as described in the "Purchase Orders" referenced herein and on file the office of the Purchasing Agent, are hereby approved: PURCHASE ORDER VENDOR AMOUNT 105701 Jack Roach Ford $40,000 SECTION 2. Because of such emergency, the City Manager or designated employee is hereby authorized to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services as described in the attached Purchase Orders and to make payment therefore in the amounts therein stated, such emergency purchases being in accordance with the provisions of state law exempting such purchases by the City from the requirements of competitive bids. SECTION 3. 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: PO 105701 EMERGENCY PURCHASE ORDER ORDINANCE Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #18 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET July 16, 2002 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Howard Martin 349-8232 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT An ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a public works contract for the construction of the Highway 380 Water and Sewer Relocation; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing for an effective date (Bid 2840 - Highway 380 Water and Sewer Relocation, awarded to Texas Utility Construction, Inc., in the amount of $1,313,483.95. BID INFORMATION This bid is for relocation of 7,550 feet of water lines, plus 6,556 feet of wastewater lines with pipe sizes varying from 6 to 18 inches. Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) is widening the stretch of Hwy 380 from Loop 288 to Elm Street. This is the first phase of the Hwy 380 widening project. To accommodate widening of the highway and meet the TXDOT criteria for utility location, the design of the utility relocation project was done in-house. Bids were received for construction of the project on June 4, 2002. Five contractors submitted bids for the project. Texas Electric Utility was the low bidder at $1,313,483.95. PRIOR ACTION/VIEW (COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS) This bid was submitted to the PUB and approved on June 17, 2002. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that this project be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, Texas Utility Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1,313,483.95. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Texas Utility Construction, Inc. Sherman, TX STAFF COST ESTIMATE Engineer's estimate for this project was $1,598,000. The bids ranged from $1,313,483.95 to $2,183,156.00. Agenda Information Sheet July 16, 2002 Page 2 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT The Notice to Proceed will be issued on or about August 1, 2002, and the estimated completion date is 180 days from Notice to Proceed. FISCAL INFORMATION This agreement will be funded from Water account 63001400.1360.40100 in the amount of $837,997; and Wastewater account 64004200.1360.40100 in the amount of $475,972. Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet 1-AIS-2840 Highway 380 Water & Sewer Relocation I-- Z ILl Z 0 LI,.I 0 CO O0 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HIGHWAY 380 WATER AND SEWER RELOCATION; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2840-HWY 380 WATER AND SEWER RELOCATION AWARDED TO TEXAS UTILITY CONSTRUCTION, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,313,483.95). 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 2840 Texas Utility Construction, Inc. $1,313,483.95 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 2840 Hxvy 380 Water and Sexver Relocation This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #19 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET July 16, 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 sealed proposals and awarding a public works contract for the construction of Spencer Switch Station Site Work; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2866-Spencer Switch Site Work awarded to Can- Fer Construction Company in the not to exceed amount of $219,000). BID INFORMATION This bid is for the completion of site work construction for the Spencer Switch Sub Station. The bid includes site grading and compactions, foundation construction, installation of station ground grid, and installation of gravel for the finished station surface. Construction of the Spencer Switch Station was included as a project in the FY02 Budget and CIP. Material and equipment purchases for this station were previously approved by the PUB and City Council. Completion of the site related work for the station is the next step in the construction process. The new station will be located along Spencer Road immediately west of the existing Spencer Generating Plant step-up station on land owned by the City of Denton. Construction of the Spencer Switch Station must be completed to support connection of the Woodrow Substation and to reconfigure the bus for the Spencer Generating Station to allow independent operation of the PGFE and DME facilities. When completed, the Spencer Switch will allow DME to power the 69kV transmission system directly from either the TMPA 138kV to 69kV transformer (Spencer Interchange), from the Spencer Generating Station, or from both. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS The Public Utility Board considered this bid and recommended approval on July 1, 2002. RECOMMENDATION We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, Can-Fer Construction Company in the amount of $219,000. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Can-Fer Construction Co. Dallas, Texas Agenda Information sheet July 16, 2002 Page 2 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT Construction is scheduled to be completed on or before October 1, 2002. FISCAL INFORMATION This project will be funded from Bond fund account 60006700.1360.3530. Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet ATTACHMENT 1 Spencer Switch StationSite Work, Foundations, Ground Grid, Conduit System, and Fence Bid Number 2866 June 27, 2002 Can-Fer Construction Seneca Contracting Bidders ==> Company Corporation Dallas, TX Denton, TX Detailed Cost Information: Site Work $25,000.00 $27,000.00 Retaining Wall $3,000.00 $12,000.00 Gravel $21,410.00 $20,000.00 Foundations $128,500.00 $100,000.00 Ground Grid $16,090.00 $45,000.00 Conduit System $15,000.00 $12,000.00 Fence $10,000.00 $16,000.00 Total Package Cost $219,000.00 $232,000.00 Less Local Contractor Preference I N/A I -$6,960.00 Final Evaluated Bid Price I $219,000.00 I $225,040.00 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SPENCER SWITCH SITE WORK; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2866-SPENCER SWITCH SITE WORK AWARDED TO CAN-FER CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $219,000). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the construction of public works or improvements in accordance with the procedures of STATE law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has received and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the construction of the public works or improvements described in the bid invitation, bid proposals and plans and specifications therein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the following competitive bids for the construction of public works or improvements, as described in the "Bid Invitations", "Bid Proposals" or plans and specifications on file in the Office of the City's Purchasing Agent filed according to the bid number assigned hereto, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids: BID NUMBER CONTRACTOR AMOUNT Can-Fer Construction Company 2866 $219,000 SECTION 2. That the acceptance and approval of the above competitive bids shall not constitute a contract between the City and the person submitting the bid for construction of such public works or improvements herein accepted and approved, until such person shall comply with all requirements specified in the Notice to Bidders including the timely execution of a written contract and furnishing of performance and payment bonds, and insurance certificate after notification of the award of the bid. SECTION 3. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute all necessary written contracts for the performance of the construction of the public works or improvements in accordance with the bids accepted and approved herein, provided that such contracts are made in accordance with the Notice to Bidders and Bid Proposals, and documents relating thereto specifying the terms, conditions, plans and specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained therein. SECTION 4. That upon acceptance and approval of the above competitive bids and the execution of contracts for the public works and improvements as authorized herein, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds in the manner and in the amount as specified in such approved bids and authorized contracts executed pursuant thereto. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of .,2002 EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 3-ORD- BID 2866 Spencer Sxvitch Station Site Work This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #20 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET July 16, 2002 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Eva Poole 349-7735 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of DeNon authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute an agreemem on behalf of the City of DeNon to purchase a Public Library Data Management System from Innovative Interfaces Inc., a Qualified Information Services Vendor (QiSV) of the State of Texas; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Purchase Order 105714 awarded to innovative interfaces, inc. in the amount of $220,576). PURCHASE ORDER INFORMATION The currem City of DeNon Public Library Data Managemem System is eight years old, and is due for replacemem in order to keep pace with the growth needs of the Library operations. The current system resides on older server hardware, in a proprietary format that does not afford the Library the flexibility needed to effectively support increased operations, larger invemory, and expanded patron base. Over the last 18 months, a committee comprised of Library and Technology Services staff has reviewed systems from five differem vendors, including site visits to three installations, in pursuit of the best system to meet the needs of the Library. The Millennium Package from Innovative Interfaces Inc., was unanimously chosen by the committee as the most effective solution. This new system will enable improved service delivery to the patrons through improved web-based access to bibliographic records, patron information, and library resources, it will also improve staff efficiency through improved access to software functionality, and reporting capabilities. Innovative imerfaces inc., is the Qualified Information Service Vendor (QiSV) for the State of Texas for the Millennium Public Library Data Management System. RECOMMENDATION We recommend Purchase Order 105714 to Innovative Interfaces Inc. to be approved in the amount of $220,576. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Innovative Interfaces Inc. Emeryville, CA Agenda Information Sheet July 16, 2002 Page 2 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT Reference Purchase Agreement Appendix "C" - Project Implementation Plan FISCAL INFORMATION The acquisition of the Public Library Data Management System will be funded through the Technology Plan Bond Fund 83001300. Respectfully submitted: Attachment 1: Purchase Order 105714 Attachment 2: Purchase Agreement 1-AIS-Library Data Management Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment t ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DENTON TO PURCHASE A PUBLIC LIBRARY DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FROM INNOVATIVE INTERFACES iNC., A QUALIFIED INFORMATION SERVICES VENDOR (QiSV) OF THE STATE OF TEXAS; PROViDiNG FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (PURCHASE ORDER 105714 AWARDED TO iNNOVATiVE INTERFACES iNC., iN THE AMOUNT OF $220,576). WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton has heretofore adopted Resolution 92- 019 pursuant to Section 2157.067 of the Texas Government Code and Sections 271.082 and 271.083 of the Texas Local Government Code which authorizes the City to participate in the State Purchasing General Services Commission's Qualified information Service Vendor Catalogue Purchase Method provided for in Subchapter B of Chapter 2157 of the Texas Government Code (the "QiSV Catalogue"); and WHEREAS, the herein described vendor is a qualified vendor in the QISV Catalogue and the contract authorized by this ordinance is in the best interests of the City and complies with the requirements of Subchapter B of Chapter 2157 of the Texas Government Code as a QiSV Catalogue purchase; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The numbered items in the following numbered purchase order for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Purchase Orders" listed hereon, and on file in the office of the Purchasing Agent, are hereby approved: PURCHASE ORDER VENDOR AMOUNT 105714 Innovative Interfaces inc. $220,576 SECTION 2. By the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items set forth in the attached purchase orders, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids to the General Services Commission for such items and agrees to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities and for the specified sums contained in the bid documents and related documents filed with the General Services Commission, and the purchase orders issued by the City. SECTION 3. Should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items set forth in the attached purchase orders wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the City's ratification of bids awarded by the General Services Commission, 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 and standards contained in the Proposal submitted to the General Services Commission, quantities and specified sums contained in the City's purchase orders, and related documents herein approved and accepted. SECTION 4. By the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items set forth in the subject purchase orders, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount and in accordance with the approved purchase orders or pursuant to a written contract made pursuant thereto as authorized herein. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of ., 2002. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR 'SOFTWARE LICENSING, HARDWARE PROCUREMENT, INSTALLATION, TRAINING AND MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC LIBRARY DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DENTON § THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the day of July, 2002, by and between the City of Denton, Texas, a Texas municipal corporation, with its principal office at 215 East McKinney Street, Denton, Denton County, Texas 76201, hereinafter called "CITY", for thc Denton Public Library, and Innovative Interfaces, Inc., a California corporation, with its corporate office at 5850 Shellmound Way, Emeryville, CA 94608, hereinafter called "INNOVATIVE," acting herein, by and through their duly authorized representatives. WITNESSETH, that in consideration of the covenants and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS A. Software. The term "Software" or "MILLENNIUM" shall mean the computer program in object code only and any user manuals. The term "Software" includes any correction bug fixes, enhancements, updates or other modifications, including custom modifications, to such computer program and user manuals. B. System. The term "System" shall mean all hardware and software provided to CITY by INNOVATIVE under the terms of this Agreement. C. "Agreement", "this Agreement", "herein", "hereunder" and similar expressions refer to this Agreement and the Appendices annexed hereto and referred to herein, all as amended fi:om time to time, and the expression "Section" followed by a number means and refers to the specified section of this Agreement. "Installation Site" or "Site" means the room or rooms where the System is to be installed. "Purchase Price" means the dollar amount set out in Appendix B, plus all applicable taxes. F. "Free Maintenance Period" means the period one (1) year after the first day of Initial Training (OPAC, Systems administration, evaluation). Innovative Interfaces In¢ and 7/02/2002 Denton Public Library 2 ARTICLE Ii EMPLOYMENT OF INNOVATIVE CITY hereby contracts with INNOVATIVE, as an independent contractor, and INNOVATIVE hereby agrees to perform the services herein in connection with the Project as stated in the sections to follow, with diligence and in accordance with the highest professional standards customarily obtained for such services in the State of Texas. The professional services set out herein are in connection with the following described project. The Project shall include, without limitation, INNOVATIVE's Software and Hardware; the system design and component selection; sale, assembly and installation thereof; training and maintenance of a public library data management system as further described herein. All services, Hardware and Software provided under the terms of this Agreement are to conform in every respect to Article IH. ARTICLE III SCOPE OF SERVICES INNOVATIVE shall perform the following services in a professional manner: A. INNOVATIVE shall perform all those services as necessary and as described in the following scope of services: 1. Systems implementation INNOVATIVE will provide a complete public library data management system, to include Hardware, Software and materials, assistance in testing, training and warranty thereof. The System shall be designed such that a CITY employee receiving training provided by INNOVATIVE would be able to easily operate the System to perform all intended functions in a manner, which maximizes efficiency and ease of use. 2. Scope of Work: Services anticipated as necessary to accomplish the intent of this Agreement are specified in the price quote attached as Appendix A. A. INNOVATIVE shall perform ali those services as set forth in Appendix A. B. If there is any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the Appendices attached to this Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Agreement will control over the terms and conditions of the attached Appendices or task orders. C. INNOVATIVE shall retain ownership of the Software and all modifications thereto, including new development. Each licensed Software product, and all reproductions, corrections, modifications, enhancements and improvements thereof, provided by INNOVATIVE to the CITY, are the exclusive and proprietary property of INNOVATIVE. Title and full ownership rights in all licensed Software products and all reproductions, corrections, modifications, enhancements and improvements, and all related patent rights, copyrights, trade secrets, trademarks, service marks, related goodwill and INNOVATIVE'S intellectual property are reserved to and shall remain proprietary to INNOVATIVE. The CITY shall not remove or destroy any copyright, trade secret, proprietary or confidential legends or markings placed upon or contained or embedded within any licensed Sofb, vare products and related materials. Innovative Interfaces Inc and Denton Public Library 7/02/2002 3 ARTICLE IV PERIOD OF SERVICE This Agreement shall become effective upon execution of this Agreement by the CITY and INNOVATIVE, and upon issue of a notice to proceed by the CITY, and shall remain in force for the period which may reasonably be required for the completion of the Project, including Additional Services, if any, and any required extensions approved by the CITY. This Agreement may be sooner terminated in accordance with the provisions hereof. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. INNOVATIVE shall make all reasonable efforts to complete the services set forth herein as expeditiously as possible and to meet the schedule established by Appendix C. ARTICLE V COMPENSATION COMPENSATION TERMS: BILLING AND PAYMENT: For and in consideration of the professional services to be performed by INNOVATIVE herein, the CITY agrees to pay, based on the costs set out in INNOVATIVE's proposal, attached and incorporated as Appendix A. Total costs, excluding maintenance and taxes, shall not exceed $220,s%.oo, as set out in Appendix B. Partial payments to INNOVATIVE will be made on the basis of detailed statements rendered to and approved by the CITY through its City Manager or his designate; however, under no circumstances shall any statement for services exceed the value of the work performed at the time a statement is rendered. The CITY may withhold the final ten percent (10%) of the contract amount until completion of the Project, which acceptance will take place within 180 days from initial installation or live Circulation, whichever is earlier. Nothing contained in this Article shall require the CITY to pay for any work which is unsatisfactory, as reasonably determined by the City Manager or his designate, or which is not submitted in compliance with the terms of this Agreement. The CITY shall not be required to make any payments to INNOVATIVE when INNOVATIVE is in default under this Agreement, however the CITY will be liable to pay amounts up to the amount of products and services akeady rendered before default. It is specifically understood and agreed that INNOVATIVE shalt not be authorized to undertake any work pursuant to this Agreement which would require additional payments by the CITY for any charge, expense, or reimbursement above the maximum "not to exceed" fee as stated, without first having obtained written authorization from the CITY. INNOVATIVE shall not proceed to perform the services listed below in Subparagraph B as "Additional Services," without obtaining prior written authorization from the CITY. B. ADDITIONAL SERVICES: For additional services authorized in writing by CITY, INNOVATIVE shall be paid based on the charges at an hourly rates shown below. Payments for additional maintenance services shall be due and payable upon submission by INNOVATIVE. Statements for additional services shall not be subhaitted more frequently than monthly. Innovative Interfaces Inc and 7/02/2002 Denton Public Library 4 1. Labor rate quotations for basic and conditional additional services are based on standard working hours, Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm. Overtime charges are assessed as applicable. INNOVATIVE's labor rates will be invoiced within the following range: $180 per hour two hour minimum ARTICLE VII LICENSE A. Grant of License. INNOVATIVE grants the CITY (or, in the case of software created by third parties, transfers to CITY) pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, a non-transferable, nonexctusive license to a single copy of all Sofb;vare set out in Appendix A, to use in conjunction with the Hardware. ARTICLE VIII TESTING AND ACCEPTANCE A. At its sole option, CITY may elect to subject the System to a series of unit, System and final acceptance testing by CITY personnel prior to acceptance of the System. CITY shall be allowed a minimum thirty (30) day period for acceptance testing. Such acceptance tests shall be conducted in situ upon installation in order to determine whether System performs according to the functions, specifications and descriptions set forth in the proposal and Contract documents. Additionally, such testing may be conducted to ensure that: 1. system can be effectively utilized in CITY's library automation environment; 2. the various components of the System operate as specified, and meet all fimctional requirements specified in Appendix D; 3. the System will be capable of functioning without any major impact on the current operating environment; 4. the System is capable of running with a variety of library data without failure; and 5. the System meets the nmtimes required under industry standards, with runtimes of at least 98%. B. CITY's Rights Upon Termination After Failure of Warranty Process. Upon CITY's termination of this Agreement after failure of the acceptance tests, CITY shall promptly remm SotBvare and Hardware to INNOVATIVE and shall have the right to receive prompt reimbursement of all payments made to INNOVATIVE under this Agreement, within 180 days of initial installation. C. INNOVATIVE shall be responsible for all arrangements for the shipment of Equipment to the CITY, and movement of the Equipment from the protective storage area to the prepared computer site within the library. INNOVATIVE shall also be responsible for removal of all debris and packing materials from the CITY site resulting from the installation of the Equipment or the Software. Innovative Interfaces lnc and 7/02/2002 Denton Public Library 5 D. INNOVATIVE shall provide to the CITY in a timely manner the information necessary to enable the CITY to prepare the Installation Site for the Equipment in accordance with the instructions of INNOVATIVE. The CITY shall at its sole expense prior to the date agreed upon for hardware installation provide all necessary installations and the like which shall be required for proper functioning of the System. The City wiI1 further ensure that, prior to the acceptance dates set out in Appendix C, access to the System in any form will be restricted to persons involved in the implementation of the System. The CITY shall complete site preparation prior to the date of installation of the Hardware, and the site shall thereafter be available for inspection and approval. E. All costs and expenses related to the site preparation shall be at the sole expense of the CITY. F. Prior to the acceptance dates set out in Appendix C, INNOVATIVE shall have first priority of access to and use of the System for purposes of diagnosis. G. The CITY shall not use the Sofhvare for any purpose, except testing, prior to the System acceptance date. At the first use of the System for any purpose other than testing, such as general cimulation, the System shall be deemed by the CITY to be accepted in full. H. The testing by the CITY shall continue for a period not to exceed 180 days from date of initial installation. Unless the CITY provides INNOVATIVE, in writing, with any claim that the System does not meet performance specifications on or before expiration of said 180 days, it will be conclusively presumed that the System has met all performance specifications. I. INNOVATIVE will provide to the CITY, its representatives and consultants, such documentation and assistance as may reasonably be required by the CITY in connection with the aforesaid acceptance tests. ARTICLE IX TRAINING INNOVATIVE will provide staff for complete on-site training of library personnel as set out in Appendix A. ARTICLE X WARRANTIES A. Warranty of Title. INNOVATIVE warrants that it holds title and/or copyright to all Software and its associated MODULES licensed and delivered pursuant to this Agreement, or in the event that any licenses to the Software are held by a third party, that a license sufficient to secure CITY's expected use of the Software will be transferred to CITY. B. Application Software Warranty. INNOVATIVE warrants that its Software will perform free of defects that would prevent the System from operating in the manner described in the Contract documents and any other related user documentation for the version installed. This Warranty shall commence upon date of acceptance by CITY of the System. C. System Function Warranty. INNOVATIVE further warrants that the installed system will perform all functions listed within the Functional Requirements attached as Appendix D, in a manner Innovative Interfaces Inc and 7/02/2002 Denton Public Library 6 which maximizes efficiency and ease of use to persons using the system. This Warranty shall commence upon date of acceptance by CITY of the System. D. Date Calculation Warranty. INNOVATIVE warrants that each Hardware, Software, and firmware product delivered under this Agreement shall, as a system, be able to accurately process date data (including, but not limited to, calculating, comparing, and sequencing) from, into, and between the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, including leap year calculations, when used in accordance with the product documentation provided by INNOVATIVE, provided that all other interfaces (e.g., hardware, software, firmware) used in combination with such product properly exchange date data with it. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, the remedies available to CITY under this warranty shall include repair or replacement of any INNOVATIVE-supplied product whose non-compliance is discovered and made known to INNOVATIVE in writing. Nothing in this warranty shall be construed to limit any rights or remedies CITY may otherwise have under the Agreement with respect to defects other than Year 2000 performance. E If without the approval of INNOVATIVE, the CITY shall: (i) exceed the System specifications as set forth in this Agreement; or (ii) utilize the System for a purpose which is unrelated to MILLENNIUM applications; or (iii) make modifications to the System or additions which will have an adverse impact on the System specifications as set forth in Appendix A, then INNOVATIVE shall be relieved from any responsibility for a breach of warranty under this Agreement for any failures and any other unmet performance guarantees set forth in this agreement which results as a consequence of such actions. F INNOVATIVE expressly warrants this System for library related applications as specifically set forth in this Agreement, with a warranty of merchantability for this particular purpose. No other purpose which extends beyond the warranties as set forth herein are warranted or guaranteed. G If degradation in System performance occurs because the CITY connects to the System equipment in violation of this agreement, then INNOVATIVE is thereby relieved from any responsibilities from a breach of warranty as may be set forth in this Agreement, until such time as the non-compliant condition is remedied. ARTICLE XI OBSERVATION AND REVIEW OF THE WORK INNOVATIVE shall exercise reasonable care and due diligence in discovering and promptly reporting to the CITY any defects or deficiencies in the work of INNOVATIVE or any subcontractors or subconsultants. ARTICLE XII DOCUMENTS Innovative Interfaces Ine and Denton Public Library 7/02/2002 7 The documents prepared and furnished by INNOVATIVE are intended only to be applicable to this Project and shall remain confidential at all times. ARTICLE XIII INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR INNOVATIVE covenants and agrees that it is an independent contractor and not an officer, agent, servant or employee of CITY; that INNOVATIVE shall have exclusive control of and exclusive fight to control the details of the work performed hereunder and all persons performing same, and shall be responsible for the acts and omissions of its officers, agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors and consultants; that the doctrine of respondent superior shall not apply as between CITY and INNOVATIVE, its officers, agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors and consultants, and nothing herein shall be construed as creating a partnership or joint enterprise between CITY and INNOVATIVE. ARTICLE XIV INDEMNITY AGREEMENT INNOVATIVE shall indemnify and save and hold harmless CITY and its officers, agents, and employees fi:om and against any and all liability, claims, demands, damages, losses, and expenses, including, but not limited to court costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred by CITY, and including, without limitation, damages for bodily and personal injury, death and property damage, resulting from the negligent acts or omissions of INNOVATIVE or its officers, shareholders, agents, or employees in the execution, operation, or performance of this Agreement.(proposed change unacceptable) INNOVATIVE shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY from and against any claims, including reasonable legal fees and expenses, based upon infringement of any United States copyright trademark or patent by the Software or any other System component. CITY agrees to notify INNOVATIVE of any such claim promptly in writing. CITY agrees to cooperate fully with INNOVATIVE during such proceedings. INNOVATIVE shall defend and settle at its sole expense all proceedings arising out of the foregoing, and shall reimburse within thirty (30) days of submittal by CITY any attorney fees paid by CITY in defending against such claims. In the event of such infringement, INNOVATIVE may replace, in whole or in part, Sofb~vare or any other System component with a substantially compatible and functionally equivalent product, or modify the Software or System component to avoid the infi'ingement. 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 parties' 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 XV INSURANCE During the performance of the services under this Agreement, INNOVATIVE shall maintain the following insurance with an insurance company licensed to do business in the State of Texas by the State Insurance Commission or any successor agency that has a rating with Best Rate Carriers of at least an A- or above: Innovative Interfaces In¢ and Demon Public Library 7/02/2002 8 A. Comprehensive General Liability Insurance with bodily injury limits of not less than $500,000 for each occurrence and not less than $500,000 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. B. Automobile Liability Insurance with bodily injury limits of not less than $500,000 for each person and not less than $500,000 for each accident, and with property damage limits of not less than $100,000 for each accident. C. Worker's Compensation Insurance in accordance with statutory requirements, and Employers' Liability Insurance with limits of not tess than $100,000 for each accident. D. INNOVATIVE shall fumish insurance certificates or insurance policies at the CITY's request to evidence such coverages. The insurance policies shall name the CITY as an additional insured on all such policies,-and shall contain a provision that such insurance shall not be canceled or modified without thirty (30) days prior written notice to CITY and INNOVATIVE. In such event, INNOVATIVE shall, prior to the effective date of the change or cancellation, serve substitute policies furnishing the same coverage. E. INNOVATIVE shall furnish insurance certificates or insurance policies at the CITY's request to evidence such coverages. The insurance policies and shall contain a provision that such insurance shall not be canceled or modified without thirty (30) days prior written notice to CITY and INNOVATIVE. In such event, INNOVATIVE shall, prior to the effective date of the change or cancellation, serve substitute policies furnishing the same coverage. F. INNOVATIVE hereby waives subrogation rights for loss or damage to the extent same are covered by insurance. Insurers shall have no right of recovery or subrogation against CITY, it being the intention that the insurance policies shall protect all parties to the Agreement and be primary coverage for all losses covered by the policies; G. Companies issuing the insurance policies and INNOVATIVE shall have no recourse against CITY for payment of any premiums or assessments for any deductible, as all such premiums and deductibles are the sole responsibility and risk of INNOVATIVE. H. Approval, disapproval or failure to act by CITY regarding any insurance supplied by INNOVATIVE (or any subcontractors) shall not relieve INNOVATIVE of full responsibility or liability for damages and accidents as set forth in the Contract documents. Neither shall the insolvency or denial of liability by the insurance company exonerate INNOVATIVE from liability. ARTICLE XVI 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. Innovativc Intc~'faccs Inc and Denton Public Library 7/02/2002 9 ARTICLE XVII TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, either party may terminate by giving sixty (60) days advance written notice to the other party. INNOVATIVE and CITY herein recognize that the continuation of this Agreement aRer the close of any given fiscal year of CITY, which fiscal year ends on September 30th of each year, shall be subject to Denton City Council approval and availability of funds. B This Agreement may 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 wilt be effective unless the other party is given (1) written notice (delivered by certified mail, remm receipt requested) of intent to terminate and setting forth the reasons specifying the non-performance, 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. C If the Agreement is terminated prior to completion of the services to be provided hereunder, INNOVATIVE shall immediately cease all services and shall render a final bill for services to the CITY within thirty (30) days after the date of termination, CITY shall pay INNOVATIVE for all services properly rendered and satisfactorily performed and for reimbursable expenses to termination incurred prior to the date of termination. Should the CITY subsequently contract with a new contractor for the continuation of services on the Project, INNOVATIVE shall cooperate in providing information. INNOVATIVE shall return CITY supplied data loaded onto the System pursuant to this Agreement to the CITY on or before the date of termination. D. If, prior to payment by the CITY of the Purchase Price in full, the CITY defaults in payment of any sum due hereunder or otherwise fails to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement beyond 60 days after receipt by the CITY of written notice from INNOVATIVE of such default, then INNOVATIVE shall have the immediate right to terminate this Agreement and revoke the so~vare license by notice to. the CITY and to enter upon the CITY's premises to repossess and remove any Equipment which is not fully paid for by the CITY. The CITY's obligation to pay all charges which shall have accrued shall survive any such termination of this Agreement by INNOVATIVE and such taking of possession shall be without waiver of any other remedies INNOVATIVE may have at law or in equity. In addition, the CITY shall be responsible for reasonable costs of removal of the System, including but not limited to transportation and labor charges. E. If INNOVATIVE does not fulfill its obligations to (i) deliver, install and test the Equipment in accordance with the dates specified in Appendix C, or (ii) If INNOVATIVE is in default in respect of any covenant, representation, warranty and/or agreement provided herein, or (iii) If any proceeding in receivership, liquidation or insolvency is commenced against INNOVATIVE or its property, and the same be not dismissed within 30 days, or Innovative Interfaces Inc and Denton Public Library 7/02/2002 10 (iv) If INNOVATIVE makes any assignment for the benefit of its creditors, becomes insolvent, ceases to do business as a going concem, or seeks any arrangement or compromise with its creditors under any statute or otherwise, then the same shall constitute an event of default by INNOVATIVE hereunder, and upon the happening of any of the aforesaid events, the CITY may upon 60 days notice to INNOVATIVE specifying INNOVATIVE' default terminate this Agreement and such termination shall be without prejudice to any right the CITY may have to damages at law or in equity; provided that if INNOVATIVE or any of its Sureties, Guarantors or Indemnitors remedies such default within the said 60 days period, this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. ARTICLE XVIII RESPONSIBILITY FOR CLAIMS AND LIABILITIES Approval by the CITY shall not constitute, nor be deemed a release of the responsibility and liability of INNOVATIVE, its employees, associates, agents, subcontractors, and subconsultants for the accuracy and competency of their designs or other work; nor shall such approval be deemed to be an assumption of such responsibility by the CITY for any defect in the design or other work prepared by INNOVATIVE, its employees, subcontractors, agents, and consultants. ARTICLE XIX NOTICES All notices, communications, and reports required or permitted under this Agreement shall be personally delivered or mailed to the respective parties by depositing same in the United States mail to the address shown below, certified mail, remm receipt requested, unless otherwise specified herein. Mailed notices shall be deemed communicated as of three (3) days after mailing: To INNOVATIVE: To CITY: President and CEO Innovative Interfaces Inc. 5850 Shellmound Way Emeryville, CA 94608 City of Denton City Manager 215 East McKinney Denton, Texas 76201 All notices shall be deemed effective upon receipt by the party to whom such notice is given, or within three (3) days after mailing. ARTICLE XX ENTIRE AGREEMENT Entire Agreement. This Agreement embodies the complete agreement of the parties hereto and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous offers, promises, representations, negotiations, discussions, comanunications, and agreements which may have been made in connection with the subject matter hereof and, except as otherwise provided herein, cannot be modified without written agreement of the parties. This Agreement supersedes all shrink-wrap and "click to accept" provisions otherwise provided by INNOVATIVE. Innovative Interfaces In¢ and Denton Public Library 7/02/2002 11 Ao ARTICLE XXI SEVERABILITY 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 replace such stricken provision with a valid and enforceable provision which comes as close as possible to expressing the intention of the stricken provision. ARTICLE XXII COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS INNOVATIVE shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, roles, regulations, and ordinances applicable to the work covered hereunder as they may now read or hereinafter be amended. ARTICLE XXHi DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED In performing the services required hereunder, INNOVATIVE shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry, age, or disability. ARTICLE XIV PERSONNEL INNOVATIVE 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, or have any contractual relations with the CITY. INNOVATIVE shall inform the CITY of any conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest that may arise during the term of this Agreement. All services required hereunder will be performed by INNOVATIVE or under its supervision. All personnel engaged in work shall be qualified, and shall be authorized and permitted under state and local laws to perform such services. ARTICLE XXV ASSIGNABILITY Neither party shall not assign or otherwise transfer any right or interest in this Agreement, in the System, or any of components of the System, in whole or in part, to anyone, including any parent, subsidiaries, affiliated entities or third parties, or as part of the sale of any portion of its business, or pursuant to any merger, consolidation or reorganization, including by operation of law, without the other party's prior written consent. ARTICLE XVI MODIFICATION Innovative Interfaces Inc and Denton Public Library 7~02/2002 12 No waiver or modification of this Agreement or of any covenant, condition, or limitation herein contained shall be valid unless in writing and duly executed by the party to be charged therewith, and no evidence of any waiver or modification shall be offered or received in evidence in any proceeding arising between the parties hereto out of or affecting this Agreement, or the rights or obligations of the parties hereunder, and unless such waiver or modification is in writing and duly executed; and the parties further agree that the provisions of this section will not be waived unless as set forth herein. ARTICLE XVII CONFIDENTIALITY CITY gives notice that it is bound by the statutory requirements of the Texas Public Information Act (Tex. Gov't Code §551.001, et seq. as same may be amended from time to time, hereinatter referred to as the PLA). In the event that any third party requests any records or materials with INNOVATIVE has clearly labeled as confidential or a trade secret, CITY will notify INNOVATIVE of such request at the address set forth in Article XIX of this Agreement, as contemplated by §552.305 of the PLA (or its successor provision), and it shall thereafter be the responsibility of INNOVATIVE to use whatever legal means it deems necessary or appropriate, at its sole burden and expense, to protect such records and materials from release. To the extent that the PtA does not govern any such requested release, CITY agrees not to make available or to distribute any such items so labeled to any third person, in any from whatsoever, without prior written approval from INNOVATIVE. ARTICLE XVIII MISCELLANEOUS The following Appendices are attached to and made a part of this Agreement: Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Price Quote and Scope of Services Payment Schedule Project Implementation Plan Functional Requirements Escrow Agreement Maintenance Agreement B. INNOVATIVE agrees that CITY shall, until the expiration of three (3) years after the final payment under tiffs Agreement, have access to and the right to examine any directly pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of INNOVATIVE involving transactions relating to this Agreement. INNOVATIVE agrees that CITY shall have access during normal working hours to all necessary INNOVATIVE facilities and shall be provided adequate and appropriate working space in order to conduct audits in compliance with this section. CITY shall give INNOVATIVE reasonable advance notice of intended audits. C. Governing Law. This Agreement is entered into subject to the Denton City Charter and ordinances of CITY, as they may be amended from time to time, and is subject to and is to be construed, governed and enforced under all applicable State of Texas and federal laws. If legal action is necessary to enforce this Agreement, venue shall lie exclusively in the courts of Denton County, Texas. Innovative Interfaces lnc and Denton Public Library 7/02/2002 13 D. For the purpose of this Agreement, the key persons who will perform most of the work hereunder shall be members of the ISD Department. However, nothing herein shall limit INNOVATIVE from using other qualified and competent members of its firm to perform the services required herein. E. INNOVATIVE shall commence, carry on, and complete any and all projects with all applicable dispatch, in a sound, economical, and efficient manner and in accordance with the provisions hereof. In accomplishing the projects, INNOVATIVE shall take such steps as are appropriate to ensure that the work involved is properly coordinated with related work being carded on by the CITY. F. The CITY shall assist INNOVATIVE by placing at INNOVATIVE's disposal all available information pertinent to the Project, including previous reports, any other data relative to the Project, and arranging for the access thereto, and make all provisions for INNOVATIVE to enter in or upon public and private property as required for INNOVATIVE to perform services under this Agreement. 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. H. Force Majeure. Neither party shall be in default or otherwise liable for any delay in or failure of its performance under this Agreement if such delay or failure arises by any reason beyond its reasonable control, including any act of God, any acts of the common enemy, the elements, earthquakes, floods, fires, epidemics, riots or failures or delay in transportation or communications. The parties will promptly inform and consult with each other as to any of the above causes, which in their judgment may or could be the cause of a delay in the performance of this Agreement. I. Remedies. No fight or remedy granted herein or reserved to the parties is exclusive of any right or remedy herein by law or equity provided or permitted; but each shall be cumulative or every right or remedy given hereunder. No covenant or condition of this Agreement may be waived without consent of the parties. Forbearance or indulgence by either party shall not constitute a waiver of any covenant or condition to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. J. Read and Understood. Each party acknowledges that it has read and understands this Agreement and agrees to be bound by its terms. K. Construction of Agreement. Both parties have participated fully in the review and revision of this Agreement. Any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply to the interpretation of this Agreement. L. The CITY will supply INNOVATIVE with a tax exemption number with respect to the acquisition by it of the System or any part thereof. If the CITY becomes non-exempt at any time and such taxes become applicable, the CITY agrees to indemnify INNOVATIVE with respect to any liability or expense incurred by INNOVATIVE in respect thereof. M. The CITY may without notice to INNOVATIVE, at its option, connect to the System purchased under this Agreement any equipment manufactured or supplied by others including, but not limited to, peripheral equipment, other computers, communications equipment, terminal devices, and the like, provided there is a standard, industry-established Ethernet, Serial, IEEE1394 or RS232 interface Innovative Interfaces lnc and Denton Public Library 7/02/2002 14 available. INNOVATIVE shall promptly disclose, subject to confidentiality, trade secret, non- competition agreements, upon request to the CITY the technical specifications for any given interface point on the System. The CITY shall accurately and fully advise INNOVATIVE, in writing, at least 30 days before it intends to connect a new class of hardware or hardware that will be directly connected to the CPU, and INNOVATIVE shall have the right to inspect at its own cost the specifications and installation of any such new equipment. In the event that INNOVATIVE is required to perform maintenance services on the System because of damage to the System resulting from the attachment of such equipment, such service shall be billed to the CITY at the standard hourly maintenance rates as set forth in Article V.B, above. IN WITNESS HEREOF, the City of Denton, Texas has caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized City Manager, and INNOVATIVE has executed this Agreement through its duly authorized undersigned officer on this the day of ,2002. CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY MICHAEL A. CONDUFF, CITY MANAGER BY: .~.~RFACES INC GERALD M. KLINE CEO/PRESIDENT WITNESS: Innovative Interfaces Inc and Denton Public Library 7/02/2002 15 THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DENTON § Acknowledgment BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for the State of Texas, on this day personally appeared ., known to me to be the person and officer whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed same for and as the act and deed of of ., and as thereof, and for the purposes and consideration therein expressed and in the capacity therein expressed. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE on this the __ day of 2002. Notary Public, State of Texas Notary's Printed Name My Commission Expires: THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DENTON § City Acknowledgrnem BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for the State of Texas, on this day personally appeared MICHAEL A. CONDUFF, known to me to be the person and officer whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed same for and as thc act and deed of the CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, a municipal corporation of the State of Texas, Denton County, Texas, and as the City Manager thereof, and for the purposes and consideration thereto expressed and in the capacity therein expressed. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE on this the day of , 2002. My Commission Expires: Notary Public, State of Texas Notary's Printed Name Innovative Interfaces lnc and Denton Public Library 7/02/2002 16 APPENDIX A MILLENNIUM Hardware and Software MILLENNIUM PRICE QUOTATION City of Denton Public Library Solution for 40 Staff Users (Innovative DBMS) Unlimited Web OPAC Users MILLENNIUM BASE SOFTWARE Online Public Access Catalog Unlimited Web OP.4C User License MILLENNIUM Web OPAC Full OPAC Indexing Advanced Keyword Search Engine My MILLENNIUM Patron Empowerment Funcfous, including: --Place holds/cancel holds --Self-renewal of items --View status of booked items --View Special Reminder messages Z39.50 Client and Server (including Broadcast Searching) Export Records/Create a Bibliography from OPAC Table of Contents Display and Indexing Encyclopedia Britannica Link SCOPES Set of four scopes - allows for defined various subsets of the catalog, using locations and/or material types. Cataloging Unlimited Biblio~oraohic. Item and ,~uthoritv Record fde sizes Database Management System MILLENNIUM Cataloging including Global Update Cataloging Workstation (Graphical client software) Authority Control Automatic Authority Processing Report Writer MILLENNIUM File Transfer Sol. are OCLC Interactive Interface via the Interact Link Maintenance -- Sort Items by Location, Synchronize Location Codes Report Writer MILLENNIUM Create Lists Online Storage for 80 Simultaneous Management Report Review Files MILLENNIUM Management Reports Circulation Unlimited Item Record File Sire and Unlimited Patron Record File Size Circulation Notices via Email MILLENNIUM Offline Circulation Sol, ware (Site License) Inventory Control Innovative Interfaces Inc and Denton Public Library 7/02/2002 17 Homebound Module Family Records Inter-Library Loan Transmit ILL requests via ISO 1016X protocol (e.g. OCLC] Transmit ILL requests via email to other libraries Support for Multiple ILL Departments Interface to 3M Self Cheek Server software and 1 client workstation Collection Agency Interface Community Information Database Foreign Language OPAC Interface (Spanish) Acquisitions & Fund Accounting Unlimited Order Record File $i~e Ordering/Receiving/P.O. Printing Invoice Processing and Fund Accounting Claiming Hierarchical Fund Reports Foreign Currency Conversion Vendor Statistics Worksheet Printing Electronic Ordering via E-mail Electronic Serials Invoice Processing Telephone Renewal System, including PC Support for One (1) Telephone Line Telephone Notification System, including PC Support for Two (2) Telephone Lines Web Access Management Provides patron authentication and proxy service for offsite patron access to licensed databases Staff User Licenses License for 40 simnitane~us staff MILLENNIUM users Innovative Interfaces lnc and Denton Public Library 7/02/2002 18 Hardware utilizing the Innovative DBMS: Central Site Hardware: CPU Sun Model E250 Server with One Ultra-SPARC-II, 400 MHz CPU chip 1,024 MB (1 GB) Memory RAID 0+1 Configuration, consisting of(4) I8.2 GB Disks, Mirrored (1) 12/24 GB 4mm DAT DDS Tape Drive (1) 10X DVD-ROM Drive 10/I00 MBPS Ethernet connectivity Installation, 36 months of Platinum Service UPS with Powerwatch Software Diagnostic Modem Peripheral Equipment Networked System Printer (HP4100N) B321 Portable Barcode Reader (10) P210-A Receipt Primers (15) B164/165 Barcode Reader (Hand-held scanner) SYSTEM SUBTOTAL (Millennium Software, User Licenses, Central Site Hardware and peripherals) SERVICES Shipping, Setup and Installation of CPU/s and Sof~are Profiling services for initial Bibliographic, Authority, Item and Pa~ron Records Load of Bibliographic, Authority and Item Records' Load of Patron records2 Load of Circulation Checkouts, Holds, and Fine Totals2 On-site Training - 12 Days/multiple on-site visits, travel expenses included Access to Getting Started with MILLENNIUM Manual Access to the MILLENNIUM User Manual 1. Data must be provided in the USMARC Communications format. 2. Data must be provided in an Innovative approved format. Subtotal, Services GRAND TOTAL ANNUAL MAINTENANCE Millennium Software, Hardware and B321 Barcode Scanner Year 1 Year 2 $2,540.00 $3,100.00 $S,800.00 $14,925.00 $198,576.00 $22,000.00 $220,576.00 Free Maintenance Period $24,251.00 NOTES · Prices do not include any applicable taxes, which are the responsibility of the City. Innovative Interfaces Inc and 7/02/2002 Denton Public Library 19 * The allowance given applies to the total price of this System configuration only. Therefore, no component of this package can be returned to Innovative for credit or refunds, unless defective. All prices given are valid for a period of 120 days from the date of the proposal. Maintenance covers B321 Barcode Reader ff purchased. The maintenance of peripherals purchased l~om Innovative are the responsibility of the City. MILLENNIUM Software and Central Site Hardware maintenance charges shall be subject to a possible price increase in years 3 through 5, which amount is not to exceed five (5%) percent per year of the yearly maintenance amount, or the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI), whichever is less. Thereafter, such maintenance may be continued by mutual consent, at a cost to be negotiated. Central Site Hardware · The CPU quoted was configured based on 90 simultaneous users (50 OPAC and 40 staff users); additional memory may be needed to support users above these numbers. · Thc CPU quoted was configured based on 1 GB of RAM, 200,000 Bibliographic records, 250,000 Item records, 200,000 authority records and 40,000 Patron records; additional disk may be needed to support the database above these numbers. Central Site Hardware maintenance and support services are covered for 3 years by the service contract included with this price proposal; such service will be coordinated through Innovative's Help Desk available 24-hours a day, 7 days a week via a toll-free phone number; an authorized support representative will be dispatched within 4 hours' of the call. Upon expiration of the Central Site Hardware Warranty period of three (3) years, the City will take full responsibility for both the Central Site Hardware and Operating System Admim'stration. Innovative will take the initial call, if it is determined that the problem is hardware related, then the City will contact the hardware vendor directly to provide services under a separate hardware maintenance agreement entered into with hardware vendor. Software MILLENNIUM Software Maintenance and support services include a one (1) year Free Maintenance Period, unlimited access to a 24-hour Helpdcsk via a toll-free phone number, regular MILLENNIUM Software enhancements, and new editions of the MILLENNIUM User Manual. · Connection to Encyclopedia Britannica requires a subscription to the web version, and MILLENNIUM connection to the Interact. OCLC Interactive Interface requires OCLC Passport for Windows and MILLENNIUM connection to the lntemet · For Innovative to provide service and maintenance to the site, Intemet access is required. · Bibliographic and Authority data to be supplied in the M_ARC Communications format and Patron data to be supplied in an Innovative approved roma_at; all data supplied in any other format(s) must first be reviewed by Innovative for analysis prior determining a price for loading into the System. Innovative Interfaces Inc and Denton Public Library 7/02/2002 20 Optional Products and Services (not included) Prices valid for 24 months from signing Software Enhanced Image Linking for Internally-Stored Images Enhanced Image Linking for Externally-Stored Images Setup per 3M Self-Check Station Kids Online Materials Booking Each Additional set of 4 scopes S~rials Con~a'ol Check-in, claiming, Routing, Binding Unlimited Checkin Record Unlimited Holdings Records SISAC Barcode Cheekin Electronic Chiming of Serial Issues via Email in X12 format $10,700.00 $4,500.00 $2,500.00 $9,500.00 $8,000.00 $5,000.00 $15,000.00 Innovative Interfaces Inc and Denton Public Library 7/02/2002 21 APPENDIX B PAYMENT APPENDIX System Total Due at contract signing 20% $220,576.00 $44,115.00 Duc at Initial Training~ 40% $88,230.00 Due at Profile2 Acceptance 30% $66,173.00 (or no later than 90 days from Initial Training, whichever is earlier) Due at Live Circulation3 10% $22,058.00 (or no later than 180 days from Initial Training, whichever is earlier) Paymems will be due 30 days aRer invoice. Interest of 1% per month of the full outstanding amount will be charged for late payments. These amounts are excluding taxes. The CITY will be responsible for all applicable taxes. 1 Initial Training includes OPAC, Systems Adminisn'ation, BvaluaOon. 2 Based on a test database of up to 100,000 records that are loaded into the System, which the CITY will use to evaluate whether ~ agreed-ui~on profile specifications are met. 3 Refers to ~t~ f-~t day that the CITY uses a licensed Software module for paR-on real time checkin/out. Innovative Interfaces Inc and 7/02/2002 Denton Public Library 22 APPENDIX C PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN From time to time the CITY and INNOVATIVE may jointly review this Project Implementation Plan and make such revisions to it as are mutually agreed upon in writing. This review shall also serve to clarify each Event, and establish intermediate Events and Dates as necessary. A delay in any one event shall cause a delay in all subsequent events. Delays are subject to rescheduling as resources are available. 2002, date of last signature Within 2 weeks of contract signing At least 60 Days prior to Initial Training At least 45 Days prior to Initial Training Within 120 days of Contract signing Within 45 days after Initial Training TBD TBD following Profile Acceptance 6 7 8 Both Innovative CITY CITY Innovative CITY Both Innovative Contract signing Provide access to User Manual and GSM to the CITY Deliver data to Innovative and Submit completed worksheets to Innovative Prepare site for Hardware. and If applicable, the Third Party Hardware Vendor Installs CPU and make System accessible to Innovative Initial Training begins. Profile 4 Acceptance Full data load (CrrY loads data, Innovative monitors the load) Additional training as purchased 4 Bazed on a te~t database of up to 100,000 records that are loaded into the gystem, which the CITY will use ~o evaluate whethe~ the agreed-upon profile specifications are met. Innovative Interfaces Inc and Denton Public Library 7/02/2002 23 APPENDIX D FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS Automation System Requirements GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Must be able to perform automated backups, without staff having to be present to change tapes at the time of the backup Must be able to build indices without taking the indices "offiine" during the build/rebuild Must be able to perform at some of the upgrades without taking the entire system offiine Must be able to capture/report on electronic use for statistics CATALOGING Must be able to import MARC records Must be able to create new cataloging templates Must be able to handle call number prefixes and non-Dewey/non-LC classification schemes Must be able to edit records (both fixed and variable fields) Must be able to input original cataloging records Must be able to overlay existing records based on a set match-point Must be able to add and display diacritics Must be able to create new authority records Must be able to establish cross-references Must be able to attach holdings Must be able to replace barcode numbers Must be able to change item status Must be able to suppress bibliographic records/specific holdings from public view Innovative Interfaces Inc and 7/02/2002 Denton Public Library 24 Must be able to generate new-materials-added lists cIRCULATION Must be able to run portable circulation Must be able to run portable inventory of all collections Must be able to provide patrons with listing of items checked out via receipt printers Must be able to use hand-held and/or fixed-position laser barcode readers Must be able to notify patrons of holds and overdues via telephone, e-mail, and printed notices Must be able to work electronically with the Unique Management collection agency Must be able to search patron database using name or driver's license number if library card number is not available Must be able to link family members' records together via set match-point Must be able to add new patrons using limited information during times of high traffic with ability to later input the rest of the information Must be able to generate listing of customers notified for overdues or holds on specific days Must be able to generate daily checkout reports that show items by collection Must be able to change a hold request in the queue ACQUISITONS Must be able to set up funds for a new fiscal year even if the last one has not been closed out Must be able to set up vendor records Must be able to assign specific amounts to specific vendors Must be able to create an order with 2 funds ordering the same item Must be able to create an order using online sources such as B&T, BWI, and TitleSource II Must be able to place a hold on items that are on order Must be able to process orders for electronic transmission Innovative Interfaces Inc and 7/02/2002 Denton Public Library 25 Must be able to cancel orders Must be able to receive orders Must be able to assign barcodes to items at time of receipt Must be able to process invoices Must be able to process invoices with input errors Must be able to check the receipt date, paid date, amount, and source of an item Must be able to generate fund balance reports including encumbrances and expenditures Must be able to generate purchase order balance reports Must be able to generate on-order lists Must be able to generate vendor performance reports (average discount, number of cancellations, etc.) Must be able to access and perform operations on previous fiscal years' budgets Must be able to print copies of electronic orders PUBLIC ACCESS CATALOG Must be able to print out, e-mail, or save to disk patron-generated bibliographies Must be able to limit search functions (i.e., limit to site, by subject, by item type, etc.) Must be able to distinguish items by site location (bold print, different color print) Must be able to access patrons' records with use of a PIN or other device to protect confidentiality. Innovative Interfaces Inc and Denton Public Library APPENDIX E ESCROW AGREEMENT I. ESTABLISHMENT OF ESCROW 7/02/2002 26 So long as the within-described license is in full force and effect, and as an additional material consideration for the granting, acceptance and continued benefits obtained and derived from such license, Innovative Interfaces and the City agree that a copy of all source code material necessary to maintain all software licensed thereunder shall be placed in escrow as follows. Furthermore, Innovative Interfaces will pay to list the City on the escrow policy for one year from the signing of this Agreement; thereafter the City may elect to continue on the policy for as long as the City maintains a license to the Software, and the City pays the renewal costs as determined by the Escrow Agent. All renewal notices will be sent by the Escrow Agent to the City at the address listed herein: Ao The Escrow Agent shall be Data Securities International, Inc., 425 California Street, Suite 1450, San Francisco, CA 94104. In the event that the above-named Escrow Agent fails or refuses to assume the responsibilities of Escrow Agent or ceases to act as Escrow Agent, the parties shall agree upon a new Escrow Agent and shall issue demands to Data Securities International to deliver the escrow material to such newly designated Escrow Agent. Bo Source code material shall be released to the City by the Escrow Agent upon the occurrence of the following event: If any proceeding in receivership, liquidation or insolvency is commenced against Innovative Interfaces and the same be not dismissed within sixty days, or ii. If Innovative Interfaces make any assignment for the benefit of its creditors, becomes insolvent, ceases to do business as a going concern, or seeks any arrangement of compromise with its creditors under any statute or otherwise. Verification of the occurrence of a condition precedent to the release of the escrowed materials shall be by a reasonable manner and means to the reasonable satisfaction of the Escrow Agent with written notice and opporttmity to object given to Innovative Interfaces. The Escrow Agent shall have five days to release the escrowed documents or to advise the City in writing of the existence of a conflicting demand. Innovative Interfaces Inc and Denton Public Library D. Should the City elect to continue on the Escrow policy, cost for annual renewal shall be approximately $200.00 for the first year renewal. Second and subsequent renewal fees shall be determined by the Escrow Agent, but with a percentage increase to the City of not more than 5% or the percentage increase of the Consumer Price Index, whichever is greater. 7/02/2002 27 II. VERIFICATION OF ESCROWED MATERIALS Verification of escrowed materials shall be by certified letter fi.om the Escrow Agent to the City stating the identity of each document placed in escrow, the physical location of the escrow, and the date of establishment of the escrow. III. ENHANCEMENT AND MODIFICATION In thc event that thc software supplied to the City pursuant to the above-described licensc is enhanced or modified, the Licensor agrees to deposit into escrow all documents and data reasonably necessary to support and maintain such enhancements and modifications pursuant to all of the terms and conditions of this escrow agreement. IV. CONFLICTING DEMANDS In the event that the parties to this agreement, at any time, give the Escrow Agent conflicting demands, the Escrow Agent shall promptly attempt to resolve the conflict. In the event that the Escrow Agent is unable to resolve the conflict within ten days, the Escrow Agent shall interplead the escrowed materials into a court of competent jurisdiction. Each of the parties hereto agrees to indemnify and hold the Escrow Agent harmless from all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, in the event that a conflict of demands requires interpleader. V. TERMS OF RELEASE OF ESCROWED MATERIAL In the event that the material escrowed hereunder is released to Licensee, said materials shall nevertheless remain the property of Innovative Interfaces, its assigns, trustees, and/or successors in interest. The escrowed materials shall be subject to all of the terms and conditions of the underlying license granted to Licensee, including but not limited to, trade secrets and confidentiality protection. The City agrees that the escrowed materials shall be used exclusively for the maintenance of the licensed sofhvare and for no other purposes. The City agrees to make all persons working with such licensed escrowed material aware of the terms and conditions of the license and their liability for unauthorized use of the licensed escrow material. Innovative Interfaces lnc and Denton Public Librap/ MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 7/02/2002 28 SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE a) One (1) year after the first day of Initial training will constitute a Free Maintenance Period. .b) The City will be billed the first month following the end of the free Maintenance Period in advance at $24,251.00 per annmn7. Maintenance charges shall be subject to a possible price increase in years 3 through 5, which amount is not to exceed five (5%) percent per year of the yearly maintenance amount, or the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI), whichever is less. Thereafter, such maintenance may be continued, by mutual consent, at a cost to be negotiated. c) If the City decides to cancel the Agreement, Innovative must be notified 90 days prior to the annual maintenance renewal date. d) The City must provide physical and internet access to the System for Innovative to correct Sol,rare bugs and carry out modifications to the System for the purpose of maintaining the System, this would also apply to firewalls etc. Innovative Interfaces will be responsible for all Software corrections at Innovative Interfaces' expense. e) Innovative Interfaces will provide the City with new releases of the licensed Software modules so long as the Hardware and operating system used for the System is sufficient and/or compatible for the load and operation of such new release. If the Hardware or operating system is deemed not to be sufficient for installation of the new release, then the City shall be responsible for the cost of new hardware or operating system as may be required. If the City declines to upgrade its Hardware or operating system to accommodate the upgrade to the licensed Sol(ware, then the City shall remain at its then current software release. For the purpose of this document, the term "new release" shall mean improvements in already tieensed Software modules. t) If the City adds any additional Innovative Software modules to the System after the initial installation, the maintenance services shall be extended to cover the additional Software. The maintenance charges for such Software shall be based upon Innovative's then current maintenance rates. The additional cost of coverage for the additional Software shall be added to the annual maintenance amount. g) Innovative will provide services 24 hours a day. Innovative will make its best efforts to return calls within 2 hours of receipt and repair Software within 48 hours of notice, excluding weekends and holidays. This Maintenance Agreement does not include repair services due to damage caused by rain, fa'e, flood, lightning, tornado, windstorm, hail, earthquake, explosion, smoke, aircraft, motor vehicle, collapse of building, strike, riot, power failure or fluctuation, or other cause originating by reason of other than normal operation of the System, or City's negligence or misuse of the System. i) The Software shall be operated as the exclusive application on the Hardware. 7 This mount is excluded of taxes. The City will be responsible for all applicable taxes. Innovative Interfaces thc and 7/02/2002 Denton Public Library 29 CENTRAL SITE HARDWARE ('HARDWARE"): a) The City agrees to take reasonable care of the Hardware and not permit persons other than authorized representatives of the Hardware Manufacturer to effect adjustments or repairs to the Hardware. b) From the first day of Initial Training to the expiration of the Hardware Warranty period as purchased in Schedule A. Innovative will coordinate services provided by the Hardware Manufacturer, Thereafter, the City will coordinate services provided by the Hardware Manufacturer. c) Upon expiration of the Hardware Warranty period, the City will take full responsibility for both the Central Site Hardware and operating system administration. Alternatively, the City may choose to retain Innovative for operating system administration at Innovative's then standard rotes. d) The City is responsible for independently purchasing additional equipment, operating system software, and licensing other services beyond the initial configuration of the System. e) Any services delay due to City-supplied equipment failure, where such equipment was not purchased from Innovative, and over which Innovative has no direct control, shall be billable at Irmovative's then current maintenance rates. Innovative Interfaces lnc and 7/02/2002 Denton Public Library 30 IN WITNESS HEREOF, the City of Denton, Texas has caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized City Manager, and INNOVATIVE has executed this Agreement through its duly authorized undersigned officer on this the day of ....... 2002. CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS MICHAEL A. CONDUFF, CITY MANAGER ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: INNOVA~RFACES ][NC GERALD'. KLINE CEO/PRESIDENT WITNESS: Innovative Interfaces lnc and Denton Public Library 7/02/2002 31 THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DENTON § Acknowledgment BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for the State of Texas, on this day personally appeared , known to me to be the person and officer whose name is subscribed to the foregoing insmmaent, and acknowledged to me that he executed same for and as the act and deed of of .. , and as thereof, and for the purposes and consideration therein expressed and m the capacity therein expressed. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE on this the day of ,2002. Notary Public, State of Texas Notary's Printed Name My Commission Expires: THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DENTON § City Acknowledgment BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for the State of Texas, on this day personally appeared MICHAEL A. CONDUFF, known to me to be the person and officer whose name is subscribed to the foregoing insmmaent, and acknowledged to me that he executed same for and as the act and deed of the CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, a municipal corporation of the State of Texas, Denton County, Texas, and as the City Manager thereof, and for the purposes and consideration therein expressed and m the capacity therein expressed. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE.on this the ,2002. day of My Commission Expires: Notary Public, State of Texas Notary's Printed Name Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #21 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET July 16, 2002 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Tom Shaw 349-7100 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT An Ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds for the purchase of legal advertising and notices available from only one source in accordance with the provision for state law exempting such purchases from requiremems of competitive bids; and providing an effective date (File 2869- Contract for Legal Advertising awarded to the DeNon Record Chronicle). CONTRACT INFORMATION Various state laws and sections of the City Charter and Code of Ordinances require public advertisement and/or legal notice of meetings, hearings, bids, ordinances, etc. The Denton Record Chronicle is the only newspaper published in the municipality and is the newspaper with the largest circulation. State law requires utilization of the newspaper with the largest circulation published in the municipality. RECOMMENDATION We recommend approval of this contract with DeNon Record Chronicle to publish legal advertising and notices at the rate of $7.40 per column inch/DeNon Record Chronicle and $9.60 per column inch/Wednesday Plus (includes the Grapevine Sun). Total annual expenditure is estimated to be $35,000. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS DeNon Record Chronicle Denton, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT This is an annual contract agreemem, which will begin the day after Council approval, July 17, 2002. FISCAL INFORMATION Funding for the legal advertisemems will be charged to the departmem placing the advertisemem or legal notice. Agenda Information Sheet July 16, 2002 Page 2 Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Retail Advertising Agreement 1-AIS-Contract for Legal Advertising ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF LEGAL ADVERTISING AND NOTICES AVAILABLE FROM ONLY ONE SOURCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION FOR STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (FILE 2869- CONTRACT FOR LEGAL ADVERTISING AWARDED TO THE DENTON RECORD CHRONICLE). WHEREAS, Section 252.022 of the Local Government Code provides that procurement of items that are only available from one source, including; items that are only available from one source because ofpatems, copyrights, secret processes or natural monopolies; films, manuscripts or books; electricity, gas, water and other mility purchases; captive replacement parts or components for equipment; and library materials for a public library that are available only from the persons holding exclusive distribmion rights to the materials; need not be submitted to competitive bids; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to procure one or more of the items mentioned in the above paragraph; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That the following purchase of materials, equipment, services or supplies, as described in the Contract attached hereto, and on file in the office of the Purchasing Agent, and the terms attached hereto are hereby approved: FILE # VENDOR AMOUNT 2869 DeNon Publishing Co. $7.40/column inch $9.60/column inch SECTION II. That the acceptance and approval of the above items shall not constitute a contract between the City and the person submitting the quotation for such items until such person shall comply with all requiremems specified by the Purchasing Department. SECTION III. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute any contracts relating to the items specified in Section I and the expenditure of funds pursuant to said contracts is hereby authorized. SECTION IV. 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: Contract For Legal Advertising-Sole Source ~ttachment 1 RETAIL ADVER'I.~.qING A minimum, of ~000 ' inches p.--r mo~t~ fo~ a ~od of ...-~Z~_~../~ ~ ' _ ~ 119~o~ p~y~ ~y ~ ~r ~~ ~ ~. TV ~ .. 1~~ f~ z. ~ of25~ m~a. Aay r~mt mad~ 4~ d~ys al~ ~ de~. wl~ be filled sub~t u ~. I~ ~ - Ads ;or. eHM spa= deadlin~ vF~ll bs for Rm anmunt of spats mserv~ by advum:ls~ ~ of ~ w~ tho ~ IrO~..~HZNO COMP.~N~. This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #22 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET July 16, 2002 Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed Materials Management to Charles Wiley 349-7925 Ross Chadwick 349-8101 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services ~ SUBJECT An Ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds for the purchase of an annual maimenance contract for cominued support and upgrades for the VisionAIR Public Safety Suite software package available from only one source in accordance with the provision for state law exempting such purchases from requiremems of competitive bids; and providing an effective date (Purchase Order 105715 awarded to VisionAIR in the amount of $125,000). BID INFORMATION The Denton Police and Fire Departments use the VisionAIR Public Safety Software Suite to support their specialized and unique functions. The City of DeNon is required to keep the maimenance currem with the software vendor to ensure availability of upgrades, software fixes, and 24 hours/7 days a week support. RECOMMENDATION We recommend Purchase Order 105715 to VisionAIR for annual maimenance be approved in the not to exceed amount of $125,000. This includes Invoice 05357 for $102,596.51. The balance is estimated for additional equipment to be installed at a later date. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS VisionAIR Castle Hayne, NC ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT This maimenance agreemem will be in effect from July 5, 2002 through July 5, 2003. FISCAL INFORMATION The acquisition of annual maintenance is a budgeted expenditure that is paid out of operating budget 830500.6504. Agenda Information Sheet July 16, 2002 Page 2 Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Purchase Order 105715 Attachment 2: Invoice 05357 1-AIS-Purchase Order 105715 VisionAIR z ~l. IJ Attachment 1 -Att, achment 2 V I S I 0 N A DENPDFDTX0t City of Denton TX Tim Smith Customer Support Manager 601 East Hickory Denton TX 76205 INVOI('E Invoice #: IVC05357 Invoice Date: 5/31/02 Your PO# 02/03 SWMTC RENEWAL Date Due: 7/5/02 Quantity Description Per Unil Amount I 24x7 CAD Software Maintenance Renewal $32,399.10 $32.399.10 July 6, 2002 through July 5, 2003 VisionCAD: 7 Position 1 VisionGeo not live 1 8x5 RMS Software Maintenance Renewal December 7, 2002 through July 5, 2003 VisionRM$ Base: 40 Position, Pro-rated to match renewal date I 8x5 Jail Software Maintenance Renewal $2 857 93 December 14, 2002 through July 5. 2003 VisionJaih 5 Position, Pro-rated to match renewal date 1 24x7 Mobile Software Maintenance Renewal $11,431 08 September 28, 2002 through July 5, 2003 VisionMobile Message Switch: 100 Position, Pro-rated to match renewal date 1 24x/Mobile ~oftware Maintenance R~n~w~l $36.577 77 September 28, 2002 through July 5, 2003 VisionMobile Client License NCtC Access: 20 Position, Pro-rated to match renewal date 1 VisionFire Mobile not live $0 00 1 8x5 Fire Software Maintenance Renewal $2234.42 December 20, 2002 through July 5, 2003 VlsionFire: 20 Position, Pro-rated to match renewal date 1 VisionEMS not live $0 30 1 8x5 inform Software Support Agency Host $2.651 ~3 Au9ust iT, 2002 through July 5, 2003 Visionlnform Base Package: 10 Position, Pro-rated to match renewal date 1 24x7 Mobile Software Maintenance Renewal $1 192 80 $0 00 $13.256 58 $~ 3.256 58 $11 431 08 $36 5/'? 77 $0 O0 $2.234 42 $0 00 $1,192 80 PO Box g000 "-' 5601 Barbados Blvd.., Castle Hayne, NC 2842g 800-882-2108., g10-602-61g0 fax - www, vlslonair, com Tim Smith Customer Support Manager 001 East HicKory Denton TX 76205 INVOICE Invoice #' invoice Date: Your POt/-' Date Due: Quantity Description Per Unit Amount April 17, 2003 through July 5, 2003 VisionMobile Message Switch: 50 Position, Pro-rated to match renewal date For Conference registration, go to Subtotal $102,596 51 www.vision911.corn, Events, Users Conference. We Misc $0 0O look forward to seeing you there! Tax $0 00 Total $102,596.51 Make ali checks payable to: VisionAIR If you have any questions concerning thi~ invoice, call:The Account-~ Receivable Dopadrnent ~t 800-882-2108 X5166. PO Box 9000 ', 5601 Barbados Blvd. ' Castle Hayne, NC 28429 800-882-2108 · 910-§02-§190fax : www. vlsionair, com ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF AN ANNUAL MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FOR CONTINUED SUPPORT AND UPGRADES FOR THE VISIONAIR PUBLIC SAFETY SUITE SOFTWARE PACKAGE AVAILABLE FROM ONLY ONE SOURCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION FOR STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (PURCHASE ORDER 105715 AWARDED TO VISIONAIR IN THE AMOUNT OF $125,000). WHEREAS, Section 252.022 of the Local Government Code provides that procurement of items that are only available from one source, including; items that are only available from one source because of patents, copyrights, secret processes or natural monopolies; films, manuscripts or books; electricity, gas, water and other utility purchases; captive replacement parts or components for equipment; and library materials for a public library that are available only from the persons holding exclusive distribution rights to the materials; need not be submitted to competitive bids; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to procure one or more of the items mentioned in the above paragraph; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That the following purchase of materials, equipment, services or supplies, as described in the Contract attached hereto, and on file in the office of the Purchasing Agent, and the terms attached hereto are hereby approved: PURCHASE ORDER VENDOR AMOUNT 105715 VisionAIR $125,000 SECTION II. That the acceptance and approval of the above items shall not constitute a contract between the City and the person submitting the quotation for such items until such person shall comply with all requirements specified by the Purchasing Department. SECTION III. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute any contracts relating to the items specified in Section I and the expenditure of funds pursuant to said contracts is hereby authorized. SECTION IV. 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: Purchase Order 105715 VisionAIR This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #23 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET July 16, 2002 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Jim Coulter at 349-7194 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT An Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding an annual contract for the purchase of sewer line chemical root control; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2856-Annual Price Agreement for Sewer Line Chemical Root Control awarded to Duke's Sewer Root Control Specialists in the estimated amount of $35,000). BID INFORMATION This bid is for chemical treatment of various sizes of sewer collection lines. The treatment reduces root growth that penetrates sewer lines and limits flow. This is a trial process and will be utilized on the lines in the Cooper Creek and Pecan Creek basins. Treatment will be under the direction of the Wastewater Collection staff and will be closely monitored. RECOMMENDATION We recommend this contract be awarded to Duke's Sewer Root Control Specialists in the estimated amount of $35,000. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Duke's Sewer Root Control Specialists Syracuse, New York ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT This is an annual contract that will begin July 17, 2002 and continue for one year with an option to renew for another one-year term at the same price. FISCAL INFORMATION This service will be funded from Water/Wastewater account 640200.6334. Agenda Information Sheet July 16, 2002 Page 2 Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet 1-AIS-Bid 2856 ATTACHMENT 1 BID # 2856 6/1 1/02 SEWER LINE CHEMICAL ROOT CONTROL Service, Inc. Principle Place of Business: Syracuse, NY 1 14,570' 6 Inch Pipe Size $1.49 2 3380' 8 Inch Pipe Size $1.49 3 1004' 10 Inch Pipe Size $1.66 4 435' 12 Inch Pipe Size $1.82 5 632' 15 Inch Pipe Size $2.63 6 0 18 Inch Pipe Size $3.87 7 0 21 Inch Pipe Size $4.84 8 940' 24 Inch Pipe Size $6.25 9 Shipment 14 Days ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING AN ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF SEWER LINE CHEMICAL ROOT CONTROL; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2856-ANNUAL PRICE AGREEMENT FOR SEWER LINE CHEMICAL ROOT CONTROL AWARDED TO DUKE'S SEWER ROOT CONTROL SPECIALISTS iN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $35,000). 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 2856 All Duke's Sewer Root Control Specialists 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 2856 Annual Price Sexver Line Chemical Root Control This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #24 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET July 16, 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 proposals and awarding a contract for the purchase of an Automatic Meter Reading System; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (RFP 2858-Automatic Meter Reading System awarded to Itron, Inc. in the amount of $86,017. RFP INFORMATION This bid is for the acquisition of Phase II of our Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) program. Currently, we have 3500 electric meters in the AMR program located primarily in apartment complexes. Phase II starts the process of expanding into the subdivision and development areas. Installation will target these outlying areas and other hard to reach applications. Phase II will add the ability to read water meters and electric meters. Our plan is to purchase 540 water meter devices and 960 electric meter devices. Currently the water meter shop only has 540 meters that will accept the AMR device. With the implementation of this AMR, meter reading will become error free and there will be no need for a meter reader to be on a customer's premises. Proposal requests were sent to five qualified service providers. Two responses were received; however, only Itron can provide electric and water reading capabilities. PRIOR ACTION/VIEW (COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS) The Public Utility Board considered this acquisition and recommended approval on July 1, 2002. RECOMMENDATION We recommend that this high tech RFP 2858 be awarded to Itron, Inc. in the amount of $86,017. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Itron, Inc. Spokane, WA. Agenda Information Sheet July 16, 2002 Page 2 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT Delivery of the equipment is estimated to be 60 days after a purchase order is issued. of the modules is planned to be completed 90 working days after the delivery date. FISCAL INFORMATION This project will be funded by project account 60009500.1350.3700. Installation Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent 1-AIS-RFP 2858 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE PROPOSALS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF AN AUTOMATIC METER READING SYSTEM; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (RFP 2858- AUTOMATIC METER READING SYSTEM AWARDED TO ITRON, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $86,017). WHEREAS, the City has solicited and received competitive sealed proposals for the high technology procurement and 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 proposals provide the best offer to the City in accordance with evaluation factors set forth in the Request for Proposals 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 best offer based on the evaluation factors set forth in the Request for Proposals for such items: RFP NUMBER VENDOR AMOUNT 2858 Itron, Inc. $86,017.00 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 a written contract which shall be on file at the office of the Purchasing Agent; 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 proposals, 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. ,2002. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: RFP 2858 Automatic Meter Reading System Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #25 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: July 16, 2002 Electric Utility Howard Martin, 349-8232 SUBJECT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SECOND AMENDED CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL LEGAL SERVICES WITH THE LAW FIRM OF DICKSTEIN, SHAPIRO, MORIN & OSHINSKY, L.L.P. FOR SERVICES PERTAINING TO THE DENTON MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC DIVESTITURE; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; PROVIDING FOR RETROACTIVE APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BACKGROUND In late 1998, following City Council approval, the formal process of pursuing the divestiture of the generating assets of Denton Municipal Electric (DME), including Denton's share of the output of the TMPA Gibbons Creek plant, began with the gathering of the significant amount of technical data necessary to prepare a sale offering document. The divestiture effort also required the advice and legal expertise of a law firm experienced in divestiture of generation assets. After a three month nationwide search, the Denton's Utility Attorney selected the firm of Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky (DSMO) for the assigmnent. In order to fulfill the requirement for a Texas law finn to deal with the details of the transaction related to Texas specific laws and to reduce costs by handling the complex and massive physical logistics of the actual closing locally, DSMO subcontracted with the Texas law firm of Strasburger & Price (S&P). Denton's Utility Attorney negotiated a contract that included a 5% discount on the usual fee structure of both fa'ms. The contract was open ended in the sense that no one involved in the process at that point could accurately predict the course the divestiture process would take. Based on their experience in other divestitures, DSMO provided an initial estimate of $450,000 and the contract was approved with expenditure authority of $450,000. Although the situation at the TMPA Gibbons Creek Plant has improved significantly over the past three years. In 1999, at the time the divestiture process began, the operating and management record of the Gibbons Creek plant was dismal and the governance of TMPA was contentious. Therefore a significant amount of effort was expended in researching Denton's legal options, under its contract with TMPA and the limitations of TMPA's bond structure, to remove or limit its risk related to Gibbons Creek by selling or assigning Denton's share of the plant. A strategy was developed and incorporated in the divestiture Offering Memorandum. This complexity of this analysis was something that a law firm experienced with straightforward generation divestiture efforts could not have estimated. In May of 1999, Denton's Offering Memorandum for the sale of its generation assets and procurement of an all requirements power purchase agreement to replace those assets was issued to qualifying bidders and a formal bid process begun. During the bid process, Denton received an unsolicited, non-conforming offer to purchase the entire Denton electric system. This offer was fully analyzed and the results of that analysis presented to the Public Utilities Board and the City Council. A limited but unexpected amount of legal support was required during this analysis. Following the City Council's decision to reject the offer, the initial generation divestiture bid process was completed and negotiations with the successful bidder of final terms and contracts for the sale began. After over two months of intensive work, during which a significant level of effort was expended by the attorneys to draft various contracts and legal documents, the bidder withdrew its offer. This withdrawal could not have been foreseen since it was initiated by a different area of the bidder's organization than the area engaged in the negotiations. The entire bidding process was then repeated, resulting in the selection of PG&E as the successful bidder. Since the structure of the PG&E offer was quite different from that of the initial bidder, the ability to reuse the documents drafted earlier was limited. Once again negotiations with the second successful bidder of Final terms and contracts began. At that point, it was clear that the original authorization for legal expenses of $450,000 was not sufficient to complete the transaction. On February 20, 2001, the City Council authorized the First amendment to the DSMO contract that allowed an additional expenditure of up to $300,000. During March and April of 2001, protracted negotiations of the technical terms of the Transition Power Agreement (TPA), under which PG&E would supply DME's power requirements for five years, took place. During that period, the use of DSMO was kept as low as possible. Once the technical terms had been agreed to, completion of all legal documents needed for the sale and the TPA began. This preparation required analysis of the proposed technical terms related to the use of Gibbons Creek for conformance with IRS private use rules and a subsequent rework of the technical and contractual terms to protect the TMPA tax exempt bonds. The issues involved were further complicated by the announcement of PG&E's regulated Califomia subsidiary on April 2, 2001 that it was filing bankruptcy. This announcement required that Denton's attorneys perform a complete review of the corporate structure of PG&E & the bankruptcy pleadings of the Califomia subsidiary to determine both the immediate and long term implications the Califomia subsidiary's bankruptcy filing might have on the proposed transaction. Following this research, different and more comprehensive securitization of the transaction than had been developed previously was negotiated by the attorneys to protect DME. Negotiation and drafting of the documents required to complete the transaction was extremely intense during May and June of 2001. At times there were as many as 30 attorneys working for Denton on various documents and negotiations. Workdays were usually much longer that 8 hours with work occurring seven days a week. The majority of negotiations and exchanging of drafts was done by phone and e-mail to minimize cost and expedite negotiations. PG&E was represented by an extremely aggressive national law Firm. Without the expert advice of the DSMO transaction attorneys, Denton would most likely have ended up in a much less favorable position. The transaction closed on June 29, 2001 with the transfer of the Spencer Plant to PG&E, receipt by Denton of all proceeds from the sale, and the signing of the TPA. Operational responsibility for the hydro plants was also transferred to PG&E. Actual transfer of title to the hydro plants is pending the completion of the transfer of FERC licenses to PG&E. At the time of the closing, DME had received actual bills for DSMO and its subcontractor's (S&P) service through the month of February, 2001 and had $287,294.37 of spending authorization remaining. By July 19, 2001, DME had received DSMO bills for work done through May of 2001 and had $123,356.16 of spending authorization remaining. In September of 2001, DME received the DSMO bill for work done during June of 2001. Also in September of 2001, DME received a bill directly from S&P. Apparently, the S&P attorney who had taken over coordination of the S&P work on the Denton divestiture project was unaware of the fact that his Firm, as a subcontractor of DSMO was to bill its services to and receive payment from DSMO. Denton's Utility Attorney then insisted that the two Firms resolve their billing issues before any further DME funds were paid out. Once the billing issues between DSMO and S&P were resolved to the Utility Attorney's satisfaction, he was able to determine that DME owed DSMO $71,058.40 more than the existing expenditure authority. In addition to the $71,058.40 required to complete payment of the outstanding balance, assistance from DSMO will be required to complete the transfer of the FERC hydro licenses and the real estate transfer, once the FERC license transfer process is completed. PG&E will do the majority of the work on the transfer. However, Denton should have attorneys expert in this field review their work to assure the work is done correctly so DME will not be left with any risk. This support is estimated to require no more than $20,000 of attorney fees. Every effort will ~ made to keep the Final cost as low as possible. Throughout the entire divestiture process, both DSMO and S&P did an exemplary job of representing Denton's interests and were always mindful of minimizing cost as much as possible. Denton's Utility Attorney has closely monitored all billings from the firms. There were 34 documents, ranging in length from a few pages up to 104 pages, prepared and executed at the June 29, 2001 closing. Although Denton received all money due it at the closing last June, there are several other documents related to final transfer of the hydros that have been prepared and are being held in escrow pending completion of that transaction. Additionally, this number does not include the numerous documents prepared and submitted during negotiations with the initial bidder. It also does not include the numerous Confidentiality Agreements developed in conjunction with the bid process, opinion letters drafted or reviewed, or documents reviewed in conjunction with the unsolicited buy out offer. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commission) The Public Utilities Board approved the proposed Second Amendment by a vote of 7 to 0 at its June 17, 2002 meeting. FISCAL INFORMATION Cost of Second Amendment not to exceed $91,058.40 for a t)tal expenditure for the transaction not to exceed $841,058.40. Respectfully submitted: Sharon Mays Director of Electric Utilities Attachments: 1. Ordinance 2. Contract 3. PUB Minutes ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SECOND AMENDED CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL LEGAL SERVICES WITH THE LAW FIRM OF DICKSTEIN, SHAPIRO, MORIN & OSHINSKY, L.L.P. FOR SERVICES PERTAINING TO THE DENTON MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC DIVESTITURE; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; PROVIDING FOR RETROACTIVE APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary and appropriate and in the public interest to continue to engage the law firm of Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky, L.L.P. (DSMO), of Washington, D.C., to provide professional legal services incident to and pertaining to the Denton Municipal Electric generation divestiture; and WHEREAS, the City has previously retained the professional legal services of DSMO on this matter on April 6, 1999, and has operated under a Contract For Professional Legal Services, in the amount of $450,000 thereafter; and WHEREAS, the City has also previously retained the professional legal services of DSMO on February 20, 2001, and has operated under a First Amendment to Contract for Professional Legal Services in the amount of $300,000 thereafter; and WHEREAS, the City funds there are certain final activities that are necessary to be performed, and that this Second Amended Contract for Professional Legal Services should be entered into, finalizing the electric generation divestiture; and WHEREAS, the City staff has reported to the City Council that there is a substantial need for the hereinabove described professional services by Denton Municipal Electric, and that limited City staff cannot adequately perform the highly specialized legal 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 of professional services on the basis of demonstrated competence, knowledge, and qualifications, and for a fair and reasonable price; and the City Council hereby funds and concludes that DSMO is appropriately qualified under the provisions of the law, to be continued as outside legal counsel for the City, specifically Denton Municipal Electric, respecting this engagement; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the procurement of the foregoing professional legal services, as set forth in this Second Amendment to Contract for Professional Legal Services; NOW, THEREFORE, EXHIBIT I THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1: That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a Second Amendment to Contract for Professional Legal Services with the law firm of Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky, L.L.P., of Washington, D.C. for professional legal services relating to the Denton Municipal Electric divestiture, in substantially the form of the Second Amendment to Contract for Professional Legal Services attached hereto and incorporated herewith by reference. SECTION 2: That the award of this Second Amendment to Contract is on the basis of the demonstrated competence and qualifications of DSMO, and the ability of DSMO, to perform the professional legal services needed by the City for a fair and reasonable price. SECTION 3: That the expenditure of funds as provided for in the attached Second Amendment to Contract for Professional Legal Services is hereby authorized. SECTION 4 That as to the payment of fees and expenses, the Second Amendment to Contract for Professional Legal Services is hereby ratified and retroactively approved, and shall be effective from and after June 1,2001. SECTION 5: That except as provided in Section 4 hereinabove, this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2002. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINEBROCK, MAYOR By: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY By: S:\Our Documents\Ordinances\02\DSMO Second Amended Contract- 2002 ord.doc THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DENTON SECOND AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL LEGAL SERVICES THIS SECOND AMENDMENT to that certain Contract for Professional Legal Services (hereafter the "Contract"), executed April 6, 1999; dated effective as of March 12, 1999, heretofore entered into by and between the City of Denton, Texas, a Texas Municipal Corporation with its offices at 215 East McKinney Street, Denton, Texas 76201 (hereafter referred to as "CITY"); and the law firm of Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky, a Limited Liability Partnership, with its offices at 2101 L Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20037 (hereafter referred to as "LEGAL ADVISOR"); acting herein by and through their respective duly authorized signatories; and WHEREAS, said Contract was further amended by that certain "First Amendment to Contract for Professional Legal Services" (hereafter the "First Amended Contract"), heretofore entered into by and between CITY and LEGAL ADVISOR, executed February 20, 2001; dated effective as of January 1, 2001; and NOW THEREFORE, the City of Denton, Texas and the firm of Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky (hereafter collectively referred to as the "PARTIES"), in consideration of their further mutual promises and covenants, as well as for other good and valuable considerations, do hereby AGREE to the following final amendments to the terms and conditions of the Contract and the First Amended Contract, to wit: That the provisions of Section III.C. of the Contract and the First Amended Contract shall instead read an additional NINETY ONE THOUSAND FIFTY EIGHT and 40/100 DOLLARS ($91,058.40) effective June 1, 2001, as follows: Legal Advisor and the City agree that charges for the legal services contemplated under this Agreement, including all professional services rendered by Legal Advisor and Subcontractor combined, and including direct out-of-pocket expenses, shall not exceed EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY ONE THOUSAND FIFTY EIGHT AND 40/100 DOLLARS ($841,058.40). II. The PARTIES agree, that except as specifically provided for by this Second Amendment to Contract For Professional Legal Services, that all of the terms, covenants, 1 EXHIBIT II conditions, agreements, rights, responsibilities, and obligations of the parties set forth in the Contract, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Denton, Texas and the firm of Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky, L.L.P. have executed this Second Amendment To Contract For Professional Legal Services, in (4) original counterparts, by and through their respective duly authorized representatives and officers on this the day of ,2002; however, to be effective and ratified from and after June 1, 2001. "CITY" CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS A Texas Municipal Corporation ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY By: Michael A. Conduff, City Manager By: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY "CONSULTANT" DICKSTEIN, SHAPIRO, MORIN & OSHINSKY A Limited Liability Partnership ATTEST: By: By: S:\Our Documents\Contracts\02\DSMO Second Amended Agrmt-Divestiture DME 2002.doc 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM #26 PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 17, 2002 9:00 A.M. 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 47 48 49 50 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, June 17, 2002 at 9:00 a.m. in the Service Center Training Room, City of Denton Service Center, 901-A Texas Street, Denton, Texas. PRESENT: Dick Norton, George Hopkins, Charldean Newell, Dick Smith, Jim Wilson, Don White and Bill Cheek EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Mike Conduff, City Manager Howard Martin, Assistant City Manager ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 7) Consider Approval of a Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement for the law firm of Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky, Washington, D.C. in an amount not to exceed $91,058.40. Sharon Mays, Director of Electric Utilities, presented this item. Mays informed the Board that during the process of divesting the generating assets of Denton Municipal Electric a significant amount of technical information was necessary to prepare the sale document. Following a three-month nationwide search, Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky (DSMO) was selected for the assignment. DSMO subcontracted with Strasburger & Price to deal with Texas specific laws and the complex logistics associated with the actual closing. The contract with both firms was open ended because no one could accurately predict the course the divestiture process would take. The initial estimate was $450,000. Mays explained that the tn'st bidder withdrew its offer and the entire bidding process was repeated. PG&E was then selected as the successful bidder. It became obvious at that point that $450,000 was not sufficient to complete the transaction and the City Council approved the tn'st amendment to the DSMO contract in the amount of up to $300,000. The City's Utility Attorney has determined that DME owes DSMO $71,058.40 more than the authorized expenditure. Mays explained that to complete payment of the balance, DSMO will be required to complete the transfer of the FERC hydro licenses and the real estate transfer, once the FERC license transfer process is completed. PG&E will do the majority of the work on the transfer. The City of Denton should retain the services of m attorney, who is expert in this field, to review the process to assure the work is done correctly and absolve DME of any risk. This support is estimated to be no more than $20,000 in attorney fees. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Hopkins said that he thought that PG&E should be responsible for the final expenses. Both Hopkins and White asked if this was the final expense for the divestiture process. Mays aff'Lrmed that it was the last payment and specified that the estimate was conservative to allow some flexibility. Hopkins moved approval of a second amendment to the PSA for Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky, with a second from Wilson. The motion was approved unanimously with a vote of 7-0. Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #26 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: July 16, 2002 Utility Administration Howard Martin, 349-8232 SUBJECT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL LEGAL SERVICES WITH THE LAW FIRM OF BOOTH, AHRENS & WERKENTHIN, P.C., A TEXAS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION. FOR SERVICES PERTAINING TO THE APPLICATION OF THE UPPER TRINITY REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT FOR REUSE OF LAKE CHAPMAN AND LAKE LEWISVILLE WATER, LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY MATTERS, AND OTHER RELATED MATTERS; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; PROVIDING FOR RETROACTIVE APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BACKGROUND Water rights issues in Texas are becoming increasingly more complex and water related legislative issues will continue to be a major part of the legislative agenda this session. Booth, Ahrens & Werkenthin, P.C. has provided legal services to the City of Denton on water fights issues in the past and is familiar with our existing water rights and water supply contracts with Dallas and the UTRWD. They are recognized experts in this area and do not have existing client relationships that could result in a conflict of interest in representing the City of Denton in water fights issues. Booth, Ahrens & Werkenthin, P.C., is located in Austin and has frequent access to and involvement with the TNRCC staff. This provides a distinct advantage to the City of Denton since they can obtain and distribute information and file records quickly and efficiently. Expanding water supplies in Texas is a major legal and administratively complex challenge for all parties involved. One area that has evolved over the past several years relates to the water appropriation rights for wastewater discharges. Over that past two years, many cities and water supply agencies have attempted to claim ownership of wastewater plant discharges and have applied for water appropriation rights to the TNRCC based upon their claim of ownership of these wastewater discharges. The proposed agreement (Exhibit II) would provide for timely legal advice and representation on water permit applications filed by other entities through the TNRCC that might encroach or conflict with water rights held by the City of Denton in Lake Lewisville and Lake Ray Roberts. Once a water right permit application has been declared administratively complete by the TNRCC, the City of Denton would receive written notice and would have a 30 day time limit to respond if it wanted ~o protest the application and/or request a public heating. Exhibit III shows a recent example of a wastewater reuse permit application notice that was requested by the Trinity River Authority that could have implications on existing water right holders in the Upper Trinity River basin. The proposed agreement would also provide legislative updates on proposed water related legislation during the upcoming legislative session. This would allow staff an opportunity to stay abreast of pending legislation that could impact the City of Denton's water supply interests or operations. The proposed agreement would provide water related legal services and legislative update information over the next twelve months. The fees would be based upon an hourly cost plus direct expenses. There is no retainer and billing would only be for services requested and rendered. The proposed agreement recommended by staff would have a maximum cap amount of $ 50,000 and any additional expenditure would need to be presented to the Public Utilities Board (PUB) and City Council (CC) for review and approval. Staff feels that this would not be needed over the next twelve months unless we had to request a contested case heating on a water fights permit application. If this occurred, the proposed agreement would provide for initial representation during a critical time period and allow ample time to advise the PUB and CC on the specific issues and obtain authorization for additional funding before significant funds were dedicated towards this effort. OPTIONS 1. Approve the professional services proposal for the legal representation requested by staff as submitted. 2. Recommend desired changes to the proposal for consideration by staff and request renegofiations with Booth, Ahrens & Werkenthin, P.C. 3. Reject the agreement and attempt to perform this work with City legal staff. 4. Cease to participate in TNRCC water rights permit applications that impact the City of Denton. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the professional services agreement as negotiated by staff and submitted by Booth, Ahrens & Werkenthin, P.C. The Public Utilities Board recommended approval of the professional services agreement by a vote of 7 - 0 at the June 17, 2002 meeting (Exhibit IV). PRIOR ACTION REVIEW (COUNIL~ BOARDS~ COMMISSION) PUB: June 17, 2002 - Consider approval of an agreement with Booth, Ahrens & Werkenthin, P.C. for legal representation related to water rights issues. FISCAL INFORMATION The Water Administration Division has existing funds available in the FY 2002 O & M Budget to cover the proposed agreement. Respectfully submitted: Howard Martin Assistant City Manager, Utilities Prepared by: Timothy S. Fisher, P.E. Assistant Director of Water Utilities Exhibit I Exhibit II Exhibit III Exhibit 1V - Ordinance. - Professional Services Agreemem. - TNRCC notice of an application to amend certificate of adjudication for TRA. - PUB meeting minutes for June 17, 2002. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL LEGAL SERVICES WITH THE LAW FIRM OF BOOTH, AHRENS & WERKENTHIN, P.C., A TEXAS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION. FOR SERVICES PERTAINING TO THE APPLICATION OF THE UPPER TRINITY REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT FOR REUSE OF LAKE CHAPMAN AND LAKE LEWISVILLE WATER, LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY MATTERS, AND OTHER RELATED MATTERS; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; PROVIDING FOR RETROACTIVE APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary and appropriate and in the public interest to engage the Law Firm of Booth, Ahrens & Werkenthin, P.C., a Texas Professional Corporation ("BAW"), of Austin, Texas, to provide professional legal services pertaining to representation of the City of Denton, Texas pertaining to the application of the Upper Trinity Regional Water District for reuse of Lake Chapman and Lake Lewisville water; legislative and regulatory matters; and other related matters; and WHEREAS, the City has previously retained the professional legal services of BAW and has operated under a previous Agreement for Professional Legal Services, approved by the Council, and signed by the City Manager, regarding water-related issues, which have demonstrated BAW's expertise of relevant issues conceming water rights; and WHEREAS, the City staff has reported to the City Council that there is a substantial need for the hereinabove described professional services by Denton Municipal Utilities, and that limited City staff cannot adequately perform the specialized legal services and tasks, which are wholly centered in Austin, Texas, 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 of professional services on the basis of demonstrated competence, knowledge, and qualifications, and for a fair and reasonable price; and the City Council hereby finds and concludes that BAW is appropriately qualified under the provisions of the law, to be retained as outside legal counsel for the City, specifically Denton Municipal Utilities, respecting this engagement; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the procurement of the foregoing professional legal services, as set forth in the Agreement for Professional Legal Services; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the recitations in the preamble are true and correct and are incorporated herewith as a part of this Ordinance. EXHIBIT 1 SECTION 2: That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute an Agreement for Professional Legal Services with the Law Firm of Booth, Ahrens & Werkenthin, P.C., Austin, Texas for professional legal services pertaining to the matters hereinabove described, in substantially the form of the Agreement for Professional Legal Services attached hereto and incorporated herewith by reference. SECTION 3: That the award of this Agreement is on the basis of the demonstrated competence and qualifications of the law firm of BAW, and the ability of BAW, to perform the professional legal services needed by the City for a fair and reasonable price. SECTION 4: That the expenditure of funds as provided for in the attached Agreement for Professional Legal Services is hereby authorized. SECTION 5 That as to the payment of fees and expenses, and authority to represent the City, the Agreement for Professional Legal Services is hereby ratified and retroactively approved, and shall be effective from and after April 2, 2002. SECTION6: That except as provided in Section 5 hereinabove, this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2002. EULiNE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY By: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY By: S:\Our Documents\Ordinances\02\BAW PSA-UTRWD and Legislative-DMU.doc STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DENTON § AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL LEGAL SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this __ day of , 2002, by and between BOOTH, AHRENS 8; WERKENTHIN, P.C., a Texas PmfessionaI Corporation (hereinafter "Consultant"), with. Michael J. Booth, President, having full authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Firm, 515 Congress Avenue, Suite 1515, Austin, Texas 78701; and the CITY OF DENTON, a Texas Municipal Corporation, 215 East McKinney -Street, Denton, Texas 75201 (hereinafter "City"), with Michael A. Conduff, City Manager, having full authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the City. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City deems it necessary and in the public interest to employ legal counsel to provide professional, legal services with respect to water fights issues, including, but not limited to, application of the Upper Trinity Regional Water District for re-use of Lake Chapman and Lake Lewisville water, legislative and regulatory matters, and other related matters in which Consultant does not have a conflict of interest; and WHEREAS, the Consultant is willing to perform such legal services in a professional manner as an independent contractor; and has competently and efficiently performed services for the City over the past year in connection with its earlier engagement; and the City has selected Consultant on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications necessary to perform the needed services; and WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the Consultant to render the professional services in connection therewith, for the fees set forth in Section III hereof; and the Consultant is willing to provide such services; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration oftha promises and mutual obligations herein, the City and Consultant do hereby mutually AGREE as follows, to wit: L Scope of Services: The Consultant shall perform the following services in a professional manner working as an independent contractor not under the direct supervision and control of the City: A. Services to be provided: Consultant shall represent the City with regard to water fights issues, as well as other related matters in which consultant does not have a conflict of interest before the' Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission and otherwise. It PageI EXHIBIT II is specifically contemplated, as part of this representation, that Consultant will provide legal services with regard to the application of Upper Trinity Regional Water District for re-use of Lake Chapman and Lake Lewisville water, including without limitation legal services with regard to submitting a request for hearing, pleadings and comments if directed to do so; reviewing, monitoring, and participating in proceedings before the TNRCC and its successor agencies; attending any hearings and other proceedings in relationship to the mattel; and consulting with the City through the Assistant City Attorney for Utilities with regard to all f'flings, uncontested and contested hearings, and other issues related to the matter. Consultant also shall provide legal services to the City with regard to regulatory and legislative matters affecting water rights, and other interests as directed by the City to the extent that Consultant does not have a conflict of interest. Consultant may consult with thc Assistant City Manager for Utilities, the Director of Water Utilities, the Assistant Director of Water Utilities, the Assistant City Attorney for Utilities, and/or other designated administrative personnel or staff regarding any and all aspects of the professional services to be performed, including legal research, analysis, and advice with respect to such matters. Consultant will coordinate activities with the Assistant Director of Water Utilities and the Assistant City Attorney for Water Utilities or their respective staff to efficiently perform the services required and to preserve the Attorney/Client privilege, work product, and all other applicable exceptions to the discovery or disclosure of documents produced by the City and the Consultant under the Scope of Services hereinabove. B. The Consultant shall perform all the services required by this Agreement in a timely fashion, and shall complete them in compliance with schedules established by the City through the Assistant Director of Water Utilities as appropriate to carry out the terms and conditions of this Agreement. IL Term: This Agreement shall be retroactively effective as of April 2, 2002. The Agreement shall terminate, provided that alt fees and expenses due to Consultant have been paid, either upon the completion of the professional services provided for herein; or upon the exhaustion of all professional fees provided for hereunder; or on December 31, 2003, whichever event shall first occur. This Agreement may be sooner terminated in accordance with the provisions hereof. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. Consultant shall make all reasonable efforts to complete the services set forth herein as expeditiously as possible during the term of this Agreement, and to meet the schedules established by the City, through its Assistant Director for Water Utilities, or his designee. ?age2 HI. Compensation and Method of Payment: A. Consultant shall charge the following fees for its professional services provided to the City hereunder, based upon the following hourly billing rotes for the attorneys and support staff involved in this matter: Staff Carolyn Ahrens, Michael $. Booth, Ross Richard-Crow Hourly Rate Through 9,,/30/02 Hourly .Rate As Of 10/I/02 $185 $t95 $200 $210 $140 $150 Consultant has adopted a fee structure rang~ from $130.00 to $220.00 per chargeable hour, depending upon the individual involved and his or her level of experience and expertise. From time-to-time, the Consultant may assign other attorneys to some aspect of the case, with the view that Consultant will use the lowest hourly rate qualified and available attorney for any particular matter. The Consultant also utilizes briefing clerks or legal assistants to perform those tasks not requiring the time of an attorney. Briefing clerks and/or legal assistants time is billed at the rate of $50.00 to $100.00 per hour, depending upon the experience and level of education possessed by the briefing clerk or legal assistant. Consultant agrees that all charges for the legal services hereunder, including expenses as set forth in Section III.C. below, shall not exceed -$50,000.00. It is understood that matters and proceedings related to this scope of work may not be concluded before the expiration of this contract or within the contract mount of $50,000, which mount is not in the nature of a flat fee or a negotiated rate for the work to be performed. Before fees for services performed reach 90% of the contract amount of $50,000, City will either authorize Consultag~,t to withdraw as counsel in any pending proceedings or arrange for an additional or extended professional services agreement. The parties additionally recognize the possibility of entering into an additional Professional Services Agreement related solely to legislative and regulatory matters because of the indefinite nature of the actions and agenda the City may wish to pursue with regard to these matters. B. Consultant shall bill the City through the submission of itemized invoices, statements, and other documentation, together with support data indicating the progress of the work and the services performed on the basis of monthly statements, showing hourly rates indicating who performed the work, what type of work was done, and descriptions and/or details of all services rendered, including a daily, and an entry-by-entry reflection of billable time spem on this engagement, along with specific description and supporting documentation, if available, respecting any reasonable and necessary out-of-pocket expenses incurred by Consultant in performing the professional services provided for under this Agreement. Professional fees shall be billed in minimum one-tenth (1/10) hour increments. C. Additionally, the. City shall either pay directly or reimburse Consultant, as the case may be, for reasonable and necessary actual out-of-pocket expenses itemized on the monthly statement, including an additional fifteen percem (15%) overhead charge. These expenses Page3 include, but are not limited to, long-distance telephone, facsimile transmissions, scanning, .reproduction, postage, overnight courier, and transportation and travel. Ail copies will be charged atthe rate of fffieen cents ($.15) per copy for copies made within Consultant's offices, with as much photocopying as possible being done by outside vendors at bulk rates or by the City to reduce costs if bulk copying is necessary or appropriate. D. The parties anticipate that invoices or statements for professional services will be generated on a monthly basis and that said invoices or statements will be sent to the City by Consultant on or about the 15th day of each month. The City shall make payment to the Consultant within thirty (30) days after receipt of an appropriate itemized invoice or statement. To the extent that any fees or expenses are disputed by the City, the City shall notify Consultant within thirty (30) days after its receipt of the invoice or statement, and shall otherwise pay all undisputed amounts set forth in the invoice or statement within thirty (30) days after its receipt of the invoice or statement. All invoices or statements' shall be a reviewed by the Assistant Director of Water Utilities, or his designee; and then shall be reviewed and approved for payment by the Assistant City Attorney for Utilities. Any sums due and payable more than sixty (60) days after the fee bill is received by the City, and not protested or disputed as allowed above, shall bear interest at the rate of eighteen percent (18%) per year, until paid in full. E. It is understood and agreed that the Consultant shall work under the coordination and general supervision of the Assistant Director for Water Utilities, or his designee. F. Ail notices, invoices, statements, and payments shall be made in writing and may be given by personal delivery or by mail. As to notices: to Michael A. Conduff, City Manager, City of Denton, 215 East McKinney Street, Denton, Texas 76201 or to his designee. As to invoices, statements, Or payments: to Michael S. Copetand, Assistant City Attorney for Utilities, Utility Administration DeparUnent, at the same address, as to the City; and to Carolyn Ahrens, Booth, Ahrens & Werkenthin, P.C., 515 Congress Avenue, Suite 1515, Austin, Texas 78701, as to the Consultant. When so addressed, the notice, invoice, statement and/or payment shall be deemed given UPon deposit of same in the U. S. Mall, postage prepaid. In all other instances, notices, invoices, statements, and/or payments shall be deemed given at the time of actual delivery. Changes may be made in the names and addresses of the responsible person or office to which notices, invoices, statements and/or payments are to be sent, provided reasonable notice is given. IV. Professional Competencyl A. Consultant agrees that in the performance of these professional services, Consultant shall be responsible to the level of competency and shall use the same degree of skill and care presently maintained by other practicing professionals performing the same or similar types of work. For the purpose of this Agreement, the key persons who will be performing most of the work hereunder shall be Carolyn Ahrens and Michael Booth. However, nothing herein shall limit Consultant from using other qualified and competent members of the firm to perform the services required herein if such delegation is reasonably appropriate and properly protects the City's interests. Page4 B. Any agreements, ordinances, notices, instnuuents, memoranda, reports, letters, and other legal documents prepared or obtained under the terms of this Agreement are instruments of service and the City shall retain ownership and. a property interest therein. If this Agreement is terminated at any time for any reason prior to payment to the Consultant for work under this Agreement, all such documents prepared or obtained under the terms of the Agreement shall upon termination be delivered to and become the property of the City upon request and without restriction on their use or further compensation to the Consultant. V. Establishment and Maintenance of Records: Full and accurate records shall be maintained by the Consultant at its place of business with respect to alt matters covered by this Agreement. Such records shall be maintained for a period of at least three years after receipt of final payment under this Agreement. VI. Audits and Inspection: At any time during normal business hours and upon reasonable notice to the Consultant, there shall be made available to the City all of the Consultant's records with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement. The Consultant shall permit the City to audit, examine, and make excerpts or transcripts from such records, and to make audits of contracts, invoices, materials, and other data relating to all matters covered by this Agreement. City shall be responsible for all reasonable out-of-pocket costs and hourly costs of Consultant's employees or independent contractors needed to respond to any requests for audits and inspection. VIL Accomplishment of Pro_leer: The Consultant shall commence, carry on, and complete this professional engagement with ali practicable dispatch; in a sound, economical and efficient matter; and, in accordance with the provisions hereof and all applicable laws. In accomplishing the projects, both the Consultant and the City shall take such steps as are appropriate to insure that the work involved is properly coordinated with any related work being carried on by the City. VIH. Independent Contractor Relationship and Liability insurance: A. Consultant shall perform alt services as an independent contractor not under the direct supervision and control of the City. Nothing herein shall be construed as creating a relationship of employer and employee between the parties. The City and Consultant agree to cooperate in the defense of any claims, action, suit, or proceeding of any kind brought by a third party which may result from or directly or indirectly arise from any negligence and/or errors or omissions on the part of the Consultant or from any breach of the Consultant's obligations under this Agreement. Nothing herein constitutes a waiver of any fights or remedies the City may have to pursue under either law or equity, including, without limitation, a cause of action for specific performance or for damages, a loss to the City, resulting from Consultant's negligent errors or omissions, or breach of contract, and ali such rights and remedies are expressly reserved. B. Consultant shall maintain and shall cause to be in force at all times during the term of this Agreement, a legally binding policy of professional liability insurance, listed by Best Rated Page5 Carriers, with a rating of"A-" or above, issued by an insurance carrier approved to do business in Texas by the State Insurance Commission. Such coverage sha.!I cover any claim hereunder occasioned by the Consultant's negligent professional act and/or error, am, or omission, in. an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit coverage per occurrence. In the event of change or cancellation of the policy by the insurer, the Consultant hereby covenants to immediately notify the City in writing thereof; and in such event, the Consultant shall, prior to the effective date of change or cancellation, serve a substitute policy furnishing the same or higher amount of coverage. The Consultant shall provide a copy of the declarations page of such policy ~o the City through its Assistant City Manager of Utilities, simultaneously with the execution of this Agreement. IX. Termination. ,,of Agreement: A. In connection with the work outlined in this Agreement, it is agreed and fully understood by the Consultant that the City may cancel or indefinitely suspend further work hereunder or terminate this Agreement at any time upon written notice to Consultant, and Consultant shall cease all work and labor being performed under this Agreement. Consultant may terminate this Agreement by giving the City fifteen (15) days written notice that Consultant is no longer in a position to continue representing the City. Consultant shall invoice the City for all work satisfactorily completed and shall be compensated in accordance with the terms of this Agreemem. All reports and other documents, or data, or work related to the project shalI become the property of the City upon termination of this Agreemem. B. This Agreement may be terminated in whole or in part, in writing, by either party in the event of substantial failure by the other party to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement through no fault of the terminating party. Provided, however, that no such termination may be affected, unless the other party is given [1] written notice (delivered by certified mail, remm receipt request) of intent to terminate, and not less than thirty (30) calendar days to cure the failure; and, [2] an oppommity for consultation with the terminating party prior to termination. C. Nothing contained herein or elsewhere in this Agreement shall require the City to pay for any work which is unsatisfactory or which is not submitted in compliance with the terms of this Agreement. X. Alternate Dispute Resolution: The Consultant and the City agree that, if necessary, they will use their best efforts to resolve any disputes regarding the Agreement through the use of mediation or other forms of alternate dispute resolution set forth in Chapter 154 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code (V.A.T.C.S.). XI. Entire Agreement: This Agreement represents the entire agreement and understanding between the parties and any negotiations, proposals, or oral agreements are intended to be integrated herein and to be. superseded by this written Agreement. Any supplement or amendment to this Agreement, in order to be effective, shall be in writing and signed by the City and the Consultant. Page6 XIL Compliance with Laws: The Consultant ~hatl comply with all federal, state, local laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances applicable to the work covered hereunder as they may now read or hereafter be amended, including but not limited to the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. XIIL Governing Law: For the purpose of determining place of agreement and law governing same, this Agreement is entered into in the City and County of Denton, State of Texas, and shall be construed in accordance with, and governed by the laws of the State of Texas. Venue and jurisdiction of any suit or cause of action arising under or in connection with this Agreement shall lie exclusively in a court of competent jurisdiction sitting in Denton County, Texas. XIV. Discrimination Prohibited: In performing the services required hereunder, the Consultant shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry, age, or physical handicap. XV. Personnel: A. Consultant represents that it has or will secure at its own expense all personnel required to perform the services required under this Agreement. Such personnel shall not be employees nor have any contractual relations with the City. Consultaht shall inform the City of any conffict of interest or potential conflict of interest that may arise during the term of this Agreement, in accordance with Consultant's reSPonsibilities under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. B. All services required hereunder will be performed by the Consultant or under its direct supervision. All personnel engaged in work shall be qualified and shall be licensed, authorized, or permitted under state and local laws to perform such services. XVI. ~ 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 City thereto. XVIL Sever.ability: All agreements and covenants contained herein are severable, and in the event any of them, with the exception of those contained in sections headed "Scope of Services", "Independent Contractor Relationship", and "Compensation and Method of Payment" hereof, shall be held to be invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, this Agreement shall be interpreted as though such invalid agreements or covenants were not contained herein. XVIIL Responsibilities for Claims and Liability: Approval by the City shall not constitute nor be deemed a release of the responsibility and liability of the Consultant for the accuracy and competency of its work; nor shall such approval be deemed to be an assumption of such responsibility of the City for any defect in any. report or other documents prepared by the Consultant, its shareholders, associates, employees, officers, or agents in colmeetion with this engagement. Page7 XIX. Modification of A~eement: No waiver or modification of this Agreemem or of any covenant, condition, or 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 mi.sing between the parties hereto out. of or affecting this Agreement, or the rights or obligations of the parties hereunder, unless such waiver or modification is in writing, duly executed as aforesaid. The parties further agree that the provisions of this article will not be waived as herein set forth. XX. Captions: 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. XXL Binding Effect: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, legal representatives, successors, and assigns, where permitted by this Agreement. IN WITNESS HEREOF, 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 duty authorized undersigned Shareholder; dated this the day of ,2002. CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS A Texas Municipal Corporation ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY By: Michael A. Conduff, City Manager By: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY By: Pa~8 BOOTH, ~S & WERKENTHIN, P.C. A Texas Professional Corporation Michael ~i Boo~s~ ~ ATTEST: By: NOTICE TO CLIENTS The State Bar of Texas investigates and prosecutes professional misconduct committed by Texas attorneys. Although not every complaint against or dispute with a lawyer involves professional misconduct, the', State Bar of Texas Office of General Counsel will provide you with information about how to file a complaint. For more information please call 1-800-932-1900. This is a tolM~ee call. S:\Our Documcnts\Contracts\01~Booth Ahrens & Werkenthin PSA - Water Re-Use 2001.doc Page9 TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION CO/~[MISSION NOTICE OF AN APPLICATION TO A~IEND CERTIFICATE OF ADJI-rDICATION Trinity R/ver Authofi¢' of Texas (TP,.A) has applied to amend their water rights authorized by Cert/ficate of Adjudication No. 08-4248, as amended~ :o impound, in Lake Livingston, all historical and future return flow discharges (wastewater effluent) from its water treatment plants to the Trinity River Ba.q[n for sub.qequent diversion and use as parr of/ts water right authorized by rl~e current certificate, as amended. More information on ~e application *nd how to part/¢ipate in the permitting process is g/yen bolow. Notice is given that applicant, the Trinity R/vet Authorlty of Texas, P.O. Box 60, Arlington, Texas 783.36, seeks to amend Cerrifica:, of Adjudication No.08-'4248, as amended, pursuant ~o §§ 11.042, 11.046, 11.121, and 1I. I22 of'the Texas Water Code, and Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Rules 30 TAC ~ 295.1, e~ seq. Published notice of rh~ application is being Wen pursuant to 30 TAC § 295.152, allowing for a tltirty (30) day c a mrnent period. Notice is being m~iled to ali water right owners of record in the Trini~~ Privet Basin pursuant ~o 30 TAC §295.I53. Certificate of Adjudication No. 08-4248, as amended, authorizes the TRA, in conjunction with the City of Houston, ox~mer of Certificate of Adjudication No. 08-4261, to maintain an existing reservoir (Lake Livingston) on the Trinity River, Tdni~- Privet Basin, and impour~d therein up to ~,750,000 acre-feet of water, and to con,tract and maintain an on-channel reservoir on ~he Trinity River flake Watlisville) and to impound therein up to 51,60(] acre-feet of water, in Polk, Liberty, Chambers, San Jacinto, Jefferson, and Galveston Coun[ie~. The Certificate ~lso authorizes T~ to divert and use up to 351,600 acre-feet of water per annum froTM Lake Livingston and 51,600 acre-feet (~'water per annum from Lake Wallisville for municipal, industrial and irrigation purposes within the applicant's service area. Recreation use of the impounded water is also authorized by tlae Certificate. Special conditions in the original certificate author/ze the use of the bed and banks of the Trinity River to convey water, and subordinate the authorization of the certificate to present and future use and reuse and consumptive use of any remm flows within the TrinitY River Basin upstre, m of L~ke Livingston. TKA seeks authorization to impound, ia its share o fstorage capacity of Lake Livinsst. on, the remm flows from TP,.A's wastewater treatment plan~5 located upstream from the lake under any theory recognized in Texas Law, including those of developed water, unappropriated tatum flows from who[ever source, release of stored water, use of bed and l~anks', and unappropriated state water that xvill not cause adverse impact on other water fight holders of a greater mag'nirade than under circumstances in which the certificate to be amencfed was ~[ly exercised according to its term~ and conditions that existed prior to the amendment. TRA anticipates that whenever the natural flows of the Tr/nity River are insufficien[ to fill and refill TRA's storage ~pace in Lake Livir~gs~,on, TRA will impound its return flaws, however cha_rac~crizect, in irs Lake Livingston storage sp~ce and wffl diver~ and use the same as authorized in Certificate of Adjudication No.'08-4248, as amended. EXHIBIT III The amendment application was received onD e¢¢mber If~, ] 998 and addition,~l information was received on August 9, 2000. The application was dct¢~ined to be adminisxatively complete on September 7, 2000. PUBLIC CO~Ib'IENT / PUBLIC 5LEEThNG. Wr/rten public eorrtment~ and requests for a public meeting should be submitted to the Office of Chief Clerk, at the address provided in the inforrrmtion section below, w/thin 30 days of the date of newspaper publication of the notice. A publk meeting is intended for the taking ofpublio comment, and is not a contested case heating. A public meeting will be held if [he Executive Director determines that there is a signi~cant de~ee of public interest in the application. CONTESTED CASE HEARING. The TNRCC may grant a contested ¢~e hearing on this application ifa written hearing request is filed within 30 days from the date of newspaper publica~on ofthi~ notice. The Executive Director may approve the applicatiaa u~less a w'Atten requ,st for a contested case hearing i~ filed witt~in 30 days aner n~wspaper publication of this notice. To requea a contested case h~aring, you must submit the following: (1) your name (or for a group or association, an official representative), mailing address, de,me phone number, and fax number, if any: (2) applicant's name and permit number; (3) the statement "[f/we] request a contested case hearing;" (4) a brief and ~ecific de$cr/ption of how you would be affected by the application in a way not common to the general public; and (5) the location and distance of your properly relative to the proposed activ/ty. You may atto submit your proposed adjustments to the applicatior~/permk which would satisfy your concerns. Requests for a contested case hearing muabe submitted in wr/ting to the Office of the Chief Clerk at the address provided in the information ~ection below, If a hearing request is filed, the Executive Director will not issue the permit and wilt forward the application and hearing request to the TNRCC Commissioners for their consideration at a scheduled Commission. meeting. INFORB'IATION, Wr/txen hearing requests, public corn,menr~ or requests for a public meeting should be submitted to the Office of the Chief Clerk, MC 105, TNRCC, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, TX 7871 ~-3087, For information concerning the hearing process, please contact the Public Interest Counsel, MC 103, the same address. For additional information, individual members of the general public may contact the Office of Public A~sistmnce at 1 -$00-687-4040, General information regardLa8 the TNRCC can be found at our web site at ~wvv?_.mrcc.sta. te,tx,us. Issued:June 4, 2002 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM #27 PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 17, 2002 9:00 A.M. 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 47 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, June 17, 2002 at 9:00 a.m. in the Service Center Training Room, City of Denton Service Center, 901-A Texas Street, Denton, Texas. PRESENT: Dick Norton, George Hopkins, Charldean Newell, Dick Smith, Jim Wilson, Don White and Bill Cheek EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Mike Conduff, City Manager Howard Martin, Assistant City Manager ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION: 7) Consider approval of an agreement with Booth, Ahrens & Werkenthin, P.C. for legal representation related to water rights issues. Tim Fisher, Assistant Director of Water Utilities, presented this item. He explained that Denton Municipal Utilities (DMU) utilized the services of Booth, Ahrens & Werkenthin P.C. in the past for legal services related to water rights issues. They are also familiar with the City's existing water rights and water supply contracts with Dallas and UTRWD. Fisher explained that the proposed 12-month agreement would provide legal advice and representation on water permit applications filed by other entities through the TNRCC that might conflict with water fights held by the City of Denton in Lake Lewisville and Lake Ray Roberts. The proposed agreement would also provide updates on water related legislation and allow staff to stay abreast of pending legislation that could impact the City's water supply interests or operations. Fisher informed the Board that the fees would be based on hourly cost plus direct expenses. Billing would only be for services requested and rendered. The proposed agreement would have a maximum cap amount of $50,000 and additional expenditures would need to be presented to the Public Utilities Board and City Council for review and approval. White moved to approve the agreement with Booth, Ahrens & Werkenthin, P.C., with a second from Newe 11. The motion was approved unanimously by a vote of 7-0. EXHIBIT IV This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #27 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET July 16, 2002 Legal Department Jerry E. Drake, Jr., Senior Assistant City Attomey/Litigation Chief SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A COMPROMISE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS IN A CLAIM FILED AGAINST THE CITY OF DENTON BY LARK SCHUTTE; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR. BACKGROUND: On July 18, 2000, a City of Denton vehicle was involved in a collision with a vehicle being driven by Lark Schutte. Ms. Schutte filed a claim against the City for damages. That claim has settled for $40,000, in addition to $27,447 already paid. OPTIONS: Pay settlement amount. RECOMMENDATION: The Legal Department recommends the City pay the above amount in order to settle this claim. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions): None. FISCAL INFORMATION: $40,000. Respectfully submitted, Senior Assistal)t~ity ^ tto~mey ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A COMPROMISE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS IN A CLAIM FILED AGAINST THE CITY OF DENTON BY LARK SCHUTTE; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby approves the Compromise Settlemem Agreemem and Release of All Claims in a claim filed against the City of Demon by Lark Schutte, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, and the Mayor, or in her absence the Mayor Pro Tem, is hereby authorized to execute said Settlement Agreement on behalf of the City. SECTION 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to expend the funds in accordance with the attached Compromise Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims. SECTION 3. 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 S:\Our Documents\Ordinances\02\schutte csa.doc JUN-03-2002 MON 11:08 A~ FROM:DENTON CITY ATTORNEY FAX:940~827923 PAGE 2 COMPROlWm~. SI~TTL~...M~.NT & l~.~,~r,~m~. OF ALL CLAIMS KNOW ALL ~ BY TITSSE PRIiSENTS: Thai it is al~ed by m~ b~ CLX, ~k S~e. ~ ~e ~L~ P~ ~ve ~ ~d ~ose ~ p~ ~ ~Y of ~e~ ~ ~Bows: S~ SE~N ~OUS~ FO~ ~~D FOR~ SE~ ~ NO/lO0 DO~ ($67,~7,~), of w~h $27,~.00 ~ pr~omly b~m p~d ~ s~:~ of ~p~ ~ag~ ~wl~g~. 2. For ~d ~ consi~on of ~ p~ C~, L~ ~, ~by ~y ~le~, ~o~i~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ P~. ~ ~ ~e ~ ~ s~ ~ p~d ~ be ~ ~ ~d ~ ~sf~on ~d ~mpm~se of: ~ ~g~. c~ of ~ cl~ ~ ~ s~~ ~ ~, on ~o~ o! or ~ ~y way ~ ou~ of ~y s..O ~ ~h of ~y ~ of ~ood ~ ~d ~ ~, de~ p~ ~j~, ~ ~ ~o~ p~ ~ ~g, ~ef ~v~ Io~ of ~o~, loss of ~mp~o~p. ~e W ~ ~l~o~p. m~t~ ~ ps~c ~, loss of e~ ~, b~ of ~ld ~c~s, loss of wa~, loss of pmflm, loss of m~y, ~e ~ ~, ~ of ~p~, ~ ~ ~ ~ whe~ ~fore ~s~d = no~ o~ ~ poss~s~ by CL~ ~ ~y of ~d ~L~ P~ ~ out of or ~ ~ way ~~ ~: ~ ~ W~ ~ on ~ ~u~ J~ 1~, 2~0; ~ ~ or ~on o~ ~ or ~ out of ALL CLAIMS.,,PAOI] 1 JUN-03-2002 MON 11:08 AM FROM:DENTON CITY ATTORNEY FAX:940382792B PAGE r ~ald incident o~ thi~ ~ettlame~t; or ~y ev~t w~e~ oc~ ~or to ~e ~ of ~s s~ by C~ ~ by ~y of ~ ~vo ~ or ~op~ve ~y m~ ~ ~v~, ~ a ~t ot a~d ~i~ ~y of ~ ~ com~ ~ or ~g out o~ s~d ~id~t or ~s ~~ ~ ~y ~ w~ch oc~ ~ m ~e ~ of ~s ~ ~ ~ ~ve ~o ~ s~s of money ~~ C~ a~ ~ no~ ~s~ or ~s~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ws~ ~ a~t ~no wh~, whe~ or not ~~ ~le~ed h~ ff ~y, ~ ~Y ~si~ ~ ~1 to ~ p~m h~by mienS. 4. ~, ~~ e~ssly w~ ~at ~ ~ no o~~ ~p~d is ~y ~d~tood ~d a~ ~t CL~ ~ ~Y p~d or ~fl pay out of ~e NO/I~ DOL~ ($67,~7.00) ~ p~ ~ ~d me~, ~' ~ ~i~ ~ ~v~ ~ ~e p~t or to bo ~c~d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t ~ ~I1 d~ ~i~, ~d hold ~ess ~ s~d ~~~ P~, of ~d ~ ~ parrot of ~ s~on c~ ~. CL~ ~p~ly w~ ~ her ~o~e, ff~e ~ ~e, ~ not s~ ~y loss of ~o~ ~ a r~ of ~ ~ ~ q~sioa or C~'S ~ei~ ~ ~ ~. CL~ ~ ~ly w~ ~ no m~ of h~ ~ly h~ suff~ ~ def~ ~ld h~s ~ ~d~i~ ~ ~~ P~ ~m ~ pa~ ~ for &o JUN-03-2002 MON 11:09 AM FROM:DENTON CITY ATTORNEY FAX:9403827923 PAGE 4 defense, including, expense~, and rcasonablc attorney's fe~, of ~ md dl ~h d~i~ for lo~ of Co~ ~t ~ p~ses, s~t~t or ~m~on of ~ ~ upon ~, 7. ~u~ m~ or appl~a2~, be ~ ~ov~s~oss o~ ~:ms co~,omss s~m,mms'r & m~ms o~, m, CLA~S A~ COm~CrUAL ~rO ~o'r ~ m~crr~s. WITNF_.,S$ OUR ti. ANDS thi~ ~ da>' of ~ L~.~, ,2002, AND RIlL~IlM O!~ ALL CLA.1M$...PA,0B J JUN-OB-~O02 MON FROM:DENTON CITY ATTORNEY FAX:9403827923 PAGE APPRO~riZI): BULINB BROCK, MAYOR CITY OF Dt/NTON, TSXAS ~BD Pil~'r~r APPROVED: ,2002, My Commi.~ion I~xpir~s: COMlmRO..~'~. ?_ ~ AIqD It.I~.,~A~li OF ALL ~LA~..,PAG[. 4 3UN-0B-2002 MON 11:10 FRO~:DENTON CITY ATTOP~EY FAX:940~82792~ THE STATE OF T}~.AS COUNTY OF DENTON This instnmtent was acknowlcdl~ed before me on the ~ thy of.. by l~uline Brock, 1V~yor, on behalf of the City of Dentort, T~x~s. ,2002, My Commission Expires: Notary l~ublic-Stato of Texas GOMPROZdl,gB m~z-~'z.~ilI',IT ANI} ~ Olt ALI. G~AI~g..PAOI[ $ This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #28 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET July 16, 2002 Parks and Recreation Department Dave Hill SUBJECT Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance graining approval of a sub-surface use of a portion of the DeNon Branch Rail Trail at milepost 723.9 adjacem to the north side of Loop 288 for the purpose of a public utility easemem in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code; providing for a public utility easemem; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND The City of DeNon Engineering Departmem has requested the use of parkland for the purpose stated, in order extend a water line. State law as defined in Chapter 26, Protection of Public Parks and Recreational Lands, of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code requires that: (a) a municipality of this state may not approve any program or project that requires the use or taking of any public land designated and used prior to the arrangement of the program or project as a park unless the municipality, acting through its duly authorized governing body or officer, determines that: (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use or taking of such lan& and (2) the program or project includes all reasonable planning to minimize harm to the land, as a park, resulting from the use or taking. (b) A finding may be made only after notice and a hearing as required by this chapter." If the proposed public utility easemem is allowed, a value must be placed on the 100 linear foot section and charged to the City of DeNon. In addition, land disturbed in the park will be returned to its original condition. Parks and Recreation Departmem and the City of DeNon Engineering staff have reviewed all other possible alternatives. These alternatives included: · Select another route through the city that would cross the DeNon Branch Rail Trail at a public crossing at either Colorado Boulevard or Brinker Road. A routing study was conducted. A water line curremly exists partially across the rail trail. The proposed line is to be extended eastward to the proposed shopping developmem along Loop 288 to Spencer road. Selection of another route for the water line would require extensive length that is not cost effective. · Provide water service from another service location. This will require additional easemems and possible rebuilding of water lines to provide the need capacity. · Construct a connection across the Denton Branch Rail Trail right of way from the existing water line to the proposed new shopping cemer developmem. This is the preferred route due to its direct alignment from the existing water line. OPTIONS Because alternatives to the easement are not feasible, the best option is to approve a new public Nility easemeN as preseNed or require the City of DeNon to begin obtaining easemeNs around the DeNon Branch Rail Trail and through adjaceN property owners. RECOMMENDATION After reviewing all other alternatives, staff recommends approval of the use of DeNon Branch Rail Trail for the public Nility easemeN. There would be no major impact on curreN park operations or programs. The Parks and Recreation Department confirms that the City of Denton has investigated all other alternatives and has used reasonable planning to minimize harm to the land. The City of DeNon is fully aware of the Federal Railbanking laws that in the even a railroad or rail transit agency wishes to reclaim the right of way for rail service, the City of DeNon may be responsible for removing or modifying the property to accommodate the original use of the right of way as a railroad. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT Construction is projected to begin in August 2002. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The Parks and Recreation Board recommended approval of this item at their June 24, 2002 meeting. FISCAL INFORMATION Compensation related to this use is still under discussion with the City of DeNon Engineering Department. It is reasonable to expect that a fair market value for an easement will be paid and improvements directly related to programs and/or facilities on the Denton Branch Rail Trail will be provided. BID INFORMATION Not applicable EXHIBITS: Ordinance Map (Exhibit A) Minutes of the Park Board June 24, 2002 (Exhibit B) Respectfully Submitted: Prepared by: Bob Tickner, SuperiNendeN Parks and Recreation DepartmeN Ed Hodney, Director Parks and Recreation DepartmeN yS:\O~ Documents\Ordinances\02\Uhap 26 Ordinance Denton Crossing waterline Easement MP 724 7 16 02.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SUB-SURFACE USE OF A PORTION OF THE DENTON BRANCH RAIL/TRAIL ADJACENT TO THE NORTH SIDE OF LOOP 288 AT MILE POST 728 FOR THE PURPOSE OF A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT iN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 26 OF THE TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE CODE; PROVIDING FOR A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Section 26.001 of the Texas Parks of Wildlife Code provides that public land designated and used as a park may be used for a not}park purpose if the City Council finds after notice and hearing that there is not feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land for the proposed project and the proposed project includes all reasonable planning to minimize harm to the park resulting from such use; and WHEREAS, the City of Denton desires to provide for a required public utility easemem of approximately 100 linear feet across the trail for proper water utility services; and WHEREAS, The City of Denton desires to construct a water pipeline across the Denton Branch Rail/Trail since alternative options would not be feasible and prudent; and WHEREAS, the City provided notice in the Denton Record Chronicle on June 23, June 30 and July 7, 2002 of a Public Hearing to be held on July 16, 2002 in the Council Chambers to consider the alternatives to the use of City Park for the subject public utility easemem; and WHEREAS, the City Council on July 16, 2002, received testimony at a public hearing on the issues of no feasible and prudem alternative to the use of the property for the proposed project and that the project includes all reasonable planning to minimize harm to the DeNon Branch Rail/Trail resulting from the public utility easemem; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that tie project does not fall within the purview of Section 253.001 of the Texas Local Government Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that there is no feasible and prudem alternative to the use of the park land and that the subject water line project ircludes all reasonable planning to minimize harm to the park as a result of the project; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The Public Utility Easemem and water pipeline proposed by the City of DeNon (the "Project") shall be constructed and maimained below the surface of the park property described in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof for all purposes, and that the surface of the park after installation of the water line pipe shall beconstructed in a manner so that the park land may still be used by its patrons after completion of the Project in the same manner it was used prior to the Project. S:\Our Docmments\Or dinances\02\Chap 26 Ordinance Denton Crossing waterline Easement MP 724 7 16 02. doc SECTION 2. A Public Utility easement which is revocable as required by law (National Trails System Act, 16 U.S.C. 1247(d)) shall be signed by the City Manager or his designee and approved by the City Attorney allowing the use of the park property for the Project as referenced above with appropriate provision to insure the improvements are conlructed in accordance with City Subdivision Rules and Regulations; protects the patrons using the park from injury and damage both during and after construction of the Project; compensates for the reasonable market value of the use herein granted and generally protects the health, safety and general welfare of the City. SECTION 3. During construction of the Project, temporary use of such additional park land necessary to stage the construction of the improvements may be approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation Department. However, at the completion of the construction activities for the Project such additional park land shall be restored to the condition to which it existed prior to the beginning of such construction activities. SECTION 4. The rights and benefits set forth in this ordinance may not be assigned without the express written consent of the City. SECTION 5. The findings contained in the preamble of this ordinance are incorporated into the body of this ordinance. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2001. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR By: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Page 2 of 2 Power Plant Exhibit A Denton Branch Rail Trail waterline crossing easement Spencer Oaks Apartme Proposed Denton Cros Shopping Center Propos :d waterline cro,, easement Target Store JUM.11o2002 B:49PM JOMES & CARTER JUH.ll.~002 B:50PM JOHES & CARTER STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DENTON Denton Crossing 20 Foot off-sEe Public Utility Easement - 0.05 acres All that certain tract or parcel of land situated in the J.S. Tatt Survey, Abstract 1~256, and being a part of that certain tract of land conveyed to the City of Denton recorded as County Clerk File #93-0058485, Deed Records of Denton County, Texas, and I~eing more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows: BEGINNING at a point in northerly line of State Highway Loop 288 and being the southwest corner of Lot 1, Block A, The Waterford at Spencer Oaks, an additioa to the City of Denton, filed for record in Volume N, Page 221-223, Plat Records of Der~ton County, Texas, in the east line of said City of Denton tract, from which a 112" iron rod found for the southeast corner of said The Waterford at Spencer Oaks and the southwest comer of Lot 1, Block A, Lone Star Par 3 Addition, an addition to theCity of Denton, Denton County, Texas, according to the plat filed of record in Cabinet I~, Slide 277, Plat Records of Denton County, Texas, beam, North 60°22'40" East, a distance of 321.83 feet and North 64°24'15" East, a distance of 17.29 feet; ~ THENCE South 60°22'40'. West, along the northerly line of said State Highway a distance of 102.06 feet to a point in the west line of said City tract, for the southwest comer of this tract; THENCE North 41°09'40" West, along the west line of said City tract, a distance of 20.41 feet to a point for the northwest comer of this tract; THENCE North 60°22'40" East, a distance of 102.06 feet to the east line of said City tract and the west line of said The Waterford at Spencer Oaks, to a point for the northeast corner of this tract; THENCE South 41°09'40" East, along said line, a distance of 20.41 feet to the pLACE OF BEGINNING and containing 0.05 acres of land, more or less, according to the exhibit of even date herewith, attached hereto, and made a part hereof. June 7, 2002 H:~unt~306-O17~ot~lte 20' PUE.doc Exhibit B Parks, Recreation and Beautification Minutes June 24, 2002 City Hall Conference Room Members present: Don Edwards, Brandon Barnes, Dale Yeatts, Cassandra Berry, and Geri Aschenbrenner. Members abseN: Teresa Abrams and Dalton Gregory. Staff present: Ed Hodney, Janet Simpson, Emerson Vorel, John Whitmore, Bob Tickner, Lancine Bentley and Janie McLeod. Chairman Don Edwards called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. AWARDS AND RECOGNITION. Staff showed the 2002 Gold Medal Award video and INegrated Pest ManagemeN (IPM) video. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Dale Yeatts made a motion to approve the May minutes and Geri Aschenbrenner seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimous. ACTION ITEMS. Hold a discussion and make a recommendation on a Water Line Easement for Denton Crossing. Bob said that the City of Denton Engineering Department has requested the use of parkland for the purpose of a public utility easemeN in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code. Bob said the easemeN is located on the DeNon Branch Rail Trail. He added that it would not disrupt the use of the trail and that all the work would be subsurface. ACTION: Geri Aschenbrenner made a motion to approve the request and Dale Yeatts seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimous. DISCUSSION ITEMS - None DIRECTOR'S REPORT Denton Arts and Jazz Festival. Janet gave a briefing of the impact of the Denton Arts and Jazz Festival on the department. She reviewed the distributed reports on the history, statistics, cost incurred by the department, impact of the event, and contributions made by the Denton Festival Foundation. Denton Civic Center Park Master Plan. Ed reviewed the master plan for the park. Improvements discussed were the need to improve/increase parking areas for large evens; the need for more large spaces for groups to gather rather than small pockets of space; and a need to consolidate areas to assist in the maintenance. Staff Briefing on Keep Denton Beautiful. Lancine Bentley gave a briefing of the various activities that KDB participates. Some of the activities are: litter reduction, beautification and community improvemeN, and solid waste issues. Lancine also distributed KDB promotional materials. Project Status Report. Ed said he would respond to any questions regarding the report. no questions. Keep Denton Beautiful Report. There were no questions for Lancine. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. There were This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #29 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: July 16, 2002 Parks and Recreation Department Dave Hill ~' · SUBJECT Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance graining approval of an off- site sub-surface use of South Lakes Park for the purpose of oil and gas drilling operations in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code; providing for an oil and gas lease; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND The Nations Gas Company has requested the off-site sub-surface use of parkland for the purpose stated, in order to drill for oil and natural gas deposits. State law as defined in Chapter 26, Protection of Public Parks and Recreational Lands, of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code requires that: (a) a municipality of this state may not approve any program or project that requires the use or taking of any public land designated and used prior to the arrangement of the program or project as a park unless the municipality, acting through its duly authorized governing body or officer, determines that: (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use or taking of such lan& and (2) the program or project includes all reasonable planning to minimize harm to the land, as a park, resulting from the use or taking. (b) A finding may be made only after notice and a hearing as required by this chapter." If the proposed oil and gas lease is allowed, a value must be placed on the acreage used and charged to Nations Gas Company. Since all drilling will be done from adjacem property, no parkland will be disturbed. Parks and Recreation Departmem have reviewed all other possible alternatives. These alternatives included: · Allow onsite drilling for natural gas and oil on park acreage. This option will remove parkland acreage from recreational use. It will also invoke the land conversion process that will require the city to replace the land being used for drilling by adding land adjacem to the park or another park in the general area. Also the agreemem with Texas Parks and Wildlife Departmem restricts drilling for minerals and mining on the park surface when Local Park Developmem Gram funds were accepted in 1994. This option does not meet acceptable legal agreements as well as concerns for land and environmental issues. · Do not allow drilling operations to penetrate below the park land. This option will not provide the ability to extricate oil and gas minerals from the land and any financial returns from mineral resources. · Permit the off site drilling of gas and oil wells to extract the natural gas resources that may exist under the surface of the park.. This option is recommended to produce future financial resources for the city and the oil producer. OPTIONS Because alternatives to the on-site leases are not feasible, the best option is to approve the off-site sub-surface drill use as presemed. RECOMMENDATION After reviewing all other alternatives, staff recommends approval of the use of South Lakes Park for oil and gas leasing. There would be no major impact on currem park operations or programs. The Parks and Recreation Department confirms that the City of Denton has investigated all other alternatives and has used reasonable planning to minimize harm to the land. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT Construction is projected to begin in fall/wimer of 2002. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The Parks and Recreation Board considered this item at their May20, 2002 meeting and recommend to City Council the approval of offsite drilling under the park. and that funds received be directed for improvemems to a dedicated parks fund.. FISCAL INFORMATION Compensation related to this use is still under discussion with Nations Gas Inc. It is reasonable to expect that financial consideration for leasing of land and royalties on production of gas and oil will be at market rates to benefit the City of DeNon. BID INFORMATION Not applicable EXHIBITS: Ordinance Map (Exhibit A) Park Board Minutes (Exhibit B) Respectfully Submitted: Prepared by: Bob Tickner, Superimendem Parks and Recreation Departmem Ed Hodney, Director Parks and Recreation Departmem yS:\O~ Documents\Gas Well Docmments\Uhaprer 26 parks.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SUB-SURFACE USE OF SOUTH LAKE PARK FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN OIL AND GAS NONDRiLLING/POOLiNG AGREEMENT iN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 26 OF THE TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE CODE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Section 26.001 of the Texas Parks of Wildlife Code provides that public land designated and used as a park may be used for a nol~park purpose if the City Council finds after notice and hearing that there is not feasible and prudent altermtive to the use of such land for the proposed project and the proposed project includes all reasonable planning to minimize harm to the park resulting from such use; and WHEREAS, the City of Denton desires to provide for a sub-surface use of South Lake Park for the purpose of an Oil and Gas Nondrilling/Pooling Agreement, ("the Project"); and WHEREAS, the City provided notice in the DeNon Record Chronicle on June 23, June 30 and July 7, 2002 of a Public Hearing to be held on July 16, 2002 in the Coumil Chambers to consider the alternatives to the sub-surface use of South Lake Park for the purpose of an Oil and Gas Nondrilling/Pooling Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City Council on July 16, 2002, received testimony at a public hearing on the issues of no feasible and prudem alternative to the use of the property for the proposed project and that the project includes all reasonable planning to minimize harm to South Lake Park from the the sub-surface use of South Lake Park for the purpose of an Oil and (ts Nondrilling/Pooling Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the project does not fall within the purview of Section 253.001 of the Texas Local Government Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that there is no feasible and prudent alernative to the use of the park land and that the project includes all reasonable planning to minimize harm to the park as a result of the project; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The sub-surface use of South Lake Park for the purpose of an Oil and Gas Nondrilling/Pooling Agreemem is hereby allowed and the surface of the park may still be used by its patrons after completion of the Project in the same manner it was used prior to the Project. SECTION 2. The rights and benefits set forth in this ordinance may not be assigned without the express written consent of the City. SECTION 3. The findings comained in the preamble of this ordinance are incorporated imo the body of this ordinance. S:\Our Docmments\Gas Well Documents\Chapter 26 parks.doc SECTION 4: This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2001. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR By: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Page 2 of 2 Exhibit A South Lakes Park Proposed Oil and Gas Drilling Leases Proposed Gas Well Site Proposed Gas Well Site Exhibit B Parks, Recreation and Beautification May 20, 2002 Senior Center Arts & Crafts Room Members present: Don Edwards, Dale Yeatts, Dalton Gregory, Cassandra Berry, and Brandon Barnes. Members absent: Geri Aschenbrenner and Teresa Andress. Staff present: Ed Hodney, Bob Tickner, John Whitmore, Emerson Vorel and Janie McLeod. Others present: Loretta May, citizen, Jeff Gilbert with the Senior Center, Ed Snyder and Dottie Palumbo with the City Legal Department. Chairman Don Edwards called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. AWARDS AND RECOGNITION. Ed said that the department had had its bi-annual awards luncheon and he announced who had received awards. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Dalton Gregory made a motion to approve the March 25th minutes. Dale Yeatts seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. ACTION ITEMS. Hold a Discussion and make a recommendation on Oil and Gas Leases for City Parks. Bob said that Acme Brick is pursuing authority to drill gas wells on their property next to South Lakes Park. Since it is possible to slant drill under adjacent property, the city is considering leasing park property for the production of gas and oil wells. Two city attorneys were available to response to questions. Action: Brandon Barnes made a motion to recommend no opposition to directional drilling from properties outside of or adjacent to park land, subject to a requirement for Chapter 26 hearings and appropriate measures to eliminate or mitigate potential harmful impacts, if any, to parks and facilities. Further, that any royalty revenue derived from the harvest of mineral resources on park property be placed in a dedicated parks fund. Dalton Gregory seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS - None DIRECTOR'S REPORT. Staff Briefing on the Senior Center. Jeff Gilbert, manager of the Senior Center, discussed the various activities that center provides to its customers. A few of the areas are: various classes, special trips, special events, educational workshops, music and dance activities and other leisure pursuits. Jeff said the center serves active adults 50 years and older and is looking at new activities for the upcoming senior "baby boomer" generation. Jeff stated that there is a need for newer equipment for the seniors' computer classes. Dalton suggested Jeff contact the DISD and try to work an agreement with the schools to use their computers during evening or summer times. Dale also said that UNT might be able to contribute some of their less used computers. Ed said there have been suggestions to rename the senior center. He said at this time there is not enough concession to bring to the board. If the Senior Advisory Board moves forward with a recommended name change, it would require public input and then the recommendation would be presented to the PARD board before any action could be taken. Project Status Report. Ed said he would respond to any questions regarding the report. There were no questions. Keep Denton Beautiful Report. Janie distributed the report to the Board. Other Items. Ed reminded the Board that the new natatorium groundbreaking is scheduled for May 22nd at 3:30 p.m. There not being any future business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. This page left blank intemionally. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #30 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: July 16, 2002 Planning Department David M. Hill, AiCP, 349-8314 SUBJECT - SI02-0001 (Conservation District Ordinance) Hold a public hearing to consider adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 35 "DeNon Developmem Code", of the Code of Ordinances of the of the City of DeNon, Texas, to add Conservation Districts to protect neighborhoods that do not qualify for historic district status but have significant architectural, historic merit and distinct character. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (5-1, Keith opposed, Roy absem). (Si02-0001) BACKGROUND Applicam: City of DeNon The applicam is requesting amending chapter 35 of the City of DeNon Code of Ordinances to add section 35.7.6 "HiSTORiC CONSERVATION DiSTRiCT." Conservation districts are usually residential neighborhoods, with certain idemifiable attributes embodied in architecture, urban design, and history. These districts are created as an overlay- zoning tool used to preserve neighborhood character. Conservation districts can be used to protect neighborhoods that do not qualify for historic district status but have significant architectural, historic merit and a distinct character. A conservation district ordinance accomplishes this purpose by regulating new construction, major alterations or additions to existing buildings and demolition. Each neighborhood applying for conservation district status would be responsible for drafting design guidelines to address the unique needs and attributes of the area. As new neighborhoods are developed in DeNon, regulations dictate the type of buildings, size, setbacks, and materials that may be used, giving them a flavor or character of their own. Older neighborhoods were not built with these protections. One benefit of conservation districts is to provide older neighborhoods with similar protections. This ordinance will give older neighborhoods the opportunity to preserve their character and historic imegrity and ensure new construction fits the architectural characteristics of the area. The regulations are being drafted so that property owners may volumarily request that these regulations be imposed. Notice of the public hearing was published in the DeNon Record Chronicle on June 1, 2002. Since the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing, the Legal Department has modified the ordinance. The original wording of 35.7.6.4 A. was confusing and has been amended to convey that the initiation of a conservation district is contingent not only upon the written request of more than half of the owners of property within the proposed district, but that the owners must collectively own more than half of the building sites within the proposed district. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Deny. 3. Postpone consideration. 4. Table item. RECOMMENDATION The Historic Landmark Commission recommends approval (6-0) Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (5-1, Keith opposed, Roy absem). ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Initiation of Conservation Districts can occur once ordinance is adopted. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology of SI02-0001, Ordinance: commonly known as Conservation District In 1995, the City of DeNon and the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) hired Knight and Associates, through a Certified Local Government Grant, to conduct a historic resources survey of DeNon. The survey idemified 2,409 historic properties within the city limits; 91% of these structures are domestic architecture. The consultants recommended several areas of town that would qualify for conservation district status: the Bell Avenue area, the Locust/Austin Street area, and the Congress School area. A Planning and Zoning Commission workshop was held on March 13, 2002 to receive public input. The workshop included a presentation on conservation districts. There were no recommendations made during this discussion. FISCAL INFORMATION None ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Historic Landmark Commission Meeting Excerpts 3. Frequemly Asked Questions about Conservation Districts 4. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, June 12, 2002 5. Proposed Ordinance Prepared by: Julie Glover Main Street Program Manager, CMSM Respectfully submitted: Linda Ratliff Director of Economic Development ATTACHMENT 1 Staff Analysis Summary_ of Request The applicam is requesting to amend chapter 35 of the City of Demon Code of ordinances to add to add section 35.7.6 "HISTORIC CONSERVATION DiSTRiCT." This ordinance would be subject to the same rules as other zoning cases. It would require a super majority vote to pass if 20% of affected adjacem property owners oppose. Comprehensive Plan Analysis Chapter Four, "Historic Preservation," of The Denton Plan, 1999-2020 Comprehensive Plan of the City of Denton recommends that: "The unique distinctive cultural, historical, and architectural features of Denton should be identified, restored, preserved, and maintained through a partnership between the city and private interests, in keeping with the historic preservation plan." ~o. 95) "Existing neighborhoods should be protected and preserved. " (19.95) "Identify and create additional historic and conservation districts." (p.95) "Protect individual sites or aspects of areas as being of historical significance." (p.95) "The Historic Land Mark Commission and city preservation officer will identify and recommend areas within the city limits that qualify for conservation district designation. Potential conservation district sites currently under consideration are Austin-Locust Conservation District and Bell Avenue Neighborhood Conservation District." (p. 96) Staff Findings 1. The proposed ordinance to allow conservation districts is consistent with the recommendations from the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Conservation districts will provide protection for older neighborhoods. ATTACHMENT 2 Historic Landmark Commission Meeting Excerpts From HLC minutes, November 15, 1999-- Ron Emrich, Principal of Urban Prospects Historic Preservation and Resources Development, facilitated a board orientation/training for the HLC Commissioners. Some of the topics discussed included: historic districts; developing conservation districts; design guidelines; protection mechanisms; and grant categories. From HLC minutes, April 10, 2000--Discuss organizing neighborhood meetings for proposed conservation districts for Austin-Locust Street area and Bell Avenue area. May 22, 2000 - The first Austin/Locust neighborhood meeting was held at Lanelle Blanton's home - 520 Austin St. Approximately 20 people were in attendance. All attending were in favor of pursuing a conservation district June 12, 2000 - The first Bell Street neighborhood meeting was held at Gary Hayden's house, 2106 N. Bell Street. Approximately 20 people in attendance, all were in favor of pursuing a conservation district. After the first meeting, the Bell Area Neighborhood Association (BANA) began meeting each Monday night to discuss methodology. 2000-Present-- HLC has received reports from both of these groups on a regular basis and has worked with city staff and Lila Knight, historic preservation consultant, on creating this "umbrella" ordinance allowing for conservation districts. BANA has gathered information from residents regarding creation of a conservation district and currently have 90% support in the proposed area. They are now working on design guidelines so they will be ready to apply and receive conservation district status once the umbrella ordinance is in effect. December 10, 2001--HLC unanimously recommended approval of an ordinance allowing the creation of conservation districts by a vote of 7-0. ATTACHMENT 3 Frequently Asked Questions Frequently Asked Questions About Historic Conservation Districts Q. What is a historic conservation district? A. Conservation districts are usually residential neighborhoods, with certain identifiable attributes embodied in architecture, urban design, and history. These districts are created as an overlay-zoning tool used to preserve neighborhood character. Conservation districts can be used to protect neighborhoods that may not qualify for historic district status but have significant architectural, historic merit and a distinct character. Q. How does a conservation district ordinance protect a neighborhood? A. The ordinance accomplishes this purpose by regulating new construction, major alterations or additions to existing buildings and demolition. Each neighborhood applying for conservation district status would be responsible for drafting design guidelines to address the unique needs and attributes of the area. Q. Why does the proposed ordinance allow for fines up to $2,000 per day for violations? A. The fine is the same for all zoning violations in the city. Any time that a ruling is created that people cannot do something, the only way to enforce it is to create a way to enforce it. The key words here are "up to"--that doesn't mean that every violation would be charged the maximum allowable fine. Q. Is the fine the same in the Historic Oak/Hickory district? A. Yes Q. Has anyone ever been fined in the historic district for breaking zoning violations related to the historic district zoning ordinance? A. No Q. Why is the ordinance restrictive? A. If everyone in the district were allowed to comply voluntarily with the design guidelines, there really would be no reason to have a conservation district. The area would be depending on everyone to "do the right thing." Q. Why isn't there anything in the ordinance about demolitions or moving structures into or out of the district? A. Each district will address these concerns in their design guidelines. Q. If we become a Historic Conservation District, will the local government or my neighbors tell me what I can and can't do to my house? A. Each neighborhood will have its own design guidelines. Each property, new or existing, must comply with the guidelines agreed upon by their neighborhood. As guidelines are created, neighbors will have the opportunity to participate in the process and offer their opinions. As a general role, anything visible from the street (not including generaI maintenance) or anything that would require a building permit from the city would require a Certificate Of Appropriateness. Q. What are design guidelines? A. Design guidelines assist property owners with new construction or rehabilitation of their homes. The guidelines will be written by each neighborhood applying for a conservation district. They will outline the approach to certain design issues. For example, the guidelines might address how far a building should be from the street or a maximum height (commercial or residential). Guidelines may also address inappropriate approaches, such as building a glass and steel structure in the midst of a neighborhood that consists of wooden bungalows. Q. Why have design guidelines? A. The guidelines outline an approach to design that will help sustain the character of the historic structures in a district. The intent is to provide information that property owners may use in making decisions about their property. The guidelines also provide the Historic Landmark Commission a basis for making informed, consistent recommendations. Protecting the conservation district's character and history is the main function of the guidelines. The guidelines represent a partnership among property owners in the district. When owners invest in the rehabilitation or construction of property, they Iike to know that their investment will be protected. Application of the guidelines is one part of that economic protection. Q. What is a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)? A. A COA is a simple one-page form that the owner of a building fills out prior to major exterior renovations. It assures the Historic Landmark Commission and the Conservation District that the changes being made are appropriate and meet the design guidelines established by the district. General maintenance, such as replacing a screen door, painting, or roof repair will not require a COA unless specified in that particular district's guidelines. Q. What ifI don't want to be in the district or comply with the design guidelines? A. You should attend neighborhood meetings to see where the proposed boundaries are and participate in the process of defining the design guidelines. However, all houses that are in the final approved conservation district will be required to abide by the guidelines. Potential owners should be informed of the district and its restrictions prior to purchasing a home. Q. What if there are a lot of people that don't want to be in the district? A. A majority of the neighbors must support the ordinance for it to move forward. If20% of the neighbors oppose the district, it will require a super majority vote (6-1) from both Planning & Zoning and City Council. If there were a large number of people that are against forming a district, the Historic Landmark Commission would probably suggest more education, redrawing maps, or perhaps something less restrictive, such as a neighborhood association. Q. Will I get a tax break? A. Just being in a conservation district does not provide a specific tax exemption. If you receive a local historic designation on your home, you are eligible for a 50% exemption on your city taxes for 15 years. This is the same process for homes in a historic district. Q. If I'm in a district and want to remodel my house, what steps should I take? A. 1. Consult your district's guidelines to see if your repairs fall under general maintenance. If so, you do not need to proceed to step 2, just begin your project. 2. If your remodel/renovation is a major, project you need to fill out the one-page Certificate of Appropriateness and mm it into the City of Denton's Historic Preservation Officer (the Historic Landmark Commission meets the second Monday of the month. To ensure a timely public hearing, please have the COA turned in by the first Monday of the month). 3. Attend the HLC meeting. If the COA is approved or approved with changes, secure the proper building permits and begin your project. If the COA is denied, you can work with your neighborhood design committee and HLC to modify your plans until they meet the guidelines. If you do not want to modify your plans, you may appeal any HLC decision to the City Council. Q. Why does Denton need a conservation district ordinance? A. As new neighborhoods are developed in Denton, regulations dictate the type of buildings, size, setbacks, and materials that may be used, giving them a flavor or character of their own. Older neighborhoods were not built with these protections. One benefit of conservation districts is to provide older neighborhoods with similar protections. This ordinance will give older neighborhoods the opportunity to preserve their character and historic integrity and ensure new construction fits the architectural characteristics of the area. ATTACHMENT 4 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, June 12, 2002 13. Hold a public hearing consider making a recommendation to City Council concerning the ordinance amending Chapter 35 "Demon Developmem Code", of the Code of ordinances of the of the City of Denton, Texas, to add a Conservation District to protect neighborhoods that do not qualify for historic district status but have significant architectural, historic merit and distinct character; providing a severability clause and repealer clause; and providing an effective date. (SI02-0001, Conservation District Ordinance, Julie Glover) Motion by Bob Powell 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 81). Motion carries 5-1 - Commissioner Bill Keith opposed. CondcnscltTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 81 COMMiSSiONER RISHEL: Once again, I will continue the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. As we -- before we broke, we had finished up Item No. 12. We are currently on Item No. 13 on our Agenda. Item No. 13 should be posted on our docucam shortly. And if someone would tell me who is going to present on Item No. 13 and that may be Julie GIover, yes, dealing with conservation districts. Ms. Glover, you have the floor. MS. GLOVER: chairman Rish¢l, Commissioners, good evening. As you nmy recall we discussed -- COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And your pronunciation was much better than I've been doing this evening. MS. eLevEn: we did discuss creating a conservation ordinance or to allow the creation of conservation districts at your work session on March the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Page 83 MS. GLOVER: The purpose of establishing this ordinance is for the protection of the neighborhoods, not to create more restrictions. This is a volunteer process initiated by the residents of the neighborhood. Each neighborhood will create their own design guidelines, and they can be as restrictive or as lenient as they wish. We currently have three neighborhoods in Denton that are very interested in applying for conservation district status. Neighborhood preservation is a priority for the City Council currently and it was discussed at length last night in their Work Session. Conservation Districts were listed in the white paper that they received as a tool to prevent decline in neighborhoods. The proposed ordinance is consistent with recmmnendations from the Comprehensive Plan. And staff recmmnends approval. I'd be happy to address any questions you might have. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: We have at least a 13th. The Historic Lanchnark Commission began working on this concept in 1995. We met with the Bell Avenue Neighborhood Association for the very first time two years ago today as a matter of fact. And they've been very active in helping us with this process of creating this ordinance. Page 82 I I had a couple of questions come up with 2 press people lately. So I thought might clear that up in 3 case you're wondering what the difference is between a 4 conservation district and a historic district. And the 5 basic thing is it's the level of restrictions that's 6 involved. 7 For an exm'aple, in the historic district, 8 the HLC can deny even a certain color of house paint. And 9 even for general maintenance, anyone that lives in that 10 district has to submit a certificate of appropriateness 11 whether it goes to staff or whether or it goes to HLC. In 12 a conservation district, paint and general maintenance are 13 not an issue. They're not regulated and only major 14 renovations would require a certificate of 15 appropriateness. The purpose of establishing this 16 ordinance is for the protection -- 17 COMMISSIONER RISI-IEL: would you clarify 18 your acronyms. HLC? 19 MS. GLOVER: I'm sorry. Historic Lanchnark 20 Cmm~ission. 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I appreciate when 22 staff would kind of speak in normal type terms for us. We 23 up here I'm sure and most of our people in the audience 24 know what those are, but if we'd do away with those 25 acronyms and use the real words, it might help everyone. 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 tl 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 question from Cormnissioner Powell. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's actually more of a statement. Bouncing off of what you said a minute ago. I would really like for staff and everyone else to refer to these as residential conservation districts which is what, I guess, Page 84 the official title is. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: [ meant to correct myself. Thank you. COMMISSIONER POWELL: And the reason I'm bringing that up is not just for grins here. When I think of conservation districts, I think of nature conservation districts. I think of flowing streams and trees and whatnot, but that's not what you're talking about at all. And I was confused for a while here and I recognize that I confuse easy, but nevertheless, if in the future, we would really refer to this as residential conservation district, it would be clearer to I think a lot of people. I can't be the only one making that mistake. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: [ cited myself on that, and I thought about that the minute i said that, so thank you for that clarification. MS. ~LOVER: we did have it in the original document as residential, however, it was brought to our attention that there may bc conunercial districts in the City say south of downtown that might want to create one of these districts to protect themselves. So we were trying to use a broader term of historic conservation districts. COMMISSIONER POWELL: well, that would be fine and maybe some other word ahead of it would be great. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 12, 2002 Page 81 - Page 84 CondcnscltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 tl 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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 85 But just to say conservation districts, I know when people read about this in thc paper and they only read the headlines or they only read the first sentence, they're not going to be thinking about what you're doing. MS. GLOVER: okay. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: we're conserving residences. COMMISSIONER POWELL: They're going to be thinking about something else eutireIy. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Good point. Ms. Glover. MS. GLOVER: No more comments. If you have questions, I'd be happy to -- COMMISSIONER RISHEL: conlllliSsiorlerS, any further questions of Ms. Glovcr? Thank you very much. That concludes the staff report. This is a public hearing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Page 87 to say some congratulations to the Historic Landmark Commission and to the members of the Bell Avenue Neighborhood Association that have worked so hard on this ordinance in the last few years. Sort of a test case test drive for the rest of the City or guinea pigs might be another way to describe it. Nevertheless, they have done a lot of work and I appreciate it. This is an excellent tool for neighborhood preservation in the conununity and that's why I think it's something that is important for you-all to consider. I have -- with that being said, with that almost unqualified endorse~nent of the ordinance before you, I do have a couple of qualifications in there and I've provided them for you in written form. I hope you got them there at your desks. And my first question had and a reconunendation will bo made from the Conunission to the City Council. I think we probably have several people that would tike to speak. And now that I have smiled for time long enough for us to find those cards, the first card that I have is Brian Morrison. Is Mr. Morrison here 17 18 19 2O 21 to do with the term in the first whereas of the ordinance that states that -- which are not districts that are not appropriate for historical district designation. And I question as to whether that is really pertinent to thc issue at hand here because, in fact, seine and would yon care to speak? You did put that you did not want to speak. My assistant normally has these all sorted out. And being we just rediscovered where the cards were, Page 86 we didn't get a chance to get those in some some of order. So thank you very much. And basically your comments say 22 23 24 25 of these districts could very well be appropriate for historical designation but just choose not to do that. And I think that by eliminating this particular clause, tben you can strengthen it. It doesn't add anything to a Page 88 document. It doesn't strengthen it at ail. And, in fact, it may weaken it by muddying the waters at some point for you support the creation of the ordinance to allow for residential conservation districts and recognize they're protecting older neighborhoods in Denton. So thank you very much. Mr. Coct~ran. Is Mr. Cochran here and would you like to speak.'? The next person that I have is Bob Ralph and I'll ask you to be on deck, if you would. COMMISSIONER POWELL: with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, did you ever know Mr. Cochran not to want to 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 when a district does, in fact, go through the process, become a conservation district, and then go on and decide they later would like to become a historic district, yet it's already been stated that it's not appropriate for them to be a historic district. Just something for your consideration here. I also have, if you look on page 2 of the document under the definitions, being a landmark is not a requirement of being included in the district. So you have a phrase here, Item No. 1 under definitions, historic speak?. COMMISSIONER RtSH£L: Yes, numerous times. MR. COCHRAN: It's happened a time or two. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Not recently. MR. COCHRAN: It depends on who I'm speaking to, Mr. Powcll. Mike Cochran, 610 West Oak Street. Pleasure to see you-all, or a pleasure to see most of you-all. COMMISSIONER RISItEL: [ can remember spccificatly asking him to speak an an event and him declining, in fact. Mr. Cochran. MR. COCHRAN: In any event, the clock starts now, presumably. Thanks for the opportunity to speak here on this issue. Cn'cctlngs to you all. I want 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 conservation districts means geographically defined areas including lanchmrk or group of lanchnarks created by the City Council for the purpose of historic preservation. And my markups that I've suggested to you is that if you take out "including a landmark or group of landmarks" because the landmark, again, is not a qualification for necessarily being in this district, as I read it. And instead of historic preservation being a goal, it's neighborhood preservation. Just a suggestion. These are just ['or you-all to consider. I had a question on Item No. 3 concerning the difference between owners of property and owners of building sites and wondering what is the distinction. And PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 12, 2002 Page §5 - Page 88 CondcnscItTM Page 89 I it' you can maybe, it' someone can answer that at some point 2 tiffs evening. You don't have to necessarily do so right 3 now. ]But it's a generic question. 4 And then I guess also on page nmnber 3, 5 there's an item, once again, that the Lan&hark 6 Commissioner shall conduct studies and research and make a 7 report on the landmarks within the historic conservation 8 district. My suggestion would be, again, that since 9 landmarks are not necessarily one of the criteria for 10 becoming a conservation district, that, in fact, that 11 might better be said "tile properties" with scratching out 12 down, farther down which would be lanchnarks if the area 13 were designated as a historic conservation district. 14 Because, in fact, that implies that 15 anything in the district would automatically become a 6 lanchnark and I do not believe that that's the case, 17 because the whole point about this is that ordinary 18 neighborhoods and regular neighborhoods can qualify for an 19 extra level of protection and that's the beauty of what 20 this is all about. 21 Is that one minute? 22 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Yoah. 23 MR. COCHP4N: r may actually come out with 24 a surplus here this evening. That's amazing. In any 25 event, that's the beauty of what this is about is where 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 90 ordinary neighborhoods can do something to e~npower themselves to have a little extra level of control, and that's why I think this is a good thing and I would hope that you would seriously consider some of my suggestions and urge you to vote for it. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. Cock'an. I have several Conmfissioners that have questions. You realize that your surplus is not something that we refund to you? We will not apply that to the next time you speak, just wanted you to know that. Ma. COCHP~N: and then I get to decide if' I want to respond to the questions, too, presumably, yes. COMMISS£ONER R[SHEL: I'm going to start off with thc first question. I appreciate your input and I know you've had extensive work with many neighborhoods and you work with City Council in dealing with issues. I'm a little bit concerned about the fact that here we are on the 12th hour trying to get something through and now we have a docmncnt dated 6-12-2002 of which I appreciate your Page 91 i COMMISSIONER RISHEL: NO need to comment. 2 MR. COCHRAN: We[[, I would like to, sir, 3 if you don't mind, if I have some spare time and I believe 4 Ido. $ COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YOU still have 23 6 seconds. 7 MR. COCHRAN: And so there we go. The 8 point is this was originally dated 12-1-01 and I had 9 submitted it at that time, And I apologize to the 10 Historic Landmark Cmm'nission, in fact, for not going 11 directly to them, and that would have been the more 12 appropriate -- your cotmnent was right on the mark. But 13 nevertheless, [ didn't do that but you-all still have the 14 power to strike out and add. 15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: ^ppreciate the work 16 that you've put in on this process. 17 MR. COCHRAN: Sure. 18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL; We have a couple of 19 other comments, I believe. Cmm~aissioner Keith. 20 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you, This 21 ordinance is going through real quick. Do you think it 22 will create unnecessary restrictions on property owners in 23 confon~[ng? I mean, is this one going to be a guideline 24 or is this going to be one of mandated confon~ing? 25 MR. COCHRAN: well, it's not going to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Page 92 mandate conformity because, in fact, what you've got, at least in most of these districts, are non-conformity anyway. But what it would do is add an extra level of deliberation and extra level of protection for the existing neighbors that are there. I happen to live in the only district in town right now that exists under any form of extra guidelines other than deed restrictions and HO^s and such. But, nevertheless, I live in a historic district and we found that that actually is a very comforting thing. It has, in fact, sparked, I think, some economic reviva! in the area because it added an extra level of protection that our City ordinances didn't provide. And that's what people are seeking when they are looking for a pleasant single-family environment. You see it down here every day, people wanting something they can count on. They want to bond with the cotmnunity. They want some assurances that what they've got is what they're going to have. And so what this does is add just extra level of time that you spent on this in looking into it, and I know well that you appreciate the circumslances we are in trying to adopt something that will be good for om' co~rmmnity and changing it at tile same time or kind of at the last minute. So I just pass that atong to you. MR, COCHRAN: May I -- 20 protection. '21 And I think that the benefits of that are 22 obvious and we have demonstrated them in at least one 23 section of town that actually has more stringent 24 guidelines than this, We had a few people in the 25 beginning, they were really opposed to this thing and we PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 12, 2002 Page 89 - Page 92 CondenseltTM 1 2 3 4 $ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 2i 22 23 24 25 Page 93 turned every single one of thean around, every single one of them. And so I think that it's a positive thing and the people have worked hard to do it. COMMISSIONER KEITH: well, what would be the approach in el,eating a historical area? How would that be brought about? MR. COCHRAN: well, the process is very similar to this. COMMISSIONER KEiTH: Or conservation district, how would that be brought about? MR. COCHRAN: I'lll SO1Ty, COMMISSIONER I(.EITH: HOW would that be brought about? MR. COCHI~N: well, I'll tell you what, MA'. Keith, I can give you my opinion on how that could be brought about but there arc -- COMMISSIONER KEITH: There'S no blue-print at this time for it? MR. COCHP, AN: well, I'll tell you what, you have to understand that I am not the creator of this docmnent. And what I would hope that you would realize is there are folks here that are more capable of answering that question than I. But I can give you, if you're interested in my opinion et' what the ordinance is, I'll be happy to do that for you. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 95 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Point of order has been called. We want to make sure we stay on task and on Page 94 i COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. I'm just 2 interested in what the blueprint is on how such districts 3 are organized, are created. 4 MR. COCHRAN: well, I'll tell you what, 5 it's actually in that document that you should have before 6 you, the document that you're voting on this evening. 7 It's all laid out them in plain English and you should be 8 able to see exactly what the procedure is, 50 percent of 9 the property owners or site owners in the district need to 10 make an application. It's ali laid out there. I can read 11 it to you if you'd like but, nevertheless, I'm sure you've 12 got J.t in your backup and I'm sure you've read it before 13 this meeting. 14 COMMISSIONER KEITH: I just wanted to hear 15 you describe a brief description real quick for the 16 record. Okay. I have another question. Are you the 17 creator of Citizens for Sound Growth? 18 MR. COCHRAN: I'm not the creator but I'm a 19 member of Citizens for Sound Growth. 20 COMMISSIONER KEITtt: okay. Yeah, I 21 remember your little thing here targeting every vacant 22 property around town. Thank you. 23 MR. COCHRAN: That was the organization, by 24 the way, that opposed the half-cent sales tax and that's 25 how that got started. But thank you very much. topic. Mr. Cochran, we stiI1 have some questions from the Conmfissioners if you have time. MR+ COCHRAN: Sure, COMMISSIONER RISHEL: MS, Holt, Conuniss[oner Holt. COMMISSIONER tlOLT: I don't know whether it's for Mr. Cochran or possibly Julie Glover about the ordinance. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: If you'll stay right here and maybe Ms. Glover will join us. COMMISSIONER }~OLT: since you helped in writing this, it's really about if someone presents their project and it is denied, and be. cause of physical hardship they cannot do what the district wants them to do. What happens then? MS. OLOVER: They would be written into the guidelines. Ia tile historic preservation ordinance, we do consider financial hardship. That is something that the Co~mnissioners take into consideration. COMMISSIONER HOLT: But could it ever prevent someone from fixing something that they don't like about their house? MS. GLOVER: I'm sorry, I guess I'm not Page 96 1 understanding. 2 COMMISSIONER HOLT: well, say, what they 3 wanted to do to their house did not -- they couldn't 4 afford to do what you-all wanted them to do or you felt 5 was the right thing to do, but they could do something 6 lesser, what would happen? 7 MS. GLOVER: we would try to work that out 8 with them to come to some sort of agreement, meet in some 9 middle ground. l0 COMMISSIONER HOLT: SO thom would always be 11 a middle ground? 12 MS. O[OVnR: There would always be a middle 13 ground. 14 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Never be a total denial 15 of, no, you cannot do this to your property. 16 MS, OLOVER: in the last couple of years, 17 the Historic Landmark Commission has even allowed some 18 people to put almninmn windows in the historic district on 19 tile back sides of the houses that are not visible [rom the 20 streets for that very reason, because of financial 21 hardship, because of issues oF energy efficiency. So, 22 yes, I think that each group could work with the people in 23 their neighborhood and come to some sort of conclusion on 24 that. 25 COMMISSIONER HOLT: And who would be file PLANNING AND ZONING COlVlMISSION JUNE 12, 2002 Page 93 - Page 96 CondcnscltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 i1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2I 22 23 24 25 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 97 bottom line? MS. GLOVER: It would go first to the Historic Lanchnark Commission would have oversight. If somebody wanted to, for instance, come in and tear out the front wall of their house and build a carport, it would go first to Historic Lanchnark Co~mnission. We would have some Page 99 affect your property rights is something when you live in a city that you cannot deny. And what this does, it's ahnost a protection from what you might call the worst neighbor scenario. And I think I may have just made that up but, nevertheless, that's the idea. And you give up something in thc process. You give up cerlain rights input from the neighborhood that was affected. If they were denied at Historic Landmark Cmmnission, they could appeal to Planning and Zoning. If you denied thmn, they could appeal to City Council. COMMISSIONER HOLT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Maybe I could get both Ms. Glover and Mr. Cochran to join me here. One of the things that I hear continually about -- from other cities and other conununities about historical districts and about residential conservation districts is the fact that people co~mnent that it would be inappropriate for a neighborhood, when they have things in there that look to be perhaps really ugly in a specific neighborhood, that it might be an improvement to be able to tear that structure down and the complications we go through are like that. And I know Mr. Cochran loves his neighborhood. And there's probably some houses on that block that may or may not be as appropriate as possible, but I know that he loves every single one of thcan for the heritage and tile 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 i22 23 24 25 yourself. But what you gain from it is some control and some reassurance that your neighborhood is going to be stable and it's not going to be on a rollercoaster ride any longer. And those are some of the things that you gain from what we have experienced with our historic district. MS, OLOVER: I have a core, neat. COMMISSIONER R£SHEL: please. MS. o[ove}~: uuildings and houses are resources just llke natural resources, just like we shouldn't waste water and we shouldn't waste our trees. If that building is there and it can be saved, nine times out of tea it's going to cost you less money to rehab a building than it is to tear it down and put up a whole new building. And, of course, a lot of things are grandfathered in an older building where you might have to come up to more stringent codes that are more expensive if you build from tile ground up. Page 98 history that comes behind them. And so I'd kind of like for you to defend for me publicly the process that you go through thinking as you create a historical district or you create a residential conservation district of why it's important to save what you and I might consider even some of the ugly structures that might be out there. Mr. Cochran. MR. COCHRAN: well, if I can say about the fact that we have such a mixed bag of houses in the historic district. We have always considered that almost to be an advantage because what you've got is an example of architecture from pretty much from 1878 up until about 1957. You've got a representative house from Victorians to Georgians to craftsman style, prairie style, ct cetera, and you've got a ranch style house stuck in there, as well. And that's just as much our neighborhood as anything else. Thc whole thing for myself is just, and for our neighborhood has been just a level of protection to make sure that inappropriate development did not take place in there that would have an effect on your property right. And we all believe that propcrty rights arc an important thing. That's the whole foundation of our system to a certain extent and that's something we all take seriously. But if the building, if your neighbor to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 100 COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: And I appreciate your co~mnents specific to that and I sometimes think about some of our governmental institutions like TWU and North Texas and thc lack of conservation that they've had with regard to their campuses, which I have always interpreted just sometimes as a lack of support from their almnni association because of tearing down those melnories and things. So I appreciate those specific co,reheats. And it also concerns me about the Flow Hospital and the direction that that's going within our co~mnunity because I think that's a piece of our history. So I'm very conscience of where we're going with this particular subject. The other situation is when I have an opportunity to travel throughout the state and I go down to Waxahachle, I'm always fascinated by Waxahachie in the fact that they do such a great job of showing what I call the good, the bad, and the ugly of their community in their historical tour, both their walking tour and their driving tour, because they show you the shotgun houses and the ve~y nice silk stocking row, things that they have, whatever else, but all of it is their history and they have one of tile most thriving historical communities in the State of Texas. I wish we had been a little bit further ahead on this process. So thank you both very PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JIJNE 12, 2002 Page 97 - Page 100 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 101 much. Commissioners, any further questions of Mr. Cochran or Ms. Glover at this time? Thank you. MR. COCHRAN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RIS}IEL: Mr. Ralph followed by Ms. Johansson. MR. RALPH: My name is Bob Ralph. I live at 1717 West Oak Street and I'm here representing the West Oak Area Homeowner's Association. I have a procedural request. Several of our homeowners have yielded their time to me, if it would be acceptable to the Chairman and to tile Cormnission. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YOU have five minutes. How much time do you think you would need? MR. RALPH: oh, a couple of moa: -- I could probably do it in seven and a half if my rehearsal is any indication. COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: cotmnissioners, he has some other people that he's -- I think the Commissioners have granted that. MR. RALPH: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, sir. Your time starts now. MR. P,~[P~: Yes, sir. Again, as I said, my name is Bob Ralph. I live at 1717 West Oak Street. And 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 103 week for the garage. Moving down to the next house is lohn and Leslie's. And John recently put in a beautiful tewaced front garden in front of their home. Moving down the street to Scott and Laura's, their project this smmner is to put in a retaining wall. Scott complained to me that it was taking him way too long. I told him that when I was in Ireland, I saw retaining walls that had been there for thousands of years so he didn't need to hurry. They still work on those. Ms. Stewart's home is right now being prepped for a new paint job. And I call you attention to this part right here, I walked around the house, [ don't know why she's painting it unless she got tired of yellow. I couldn't find a piece of peeling point on that anywhere but it's being prepped and readied for a new paint job. This is Fred and Loraine's home. They just moved into the neighborhood and this photograph was taken right after they moved in earlier this year and this photograph was taken this afternoon. As you can see, they've done a tremendous job and I wish you could see the detail on this. It's just incredible what they've done. This is Lynn's house. This house was built in the early 1900's, 1902 1 think. And Lynn has removed Page 102 our neighborhood, like so many others in Denton, would benefit greatly from the residential conservation district. I'm here tonight to speak in support of the proposed residential conservation district ordinance. Last night I had the privilege of attending thc City Council planning session where I learned that thc new buzz phrase in Planning Departments all across America is sustainable neighborhoods. So I went home, looked up sustain in my dictionary and here's what I found. Support or bear the weight of, especially for a long period of time, to give strength or to encourage, to give nouristnnent, to maintain or keep continuously, to stand up or bear up against. So this afternoon I took a short walk due to the heat for a couple of blocks on Oak Street and one block down Marietta to see how our neighborhood was being sustained. Let me share with you some of the tilings that I found. The first house I came to was Margaret and Adam's house. They're both school teachers. Moved into the neighborhood about 18 months ago. That's what the house looked like when they moved in. They've completely redone the inside of the home beautifully. They're now in the process of redoing the outside, as you can see. And it's just absolutely lovely. Even the garage hasn't escaped Adam's handiwork. He's putting on a new roof this Page 104 i some of the asbestos siding in dift'erent places and found 2 the original siding to be in tact. This house has quite a 3 history so her project this smmner is going to be to 4 remove the new siding and restore the old, and she'll be 5 applying for a Texas Landmark Historical designation. 6 Across the street this is Don and Deborah's 7 house. As you can see, they've got a new face lift on the 8 front of the house, brand new bench to sit out in front in 9 and a brand new fence in character with the house. 10 This is Dixie Stevenson's house. And those 11 of you that know Dixie and Marsha know this is one of 12 Denton's treasures. This home is just absolutely 13 immaculate. And one would think that there's not a whole 14 lot to do to help this house or do anything to improve it. 15 Well, they created a beautiful backyard sitting area and a 16 wonderful fish pond that Dixie put in on the side of the 17 house. 18 Moving on down the street, this is Megan 19 Clint's home. Meg grew up in this house and she and her 20 husband now own it. They found some dry rot. They're in 21 the process of fixing their front porch and replacing the 22 colmnns that support the roof over the front porch. 23 Going over to Marietta Street, this is the 24 O'Neal Ford house that the Chalks live in. As you can 25 see, it's being preppcd, the beginning prep work is being PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 12, 2002 Page 101 - Page 104 CondenseltTM Page 105 i done for a paint job on that house right here. That will 2 occur this summer. 3 This is Pat's home, the Linberg home. 4 Again, you can see prep job being done for a new paint 5 job. This is a real treasure. This house was moved into 6 the neighborhood. Sarah and Jennifer that have lived 7 there for 17 years and this has been a labor of love, 8 restoring this home inside and out. They've done a 9 trmncndous job. And what you can't see in thc picture on 10 the south side is that it's being prepped also for fresh 11 paint this year. 12 To the uninformed, this just looks llke a 13 pile of rocks. To my wife it's our new patio and a 14 walkway to the neighbor's house. To my chiropractor, it's 5 the down payment on his new Cadillac. So I think you can 6 see by these photographs what great improvements are being 17 made. Thank you. 18 MS. $Ot,IANSSON: My name is Bernadette 19 Johansson. And I have been very actively involved in this 20 process of developing this ordinance along with most 21 everybody else who's worked on it. But I have been riding 22 very hard on some design guidelines for our neighborhood 23 so maybe I can help a little bit with some questions. I 24 don't know. I've read both the Oak Hickory Ordinance as 25 well as this proposed Ordinance multiple times. So I Page 107 1 Denton has lots of really nice neighborhoods. I can think 2 of four or five neighborhoods right now right off the top 3 of my head that probably would qualify for historic 4 conversation. One of them is the West Oak neighborhood. 5 I think that from driving around Denton -- I've lived in 6 Denton 23 years. I came here when I was I7 years old to 7 go to college and I haven't left. And I love Denton and I 8 can't think of any city in Texas I would live in besides 9 this one. I've driven around, I've walked around Denton. 10 I'm somewhat familiar with a lot of neighborhoods. I've 11 been a student here. Irve been a taxpayer here. West Oak 12 is a good one. Panhandle, Egan, Congress, Austin Street 13 poteutially. 14 I'd like to make one other distinction. 15 Because of those neighborhoods, some of them have 16 conuncrcial property in them and I don't think that the 17 neighborhood residential covers that tcwitory. Whereas, 18 tile design guidelines that each neighborhood will develop 19 will cover that territory. We're interested in the 20 buildings and the setbacks and the unique characteristic 21 of the neighborhood, not just the fact that it's a 22 residential neighborhood. I think that's a real important .23 distinction. And, you know, we might even make -- it 24 might even support some kinds of cmmnercial development in 25 our neighborhoods if they fit within the guidelines and Page 106 1 2 don't know, it's kind of fun. It's interesting stuff. 3 I really -- first off, what I was planning 4 to do was put a little presentation down here that would 5 display up there. My printer ran out of ink and I don't 6 have a presentation like that. But what I would like to 7 do is just go over the things I was going to say. But 8 before I even start with that, I would like to stress the 9 importance o[ the historic conservation district 10 terminology versus just residentia[. 11 I think that neighborhood associations are 12 the tool for resident[a[ conservation. And I think that 13 one of the quatif[cations for the historic conservation 14 district is the fact that the neighborhood have homes that 15 are 50 years eider. So that's getting us in the historic 16 realm. So I really think that is an important part of 17 this ordinance and I hope it will remain in tact like that 18 tonight. 19 Pd like to just talk about some pros and 20 cons. I really don't have any amendments to the 21 ordinance. I wish I had one but I think Fee made plenty 22 of opportunities and I have taken stabs at that so I will 23 refrain from that tonight. The pros of a historic 24 conservation district is that it protects architecturally 25 diverse neighborhoods which have stood the test of time. Page 108 I they didn't look -- stand out horribly from everything in 2 the neighborhood, I think it would be fine. So I really 3 think that's important. 4 The other thing it does is it provides 5 neighborhoods a real tool for empowennent. They are going 6 to initiate their own design guidelines. They are going 7 to be the ones who try to devise and sell these guidelines 8 to you-all and to tile City Council, to a landmark 9 commission so that they're going to go through several 10 fairly rigorous tests. One of which tile strongest will be 11 getting it through their neighborhood. So I think that .12 that's important that you're going to get variety in terms 13 of guidelines and in terms of restriction or leniency. So 14 I hope that will help answer. 15 The other thing is it will ensure 16 stabilization of property values and perhaps income 17 realization, a greater potential for selling back price at 18 a better deal to some other likeaninded historic buff. 19 You know, I think that that happens in lots of cities 20 where they have historic districts or -- conservation 21 districts are fairly new so you don't see a lot of those. 22 I travel around the country. I always find myself in a 23 historic neighborhood going ooh, ahh. You know, I think 24 that's really a good thing. And those people probably 25 always sell their houses for better money. PLANNING AND ZOblING COMMISSION JUNE 12, 2002 Page 105 - Page 108 Condcns¢ItTM Page 109 1 It will ensure the future infill 2 development is compatible with the neighborhood. Okay. 3 Basically, I think that's real important because it kind 4 of frees you guys up from difficult decisions about zoning 5 cases because the guidelines help take care of the 6 neighborhood in terms of that. So I think that lets you 7 off the hook and should look good to you. 8 The other thing it does is boost pride in 9 the City. I realty think that these kinds of 10 neighborhoods will make Denton a better place to live. It 11 makes it a better place to just come around and drive 12 around and see what's avaitable. 13 And i really only have two cons. And I i4 know other people have more cons, but I have two. One of 15 them, it requires education. It requires education of the 16 neighborhood, of the City government, of the -- you know, 17 everybody. This is fairly new. And I know that it's a 18 laborious process but it's an educational process that is 19 worth endeavoring. 20 The other thing is it may be considered 21 linfiting by some. Some people might just say, oh, I don't 22 want to have to have anything checked out before I do it. 23 But there are lots of people who are willing to make those 24 concessions. And because a neighborhood does it 25 voluntarily, I think that makes all the difference. Page 110 1 Thank you. 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: MS. Johansson, we may 3 have some questions for you, if you coutd hold with us for 4 a second. 5 MS. JOHANSSON: Sure. 6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: cormnissioner Powell. 7 COMMISSIONER POWELL: MS. Johansson, you 8 said something about the purpose of this that I don't find 9 in the purpose in this -- in our backup. And I don't want 10 this to sound negative because I, at this stage of the 11 game, plan to vote for this. But you said protect the 12 neighborhoods. Protect them from what? 13 MS. JOHANSSON: Protect them from 14 development that is not compatible with the development 15 already in their area. 16 COMMISSIONER POWELL: wouldn't the zoning 17 do that for you? What mn I missing? 18 MS. JOHANSSON: NO, not necessarily because t9 any individual owner can come in and get a zoning change 20 by vote of the P&Z and the City Council. 21 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. 22 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And Mr. Cochran and 23 Ms. Capps always refer to your end as the far West Oak 24 end. 25 MS. JOHANSSON: I know. I thought I'd Page I 11 1 clear that up for the West Oak group. 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very much, 3 Ms. Johansson. 4 MS. JOHAN$SON: Thank you. 5 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And the next speaker 6 is Ms. Capps. Is Ms. Capps here? And, once again, would 7 you give us your nmne and address and your position 8 with -- 9 MS. capes: oecd evening. My name is Peggy 10 Capps. Iresideatgl5 WestOak. I reside in the 11 historic district and I serve as the City of Denton's 12 Chairman of the Historic Lamhnark Conmfission. I have been 13 a member of this Co~mnission for five years and have been 14 interested in what's been going on with this process for a 15 longer time than that. And I appreciate the opportunity 16 to come to you tonight. Joyfully and hopefully, I7 positively from the decision that we hope you will make 18 and move forward this evening. i19 Actually, this has been going on so long 20 that I don't think any of you were on the Planning and 21 Zoning Commission whenever our first historic resources 22 survey was begun in 1995. The City of Deaton Historic 23 Landmark Commission and members of the City staff at that 24 particular time felt it was important to do a research 25 concerning the historic structures within the City limits Page 112 1 of Denton. 2 And in 1995 and '96, there were more than 3 2,500 structures identified as more than 50 years of age. 4 And through the process of this study, many of those were 5 classified as either a high, medium, or low priority for 6 possible national register designation or historic 7 designation, locally or through the State of Texas. 8 From this study came lhe information that 9 we needed to not just look at our historic district and 10 what it has done to promote economic development, to 11 promote neighborhood pride, and protection, if you would, .12 Mr. Powell, but also to realize that there were a nmnber 13 of other areas within our City that needed to be given a 14 level of protection or safeguard that were not available 15 through a pure historic district. And in a great deal of 16 research and a lot of information from more than 30 17 different cities and the -- Ms. Knight who helped us 18 prepare this, we have gleaned information from many, many 19 other sources of cities that do have successful 20 conservation districts. And conservation districts were 21 first created in 1975 and since then there are dozens of 22 cities throughout the United States who have very 23 successfully created thmn. 24 I want to clarify a few points. And I'm 25 sorry that Mr. Cochran was not able to attend any of our PLANNING AND ZON1NG COMMISSION JUNE 12, 2002 Page 109 - Page 1 i2 CondenseltTM Page 113 I Lan&nark Cmmnission meetings and I'm sort of taken aback 2 at some of the things that he's come up with, but I'd like 3 to clarify. We do have au ordinance for a historic 4 district. And in this historic district ordinance we have 5 an article that defines historic lanchnark. And in the 6 City of Denton, we have a mechanism for designating 7 locally individual properties and giving them a historic 8 landmark designation. That is different from the 9 definition of lan&hark. 10 And if you will forgive me, I would like to 11 clarify something else. This, Mr. Power1, is to be a 12 historic conservation district. And I think it's already 13 been reiterated that we do have mostly residences that are 14 going to be applied to this, But we also have some 5 co~mucrcial buiIdings that would also be eligible to be 6 given a historic landmark designation, which is different. .7 They would also be eligible to create a historic 18 conservation district. And we have relied on the 19 DeparOnent of the Interior standards which specify that a 20 property or a building should be more than 50 years old. 21 But if you will notice, it is a historic conservation 22 district in your draft that you received. A 23 geographically defined area including a lan&hark or a 24 group of l~ndmarks, ct cetera, et cetera, and you can read 25 that. I I am Sonya Whidden. Page 115 I live on 528 Roberts Streets. 2 Roberts Street runs perpendicular to Bell Avenue. Several 3 of us from that particular area have bccn working also on 4 this ordinance, but I'd like to preface that by saying 5 that I have lived in my home for 38 years. During those 6 38 years, the '70s and the '80s, those of you who have 7 been here at that time, remember there was a lot of zoning 8 going on, a lot of spot zoning. I was down at City 9 Council five times in one year to do away, hopefully, with 10 spot zoning. In the '80s there were other areas that we 11 were dealing with in my particular neighborhood and we 12 came down to Planning and Zoning fighting zoning problems. 13 The area that we live in is a very unique area. The homes 14 are nicely taken care of. It is an area that we really 15 would like to preserve. Therefore, this ordinance I find 16 would be most helpful to many neighborhoods in Denton. 17 It is an older neighborhood where I live. 18 Older neighborhoods very often suffer from decline. None 19 of tile people in our particular area want that to happen. 20 In our area we have a lot of older residents who are 21 leaving this world. We are hoping that young people will 22 move into the area, will -- since these are older homes, 23 they are cheaper homes than they would find in some of file 24 developments outside the City. Therefore, they may be 25 able to take some of their money and add on. Whidden. Sonya. Page 114 I But then for the purposes of the definition 2 of this ordinance, a landmark, not a historic designated 3 landmark, not a historical landmark under the individual 4 terms, would include any building, structure, site, 5 district, area, or land of architectural, historical, 6 archcological, or cultural importance or value which the 7 City Council determines shall be protected. So this 8 particular area would have the protection of the historic 9 conservation district and tile landmarks are defined under 10 the purposes of this proposed ordinance. 11 We've worked very hard and very long. We 12 have three neighborhoods who have been at the brink of 13 bringing forth something for a long time and we'd 14 appreciate your passing this this evening. 15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Ms. Capps. 16 We may have some questions. Commissioners, any questions 17 of Ms. Capps.'? Thank you very much. 18 I have a card from a Sonya Whiddem I know 19 you'll correct me. My wife always does. And I appreciate 20 that. 21 MS. WHIDDEN: YeS, sir, I will. Sonya 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: whidden? Thank you, MS. WHIDDEN: oood evening, Commissioners. Page 116 1 And in that respect, I do have a question 2 regarding tic ordinance as it is written. I feel that 3 this is an mnbrella ordinance. And to me I feel, 4 particularly in the certificate of appropriateness which 5 is on page 4 of the draft, is a little bit too specific to 6 my liking in terms of being a general ordinance. Because, 7 hopefully, this ordinance will pass and that smaller 8 neighborhoods who want to unite and be a historic 9 conservation district will be writing their own ordinance. 10 And it seems a little bit strange to me to have an 11 ordinance with the certificate of appropriateness as an 12 mnbrella ordinance to be so specific when we would be 13 writing our ordinance maybe more lenient along some lines. 14 That doesn't sce~n logical to me. And that is the only 15 disagreement that I have. Well, it's not really a 16 disagrcanent. It's a question. 17 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: If you have completed 18 your presentation -- 19 MS. WH[DDEN: Yes, I have. 20 COMMISSIONER RISIIEL: vii ask you to stand 21 right here and I'll ask Ms. Glover to come up and join you 22 at the microphone and maybe she can clarify that for 23 everybody, as well as yourself. 24 MS. GLOVER: we put this section in 25 specifically so we would know what people were doing to PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 12, 2002 Page 113 - Page 116 CondenseItTM Page 1171 1 their houses. Because if this area is going to be 2 protected, then someone needs to be aware of what's going 3 on. All we're asking is that they fill out this piece of 4 paper. It's a one-sheet thing that just has yom' name, 5 your address, what are you going to do, how long is it 6 going to take, can you sketch for us or tell us some way 7 how it's going to look in the end. And then it goes to 8 thc -- if they're going to alter it radically and that 9 would be the only reason they would fill one of these out. 10 Then it would go to the Historic Landmark Conunission who 11 may approve it. 12 We're not saying that they can't add on and 13 they can't do things. And, generally, in a historic 14 district or a historic conservation district, the nmin 15 concern is with what faces the street, what can be seen 16 from the street. So as long as they're not putting a 17 four-story addition on the back of a two-story i~ouse, you 18 know, chances are very good it would be approved. 19 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: DOgS that help you 20 with your question and clarify it for anyone else? I 21 think you'lI find it to be very flexible. And even if you 22 were just to paint your house and you lived in the 23 district, even the same color, they would like to know 24 just to kind of log it out. The house was painled in the 25 year 2002 and it helps thean to know and keep their records Page 118 i straight. 2 MS. GLOVER: But we're not doing that in 3 this area. We do that in the historic district but not in 4 a conservation district. 5 COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: okay. Does that help 6 you with your co~mnents? 7 MS. WHIDDEN: It does help me. And I think 8 something else that helped me was Ms. Glover said that in 9 the historic district that they help them financially. 10 This was Colmnissioner Holt's question regarding some 11 windows in the rear. I just felt that some of this 12 infonuafion could be in the individual ordinances that 13 fall under the mubrella and I just felt that as an 14 umbrella ordinance, that was a little bit specific. 15 COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: HOpe that helps you. il 6 Thank you very much, Ms. Whidden. Thank you, Ms. Glover. 17 And our next speaker would be Anita (sic) Wlteldon. 18 MS. WHELDON: Hello. I'm Annette Whetdon. ~ 19 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: SUl'e. 20 MS. WHELDON: And I live at 520 Roberts 21 Sm:ct and I've also been a part of thc colranitlm for the 22 Bell Avenue area. I have something I would like to pass 23 out to you-alL 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Maybe staff would 25 help you with that if you hand it to staff right behind Page 119 1 yOU, and then we'll give you your time. 2 MS. WHELDON: I definitely support the idea 3 of these neighborhood conservation groups and I have 4 worked very hard, as welt, over the last two years. What 5 I have a question about concerns this ordinance that is 6 before you. Once you receive these, you can see the 7 highlighted area. Tl~is is what the memo that started our 8 entire efforts along the conservation district line. As 9 you can see, this went to everybody in our neighborhood 10 announcing the neighborhood meeting. In the second 11 paragraph it states that tax incentives can be included in 12 the ordinance. 13 Compliance with design guidelines is 14 voluntary but must be met in order to qualify for any tax 15 breaks. This is what the people in our neighborhood are 16 believing will be in the ordinance. We had a neighborhood 17 meeting a year ago. 18 Now we have this ordinance that offers no 19 tax break whatsoever. Instead of design guidelines being 20 voluntary, they're absolutely mandatory for all 21 properties. There's no distinction made between 22 contributing and non-contributing properties. And, in 23 fact, the process for someonc to do something could 24 involve at a minimum of two to four months for something 25 as simple as cutting the door, a back door at the rear of Page 120 1 their home. So you see that what sounded very benign and 2 very appealing in the beginning and that everyone in the 3 neighborhood or practically 90 percent of the people in 4 the neighborhood were just very excited about, has now 5 turned into something that I fear the majority of the 6 people in our neigi~borhood will not accept. 7 And that's my concern because I do think 8 it's valuable to have a conservation district. Julie 9 Olover has told me that contributing properties would be 10 eligible for tax breaks but non-contributing properties 11 would not be. So t think there should be a distinction 12 made in the ordinance between those two and that thc 13 requireanents for non-contributing properties not be as 14 stringent as those for homes that are 50-plus years old 15 and have not altered the defining characteristics of their 16 structure. 17 I also think that that savings, tax savings 18 clause, even though it may be elsewhere in the Denton 19 Code, should be reiterated in this ordinance because this i20 is what the people are going to be looking aL 21 And also in the P&Z work session that we 22 23 24 25 attended on March the 13th, several of you-alt asked what if somebody docs not want to be a member of this. What if someone does not want to participate in the conservation district. And the answer given by Julie Glover is that PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 12, 2002 Page 117 - Page 120 CondenscltTM Page 121 they would have a chance to opt out. Well, if that's the 2 case, there needs to be a clause in this umbrella 3 ordinance stating that. And that's all I have to say. 4 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very much. 5 And being Ms. Glover will be the last speaker because 6 she's kind of presented the petition as the staff 7 representative, and I would ask her to come back at this 8 point in time because I have no other cards of people that 9 wish to speak at this point in time, and see if we can 10 clarify for you how the umbrella relates to specific 11 districts that would be created under that, and I think 12 that might help you understand where she's going with 13 this. Please. 14 MS. GLOVER: okay. I can address this but 15 I don't know that I wrote them down in order because I'm 16 not an orderly person. But we were advised by the Legal 17 Department, since there was already a tax abatement -- 18 that's not the right word, Eddic. What's the right word? 19 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Incentive. 20 MS. GLOVER: Incentive, thank you. 21 MP,. MARTIN: Maybe since -- Eddie Martin 22 with the City Attorney's office. And I can maybe clarify. 23 One of the things that was originally in a proposed 24 ordinance was the same kind of tax incentives that we do 25 for historic lan&hark designations. And the fact is in Page 122 1 discussing that particular issue, we looked at it and 2 first there was a question about fairness and about those 3 who had historic designations already. And any individual 4 property in a conservation district will still have thc 5 ability to get these tax breaks if they meet the 6 requirements of the landmark ordinance, in any event. And 7 that's the reason why that was actually taken out of our 8 drafts. 9 But just to address a couple of other 10 things, I guess, is that when we drafted this ordinance, l I we did draft it on the basis in this final form because it 12 was the decision of the Historic Lan&hark Commission that 13 they did want to ~mphasize the historic aspects of the 14 conservation district and not necessarily the residential 15 aspects of it. And that was for two reasons. First of 16 all, that was thc main goal and priority of the Historic 17 Lanchnark Cotranission. And, second~ also they wanted to be 18 sure that they could catch some historical buildings that 19 was not necessarily residential in nature and still wanted 20 to be able to catch those in there. 21 And that was also the reason why the term 22 "lanchnarks" was used in there is to be able to make sure 23 that there were certain buildings that had lanchnark 24 features and lanchnark would also be -- type of 25 designations could also still be included in these PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Page 123 i conservation districts and that was one of the reasons for 2 that. 3 As far as the questions on the certificate 4 of appropriateness being the umbrella, the thing is the 5 certificate of appropriateness, that's the process in 6 which guidelines were viewed. The specific guidelines for 7 each district will be made whenevor each district is 8 created. So there will be specific different type of 9 guidelines for each particular district based upon the 10 uniqueness of that particular conservation district. But 11 the certificate of appropriateness is the process by which t 2 everyone will go through to determine how those will be 13 enforced. So, essentially, it is an mnbrella in the sense 14 that everyone will have to go through that process. But 15 the specific guidelines which the Historic Landmark 16 Cormnission will be determining, that's going to be whether 17 you are complying with them or not is depending on which 18 conse~vatlon district you're in. So the specific 19 guidelines will be different. It's just that the process 20 itself will be the same for everyone in how that's going 21 to be enforced. And that's why the certificate of 22 appropriateness is drafted in the way it is. 23 COMM~SS~O~Ea msu~[: Co-counsel Mr. Snyder 24 would like to chime in here with you. 25 ~na. sttvD~: well, there's one other Page 124 1 question that was asked and I wish he'd clarify it. This 2 question of opting out, is that possible? 3 M_R, MARTIN: NO. That was really fled up 4 to the contributing, non-contributing, and opting out and 5 not opting out was all kind of tied to the tax issue so 6 that's why that's no ~~ that was not -- 7 MS. GLOVER: And how that's going to work 8 is they'll draw their own maps. And if they've got five 9 or six houses along the edge that don't want to 10 participate, they'll just draw them out. We don't want to 11 do little donuts throughout the neighborhood. And I think 12 if a group finds that they don't really have enough 13 support, if that starts happening to them, then I believe 14 the Historic Lanchnark Cmmnission would recommend that 15 perhaps they might want to think about going a different 16 way like a neighborhood association or something a little 17 tess regulatory. 18 The reason we put -- I'm sorry, I can't 19 even read my own notes. I put guidelines equal 20 protection. And I think what I meant then: was unless 21 everybody in tile area agrees to abide by the guidelines, 22 you are going to have somebody doing inappropriate things 23 for file neighborhood which kind of negates tho whole idea 24 of what we're trying to do here. 25 The question about the back door, she would JUNE 12, 2002 Page 121 - Page 124 CondcnseltTM Page 125 1 not need a certificate for that. She could do that on the 2 weekend without a building permit. So that would be fine. 3 Or anything that really doesn't require a building permit 4 is going to be general maintenance, and ~naybe even some 5 things that do require a building permit, that's going to 6 be general maintenance and will not require a certificate. 7 And I think that was all. Was there anything else? 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I hope that answered 9 tile question that you had. And if you have further 10 questions, obviously, Ms. Olover or staff would be happy 11 to try to answer those questions for you. 12 One of the things that someone had asked me 13 about was a clause of $2,000.00 of a potential fine that 14 might be levied with regard to violations that were 15 observed in the district. Tell me how that would work and 16 give me an example of how that would be appropriate. 17 MR. MAaTItq: well, actually, that's the 18 same as any other zoning. That's the maximum fine allowed 19 by law on all zoning matters and that was just included as 20 with any other zoning. 2[ COMMISSIONER R1SHEL: The historical 22 district would have that same type of clause in there, 23 too. How many times has that been applied to your 24 knowledge? 25 MS, OLOVER: Ne'vcr. Page 126 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Never. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Apple, Conmfissioner Apple. COMMISSIONER APPLE: I just have a quick question about her question about putting the door in and you saying anything that didn't require a building permit. And yet we talked earlier about the windows being approved Page 127 I door replacement as long as she was getting tile stone kind 2 of back door? 3 MS. GLOVE1*.'. Exactly, or simitar. If it 4 was a wood back door and she replaced it with wood, that 5 would be tine. 6 COMMISSIONER APPLE: BUt what if she wanlexl 7 to change the type of back door? 8 MS. OLOVER: she should probably fill out a 9 certificate and I would probably say, that's okay, it's on 10 the back of the house. 11 MR. MAatIN: well, let ~ne clarify just that 12 because this is where the specific guidelines in each 13 district really come into play here, because if in a 14 particular conservation district, they design their 15 guidelines by saying, you know, for things like doors and 16 windows, we don't really mind what the material is as long t7 as the look stays the same. That may be the main 18 consideration of that particular district. Because 19 essentially the way this ordinance works is that whatever 20 group comes in in whatever geographical area they believe 21 that they want to incorporate into a district, they need 22 to stay and when you create the district, you have to 23 determine that's why it gees to the individual groups to 24 design their own guidelines. They determine what features 25 are really important in this particular district, you Page 128 know, the architectural type features and things of that nature. So the guidelines are going to be designed to help preserve those particular uniquenesses of that particular neighborhood. And so -- but the thing is in doing that, the neighbors themselves can determine or at least going 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to be okay out of a different material in the back. How 8 does replacing windows differ from replacing a door? 9 MS. O~OVER: well, it would probably depend 10 on where the window was. I mean, again, it stresses that 11 it's what's visible on thc front, usually the front of the 12 house on the facing street. So, I mean, if you're 13 replacing something it says in here with like materials in 14 kind, if you're replacing your door and it's a screen door 15 and you're putting another screen door on it~ that's fine. 16 But if you are taken out wooden windows and you want to t7 put in almninmn windows, that's not like material. So 18 then, yes, you would need to do a certificate on that. 19 COMM[SSIONERAPPLE: okay. And that was my 20 question because you talked about -- 21 MS. OLOVER: I'm sorry. 22 COMMISSIONER APPLE: NO, no. Approving 23 almuinmn windows in some instances, you know, due to 24 financial constraints and energy constraints. And I 25 thought so she wouktn't have to get approval for a back 7 through and present it in their guidelines that the 8 neighborhood feels like this will protect it, then they 9 can also go in and say as long as you use like materials, 10 like things of that nature, or they may even say as long 11 as you're not increasing the size of the door or the size 12 of the windows or things of that nature, you can replace 13 those. That may be the part of the guidelines themselves. 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: well, taking all that 15 into consideration, I can still see their reason for 16 concern with those perimeters because, again, like 17 materials, like objects would be totally objective to the 18 person making that determination. And so I would assume 19 that those itcras would stilt have to go before someone to 20 keep from having a fine in case their perception of like 21 materials was not what the district's perception of like 22 materials was. 23 MS. GLOVER: I still think it's going to 24 come down to the guidelines. And 99 percent of the times 25 that I find out about something in the historic district PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 12, 2002 Page 125 - Page 128 CondcnseltTM 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 t7 1§ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 129! like someone has an aluminum window sitting on their porch, a neighbor calls and tells me about that. I don't go through the historic district daily looking for people that arc working on their houses. It's always somebody else that let's me know about it. COMMISSIONER APPLE: And I know what a lair person you are. I'm just trying to make her feel more comfortable with -- MS. GLOVER: well, I think they can address a lot of that in the guidelines. And if they think that vinyl clad that look like wood is okay, they can say that in their guidelines. COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. So each district would be able to draw up their own guidelines Page 131 1 Ms. aLOVER: ^ summation. I think this is 2 going to be a good thing for the City to protect older 3 neighborhoods, to protect our affordable housing and our 4 resources that we have. And as I stated before, staff 5 docs reconunend approval of this ordinance. 6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very much. 7 Conmfissioners, tell me what direction you'd like to -- 8 Cmmnissioner Powell. 9 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I 10 strongly feel that this is not an area for us to make a 11 decision but I see we're forced to. I think it should be 12 a decision made by elected officials. So, therefore, I 13 will rccormncnd that we send this on to the City Council 14 for approval. pertinent to their district. MS. GLOVER: Right. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Cormnissioner Apple. Cmmnissioner Keith. 15 16 t7 18 19 COMMISSIONER HOLT: second. COMMISSIONER RISItEL: was that; a motion? COMMISSIONER POWELL: Yes. it was. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. I just wantext to verify. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. Regarding the fine, how and who would assess the fine? MR. MARTIN: That's like any other citation. If you're given a citation, you go to municipal court. If you're found guilty of the violation, the Judge determines -- Page 130 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. I'm sorry. I was -- my motion was to rccotmnend approval. There you go. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And the second by Colmnissioner Holt. Any further discussion? Conmfissioner Mulroy. Page 132 1 COMMISSIONER KEITH: well, who determines 2 the citation? 3 MR. MARTIN: code Enforcement. 4 COMMISSIONER KEITH: code Enforcement. 5 Well, I mean, being a district, historical district or 6 whatever it's called, then who would be calling this into 7 play? Would it be the directors of that district or the 8 City? 9 MR. MARTIN: ~t'S just like every other 10 zoning ordinance in violation, it's whoever makes the 11 complaint. And if the Code Enforcement sees it themselves 12 or someone notifies Code Enforcement or if -- it's just 13 like any other violation, it however it's reported, it's 14 how Code Enforcement finds out and whether they go and 15 cite. You know, it's just like any other -- 16 COMMISSIONER KE[TH: SO if you have a 17 neighbor that doesn't get along with another neighbor, I 18 could see a problem there. I'm just -- l['ve seen things 19 like this happen. Thank you very much. 20 MR. MARl'IN: That may be true but it's just 21 like every other zoning ordinance. 22 COMM[SSIONERRISHEL: commissioners, any 23 further questions of staff? Ms. Glove*, I'll ask you to 24 give a smmnation with regard to where we are and we will 25 close the public hearing. 1 COMMISSIONER MULROY: YeS. My comment is 2 at thc beginning I was 99.44 percent for it. But when it 3 takes the City Attorney 15 minutes to explain to us what 4 the ordinance says and I'm still not clear, then how could 5 I anticipate that the citizens with a multitude of 6 questions are satisfied. I would hop~ that an ordinance 7 will be brought back to us that is in user-friendly 8 English and accommodates, incorporates some of the editing 9 that Mr. Cochran has seen fit to do and that it is more 10 acceptable. I've heard some disturbing questions and it's 11 always bothersome to me when we have to get th~ attorneys 12 involved to look at the fine print to say, well, oh~ no, 13 you're really not going to get hurt by this, Ms. so and 14 so. So I will have a hard problem supporting this 15 tonight. Thank you. 16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: cmmnissioner Keith. 17 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you, There's 18 some particulars to this ordinance that I have a 19 tremendous amount of trouble with. First of all, it's 20 only 50 percent of a neighborhood can call a petition in 21 on this even though it's subject to approval by P&Z and 22 other organizations. All it would take is 50 percent and 23 an amenable P&Z and you can have a whole neighborhood 24 encircled with a district that some people, that the other 25 half may not want. I think that that should be addressed PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 12, 2002 Page 129 - Page 132 CondenseltTM Page 133 1 in being a greater percentage. I think 50 percent is just 2 a little weak, tremendously weak. And when you took at 3 the City as a whole, about three-quarters of the City 6f 4 Denton falls in the category of homes 50 years or older. 5 So this can be, with just a mere 50 percent, I see some 6 problems. 7 I'm also sitting here thinking of the Swiss 8 Avenue district in Dallas and the problems that they had, 9 a reading that when someone wanted to add on and do 10 anything, they practically had to go hire a team of 11 lawyers to just make an add on to their house. I see this 12 as being something that only the vvn-y wealthy of the City 13 can be able to manage. To me that's very discriminatory. 14 And when you have historical cmmnittees and people making 15 judgments, that's very subjective. There's too many 16 characteristics in here that makes subjective decisions 17 towards wbat a property owner or homeowner can do. 18 Tax breaks, I think is, at the outset, 19 seems like a very fine idea, that a person, if they're 20 going to spend all the money to fix their house up. I 21 want to insert that I like to see old homes repaired and 22 restored. That's some of what I've done. But I think 23 that giving tax breaks, that this puts -- gives them an 24 advantage. And, again, this goes to the wealthy people 25 of the colmnunity. Yom: neighborhoods that have the lower 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I6 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 135 I know the intent of this is very good and I know the reasoning behind it, and I think it will be a good thing for the neighborhoods. But I do think that there may be just some wording items that aced to bc worked out. COMMISSIONER R£SHEL: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Powell. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank yOU, Mr. Chairman. In regards to discussion on this, I think that basically, again, I'm going to repeat that this is a matter for the City Council, not for us. It's not our business to write ordinances, I don't think. I think it's our business to work with them when the City Council gives them to us. I find a lot of things wrong with this but I think if the people out them arc worried about it, they' should be discussing it with their elected official and that's where it should be written and that's whore it should be fought over. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Conm~issloner Poweli. Commissioner Holt. COMMISSIONER HOLT: YeS, [ will be voting to pass this onto City Council. But I think some safeguards are definitely built into this because it is a voluntary thing and it is initiated by the neighborhoods. Page 134 1 average household incomes won't be able to benefit and 2 they'll have to pick up tile tab of the taxes that are 3 being deferred from these other homeowners. [ just see a 4 lot of problems with that. 5 And then the fines, $2,000.00 1 think is 6 kind of stiff. And in the process of which it's going, it 7 opens up avenues of neighborhood vendettas, neighbor 8 vendettas, and I just don't -- I just, looking at hmnan 9 nature and how neighborhoods go along, I think we're 10 opening up a Pandora's box with that. 11 I cannot, with these characteristics, 12 unless they're addressed and revised, I can't find it 13 easily to support this. Thank you. 14 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, 15 Commissioner K¢ith. Co~mnissioner Powell. Excuse me, 16 Commissioner Apple. 17 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I'll be voting in 18 support of the motion to move it along to City Council and 19 I'm hopeful that they will be mindful of our cormnents here 20 tonight and the concerns of thc residents who aren't 21 totally certain about this. And I listened to Mr. 22 Martin's explanation of all those questions and I'm truly 23 still not sure what he said in some instances. So I will 24 be, you know, voting for it to move it along but I do hope 25 that they will take our concerns into consideration. Page 136 i If the neighborhoods ~- and it's not easy to do. It's 2 going to take a lot of work on thc part of a neighborhood. 3 And if you have that kind of a neighborhood that will put 4 in the time to do it, they're probably a pretty close 5 group anyway. And I think the safeguards will be built in 6 when they put their own touches on it. And I think that's 7 the one filing about it that is very -- makes it cautionary 8 for them and will protect than. So I will be voting for 9 this. Thank you. 10 COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: Thank you, 11 Couunissioner Holt. Commissioner Mulroy. 12 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I want to reiierate I 13 support it in principle and Ido, in listening, agree with 14 some fellow Cormnissioncrs to move it on and I will support 15 it now. Thank you. 16 COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: commissioner Powell. 17 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Gall thc question. 18 COMMISSIONER R~SHEL: Thank you. I did 19 want to co~mncnt but being you called the question, I will 20 not. 21 COMMiSSiONER POWELL: I sure did. 22 COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: The question has b~en 23 called. We have a motion from Commissioner Powell, a 24 second fi'om Cmmnissioner Holt. The question has been 25 called and Mr. Snyder would like to clarify. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 12, 2002 Page 133 - Page 136 CondenseltTM Page 137 1 MR, SNYDER: This will be a good opportane 2 time for me to explain what call the question is because 3 last time I'm going to achnit I made a mistake when the 4 question was called last time. When a question is called, 5 it's not an automatic vote. It is an automatic vote so 6 long as there's no continued debate. If even one member 7 of the Cormx~ission wants to continue the debate, then they 8 would -- then the debate would continue. And I just 9 wanted to make that clear for future purposes that one 10 member of the Cmm~ission can't call the question and cut 11 off the debate unless the majority of the Commission 12 decide the debate should be cut off. I just wanted to 13 make that clear. 14 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I did not want to 15 debate but I did want to comment but I will pass on that 16 comment and we will proceed with the call of the question. 17 Once again, Item No. 13 on our Agenda, a motion by 18 Conunissioner Poweli, a second by Cmmnissioncr Holt. 19 Seeing no further comments or questions or clarification, 20 please vote. Motion carries 5-1 of the Commissioners 21 present. 22 (COMMISSIONER KEITH VOTED IN OPPOSITION,) 23 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: That brings us to 24 Item No. 14 on our Agenda, 25 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Mr; Chairman. Page 138 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Cmranissioner Keith. COMMISSIONER KEITH: May [ just make a quick coimnent? I just want to please tell the Colranission that I like history. I think what you're doing is noble. I just had a couple of -- COMMISSIONER RISIiEL: cormnissioner Keith, we've ended discussion on that. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you very much. 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 I know we have, but I just wanted to -- COMMISSIONER KEITH: We have called the question. COMMISSIONER KEITH: ! just wanted to compliment. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And the rest of us respected that. Thank you, sir. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 139 Page 140 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 12, 2002 Page 137 - Page 140 ATTACHMENT 5 Proposed Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDiNANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AMENDING 'CHAPTER 35, SUBCHAPTER 7 OF THE CITY OF DENTON CODE OF ORDINANCES, "DENTON DEVELOPMENT CODE"," "SPECIAL PURPOSE AND OVERLAY DISTRICTS" TO ADD SECTION 35.7.6 "HISTORIC CONSERVATION DISTRICTS" PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF HISTORIC CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICTS; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $ 2000.00 FOR EACH AND EVERY VIOLATION THEREOF; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City Council finds that there are areas of the city which reflect elements of the city's cultural, social, economic, political, architectural or archeological history which should be conserved and protected, which are not appropriate for historical district designation; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received recommendations from the Historic Landmark Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission, aRer giving the required notices and required public hearings recommending that the city should allow the creation of historic conservation districts to protect the city's architectural or cultural attributes; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that allowing the establishment of such historic conservation districts serves a public purpose; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: Section 1. That Chapter 35, Subchapter 7 "Denton Development Code'; "Special Purpose and Overlay Districts", Code of Ordinance, City of Denton Texas is hereby amended by adding Section 35.7.6, Historic Conservation District to read as follows: 35.7.6 Historic Conservation District 35.7.6/I The A. Purpose purpose of establishing historic conservation overlay districts is to: Safeguard the heritage of the City of Denton by preserving areas of the city with landmarks, buildings, and/or sites which reflect elements of the city's cultural, social, economic, political or architectural or archeoIogical history; Stabilize and improve property values; Ensure compatibility of new construction and structural alterations with the existing 'scale and characteristics of surrounding properties; Foster civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past; Identify and promote the use of historic resources for the education, pleasure and welfare of citizens of the City of Denton. 35.7.6.2 Definitions The following words, terms and phrase, when used in this Subchapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Historic conservation district: A geographically defined area including a landmark or a group of landmarks, created by the city council for the purpose of historic preservation. The city council may establish more than one such historic conservation district. Landmarks within the boundaries of a historic conservation district are related by historical, architectural or archaeological significance. Historic preservation: The protection, reconstruction, rehabilitation, repair or restoration of landmarks of historical, architectural or archeological significance. HPO: The Historic Preservation Officer for the City of Denton (HPO). Landmark: Any building, structure, site, district, area or land of architectural, historical, archaeological or cultural importance or value which the city council determines shall be protected, enhanced and preserved in the interest of the culture, prosperity, education and general welfare of the people. Landmark Commission: The City of Denton Historic Landmark Commission (Landmark Commission). Site: The location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, mined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure. 35.7.6.3 Criteria for Consideration as a Historic Conservation District In order to be considered for designation as a historic conservation district, all of the following criteria must be met: A. Buildings, structures, or sites within the proposed district must be 50 years of age or be of historical significance; B. Buildings, structures, or sites within the proposed district must have common character defining features and be of common form; C. Buildings, structures, or sites within the proposed district should be similar in size, massing and scale and/or have a common streetscape and/or have similar spatial relationships and/or contain common visual qualities such as vegetation, vistas, orientation, set back, spacing, site coverage, exterior features, or materials. D. The proposed district must express a local identity as recognizable combinations of qualifies common throughout an identifiable geographical area. 35.7.6.4 A. Procedures for Designation Designation as a historic conservation district may be ihifiated by the Landmark Commission or by written request of more than 50% of the owners of property within the proposed historic conservation district who collectively own more than 50% of the building sites within the proposed historic conservation district. Such a request shall designate clearly the laud proposed to be included. Upon receipt of a request or upon its own motion, the Landmark Commission shall conduct studies and research and make a report on the landmarks within the historic conservation district, or on the site(s), building(s), structure(s), object(s), open space(s), and/or feature(s) which would be landmarks if the area were designated as a historic conservation district. The report shall contain boundary justifications for the inclusion or exclusion of geographical areas in or from a historic conservation district or for the exclusion of geographical areas from a historic conservation district. The report shall also determine if the request meets the criteria set out in Section 35.7.6.3. If the Landmark Commission determines that the area is not eligible for Conservation District classification, it shall notify the applicant of the fact in writing. Notice is given by depositing the notice, properly addressed and postage paid, in the United States mail. The notice must be sent to the address shown on the application. The d¢cisi0n of thc Landmarl~ Commission that an ares i~ not eligible for conservation district classification may be appealed to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Page 2 D. An appeal under subsection (C) is made by filing a written request with the Landmark Commission. The request must be Filed within 30 days of the date written notice is given to the applicant of the Landmark Commission's decision. In considering the appeal, the sole issue shall be whether or not the Landmark Commission erred in its determination of eligibility, and, in this connection, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the same standards that were required to be considered by the Landmark Commission in making its determination. E. The Planning and Zoning Commission's determination of eligibility on appeal is final. If the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the area is not eligible for conservation district classification, no further applications for conservation district classification may be considered, for the area of request, for two years from the date of the decision. A property owner in the area of the request may apply for a waiver of the two-year limitation pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Commission and must show changes in circumstances that alter the facts and conditions upon which the first decision was determined. F. If the Landmark Commission determines that the area is eligible for conservation district classification, it shall conduct any necessary studies and undertake any additional research it deems necessary on the proposed historic conservation district. The decision of the Landmark Commission that an area is eligible for conservation district classification may not be appealed. G. Once any necessary studies or any additional research is complete, the Landmark Commission shall hold a public hearing and shall give due notice of such public hearing. The notice for the public hearing shall include written notice to the owner(s) of record of property proposed for designation as a historic conservation district. H. Within forty-five (45) days after the public hearing, the Landmark Commission shall submit a final report to the Planning & Zoning Commission, stating its recommendations together with a draft of any proposed change. I. The Planning & Zoning Commission shall hold a public hearing and shall give due notice of such public hearing. Within forty-five (45) days after the public hearing, the Planning & Zoning Commission shall submit a final report to City Council, stating its recommendations together with a draft of any proposed change. J. The City Council shall consider the final reports produced by the Landmark Commission and by the Planning and Zoning Commission in their decision making process. The City Council may amend this article to designate property previously excluded from a historic conservation district or to designate deletion of certain property from the historic conservation district. K. Requirements of Subchaptet 7 "Special Purpose and Overlay Districts" shall apply to the creation of Historic Conservation Districts, however, any conflict between this Section and other provisions of Subchapter 7 shall be resolved in favor of this section. 35.7.6.5 Conservation District Ordinance The ordinance creating a conservation district shall be based upon thc reports and recommendations of the Landmark Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, city staff, and property owners at the public meetings. The ordinance must contain design guidelines based on the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and may further contain any additional regulations, special exceptions, or procedures that the City Council considers necessary to conserve the distinctive atmosphere or character of the area, or to minimize potential adverse impacts which could result from the creation of the district. In addition, all property owners must conform to existing building codes and zoning regulating land uses. 35.7.6.6 Existing Construction Existing construction shall be maintained in a manner that preserves or prolongs the structural integrity of the character defining features of a property. Repairs shall be executed in a manner consistent with the design guidelines established by each individual historic conservation district. Page 3 35.7.6.7 A. 35.7.6.8 A. Alterations to Existing Construction Exterior structural alterations along the street frontage of historic buildings or structures should be avoided and shall be kept to a minimum. Design for structural alterations to existing buildings or structures in the historic conservation district shall conform to the design guidelines established by each individual historic conservation district. The design shall be compatible with the character defining features of the majority of surrounding properties and exhibit similar size, massing and scale as nearby contributing buildings or structures. New construction; Structural Enlargement or Reduction When new buifdings or structures are proposed within a historic conservation district, their design shall be compatible with the historic, cultural, or architectural character of the area. The design shall promote the existing spatial and visual qualifies in the historic conservation district, including height and scale of buildings or structures, orientation, set back, spacing, site coverage, and exterior features. Design for new construction shall conform to the design guidelines established by each individual historic conservation district 35.7.6.9 Certificate of Appropriateness A Certificate of Appropriateness is required for work that has the potential to change the character of a structure or a group of structures in a historic conservation district. A Certificate of Appropriateness is not required for routine maintenance. Routine maintenance does not change the character of a landmark or a group of landmarks in a historic conservation district. Routine maintenance includes, but may not be limited to, painting already painted surfaces in-kind, replacing rotted or damaged siding or roofing with in-kind materials, replacing or repairing broken fixtures or hardware in-kind. A. The following lists the steps required to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness: 1. The property owner is required to submit an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to the HPO before proceeding with any work not considered routine maintenance. Examples of work requiring a Certificate of Appropriateness application includes, but may not be limited to, the following types of work: a. Substantial exterior repair involving the removal or replication of character defining features; b. Rehabilitation, including minor rear or side additions to the building or structure (such as a small bathroom, laundry room, minor room extension, additional openings not visible from the street), or to the land (such as fencing, or outbuildings); c. Maior alterations to the building or structure, including additional openings visible from the street, garage, guest houses, major additions to the side, rear or additional full or partial story, or to the land (such as fencing or outbuildings). Information required to accompany an application includes: a. Plans of proposed work b. Photographs of existing conditions c. Photographs or drawings of missing features or elements to be rebuilt d. Information on specific products or materials proposed for use All information submitted must include sufficient detail and specificity to enable an assessment as to whether or not the proposed work is in accordance with the historic conservation district's Design Guidelines. 2. Upon receipt of a complete application, the HPO shall forward the application to the Landmark Commission for review. The Landmark Commission shall determine whether or not the application documentation is adequate for evaluation, and shall determine if the proposed work is in accordance with the applicable Design Guidelines. If an application is approved, the property owner may proceed with the work as approved. Page 4 3. If the Landmark Commission determines the proposed work is not in accordance with the applicable Design Guidelines, the Landmark Commission shall make recommendations to the applicant regarding changes to the proposed work that would bring the application into compliance with the requirements for approval. The Landmark Commission and applicant shall work together, in good faith, for a period of not less than sixty days, to resolve outstanding issues and reach agreement that is in accordance with the applicable Design Guidelines. The applicant shall provide the Landmark Commission with all pertinent information to help guide the Landmark Commission in their decision making process. If information is made available to the Landmark Commission regarding economic hardship, the Landmark Commission shall take that information into account regarding the applicant's ability to acquire specific materials and/or craftsmanship or complete a scope of work. If after good faith effort, agreement is not reached, the Landmark Commission may deny the application. 4. If the Landmark Commission denies an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, the applicant may appeal the rejection to the City Council, within 10 days of the notice of denial. The Landmark Commission shall provide the City Council with a report of their findings and efforts within thirty (30) days of the appeal. The City Manager shall, wit}fin a reasonable length of time, place the matter upon the City Council agenda for a determination as to whether or not the proposed work is in accordance with the applicable Design Guidelines. The City Council shall consider the Landmark Commission's report in making their decision. If an application is determined in accordance with applicable Design Guidelines, the Council may approve the application. If an application is approved, the applicant may proceed with the work as approved. B. Verification of Compliance for Certificate of Appropriateness Process I. The HPO, or designee, upon receipt of an approved Certificate of Appropriateness, but no less than thirty (30) days after, shall make an investigation of the property and shall approve or disprove the fact that the property has been completed as required for Certification. If the repair or renovation deviates in any way from the approved construction plan, the HPO will forward his/her findings to the Landmark Commission. 2. The Landmark Commission shall review the information submitted by the HPO and decide whether or not the deviations from the approved construction plans are in accordance with the historic conservation's district Design Guidelines. 3. If verification of completion shall be deemed unfavorable, the applicant shall be required to complete the work as shown in the approved constriction plans or correct the deviation in a manner consistent with the applicable Design Guidelines or appeal the Landmark Commission decision to City Council. SECTION 2. If any provisions of any section of this ordinance shall be held to be void or unconstitutional, such holding shall in no way effect the validity of the remaining provisions or sections of this ordinance, which shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 4. That this ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, the official newspaper of the City of Denton, Texas within ten (10) days of the date of ils passage. Page 5 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 6 This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #31 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: DIRECTOR: July 16, 2002 Planning Department David Hill, 349-8314 SUBJECT - Z02-0019 (2201 and 2205 N. Bonnie Brae) Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 18 acres from a Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residemial 6 (NR-6) zoning districts. The property is generally located west of Bonnie Brae approximately 1,300 feet south of Windsor commonly referred as 2201 and 2205 N. Bonnie Brae. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial (4-2). BACKGROUND Applicam: Mr. Gene Gamble DeNon Texas As part of the city-wide rezoning related to the Developmem Code adoption, City Council reviewed this request at the January 15, 2002 Work Session meeting. At that time, a consensus was reached to rezone the property to Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12). However, at the January 28, 2002 Work Session meeting, Council reverted the zoning of the property back to Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) due to concerns related to adequate notice. The applicam is requesting to rezone the subject property from a Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residemial 6 (NR-6) zoning districts. Public notification and property owner responses are provided in Attachmem 3. Curremly, the owners represeming 30.5% of the land area within 200 feet of the subject property are in opposition to the zoning change. As opposition is greater than 20% and to override the Planning and Zoning Commissions recommendation for denial, a super majority vote (6-1) by City Council will be required to approve this request. On June 6, 2002, Ms. LaCrosser, Fort Worth Texas, purchased the subject property from Mr. And Mrs. Gamble. In discussions with staff, Ms. LaCrosser indicated that she was aware of the zoning request when she purchased the property. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Deny. 3. Postpone consideration. 4. Table item. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial (4-2, Keith & Powell opposed, Roy absent). ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The subject property is not platted. Platting is required prior to the issuance of any building permits PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology of Z02-0019, commonly known as 2201 and 2205 N. Bonnie Brae: March 13, 2002 March 28, 2002 April 10, 2002 April 24, 2002 May 8, 2002 June 12, 2002 July 16, 2002 Application Date - DRC Date- Planning and Zoning Public Hearing Planning and Zoning Public Hearing Planning and Zoning Public Hearing Planning and Zoning Public Hearing City Council Public Hearing 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 (Property Owner Notification Map and Summary of Responses within 200') 4. All Responses 5. Photographs 6. Church of the Immaculate Conception final plat 7. Minutes from April 10, 2002, April 24, 2002, May 8, 2002 and June 12, 2002 Planning and Zoning meetings. 8. Draft Ordinance Prepared by: Larry Reichhart, ASLA, AICP Assistant Director of Planning and Development Respectfully submitted: Douglas S. Powell, AICP Director of Planning and Development ATTACHMENT 1 Staff Analysis Summary_ of Zoning Request The applicam is requesting to rezone the subject property from a Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residemial 6 (NR-6) zoning districts. The existing NR-3 zoning is typically a single-family zoning district with a maximum density of three dwelling units per acre. The applicam is proposing that the western 8.7+ acres of the property be rezoned to NR-6 and the eastern 9.1+ acres (froming Bonnie Brae) be zoned to NRMU-12. NR-6 is a single-family residemial zoning district, which allows for duplexes and attached single-family dwellings. NRMU-12 is a mixed-use zoning district that allows for single-family, duplexes, attached single-family and multi-family developmem at a maximum density of twelve units per acre. NRMU-12 also allows for retail and office uses at a scale compatible with a residemial neighborhood. Existing Condition of Property Property History. February 20, 2002 - Ordinance 2002-040 placed the subject property in the Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district and land use classification. Previous to the adoption of the Denton Development Code, this property was zoned Agricultural (A). The subject property (which consists of two lots) curremly comains one single-family home. Adjacem zoning and land uses: North: Neighborhood Residemial 6 (NR-6) - Single-family Subdivision and Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) - Church South: Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) - Vacam East: Neighborhood Residemial 2 (NR-2) - North Lakes Park West: Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) - Single-family Subdivision The NR-6 subdivision to the north comains 154 lots on approximately 28 acres, which equals a density of approximately 5.5 units per acre. Comprehensive Plan Analysis The subject site is located within the "Neighborhood Centers" future land use area. These areas may develop in convemional patterns or may be developed in a pattern of 'neighborhood cemers'. Neighborhood cemers are oriemed inwardly, focusing on the cemer of the neighborhood and comaining facilities vital to the day-to-day activity of the neighborhood. A neighborhood center might contain a convenience store, small restaurant, personal service shops, church or synagogue, daycare, individual office space, a small park and perhaps an elememary school. The DeNon Plan idemifies the following Primary Residemial Land Use Principles; Preserve Neighborhoods: The preservation of existing and future neighborhoods can be achieved by demanding and establishing design and construction standards that are fair and evenly applied. (page 35) Promote a Diverse Housing Stock: The residential component of the Land Use Plan allows all types of people to live in Denton by allowing a variety of housing types, sizes and prices. The housing stock should reflect the demographics and economic structure of the community. (page 35) Limit Sprawl: The residential component of the land Use plan should guide development patterns that limit sprawl, accommodates projected housing demand, and allows quality high density development where it is close to jobs, shopping, schools and transit. (page 35) The proposed zoning does promote a diversity of housing stock and the increased density would limit sprawl, the issue likely to arise is the preservation of the existing neighborhood. The proposed zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Developmem Review Analysis Transportation Trip Generation. Assuming that the emire parcel is developed as single-family residemial, approximately 1,538 trips per day would be generated (see table below) Max. # Average trips Total # of Zoning Acres Density Units generated daily trips NR-6 8.7 6 units per 52 9.55 497 acre NRMU-12 9.1 12 units per 109 9.55 1041 acre TOTAL 1538 Access and Connectivity The developmem will have access to Bonnie Brae and Westward and will be required to provide connectivity to the adjacem property to the south. Additionally, the Roadway Componem of the Mobility Plan (Attachmem 2) idemifies a future collector running north and south through the subject site between University and Westward. The final alignmem of the collector will be determined through the platting process. Both Bonnie Brae and Windsor are classified as Secondary Major Arterials. Subdivision regulations limit the number of driveways allowed on Secondary Major Arterial. Therefore, when immaculate Conception Church platted their property, to the north of the subject property (May, 2001), regulations permitted only one driveway for the property. The Church applied for a variance for an additional driveway. The Traffic Safety Commission grained the variance with a condition that an access easemem be provided to the subject property (Attachmem 5). The easemem was imended to provide access to the subject property, thus reducing the number of curb cuts on Bonnie Brae. As the easemem is only 25' wide and not a "public" easemem, it could be utilized to access a private parking lot but not for a connection to a dedicated road. Road Capacity The DeNon Mobility Plan idemifies Bonnie Brae as a Secondary Major Arterial and Westward as a Collector. it is amicipated that the surrounding road system will be able to handle the increased traffic generated from this proposal, if the proposed developmem is anticipated to generate more that 1,000 trips per day a TiA will be required when the property is platted. The TiA will idemify any required road improvemems necessary to mitigate the impacts of the proposed developmem. At the platting and permitting phase, the developmem will be required to meet minimum requiremems for pedestrian linkages; utilities; drainage and topography; signs; landscaping; open space; lighting and environmem quality impacts. Findings As was noted previously, The DeNon Plan encourages preservation of neighborhoods, diversity of housing stock and limiting sprawl. The requested NR-6 and NRMU-12 would have a positive impact on diversity and sprawl. The design standards of the Developmem Code, are imended to addresses the preservation of the adjacem neighborhoods. An issue likely to arise is the potemial for multi-family in the MRMU-12 area and the compatibility of that use with the surrounding land uses. The rezoning of the subject property will leave a narrow strip of NR-3 on the adjacem property to the south (Attachmem 2). As that area would then be surrounded by higher imensity zoning consideration should be given to a city initiated rezoning of that area to make the zoning consistem and compatible with the surrounding zoning. ATTACHMENT 2 Location & Zoning Map NORTH Scale: None ATTACHMENT 2 Mobility Map NORTH Station __ Secondary Major Arterial SITE Collector North Lakes Park Primary Major Arterial Scale: None ATTACHMENT 3 Public Notification NORTH Notification Map In dica tes property opposed to zoning request SITE Indicates property neutral to zonino reouest. In dica tes property owners in favor of zoning request 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: 26 · In Favor: 1 · Neutral: 3 March 30, 2002 37 98 Percent of land within 200' in opposition: 30.5 %o Scale: None *A copy of the notification list can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 200' Property Owner Responses Property Owner Name and In favor Comments Address /opposed* Douglas McAdams Opposed 2020 Crestmeadow St. Rosemary Neff 2112 Crestmeadow St, Opposed Sang Nguyen 2113 Crestmeadow St. Opposed Jimmy Bell 2116 Crestmeadow St. Opposed Elleece Calvert 2125 Crestmeadow St. Opposed Robert Akers 2128 Crestmeadow St. Opposed We want equal to what our houses already are. Bob Watson 2200 Crestmeadow Opposed No Students in apt. This will only decrease our home Slam Burlington values. Location & our surroundings are what makes this 2201 Crestmeadow St. Opposed area. More housing & apartments will decreases the value. We all know that. William Darby Opposed 2208 Crestmeadow St. Benjamin Parkinson Opposed 2200 Lookout Ln. Mary Lindsey / Michael Bara Opposed Via Petition 2204 Lookout Ln. Jon Sellman 2208 Lookout Ln. Opposed See Letter Scott Higgins Opposed I do not want this land rezoned to NRMU-12!! This will 2209 Lookout Ln. apartments to come next to my new house. Opposed to Michelle L. DeAngelo NRMU-12 I would like to see the entire property zoned NR-6 2201 Northway Dr. In Favor of NR-6 Lipton Liddie Opposed 2205 Nortway Dr.. Ruby Oaks Opposed Via Petition 2209 Northway Bryan & Joyce Cassell 2200 Overlook Ln. Opposed En Lira Khoe 2201 Overlook Ln. Opposed Byron C. Fisher 2205 Overlook Ln. Opposed Russell & Terri Driver 2208 Overlook Ln. Opposed Via Petition Amy Starke Opposed 2209 Overlook Ln. Cesar Chavez 2200 Southway Dr. Opposed Kyle Davis Opposed 2201 Southway Dr. Jose Valauez 2205 Southway. Opposed G. Sabelfeldt 2208 Southway Dr. Opposed Via Petition Our objection is based, not on the apartments so much as what the ordinance allowing for commercial establishments whose customers will have access to our property via the Immaculate Conception Church Opposed easement the city required us to extend to this property and 2031 Bonnie Brae the fact that those customers can pass so close to our school and we have no legal recourse to protect our students. Razor Investment, LTD In Favor Adjacent property to the south Martha Beard Before we fought and put exactly what you wanted in the Neutral beginning in our back. So you will do what ever you want so 2204 Chreastmeadow St. why matter. Denton Affordable Housing Corp. Neutral 2121 Crestmeadow Laura Fogus Neutral 2108 Crestmeadow St. *A copy of the original notice can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 1! Attachment 4 HEAR[N The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, April 10, 2002, to consider making a recommendation to City, Council regarding rez:oning approximately 18 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning districts (see map on backside). The property is generally located west of Bonnie Brae approximately 1,300 feet south of Windsor commonly referred to as 2201 and 2205 N Bonnie Brae. The public hearing will start at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall located at 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas. Because you own property within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property, the Planning and Zoning Commission would like to hear how you feel about this zoning change request and invites you to attend the public hearing. Please, in order for your opinion to be taken into account, return this form with your comments prior to the date of the public hearing. (This in no way prohibits you from attending and participating in the public hearing,) You may fax It to the number located at the bottom, mail it to the address below, or drop it off in-person: Planning and Development Department 221 N. Elm ST Denton, Texas 76201 Attn: Larry Reichhart, Assistant Director of Planning The zoning process includes two public heatings designed to provide opportunities for citizen involvement and comment. Prior to the public hearings, landowners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property are noUfied of the zoning request by way of this notice. The first public hearing is held before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission is informed of the percent of responses in support and in opposition. Second, the zoning petition is forwarded to the City Council for final action providing the Commission recommends approval. Should the Commission recommend denial, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the City Council. If owners of more than twenty (20) percent of the land area within two hundred (200) feet of the site submit written opposition, then six out of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve the zoning change. These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposition. Please circle one: ..--~'"~- ",,, In favor of request Neutral to request ( .~0pposed to request Comments: Signature' Mai~ing Addres;: - ~--~) ~.C~) , Telephone Number: Phys{cal Address of Prope~ within 200 feet: CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS zo2-O019 200' Notice. del CITY HALLWEST - DENTON, TEXAS 76201 . 940.349.8350 - (F)940.349.7707 No'r3:¢E OF PUBLIC Z02-0019 HEARING The Planning and Zoning C°mmission of the City of Denton will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, April 10, 2002, to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding rezoning approximately 18 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning districts (see map on backside). The property is generally located west of Bonnie Brae approximately 1,300 feet south of Windsor commonly referred to as 2201 and 2205 N Bonnie Brae. The public hearing will start at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall located at 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas. Because you own property within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property, the Planning and Zoning Commission would like to hear how you feel about this zoning change request and invites you to attend the public hearing. Please, in order for your opinion to be taken into account, return this form with your comments prior to the date of the public hearing. (This ........ in no way prohibits you from attending and participating in the public heE?in~ ):::~Y,q~;,i~_.a.~-t'a~i~'~i~i~'~ number located at the bottom, mail it to the address below, or drop it off ~n-p~mo.~ t.~ L~:~.[~.L,~/~...~,:~,i Planning and Development Department It~I'/ ApR 0 ~ ;~002. tL~ II 22t N. Elm ST L~jk Denton, Texas 76201 !~)~ ~__.~-- ..... ~J Attn: Larry Reichhart, Assistant Director l~qiP, g~ & DEVE The zoning process includes two public hearings designed to provide opportunities for citizen involvement and comment. Prior to the public hearings, landowners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property are notified of the zoning request by way of this notice. The first public hearing is held before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission is informed of the percent of responses in support and in opposition. Second, the zoning petition is forwarded to the City Council for final action providing the Commission recommends approval. Should the Commission recommend denial, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the City Council. if owners of more than twenty (20) percent of the land area within two hundred (200) feet of the site submit written opposition, then six out of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve the zoning change. These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposition. In favor of request Comments: Please circle one: Neutral to request ~-'posed to request~ City, State Zip: .~';~/~)VT'D/t/',. .L_.~. Telephone Number: Physical Address of Property within 200 feet: CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY HALL WEST * DENTON, TEXAS 76201 · 940,349.8350 · {F) 940,349.7707 Z02-00~9 200' NoticerdO~ No'r"[¢E OF PUBLIC Z02-0019 HEAR. T. NG The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, April 10, 2002, to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding rezoning approximately 18 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning districts (see map on backside). The property is generally located west of Bonnie Brae approximately 1,300 feet south of Windsor commonly referred to as 2201 and 2205 N Bonnie Brae. The public hearing wili'start at 6:00'p.m. in the Ci~ Council Chambers of City Hall tocated at 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas. Because you own property within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property, the Planning and Zoning Commission would like to hear how you feel about this zoning change request and invites you to attend the public hearing. Please, in order for your opinion to be taken into account, return this form with your comments prior to the date of the public hearing. (This in no way prohibits you from attending and participating in the public hearing.) You may fax it to the number located at the bottom, mail it to the address below, or drop it off in-person: Planning and Development Department 221 N. Elm ST Denton, Texas 76201 At-tn: Larry Reichhart, Assistant Director of Planning in favor of request Comments: process includes two public hearings designed to provide opportunities for citizen The zoning involvement and comment. Prior to the public hearings, fandowners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property are notified of the zoning request by way of this notice. The first public hearing is held before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission is informed of the percent of responses in support and in opposition. Second, the zoning petition is forwarded to the City Councii for final action providing the Commission recommends approval. Should the Commission recommend denial, the petitioner may then appeat the request to the City Council. If owners of more than twenty (20) percent of the land area within two hundred (200) feet of the site submit written opposition, then six out of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve the zoning change. These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposition. Please circle one: ~ Neutral to request Signature: Printed Name: Mailing Address: City, State Zip: ~ ~"A~ ~-o ~ Telephone Number: ? ~ ~ Physical Address of Property within 200 feet: CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS C~TY HALLWEST · DENTON, TEXAS 76201 · 9z ,9~.~.¢)~LNT Z02-0019 200' Notice,do~ Apr-19-02 08:37A JIMI~$ TV & VCR 1-~7-383-0475 NOT ¢E OF PUBL..T.C Z02-0019 HEARING The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, Apdl 10, 2002, to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding rezoning approximately 18 acres from a Neighborly)od Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-8) zoning districts (see map on backside). The property is generally located west of Bonnie Brae approximately 1,300 feet south of Windsor commonly referred to as 2201 and 2205 N Bonnie Brae. The public hearing will start at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall located at 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas. Because you own property within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property, the Planning and Zoning Commission would like to hear how you fee/about this zoning change request and invites you to attend the public hearing. be taken into account, return this form with your comments prior to in no way prohibits you from attending and participating in the pu number located at the bottom, mail it to the address below, or drop Planning and Development Depart~ 221 N. Elm ST Denton, Texas 76201 Attn: Larry Relchhart, Assistant In favor of request Comments: ?!ease, in order for ynar-eeif~ ~ VELOPMENT includes two public heatings designed to provide opportunities for citizen The zoning process involvement and comment. Prior to the public hearings, landowners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property are notified of the zoning request by way of this notice. The first public hearing is held before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission is informed of the percent of responses in support and in opposition. Second, the zoning petition is forwarded to the City Council for final action providing the Commission recommends approval. ShoUld the Commission recommend denial, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the City Council. If owners of more than twenty (20) percent of the land area within two hundred (200') feet of the site submit written opposition, then six out of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve the zoning change. Theee forms are used to calculate the patten/age of landowner opposition. ~1~ Please cilia one: ~ ~Op~pos'ed to requeT~..~s'ed to request Ne~ t' Signature: ~.') ~. Printed Name: /,._~,.-./'~ .,'~ ? .~,~/'/ Mailing Address; ,=,3..//~/ . ~"~.~ 5- 7~.~ ~-.,~o ~-~ City, State Zip: /.~ ~ ~z,,,,.~ ~ _.~4',3-0._.'7 Telephone Number:. ~..~.~> - .~'-~' ~ $'/) Physical Address of Property within 200 feet: =~ ~ ~-~//~' CITY OF OEN?ON, TE)(A$ CITY HALL WEST - DENTON. TEXAS 7e201 · 940.349.8350 * (F) 940.;349.7707 04/85/2~2 15:~0 3619912914 TURNER LAHDSCAPE IH PAGE NOTICE OF PUBLTC Z02-0019 HEAR]:N6 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will hold a public headng on Wednesday, April 10, 2002, to consider making a mcomrnendation to City Council regarding rezoning approx~mate~ 18 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning distr~ct to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning districts (see map on backside). The property is generally located west of Bonnie Brae approximatehj 1,300 feet south of Windsor commonly referred to as 2201 and 2205 N Bonnie Brae. The public hearing will start at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall located at 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas. Because you own property within two hundred (200) feet of the subject proper~y, the Planning and Zoning Commission would like to hear how you feel about this zoning change request and invites you to attend ~he public hearing. Please, in order for your opinion to be taken into account, return this form with your comments prior to the date of the public hearing. (This in no way prohibits you from attending and participating in the pub/lc hearing.) You may fax it to the number focated at the bottom, mail it to the address below, or drop it off In.pemon; Planning and Development Department 221 N. Elm ST Denton, Texas 76201 Attn: Larry Relchhart, Assistant Director of Planning The zoning process includes two public heatings designed to provide opportunities for citizen involvement and comment. Prior to the public hearings, landowners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property are notified of the zoning request by way of this notice. The first public hearing is held before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission is informed of the percent of responses in support and in opposition. Second, the zoning petition is forwarded to the City Council for final action providing the Commission recommends approval. Should the Commission recommend denial, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the City Council. If owners of more than twenty (20) percent of the tend area within two hundred (200) feet of the site submit written opposition, then six out of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve the zoning change. These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposition. Please circle one: In favor of request Neutral to request Comments: Signature; , Printed Name: Mailing Address: City, State Zip: Physical Address of Property within ;ZOO feet; i i i I iii i II ~ I II I iii i I I III I I CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY HALt-WEST · OENTON, TEXAS 76201 - ~40.3,49.8350 - (F) 940,349.7707 1_0: 121:IH ST CF~I TELE:COI' ~ P. 1 o'rz e oF Pu u:¢' Z02,.0019 The Plannlng and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will hold a public hearing on Wednesday. April 10, 2002, to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding re~-onfng approximately 18 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning districts (see map on backside). The Property Is generally located west of Bonnie Brae approximately 1,300 feet south of Windsor commonly referred to as 2201 and 2205 N Bonnie Brae. The public hearing will start at 8:00 P.m in the Cit Cou McKinne Stre ' Y ncil Chambers of City Hall located at 215 E. Y et, Denton, Texns - . ou~.-~use you own prope~h/v~thin two zoning change request and invites you to attend the public henri Plea hundred (200) feet of the subject properly, the Planning and Zofling Commission Would like to hear how you feel about this be taken into account, tatum this form ,,~-. ............. ng' se, in order for our o in' --,,,, ~<,,-,, ~;omments *"nor ~ ~,- - ........ Y p Ion tO tn no way prohibit~ you from at/ending and pa~ t/n. '" ~ "'~ ,a,,~e ur me public hearing. (This number located at ,~ h,.a+..,,,. __;, ....... Pa. g Jn the public hea,~er.s)o You may fax it to the th....,.,,,,,,,, ,,,a. ~ [o ~ne acldress below, or drop it off in- n- Planning and Development Department 221 N. Elm ST Denton, Texas 76201 Attn; Larry ReJchhart, Assistant Director Of Planning The zoning process includes two public headngs designed to provide opPortunities for citizen involvement and comment. Prior to the public hearings, landowners within two hundred ('200) feet of the subject property are notified of the zoning request by way of this notice. The first public hearing is held before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission is informed of the percent of responses in support and in opposition. Second, the zoning petition is forwarded to the City Council for final action providing the Commission recommends approval. Should the Commission recommend denial, the petilioner may then appeal the request to the City Council. If owners of more than twenty (20) percent of the land area within two hundred (200) feet of the site submit wrftten opposition, then six ot~t of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve the zoning change. These for~ a~ u.~ed to ca/calera the percelttage of landow~er opposition, Please circle one: Neutral to request In favor of request Comments; Signature: ~ Printed Name: ~,._.~~L~~~.~tj~A ~~ -- Mailing Address: " ~ . --- City' SIate ZN~P~b~ Telephone . ~ Physical Address of Property within 200 feet: ' i. --.--- ClTY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY'HALI. WEST o DENTON, TEllS 70201 · g41:),349,a3S0 (~')(~40.349.7707 Ha~l 3[2 02 NOT ¢E OF 940-382-I006 PUBL..I C Z02.-0019 HEARZN; The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, April 10, 2002, to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding rezoning approximately 18 acres from a Neighborhood Residentla! 3 (NR-3) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning districts (see map on backside). The prope~ is generally located west of Bonnie Brae approximately 1,300 feet south of Windsor commonly referred to as 2201 and 2205 N Bonnie Brae. The public hearing will start at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall located at 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas. Because you own property within two hundred (200) feet of the subject properly, the Planning and Zoning Commission would like to hear how you feel about this zoning change request and invites you to attend the public hearing~ Please, in order for your opinion to be taken into account, return this form with your comments prior to the date of the public headng. (This in no way prohibits you from attending and pe~'cipating in fha public heating.) You may fax it to the number located at the boffom, mail it to the address below, or drop it off in-person: Planning and Developm~t Department 221 N. Elm ST Denton, Texas 3'6201 Attn: Larry Reichhart, Assistant Director of Planning The zoning 'process includes two public hearings designed to provide opportunities for citizen involvement and comment. Prior to the public hearings, landowners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property are notified of the zoning request by way of thrs notice. The first public hearing is held before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission is informed of the pement of responses in support and in opposition. Second, the zoning petition is forwarded to the City Council for final action providing the Commission recommends approval. Should the Commission recommend denial, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the City Council. if owners of more than twenty (20) percent of the land area within two hundred (200) feet of the site submit written opposition, then six out of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve the zoning change. These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowner oppos~on. In favor of request Comments: Please circle one: Neutral to request Mailing Address: City, State Zip:., ~ysi~l Address of Prope~ CITY OF DENTON, TE3~4S c~TY HALL WEST · DENTON, TEXAS 76201 - 940.349.8350 - (F)940.349.7707 NOT[CE OF PUBLTC HEARIN6 Z02-00t9 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton wifl hold a public hearing on Wednesday, April 10, 2002, to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding ~ezoning approxjmate¥ 16 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residential 0 (NR-6) 7.oning districts (see map on backside). The property ts generally located west of Bonnie Brae approximately 1,300 feet south of W~ndsor commonly referred to as 2201 and 2.205 N Bonnie Brae, The public hearing wilt start at 6:00 p.m, tn the City Council Chambers of City Haft located at 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas. Because you own property within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property, the Planning and Zoning Commission would like to hear how you feel about this zoning change request apd invites you to attend the public hearing. Please, in order for your opinion to be taken into account, return this form with your comments pr~or to the date of the public hearing, (This ~bits ou from attending and participating in the public hearing.) You may fax~ to the in no. wa.y pre!b,' ,~YJ ~'-"om mai, it to the address below, or drop it off in-person: Der {o ~ u,u uu~, , ., n Lm ......................................., ..................... ...... ~ ....~ X, Plannlng and Development Department ,t,~/ %.,.~,* ,?-~.,. 22,t N. Elm ST _"~ ,~.¥~ [~ Denton, Texas 76201 ....... · Plannin" '~'(/;.~ ./~ Attn: La,t. yRe,chhart, Assis~nto'rec~or°' , The zoning process includes two public hearings designed to provide oppo~tLspities for citizen involvement and comment. Prior to the public hearings, landowners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property are notified of the zoning request by way of this notice. The first public hearing is held before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission is informed of the pement of responses in support and in opposition. Second, the zoning petition is forwarded to the City Council for rna1 action providing the Commission recommends approval. Should the Commission recommend denial, ti~e petitioner may then appeal the request to the City Council. If owners of more than twenty (20) percent of the land area withln two hundred (20o) feet of the site submit written oppes[tion, then six out of seven votes of the City CouncJt are required to a~prove the zoning cha~ge, These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposition. Please circle one: /-"~' tn favor of request Neutral to request ~/ Opposed to reque~/J Comments: ~ "' ' ~ ,e.~ g'~ ~' Signature: Zriainltt~; :;dress: ~,~7. c~. 0,'..(2'- ~"/) :%. S u.Y ...., ; ~ .. Telephone Number: ~r,r-/O, :, , ' ., ' "' Physical Address of Property wlthin 200 feet: _ ~ -~- ~ / d'~-~- %'~-h3 .Q.~z I crrY OF DENTON. TEXA~ CiTY HAU. w,-u, . NOT[CE OF PUBLIC Z02-0019 HEARIN The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will hold a' public hearing on Wednesday, April 10, 2002, to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding rezoning approximately 18 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning districts (see map on backside). The property is generally located west of Bonnie Brae approximately 1,300 feet south of Windsor commonly referred to as 2201 and 2205 N Bonnie Brae. The pubiic hearing will start at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall located at 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas. Because you own property within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property, the Planning and Zoning Commission would like fo hear how you feel about this zoning change request and invites you to attend the public hearing. Please, in order for your opinion to be taken into account, return this form with your comments prior to the date of the public hearing. (This in no way prohibits you from attending and participating in the public hearing number located at the bottom, mail it to the address below, or drop it off in-pets Planning and Development Department 221 N. Elm ST Denton, Texas 76201 The zoning process includes two public involvement and comment. Prior to the public hearings, landowners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property are notified of the zoning request by way of this notice. The first public hearing is held before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission is informed of the percent of responses in support and in opposition. Second, the zoning petition is forwarded to the City Council for final action providing the Commission recommends approval. Should the Commission recommend · denial, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the City Council If owners of more than twenty (20) percent of the land area within two hundred (200) feet of the site submit written opposition, then six out of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve the zoning change. These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposition. ' t! Attn: Larry Reichhart, Assistant Director of P PL' I' ING & DEVELOPMEI hearings designed to provide opportunities for citizen in favor of request Comments: Please circle one: Neutral to request City, State Zip:'-~0.2\ O~O ,, .'-~"X: .."7 Telephone Number: ~ ~ -7_ -- c~/__ % Physical Address of Property within 200 feet: CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CiTY HALL WEST · DENTON, TEXAS 76201 · 940.349.8350 · (F) 940.349.7707 Z02.0019 200' Notice,dot No'rzCE OF PUBLIC Z02-001 § The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will hotd a public hearing on Wednesday, April 10, 2002, to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding rezoning approximately 18 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning districts (see map on backside). The property is generally located west of Bonnie Brae approximately 1,300 feet south of Windsor commonly referred to as 2201 and 2205 N Bonnie Brae. The public hearing wilt start at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall located at 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas. Because you own property within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property, the Planning and Zoning Commission would tike to hear how you fee/about this zoning change request and invites you to attend the public hearing. Please, in order for your opinion to be taken into account, return this form with your comments prior to the date of the public hea~ing. (This in no way prohibits you from attending and participating in the public hearing.) You may fax it to the number located at the bottom, mail it to the address below, or drop it off in-person: Planning and Development Department 221 N. Elm ST Denton, Texas 76201 Attn: Larry Reichhart, Assistant Director of Planning The zoning process includes two public hearings designed to provide opportunities for citizen involvement and comment. Prior to the public hearings, landowners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property are notified of the zoning request by way of this notice. The first public hearing is held before the Plann[ng and Zoning Commission. The Commission is informed of the percent of responses in support and in opposition. Second, the zoning petition is forwarded to the City Council for final action providing the Commission recommends approval. Should the Commission recommend denial, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the City Council. If owners of more than twenty (20) percent of the land area within two hundred (200) feet of the site submit written opposition, then six out of seven votes of the City Council are requ[red to approve the zoning change. These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposition, Please. ....--... .__~ ~ In favor of request Neutral: re~ Comments: Printed Name: Mailing Address: stat zip: .... Telephone Number: Physical Address of Prope~ ~thin CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY HALLWEST · DENTON, TEXAS 76201 * 940.349.8350 ° (F) 940.349.7707 Rpp 07 02 07:16p Rshle~ Ni~l~ Sellman 940-565-0631 p.1 NOT'J:CE OF PUBL.[(:: HEARINg, Z02-0019 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, April 10, 2002, to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding rezoning approximately 18 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning districts (see map on backside). The property is generally located west of Bonnie Brae approximately 1,300 feet south of Windsor commonly referred to as 2201 and 2205 N Bonnie Brae. The public hearing will start at 6;00 p.m, in the City Council Chambers of City Hall located at 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas. Because you own property within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property, the Planning and Zoning Commission would like to hear how you feel about this zoning change request and invites you fo attend the public hearing. Please, in order for your opinion to be taken into account, return this form with your comments prior to the date of the public hearing. (This in no way prohibits you from attending and participating in the public hearing.) You may fax it to the number located at the bottom, mail it to the address below, or drop it off in-person: Planning and Development Department 221 N. Elm ST Denton, Texas 76201 Attn: Larry Reichhart, Assistant Director of Planning The zoning process includes two public hearings designed to provide opportunities for citizen involvement and comment. Prior to the public hearings, landowners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property are notified of the zoning request by way of this notice. The first public hearing is held before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission is informed of the percent of responses in support and in opposition. Second, the zoning petition is forwarded to the City Councit for finat action providing the Commission recommends approval. Should the Commission recommend denial, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the City Council. If owners of more than twenty (Z0) percent of the land area within two hundred (200) feet of [he site submit written opposition, then slx out of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve the zoning change, These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposition. In favor of request Comments: Please circle one: Neutral to request Signat ur~_~._.-.---~ Printed Name: . · Mailing Address: _~,2. O~ L~<ou+ /--~ City, State Zip: ...-~..¢~+0~ ,"'~-'~ '") ~ ~-0'7 Telephone Number: _ ~ ~'/O - .5 ..~, .5'- O ~3 / Physical Address of Property within 200 feet: .~ 2_.0 ~' CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CtTY HALLWEST · DENTON, TEXAS 76201 · 940.349.8350 " (F)940.349.7707 ZD2.0019 200' Notice.~ot ENT BY: IWW, INC.; 979 776 9286; DE¢-27-90 tl:03AU; PAGE 111 NOT[CE OF PUBL:E¢ Z02-0019 HEARIN& The Planning and zoning Comm|sston of the City of Denton will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, ApHI 10, 2002, to consider making! a recommendation to City Coundl regarding rezoning approximately 18 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning districts (see map on backside). The property is generally located west of Bonnie Brae approximately 1,300 feet south of Windsor commonly referred to as 2201 and 7.Z05 N Bonnie Brae. The public hearing will start at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall located at 215 E, McKinney Street, Denton, Tax'as; Because you own property within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property, the Planning and Zoning Commission would like to hear hbw you feel about thi~ zoning change request end invites you to attend the public hearing. Please, In order for your opinion to be taken into account, return this form with your comments prior to the date of tt,/e public headng. (This' in no way prohibits you from al~hding and participating in the public hearing.)' You may fax it to the . ?~ ~u~rrjber:,t~tect~t.the 10.o_tt...¢~. mail it to the address below, or drop it off in-pemon: ;= , .. : .................................... Ii; !1221 N. Elm ST ~%; .......... ~_3 ..... ~.~ilL~es two ubllc heann s dost ned to provide opportunities for citizen Pb~n-~ Wement-and~Prior; to the public hearings, landowners within tw0 hundred (200) feet of . the subject property are notified ~f the zoning request by way of this notice. The first pubflc headn.g is. held before the Planning and ZOning Commission. The Commission is informed of the percent of responses in support and in opposition. Second, the zoning petition is forwarded to the City Council for final action providing the Commission recommends approval. Should the Commission recommend denial, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the City Council. If owners of more than twenty (20) percent of the land ama within two hundred (200) feet of the site submit written opposition, then six out of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve the zoning change. These forms are ~s~l to calculate the peroemtal~e of landowner oppc~ition. In favor of request Comments: ~ ~, ,t;~-- POnted Name: ~. P ~ ~ ~'z' TM J Mailing Address: . ~ ~P. ~ ~ ~ C~, S~te ~p: ' ~e~,~- / ~ ~ ~ Telephone Numbe~ fy~ ~ ~ ~:~3. ~ P~sicel Address ~ ~o~ ~in 200 feet: , . .~4 ~ Please circle one: ~_______~0Sed to ~ Neutral to request /,,.,.¢'. ,.¢/,,,.,,,, // 7,4; CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS 7.02-0019 200' Not/ce. dc~ CITY HALL. WI:ST - DENTON1 TEXAS 76201 - ~40.349,8;350 - (F) 940.349,7T07 NOTICE OF PUBLIC Z02-0019 HEAR :N( The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will held a public heating on Wednesday, April 10, 2002, to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding rezoning approximately 18 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning- distr~ct to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning districts (see map on backside). The property is generally [ocated west of l~onnie ~rae approximately 1,3{30 feet sou~ of Windsor commonly referred to as 2201 and 2205 N Bonnie Brae. The public hearing will start'at 6;00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall located at 215 E. McKinney Street, .Denton, Texas. Because you own property within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property, the Planning and Zoning Commission would like to hear how you feel abou~ this zoning change request and invites you to attend the public headng. Please, in order for your opinion to be taken into account, return this form v~th your comments prior to the date of the public'heating. (This in no way prohibits you from attending and participating in the public hearing.) You may fax It to the number located at the bottom, mail it to the address below. 'or'drop It off ir~person; Planning' and Development Department 221 N. Elm ST Denton, Texas 76201 Attn: Larry Reichhart, Assistant Director of Planning The zoning process includes two public hearings designed to provide opportunities for citizen involvement and commenL Pdor to the public hearings, landowners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property are notified of the zoning request by way of this notice. The first public hearing is held before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission is informed of the percent of responses in support and in opposition. Second, the zoning petition is forwarded to the City Council for final action providing the Commission recommends approval. Should the Commission recommend denial, the per,loner may then appear the request to the City Council. if owners of more than twenty (20) percent of the land area within two hundred (200) feet of the site submit written opposition, then six out of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve the zoning change. These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposition. Please circle one: in favor of request Neutral to request Comments: iL Mailing AddresS: ~ .rir k ~~ CiW, State Zip: ~~)~ ~ ~~ Telephone Numben qqO ' q~' F~ Physi~l Address of Prope~ ~thin 200 feet: CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY HALLWEST - DENTON, TF-.)(AS 7b--201 , g40,349.1~350 ' (F) 940.349.7707 NOT CE OF PUBLIC HEAE:I:N Z02-0019 The Planning and Zoning Commission of lhe City of Denton will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, April 10, 2002, to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding rezoning approximately 18 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning districts (see map on backside). The property is generally located west of Bonnie Brae approximately 1,300 feet south of Windsor commonly referred to as 2201 and 2205 N Bonnie Brae. The public hearing will stad at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall located at 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas. Because you own property within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property, the Planning and Zoning Commission would like to hear how you feel about this zoning change request and invites you to attend the public hearing. Please, in order for your opinion to be taken into account, return this form with your comments pr'mr to the date of the public hearing. (This in no way prohibits you from attending and participating in the public h number located at the bottom, mail it to the address below, or drop it off i Planning and Development Department 221 N. Elm ST Denton, Texas 76201 Attn: Larry Reichhart, Assistant Directc t-l~!anning . ! 'i'he zoning process involvement and comment. Prior to the public hearings, landowners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property are notified of the zoning request by way of this notice. The first public hearing is held before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission is informed of the percent of responses in support and in opposition. Second, the zoning petition is forwarded to the City Council for final action providing the Commission recommends approval. Should the Commission recommend denial, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the City Council. if owners of more than twenty (20) percent of the land area within two hundred (200) feet of the site submit w~itten opposition, then six out of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve the zoning change. These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposition. Please circle one: _._.r- -... ~.~_,,,) In favor of request Neutral to request Comments: PLANNING & EV,E. LOPMENT includes two public hearings designed to pre ' ,~,,,.....,..~ .- .... i,,.~ Printed N~me:'--'"-'f~'~'~! -" blailing Address: .?..~)~ .~a,-~ ~.~ city. state zip: Telephone Number:. E,,,~. Physical Address o! Property within 200 feet:. CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS C~TY HALL WEST o DENTON. TEXAS 70201 · 940.349.8350 · IF) 940.340.7707 Documenl 1 NOT[CE OF PUBL]:C Z02-0019 HEARING in no way prohibits you from attending and participating in the public heari number located at the bottom, mail it to the address below, or drop it off in-pE Planning and Development Department 221 N. Elm ST Denton, Texas 76201 Attn: Larry Reichhart, Assistant Director ot The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, April 10, 2002, to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding rezoning approximately 18 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning districts (see map on backside). The property is generally located west of Bonnie Brae approximately 1,300 .feet south of Windsor commonly referred to as 2201 and 2205 N Bonnie Brae. The public hearing will start at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall located at 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas. Because you own property within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property, the Planning and Zoning Commission would like to hear how you feel about this zoning change request and invites you to attend the public hearing. Please, in order for your opinion to be taken into account, return this form with your comments prior to the date of the public hearing. (This ~.~ fax it to th~ PIG & DEVELOPMENT The zoning process includes two public hearings designed to provid6"o~Port~nitieS for citizen involvement and comment. Prior to the public hearings, landowners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property are notified of the zoning request by way of this notice. The first public hearing is held before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission is informed of the percent of responses in support and in opposition. Second, the zoning petition is forwarded to the City Council for final action providing the Commission recommends approval. Should the Commission recommend denial, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the City Council. If owners of more than twenty (20) percent of the land area within two hundred (200) feet of the site submit written opposition, then six out of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve the zoning change. These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposition. In favor of request Please circle one: Neutral to request Comments: Signature: Printed Name: ~ Mailing Address: Ci~, State Zip: ~. ~; ~ ~ .~ G~o7 Telephone Number: Physical Address of Properly within 200 feet: CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CiTY HALL WEST · DENTON, TEXAS 76201 · 940.349,8350 · (Fi 940.349,7707 Z02-00~ 9 200' Notice.dot NO'i-J:¢E OF PUBL]:¢ HEAR:I::NG Z02-0019 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City o! Denton will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, Aprll 10, 2002, to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding rezoning approximately 18 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning districts (see map on backside). The property is generally located west of Bonnie Brae approximately 1,300 feet south of Windsor commonly referred to as 2201 and 2205 N Bonnie Brae. The public hearing will start at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers ol City Hall located at 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton. Texas. Because you own property within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property, ~he Planning and Zoning Commission would like to hear how you feel about this zoning change request and invites you to amend the public heating. Please, in order for your opinion to be taken into account, retum this form with your comments prior to the date of the public hear~mg. (This in no way prohibits you from attending and parti~'pating in the public hearing.) You may fax it to the number located at the bottom, mail it to the address below, or drop it off in-person: Planning and Development Department 221 N. Elm ST Denton, Texas 76201 Attn: Larry Relchhart, Assistant Director of Planning The zoning process includes two public hearings designed to provide opportunities for citizen involvement and comment. Prior to the public hearings, landowners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property are notified of the zoning request by way of this notice. The first public hearing is held betore the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission is informed o! the percent of responses in support and in opposition. Second, the zoning petition is forwarded to the City Council for final act{on providing the Commission recommends approval. Shou{d the Commission recommend denial, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the City Council. If owners of more than twenty (20) percent of the land area within two hundred (200) feet of the site submit written opposition, then six out of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve the zoning change. These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposition. Please circle one: Neutral to request In favor of request Comments: Ci~, State Zip: ~ ~f~ ~ Telephone Numbe~ , ~Y 6' ~ Z Y ~ Ph~{~l A~ress of Prope~ wi~in 2~ feet: ClTY OF DENTON, TEXAS C~TY HALLWEST · DENTON. TEXAS 76201 ,, 940.349.8350 o (F) 940.349.7707 04/24/20G2 69-' 42 19403827939 IMMAC COHCEP DF'HTOH P~GF' I I I II I I I I I t rem. __ -- I I I I I I I No'rzCE OF PUBL.TC Z02-0019 HEARING The Planning and Zoning CommissIon of the City of Denton will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, April 10, 2002, to consider meldng a recommendation to City Council regarding re. zoning approximately 18 ac~s from a Neighborhood ResidenlJel 3 (NR*3) zoning distdc! to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zon{ng districts (see map on backa~de), The property is generally located west of Bonnie Brae approximately 1,300 feet south of Windaor commonly referred to es 2201 and 2205 N Bonnie Brae. The public hea~fng will start at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall located at 215 E. McKlnney Street, Denton, Texas. Because you own property w~thin two hundred (200) feet of the subject properly, the Planning and Zoning Commis.~ion would like to hear how you feel about this zoning change request and invites you to attend the public hea~ing. Please, in oeder for your opinion to be taken into account, tatum this form with your comments prior to the date of the public hearing. (This in no way prohibits you from ettenc~hg and participating in the public hearing,) You may fax it to tlc,- number located at the bottom, mail it to the address !::~, or d~p it off in ~l~9~r~: 22t N. Elm ST 0 Attn: Larry Reichhart, Assi~tant Director ~nnln~l .... NI G.& DEVELQPMENT The zoning pres includes two publiC: hearings designed to prov ~ ~Fpo involvement and comment. Prior to the public hearing~, landowners with ~ two hundred (200) feet of the subject properly are notified of the zoning request by way of this notice. The first public hearing is held before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission is informed of the percent of responses in support and in oppo~tion, Second, the zoning petition is forwarded to the City Council for final action providing the Commission recommends approval. Should the Commission recommend denial, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the City Council. If owners of more than· .twenty (20) percent of the lend area ~thin two hundred (200) feet of the site submit written oPlx~iflon, then six out of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve ttle zoning change. Please circle one: In favor of requeSt , Neutral to request C~ ..p0s~._. to~e.st~..' Signature: Printed Name: /~1 s G ~. Mailing Address' / ~/5' A.~ C~-/_./~T :~7' City, State Zip: ~ E~M TO/c) 7' ~ ? 1~ 3 o I Telephone Number, ~qO~ ~,~4~_R' - / ? Physical Address of Propert7 within 200 feet: CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS C;TY HALL WEST * DENTON. TEXA~ 76201 . 940.349.8350 - (F) 940.349.7707 · mll~l I .... P.~_? LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY I, Joseph P. Delaney, Bishop of thc Catholic Dioccsc of Fort Worth, as of this date and by this doe. ument, cio nominate, constitute and appoint Msgr. Charles King and/or $ohn Scllman of Denton~ Denton County, Texas, my tr~¢ and lawful attorney-in-fact, to act on behalf of the Ca~holi~ Diocese of Fort Worth for the limited purpose concerning Z02-0019 (2201 and 2:205 N. Bormi¢~rae) set for Public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton,l Den'.on County, Texas and my hearing before the Denton City Counsel on the same matter. EXECUTED this 23'4 day of April, 2002. ~Woah THE STATE OF TEXAS ~ CO~Y OF T~~ ~ Thi~ in~t~ent wa, ae~owledged before me by Rev. M,~. Joseph A. Schum~her, Attorney-in.Fact for los~ph P. Delaney, Bishop of the Diocese ofF~ Wo~h on the 2~~ day of ~otbrcy Public in and for the State of Texas L/MIT£D POWER OF ATTORNI~.¥ HPR--2~--02 12=19 PM OF FORT ~ORTH ~17244~05~ P.Bi From~ Facsimile Transmission Diocese of Fort Worth' The Catholic Center - 800 West Loop B20 South Fort Worth, Texas 76108 (817) $60-3300 Name: Malcolm Gorrie Fax Number: $17-244-8839 Voice Number: 817-560-2452, Ext. I$0 Name: Larry Reichhart Company: City o£ Demon Fax Number: 940-349-7707 Voice Number: Fax Notes: Mr. Relchhart, Atta¢~ed Is the executed Limited Power of Attorney authorizing the Msgr. King or John ~$eilman to act on ~half of the Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth es our agent In the~ zoning matter Z02-0019. To prevent any delays, please include the material submitted by the parish in opposition to the zoning case. If yot~ have any questions or need additional Information, please contact me as coon ,as possible. MalcOlm Gorrle 84/88/2882 ..L.9',LS J. S40'38275::J9 T~E; COHCEF' [,ENTOI',i F"a6E 81 .._ ... - - ' '.'/~____,__,~; '.,' ......... ,=,~,~.~.~o~, .... .. NO ¢e nln ¢c~,nmismlon of the City of Oenton ,~tl hold m pelto ~aring ~ Weclne~ley, The Ptennlng and Zo g ., _ .. ._ ,.,L. ,., .... -- .-,,,-f,4]n,, rea~mna ,ppro~4meteh/ NRMU t3 and Nel I~fnood R.e~dentla~ e (NR~) ~ng dlst~e (eec me~ on ~ac~lde). The pro~ !~ generally I~te~ ~et ~ Bo~n~ a~e appro~m~e~ 1, T~ pu=~c ~r}~ ~1 e~ m e:~ p,m, In ~e Ct~ C~nc~ Chambem ~ ~ ~ ~ e~ 216 E. M¢~nney ~tmet, Denton, Te~e. B~use y~ ~ ~eSy w~hln ~o hunEmd ~00) feet ef t~ ~bj~ p~, ~e ~enn~ a~d Zoning C~mt~ ~uM ~ke ~ hee~ how ~u ~eei ebo~ ~1~ change ~uea~ an~ ~v~s ~ to ~nd ~ pu~ headng, Pierce, In o~e~ ~r ~ur ogin~n to ~e taken ~ e~n~ ~m thio fo~ ~h ~ur ~m~s ~r to me ~ of ~ p~ll¢ h~ng. tn no ~y ~b~ you ~ ~e~ en~ pe~p~lng In ~e pu~i~ hoeing,) You may fax It ~ numar ~ted at ~e ~am, ~at~ tt ~ the ~d~ ~. or drop a off ~21 N, Elm ~ ~ton, Te~ ~0~ T~ zoning ~o~ ln~t~e~ ~ ~ubtto he~ngt d~lgned ~ pm~de ~p~es f~ d~ ~voWe~m and ~m~t. PHor to t~ public h~ffng~, la~o~,m ~hin ~ h~dred (2~) feet the mub~ pmpe~ ~ n~ ~ ~ ~ing ~u~ by way of th)~ n~)~. The fl~t public ~a~ng ~ld ~f~ ~e Planning end Zoning Commission. ~e Commf~s[on I~ In~ ~ ~ ~nt mlN~m t~ 8u~ i~ in OpNl~0n. ~nd. ~ zoNng petition Ii f~8~ to ~e C~ C~fl~l for dental, ~e pegt~nar m~ men e~e~ t~ mqu~t ~ ~e CI~ Council. If ~em of more man (~ pement of ~e lind ama within ~ hu~md (2~) fe~ of I~ sim ,~m~ ~n o~, ~ slx out of se~n wtes of t~ ~ Council em mqulre~ to approve t~ z~tng change, T~ae f~s In m~r ~ ~,t Neutm~ m ~qu~t ~ea Io Com~n~: . - ·~ Slgna~re: .............. '/~ _~ '~: ' ----. ~ ~ - -- - Cl~,State~p: - _ ~~ .~' ~ ~ ~ J .................. Tt~hone Num~ ~ ~%-~-~-':~/~ ~ :~.: : ' ..... '" PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT NOT'J:CE OF PUBL]:C hEAR]:N z0 -00 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will hold a ptlj~c hj~{Ei:~on ~)~lne~,~By, April 10, 2002, to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding rezoning approximately 18 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning distri~-t_- (see map on The property is generally located west of Bonnie Brae approximately 1,300 feet south of Windsor commonly referred to as 2201 and 2205 N Bonnie Brae. The public hearing will start at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall located at 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas. Because you own property within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property, the Planning and Zoning Commission would like to hear how you feel about this zoning change request and invites you to attend the public hearing. Please, in order for your opinion to be taken into account, return this form with your comments prior to the date of the public hearing. (This in no way prohibits you from attending and participating in the public number located at the bottom, mail it to the address below, or drop it Planning and Development Departm~ 221 N. Elm ST Denton, Texas 76201 At'tn: Larry Reichhart, Assistant Dire The zoning process includes two public hearings designed to )rowa~ opportuhlues ]or cruz .~n involvement and comment. Prior to the public hearings, landowners within two hundred (200) feet of the subje~ property are notified of the zoning request by way of this notice. The first public hearing is held before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission is informed of the percent of responses in support and in opposition. Second, the zoning petition is forwarded to the City Council for final action providing the Commission recommends approval. Should the Commission recommend denial, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the City Council. If owners of more than twenty (20) percent of the land area within two hundred (200) feet of the site submit written opposition, then six out of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve the zoning change. These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposition. hearin~l.) You may fax. it to the P NNtNG & EVELOPMENT In favor of request Comments: Opposed to request City, State Zip: ~")F~. To~,(' /'-'X '7 ~' ,Lo ? Telephone Number: ,¢ ~' /"/~ff/' ?~ ~ Physical Address of Prope~ within 200 feet: ~//~ )1~! CITY OF DENTON' TEXAS CiTY HALL WEST · DENTON, TEXAS 76201 · 940.349.8350 · (F) 940.349.7707 ZO2-0019 2o0' Notice.dot NOT[CE OF PUBLIC Z02-0019 HEARING The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, April 10, 2002, to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding rezoning approximately 18 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning districts (see map on backside). The property is generally located west of Bonnie Brae approximately 1,300 feet south of Windsor commonly referred to as 2201 and 2205 N Bonnie Brae. The public hearing will start at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall located at 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas. Because you own property within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property, the Planning and Zoning Commission would like to hear how you feel about this zoning change request and invites you to attend the public hearing. Please, in order for your opinion to be taken into account, return this form with your comments prior to the date of the public hearing. (This r hibits ou from attending and participating in the public h~aring.~,TYouJ;a~Y~-.~.J~to~ innowaypo y . . · ~- ~'.'~' '~""x ~ ..... number located at the bottom, ma,I ,t to the address below, or drop ,t off ,~'~q..s~n~ f~!~ Planning and Development Department ~/[ I1~ 221 N. ElmST i~\l APR 0 · Denton, Texas 76201 it\\t -~/ Attn: Larry Reichhart; Assistant Directo i:if~'RI,a, ntn~ing;" pL~.~,,~G ~:: The zoning process includes two public hearings designed to pro, f~~s for citize~"--"---'-'-~- invo[vement and comment. Prior to the public hearings, landowners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property are notified of the zoning request by way of this notice. The first public hearing is held before the Ptanning and Zoning Commission. The Commission is informed of the percent of responses in support and in opposition. Second, the zoning petition is forwarded to the City Council for final action providing the Commission recommends approval, Should the Commission recommend denial, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the City Council. If owners of more than twenty (20) percent of the land area within two hundred (200) feet of the site submit written opposition, then six out of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve the zoning change. These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposition. Please circle one: In favor of request ~ Opposed to request CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS Z02-0019 200' Notice, dot CiTY HALL WEST · DENTON, TEXAS 76201 · 940.349.8350 · (F) 940.349.7707 OF PUBLIC Z02-0019 HEARING The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, April 10, 2002, to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding rezoning approximately 18 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning districts (see map on backside). The property is generally located west of Bonnie Brae approximately 1,300 feet south of Windsor commonly referred to as 2201 and 2205 N Bonnie Brae. The public hearing will start at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall located at 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas. Because you own property within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property, the Planning and Zoning Commission would like to hear how you feel about this zoning change request and invites you to attend the public hearing. Please, in order for your opinion to be taken into account, return this form with your comments prior to the date of the public hearing. (This in no way prohibits you from attending and participating in the public hearing number located at the bottom, mail it to the address below, or drop it off in-pers Planning and Development Department 221 N. Elm ST Denton, Texas 76201 Attn: Larry Reichhart, Assistant Director of F ~__ may fax it to the & - ..... process includes two public hearings designed to provide cpi The zoning involvement and comment. Prior to the public hearings, landowners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property are notified of the zoning request by way of this notice. The first public hearing is held before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission is informed of the percent of responses in support and in opposition. Second, the zoning petition is forwarded to the City Council for final action providing the Commission recommends approval. Should the Commission recommend denial, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the City Council. If owners of more than twenty (20) percent of the land area within two hundred (200) feet of the site submit written opposition, then six out of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve the zoning change. These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposition. equ NONE Please circle one: Neutral to request Opposed to request RAYZORAV~.ST.~NTS, _LTD., A TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Signature: I/i wu~7' ¢~/'~' '"' Printed Name: Ph'itip A~ Baker. Vice pre~i~n~_ ot= mh~ Rayzor Company: Mailing Address: 1204 West University Drive, Suite 400, City, State Zip: Denton, Texas 76201-1771 Telephone Number: (940) 387-8711 FAX: (940) 566r. 1591 Physical Address of Property within 200 feet: Approximately 100 acres boundary line of the 18 acre tract. alonq, the South CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS Z02-0019 200 Notice, do CITY HALL WEST ' DENTON, TEXAS 76201 · 940.349,8350 · (F).940.349,77.07 Rp~ 08 02 08:12p Rshl~ ~icole Sellman 9~0-$65-0631 p.1 April g, 2002 To: Larry Reichhart Fr: Jori Sellman Re: Zoning Request Z02-0019 4 pages including cover Larry, Please see the following 3 pages of a petition passed around the Windsor Ridge Estates neighborhood only. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to catch several people at home when I passed this around, but [ was able to get 59 signatures and 1 without a signature since one person wanted her husbands name on the petition, but he wasn't home to sign. Please let me know if you have any questions, otherwise, I'll see you on Wednesday night. Ion Sellman 2208 Lookout Ln. (940)-565-0631 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Hpr O~ 02 08:13p Rshle~ Nicole Sellma~ 9~0-565-0631 Apr OO 02 O0:13p Flshle~ Hicole Sellman .q40-$65-0631 8pp 08 O~ OB:13p Rshle~ Micole Sellman ~0-565-0631 p.4 84/88/2882 19:37 4 ' PAGE 81 FAX 349-7707 ATTN.: LARRY REICH^RT The recommendation to the City Council on Wednesday, April 10, 2002, to change the rezoning"of 18 acres, located just south of the new elementap/ school, Immaculate Conception School, from Neighborhood Resldercdal 2 (NR-2) to Neighborhood Residential Mixed 12 (NRMI~,12) and Neighbom(xx~ 6 (NR 6) should be denied because of the high density of population in a school zone. The traffic would jeopardize the safety of the 300 students expected in the fall. Since the school went from 72 students seven years ago to over 250 students today and expects the enrollment to reach 300 by tl3e fall, there is ample evidence the student body will continue to grow. So please count my vote and that of my wife against approving lhe proposal. Arthur and Claire Glonet 428 Headlee Lane Denton, Tx 76201 g40-387-1211 APR' 0 9 ZOO/. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ~-,, Message MichaelTenny From: Sue Tanny ,~e~t: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 1Z:32 PM To; 'larry'. reichart(~cityofden ton.erg' Subject: Proposed Zoning Change on Bonnie Brae Mr, Reichart - I am writing to you as a member of Immaculate C~nception Parish and a homeowner in the Windsor Ridge Estates. i am also the volunteer Director for Immaculate Conception School. and a memb~ School Advisory Council. My husband is very involved in the building of the future Church. We can eli be proud that the community in thi~ small area of Denton is deeply involved and concerned for future development of the area. Immaculate Conception will be~a good neighbor for this growing commun With North Lake Park, the fire station, soccer §olds, si,~gle family homes, etc., this area has maintainecl th cohesiveness not often found in neighborhoods today in cities tl~e size of Denton. Please do not pass the proposed zoning change for this property. The nerghbo~ood deserves to know what will be built on that property before this change is made. The last time the neighborhood got involved in Ibis area, the pro~er~ in question was =old to our Church turn sold its Elm Street location to the Denton Independent Sch~ot District. Obviously, e good ending for Denton. ' Thank you for allowing me to give you an opinion. I will be unat~le to attend the headng on Aprit 10. Sincerely, Sue 'i'enny APR 0'9 >LANNII,IG & DEVELOPMENT 04109/2002 P~GE i It Pa c 1 of 1 of the ~e ity. :ectly vhich in I! of i2:17 9403si1837 12]2 Bolivtr Denton, Tcxa~ ~t6201 (94O) 311 i- I ! 55 Ft~t (9~0) 38]-! 8'C/ www. catholicschooldento,L org To: Thc Planning and Development Depaslment From: Elaine Schad, Ih'incipal, lmmacaflate Conception School Date: April 9, 2002 ! understand the Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a punic hearing tomorrow. April 1 O, 2002. to consider making a recommendation to the City Council rcsarding rczouing 1 g acres from Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) to Neighborhood r~sidential Mixed Use 12(NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR6). I understand, if the council agrees to the zoning change, there could be no li~rther input from the neighborhood concerning what is built un 1he pt'open'ry. We are in the process of building a new school facility which will eventually house 450 studems ages 3 through eighth grade. This facility is part of what will become a 20-acre developmem that includes a ne'.,,- worship facility as well as other buildings that ,0ri'Il support the ministry of Immaculate Conception Parish The development of the particular properly in question is ofulmost concern to eve,~o,e involved in the padst~ master plan because of the very nature of the work we are trying to do. The parish ministry involves many children~ families, and patrons who seek a family-oriented e.vironment. B~cause of this focus, we would like to be assured that any future development of that particular acreage would ,pt pose a dilemma for' our palish ministries or for lhe m~ny families who live in the residences in and around this acreage. I ask that you do not grant tl~e zoning change. The neighborhood has a right to know that future dev¢lopm~t of this area will be appropriate, and if that does not occur; the neighborhood should retain the right to petitkm the city to evaluate such development at the time it occurs. Thank you for your interest in this ma~t~r. Sincerely, Elaine Schad iCS Principal From: To: Date: Subject: "Mary Garcia" <mary.garcia@iccdenton.org> "Larry Reichhad" <Larry. Reichhart@cityofdenton.com> 4/10/02 1:00PM Fw: Proposed Rezoning of 18 Acres ..... Original Message ..... From: GJTRACHTA@aol.com To: larry.reichhart@cityofdenton.org Cc: mary.garcia@iccdenton.org; pastor@iccdenton.org Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 11:48 AM Subject: Proposed Rezoning of 18 Acres Dear Mr, Reichhart, As a parishioners of Immaculate Conception Church and parents of children who attend Immaculate Conception School, we are concerned about the possi~)te rezoning of the 18 acres south of our school and proposed church. Countless hours and funds have been expended in finding the most appropriate and affordable land for our new school and church. Part of this search included checking the surrounding zoning to ensure it would be conducive to a church/school. To change this zoning from NR-2 to NRMU-12 and NR-6 would be detrimental to our school children and parishioners. Our desire is for our new school and subsequent new church to be a wonderful asset to the City of Denton. Please help us in our effort by denying the rezoning of the 18 acres tonight at the Ptanning and Zoning hearing. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Glenn and Janeil Trachta Mr. Reichhart: Please consider my concerns with The Planning and Zoning Commission's considerations regarding the rezonJng of 18 acres from Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) to Neighborhood residential Mixed Use 12(NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR6). This property is to the south of the new location for Immaculate Conception Catholic Church (ICC). And while I am not a resident of Denton, I am a registered parishioner of ICC. Accordingly, I have an interest in the future development of the property surrounding the new ICC location. As I understand the rezoning consideration above, future development under the rczoning could take place without a requirement to seek input from neighboring property owners ( i.e., public hearing). I can not attend the public hearing scheduled for April 10 2002, but I would like to make known to the Commision my opposition of any rezoning of this property which prevents neighboring property owners and the public at large from addressing concerns with development and/or rezoning. Thank you very much. Greg Pyle 804 Fairview Circle Aubrey, TX 76227 From: "Elaine Schad" <eschad@escl 1 .net> To: <larry.reichhart@cityofdenton.com> Date: 4/10/02 1:33PM Subject: Planning and Zoning--April 10 Public Hearing To: The Planning and Development Department From: Elaine Schad, Principal, Immaculate Conception Schoot, Denton Date: April 9, 2002 1 understand the Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing tonight, April 10, 2002, to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding rezoning 18 acres from Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) to Neighborhood residential Mixed Use 12(NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residentiat 6 (NR6). I understand, if the council agrees to the zoning change, there could be no further input from the neighborhood concerning what is built on the property. We are in the process of building a new school facifity which will eventually house 450 students ages 3 through eighth grade. This facility is part of what will become a 20-acre development which includes a new worship facility as well as other buildings that will support the ministry of Immaculate Conception Parish. The development of the particular property in question is of utmost concern to everyone involved in the parish masterplan because of the very nature of the work we are trying to do. The parish ministry involves many children, families, and patrons who seek a family-oriented environment. Because of this focus, we would like to be assured that any future development of that particular acreage would not pose a dilemma for our parish ministries or for the many families who live in the residences in and around this acreage. I ask that you do not grant the zoning change. The neighborhood has a right to know that future development of this area wilt be appropriate, and if that does not occur, the neighborhood should retain the right to petition the city to evaluate such development as the time it occurs. Thank you for your interest in this matter. You should also have received a fax of this letter. Sincerely, Elaine Schad lCS Principal CC: <pastor@iccdenton.org>, <mary.garcia@iccdenton.org> in a message dated 4f10/02 11:48:36 AM Central Daylight Time, GJTRACHTA writes: Dear Mr. Reichhart, As a parishioners of Immaculate Conception Church and parents of children who attend Immaculate Conception School, we are concerned about the possible rezoning of the 18 acres south of our school and proposed church. Countless hours and funds have been expended in finding the most appropriate and affordable rand for our new school and church. Part of this search included checking the surrounding zoning to ensure it would be conducive to a church/school. To change this zoning from NR-2 to NRMU-12 and NR-6 would be detrimental to our school children and parishioners. Our desire is for our new school and subsequent new church to be a wonderful asset to the City of Denton. Please help us in our effort by denying the rezoning of the 18 acres tonight at the Planning and Zoning hearing. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Glenn and Janeil Trachta F~"om: To: Date: Subject: <mtenny@cheaperthandirt.com> <larry.reichhart@cityofdentOn.com> 4/10/02 3:'16PM Against Zoning Change Dear Mr. Reichart: 1 would oppose the zoning change of the land near lmmacuate Conception Church and School. I would prefer to know the exact density of the housing instead of granting a zoning change before we have a definate plan of what might be built. I own a house in Ranch Estates and am a member of tmmacuate Conception Church. Thanks MichaelTenny, CEO CheaperThan Di~! America's Leading Spoding Good Discounter 2524 NE Loop 820 FodWodh, TX 76106-1809 1-888-750-5234 E~ension 101 ZONING CHANGE REQUESTED 2201 ZO2-00019 - 2205 North Bonnie Brae St. see boundary map attached PROPERTY OWNERS - GENE AND NORMA GAMBLE If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. teleph h 940-382-6390; wk 940-387-7772; email gambleagcy~aol.com HISTORY: Since 1970, we have lived here, first in the white farm house, then in the brown ranch style house where we raised a family, cows, horses, gardens, dogs, worked on our small farm in addition to holding full time jobs and being active community volunteers in our church, scouts, hospital, schools, etc. (At one time we leased the areas where the church and subdivisions adjoining us are located). As you can see, we have paid our dues. Because of our health and ages it is past the time for us to retire. The developmem around us makes it no longer practical for us to cominue to use the land for agricultural purposes. The city has zoned our property Neighborhood Residemial 3 which only allows 3 houses per acre while your neighborhoods have from 6 to 9 houses per acre. Because of this we fred ourselves having to request zoning, like you enjoy, to enable us to make practical use of our property and be compatible to the neighborhood. We asked for Neighborhood ResidemiaI 6 (6 residences per acre) on the back part of our land which is curremly surrounded by 6 to 9 residences per acre with 12 residences per acre zoned on our south boundary. (Although NR6 zomg has been placed on the Ryland subdivision, it actually has 139 lots, 63 lots are 9 residences per acre, 14 are 7 per acre, 62 are 6 per acre, in all twice to three times the number allowed in NR3). NR6 development is more restrictive than the roles under which your homes were developed. Behind us, the subdivision on the west was labeled NR3; it actually is 6 residences per acre. The Catholic Church (to be built next year); Catholic School (under construction)all to our north the vacant land south of us are both zoned Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12. (NRMU12). We asked for Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 or 12 residences per acre for the front part of the property to match the zoning on either side of us (church, north; and land, south). Between the front and back parts of our land the city has stubbed a noah/south street which will divide the front and back parts. The street is for your future use to reach University Drive. A left turn lane is being installed in from of our homes for use of the church and school. When our property develops, residents will travel to the south to reach University Drive. They will not travel through your neighborhoods. We are surrounded by zoning of higher use than has been placed on our property. It simply makes no sense to ask us to have less use of our property than you have of yours. Financially, this places a burden upon us that has not been placed on you. For years we have been a voice of reason during development of this area, supported the neighbors and put up with the extra work construction has caused. Now, we ask for your support to help us obtain equal use of our property. We plan to cominue to live here and be your neighbors. Your help will be appreciated. City of Denton Page 1 of 1 3:t/www.dentonmaps.com NR6 ZONING REQUEST NRMU12 Scale: WINDSOR DR. - ..... I PLAYING FIELDS NRMU CATHOLIC X~~' CHURCH (TO BE BUILT) NRMU12 NRMU12 GAMBLE PROPERTY NRMU12 RAyzoR PROPERTY City of Denton 215 East McKnney Denton, Texas 76201 o3~3~o2 DISCLAIMER =666' ^! ,/ FIRE STATION PARK City of Denton This data has been compiled for the City of Denton. Various official and unofficial sources were used to gather this information. Eve~, effort was made to ensure the accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is given or implied as to the accuracy of said data. s~u~po~o aiqeJ. William & Sherry Darby 2208 Crestmeadow St Demon, TX 76207 940-382-9639 Will try to stay and speak but it's #15 on the agenda. With two children, it is difficult to stay. Thanks for your hard work and attendance at these late meetings! Agenda #15 Z02-0019 Rezoning 18 acres from NR-2 to NRMU-12 & NR-6 Bonnie Brae 1. NR-6 zoning objection The majority of the homes in the Westgate Hills/Windsor Ridge area have a minimum lot size of 7,000 feet (What used to be SF-7). My home on Crestmeadow St. has a 7192- foot lot. The homes on Crestmeadow, and Overlook that border this area have 7,000 feet. (Sorry I don't know the other Ryland street names). The Westgate Hills area homes all have a 7,000 minimum lot size. The NR-6 zoning calls for a minimum of 6,000 feet. I feel NR-4 with its minimum lot size of 7,000 is compatible with the present neighborhood/development. 2. NRMU-12 zoning objection This area is too large. If it were restricted to commercial uses only in a smaller area bordering Bonnie Brae it could be more acceptable. A neighborhood services such as a strip matt with a restaurant/retail establishment such as a Subway restaurant/clothing store, etc. would be acceptable. We discussed with the planning department several months ago, the fact that Tom Thumb Grocery had made inquiries regarding the comer of University Dr. and Bonnie Brae where Jim McNatt presently is located. Jim McNatt Dodge is in the process of building a new dealership on 1-35. Tom Thumb was interested in that location. This new store would have an impact on the viability of future commercial establishment in the area and as such across the street a small restaurant, etc. would make sense. NRMU-12 is objectionable as far as the ability to place multi-family at that location. A large lake is located across the street. Homeowners are required to have fencing around personal swimming pools and negligence that leads to a child's drowning can still lead to lawsuits if a child strays into that pool. If multi-family is built at this location, any unsupervised child could easily stray across the street into that lake. This seems a liability problem for the city. If would be preferable that any residential development include single-family dwellings with fenced play areas for children. Multi-family typically does not have fenced play areas of children and even though fencing can be used along the boundaries there are still openings for access by car, etc. In 1994, two men did drown in the North Lakes Park lake. The city was sued in that incident. It seems appropriate to put some type of residential or commercial barrier there whether single-family dwellings with fenced play areas or a commercial business non- multi-family where children typically aren't found unsupervised. NR-6 with some commercial zoning bordering Bonnie Brae would be preferable. .),,YM~III:ION N3H~3.~$ XYAAFU. flOS 0 N1XOOI~3AO ~, NllrmOXO01 ~ T(I O~ 3~8 3~NN08 i / NOJ. gNI~I:IOA~ 84/24/2882 13:54 ~40=82.=~67 THE OFFICE P,AGE Phone: (9~) 565 32 41Z~t 0 ~ ~ Pa~es (includin9 cover sh~t): Date: TO: 'FROM: · 1807 N Elm St. Denton, TX 76201 01 Fax #: IF THERE ~RE A. NY QUESTIONs >R PROBLEM5 CONCERNING THIS TRJI~,iSMI~ION PLEASE CALL (<~40) ~t~lS 1~,12 i . _O~her Services that~_a_m_OJ~eredby The Offi~; Packaging & Shipping; Copies; Laser Printing,. Color Prillttng, Scanning, :Computer Rental Station; Boxes for sale;..;Mallboxe$ for Rent; Resume Service, Frequent Faxer Program ~5/08/2002 10:58 94~5911925 C'Ot~, T REPORTERS PAGE CARL & JAMIE WADE 2313 Northway Drive Denton, Texas 76207 (940) 382-9809 May 8, 2002 ATTN': MR. LARRY RE1CI-H..IART ZONING AND PLANNING COMMI~EE: I am writing to voice my concern in the re-zoning issue in my neighborhood. My husband and I just moved in a few weeks ago and are extremely concerned about the possibility of our street b~condt~ olin to apaxtments, a laundry mat, etc. We hope Io be blessed with children in the near future and chose to build a house in this subdivision bexaus¢ it is aooked away from the hustle and bustk of other neighborhoods in the Denton area_ By making Nonhway Drive a. through street to an apartment complex and other businesses, it will cmuse our street and our neighborhood to become congested with cars and through traffi__c. Due to prior engagements, my husband and I will not be able to attend thc m~'ting to discuss thes~ issues persoixally. As I mentioned before, we just moved in a I~w weeks ago and lmven't even made our first house payment. This is the ncqghborhood where we hope to raise our ch~dren and live happily for a long time. Please take our concerns into consideration when xmldng a decision on the zoniag chauges h~ n~r neighborhood, Your thoughtfialn~s is greatly appre~iatod. Thank You, /.~LIT, JtI~ and Plah.qiil~ }-,,ur decision, and I tlt~pe y~ll wilt con~ider ~ome o~' ot~r ¢omltlunily'~ concerns, We hu~ all slu~ed our livc~ m a new home wit~ a nice. quiet ~eighhoHi~d. O~r child~n pla~ in the str~l and net~h~ ~tand on th~, ~dew:flk told laJk. Cu~e~ily. our ncighborhood is peacetbl and ~{~. The qu}ctncss and salL'l), ol'our Jici~hhorll.c~d is ,he ~son mo~t of u~ pttr~hased a hmn¢ in tills su~ivision, Making Nort|~wa} l)rjv¢ into a rrlaJn street and adding ape~men[~. Jaundr~ mats. end ~hutever othur h~ir~¢ss~,~ will ~t..q keep our ¢ommuni[y safe and quiet for our neigh~rhood children m~d te~i~eltl~, The e~lr;i I~dtt~c will I~colttC loud, eongcsled, and ~ u ~al~ly har~rd in mom ways lhan one, Our re-sale ~al~e ,d' our homc~ wil~ dccr~.u~ due te the t~ct tha~ most peopl~ do nol prefk'r lo reside o~ e "f]tui~l slrip," I ,'~':dixv thai im~in,~s~es are ~t7 h~portan~ for thu g~x,wd) of Dentofl, but we al~o taus[ not tbrgct aboui the av~-r:,g¢, everyday ru~id~m~ and their {~eeds. There are many olher siies avai}abie for busine~ in Denton. will t~;we ,I he,alive efl~ct on tl~e t~pe o1' lil~s%yte our communky is ~rying [o ac. hleve. I hol~ ~otlsidvr {)ttr IL'eling~ on thi~ issue and realize ~hal we ~cupi~d this area I]rs~ and deserve to have i~ ~hat hnt~n~ [o i~. We arc no~ lalking aboui a 9 [o 5job: we are talkin~ a~m our hontes wh~re PLANNI.N, G & DEVELOPMENT June 2, 2002 To: Planning and Zoning Fr: Jon Sellman Re: Planning and Zoning Request Z02-0019 Commissioners, I'm sorry I am unable to be there to speak with you in person on June 12th. I wanted to speak on May 8th, but you voted to not allow any of the 12-13 of us who requested to speak to speak at the scheduled public hearing. May 8* was my last opportunity to present this to you in person since I'm now working on a project in Chicago with 100% travel through the month of October. So, the repeated continuations did work in the favor of the applicant to some degree. With all of the issues with the NRMU- 12 zoning, I plead with you to vote against this request and allow the current NR-3 zoning to stand until someone can come forward with development plans/ideas and the NRMU-12 zoning is changed to allow conditional zoning or split up into more appropriate groupings. If you desire compromise with the landowners, I now request that you make the back halfNR-4 and the front halfNR-4 or 6. (This is different than my original stated compromise of NR-6 on both halves due to new information I've uncovered) The continuations did work in my favor since we have been able to do additional research regarding my neighborhood and the church and school. The streets of Creastmeadow, Lookout, Overlook and lA of Northway are NR-4 houses with 7,000+ square foot lots. The city currently shows all of us as NR-6 and that is incorrect. Only Southway and ½ of Northway should be zoned NR-6. Please review the following information I've provided. I believe it will give you a better idea of who Immaculate Conception Church & School are as well as lay out my arguments against this zoning for both Immaculate Conception and my neighborhood. I would also like to encourage each of you to contact me at your convenience regardless of the time of day before Jnne 12th to discuss the issues at the numbers provided below. Here is my current travel schedule: June 3rd through Jun7th 1:00pm- Chicago June 7~h 4:00 pm thru June 9th 9:00pm - Denton June 9th ll:30pm thru June I4th - Chicago P&Z Meetin~ Summary April 1.0..~ 2002 - Public hearing was held and P&Z had a tie vote of 3-3. (Susan Apple was absent) You were discussing a compromise, however, Mrs. Gamble disrupted the hearing after the public hearing was closed and you voted to continue until the 7th commissioner was present on April 24th. April 24, 2002 - The Gambles requested a continuance due to health reasons. We were given the option to speak, however, we opted not to speak until the next meeting so th we could speak on the date of the actual vote. The continuance was granted to May 8 , 2O02 May___~8 2002 - The Gambles again requested a continuance due to health reasons. The continuance was granted to June 12, 2002 and we were denied the option to speak. Public Opposition We currently have a 29.5% neighborhood opposition of this zoning request. The initial heating only was not o'¢er 20% opposition because P&Z refused to allow Immaculate Conception Church's opposition since the Diocese of Ft. Worth actually owns the property and they had to sign. Since then, Bishop Delaney filed a Power of Attorney to P&Z giving Monsignor King and myself the right to speak and sign on behalf of him and the Ft. Worth Diocese. So, I not only represent myself as a homeowner within 200 ft of the property, but I also represent the Ft. Worth Diocese and Immaculate Conception Church. Who is Immaculate Conception Church & School Immaculate Conception Church · Parishwas founded in 1894 (108 years) · Over 2,200 registered families · Over 8,000 members · Approximately 10% of Denton's population are members of Immaculate Conception Church and will be impacted by the development of this property · We are still growing at a rapid pace. Immaculate Conception School Established in 1995 with PreK3 through 2nd grade and 74 students 2001-02 school year, PreK3 through 8th grade with 257 students · 2002-03 expected enrollment is 300, with a maximum capacity of 450 students expected within the next 3-4 years Immaculate Conception Church & School's New Campus.. · Total expected initial cost of the Church and School is over $10 million · Landscaping requires us to plant over 300 trees, 116 shrubs and ground cover · This will be a beautiful wooded campus that will compliment the North Lakes Park Area Why is Immaculate C.,0nception opposing~.this zonin~ change 1. The city is requiring us to give an easement to the Gamble property via our drive entrance from Bonnie Brae. This means that whatever is developed on this property will be encouraged, if not required, to enter through our property. Also, because of this, they will have t° drive across our property, in front of our school and by the playground to get to Windsor or go north on Bonnie Brae. This will turn our campus driveway into a city street. NMRU-12 has 28 possible use categories and if this zoning gets approved we will have no say in what gets developed. I believe the correct terminology is "Speculative Zoning". A good example and fear is the 7-11 next to Newton Rayzor selling beer. High-density development is also a concern due to the easement and access people will have to the Immaculate Conception campus. As you know, apartments have people constantly moving in and out and this is a concern for the safety of the school children as well as the safety of the neighborhood children by never fully knowing who lives adjacent to our property. We are initially investing over 10 million dollars on our campus. We want to protect and preserve what we are building now and for the next 50+ years that we will be at this location. 4. Whatever is developed on this property will set precedence for what will be developed directly south of this property. 5. We fully support the development of Single-Family homes on this property. 6. I could go on, but I believe you get my point. Why is my neighborhood oooosing this zonin~ chan~e Currently, we only have single-family homes along with a future church and school that was support by the neighborhood. In fact, it is safe to say that at least 50% of the homes in our neighborhood were sold knowing the church and school would be on this property. I believe this environment encourages the sell of single-family homes. We have a wonderful, nice and quiet neighborhood with a lot of wonderful people. We have a mixture of retired people, established families with older children, and others just starting new families. I have neighbors who just bought their first home and had their first child in April. We feel safe allowing our children to play outside without constant supervision or fear of being harmed. This is the type of environment we want to maintain and we believe we are right is asking for it to stay this way. If we allow multi-family development, it will essentially become an extension of UNT student housing. I don't believe I need to elaborate this issue any further. My home office is in Piano and I could have built in Piano, Frisco or other nearby cities, but we decide to build and stay in Denton because we love living here, I felt safe building in North Lakes Park since we have lived in this area for 10 years and plan on living here at least another 20-30 years, possibly even retiring and staying in Denton if God blesses me with that many years. Currently, there are only single-family homes around North Lakes Park and we need your help to maintain this type of neighborhood. We would support some neighborhood friendly businesses, but we can't get guarantees with the zoning so we have to oppose this request on that fact alone. We really need your support with this issue. Help set a precedence that "Speculative Zoning" will not be tolerated in neighborhoods such as ours and let's correct the code to not allow this in the future. Help us maintain this wonderful neighborhood that some began several years ago and some of us just began. Again, thanks for your support and please contact me regarding this issue so we can discuss in person. Sincerely, Jon Sellman 2208 Lookout Ln Denton, Tx 76207 Hm (940)-565-0631 Chicago Office 800-745-0780 ext 6251 or (847)-607-6251 Plano Office 972-797-9635 Cell (940)-206-4421 We, the parents and families of Immaculate Conception School, are opposed to the proposed rezoning of the property at Windsor and Bonnie Brae next to our school and church from NR2 to NR6 Name Address , PLAN N1 ~,~__~V.E,~O P~E~T' ~ ; ............ We, the parents and families of Immaculate Conception School, are opposed to the proposed rezoning of the property at Windsor and Bonnie Brae next to our school and church from NR2 to NR6 and NRMU12. Name Address " ~/-4 ' ~.¢ ~ t [ ~ o ~_,~ ~ 7 <~_ /,~q-o e-~/.,, ~ Ac_ 7-.-x'%2_~_C .. We, the parents and families of Immaculate Conception School, are opposed to the proposed rezoning of the property at Windsor and Bonnie Brae next to our school and church from NR2 to NR6 and NRMU12. Name Address ,//z/lev .~J~'% T-X 7~,'~-7'z-- We, the parents and families of Immaculate Conception School, are opposed to the proposed rezoning of the property at Windsor and Bonnie Brae next to our school and church from NR2 to NR6 and NRMU 12. Name Address We, the parents and families of Immaculate Conception School, are opposed to the proposed rezoning of the property at Windsor and Bonnie Brae next to our school and church from NR2 to NR6 and NRMU 12. Name Address PETITION FORM IMMACULATE CONCEPTION P JUN 1 1 2007 The following signers are opposed to the proposed rezoning of 18 acres/mm a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU~I 2) 2201 and 2205 N. Bonnie Brae Street, the properly to the south of the New Church and School on Bonnie Brea and Windsor Streets. June 9, 2002 LEGAL NAME ADDRESS PHONE SIGNATURE (Print Legibly) PETITION FORM IMMACULATE CONCEPTION P~ t_$ttJUN i i 200~ ~LANNtNG & DEVELOPMENT lhe following signers are opposed to the proposed rezoning of 18 act xfro/~ a NetghOorhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) 2201 and 220.5 N. Bonnie Brae Street, the property to the south of the New Church and School on Bonnie Brea and Windsor Streets. dune 9, 2002 LEGAL NAME ADDRESS PHONE (Print Legibly) SIGNATURE lhe follvwing s,gners are opposed to the propo.~ea rezoning o/V ~ acresd~ ~l/~q'E LC~'PM~NT Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed L '~ : <V!~,,~IU-12) ' , 2201 and 2205 N. Bonnie Brae Street. the property to the south of the New Church and School on Bonnie Brea and Winds'or Streets. June 9, 2002 iLEGAL NAME (Print Legibly) ADDRESS PHONE SIGNATURE PETITION FORM IMMACULATE CONCEPTION PA .1. I 200Z PLANNING & DEVELOPME,NTi Theft)l/owing signers are opposed to the proposed rezoning (~' 18 acre rr'dTn a Neighborhooa ' Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) 2201 and 2205 N. Bonnie Brae Street, the property to the south of the New Church and School on Bonnie Brea and Windsor Streets. .]une 9, 2002 LEGAL NAME ADDRESS PHONE (Pdnt Legibly) SIGNATURE PETITION FORM IMMACULATE CONCEPTION PA] Ihe fbllowing signers are opposed to the proposed rezoning of 18 acres Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed JUN 1 1 ~OOZ ,~, .4t/~ ~lg, lr~, .~~, L OPMENT u,,'e t 2 (NkXiU- 12) 2201 and 2205 N. Bonnie Brae Street, the property to the south of the New Church and School on Bonnie Brea and Windsor Streets. June 9, 2002 LEGAL NAME ADDRESS PHONE SIGNATURE (Print Legibly) ~--~_._.~: :: IMMACULATE CONCEPTION PA ~I~t"G & DEYEk0pMEN'r The following signers are opposed to the proposed rezoning of I8 acres from a Nek~hborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) 2201 and 2205 AL. Bonnie Brae Street, the property to the south of the New Church and School on Bonnie Brea and Winds'or Streets. June 9, 2002 LEGAL NAME ADDRESS PHONE SIGNATURE (Print Legibly) PETITION FORM IMMACULATE CONCEPTION ~ S DEVELdPI~ENT l'he following s~gners are opposed to the proposed rezoning of18 acres fiom a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residenth~l Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) 2201 and 2205 N. Bonnie Brae Street, the property to the south of the New Church and School on Bonnie Brea and Windsor Streets. Yune 9, 2002 LEGAL NAME (Print Legibly) ADDRESS PHONE SIGNATURE PETITION FORM ~ll JUNLI~! i 2002 IMMACU LATE CONCEPTION PARIS]. It The following signers are opposed io the ?roposed rezoning of18 acres fron~ ..... '-OPMENT Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) 2201 and 2205 N. Bonnie Brae Street, the property to the south of the New Church and School on Bonnie Brea and Windsor Streefs. dune 9, 2002 LEGAL NAME ADDRESS PHONE (Print Legibly) SIGNATURE PETITION FORM IMMACULATE CONCEPTION The fiJlfi~wing signers are opposed lo the proposed rezonmg of l8 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residentml Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) 2201 and 2205 N. Bonnie Brae Street, the property to the south qf the New Church and School on Bonnie Brea and Windsor Streets. dune 9, 2002 LEGAL NAME ADDRESS PHONE (Print Legibly) SIGNATURE / ~'-' IMMACULATE CONCEPTION P/~i:P~-~NG'& DEVE~ The fi~llowing signers are opposed to the proposed rezoning of 18 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) 2201 and 2205 N. Bonnie Brae Street, the properly to the south o. f the New Church and School on Bonnie Brea and Windsor Streets. dune 9, 2002 LEGAL NAME ADDRESS PHONE SIGNATURE (Print Legibly) l l LoP IMMACULATE CONCEPTION P ;1t JUN 1 1 II"LANNING 8, B~:~/~ '~PMENT' 7he jrbltowing xigners are opposed to the proposed rezoning of18 acr_~ '-' -. ~ ~' Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning dixtrict to Neighborhood Residentml Mixed [/~'e 12 (NRMU-12) 2201 and 2205 N. Bonnie Brae Street, the property to the south of the New Church and School on Bonnie Brea and Windsor Streets. June 9, 2002 LEGAL NAME ADDRESS PHONE SIGNATURE (Print Legibly) IMMACULATE CONCEPTION PA ~, ;H dON 1 1 ?OOf /]II! uuL._ __'--- !~/; The following signers are opposed to the proposed rezoning of l8 acr, [¢y)foM~t~J~i~[~)'~.~L Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood ResidentialMixl~~'Nr____i'____ , 2201 and 2205 N. Bonnie Brae Street, the property to the south of the New Church and School on Bonnie Brea and Windsor Streets. .June 9, 2002 LEGAL NAME ADDRESS PHONE SIGNATURE (Pri.t Legibly) _.~ ~:~"7- t 7 ~ ~- L PETITION FORM IMMACULATE CONCEPTIOi ~ PA~kiSH" l'he fi)llowing signers are opposed to the proposed rezoning of IB acres]bom a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMLL I 2) 2201 and 2205 N. Bonnie Brae Street, the property to the south of the New Church and School on Bonnie Brea and Wind~or Streets. June 9, 2002 LEGAL NAME ADDRESS PHONE SIGNATURE (Print Legibly) PETITION FORM IMMACULATE CONCEPTION Ihe fi)llowing signers are opposed to the proposed rezoning (~'1 Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 2201 and 2205 N. Bonnie Brae Street, the property to the south of the New Church and School on Bonnie Brea and Windror Streets. dune 9, 2002 LEGAL NAME ADDRESS PHONE SIGNATURE (Print Legibly) ~ PETITION FORM ~ IMMACULATECONCEPTION~RI~Nll?.O02 l'he following signers are opposed w the proposed rezoning of 18~.~~, .~,_ Residential 2 (NR-2; zoning district to Neighborhood Residential ~~~F / 2201 and 2205 N. Bonnie Brae Street, the proper~ to the south of the Ne~ Churc~nd~ on Bonnie Brea and Wings'or Streetx. June 9, 2002 LEGAL NAME ADDRESS PHONE SIGNATURE (Print Legibly) PETiTiON IL 1 1 ~OOZ IMMACULATE CONCEPTION Rld~t~ ' lhe following signers are opposed to the proposed rezoning of l &N~ ¢;~,,~~[~T Residential 2 ~R-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed (A'e 12 (N~MU-12) ~ 2201 and 2205 ~ Bonnie Brae &feet, the properw to the south of the New Church and School on Bonnie Brea and Winds. or Streets. .june 9, 2002 LEGAL NAME ADDRESS PHONE (Print Legibly) SIGNATURE ~'co ( IMMACULATE CONCEPTION PARISH PETITION FORM PLANNING 8, D~-V~LO~NT lhe following signers are opposed to the proposed t~ezoning of 18 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) 2201 and 2205 N. Bonnie Brae Street, the property to the south of the New Church and School on Bonnie Brea and Wind, or Streets. dune 9. 2002 (Print Legibly) PETITION FORM ~iSi_~UN 1 1 2002 IMMACULATE CONCEPTION P l'he fi)ltowing signers are opposed to the proposed rezoning of 18 a, ' v , _ Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixe~Use 12 (NRMU-12) 2201 and 2205 N. Bonnie Brae Street, the properly to the south of the New Church and School on Bonnie Brea and Windsor Streets. dune 9, 2002 LEGAL NAME ADDRESS PHONE (Print Legibly) SIGNATURE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION P, tJl~lSH PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT lhe fbllowing signers are opposed to the proposed rezoning q/' 18 ac 'esjrotn a"N'etghb'~ Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential MLred Use 12 (NRMU-12) 2201 and 2205 N. Bonnie Brae Street, the property to the south of the New Church and School on Bonnie Brea and Wind~or Streets. June 9, 2002 LEGAL NAME ADDRESS PHONE (Print Legibly) SIGNATURE PETITION FORM ' IMMACULATE CONCEPTION Pt 1 1 2o0Z l'he fbi/owing signers are opposed to the proposed rezoning of 18 ac~.,~l'/Pt~t~/~r~ P M E N T, . Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district tn Neighborhood Residential Mixed G~'e 12 (NRMU-12) 2201 and 2205 N. Bonnie Brae &feet, the property to the south of the New Church and School on Bonnie Brea and ~Yindsor Streets. June 9, 2002 LEGAL NAME ADDRESS PHONE SIGNATURE (Print Legibly) PETITION FORM IMMACULATE CONCEPTION l'he jbllowing signers are opposed to the proposed rezoning qf 18 Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential tk, 2201 and 2205 N. Bonnie Brae Street, the property to the south oft, on Bonnie Brea and Windsor Streets. dune 9, 2002 LEGAL NAME ADDRESS PHONE SIGNATURE (Print Legibly) IMMACULATE CONCEPTION PARI: Theft)i/owing signers are opposed to the proposed rezoning of I8 acres fi'~ Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mixed U' 2201 and 2205 N. Bonnie Brae Street, the property to the south of the New Church and School on Bonnie Brea and Winds'or Streets. .June 9. 2002 LEGAL NAME ADDRESS PHONE (Print Legibly) SIGNATURE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION rhehllowing signers are opposed to the propoxed rezoning of 18 Residential 2 ~R-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residentialmixed" ~~Use 12 220I and 2205 ~ Bonnie Brae Street, the proper~ to the south of the New Church and School on Bonnie Bred and Windsor Streets. June 9. 2002 LEGAL NAME ADDRESS PHONE (Print Legibly) SIGNATURE PETITION FORM '/~~ ~~7) CONCEPTION P The/bllowing signers are opposed to the propoxedrezoning of 18 ~~~ ResMential 2 (NR-2J zomng district to Neighborhood Residential ~t~~~~ of the~ New Church 2201 and 2205 ~ Bonnie Brae Street, the property to the south ~~ on Bonnie Brea and Windsor Streets. dune 9. 2002 LEGAL NAME ADDRESS PHONE SIGNATURE (Print Legibly) PETITION FORM IMMACULATE CONCEPTION PA Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning, district to Neighborhood Residential Mix, ia u,'e 12 ( ~~_~.T 2201 and 220.5 N. Bonnie Brae Street, the property to the south of the New Church and School on Bonnie Brea and Windsor Streets. June 9, 2002 LEGAL NAME ADDRESS PHONE (Print Legibly) SIGNATURE PETITION FORM IMMACULATE CONCEPTION P3 The jbllowing signers are opposed to the proposed rezoning of 18 acr Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential Mix. 2201 and 2205 N. Bonnie Brae Street, the property to the south of the on Bonnie Brea and Windsor Streets'. June 9, 2002 LEGAL NAME ADDRESS PHONE SIGNATCE (Prim L¢§ibly) /4 ~ /¢/// /~ ~ , /r~.* , , ,.~ ¢, , .... . >., l,o~ ..... siguientes' firmante~ no¥ oponemo~ a Ia proposickm de reacomodail~q_r~,!~.~L~_OPMENT' ' ~' .... acres de un rumbo residencial 2 (NR2) del distrito de la zona, al uso miY2~e! r:~;;:Sc. ;'c,~c;;cic;! .... 12 (NRMU- 12.) que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la cai& Bonme Brae, ya que dicho reacomodamiento afectar[a ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva iglesia y la nueva escuela de la [nmaculada Concepci6n, ubicadas entre las caltes de Bonnie Brae y Wtndsor. 9 dunio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE DIRECCION TELEFONO FIRMA (Escriba claramente) P ETICIONDEPROTESTA ~--"-~~~~.a~~~~ IGLESIA DE LA INMACULADA CO~ Los siguientes firmantes nos oponemos a la proposicion de reacomcj ~,_d.~ I~l~J~ul~b~Fr[l~Jtcl~l~ENY acres de un rumbo residencial 2 (NR2) del dL~'trito de la zona. al us,,...,,,,~)~ 12 (NRMU- 12j que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la calle Bonnie Brae. ya que dich~ reacomodamiento afectaria ell sur de la prop~edad de la nueva ~glesia y la nueva escuela de la lnmaculacla Concepcidn, ubicadas entre las ca/les de Bonnie Brae y 14"indsor. 9 Junio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE (E scriba clara mente) DIRECCtON TELEFONO FIRMA PETICION DE PROTEST^ IGLESIA DE LA INMACULADA CO~ Los siguientes firmantes nos oponemos a la proposic[on de reacom6 acres de un rumbo residencial 2 (NR2) del distrito de la zona, al usc 12 (NRMU- 12) que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la calle Bonni reacomodamiento qfectaria ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva iglesia y la nueva escuela de la Inmaculada Concepci6n, ubicadas entre las calles de BonnW Brae y Windsor. 9 dunio, 2002 Brae. ya que LEGAL NOMBRE DIRECCION TELEFONO FIRMA (Escriba claramentc) reacomodamiento afectar£a ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva iglesia y la nueva escuela de la lnmaculada Concepcidn, ubicadas entre las calles de Bonnie Brae y Windsor. 9 dunio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE (Escriba claramcnte) DIRECCION TELEFONO FIRMA IGLESIA DE LA INMACULADA CON~V~ dUN 1 I 200 Lossiguientesfirmantesnosoponemosalaproposic£ondereacomoj~~lazonade~8 acres & un rumbo residencial 2 (NR2) &l distrito de la zona. al u~s'o~L~~~~ ~~ _ 12 ~J- 12) que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la calle Bonni~~4E~T J reacomodamiento afectar/a ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva iglesia y ~a esc~ela de la~ InmacuMda Concepcidn, ubicadax entre las calles de Bonnie Brae y Windsor. 9 ,lunio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE (Escriba claramcnte) DIRECClON TELEFONO FIRMA PETICION DE PROTES~-~-~ ~ , ~. ,:- IGLESIA DE LA INMACULADA C~~~.,,~ Los siguientes firmantes nos oponemos a la proposiclon de reaco~M~mie~ela~e 18 acres de un rumbo residencial 2 (~R2) del distrito de la zona, al 12 ~- 12) que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la care reacomodamiento a~ctar[a eH sur de la prop~edad de la nueva Inmaculada Concepci6n, ubicadas entre las calles de Bonnie Brae y Windsor. 9 dunio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE DIRECCION TELEFONO FIRMA (Escriba claramente) PETICION DE PROTEST~~ ~ [J ~ ~:~1~ .... IGLESIA DE LA INMACULADA CO~i~EP(J~)~ql 20~ Los siguientes firmantes nos oponemos a la proposicion de reacon ~l~.~_ ._~ acres de un rumbo residencial 2 (NR2) del distrito de la zona, al u ~atkHlxll~q~u~li~E4~. 'Igl!. NT [ 12 (NRMU- 12) que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la calle Bonnie t~rae, ya que dichO reacomodamiento qfectaria ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva iglesia y la nueva escuela de la lnmaculada Concepci6n, ubicadas entre las calles de Bonnie Brae y YYin&or. 9 dunio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE DIRECCION TELEFONO FIRMA (Escriba claramente) · IGLESIA· DE LA INMACULADA CONC 2002 Los siguientes firmantes nos oponemos a la proposickm de reacomodar,,' acres de un rumbo residential 2 (TVR2) del distrito de la zona, al uso mi ~ ......... p, · 12 (NRMU - 12) que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la calle Bonnie Brae, ya que dicho reacomodamiento afectaria ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva iglesia y la nueva escuela de la lnmaculada Concepci6n, ubicadas entre las calles de Bonnie Brae y lX/indsor. 9 dunio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE (Escriba claramente) DiRECCION TELEFONO FIRMA PETICION DE PROTES IGLESIA DE LA INMACULADA C Los stguientes firmantes nos oponemos a la proposicion de reac, acres' de un rumbo residencial 2 (NR2) del distrito de la zona, ai 12 (NRMU- 12) que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la calle Bt ............ -Ill reacomodamienm afectar[a eY sur de la propiedad de la nueva iglesia y la nueva escuela de la Inmaculada ConcepciOn, ubicadas entre las cdles de Bonnie Brae y ~indsor. 9 dunio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE (Escriba claramente) DIRECCION TELEFONO FIRMA PETICION DE PROTES'j~ (~ ~ Iq \SF/J~ [,~-~ ~ I~[l JLJUN 1 1 2002lffl Los sJguientes firmantes nos oponemos . la proposicio, de react,,~amiento dd la zona de ,81J Uj acres de un rumbo residencial 2 (NR2J del distrito de la zona, al ~'G'~~~ t 12 ~R~- 1. que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la calle ~o g~~ ~q~~DP~EN r reacomodamiento afectaria ell sur de la propie&d de la nueva iglesia y la nueva esc~ lnmaculada Concepci6n, ubicadas entre las calles de Bonnie Brae y Windsor. 9 Junio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE (E scriba claram ente) DIRECCION TELEFONO FIRMA PETICION DE PROTEST/ IGLESIA DE LA INMACULADA COl Los siguientes firmantes nos oponemos a la proposic[on de reacomr acre.~' de un rumbo residencial 2 (NR2) del distrito de la zona, al u,s'c 12 (NRMU- 12) que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la calle Bonnie Brae, ya que dicho t'eacomodamiento afectar/a ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva iglesia y la nueva escuela de la Inmaculada Concepci&n, ubicadas entre la,~ calles de Bonnie Brae y YYindsor. 9 ,lunio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE (Escriba clarament¢) DIRECCION TELEFONO FIRMA PETICION DE PROTEST, IGLESIA DE LA INMACULADA CO Los sigutentes firmantes nos oponemos a la proposicion de reacotr, acres de un rumbo residencial 2 (NR2J del distrito de la zona, al u,, 12 (NRMU - 12) que va del 2202 al 2205 de[ notre de la calle Bom reacomodamiento afectaria ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva iglesia y la nueva escuela de la Inmaculada Concepci6n, ubicadas entre las calles de Bonnie Brae y Windsor. 9 dunio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE DIRECCION TELEFONO FIRMA (Escriba clarame nrc) PETICION DE PROTES IGLESIA DE LA INMACULADA £ Los siguientes firmantes nos oponemos a la proposic[on de rear acres de un rumbo residencial 2 (NR2} del distrito de la zona, at 12 (NRMU- 12) que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de ia caile B, ?~4/t~l~b]~a~/~~PME NT reacomodamiento afectar[a ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva tglesta ~ la nueva escuela de la lnmaculada Concepci6n, ubicadas entre las calles de Bonnie Brae y Windsor. 9 Junio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE DIRECCION TELEFONO FIRMA (Escdba claramente) PETICION DE PROTES '~ .... IGLESIA DE LA INMACULADA C(~EPcION Ilil]I II!~1 JUN 1 1 ~OOZIJJ]I Los siguientes firmantes nos oponemos a Ia proposicio, de reacoH~_mient0 de la. zona de. 18 ill,j, acresdeu~umb~reside~cial2(NR2)deldistrit~delaz~a~al~"~`~c~?.l~"§~"..m~~:~NT~ 12 (qVRMU- I2) que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la calle Bo~ reacomodamiento afectar[a ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva iglesia y la nueva escuela de la Inmaculada Concepcidn, ubicadas entre las calles de Bonnie Brae y Windsor. 9 Junio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE DiRECCION TELEFONO FIRMA (Escriba claramentc) :/~, or,'~ Trace 7671o ~1~o. ~G~o t.~Tj ~ ~ 1 PETICION DE PROTE IGLESIA DE LA iNMACULADA Los siguientes firmanles nos oponemos a la proposic[on de re acres de un rumbo residenciat 2 (NR2) del distrito de la zona, 12 (NRMU - 12) que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la calle reacomodamiento afectaria ell sur de la propiedad de la nuev Inmaculada Concepcibn, ubicadas entre las calles de Bonnie Brae y Windsor. ~e umb, o,. r.e.,sid~'o mixto del rumbo resid, ~jc l 9 Junio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE DIRECCION TELEFONO FIRMA (Escriba claramente) PETICION DE PROTEST~ IGLESIA DE LA INMACULADA CO Los siguienles.firmantes nos oponemos a la proposic£on de reacom acres de un rumbo residencial 2 (NR2j del distrito de la zona, al us 12 (NRMU- 12J que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la calle Bonnie Brae, ya que dicho reacomodamiento afectaria ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva iglesia y la nueva escuela de la lnmaculada Concepci6n, ubicadas entre las calles de Bonnie Brae y Windsor. 9 Junio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE DIRECCION TELEFONO FIRMA (Escriba claramente) f ~37~. ~ Yc)~ e ~/ ........,v ,-.- IGLESiA DE LA INMACULADA NC Los siguientes.firmantes nos oponemos a la propostcion de re~ '2d. ctllzLf, ntJz.de ta .w~rl&de__~ acres de un rumbo residencial 2 (NR2) del distrito de la zona, ~bPdtqt}lllPt6d&l[}E~[~z.O!:vtM~t 12 (NRMU- 12) que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la care 6nme t~rae; yd q'u'e atchb "' reacomodamiento qfectaria ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva tglesia y la nueva escuela de la lnmaculada Concepcifn, ubicadas entre las calles de Bonnie Brae y Windsor. 9 Junio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE DIRECCION TELEFONO FIRMA (gscriba claramente) PETICION DE PROTESTA IGLESIA DE LA INMACULADA CONCF Los siguientes.firmantes nos oponemos a la proposicion de reacomodamiento de la zona de 18 acres de un rumbo residencia/ 2 (NR2J del distrito de la zona, al uso mixto del rumbo residencial 12 (NRMU- 12) que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la calle Bonnie Brae, ya que dicho reacomodamiento qfectaria ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva iglesia y la nueva escuela de la Inmaculada Concepci6n, ubicadas entre las calles de Bonnie Brae y Windsor. 9 dunio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE DIRECCiON TELEFONO FIRMA (Escriba claramente) PETICION DE PROTEST UN I 1 IGLESIA DE LA INMACULADA CO t~ff..~PCION , . _JLa/ PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT~ Los siguientes firmantes nos oponemos a la proposicion de reacom~odatfi~ento acres de un rumbo residencial 2 (NR2) del distrito de ia zona, al uso mixto del rumbo residencial 12 (NRMU- 12) que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la calle Bonnie Brae, ya que dicho reacomodamiento qfectaria ell sur de la propiedad de ia nueva iglesia y la nueva escuela de la Inmaculada Concepci6n, ubicadas entre las calles de Bonnie Brae y Windsor. 9 Junio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE DIRECCION TELEFONO FIRMA (Escriba claramente) .... ,, t , ,,,, ,, ._~~ PETICION DE PROTESTA IGLESiA DE LA INMACULADA CONC ~L..A._,N,.NI...N.G, & DEVELOPMENT Los s~guientes firmantes nos oponemos a la proposicion de reacomodamiento de la zona de 18 acres de un rumbo residenciat 2 (NR2) del distrtto de la zona, al uso mixto del rumbo residencial 12 (NRMU - 12) que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la calle Bonnie Brae, ya que dicho reacomodamtento afectarla ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva iglesia y la nueva escuela de la lnmaculada Concepci6n, ubicadas entre las calles de Bonnie Brae y Windsor. 9 dunio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE DIRECCION TELEFONO FIRMA (Escriba ctaramente) PETICION DE PROTESTA IGLESIA DE LA iNMACULADA CONC] JUN 1 1 2002 ~ & DEVELOPMENT Los siguientes.firmantes nos oponemos a la proposic[on de reacomodamlento de la zona de 18 acres' de un rumbo residencial 2 (NR2) del distrito de la zona, al uso mixto del rumbo residencial 12 OVRMU- 12) que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la calle Bonnie Brae, ya que dicho reacomodamtento aJ'ectar[a ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva iglesia y la nueva escuela de la lnmaculada Concepci6n, ubwadas entre las calles de Bonnie Brae y Windsor, 9 Junio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE DIRECCION TELEFONO FIRMA (Escriba claramente) PETICION DE PROTEST IGLESIA DE LA INMACULADA CO Los siguientes firmantes nos opone~nos a la proposicion de reacomodamiento de la zona de 18 acres de un rumbo residencial 2 ('N[~2) del distrito de la zona, al uso mixto del rumbo residential 12 (NRMU- 12) que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la calle Bonnie Brae, ya que dicho reacomodamiento afectaria ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva iglesia y la nueva escuela de la [nmaculada Concepci6n, ubicadas entre las calles de Bonnie Brae 32 Windsor. 9 dunio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE :dba clarameate DIRECCtON TELEFONO FIRMA PETICION DE PROTESTA IGLESIA DE LA INMACULADA CON~ Los siguientes firmantes nos oponemos a la proposickm de reacomodamiento de la zona de 18 acres de un rumbo residencial 2 (NR2) del distrito de la zona, al uso mixto del rumbo residencial 12 (NRMU- 12) que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la calle Bonnie Brae, ya que dicho reacomodamiento afeclar[a ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva iglesia y la nueva escuela de la Inmaculada Concepcifn, ubicadas entre las calles de Bonnie Brae y Windsor. 9 dunio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE DIRECCION TELEFONO FIRMA (Escriba clarament¢) 1 IGLESIA DE LA INMACULADA COl ~q~PCION - ~I~ Los siguientes firmantes nos oponemos a la proposicion de reacom~ ~ '-"~ ._ z ..... ,.-2_,.... acres de un rumbo residencial 2 (NR2) del distrito de la zona, al uso mixto del rumbo residencial 12 (NRMU- 12J que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la calle Bonnie Brae, ya que dicho reacomodamiento qfectaria ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva iglesta y la nueva escuela de la lnmaculada Concepcidn, ubicadas entre las calles de Bonnie Brae y Windsor. 9 dunio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE D1RECCtON TELEFONO FIRMA (gscfiba claramente) PETICION DE PROTESTA IGLESIA DE LA INMACULADA CONC] JUN 1 .l 2002 310N [,os siguientes firmantes nos oponemo.~ a la propoxickm de reacomoda~n' ' , - acres de un rumbo residencia! 2 (NR2) del distrito de Ia zona, al uso mixto del rumbo residencial ]2 (NRMU- 12) que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la calle Bonnie Brae. ,va que dtcho reacomodamiento afectaria ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva iglesia y la nueva escuela de la lnmaculada Concepci6n, ubicadas entre las calk, s de Bonnie Brae y kYindsor. 9 dunio. 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE DIRECCION TELEFONO FIRMA (Escriba claramente) Los siguientes firmantes nos oponemos a la proposicion de reacomoda~ ~l~gpN~I~qG~ acres de un rumbo residencial 2 (NR2) del distrito de la zona. al uso m~~~ 12 (NRMU- 12) que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la care Bonnie Brae, ya que dicho reacomodamiento afectar£a ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva iglesia y la nueva escuela de la Inmaculada Concepci6n, ubicadas entre las calles de Bonnie Brae y Windsor. 9 dunio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE DIRECCtON TELEFONO FIRMA (Escriba claramente) PETICIONDEPROTESTA ~{I~ ,llJ141~00~ I1~i IGLESIA DE LA INMACULADA CON( }~ION Lox siguientes firmantes nos oponemos a la proposicion de reacomodan ~8 acres de un rumbo residencial 2 ~R2) del distrito de ia zona, al uso mixto del rumbo residencial 12 ~- 12) que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la calle Bonnie Brae, ya que dicho reacomodamiento qf&ctaria ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva iglesia y la nueva escuela de la Inmaculada Concepcibn, ubicadas entre las callex de Bonnie Brae y Winds'or. 9 ,Iunio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE DtRECCION TELEFONO FtRMA (Escriba claramcnt¢) PETICION DE PROTESTA IGLESIA DE LA INMACULADA CON Los siguientes firmantes nos oponemos a la proposicion de reacomod acres de un rumbo residencial 2 (NR2) del distrito de la zona, al uso ~ 12 (NRMU- 12) que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la calle Bonnie Brae, ya que dicho reacomodamiento afectar/a ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva iglesia y la nueva escuela de la Inmaculada Concepcidn, ubicadas entre las calles de Bonnie Brae y Winds'or. 9 dunio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE DIRECCION TELEFONO FIRMA (E scriba claramente) PETICION DE PROTEST/ iGLESIA DE LA INMACULADA COl Los siguientes firmantes nos oponemos a la proposicion de reacom~ acres de un rumbo residenciai 2 (NR2) del distrito de la zona, al us~ 12 (NRMU- 12) que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la calle Bonn~ YBrae, ya que dicho reacomodamiento afectar£a ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva iglesia y ia nueva escuela de la Inmaculada Concepci6n, ubtcadas entre las calles de Bonnie Brae y Windsor. 9 Junio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE DIRECCION TELEFONO FiRMA (Escriba claramente) . PETICION DE PROTE IGLESIA DE LA INMACULADA Los siguientes firmantes' nos oponemos a la proposicion cie reac~cj~'~~a.d~ acres de un rumbo residenciaI 2 (NR2) del distrito de la zona, 12 (NRMU- 12) que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la calle Bonnie Brae, ya~ reacomodamiento afectaria ell sur de la propiedad de ia nueva iglesia y la nueva escuela de la lnmaculada Concepcidn, ubicadas entre las calles de Bonnie Brae y Windsor. 9 Junio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE DIRECCION TELEFONO FIRMA (Escriba claramente) PETICiON DE PROTES' IGLESIA DE LA INMACULADA C, Los siguientes firmantes nos oponemos a la proposic[on de reac( acres de un rumbo residencial 2 trNR2) del distrito de la zona, al uso mixto del rumbo restaenclal~ 12 (NRMU- 12) que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la calle Bonnie Brae, ya que dicho reacomodamiento afectar[a ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva iglesia y la nueva escuela de la lnmaculada Concepci6n, ubicadas entre las calles de Bonnie Brae y Wind¥or. 9 dunio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE DIRECCION TELEFONO FIRMA (Escriba claramente) PETICION DE PROTESTA rrm r~ ,~z-, Ilk,fi lill~ acres ~e ~n r~mbo resi&n~ial 2 (~2~ ~el dis~ri~o de la :ona, al uso ~~esiden~at 12 ~U- 12) que va del 22~2 al 2205 &[ no~re ~e la earle ~onme~~l~ reacomo~am~enw afec~aHa eft x~r de la prop~e~a~ de la n~eva ~les~:~~va esc~e~a ~e lnma~dada Concepci6n, ubwadas emre las calles ~e ~onnie ~rae ~ ~mdsor. 9 ~nW, 2002 LEGAL NOMSRE DIRECCION TELEFONO FIRMA (Escriba claramente) .... .. . dg ~u~uGL ~1~ Ave ~, PETICION DE PROTESTA IGLESIA DE LA INMACULADA CONCEP I, os siguientes firmantes nos oponemos a la propostch;n de reacomodmniem acres de un rumbo residencial 2 (NR2) del dixtrito de la zona, al uso mixto _ ,t.z:a u Lu4. N JUN 1 1 2002 12 (NRMU- 12) que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la cane Bonnie Brae, ya que dicho reacomodamiento afectar[a ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva iglesia y la nueva escuela de la [nmaculada ConcepciSn, ubicadas entre las calles de Bonnie Brae y Windsor. 9 dunio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE DIRECCION TELEFONO FIRMA (Escriba c[aramente) ?~,.,-,.,.,,_ ,r:. ,~ ..~,.. 3.,,i ~,,_~;,o;,o...,~ x~,-, ~-,-,.~, .~' - PETICION DE PROTESTA IGLESIA DE LA INMACULADA CONC] Los siguientes firmantes nos oponemos a la proposicion de reacomodam. , ION 1!/' acres de un rumbo residencial 2 (NR2) del distrito de la zona, al uso mixto del rumbo residenctal 12 (NRMU- 12) que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la calle Bonnie Brae, ya que dicho reacomodamiento afectaria ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva iglesia y la nueva escuela de la lnmaculada Concepci6n. ubWadas entre las calles de Bonnie Brae y kgindsor. 9 dunio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE DIRECCtON TELEFONO FIRMA (Escriba claramente) PETICION DE PROTESTA iGLESIA DE LA iNMACULADA CONCEP Los siguientes firmantes nos oponemos a la proposicion de reacomodamien~ acres de un rumbo residencial 2 ('NR2) del distrito de la zona, al uso mixto del rUmb° residencial 12 (TVR3dU- 12J que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la caile Bonnie Brae, ya que dicho reacomodamiento afectar[a ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva iglesia y la nueva escuela de la Inmaculada Concepci6n, ubicadas entre las calles de Bonnie Brae y Windsor. 9 dunio, 2002 2002 %EVELOPMENT LEGAL NOMBRE DIRECCION TELEFONO F1RMA (Escriba claramente) PETICION DE PROTESTA ~ dUN 1 1 Z00Z IGLESIA DE LA INMACULADA CONCEI .%'~h'ING & DEYELOPMENI Los s~guientes firmantes nos oponemos a la proposic[on de reacomoda~niento de la zona de 18 acres de un rumbo residencial 2 (NR2) del distrtto de la zona, al uso mixto del rumbo residencial 12 (NRMU- 12j que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la cal/e Bonnie Brae, ya que dicho reacomodamiento afectar[a ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva ig/esia y la nueva escuela de la lnmaculada Concepci6n, ubicadas entre las calles de Bonnie Brae y Windsor. 9 dunio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE DIRECCION TELEFONO FIRMA (Escriba ctaramente) PETICION DE PROTESTA IGLESIA DE LA iNMACULADA CONCI PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Los siguientes firmantes nos oponemos a la proposic[on de reacomodan en:o d6 1. ~o~,a-u'6 [~ ~ ~ acres de un rumbo residencial 2 (NR2) del distrito de la zona, al uso mtxto del rumbo residencial 12 (NRMU- 12) que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la calle Bonnie Brae, ya que dicho reacomodamiento afectar[a ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva iglesia y la nueva escuela de la Inmaculada Concepci6n, ubicadas entre las calles de Bonnie Brae y Windsor. 9 dunio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE DtRECCION TELEFONO FIRMA (Escriba claramente) PETICION DE PROTESTA ~[-~-[~ ® ~ ~ IGLESIA DE LA INMACULADA CON~ Los siguientes firmante.v nos oponemos a la proposicion de reacomod~ acres de un rumbo residencial 2 (NR2) del distrito de la zona, al uso n 12 ('NRMU- 12) que va del 2202 al 2205 del notre de la calle Bonnie Brae, ya que dicho reacomodamiento afectaria ell sur de la propiedad de la nueva iglesia y la nueva escuela de la Inmaculada Concepci6n, ubicadas entre las calles de Bonnie Brae y Windsor. 9 ./unio, 2002 LEGAL NOMBRE DIRECCION TELEFONO FIRMA (Escriba claramcnte) Page 1 of 6 Rudy Moreno From: Sellman, Jori D [jon.sellman@eds.com] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 1:47 PM To: 'Rudy Moreno'; 'Mary Garcia'; Chelita Lewis; 'Msgr. Charles King'; Elaine $chad; Roy Metzler; Ray Twehous Subject: Zoning Hello everyone, It is nice and cool in Chicago. Wish you were 'here to enjoy it. I modified the letter I sent to Mayor Brock and I've submitted it for distribution to the P&Z commissioners prior to the June 12th meeting, i just wanted to send you a copy for reference. Let me know if you have any questions. All of my numbers are listed in the document. Here is the text in case you don't have MS Word. Rudy, Let's try and get together this weekend and I11 give you my Powerpoint Presentation printouts for June 12th. Thanks, Jon June 2, 2002 To: Planning and Zoning Fr: Jon Sellman Re: Planning and Zoning Request Z02-0019 Commissioners, I'm sorry I am unable to be there to speak with you in person on June 12th. I wanted to speak on May 8th, but you voted to not allow any of the 12-13 of us who requested to speak to speak at the scheduled public hearing. May 8th was my last opportunity to present this to you in person since I'm now working on a project in Chicago with 100% travel through the month of October. $o, the repeated continuations did work in the favor of the applicant to some degree. 6/11/02 Page 2 of 6 With all of the issues with the NRMU-12 zoning, I plead with you to vote against this request and allow the current NR-3 zoning to stand until someone can come forward with development plans/ideas and the NRMU-12 zoning is changed to allow conditional zoning or split up into more appropriate groupings. If you desire compromise with the landowners, I now request that you make the back half NR-4 and the front half NR-4 or 6. (This is different than my original stated compromise of NR-6 on both halves due to new information I've uncovered) The continuations did work in my favor since we have been able to do additional research regarding my neighborhood and the church and school. The streets of Creastmeadow, Lookout, Overlook and % of Northway are NR-.4 houses with 7,000+ square foot lots. The city currently shows all of us as NR-6 and that is incorrect. Only Southway and % of Northway should be zoned NR-6. Please review the following information I've provided. I believe it will give you a better idea of who Immaculate Conception Church & School are as well as lay out my arguments against this zoning for both Immaculate Conception and my neighborhood. I would also like to encourage each of you to contact me at your convenience regardless of the time of day before June 12th to discuss the issues at the numbers provided below. Here is my current travel schedule: June 3rd through Jun7th 1:00pm - Chicago June 7th 4:00 pm thru June 9th 9:00pm - Denton June 9th 11:30pm thru June 14th - Chicago P&Z Meeting Summary_ ~pril 10, 2002 - Public hearing was held and P&Z had a tie vote of 3-3. (Susan Apple was absent) You were discussing a compromise, however, Mrs. Gamble disrupted the hearing after the public hearing was closed and you voted to continue until the 7th commissioner was present on April 24th. 6/11/02 Page 3 of 6 _April 24, 2002 - The Gambles requested a continuance due to health reasons. We were given the option to speak, however, we opted not to speak until the next meeting so we could speak on the date of the actual vote. The continuance was granted to May 8th, 2002 May 8, 2002 - The Gambles again requested a continuance due to health reasons. The continuance was granted to June 12, 2002 and we were denied the option to speak. Public Opposition We currently have a 29.5% neighborhood opposition of this zoning request. The initial hearing only was not over 20% opposition because P&Z refused to allow Immaculate Conception Church's opposition since the Diocese of Ft. Worth actually owns the property and they had to sign. Since then, Bishop Delaney filed a Power of Attorney to P&Z giving Monsignor King and myself the right to speak and sign on behalf of him and the Ft. Worth Diocese. So, I not only represent myself as a homeowner within 200 ~t of the property, but I also represent the Ft. Worth Diocese and immaculate Conception Church. Who is Immaculate Conception Church & School Immaculate Conception Church Parish was founded in 1894 (108 years) Over 2,200 registered families · Over 8,000 members · Approximately 10% of Denton's population are members of Immaculate Conception Church and will be impacted by the development of this property 6/11/02 t'age We are still growing at a rapid pace. Immaculate Conception School · Established in 1995 with PreK3 through 2nd grade and 74 students · 2001-02 school year, PreK3 through 8th grade with 257 students · 2002-03 expected enrollment is 300, with a maximum capacity of 450 students expected within the next 3-4 years Immaculate Conception Church & School's New Campus · Total expected initial cost of the Church and School is over $10 million · Landscaping requires us to plant over 300 trees, 116 shrubs and ground cover · This will be a beautiful wooded campus that will compliment the North Lakes Park Area Why is Immaculate Conception opposing this zoning change The city is requiring us to give an easement to the Gamble property via our drive entrance from Bonnie Brae. This means that whatever is developed on this property will be encouraged, if not required, to enter through our property. Also, because of this, they will have to drive across our property, in front of our school and by the playground to get to VWndsor or go north on Bonnie Brae. This will turn our campus driveway into a city street. NMRU-12 has 28 possible use categories and if this zoning gets approved we will have no say in what gets developed. I believe the correct terminology is "Speculative Zoning". A good example and fear is the 7-11 next to Newton Rayzor selling beer. High- density development is also a concern due to the easement and access people wilt have to the Immaculate Conception campus. As you know, apartments have people constantly moving in and out and this is a concern for the safety of the school children as well as the safety of the neighborhood children by never fully knowing who lives adjacent to our property. 6/11/02 . -~ Page 5 of 6 We are initially investing over 10 million dollars on our campus. We want to protect and preserve what we are building now and for the next 50+ years that we will be at this location. 4. Whatever is developed on this property will set precedence for what wilt be developed directly south of this property. 5. We fully support the development of Single-Family homes on this property. 6. I could go on, but I believe you get my point. Why is my neighborhood opposing this zoning change Currently, we only have single-family homes along with a future church and school that was support by the neighborhood, tn fact, it is safe to say that at least 50% of the homes in our neighborhood were sold knowing the church and school would be on this property, t believe this environment encourages the sell of single-family homes. We have a wonderful, nice and quiet neighborhood with a lot of wonderful people. We have a mixture of retired people, established families with older children, and others just starting new families. I have neighbors who just bought their first home and had their first child in April. We feel safe allowing our children to play outside without constant supervision or fear of being harmed. This is the type of environment we want to maintain and we believe we are right is asking for it to stay this way. If we allow multi-family development, it will essentially become an extension of UNT student housing. I don't believe i need to elaborate this issue any further. My home office is in Piano and 1 could have built in Piano, Frisco or other nearby cities, but we decide to build and stay in Denton because we love living here. I felt safe building in North Lakes Park since we have lived in this area for 10 years and plan on living here at least another 20-30 years, possibly even retiring and staying in Denton if God blesses me with that many years. Currently, there are only single-family homes around Nodh 6/11/02 ATTACHMENT 5 Photographs Photographs 9 ~u°ua~I°~V 3 4 5 6 7 g. 9 l0 11 12 13 14 16 l? 18 19 21 rights. Attachment 7 or other that he has a right to ,ank looks at the zoning or the financing zoning and says, whoa, we that mess, then he may have : that p RISHEL: ~IONER MULROY: those corflments. of the lending points of getting the satisfy what their needs loan arrangements that they could be passed, you'd be was really one exceptions. his Mukoy. address it was with concern or leverage clause put ia to and to keep all tmgoing : there was a great fear when the Code .olation r City Code. So that main impetu~ doing the special bank should be · KISHEL: On~ Commiss I'd like to remind you this is to hold a public hearing ·recomrnendation to City Council. Joint to City Council. motion? COMMISSIONER MULROY: rll to NR-3. COMMISSIONER HOLT: I'll second. ~s' the Agenda consider goes 1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It'S been moved by 2 }, to approve this as NR-3 and 3 by Holt. Any fln'ther 4 clarification? 5 Commissioners, I 6 And, audience, I 7 this. The motion carries 8 present. 9 (co~ 10 11 further discus,, ?our participation. participation in : Commissioners .IONER KEITH Page 195 part of this process and your commitment and :ation to the City, both Commissioners and pubk If that was Item No. 13 and we have already had Item No. 14, I'm hoping that will bring us to Item No. 15 on our Agenda, if we haven't removed that for some reason. I don't think we have. So Item No. 15, and it looks like Assistant Director Reichhart will preaent. MR. REICHHART: Thank you. The subject property is located on the west side of Bonnie Brae, south of Windsor. I have it highlighted on the overhead. The applicant -- 15 6 .7 18 1 -- COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Cai1 we wait for it to 2 get a little quieter in here? Commissioners, thank you. 3 MR. KEICHHART: This is one of the -- what 4 we refer to as the eight cases, one that came to City 5 Council. City Council had recommended or reached 6 consensus to change the zoning at the subsequent work 7 session, reverted the zoning back to NR-3. And I'd l~ke 8 to clarify, there was a typo. The existing zoning on the 9 property is NR-3, not NR-2. The property owners have 10 · submitted an application. They are requesting to rezone 11 the western half of the subject property to NR-6, and the 12 eastern half to NRMU-12. And that is consistent with the 13 NRMU- 12. where the notch in the property is is where the 14 break would be with the proposed zoning. 15 I've passed out the revised calculations 16 for opposition. Here's the map. I believe, and I don't 17 have the count, I have it passed around, I believe there's 18 approximately 13 letters in opposition that represent six 19 percent opposition at this time. The Rayzor property to 20 the south has submitted their letter in favor of this and 21 then there's three properties that are highlighted on this 22 map in yellow that are neutral to the request. I'd be 23 happy to answer any questions that you have. 24 COMMISSIONER RISI-IEL: conunissioners, any 25 questions of Mr. Reichhart? 1 2 3. : 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 19 20 20 9-1 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRiL Page 196 COMMISSIONER ROY: Say again the percentages. MR. REICHHART: It'S approximately six percent. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Reichhart, I see no questions of the Commissioners. Is the petitioner here and would they like to present? MR. REICHHART: They are here. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, sir. Would you give us your name and address? MR. GAMBLE: Yes. I'm Gene Gamble. I reside at 2205 North Bonnie Brae. I have for the last 32. years. We've tried to be good neighbors out there. I think we have. But it seems like that some people think that we're not good neighbors. I want to go back and recap a few things because there's a misunderstanding here. I'm probably going to talk more about those things than I am about the zoning because I understand that our request is in compliance with the new Code and so I'm going to talk about that. If you've got questions later, I'll be glad to go home and clear up some things. My wife and I have · lived in the northwest part of Denton for 44 years. I'm sorry she couldn't be in the room tonight but she did not feel like being here. She is in the building. 10TH, 2002 Page 193 - Page 196 page 197 There's been a rumor going around that 2 we've ~ed to zone this property before, like, three or 3 four times. That's not tree. There was a public hearing: 4 on December the 5th which we attended. You folks were 5 there. And you know that was the first time we appeared. 6 The way this rumor got started was, see, we had a real 7 estate fellow to bring us a contract on this piece of 8 property and our stipulation of that conlxact, he could 9 not go through zoning before he bought thc property ami 10 closed on it. 11 Without us knowing, he came to thc City and 12 represented himself as being the owner of this property 13 and called a neighborhood meeting over there. And all he 14 did was stir up a bunch of people unnecessarily because we 15 have not tried to zone this property in any way until 16 December the 5th. The way that was brought about was 17 because of the rezoning of probably about 1,000 pieces of 18 property in this town, if I'm not mistaken. I think 19 that's about right. Most of that zoning was upzoned. 20 Some might have been downzoned but most of it was upzoned. 21 And so we came to you on the 5th of December and we 22 requested this property to be zoned }~Imu-t2. 23 And another thing, there's bexm some other 24 rumors going around in tho neighborhood over there and I 25 don't know who's doing it, but they're using some scare CondenseltTM Page 198 I tactics about sexual-oriented something and businesses and 2 all this kind of stuff and liquor stores. Well, that 3 won't work because since the church has built their 4 property on the north side of us, they put their driveway 5 so close to us we've got to go to the very south comer of 6 our property because we only have 333 feet of tl~ front, 7 and that's the only way we can get on our prope~ry. 8 In fact, we're going to have a problem 9 using our north driveway that we've used for 32 years 10 since they put in that turn lane. So you know you can 11 only put driveways so close to each other in the City of 12 Denton. So the only way we can get on our property if we 13 develop or anything like that is to go to the southeast 14 comer just as far as we can go to get away from their 15 driveway. 16 Now then, these rumors are going arot~nd 17 that, you know, we're trying to make a quick buck and 18 we're trying to do this and we're trying to do that. 19 '¢/~enever this new zoning came into effect, we were zoned 20 Ag. There's a lot of property in this town zoned Ag that 21 was moved up to 12 and higher, a lot higher. So we said 22 can't you leave us Ag and they said no. So whim you put 23 us in the HR-3 zoning which you have us in now, we had 24 some real estate people to tell us, well, you might as 25 well put a not for sale sign on the front of your property 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 199 out there because it will never develop. It will cost more than that to just do the improvements because you can't put three houses per acre on that property out them and put in the utilities and develop it. There's just not any way you can do it. So that covers that. We have not tried to cram anything down anybody's throat or force anything on anybody to make a quick buck. I think 32 years, you know, you're entitled to something. I think any of these folks here that might be opposed to this tonight, by the time they're in their properties for ten years, if they don't make a profit on it, there's something wrong if they don't get more for it than they bought it for. I don't know who's going to say what or anything about it and I'm not trying to accuse anybody of anything, but I was offended, very offended by some of the comments that I've heard come back to us. We have tried to pass out these brochures to all the neighbors up there within 200 feet so they understand what we're doing. Earlier in the week, we were told that we could come to one of their board meetings that they're going to have. Well, we didn't get the word but we weren't welcome at their board meeting. When we got there, my wife was treated very rudely and told her they didn't want to hear anything of what we had to say. We. Page 2C 1 already know what we're going to do, and this that and the 2 other. And so I won't go any further than that. And I 3 don't know the people's names or anything about it that 4 said this, but I know -- we did get an apology from their 5 association for the way some people conducted themselves. 6 So there's another point here that I think 7 you need to understand the way this came about. Back a 8 few weeks ago, whenever the City Council was having their 9 study sessions and they were studying these 100 cases, I 10 believe or something tike that, to see what they wanted to 11 do, well, they went ahead and moved us into NRMUq2. SO, 12 anyway, they came back in a few days, and I think you've 13 heard this before, and said, no, we're raking you out. 14 You're going to have to go through the process. Iwas 15 very offended by that situation because of about 1,000 and 16 something pieces of property in this town that's been 17 zoned without going through the process. As you know, 18 it's very stressful. I hope you folks have your income 19 tax all done from the Zoning Board because I know you get 20 paid real well, because when I was on there, they doubled 21 our pay every year. And I was their Chairman for six 22 years, boy, I really got some raises, boy~ caused me a 23 problcra on income tax. So I can sure sympathize with you. 24 So, anyway, there's another problem here, [25 too. The City is insisting that we cut our properey in PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 1 OTH, 2002 Page 197 - Page 200 CondenseltTM 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 201 half back here, as you'll see on that yellow sheet where it says street. Well, therets already a street stubbed into us. A few years ago, we were forced into condemnation, had condemnation proeeediugs starting on us so they could develop the Ryland Home property. And we didn't know about that until it had already gone through the Zoning Board and it was fixing to go to the Council. We did get that delayed and sat down with the attorneys and worked that situation out. They could have taken some 'developable property, you know, a little mote off of theirs and left us alone, because we were told that they could put their road in without taking our fence and doing anything with us. But there's just been a lot of things going on out them. These people back in hem, I'm not pointing my finger at anybody, but I don't know if they know it or not, but the utilities might not be down to Bonnie Brae right now. ff I hadn't attended a lot of utility board meetings back 25 years ago, because when they built tile tec centers, they just stopped the utilities and stopped at the top of the hill. And I went to the utility board many, many times and I said, you don't let a developer stop in the middle of his propcava, and not carry it on over here. So at that time, they came onto Bonnie Brae with those utilities, Now then, these folks hack up in Page 202 here are enjoying those utilities that I worked so hard to --get over them. Andso we've always, tried to get along with the neighbors. We've tried to talk with all of them. And some of them have been nice and I won't talk about the others. Okay. So it's put us in a real bad situation. The zoning came to us. We didn't go after it. You've got ~amu-12 sitting on the north side of us where the church is. You've got ~,mMU-12 on the south of our property. Now, the way it camo about with the was tiffs, one of Council people came to us and said, look, some of the neighbors up there ate objecting to ~R~- So, well, we're pretty ~asy people to get along with except when you tell stories on us that are not tree, and then we get pretty ruffled. So I said, okay, as a compromise, we'll do this, about half the property sits in the NRMU-6 and about half the property sits in Now, our property line still goes to the middle of Bonnie Brae Street. Now then, when you u,ke that part out of our property and you take the street out of our property here that the City wants ttwough there so they can go on out tO Bonnie Brae, I mean, Univgrsity so these people in Ryland can go to University Drive without going out, you know, where that kind of gives them an outlet. We did not want that stre~ to cut our property in half so we're going to lose some more property there. Page 203 .1 So, actually, we're going to have less ~mMUq~ than we do 2 in bm-6. And we did the NR-6 to try to get along with the 3 neighbors and be good neighbors, you know,: and everyth/ng. 4 We've never done anything out them to 5 cause a problem. You know, whenever Ryland was fixing to 6 build, all the neighbors behind us came to us and said, 7 look, we don't want Ryland building over there. Could you 8 help us'/ Well, there was some zoning cases that came up 9 and some of you people may have been on them at that 10 time, I think Bob was maybe and one other member, so we I l worked with them and tried to.work it out. But they've 12 got t39 houses in that acreage over there that's not much 13 larger than what we are. If we went to NR-3 on our 14 property, we Could build about maybe 50 houses. That 15 wouldn't even pay for the utilities on the property. 16 So I think w~re asking for something very 17 reasonable. We're trying to compromise, We're trying to 18 get along with the folks. And, you know, the church has 19 done some things over there that we didn't exactly like 20 but we said, okay, we'll be good neighbors and we'll leave 21 them alone. And, you know, the City, I guess you know 22 this too, wanted that strcex to go on out to Bonnie Brae 23 tl~t they cut off. You know, we could h~ve opposed that ~4 but we said, no, we're not going to do it. So We left 25 that alone. Page 204 1 But the big kicker has been tlfis driveway 2 that they put so close to our property which is going to · 3 force us -- and the only way we can get in and out of our 4 property when it's developed is to go to the very 5 southeast comer. And I'm sure Mr. Powell and Larry can 6 explain that better than I can because I've been off the 7 .Zoning Board since 1973. I'm not as up on it as I us~ to 8 be. I'm not up on the Codes. But to make a long story 9 short, we wouldn't have been here tonight and asking for 10 this if they hadn't brought in the new Code. I understand 11 from the staff and he's get all that and I've read what 12 they say, that this plan completely follows and is in · 13 agreement with the present Codes, I think that's right. 14 So, anyway, there's also another probtem. 15 I might as well tell the whole story since I'm here, I've 16 run cattle on that property since 1970 and I ran them on 17 property where Ryland is. And I've run cattle on the 18 property on the west side of us, also. But this is the 19 only piece of property that we've owned in them. So 20 there's a little misunderstanding there because they 21 thou~t we w~r~ tho ones that crmxa'ned the Ryland 22 subdivision down their throat and we had nothing to do 23 with it. In fact, we helped these folks try to get some 24 things done because when they first came in, this kind of 25 was already zoned for apartments, 20 something units to an 10TH, 2002 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL Page 201 - Page 204 CondenscItTM Page 205 acre. And back here, the first petition presented was SF-~ at that time. So I think that was something like 250 houses. So, actually, this m.6 is about two-thirds the density that their zero tot line property is over here. Because if you'll multiply 4~500 into 43,560, that's 9.68 houses sitting on that land. So we're actually taking passed. Page 207 [ And we made it very clear to the City attorney, City attorney's office, before the map was ever .. approved, that we would compromise and go the six and the 12. And so I'm sum when I walk off, well, them will be some things there that I've forgotten to lei1 you. I know 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 lower density in the N~-~ than Ryland has over here. 8 And we're not trying to do anything to 9 these folks to hurt them. You know, I think we're pre~.y 10 good neighbors out there. But it is not practical, 11 really, to keep cattle on the place any longer because I 12 have so much ~rouble keeping people off the property. 13 I've posted signs up and they ignore them. They go down 14 to my little stock tank and throw stuff in the tank. It's 15 getting to be a real hazard. So my wife has just reachext 16 relirement age and I'm passed it. And so to make a long 17 story short, I think it's time for us to give up the ship 18 and stop fighting it because we're just not able to go on. 19 and live on the property and take care of it like maybe we 20 did 25, 30 years ago, because we've been th~'re 32 years. 21 We're certainly not trying to do anything 22 to our neighbors to hurt them, We want to work with them 23 and be good neighbors. But, like I said awhile ago, the 24 main reason we came up with NRMU-12 is because that's what 25 we have on both sides of us. In fact, it goes alt the way Page 206 1 back up behind the ~rR-6 and over here the NR-6 is that. 2 Now then, I've done a lot of yakking and I 3 hope -- I had to say it real fast because I've got some 4 cows to feed and I'm going to ask all of y'all to go help 5 me and I thought I'd be through at 8:00 o'clock. And so, 6 anyway, I'd be happy to answer any questions that might 7 come up here. You know, sitting on the Zoning Board, I 8 know is not a -- you don't win any popularity contests by 9 being on the Zoning Board because I've been in that chair 10 before. All I ask you to do is do what's right. And I 11 don't know what the people here arc going to say or 12 anything about it. I can't predict that. But I feel like 13 the right thing is to do what we've asked for. I think 14 it's within reason. And I don't know any other way to put 15 it. NR-3 is certainly not within reason. And that's 16 pretty much it. 17 We just, like I said, we might as well put 18 up an no for sale sign on the property. We've had two or 19 three real estate agents talking to us later and they said 20 we won't even talk to you about your property because if 21 tho City did this, we just don't want to go through the 22 process. We were forced to go through the process and I'm 23 stiI1 a little bit irritated about that because I don't 24 feel like we should have had to go through the process 25 because we offered a compromise before thc process was 7 most of you folks and I think you're good people. I can 8 appreciate what you're doing because I've been there, and 9 these meetings get pretty long sometimes. And, like I 10 say, I've got some cows to feed and I thought I was going 11 to he there at 8:30 to do it. So I'I1 get Bob Power to 12 gowithme. He's got cowboy boots on. If you havc anY - 13 questions, I'll be glad to answer you. 14 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YOU still have a 15 minute. 16 MR. GAMBLE: okay. I assume that you all 17 have the material that Larry has and you've gone over it, 18 and I think you know what the City said or is saying about ' 19 our situation. And all we're asking is fair treatment and 20 give us what our neighbors have. And I don't think we can 21 ask for any more or any less. Thank you. 22 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. 23 Gamble. This is a public hearing and Mr. Gamble has 24 prcsenled as the petitioner. I do have a card from Norms 25 Gamble and if she'd like to speak, you still have 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 2(~ seconds left on that. MR. GAMBLE: salty, I appreciate that, bTM, as you know, my wife does not feel welt and she is not in good health. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: wanted to give her that opportunity. I had several cards of people also that wanted to speak. And, once again, this is a public hearing. If anyone would like to speak regarding Item No. 15, if they'd please fill out a yellow request card to speak. The first card that I have, and I'm going to ask someone to take these and try to set some people on deck if we can, is Scott Patr[dge. And the next person would be Lyla Needles. MR. PATRIDGE: My name is Scott Patridge. I live at 2220 Lookout Lane. I'm the President of the Windsor Ridge Homeowner's Association. And first and foremost I would like to inform you that the board of the Windsor Ridge Homeowner's Association collectively and unanimously voted to take all actions possible to fight this zoning request proposal. And, furthermore, we completely disapprove of the proposed zoning change. : Also, there was a petition passed around in our neighborhood and 59 individuals have signed the petition against the change, and this doesn't include homes that are up here that have not yet been built. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 205 - Page 208 Cond~nscltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 209 I'm aware that this issue has raised tempers and has caused many unnecessary things to be said; therefore, I will stick to the facts. Thc zoning of the Gamble property as ~,mMV-12 has the possibility of attracting unwanted businesses, overloading the already overloaded schools, spoiling a pristine park which is a great asset to the City, as well as increasing traffic, crime, and devaluing surrounding properties. On a separate note, as a homeowner and a member of the community~ I would tike to say I'm very disappointed it would be a consideration for this City to zone the Gamble property ~,mMU-12. My wife and I just moved into the community one year ago. This is our first home and we hope to stay in the City of Denton for the Page 211 foreseeable future. We were astounded at the fact that anyone would try to ruin an area as nice as this. For many others here, this is also their first home or the only home that they will ever have, they will ever live in. For all of us, this is our biggest 1 MR. SELLMAN: My name is/on Sellman. 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Jon~ jUSt a second. 3 And the next person would be Monsenior King. 4 MR. SSt, LM^tq: My name is Ion Scllman. I 5 live at 2208 Lookout Lane. I hope I'm one of the nice 6 neighbors. I try to be. And I actually like the cattle. 7 It reminds me of growing up in central Texas. But, 8 anyway, we just bought our home in June this year. We're 9 real happy with Denton. We're real happy with the area, I0 the neighborhood. So, I'm not only a homeowner~ I'm also 11 a member of the Immaculate Conception Church. My daughter 12 goes to Immaculate Conception School. So I have a lot of 13 vested interest here. It impacts me more than just where 14 I live. It impacts where I go to chUrCh and it impacts investment of our lives. And I don't want you to think of investment as strictly monetary. We've all, ~weryone hx~ from the HomeoWner's Association and the surrounding community and those that couldn't be here that have children and have to go to work and have to take their ]?age 210 kids to school tomorrow have all invested 100 percent of their heart into the neighborhood and into their homes. You have a great power in your hands. You have the opportunity that we all want. We want to see the right thing done for this City. You can do the right thing here tonight and help set a precedent for proper zoning in this neighborhood. You can protect the park which the City has invested so much into. You can lower crime rates and you can help solve traffic problems, you can protect our investments, monetary and non-monetary. And it doesn't take that much to do this. All y'all have: to do is say no, no to NRMU-12. No now and the City won't have to rebuild the community later. I believe that there's plenty of room for high density housing and businesses in this City and this is not the place for it. We wouldn't have a problem having it all ~'R-6. we would be glad to make that concession. We just do not support z, am~-t2. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. Is there a Lyla Needles? And the next person would be Jon Sellman. Did you say that Mr. or Ms. Needles left earlier? MR. SELLMAN: YeS, they did. COMMISSIONER RISHEL; okay. Thank you wind much. 15 where my daughter goes to school. 16 Our big concern -- I wrote a speech and I 17. can never read a speech and be sincere. With Northway 18 going down to University and the possibility of apartments 19 being developed on this front half of this property, we're 20 concerned about the traffic. We're concerned about the 21 22 23 124 25 precedence that wilt set going further towards University which I believe is the Rayzor propca'ry. Wc know it's already zoned ~qRMO42 and we're hoping that we can work that issue out. But we're afraid if apartments get developed on that front half. we're afraid that will set a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Page 212 precedent on down and we'll end up just having a whole row of aparments. We don't believe it's fair to this park. And I know the Gambles have been instrumental in developing and getting this park developed and made this area what it is today. But we're concerned because of the NRMU-12 and what it eon do to our community. And because we can't get guarantees that if it gets zoned that way, whafs going to go on it. I mean, we can't get conditional zoning now. That bothers us. It concerns us. That's what goes on there. It's not a matter cfa trust. It's just a matter if they sell the land, how can we lose our voice like that? How eon that happen to us? Because there's some aspects of NRMU-12 that we don't have an issue with. We don't. If you -- I think they had mentioned in one E-mail correspondence that I had with them, maybe a child care facility. I think that's fabulous. That's wonderful. But we can't get guarantees and we're just trying to protect it. Because I know the land north of us, they're trying to get NRMU-12, as well, and t, mM~J. ~ know of some zoning requests up further north. And you're going to pancake us between apartments. And we have to assume that apartments are going to be d~eloped on that property because we can't be guaranteed they're not. So we have to nssmne the worst. 11 12 I3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMlVlISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 209 - Page 212 CondenseltTM Page 213 1 So'if we support the NRMU-12, if we say, yeah, that's 2 okay, then we lose our voice and they we get pancaked 3 between apartments because we're not going to have as 4 strong a voice north of us. And we know that's, going to 5 happen north because it makes sense. You get north of the 6 park. You get in that urea of the Loop. You get behind 7 the outlet mall. I mean, we understand that and we can 8 live with that. I can live with that. But don't pancake 9 us in. Let us have a say right now. Help us grow 10 neighborhoods down to University. Help us do this. 11 I think I was informed by a former Denton 12 City Council member, I'll get back to my speech real 13 quick,· that basically this area is called existing 14 residential infill compatibility, which says within 15 established residential areas, new development should 16 respond to existing development with compatible land uses 17 patterns, and design standards. The Plan recommmds that 18 existing neighborhoods within the City be vigorously 19 protected and preserved. That's all we're asking. We're 20 not against development. We've already admitted, earlier, 21 and I'll tell you as well, I'll support NR-6 on the entire 22 property. I realize that will allow duplexes. I prefer 23 not to have a duplex community but I don't mind if there's, 24 duplexes there. I think a nice mixture. :25 I have no problems with affordable housing. ]?age 214 1 It's needed. I've bccn there. I've done that. It's 2 needed. People need it. And I'don't have anything 3 against people that live in apartments. There are people 4 that need it. I have definitely nothing against anybody 5 that can't afford a home. I'm just trying to preserve our 6 community and help us grow it into a nice neighborhood for 7 the kids that are playing in the streets. My neighbors 8 just had a baby this month. It's wonderful. We've got: a 9 great th/ng going. A lot of families are excited about 10 this neighborhood. The smaller lot homes allowed a lot of 11 people to come in and get a home that they possibly 12 couldn't afford anywhere else. The area I'm in I think 13 would qualify as an m~-4. ~ have just over a 7,000 square 14 foot lot. My home is right at 2,000 living, about 2,400 15 total covered. So it's a nice mixture. I don't have a 16 problem with the 45-foot lots. I think there' s some great 17 people around. We're family-oriented..We want to have a 18 nice friendly neighborhood next to a wonderful park, 19 church, and school. If there's any questions -- 20 COMMISSIONER RISi-IEL: Thank you, Mr. 21 Scllman. Monsenior King, to be followed by Scott Higgins. 22 ~m. ~cr~o: ?hank you, Commissioners. I 23 appreciate thc opportunity to visit with you for a few 24 moments this evening. I'm Charles King. My address is 25 1215 North Elm, present location of the Immaculate 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ~16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 215 I Conception Church. We are planning to relocate at Windsor I Drive and North Bonnie Brae at the site, and I think you ~ I. have the map here -- if I can locate it. Mr. Gamble expressed a primary concern about the location of the entrance from Bonnie Brae. I'd just like to address that. We object to the location and exit onto North Bonnie Brae, as well. We'd like very much to have had it further north. Thc City required that we have to locate it down here because the City also advised we had to allow for access from the Gamble property onto our property. We had to give an easement to the City so that the access to Bonnie Brae will be on that easement. We would rather have had the entrance further north but the City, when we found out we'd have to give them an easement, we moved the entrances as far down south as we could. So the entrance here, the problem I have as a pastor of a parish, congregation, which we have a school that will be developing, will hopefully open in the fall this year with 300 students, eventually opening and going to 450 students, is that there's a road, the road currently comes in here and goes right up past the school and the access, if you have a larger density population for an mum J-12, the greater population accessing that road is going to create potential problems for us. Page 21 I The Gambles approached us and I would share 2 with Mr. Scllman the concern if we knew what was going in 3 here, we'd have no problems with it because there are a 4 lot of fine developments that could happen. But in your 5 meeting earlier this evening you said, I think, that 6 whatever happens, once this is approved NRMU-t2, we have 7 no say over what's going to happen to that development 8 after that. There's a lot of potential and possibilities 9 that could happen. 10 The Gambles assured me we don't have to 11 worry about that. Well, I'm not sure they have as much 12 control over what happens and I'm not sure what the 13 Gambles do is going to give them much right to have much 14 control over it if they sell it to a developer. I have to 1 $ speak on the behalf of thc congregation and thc 16 congregation, I think, would express scnfous concerns 1 ? about thc development of the area without our knowing any 18 more about what that development is going -- what's going 19 to occur to that development. And because the access to 20 the property is going to come through our property by 21 right of easement that thc City has required we have to 22 give, that becomes an additional concern for us, not only 23 for our Sunday services, the site of the church which will 24 be buih here, but for the school and the children 25 population of the school. 10TIt, 2002 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL Page 213 - Page 216 CondcnscltTM Page 217 1 Again, that's my concern. I would like to 2 be a good neighbor. I don't feel real comfortable about 3 standing up before you against thc Gambles who have been 4 good neighbors. But I think I have to speak in concern 5 for a congregation and a school that's going to be 6 located, the access to the school, from the property that 7 could be developed in the area in ways that we don't think 8 will be to the advantage of the neighborhood. I'd have to 9 speak out. I have no problem with development of that 10 property to NR-6 as the neighbors have indicated they'd 11 like to have it for the single-family home development. 12 We could go along with that, I think, without any 13 difficulty. But developing the NRMU-12 when we' d have nc 14 understanding or real knowledge of what's' going to happen, 15 how that can be developed once it's approved, raises 16 concern that I think I have'to express to the Council. 17 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Monsenior. 18 Scott Higgins would be next and then Kevin Kennelly. 19 MR. HIGGINS: My name is Scott Higgins and 20 I live at 2209 Lookout Lane. And I live within the' 2t 200-foot immediate area next to the property that wants to 22 be rezoned. 23 First of ail, just a little bit about 24 myself. I graduated from the University of North Texas 25 back in '99. In the year 2000, I signed my contract for Page 218 1 my first home. Building it brand new. Was real excited 2 about it. But before I did that, I researched a lot of 3 tho multiple neighborhoods in Denton to find out what best 4 suits what i'm looking for. And just from previous 5 experience where my parents live, where apartments got 6 placed near their house in the City of Dallas, from that 7 point on when the apartments got phced, tho neighborhood 8 went down from there. Crime started increasing. My 9 cousin's car was stolon out of my parent's drive, ray. And 10 all that resulted from the property that was developed 11 within just a few blocks from their homo. 12 Now, t know thee are no current proposals 13 for this land to be designed for apar~nents but our 14 biggest conccra, that has been voiced previously, is that 15 them arc no proposals on the table. So once it gob 16 zoned, if it does to NRMVq2, we lose control and 17 apartments could go in throe. Now, there may be something 18 else but we have to look at the worst possible scenario, · 19 like Jon was saying earlier. 20 So I want to encourage you guys to step 21 and approve th~s -- or, actually, against this action. 22 And we are not in opposition at all to any kind of 23 property. But since we don't know what they want to do 24 with this land, that's why we have to be against this 25 because our neighborhood is nice right now. It's very Page 219 I safe. It's a young family neighborhood that's growing and 2 thc neighbors or great. Jon, Scott, and I were all 3 neighbors, live on the same street, and we would just want 4 to see it stay the way it is. Like Jon was saying, we 5 like seeing the cows next to us. We like the open land. 6 And we know it's not going to be like that forever, but we 7 want to maintain and keep it homes because that's all is 8 what's in this area are homes. There's not apartment 9 complexes nearby so why allow a zoning that would allow 10 apartments to come in and possibly damage this area next 11 to the park and next to our homes? Thanks for your time. 12 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. 13 Higgins. I had a card for Mr. Kennelly and, apparently, 14 Mr. Kennelly did not wish to speak. Buthe did say that 15 he was opposed to it. Is Mr. Kennelly here? Would he 16 like to speak? Okay. Let me read his card. This would 17 produce much too high a traffic density mediately 18 adjacent to the school, Immaculate Conception. 19 Then I had a card from Mr. Watson, Bob 20 Watson. Also did not wish to speak. I am opposed to 21 this. It would allow our neighborhood to have buildings 22 that will not be single-family dwellings. 23 Mr. Twehous. The NRMU-12 iS much too high 24 density. There would be too much traffic for the school 25 and the f~re station area. This is single-family Page 220 i residential area. 2 Mr. Rudy Morcno, once again, did not wish 3 to speak. Would you care to address the Commission? 4 Thank you. 5 MR. MOraiNe: ?hank you, Mr. Chairman, for 6 lolling me change my mind. My name is Rudy Momno, 3608 7 Marianne Circle here in Denton. It feels a little weird 8 to be standing on this side of the podium before you 9 tonight. I have the utmost respect for the work that you 10 do. I can appreciate it, as you well know. 1 t But really just a couple of concerns on 12 this proposal. I think your own backup speaks to tho fact 13 that multi-family uses in this area may not be compatible 14 with the neighborhood. And I want to kind of point that 15 out to you that at least one member of staff did raise 16 that concern. 17 ' ' To echo Monsenior King's remarks, I guess 18 we don't know what's going to bo built here. I mean, all 19 we're doing -- this is a zoning case so we don't know 20 What's going to go in. And because of that, iF we don't 21 know what's going to be built or whva it's going to be 22 built, then, Commissioners, I would submit to you that 23 this is speculative zoning. And many of us wrestle with 24 speculative zoning that was approved ten, I2, 15 years 25 ago. And you know which cases I'm talking about, the 10TH, 2002 ~LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL Page 217 - Page 220 CondcnscltTM 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 i3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 221 Mockingbird Lane case, the Teasley and Teasley Lane case. Do we want to be facing those same issues or a future Commission be facing those same issues a few years from now? I'd urge you to vote against this petition. ~[hank you. COMMISSIONER P-JSHEL: Thank you, Mr. Moreno. I have a couple of more cards, also people that did not wish to speak', but I will read their cards tbr them. Mr. Bill Vogel did not wish to speak but he was Page 223 I neighborhood with apartments but, you know, l~amJ-12 for - apartment zoning is a very, very tow density, as all of you folks know. Because you've already heard people talk here tonight about, I think, 30 or 40 units on le~s than an acre, or something like that. But another thing that I mentioned back at the first of this, and I want to make sure you understand this too, because when we found out this gentleman that we do not know because his relatives are a real estate agent opposed to it. Didn't have any comments. Willim'n Darby did not wish to speak. Was opposed to it. And Sherry Derby also was opposed to it but did not wish to speak. Having no more cards, I will close the public heating and Mr. Gamble would have an opportunity for rebuttal. Ma. G^MBL~: I'd like to clear up a couple of things. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Gamble, let me see where Mr. Keith wanted to address us here. COMMISSIONER KEITH: GO ahead and let him speak first. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Please. Thank you. You have the floor, Mr. Gamble. MR. GAMBLE: I can't remember all the comments and sometimes my writing, I can't read it, but in Page 222 10 had represented himself as a buyer and had a neighborhood 11 meeting up there, we asked him, we asked the real estate 12 agent to talk to him the day before and ask him to stop. 13 But he did not stop the neighborhood meeting. But shortly 14 after that, we did stop and we took action. Andl 15 understand that some people thought somebody else stopped 16 this, maybe a Council person or something, but we were the 17 ones that terminated that contract because he had violated 18 the contract. And if we would have had any idea that he 19 was going to go have that public heating up there, not a 20 public hearing but a neighborhood meeting, any sooner, we 21 would have sure stopped it. But we didn't know it until 22 the day before. We saw a sign in the neighborhood they 23 were having a neighborhood meeting. And we thought what 24 property, you know, what is this all about. So we started 25 checking and found out it was our propcu-ty. We had Page 22. I speaking about Mr. King saying that he -- I think I may 2 have been a little misquoted there about that. What I 3 said to Mr. King, to my best recollection, was that when 4 this property was zoned NV-12 that there were some very, 5 very strange slrict rules and regulations if apartments 6 are built in there. And I'll agree that maybe -- because 7 if anybody sits down and reads the new Codes, they're 8 going to be surprised what they find in there when they 9 start telling you how you can tie your trees up and what 10 color wrap you can put around them and so on. l l COMMISSIONER RISHEL: B~fore or after it 12 puts them to sleep. 13 MR. O^MBt.~: Yeah. The other thing that I4 they've touched upon here is the apartments and they seem 15 to be very concmmed about apartments. And I dare say 16 that r 11 bet some of these people have lived in 17 apartments before and I don't know what their memories are 18 but -- I don't know. But I think the apartments that 19 . they're associating these with are apartments maybe -- and 20 usually over the City, if you'll look, are probably more 21 than 30, if not a lot more than that, to an acre where 22 ours would be restricted, because our apartments are a 23 maximum of 12 units. And we may not even be able to get 24 12 acres on an acre. That's the maximum units you could 25 put on there. So we're not trying to clutter up the 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I3 14 ~15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 nothing to do with that. In fact, we were very upset with this fellow and we terminated our situation with him before because we we're trying to protect the neighborhood and we didn't want something going on out there that we'd be blamed for. But I can understand these people, rm not taking offense to them talking about apartments and everything. But that is the whole reason that we d{vided the property like this and we went ahead and said we'll take the six at the back. And the street there that divides it completely gets them away from what apartments might be built there. And there's another thing, too. If apartments are built there, and you know as I know, as well as anybody knows, that you've got to provide proper .parking off-premises, off the street. Am I correct? Isn't that right? Okay. I can drive down through their neighborhood over there. And I'm not against the kids because I love them and we've had our own. We've got a grandson that's seven years old. And I don't want to run over one of them. But I had to go very slow. There's a lot of cars parked in their street because they don't have room to park. They don't park in the drivmvay. I have to zigzag in and out of this street. Now then, if apartments are built on this property here, as you well know; the Codes are not going PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 221 - Page 224 Cond~ns~ItTM Page 225 1 to allow us to build apartments or anybody else to build 2 apartments in there with°ut adequate parking off the 3 street. And even ~-6 is going to be the same way. And 4 not only that, they cannot build the houses that th~ have 5 -- and I'm not making bad remarks about thek houses. I'm 6 just telling you what this nmv Code says. But if I 7 understand it correctly, the restrictions put on us if you 8 build a house in this NR-6 zoning over there and duplex or 9 whatever it might be, your garage cannot stick out further 10 than the front of your house. Is that eorrect? Theream 11 many, many houses over there where their garage sticks way 12 out past the front of their house. 13 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: That backs up. 14 MR. GAMBLE: I'm sorry, what? 15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: The setback. 16 MR. GAMBLE: Yeah. And so what I'm saying 17 to you is this, if this property is developed, it's going 18 to be so restricted. I've been told this by staff people 19 that Ryland Homes could not be built on that property 20 under the n~w Codes because of the restrictions. And I'm 21 not knocking their homes. They've got some nice places 22 over there. I'm not trying to be ugly or anything. But 23 I'm just tetling you Iike it is. So I'm trying to bring 24 these things out so these people will understand that 25 we're not trying to pull anything over their face, their Page 226 1 head, whatever you want to call it. I think several of 2 you people on the Zoning Board probably know me from past 3 either business or friendship or something. And I th~nk 4 all of you will know that I'm a pretty easy fair-minded, 5 person and I don't try to push anything over on people. 6 And it really offends me when people make some of the 7 marks they make because I'm just not that way. So I 8 wanted to make sure that you understand that we had no 9 part on that neighborhood meeting that really got a lot of 10 people stirred up over there, which I'm sorry because it 1 was unnecessary for th~s to happen. 2 And we never ever tried to do anything on 13 zoning on this piece of property before December the 5th 14 in an open meeting when y'all met with the Council and we 15 wer~ h~re. We made our request in open with you folks and 16 we asked for the 12. We got blown out of the tub them so 17 we said, okay, we'll compromise. So there we am. 18 But the 12 units per acre is probably less 19 than a third of what you're accustomed to seeing around 20 town on apartment houses, you know. So I made a f~w notes 21 here about some things, and I know it's g~tting lat~ and I 22 hate la keep you folks, but I know that whenever people, 23' whatever captures that piece of property, whether we 24 develop it or somebody else develops it, it's not going to 25 be easy because alt the restrictions. And I do say, and I ' Page 227 1 told Mr. King today, he didn't seem to think the neighbors 2 would have anything to say, but I'm standing here to tell 3 you this, and I think most of you will agree with me, that 4 when that property starts getting platlcxl and gets ready 5 to be developed, the neighbors are probably going to have 6 a lot to say and I think they'll have a lot of influence 7 on what happens to that piece of prope~'y. So I can't 8 guarantee that but I've never seen it happen before that 9 they didn't have. I think you folks have seen that i 0 already happening here tonight at some other public 11 hearings, that neighbors have a way to, you know, get ~12 influence to people. t 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: And, Mr, Gamble, you 14 realize that when zoning is passed, that it goes with the 15 property whether you own it or som~ne else owns it. 16 MR. fiAMBLE: sure. Sure, 17 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Arid although peopte 18 may feel very comfortable with you, they don't know what 19 would happen if somebody else were to own that property 20 and what zoning would pass with that. Commissioner Keith. 21 COMMISSIONERKEITH: Thank you. Good 22 morning, Mr. Gamble. 23 MR. fi^MBLE: yeah. Do y'atl want to feed 24 me breakfast? 25 COMMISSIONER KEITH: BO nice if it was to Page 228 1 be able to retain your agricultural rating, wouldn't it? 2 MR. OAMBLB: Well, yeah. I asked for a 3 state of Ag and they said I couldn't do that, 4 COMMISSIONER KEI'UrI: It would solve a lot 5 of problems, wouldn't it? 6 MR. GAMBLE: Yeah. I told them I'd stay in 7 Ag and we wouldn't be here if the City of Denton hadn't 8 put this new zoning deal in. All we're asking for is 9 equal treatment and compatible zoning of what surrounds 10 us. And that's all we're asking for. I COMMISSIONER KErTH: I rl~3.-lember when we had 2 our hearings regarding this Code. You made your 13 presentation and you were against the adoption of this 14 Code. 15 MR. GAMBLE: I Was, 16 COMMISSIONER KEITH: would you mind sharing 17 a little bit of why? 18 MR. OAMBLE: well, serving the City in many 19 different years on the Zoning Board and things of that 20 nature, I know there's some things that probably our 21 zoning nmp and our Codes needs to be taken care of, but I 22 don't believe in just throwing something aside. I felt 23 idke that that Code or the zoning ordinance we had could 24 have been tuned up some and made some modifications and 25 made a lot of people happy. And I know it needed some PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 225 - Page 228 CondcnscltTM Page 229 t woik done on it, but I don't think it was completely out 2 of dat~. ! f~l like -- and that's not because I had 3 anytl-dng to do with because I just feel like that it 4 really wasn't any need in junking it and start all over 5 again. I felt like that it could have some things done to 6 it to tune it up some and it could have been a very good 7 · deal. If anybody has not tried to study this Code, you 8 better have a whole lot of time to, you know, study it 9 because you folks I know up there have been dealing with 10 this. You can use deed restrictions to control the growth . 11 or whatever. And so I just didn't think there was a need 12 for it, frankly. I thought what we had could have been 13 updaW, xt and make some changes without having to go through 14 all this stuff we're going through. Became I know it's t 5 taken thousands and thousands of hours, probably, and I 16 think the folks that are going to be dealing with this, I7 like the planners and the Council and whoever, are going 18 to go through some real rough times in the future trying il9 to work with this Code because there's a lot of things. 120 ~t,s hke your City Council said -- I've 21 made every meeting that they've had just about since 22 December the 5th and they said, well, we know it's not 23 perfect and we can make some changes. But we tried to get 24 a change made before the map was done and we made a 25 reasonable request. And I think there was almost 1,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I3 14 i5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 231 COMMISSIONER KEITH: under the old rule, yeah. That's what I'm referring to. MR. GAMBLE: under thc old rule, you still had the 200-foot rule. You just called things different names. COMMISSIONER KEITH: would they still have some input on what would be done, greater input on what would be done? MR. GAMBLE: oh, sur~. Oh, sure, yeah. COMMISSIONER KEITH: That's my point. That's where I was corning from. MR. GAMBLE: Thom heatings could get pretty long. COMMISSIONER KEITH: That's what I'm getting at. There would be greater input. MR. GAMBLE: oh, yeah. Yeah, they had input then and I think they'll have as much or more input now. I don't know. But they've always had input about what goes on ever since -- you know, I served on the the Board of Adjustments in the 60's. Planning and Zoning in '68 and the 70's. And people have always had, you know, input. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you, Mr. Gamble. MR. GAMBLE: It's late. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Commissioner Roy. Page 230 1 pieces of property updated and zoned in this town and they 2 didn't see a reason to give us our reasonable reqtu:st. I 3 didn't think after we compromised -- and some of the 4 people that are going to come before this body or the 5 Council, whichever in the future, I think are going to 6 really have a tough row .to hoe sometimes because it's 7 really -- it's a pretty tough deal. 8 COMMISSIONER K~IT~: Mr. Gamble, I don't 9 mean to be -- I don't want to appear to my fellow 10 Commissioners or the aud[enoe to appear to be beating a 11 dead horse but I'm going to ask you another question here. 12 In that if you were able to retain under the old system 13 Agricultural, then when you would sell this property at 14 some future date, which I know you will, then when it 15 would be developed at that time, then thc people i.n the 16 surrounding areas would have a greater say so tn how it 17 would be developed, correct? 18 MR. GAMBLE: NO, because everybody within 19 the 200-foot strip which is your rule were sent out 20 notices, everybody within the 200-foot strip. I believe 21 six percent of the people objected in that 20 percent, you 22 know, how it takes 20 percent. 23 COMMISSIONER KErrH: rm talking about 24 under the old rule, that if it was -- 25 MR. GAMBLE: Oh, under the old rule? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 23 COMMISSIONER ROY: I have a question, I think, for staff. COMMISSIONER RISHE. L: commissioner Roy, could I close the public hearing? COMMISSIONER ROY: Oh, I thought you already had. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I had not closed it. I didn't know if you had a question for Mr. Gamble or not. That was Mr. GambIe's rebuttal to the previous comments. And being we have expended our cards, I will close the public hearing and turn the floor back over to Commissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: At the comer of Windsor and Bonnie Brae, there's a sliver of land, maybe a triangular piece next to that drainage ditch, it's an NRMU zoning. MR. REICHHART: corr~ac:t. COMMISSIONER ROY: DO yOU know who owns that properS? MR. REICHHART: I do not, COMMISSIONER ROY: Can I safely assmm¢ it is not the church? }dR. REIC~S~gT: I know it is not the church. COMMISSIONER ROY: Well, I guess I want to PLANNING AND ZONING COMIdISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 229 - Page 232 Cond~nseltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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 233 make sure it's just not .the church. MR. REICHHART: It is not. COMMISSIONER ROY: That answers my question. $o NRMU allows some pretty interesting things to be built there, a wide variety of things, I should say. MR. REICHHART: A wide variety of mixed uses, yes. COMMISSIONER ROY: Okay. NRMU-12 is much less permissible, much less intense than what could be Page 235 seem to make sense, NRMU-12;a small narrow strip of NR-3, and then 6 or 12, whatever happens on this property. The conversation I had with representatives from the Rayzor Trust, you know, they envisioned some type of residential up in that area~ But they're nowhere near proposing anything. COMMISSIONER ROY.. What area? MR. REICHHART; Just up in the northern part of their property, they feel would be residential to MR. REICHHART: very similar uses but less intense. COMMISSIONER ROY: Okay. Just as a comment, there's been some talk about NR-6 for that i0 11 12 13 14 be 'compatible to whatever is developed. COMMISSIONER ROY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Commissioner Holt. COMMISSIONER HOLT: Yes. Well it looks like to me that we've got NRMU on the comer up there. section of property. I believe we had been talking about other sections of property on Bonnie Brae and NR type designations that just don't seem to be in the card'.; for property adjoining Bonnie Brae, given the plan for that street. I'm not sure NRMU-12 is -- is there a case here for a small section adjoining Bonnie Brae to be NRMU-12 and the rest of it NR-6? Does that make any sense or does that make the property too small? COMMISSIONER RISHEL: tt sounds like a staff question to me. MR. REICHHART: 1 believe, and Mr. Snyder Page 234 can correct me, I believe -- I'm not sure if you can condition it to reduce the size as opposed to say fi)ur acres or two acres of NRMU-12. COMMISSIONER ROY: Okay. If we couldn't do that, then if we -- MR. SNYDER: I think you can. MR. REICHI-IART: YOU think you can? MR. SNYDER: Yeah. It wouldn't be a condition. You would just change the area, the dimension. MR. REICHHART: Change the map. Change the dimensions. Okay. So you could do that MR. SNYDER: Bemuse it was noticed not with specific acreage, correct? MR. REICHHART: Just total acreage. COMMISSIONER ROY: well, I just look at the property south of it. I'm not really sure exactly soUth of it what that is, but, certainly, the property that I've 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 '1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 .16 i17 The school has the NRMU-12. That a good transition from all of this residential, they could exit it on Bonnie Brae, would be NR-6 for this piece of property and this Rayzor piece of property, and then coming down here into an NRMU-12. Because if you put all that in NRMU-12 and you took at the list of what can go into it, that's a lot of stuff that could be in there. I mean, it could all go apartments, of course, but it could also go laundry facilities, home occupation, basic utilities, community service parks and open spaces, churches, adult and child day care, and Page 236 kindergarten and elementary schools. That's a lot of traffic in that area. But if you buffered that all with a nice area of residential in there, then the school would be kind of protected and then it would just break the area up, I would think. COMUmSIO~na ROY: Residential all the way out to Bonnie Brae? are you -- COMMISSIONER HOLT: uh-huh. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Holt, heard referred to as the Rayzor property is NRMU42. MK. REICHHART: It is. Well, there's that small portion across the top that is also NC-3. COMMISSIONER ROY: Oh, that is? Okay. MR. REICHHART: YeS. And in the backup, we noted that if this 'property, the subject property gets rezoned, there might be some consideration anyway for the City to consider initiating a zoning. Because it wouldn't 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Powell. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. I'm looking at NmmJ on the comer which is pretty high zoning. I'm looking at ~RmJq2 that the church owns. I'm looking at NRMU-12 below that, south of it. I don't see any problem here. I'm just mazed there's problems. There's a street running north and south through the middle of ti:ds property. Everything to the west of this street is going to be N~-6, if I read this correctly. Everyttfing to the east of this street out to Bonnie Brae is being requested for t, mmuq2, t just don't see any problems. And I'd like one more comment to make. I'd Like to make one more comment. The people talked tonight like apartments are crime ridden. I'm in the crime ?LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 233 - Page 236 CondcngcltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 8 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 237 business. I'm here to tell you, aparlments are not any mom crime 'ridden than single-family houses. In the last month, I have supervised raids on single-family houses and found narcotics production that would blow your mind in some of the nicest neighborhoods in this area, single-family on big lots. We don't go in apartments and find that very often. I just don't believe that we can assume that apartments are crime ridden, especially 12 units per acre. I've going to move on this to approve as submitted. COMMISSIONER I~SHEL: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER POWELL: It is. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Is there a secOlld? COMMISSIONER KEITH: I second. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It'S been moved by 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 in the future it will more likely be, you get everybody Page 239 I coming out of the wood work. And I don't mean this offensively to the property owners in the area. I do . identify with you. Bm you now have a situation that brings more opposition and problems and causes us more time. So we have a narrowness of classifications with these broader uses that just creates problems. We just forwarded a program onto the City Council on the Windsor Oaks. We have one over here in which we did -- we now have an ~-4 abutting an NRMU-12 at that point. This gentleman is coming in putting an NR-6 next tO the NRMU-12. SO I don't see any other problems. We've already pushed one along. We just have another one. that's a little different but very similar. Bonnie Brae will be a mixed use and commercial street and avenue. And this property, the way the petitioner has brought it to Commissioner Powcll and seconded by Commissioner Keith. I saw a light for Mr. 'Mulroy to speak. Did you - did I miss that? COMMISSIONER MULROY: ThO clock struck 12:00. You know I turn my light off. No. You could forcefully argue either side of the case on this. There's quite a bit of I~MU-12 in the surrounding area and further north on Bonnie Brae there's more~ t think the realization is the frontage on Bonnie Brae is going to be Page 238 mixed use and that nature has changed since the purchase. And you just have a tremendous acreage to the south ~re that's m~MU-12 so I don't know of changing thc impact of this sliver is really going to change the nature of the whole neighborhood when you look at the proportionality of 17 :19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the P&Z, the front part can be used for commercial, back part portion for residential. But this is part of the problems we're going to have with this Code. And I think that when thc City Council reviews these Codes, this is something we might ought to pass on to them on how to hotter manage these general classifications so that when these petitions are brought in, the various property owners around and homeowners don't come unglued. I can understand their concerns because, in Page 24 1 essence, looking at this classification under recreational 2 use, somebody can come in and put a go cart track in and 3 stuff like that, and it's recreational. And so I can sa: 4 why they have these concerns. But, then again, the 5 property oWner has certain vested rights and he has the 2 3 4 5 6 the blocks to the south and to the north. And being that 7 the existing neighborhoods would be protected with ~m.6 to 8 that street, it's very difficult to deny that usage to the 9 front to Bonnie Brae. 10 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Keith. 11 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. I 12 appreciate Commissioner Mulroy's observations. I'd like 13 ' to say ditto to them. I'd also like to add a few more 14 things. I'm going to resun~t that horse again. In an 15 attempt -- this Code that we're now working under is an 16 attempt to micro-manage every chunk of real estate in 17 town. 18 As a consequence, we've got new 19 designations that are new zoning classes, that in order to 20 provide these zoning classes, they come in and offer these 21 diversification of uses. And this is a precise petition 22 that shows the probkans of this new Code in that when you 23 come in and you want to maximize the potential of a piece 24 of property and the petitioner comes in and takes a sliver 25 of it, going to designate it to where it has the uses that 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 privileg~ to come in and say, hey, he wants to maximize the potential of his property. So the Code is conflicting with the potential of properties out there and we're going to be facing this time and time again. So I'm going to vote in favor, the petitioner's right. And that's ali I have to speak this evening. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I'm going to couch this in reference to the motion by Mr. Powell and the second by Mr. Keith in the form of a friendly amendment to the motion. And I feel that part of what you were moving ' toward was to move it along and I would like to do that, too. I think in light of the fact that the neighborhood has changed and there is now a school and a church that will be located on that property, and so the complexion of that neighborhood is different than it might have been a year or two ago, and the fact that the proximity is so 'close to an existing neighborhood, of which we are committed to in our bylaws to help preserve neighborhoods in general, I would be in favor of moving this along with an NR-6 across the board, if that met with the approval of PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 237 - Page 240 Condens¢ItTM Page 241 I Mr. Powell and Mr. Kc{th as a friendly amendment. I 2 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I'm sorry, Mr. 2 3 Chairman. I can't accept thru as a friendly amendment. 3 4 I'm looking at thc NaMU right at the comer. This N~MUq2 4 5 is a god send relative to the NaMU lbo foot north. I just 5 6 don't think the applicant is doing anything wrong here. I 6 7 can't accept the friendly amendment. 7 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: COmlll~ssioner Roy. 8 9 COMMISSIONER ROY; L~ me try a different 9 10 one. How about making approximately half of that east~ru 10 I1 piece to be Nm~J-t2 up on Bonnie Brae and the rest of it 11 12 to be NS-6, to minimize the impact of the N~MU-12. But 12 13 recognize that facing Bonnie Brae is probably going to, 13 14 should be NRMU4a: 14 15 . COMMISSIONER POWELL: In all due respect, 15 16 I'm sorry, I can't accept it as a friendly amendment. If 16 17 it gets to something we have to vote on, then I guess 17 18 we'll vote on it. 18 19 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, any 19' 20 farther questions? We do have a motion on the floor. A 20 21 motion by Commissioner Powell and a second by Cmmissioner 21 22 Keith. Any further questions or discussion? Seeing no 22 23 further questions -- 23 24 COMMISSIONER HOLT: sorry. 24 25 COMMISS~ON~ mSHEL: commissioner Holt. 25 Page 242 I COMMISSIONER HOLT: ~ just had one more 2 shot here. I would think that it is our duty as 3 Commissioners to Iry to protect this school, church arm 4 up here. They are stuck with this m~ro on the corner. 5 But if there was an area below them that was not so 6 heavily NaMUq 2, which could be, you know, we know' what 7 the llst is, then that would be a better transition. And 8 why have Bonnie Brae a whole line of apartments or laundry 9 facilities or basic utilities or community services? Why 10 not break it up with some residential in there? I just 11 don't sm any reason not to. Thank you.. 12 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further coram(mts 13 or questions or clarification, Commissioners? S~ing 14 none, once again, we have a motion on the floor. Please, 15 volt. Excuse me. Mr. Mulroy. 16 COMMISSIONER ML%ROY: ~nal comment. I 17 don't know why w~ assume the worst with the N~MUq2. i 18 mean, the market place will be a factor and there wilt be 19 supporting neighborhood services and offices or something 20 like that that is going to be appropriate. I don't know 21 why we always adopt thc most pessimistic outcome of these. 22 I think that the back side of that neighborhood, if you've 23 ever been through there, they have to come around this way 24 to ge~ any kind of services because the service road is 25 one-way up there on the interstate. So they have to come Page 243 over if they want anything. They're going back to University fight now so there's fertile ground for some neighborhood services and I think the market place is going to, hopefully, use this correctly. I don't think we should assume the worst. · COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Any further comraents, Commissioners? Seeing no further comments, please vote. Motion fails 3-3. (COMMISSIONERS mSI--IEL, HOLT AND ROY VOTINO IN OPPOSITI0N.) MR. SNYDm~: since this motion -- this motion failed because of a tie vote. Another Commissioner could make a stab at another motion if you so chose, but we can't just leave a 3-3 vote on the table. I mean, there's some ambiguity in your rules. Your rules are silent on this. 'But the City Council rules, which stall that your rules have to be consistent with their's, states that if thm'e's a 3-3 tie on a volt, that they postpone it to the next meeting until we have a full Council. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I think we have enough consensus to be able to get something passed here myself. Commissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: I don't know if I can, at this stage, ask Mr. Gamble to come back up or not.' Is that appropriate? Page 244 I COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I think it's 2 important that you put forth a recommendation that you 3 feel is appropriate. 4 COMMISSIONER ROY: I would like to propose 5 a recommendation that this matter, that the applicant 6 consider reducing the size of the NRMU-12 tO some 7 reasonable amount, perhaps half of that, to reduce the 8 concern of the people who have come here tonight in 9 opposition to it, and come back to us with another chance 10 to look at this. 1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commission Mulroy. 2 COMMISSIONER MULROY: commissioner Roy, dc 13 you want to make a motion that we pass that? 14 COMMISSIONER ROY: I guess. 15 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I would second it if 16 you did. 17 COMMISSIONER ROY: I'm interested if there 8 is some -- .9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Snyder would like 20 to join us here. 21 MR. SNYDER: with. all due respect, I'm not 22 sure what that motion is. Are you saying that -- what if 23 the applicant doesn't want to do that? Are you asking -- 24 are you requiring the applicant to come back with 25 something different? PLANNING AND ZON1NG COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 241 - Page 244 CondenseltTM Page 245 I COMMISSIONER ROY: well, we have in the 2 past when we've reached these impasses, we've tried to 3 make helpful suggestions on solutions that seem 4 reasonable, that may have a favorable response if they go 5 back and relook at it and come back again. 6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Are you seeking a 7 shake of the head, a yes or a no perhaps? 8 COMMISSIONER ROY: well -- 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I would be in favor 10 of that. 11 COMMISSIONER ROY: M1 right. I make a 12 motion that this matter bo continued and that the il3 applicant consider reducing the size of the N~MU-12 to an 14 area that would be more compatible and more agreeable to i15 the area, to the neighbors in the area. 16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: TO a daI~ certain. 17 And would you like to have the public hearing remain open? 18 COMMISSIONF.~ ROY: YeS. 19 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: SO I'd need to reopen 20 the public hearing. Commissioners, is there a second on 21 that7 22 COMMISSIOtqER POWELL: vll second it but I 23 have to point out the pubhc hearing was closed. If you 24 can continue it, I'm for it. 25 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: We could reopen it, Page 246 1 yeah. It's already been noticed. Commissioner Mulroy. 2 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes. I have a 3 question that, in principle, Commissioner Roy, I Imow 4 where you're going. There's a possibility we could get 5 that accomplished tonight if we made the motion, passed 6 the motion to limit that NRMU to half of what's shown on 7 this diagram and the rest NR-6, and at a later date, 8 pending a sale with defined uses, the applicant can always 9 come back for that second half with what he's going to use 10 it for. So if we have consensus tonight, we wilt have 11 gotten something done that we'd have a level of agreement 12 on. So that's why I was asking if you wanted to make that 13 motion because, essentiatly, that's what he'would have to 14 come back with or less. 15 COMMISSIONER ROY: 1 am not sure I'm 16 following. 17 MR. SNYDER: I think it was what you 18 earlier suggested. Wasn't it you that earlier suggested 19 that the NRMU-12 would be reduced to half of what.is 20 shown? 21 COMMISSIONER ROY: Approximately half, yes. 22 MR. s~rI'DER: Okay. So if that's what you 23 want to do, then you need to withdraw the motion on the 24 table and make that motion. 25 COMMISSIONER ROY: I thought I just did 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 247 that. MR. SNYDER: well, you need to withdraw the motion to continue and make the motion as he suggested, if ' ' that's what you want to do. COMMISSIONER ROY.. I withdraw the motion to continue. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I'll withdraw the second. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: NOW the motion is7 COMMISSIONER ROY: The motion is to take the property that's currently proposed as NRMUq2 and approximately half of that be changed to NR-6, the section next to Bonnie Brae remain tqRMU-t2. COMMISSIONER MULROY: ! second that motion. COMMISSIONER RISHEL; Thank you very much, Commissioners. We have a motion from Commissioner Roy and a second from Commissioner Mulroy. Comm/ssioncr Keith. COMMISSIONER KEITH: l..~t's bring the property owner back on the scene. How does he feel about it? Mr. eatable. MR. GAMBLE: YOU waut to know what I think? COMMISSIONER KEITH: Go right ahead. MR. GAMBLE: I don't want to offend anybody about anything that's been said here, but I've sat through a lot of zoning meetings and the main thing I have seen in Page 24 I all those zoning meetings is an over reaction to what's 2 going to happen to property. Now, when it's zoned -- now 3 then, the suggestion that Mr. Roy has made, which I don't q know Mr. Roy but anyway, sounds good but that further 5 complicates the situation. 6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Gamble, I'm going 7 to ask you to direct the question -- answer the question 8 directly. 9 COMMISSIONER KEIT~: I think I asked him 10 what he thought about it. I think he is answering it, Mr. 11 Chairman. Thank you. 12 MR. GAMBLE: rm trying to answer it. 13 Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER KEITH: since it's my 15 question, please, Mr. Gamble, complete. 16 MR. GAMBLE: That is the reason -- I'm not ~7 trying to be hardheaded about this thing, but that's the 18 reason that we put the street in there, to take some of 19 the ~qP, Mu-12 out that the City wants to put across there. 20 That gives them a good divider. That cuts it back quite a 21 bit when we put that street in there because everything on 22 the west side of that street is going to be 6 and : 23 everything on the east side of it was going to be 12. 24 Now, when you start -- that confuses me a 25 little bit because when you start talking about giving Us PLANNING AND ZONING- COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 245 - Page 248 Page 249 1 part of a 12 on the front and par~ of 6 back there, I 2 mean, I don't know how much you're talking about. I'm 3 pretty familiar with the property and I know how many feet 4 we're talking about. And that front section there goes 5 out to the middle of Bonnie Brae which I told you before, 6 and the front section is a little over 1,100 and something 7 feet. So when I lose quite a bit from Bonnie Brae and I 8 lose quite a bit for the street that's going to cut across 9 them, we're already cutting into the 12 considerably. 10 And we were trying to be, you know, do something fight 11 here. 12 Now then, when you start cutting off or 13 'going back so far on this, that, and the other, well, I 14 mean, I don't know how far this gentleman is talking about 15 going back. We've already cut off quite a bit. I mean, ~16 can he be specific about what he's talking about? AndI 17 don't know, too, where dc~s this put us with the Council. 18 I mean, does this mean we've got a favorable vote from the 19 Council to amend this zoning request? I don't know. 20 COMMISSIONE~ RISHEL: Mr. Keith, you have 21 the floor. 22 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you, 23 MS. GAMBLE: They're cheating us and we're 24 not going to put up with it. 25 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YOU're Otlt of order. Page 250 1 Mr. Keith has the floor. 2 COMMISSIONER KEITH: MS. Gamble, since I 3 have the floor, would you like to come to the mike? 4 MS. GAMBLE: I've said all I'm going to 5 say, 6 COMMISSIONER KEIT~: Please, formality, for 7 purpose, please. 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner:;. 9 MS, GAMBLE: My name is Norton Gamble. I 10 live at 2205 North Bonnie Brae. We have given all we can 11 and we are not in agreement to further reduce our 12 property. Other people don't want to take losses and we 13 don't either. And so we're merely asking you to do the 14 right thing, the fair thing. And if you want to ask us to 15 give up more after we've donated land to the City and 16 everything else, then our answer is no. And we believe 17 we've been discriminated against in this process akeady. 18 And I don't know why a 3-3 vote suddenly is no good. I 19 think we need to leave. 20 MR. GAIdBLE: Can I ask a question? 21 COMMISSIONER mSUEL: GO ahead, Mr. Oarnble. 22 COMMISSIONER ROY: I would like to make a 23 comment. 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Snyder would like 25 to comment. Page 251 .1 COMMISSIONER KEn'H: I think I still have 2 the floor, please. 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Sny~er would like 4 to comment as legal counsel for us. 5 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. I will yield to 6 Mr. Snyder. Thank you. 7 M~. s~rvmu~: okay. I think we've addressed 8 this before. The Chairman is the one tha~ runs the 9 meeting and conducts the meeting and allows people to come 10 forward to speak, not the individual Commissioners. If 11 you desire to ask somebody to come forward to speak, you 12 need to direct it through the Chair. If the Chair denies 13 your request, then you can ask the Commission as a whole 14 to overrule the Chair's ruling. Individual Commissioners 15 should not be directing members of the public to the 16 podium. It should be done through the Chair. And we have 17 those roles to maintain order. I just wanled to point 18 that out because -- 19 Ma. ~AMBLE: Can I respond? 20 MR. SS/Dm: NO, yOU can't respond. I'm 21 talking to the Commissioners. So I'm just saying that 22 just try to adhere to your rules of procedure and your 23 protocol from this point forward. Thank you. 24 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Keith. 25 COMMISSIONER KEITH: t wish to thank the Page 252 I parliamentarian. Sometimes when we get in discussions, 2 sometimes rules do skip us. So if I stepped on any toes, 3 I offer my sincere apologies. 4 Okay. Mr. Gamble, I wish to say something 5 but I do wish to remark that I think that Mr. and Ms. 6 Gamble are here as a team. They own the property jointly 7 and I appreciate her remarks. So, Mr. Gambte, please. 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: IS there a question, 9 Mr. Keith, Commissioner Keith? I0 COMMISSIONER KEITH: I think Mr. Gamble 11 wanted to make a response. What was that response? 12 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Response to what? 13 COMMISSIONER KEITH: I think there was a 14 remark that was made. 15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Is there a question 16 that you'd like to ask Mr, Gamble? 17 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Yeah. IV'n-. Gamble, is 18 there a remark you would tike to make? That's my 19 question. 20 MR. GAlVlBLE: well, I think the answer has 21 already been said. I'm sorry. I apologize. My wife did 22 not want to be in the room tonight, and I know that's not 23 the question, because her health does not -- it's not good 24 for her. I'm a little bit confused about what's going on 25 here and I think since my wife is half owner in this 10TH, 2002 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL Page 249 - Page 252 CondcnscltTM Page 253 1 property, that I think she had a right to come speak. She 1 2 filled out a card. But I didn't know she was coming. And 2 3 I'm not apologizing for that because she had a right to 3 4. come in here. This is a public place. 5 So I don't know what you're trying to do 5 6 but I think from the reaction I see of some of thc w)tes 6 7 that voted against it, that possibly this thing could go 7 8 on. I thought that when you had a tie vote like this, it 8 9 passed onto the Council without a recommendation. 9 10 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. 10 11 Gamble. Commissioner Mukoy. 11 12 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. 12 13 Thank you. And fellow Commissioner, I hate to do this to 13 14 you but I want to withdraw my second. 14 15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: We no longer have a 15 16 motion on the floor. Commissioner Roy. 16 17 COMMISSIONER ROY: I was looking to 17 18 withdraw my motion. 8 19 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Powell. .9 20 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, Mr. 20 21 Chairman. I'm going to move that we hold this open until 22 the next meeting with the hope that we have an odd 23 here, seven, so that we can get a vote. That's the reason 24 I'm doing it and my motion is to hold this open and 25 revisit it at our next regular meeting. the property located at 711 East Sherman Drivel the subject property has a split zonb ~ has an NRMU by the access to Sherman Drive Cent. dready adjacent to this that the ~osed zoning designation the plan compatible with available to co~ questions of Ms. Ms. Viera. And to present? Commercial Real quickly recap have in' C~ty which the gnation. Neighborhood Staff finds with land uses. I'm you may have. conuuissioners, any no questions, thank you, ' is here and would he like Frazier, Frazier I Westminister, Denton. To 'taus proceedings which you was brought before a work sessio~ January the lSth in voted in favm making the entire site the 28th, they rrversed duc to that I never did quite un ;tand. But on the of March the lgth, I received firs reversed so, inder& the ~assed and the zoning had been placed, So at the recommendation of the staff, Page 254 1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: SO there'S a motion 2 to continue to a date certain, which would be April 24th. 2 get 3 COMMISSIONER POW]ELL: That's correct, sir, 3 4 and I thank you for giving me the date. 4 5 COMMISSIONEP. RISHEL: And is thrre a second 5 6 and would you like to open.and continue the public 6 7 hearing? 7 8 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Ye$, sir. 8 9 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: IS thel-t3 a second? 9 10 COMMISSIONE~ KEITH: I second. 10 11 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It'S been moved by 1 12 Commissioner Powdl and seconded by Commissioner Keith. 2. ~i3 Any further comments? Se~ing no further comments, please 13 14 vote. Motion carries 4-2. Thank you, Commissioners. 14 15 (COMMISSIONERS HOLT AND MULROY VO'~ED IN 15 Frasier, ! 6 orrosiqrmN.) 16 Keith. 17 th ..... :., ,,_ ,,,T, [_!:~.:j ..... 17 18 ......... ' .... ' .... 18 hm-e. 20 - *~' .... ~., ~t,~,~-~ .. ·~ ....... m~ ,-~v--- '' 20 23 ~ 255 :ation that town lo us. C omc to go through the formal process of property zoned NRMU. Previously, back under the old zen! subject green. The b SF-7. SO, from General undevelopable. we can connect to to thereby, we have a .6 acre back that's NR-~. questions. Page 25. this split zoning. And you can the is split in half by the the dark m half was General The top half, downzones ~roperty renders this property around it that a residential fashion; ; that's NRMU and a 2.8 that, I'll answer any questions of Mr. Thank Mr. Frasier. Mr. LEITH: JUSt a chat I got in my packet, 3rive? I sec it as an isolated~ uestion ~ acel3ss t0 MR. FRAZIER: The access to Sherman property owner that owns the site in question these two little pieces fight here, the one with l green square on it which means there's a building there, but there's not. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10TH, 2002 Page 253 - Page 256 Attachment 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: This will bring us to 2 item number -- let me find out what that will bring us to. 3 Item No. 13 has been continued to a recommended date 4 certain. It has not been continued? 5 MR. REICHHART: It'S recommended to be 6 continued. 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It'S recommended by 8 staff that it be continued'. So, once again, I will open 9 the public hearing for Item No. 13 and if staff would 10 like to present on Item No. 13, hopefully. Assistm~t 11 Director Reichhart will present. 12 MR. REICHHART: Thank you. This is a 13 continuation of a public hearing that we had two weeks 14 ago. The subject property is located south of Windsor and 15 east of Bonnie Brae. The request is to rezone the back 16 half from NR-3 to NR-6 and the front half from NR-3 to 17 NRMU-1Z TO date, the opposition is currently at -- it's 18 over 20 percent. It's approximately 25 percent right now. 19 Besides the information in your backup, I'm handing out 20 any additional letters of opposition we receivext within 21 200 feet. The shaded ones are the ones that you didn't 22 have in your backup. 23' Tile applicant has requested that this 24 application be continued to May 8th due to family health 25 issues. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. Page 58 1 2 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Keith. 3 COMMISSIONER KEITH: I'm just making a 4 motion that we put a continuance on this if we cas at this 5 time. 6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Let me, if you don't 7 mind, let me make the statement to you, you have the g floor, I have several, I have two or three cards that 9 would like to speak and then I have several cards of 10 people that do not wish to speak but I would read the 11 card. 12 COMMISSIONER K~ITH: well, seeing how we 13 got a letter from the property owner asking for a 14 continuance -- 15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It was already posted 16 on the Agenda though. 17 COMMISSIONER Km~; Youth, but since they .18 cannot be here under very valid reasons, I think we should 19 just postpone this and save the wind until the next 20 meeting. Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I'm at the d/scretion 22 of the Commissioners, whatever your discretion would be. 23 Commissioner Apple. 24 COMMISSIONER APPLE: My only concern would 25 be that these people came tonight and we did say that this Page 59 1 item would be continued earlier, and if they remained to 2 be able to speak at the public hearing, I would certainly 3 not want to dissuade them. 4 COMMISS[ONEI1 RISHEL: once again, it's your 5 discretion. I'm trying to keep you as informed as I can. 6 It may look worse than it really is. I have two cards 7 that would like to speak and I have several card which I 8 would read if that was your discretion. At least we'd 9 have that information onto tho Agenda and we could go from 10 there. Commissioner Keith. 11 COMMtSSIONER IemtTH: Thank you. Again, we 12 are going to be looking at a continuance on this and I 13 think it would just bo better if we could just go forward 14 with the continuance so that the petitioner can be here at 15 the next meeting, and then everybody can speak at the same 16 time. 17 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I understand what 18 you're saying. 19 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you, 20 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: CollllSelor Snyder 21 would like to comment. 22 MR. SNYDER: we do have a long Agenda. One 23 suggestion we could make is that the people who have -- 24 the two people that have signed the cards and do want to 25 speak, we could just simply ask them do they want to speak Page 60 1 tonight, right now or do they want to wait and speak on 2 May 8th. They may have spoken at the last hearing, I'm 3 not sure. 4 COMMISSIONER APPLE: That would be good. 5 coMMISSIONER RISHEL: I have -- 6 Commissioners, what is your discretion? Let me know? 7 Okay. I have two cards of the people that would like to 8 speak and one of those is Mr. Jon Sellman and one of those 9 is Mr. Rudy Moreno. And the comment was would you care to 10 go ahead and speak at this point in time or would you 11 prefer to spr~ with the opportunity to have thc 12 petitioner here, as they have asked to have this continued 13 at a future d~te. Can you address us from there7 Son 14 Sellman or Mr. Rudy Moreno, and maybe they bare already 15 ldt, in fact, Okay. That may have answered what I 16 needed to do. Mr. Twehous, is it? 17 M~. TWEHOUS: May I ask, has that i~ been 1 § withdrawn? 19 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: NO, it's been 20 recommended for continuation because the petitioner could 21 not be here. 22 MR. ~vguous. [et me say that I called the 23 Planning and Zoning office today and they said that it had 24 been withdrawn, Item No. 13. 25 COMMISSIONKR RISHEL: MI'. Reich.hart, can 24TH, 2002 ?LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL Page 57 - Page 60 1 2 4 6 7 $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 Cond~'nseltTM Page 63 certain, May 8th, It carries with the Commissioners %0. Page 61 you clari~ that for us? 1 MR. IU~ICH~I~T: It might havo COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I don't know what 3 they said at Planning. 4 Ma. }mmHHnaT: rt might have been just the 5 t~m'rfinology used. I don't know who the gentleman spoke 6 to. It might have aw. ant that it was being withdrawn from 7 tonight's Agenda. But it has -- the applicant has not 8 withdrawn this zoning case. They have simply asked to be 9 continued for two weeks.- 10 COMMtSStO},W_a PaS~Et~: ~dght. I have a 11 written rcqu~t for continuation of the public hearing and t2 I was asked by thc p~tioncr also that they would 13 continue it to a date certain. 14 Ma. TWeHO~S: SO it has been withdrawn7 15 COMMISSIONERRISHEL: NO, S[I'. It has not I6 been withdrawn. It has been recommended for contimmtion. 17 Ma. IWEUOUS: At this m~ng or a -- 18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: continuation at a 19 futura date. Excuse me. 20 MR. TWEttOUS: At a futura date. 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: YO~, sir. 22 MR. TWEHOU$: okay. So we can call 23 Planning and Zoning and find out what future date that; is? 24 COMMISSIONER RISI-IEL: We'II~ going tO find 25 Page 62 1 out if that's what the discretion of the Commission would 1 2 ...... like to do~ Thank--you~..Mr. Twehous: - ............................... 3 Commissioners, what is your discretion? It 3 4 appears that neither one of the speakers that had signed ' 4 5 up to speak are here and I'm at your discretion. 5 6 Commissioner Keith. 6 7 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. I rrmke a 7 8 motion that we continue this to a date ce, rain of May 8th, 8 9 please. 9 10 COMMISSIONER APPLE: second, lO 11 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It'S been mov¢~t and 11 12' seconded that we continue this to a date certain, that 12 13 date certain being May 8th, the year 2002. Any further 13 14 discussion? Commissioner Mulroy. 14 15 COMMISSIONBR MULROY: NO. I had .15 16 Commissioner Powell's light on over here, 16 17 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you. Well, I'm 17 18 glad the button works anyway. I appreciate it. We have a 18 19 motion on the floor. With no further discussion, please 19 20 vote. 20 21 COMMISSIONER POWELL: It'8 really good to 21 22 know that my light is so popular. 22 23 COMMISSIONEK RISHEL: I ~ thrilled to 23 24 death with that. That motion carries on Item No. 13 on 24 ,25 our Agenda which was to continue that item to a date 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24TH, 2002 Page Page 61 - Page 64 I COMMtsstOt,~_a mSHEL: That will bring us to 2 Item No. 6 on our Agmcla. And Item No. 6 is to 3 continue a public hearing. That item will be posted on 4 the docucam, and for our td~ision audiences, on thc 5 document canm-a hem in the arena. 6 ~ COMMISSIONER KErm: POint of order, Mr. ? Cha/rman. 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Pi~s0. 9 COMMISSIONF,,R KErm: ?he petitioner on 10 tkis, because of ilineas, has presented an i~n from their I l doctor illustrating that they cannot be present for the 12 hearing. And as such, I request that thc Commission take 13 this into consideration and I move that we grant them 14 their continuance on th~s item at this moment, please. 15 COMMISSIONER RISl-IEL: commissioner Mutroy. 16 COMMISSIONER MULRO¥: Yes. Thal~k you, Mr. l? Chair. I have a few questions of couns¢I, some 18 parliamen~,), questions I~ore we move too much further on ;19 this i~tn, if I may. i20 COMMISSIONER R~SHEL; FOr M_r. Snyder? 21 COMMISSIONER MULRO¥; Yea. On this item 22 that's been continued, the appUcant has made their full 23 presentation and has made their full rebuttal Tho 24 applicant o- a contlm~afion was the outcome of tho votes 25 b~ng tied and needing a seventh vote. There has been no Page 10 1 new information submitted by the applicant. And so I 2 don~t know if there's any rationale that we should rehear '3 the case because it's the same information we've had and 4 the applicant has already utilized the time allotted for 5 the presentation. And thc purpose of the postponement was 6 just to have a seventh Commissioner. So my question, is 7 that interpretation of the events proper? 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Snyder. 9 MR. SNYDER; That WaS a mouthful. I do 10 want to correct one point that you made and that is that, 11 as I recall the motion, there was' an actual motion to i12 . cOntinue. It was probably influenced by the fact that 13 Commissioner Apple wasn't ha-e, but there was an actual 14 motion to continue the case. It was not automatically 15 continued by virtue of that rule. I want to make that one 16 correction. 17 I'm going to int,rpret your question to ask 18 can -- is it the Commission prerogative, could you move 19 forward tonight, deny the request for the continuance. 20 And the answer is yes, you could. You're not required to, 21 by parliamentary rules or any of thc rules that you have, 22 to grant Ms request for continuance. But I would defer 23 to Mr. Reichhart. He might want to comment on what the 24 past practice has been on these. 25 ' COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, okay. Go Attachment 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 .3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 Page 11 ahead, tarry. MR. SN-YDER: Because I!m not sure what the past -~ COMMISSIONER RISHEL: MI'. Reichhart. MR. REICHHART: Thank you. In the past we have granted applicants a request for continuance. And ' then at a certain point, and it varies, we have gone forward with the public hearing but we have also given a ming, if you would, that we wilt grant one more continuance. And at that time, there would be no more granted and the ease would either die or move forward at that time. COMMISSIONER KEITH: Mr. ChailTnan, if I may. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Commissioner Kcith, you have thc floor. Thank you. COMMISSIONER KEri'H: Thflnk you vc~-y much. I mean, this is a s£tuation with extenuating circumstances of the petitioners having health problems. When thc petitioner was here, he was having health problems at the time. And he has come in and has documented the health problem with a letter from a doctor. So this isn't just something out of the blue. This is - ffwe're having a he~ing on a petitioner's piece of property, unless he's able to be Page 12 here to answer questions or the ability for any Commissioner to be able to still recall him to the podium, that still remains whether his 15 minutes of fame are up, he still has that privilege even if he~s not here. After all, even in our discourse of public trials, even a person accused has the right to be present when facing a jurist and be present to testify and witness, as well. And we are going !ntt, I think, a violation of the t4th Amendment ff we proceed with this hearing or even vote on it and allow more people to speak on it. And that's -- we go in here, 14th Amendment provides that the states or the cities shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of 1aw. Yes, we've had a little bit of a heating but we also had a continuance of that hearing. And so if the petitioners are not here for legitimate reasons, then we should grant them their continuance to the date certain as specified in their request. COMMISSIONER RISHEL~ Commissioner Keith, let me go back to what appeared to be, and that's what I thought I was doing was addressing a second, yom' motion on the floor. Let me ask the Commission is there a second for the motion for Mr. Keith? COMMISSIONER POWELL: That was the reason my button is pushed. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 8, 2002 Page 9 - Page 12 Cond~ns~ItTM Pa~o 13 I COMMISSIONP~ APPL,5: Mine, tOO. 2 COMMISSIONERRISHEL: ~xcUSe me. Okay. 3 Let mo take them in order then. Commissioner Powell. 4 COMMISS~O~mt~ PoWnLL: ~ was going tO first 5 ask if the~ is a motion on thc floor. ~ appears to 6 be, so I will second it. ? COMMISSIONER RISHEL: tt'S ~ mov~l and 8 seconded. Moved by Commissioner Keith and seconded by 9 Commissioner Powell. All in favor - excuse me. What 10 would the date certain be? 11 COMMISSlONIiR le,~Td: hate certain would be ' 12 our first meeting in Sune which is what, luae 12th? :13 y~. ~IC~T: it's June 12th. 14 coM~SS~oNa~tmsttnL: ~une 12. I still 15 have some Commissioners that have questions. I still have 16 some Commissioners t~at have questions. Commissioner 17 Apple. 18 COMMmstoNea ~P~.~ ^camliy, I was just 19 going to second Mr. Keith's motion. 20 COMMtssIONF_~ PaSH~L: Thank you; That's 21 fmc, Appreciate it. Commissioner Mulroy, this is 22 discussion, I presume? 23 co~Miss~ot~_~ M-OL~OY: YeS, this is 24 discussion. In this case no new information or 25 modification of thc request is being brought forward. We Page 14 I entertained a continuanc~ to have a tie-breaking vote or a 2' seventh vote. 3 We - in the spirit of trying to streamline 4 our At~'Mas and be more conscience and economical in the 5 usage of our time, I would caution your decision against 6 encouraging completely rehearing Agenda items once they've 7 been heard. The whole purpose of that continuance was 8 just to have another vote and not to rehear the item. So 9 I will vote against continuing. 10 COMM~SSXONER I~Sh~L: There are several 11 people that would like to speak. Let me just inform the. ll Commissioners that I have several people. I'I1 put it 13 this way, several people have pUt forth comment ca-ds. Of 14 those comment cards, I have approximately, and I'm just 15 guessing, maybe ten or 12 or 13 that would like to speak 16 regarding Item No. 6 on the Agenda, and several of those 17 peopl~ I'.m presuming are here this evening. So I'm just 18 trying tO be a tool for the Commission. Commissioner Roy. 19 M~. sNen~.ie May I make a comment? 20 co~Iss~oN'~a mSttl~L: Mr, Snyder. 21 ~ SlW~'DF.~ ?be way the motion is 22 currently pending, there would not be an opportuni~g for 23 those people that filled out the cards to speak. So the 24 motion -- t just want to make that clear. The motion on 25 the floor is tO continue it to that date. Page 15 I COMMISSIONER eaSh'~L: That's what I was 2 trying to clarify, also. This is still discussion, 3 Commissioner Roy. 4 · COMMISStO~Pr.~ ~OY: ~ guess the idea was 5 that we were going to relook at this when we had a full 6 Commission present. And I think it's important for at 7 least one of our Commissioners who did not hear the 8 presentation to state or indicate whether that 9 Commissioner feels that they have enough information to l0 vote or would prefer to hear a presentation. I'm a little I 1 uncomfortable without the Commissioner having a chance to 12 hear the story and both sides. 13 · COMM~SStO~ mS~tz we're in a discussion 14 state. Commissioner Powell. 15 COMMISSIONER POWELL: yeah. As a ~tter of 16 discussion, if we hold the public hearing, we're going to 17 have to, I think, we're going to have to hear from the 18 public. And if we hear from the public and then the 19 petitioner doesn't have a chance to rebut that, and you've 20 got a lot of public that wants to speak, I don't know that 21 that's fair. And that's why I was pleased to second the 22 motion. 23 COMM~SS~O~SH~L: Thank you, 24 Commissioner, Commissioner Apple. 125 COMMISS~ONr_a ~0~PL~: commissioner Powetl l 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page just said what I was going to say, except probably more etc~tuently. And I appreciate Commissioner Roy's concern for me since I was the person who was not here. And, quite frankly, at this point I would have to abstain from any vote this evening for lack of information and I fear that the vote would be ~ same and thc outcome would be the same and it would be continued again. COMMISSIONERRISHEL: JUSt for clarification, of the cards that I have, I have several of those, maybe nine or ten that arc checked that would like to speak, but I have several that arc checked that have checked both would like to speak and would not like to speak. So I'm a little confUsed on that. And ther°s about seven or eight of those cards that are marked so. So it may not be that bad. Once again, I'm just trying to keep you informed. Commissioner Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes, I would agll~ in principle with my fellow Commissioners, if the speakers of the public heating brought forth now information. If it's r~tive of the previous information, then it would not mandate s repeat of a rebuttal. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL; I feel that part of our charge here as Planning and Zoning Commissioners is to hear the public. And I hesitate whenever, to cut the public short, and would like tO always be a part of that ?LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 8, 2002 Page 13 - Page 16 Page 17 I discussion. I think that's part of our cha~. So I am 2 anxious, even though the petitioners are not here, to have 3 tho public and the people in Denton speak and have an 4 opportunity to repro, sent themselves to get as much 5 infornmtion to oursdves and City Council as possible. 6 Exc~se me. Commissioner Keith. 7 COMMmSIOr~_~ ~: Thank you. Just for 8 th~ sal~ of the Chaimum, apparently I'm having trouble 9 with my button this week so my mike button won't go off. 10 Anyway. What I'm about to say to add to it is that 11 Commissioner Mulroy makes tim contention that there's not 12 going to 1~ any new information. I'll beg to disag/ee. 13 The petitioner i~ not here to rebut that. I 14 fn-mly believe that they will have additional information 15 they did not have at their last heating on this nmtter. 16 We obviously do have people that want to speak so that's 17 additional information. So I'm encouraging my fellow ~ 18 Commissioners to. grant this continuance. Thank you very 19 much. :20 COMMI~IONF.~ RISHEL: I'd ].Jke to ~ a 21 legal cla_4ficafion. If we we~ to have an opportunity to 22 hc~r tl~ public homing part of this, extend th~ public 23 hearing part of this Agenda item and then close the public 24 hearing and then reopen it as a continuation when the 25 petitioner c~n be Ix:re, does that scawc as any advantase, Page 18 I Mr. Snyder? 2 MR. S~'a)E~,: First off, that's not part of 3 the motion so he would have to amend his motion. 4 Secondly, even if it were amended, the problem I see with 5 that is one that Commissioner Keith just pointed out is 6 that the petitioner is not here. You could argue that he 7 waived it by not showing up or not sending a 8 representative to show up, but he said he can't show up 9 because of health reasons. But continuances are not 10 granted as a matter of fight. It's in your discretion to I1 grant it. 12 So I don't know if that answers your ' 13 question. Thcoretically, it could be done. We'-ye done it 14 before. But because the petitioner is not hem, hc would 15 not bc here and hear what was stated in order to do his 16 rebuttal. He could, I suppose, watch it on tape and then 17 rebut it later when we continue the public hearing. 18 COMMISSIONER ~d~rrt4: Mr. Chairman. 19 COMMISSIONER mSHEL: clarification. So if 20 ' the motion was defeated, we would continue on with the 2t public hearing at the discretion of the Commission, if 22 they would care to open up the public hearing part, 23 bemuse I don't believe we closed it the last time. 24 MIL SNYDER: That'S correct. Excuse me. 25 If this motion' were to fail, you would have more than one Page 19 I option, obviously. You could decide to still continue it, 2 hear from the public just on -- and then continue. Ask, 3 like we did last time, who wants to'speak now and who 4 wants to speak later. Or you could just, as Commissioner 5' Muiroy indicated, you could just go ahead and hear the 6 entire thing and make your recommendation tonight. 7 COMMISSIONER P. ISm~L: commissioner Keith. 8 COMMISSIONER KErm: Thank you. The 9 question I have is we have another item on the Agenda 10 which is Item No. 7, which that was pulled at the 11 request of the petitioner at the th'ne. I understand it 12 was pulled Friday. The petitioner for Item No. 6, they 13 petitioned -- they approached the P&Z to have theirs 14 pulled Friday. 15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: clarification, Mr. 16 Snyder. 17 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Yes, please clarify. 18 MR. SNYDER: The difference there is, fa-st 19 off, Item No. 6 was not initiated by the -- it's 20 initiated by the City. Secondly, a withdrawal is 9_1 different from a continuance. Under No. 7, they're 22 actually withdrawing. If it's their application, they can 23 withdraw their application which they've elected to do so. 24 Continuance -- .. 25 COMMISSIONER KEn'H: So the City could have Page 20 I withdrawn Friday, as well, with the request of the 2 petitioner, correct? Because the City brought this forth. 3 MIL REICI-IHART: NO. The item that we're 4 talking about tonight is not brought forward by the City. 5 The property owner is the applicant. Through the 6 development review process, City Council directed us to 7 waive the fees. But it is a property owner initiated 8 zoning request. 9 COMMISSIONER gi~rrH: okay. This kind of 10 has a peculiar twist to it because I kind of look at it as 11 it's also being brought by the City because theirs, along :12 with a few other properties, that when the whole City was 13 being rezoned, that their properties were looked upon as 14 peculiarities and were set aside to go through this 15 process. 16 So there's a little bk of a, I guess for 17 tack of a better term, a little bit of a prejudice here in 18 the process of how their property was handled in regard to 19 this complete rezoning of the entire City. And so, in a 20 way,,yes, they were brought, they, th~ petitioners brought 21 it forward but then they were kind of -- they were brought ~ 22 forward because the City put them in a position where the 23 had to bring it forward. So I see kind of -- in my point 24 of view, I see it more as a co-petitioner on both the'City 25 and the property owner that brought us to this heating. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 8, 2002 Page 17 - Page 20 CondenseltTM Page 21 · Page 23 hearing would be continued. 2 COMMISSIONER KEITIt: I would also think 3 that once they spoke, these individuals could not speak, 4 ' again at a continuance on date certain. Would that be ti 5 provision? ~ 6 MR. SNYDER: YOU C°uld make'that a part of 7 your motion if you wanted to. 8 COMMISSIONER ~Sm~L: ~md I'd be reluctant 9 to do that myself because additional new information may 10 come forth that they may want to present. 11 COMMISSIONER POWELL: And you've got to 12 keep track, too, of who spoke. 13 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: AS ! say, at this 14 point in time we have 14 cards total that would like to 15 speak perhaps. As I say, about half of those have double ',16 checks so I don't know whether they want to speak or not. 17 Just as a point of information. You have the floor, Mr. I g Kcith, Commissioner Keith. 19 COMMISSIONER KEri'H: Kind of like playing 20 poker, isn't it? 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: t have other speakers 22 that would like to address this. Do you want me to come 23 back to you? 24 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Please do. 25 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Commissioner Muko" i (~OMM~SStOh*EK mS~IEL: counselor Snyder. 2 Ma. Sm'Dm mather ~n ad~s ~t 3 iss~, I want ~ go back and ad~s ~ f~t qu~fion 4 a~ ~. P~c~ c~fi~ ~t f~ ~. But it 5 ~s ~t a ~wal is ~ff~t ~om a ~t for 6 convince. 7 ~MM[~IO~ ~: 1 ~i~ ~t. l'm 8 j~t ~o c~ng ~ ~d c~ng why ~'m Mving 9 ~ng. ~d I'm a~ sang ~t I ~ it's hnd of 10 c~fion~ b~a~ ~ p~ om~ was b~ng pm 1 ! upon ~ ~amc of ~c projmt of ~oning. ~a~ you. 12 ~Mm~Om msmu: ~ssion~ AppE. 13 ~M~Om ~[~ ~f it wo~d s~t 14 ~ssion, I wo~ ~c ~ off~ a solution, if 15 ~ssion~ K~ wo~d ~ ~ng m ~w ~s motion 16 and ~mssion~ P~ wo~d be ~ng ~ 17 $~ond. ~ ~ co~ at ~st ~ ~ pubic h~ng. 18 Off~ it ~ ~ose ~s of ~ pubic who mmable 19 may~ come back m ~ n~t &m. N~y in ~c cas~ 20 w~ ~ do confin~ ~, ~ pubic Wo~d ~ ~ h~rd 21 on ~ ni~t ~t ~ ~isien is m~ng phcc, m~ 22 ~ mni~t Bm ~ ~t ~ a p~son who 23 be out of mm. ~y~ w~ co~d m~e ~t offs. ~d 24 ~ co~d ~inly m~in a motion and ~e smond again 25 a~ ~ hvc dcm~ ~t. Page 22 I COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Just as a 2 clarification point, I know that we have at least one 3 Commissioner that will be out of town on June 12 at this 4 point in time. I have a note that indicates that at this 5 point in time. Just to keep you informed. Commissioner 6 Kelth, Ms. Apple has put forth a friendly motion. It's 7 yours to digest. Would you care to clarify, Ms. Apple? 8 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Please repeat, Ms. 9 APple. 10 COMMISSIONER ,~a, PLm Just to withdraw the 11 motion and withdraw the second, open the public h. earing 12 or continue the public hearing, rather. If there's anyone i13 here who would rather speak tonight that's put in a card 14 rather than the continued meeting, let them speak. And 15. then the motion and the second Could still be made 16 afterwards. I7 ~ SNYDER: May I address? 18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Excuse me. Mr. 19 Snyder. 20 MIL SNYDER: ArtotheT SUggestion would be 21 that you just merely amend your motion, if you're so 22 inclined, to have the same motion but the motion would be 23 contingent upon allowing, opening up the public hearing 24 briefly to allow those that want to speak tonight to speak ;25 tonight, and then the meeting would be continued and the 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page. COMMISSIONER MUI~OY: Yes. Thank you, M.. Chair and follow Commissioners. Thc hearing from the public and the neighborhood really is essential to this. And what I'm trying to get your attention to is we're creating an environment where we have cases that we're rehearing three and four and five times. And that, ultimately, is going to discourage participation, invalidate some of the early participants and speakers. They'll get lost in the shuffle. I think we need to look at our own discipline and try to conduct these hearings in a business-like way as advertised to the public and move ahead with our decision making so we're not asking the neighborhoods to come down here four and five times. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I totally agra. Just as a point of information Agenda item wise, and we may have someone in the audience that would like to spca] on a future item that has been pulled .from our Agenda. So excuse my interruption here but Item No. 7 on our Agenda has been pulled and that deals with the Denton Bible Church. And so I'm just trying to keep the audience informed at that point in time. Excuse me. Commismoner Powell. COMMISSIONER POWELL: It is my feeling, Mr. ?LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 8, 2002 Page 21 - Page 24 ~ontlcnsclt .... 1 2 3 4 6 ? 8 9 l0 II 12 13 14 15 16 t7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 l0 Il Page 25 Chairman, we'vo beat this to death. I will call the question. CO~M~SS;o~_~ PaSHP-L: Thank you, sir. The ques~on has b~en called and we will vote at this time. I say that. I want to go back to Mr. Keith, At least I want to give that opportunity. ~m. m,r~o~a~: No. He called the question. COMMtSS/O~ m.~HeL: so the procedure world be? COMMi$~IONF--R KEITH: C~ a.head and vote. COMMISSIONER RtSHEL: okay. TI~iL-I~ yoll. Repeat of the motion, world you care to repeat that, Commissioner Roy - excuse me, Commissioner Keith? ¢OMMI~IONER KEITH: My motion is that we have a continuance to date certain of ~une 12th regarding Item No. 6, that we postpone the hearing - any fu.~er hearings until that point. COMMt,SStONEa IUSHBL: ^nd second by Commissioner PowelL And the question has been called, Commissioners. Please, vote. Motion carries 5-2. (COMMISSIONERS MULROY AND RISHEL VOTINO 1N OPPOSVHON.) 12 13 14 15 16 17 ~18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that was the last item on our Agenda so I would · Mx. present. Rntc~it~7: MI that's l~-t, in there's any items, if then ~'11 add that to our list, but ourn and reconvene in the work m~e the work session items fight the - or we ~ this (M~dng adjourned.) Page 26 ' th~'S nO flL~hC~ we a~e adjourned to PLANNING AND ZONING COMIVHSSION MAY 8, 2002 Page 25 - Page 26 Conden Page 37 1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: That brings us to 2 Item No. 12 on our Agenda. Item No, 12 should be 3 posted on the docucam and on your television cameras, And 4 I believe at this time Ms. Viera will present. Mr. 5 geichhart will present. Ms. Viera will make it right for 6 Mr. Reichhart to present. 7 Ma. REICHHART: very quickly, this item was 8 continued from our previous meeting. Subject site is 9 Ideated west of Bonnie Brae, south of Windsor, Since our 10 last application, there is no new material being forwarded 11 except the letters of opposition. The petition that was 12 included in your backup, additionally, on June 11 th, we 13 received another petition, approximately 70-some pages 14 which I'll pass out to the Commission. Be happy to answer 15 any questions. 16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: cormnissioners, any 17 questions of staff?. Commissioner Keith. 18 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you. Yes, Mr. .19 Rvichhart. Looking at the map, looking at the property 20 adjacent to the site on the south side, how was that 21 adjacent property, how was that determined to be zoned as 22 it is now? 23 MR. REICHHART: I believe that this 24 existing NR-3 property here, we simply extended the line. 25 COMMISSIONER KEITH: IS there a property 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 line there? MR. REICHHART: NO, sir. COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. So that's all part of the adjacent property that's NRMU-12 then, correct? MR. REICHHART: correct. COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. I have -- I Page 38 Attachment 7 Page 39 1 there. And they recognize also that residences won't be 2 wanting to build along Bonnie Brae either. I'm not here 3 representing them but I have discussed this with them. 4 And I'm just wanting to know that if you made any contact 5 with them at all in discussion with that, as well. 6 MR, REICHHART: YeS. 7 COMMISSIONER KEITH: HOW recent? 8 MR. REICHHART: Maybe four or five weeks 9 ago when this case first came forward. Prior to 10 submitting their letter of -- l 1 COMMISSIONER KEITH: They approved of the 12 changes that the petitioners are requesting. They have 13 no -- 14 MR. P,E[CHHA-RT: Ri~ht. Prior to them 15 submitting that letter, they contacted me to ask what the 6 application was aboi~t, what the applicant was requesting. .7 At that time I was informed that they had thought at that 18 time the northern part of this property would be developed 19 as single-family. 20 COMMISSIONER KEtTH: So in that case, I've 21 co~mnunicated to them since then. Okay. Thank you. 22 COMM[SSIONERRISHEL: conmlissioners, any 23 further questions of staff?. Thank you, Mr. ReicN~art. 24 Once again, Conunissioncrs and audience, this is a 25 continuation of a public hearing. Part of the discussion Page 40 1 we have akeady had and the petitioners have already 2 presented. I would like [o encourage those who would like 3 to present, including the petitioner, if they could limit 4 their information to new information for the Commission, 5 that it would be grenay appreciated in facilitating the 6 brevity of this process. 7 So at this point in time I would call -- is received information from the Rayzor property people that they are wanting that -- they're going to be coming back and requesting that to be reinstated as NRMU-I: to go along with OUr whole entire property. Have you heard from 12 them on that at this time? 13 MR. RE[CHHART: The only conversation I had 14 was with a representative that thought they were going to 15 do single-family on that portion. 16 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. 17 MR. REICHHART: similar to what's current 18 in the area. But, again, I think that's speculation 19 because we don't have any -- 90 COMMISSIONER KEITH: well, it's been my 21 direct contact with them that they want that to be ~RMU-~ 22 and at some point they'r~ going to be coming in and 23 wanting that to be reinstated. Because as you lead down 24 into what's called a floodplain area, there's not much 25 distance between what's floodplain and then on up through 8 the petitioner here and would they like to present new 9 information? Thc petitioner is not here. Okay. In that 10 case, this is a public hearing~ once again, and I would 11 ask and rmnind you, once again, if you could bring us new 12 infonnatlom we would appreciate it. The first ~peaker 13 that I have is Mr. Phil Baker. Mr. Baker. 14 MR. a^KER: yeah~ I'm not the petitioner 5 but I'm representing them. And I'm also here as a .6 representative of Rayzor. My name is Phillip Baker and I 17 reside at 1204 West University Drive, Suite 400, Denton, 18 Texas. I'm Vice ?resident and Chief Operating Officer of 19 the Rayzer Company. 20 The Rayzor Company is the managing general 21 partner of Rayzor Investments which owns approximately 120 22 acres of land adjacent to the south linc of the 23 applicant's tract of land, and that is adjacent to 24 University Drive and Bonnie Brae on the map. I represent 25 Rayzor in regard to their land interest. I am also 12, 2002 Page 37 - Page 40 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE CondenscltTM Page 41 I representing the applicant at this hearing. I have a 2 letter from the owner authorizing me to speak on her 3 behalf. 4 We support the applicant's request to 5 change the zoning on their tract from Ng-3 to NR-6 and 6 NRMU-12. We believe that such a change is compatible 7 with the surrounding land uses and would not be 8 detrimental to either the school, the proposed church, or 9 the neighborhoods to the west. 10 The church's primary objection tO the 11 change in zoning is expressed on page 9 and, again, by Mr. 12 Sellman who indicates that he also represents the church 13 on page 40 and 41 at points 1 and 2 of the report for 14 today's hearing. The objection appears to be an easement 15 that the City has apparently requested from the church for 16 ingress and egress from the north boundary line of the 17 applicant's property to the church's entryway from Bonnie 18 Brae. We do not know the background to this easement or 19 if it actually exists. However, we understand that the 20 applicant did not request any such easement for ingress or 21 egress to its property from the church's property and, 22 furthermore, does not want and would not pursue any such 23 ingress or egress to the church's property. .24 We do not now, speaking as Rayzor, and 25 would not in the future ever support such access. Because Page 42 1 of the church's development, it would appear to us that 2 such access would be inappropriate unless perhaps it is in 3 dose proximity to Bonnie Brae. Mr. Sellman states on 4 page 41 that the casement wili encourage or perhaps 5 require that traffic from the development on the 6 applicant's property traverse the church's property to 7 gain access to Bonnie Brae via Windsor that lies along the 8 northcm boundary line of the church's property. We do 9 not believe that this would be the case since the distance 10 from the north side of the applicant's property to the 1 north side of the church's property is a considerable 2 distance and does not lend itself to through traffic. 13 However, we would agree that depending on the easementh 14 location, the possibility exists that some traffic would 15 probably go through the church's property and that this 16 may unfairly burden the church's property. Unless the 17 City has some compelling reason for this easement, we 18 would suggest and would support terminating the easement. 19 Any development on either the applicant's 20 property or our property would have to be supported by its 21 own ingress and egress appropriate for the development. 22 We believe that access to a development on either our 23 property or the applicant's property is provided directly .24 from Bonnie Brae and any future interior streets and not 25 from the church's property. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Page 43 1 The Rayzor family has a long history in 2 this conmmnity and elsewhere supporting churches and 3 schools. Furthermore, we have a long history of 4 assisting the City of Denton with its development by 5 giving easements and right-of-ways for streets and 6 improvements. The Rayzor family is not now or will it 7 ever sell their property for any kind of development that 8 would be detrimental to either the proposed Catholic 9 church, the Catholic school, or the surrounding property 10 or neighborhood, or that would jeopardize the safety of I any children attending that school and neither would I. 2 We believe the zoning change requested by the applicant is 3 appropriate and respectfully request that it be approved. .4 Thank you. I'll answer any questions, 15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, any 16 questions of Mr. Baker? Thank you, Mr. Baker. The next 17 card that I have is from Ms. Joyce Peele. Is Ms. Peele 18 here? Would you care to speak? Ms. Peele says that the 19 land needs to be equitable to surrounding zoning things 20 and she's in support of the issue. 21 The next card I have is from Mr. Rudy 22 Moreno. Is Mr. Moreno here? If I could help facilitate 23 the process, the next person that would be up would be 24 Monsignor King, Reverend King. If I could get you to come 25 forward. Mr. Moreno, distinguished Mr. Moreno. Page 44 1 MR. MORENO: Mr. Chairman, my name is Rudy 2 Moreno. I live at 3608 Marianne Circle. And if it's 3 okay, I have a handout. 4 COMMISSIONER R£SHEL: Please. Would you 5 like staff to help you with that? Right behind you, sir. 6 Mr. Moreno. 7 MR, MORENO: I'm actually speaking for Jon 8 Sellman this evening. As you can see from the handout, it 9 Consists of an E-mail that I received from Mr. Sellman who 10 is now in Chicago and can't be here this evening. I think 1 he also filled out a card for you. And I'm not 2 necessarily going to go in the same order of Mr. Selhnan's 3 presentation but I do want to follow it pretty much as it 4 is, nevertheless. 15 Just as a summary of the P&Z meetings that 16 we've had, this particular case has already developed its 17 own hlstory. A public hearing was held and P&Z had a fie 18 vote of 3-3 back on April the 10th because Susan Apple was 19 absent at that meeting. You were discussing some kind of 20 a compromise on this issue. However, the public hearing 21 was closed and you voted to continue until the next 22 meeting when all Commissioners were present. The next 23 meeting was April the 24th. The property owners requested 24 a continuance because of health reasons. We were given 25 the option to speak but did not because we didn't want to JUNE 12, 2002 Page 41 - Page 44 Condons¢ItTM Page 45 1 do that.until the actual vote was taken, Again on May the 2 8th, there was a continuance requested again due to health 3 reasons. At that particular meeting, we were denied the 4 option to speak. 5 If I can just give you a little history on 6 who hmnaculate Conception Church is and what the school 7 is. Immaculate Conception Church Was founded in 1894. 8 it's 108 years old. There are over 2,200 registered 9 families at the church or about 8,000 members. What that 10 translates into is about ten percent of Denton's 11 population is involved at Ixmnaenlate Conception in some 12 way. We are growing at a rapid pace. The Immaculate 13 Conception School was established in i995 with grades 14 pre-K through the 2nd and 74 students. What we expect to 15 have in 2002-2003 is a maximum capacity of 450 students 16 over the next three or four years. Right now we have 17 about 300 members. lg As yoU know, we are building a new campus 19 and church on that site. The initial cost of the church 20 and school is over $10 million. Landscaping will be 21 required to plant over 300 trees, 116 shrubs, and ground 22 cover. And really what will result will be a very 23 beautiful wooded campus that will compliment the North 24 Lakes Park area. 25 Now then, why is the church opposing this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 46 change? There was some discussion already by Mr. Baker about the easement. The City is requiting us to give an easement to the Gamble property via our drive and interest for Bonnie Brae. That means that whatever is developed on Page 47 1 Chairman. Why is the neighborhood opposing this zoning 2 change? We only have single-family homes, along with the 3 fuakre church and school that was supported by thc 4 neighborhood. It's safe to say that at least 50 percent 5 of the homes in our neighborhood were sold knowing the 6 church and school would be on this property. I believe 7 this environment encourages the sale of single-family 8 homes. We have a wonderful nice and quiet neighborhood 9 with a lot of wondm-ful people. We have a mixture of 10 retired people, established families with older children, 11 and others just starting new families. 12 Mr. Chairman, with only one minute left, 13 I'm going to have to switch over to some comments that I 14 wanted to make personally. Again, I remind the Commission 15 of the speculative zoning that was approved 15 years ago 16 on Teasley and Teasley and Mockingbird Lane. That came 17 back to haunt us. I was on that dias with you when we 18 went through those issues. My belief is that I,mMU, 19 allowing retail or residential is tantamount to no zoning 20 whatsoever -- 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. 22 Moreno. Mr. Keith has a question for you, I believe. 23 Mr. Keith. 24 COMMISSIONER KEITH: It'S my understanding 25 that there's going to be no connectivity between this Page 48 property or that one. Am I mislead on that? I mean, there's going to be no roads that's going -- surely when this property be developed for whatever standards, be it mobile home, apartments, or whatever, that they're not this property will be encouragezl and not required to enter through our prope~y. Also because of this, they will have to drive across our property in front of our school and by the playground to get to Windsor and go north to Bonnie Brae. This will turn our campus driveway into a city street. ~aMU-t2 has 28 possible use categories. And if this zoning gets approved, we will have no say in what gets developed. I believe the correct terminology is speculative zoning. A good example and fear, is a 7-11 next to Newton Rayzor selling beer. There's also a new 5 going to be any roads that are going to be connecting the 6 church property to this property. 7 MR. MORENO: That is not our understanding, 8 Mr. Keith. 9 COMMISSIONER KEITH: well, it's been my 10 understanding in research, and I would like to have 11 12 13 14 15 someone from the Planning Department clarify that. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I believe that legal can help you with that as an issue with regard to where we are with regard to the zoning issue. COMMISSIONER KEITIi: okay. convenience store coming up on Sherman Drive right next to a brand new church up there in that area. High density development is also a concern due to the easement and access people will have to the Immaculate Conception campus. As you know, apartments have p~ople constantly moving in and out and this is a concern for the safety of the school children, as well as the safety of the neighborhood children by .never fully knowing who lives adjacent to our property. I'm going to have to skip around, Mr. 16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Snyder. 17 MR. SI,ryDER: I might not he able to answer 18 that specific question but it's my understanding that 19 under our Code, the cross-access easement requirements 20 between these two properties would be required regardless 21 of what the Gamble property is zoned. So it's really not 22 an issue of zoning. It' s just an issue of the 23 cross-access requirements, connectivity requirements. An~ 24 perhaps Mr. Powell can elaborate or Mr. Reichhart can 25 elaborate, hut it really has nothing to do with this PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 12, 2002 Page 45 - Page 48 CondcnsoltTM Page 49 t zoning case. 2 COMMISSIONER KEITH: It's a slight issue 3 that the gentleman at the podimn has brought up and I just 4 wanted to address it briefly. But then again also, we've 5 just granted a variance on a petitioner just prior on the 6 Chuck E. Cheese so I think that ts something that can be 7 rectified on down the line. Plus, this is also an issue 8 that's before the City Council as being a problem, as 9 well. 10 The second question I have, what's the 11 school enrolhuent at this one at this time, Mr. Moreno? 12 MR, MORENO: 300. 13 COMMISSIONER KEITH: what's it planning on 14 expanding to? I imagine it's going to grow, correct? 15 MR. MORENO: Ye~. We plan to grow up to 16 about 450 students within the next three to four years. 17 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Vq'hat kind of 18 other activities besides the school, besides class 19 participation? 20 MR. MORENO; There are going to be some 21 activities on the playgrounds, of course, as well as some 22 organized sports out on the playgrounds. 23 COMMISSIONER KEITH: So there's going to be 24 a lot of activity on this property then, correct? 25 MR, MORENO: Yes, sir, them sum will be. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 Row. Page 50 COMMISSIONER KEII'H: okay. Is it also a site for a church, as well, in the fuatm? MR. MORENO: YeS. There's a school that's almost complete now. They will be moving into it probably in July. The church wilt be built in the future. There's a school that's almost complete now. We will be moving in July. The church will be built sometime next year. Actually the masses or the services will be held inside the new gymnasium for a period of time because thc new church won't be ready in time when we have to be out of our old church. So there's going to he quite a bit of activity on that site, yes, very soon. COMMISSIONER KEITH: 80 your parishioners come from throughout the County, the City? MR. MORENO: I think -- my feeling is that most of the Anglo parishioners art probably Denton and some of the surrounding communities. At the Spanish services, I know we've pulled people in from as far away as Salina and Frisco. So, yes, there's quite a bit of traffic coming into this community from even the surrounding cormnunities. COMMISSIONER KEITH: DO yOU live in the neighborhood adjacent to this property? MR. MOaENO: NO. I live just Off Kings PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Page 51 1 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Thank you, 2 COMMISSIONER R[SItEL: Thank you, Mr. 3 Moreno. I see no further questions. 4 The next speaker would be Monsignor King 5 followed by Mr. Scott Higgins. 6 MONSIGNOR KING: My nmne is Charles King. 7 I'm pastor of Lrm~mculate Conception Catholic Church. I 8 live at 1319 North Ehn. My residence address is 1215 9 North Elm. The rectory is in the same property as the 10 present parish site. I'm pastor of as Rudy Moreno said, a 11 congregation of 2208 families, approximately 8,000 12 members, a school of presently enrolled 289 students. We 13 anticipate opening the school in August with approximately 14 300 students. 15 Our furore capacity for growth will be 450 16 studeats. Our concern -- my concern as the pastor of the 17 congregation is file easement. It may be mandated by City t8 Council. But you know, I think it's made very clear our 19 concern is the access to the easement. The easement was 20 mandated by the City. It's within 50 feet of Bonnie Brae. 21 And if it's mandated, my concern is that it's going to 22 make a public access to our property going to Windsor. 23 And my concern is that it will become for all practical 24 purposes a street. 25 We were mandated by tho City Fire Page 52 1 Depa~uent to put a street access through to both Bonnie 2 Brae and Windsor. We had to pay for tile left turn lanes 3 coming off of Windsor and left turn lane coming off of 4 Bonnie Brae. We also have to pay our share of the traffic 5 light at the corner even though we don't own the property 6 on the immediam corner. 7 But if I'm coming down Bonnie.Brae and want 8 to take a shortcut to Windsor and avoid that traffic 9 light, I'm going to cut through file property. And I'm 10 concerned a lot of other people may do that, too. My 1 concern then is not -- Mr. Powell expressed in one of the .2 earlier hearings that we object to the apartment 13 population because we're concerned about the quatity of 14 that apartment population. I'm not concerned about it at 15 all. We'd welcome the apartment complex and welcome the 16 apartment population. 17 My concern is not for the apartments, but. 18 for file mukiple use connnercial developments that go along 19 with it. We have no idea what that cormnercial development 20 is going to buy, and t presume that primary access to that 21 co~vm~ercial development will be tkrough our property. It 22 may be required by tile City, but I think once again we're 23 expressing the concern over what it will cause because our 24 school being adjacent on the driveway between Bonnie Brae 25 and Windsor, the school would abut right up against it. JUNE12,2002 Page 49 - Page 52 Condcns~tTM Page 53 1 And we've already been told by the City, 2 we cannot have -- they will not give us school zoning on 3 Bonnie Brae or Windsor because we're so far off thc read 4 that it's not going to be a concern. And we were also 5 told by members of staff that after all, it's a private 6 school, and all those people pick their kids up, so it 7 shouldn't be a problem. That is a concern to me, that 8 attitude and that mind set. 9 My concern also is the fact and reality 10 that we now with opening this up do become a street, and I 11 don't think the City has any provision for controlling 12 traffic through there. I know of no way we control 13 traffic that comes through that area. It may be limited, 14 but it also maybe rather significant. And when the 15 easement was granted -- when we granted file easement, the 16 property was so -- it was agricultural. And we had no 17 idea at the time it was going to be developed commercial 18 and apartment. And so developing that property apartment 19 complex with commercial development alongside becomes a 20 matter of significant concern to us. 21 We have no control over the traffic. If 22 . thc City could give us some idea of how we control it, I ,23 would welcome that. But we will have no cormnercial. We 24 don't have control over -- the traffic comes right past 25 the school. And putting signs up for us, unless the Page 54 i police are going to be out there and help us patrol it on 2 private propm'ty is not going to be much good to us nor to 3 the school population. 4 You had petitions presenled to you this 5 evening. Most of those petitions were signed this past 6 Sunday by members attending church. We did not encourage 7 them to come with the purpose of signing the petitions. 8 We did inform them of this hearing this evening. Wc did 9 inform them of our concern, and if they wanted to sign the 10 petition, they were welcome to do it after mass was over. 11 The petitions you have signed, sigucA it. 12 Those petitions come from people throughout 13 thc entire area. We're approximately 45 percent -- 40 to 14 45 percent Hispanic and our population -- a substantial 15 nmnber of those petitions came from our Hispanic 16 population. We draw from throughout most of the County 17 for our Hispanic services. 18 The Anglo population whose signatures are 19 on there include Krmn, Sanger -- as far as Valley View and 20 much of below us, because we draw from a significant area 21 for our population. So you're signatures are not going to 22 be reduced and limited only to that area, but we include 23 the people who actually come to the services on Sunday. 24 This is of concern. And so it's concern to us that a¢ces~ 25 to that property makes it a public traffic way, public PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Page 55 I through-way, and the church plans we have, we're currently 2 in a capital campaign for a 3.2 million dollar capital 3 campaign to raise funds for a 1,000 seat sanctuary. 4 We've been mandated that sanctuary will 5 have to provide ultimately for 1,500 people. We hope to 6 be able to complete those plans by October, put the plans 7 out for bid, and, hopefully, if the funds drive is g successful break ground before the end of the year for a 9 church that will ultimately and about 18 months afterwards 10 be open to a population and to our congregation. 11 We'll move three of our services over to 12 our gymnasium in September of this year. The other 13 remaining five services we have will remain on tile present 14 campus on North Ehn, but they will have to be over there 15 by the end of September next year because thc property on 16 our present campus has been sold to the Denton Independent I7 School District. I ask you to consider that for us. And 18 I ask you to re-use the petition for the simple reason the 19 propm'ty becomes -- the traffic becomes a real concern for 20 me as pastor. 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Monsignor. 22 If you'd hold right here, Monsignor, we have some 23 questions. And then I'm going to ask Mr. Snyder to 24 clarify the comment about the petition. 25 MR, SNYDER: I want to make it clear to the Page 56 i Co~m~fission and to Monsignor, that although your issue is 2 an important issue, it's -- we're not po~ted for this 3 tonight. This is a zoning case, and as I explained 4 earlier that whether or not this property is rezoned, it 5 has nothing to do with this particular access easement 6 issue. 7 So you've handed out a petition, but the 8 Conu~ission cannot discuss or deliberate on that item 9 because we're not posted for it. I think after the 10 meeting, you get with planning staff and they could tell 11 you what the proper avenue to take to address this issue, 12 whether it's through an alternate development plan 13 other procedure. I'm not sure what it would be. But 14 we're not posted for this itmn tonight. This has nothing 15 really to do with the zoning case at issue tonight. Under 16 the open meetings law, we're required to only deliberate 17 on those items that are -- we're posted for. 18 MONSIGNOR KING: well, our opposition is 19 based on the traffic and that's the reason why we opposed 20 the opponent, because of the traffic, anticipate approving 21 this resolution. 22 MR. SNYDER: okay. For that limited 23 purpose, you're just saying it would create more traffic. 24 MONSIGNOR KING: That's the exact reason 25 why I opposed this as pastor of the congregation. JUNE12,2002 Page 53 - Page 56 CondensoltTM Page 1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL; Monsignor, I still 2 have some other questions from ConunJssioners. 3 Commissioner Keith. 4 COMMISSIONER KE[TH: Thank you. Welcome, 5 Monsignor. Question I do have is that there's a road, I 6 presume built by the church that goes east and west and it 7 comes in off Bonnie Brae and goes down the length or width 8 or depth of the property, that is. The depth of the 9 property and goes around behind the church, why was that 10 not connected over to that othereast/west street. I 11 don't -- can't member the name of it. 12 MONSIGNOR KINe: This is Northway -- not 13 Northway. This is Westridge. 14 COMMISSIONER KEITH: yeah. There's an east 15 -- there's another east/west. Y'all granted a variance 16 for that. 17 MONSIGNOR KING: We expressed opposition to 18 it. The neighborhood expressed opposition, Neighborhood 19 Development Association. They did not want to see an 20 · east/west traffic road coming through there. 21 COMMISSIONER KEITH: SO file variance was 22 granted then, correct? 23 MONSIGNOR KING: That's right. 24 COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. Thank you. 25 MONSIGNOR KINe our waffle -- well, okay. Page 58 1 COMMISSIONER KEITH: The next question is, 2 one of the interesting aspects is the opposition of having 3 an NRMU-[2 because of apartments. And I find throughout 4 the City that many occupants of our apartments are of the 5 Hispanic couununity. And having -- wouldn't they want to 6 live close to your church? 7 MONSIGNOR KING: I have no objection to the 8 apartment residents. I welcome the aparunents. It's a 9 wonderful opportunity for evangelization. I'll go out and I0 preach to them. I'd love to have then come and join us, · 11 and we're accessible to diem. It's not the aparunents 12 that I have problems with. It's the commercial 13 development and what that would create for us. The 14 traffic would be a significant concern to us, but it's the 15 commercial property that I'm concerned with. 16 COMMISSIONER KEITH: well, I'll grant -- 17 I'll side with you that an NRMU-12 kind of gives a broad 18 spectrum. But I wished also -- I'd like to share with you 19 and the audience that this was one of the issues that I 20 debated when this new Code was being discussed. This is 21 one of my reasons for my opposition for it. But we do 22 have it, and so we now have to deal with it. So this is 23 just kind of the status of the situation on it. So thank' 24 you very much. 2.5 MONSIGNOR KING: l'ln a citizen expressing Page 59 1 my concerns, ladies and gentlemen. 2 COMMISSIONER KEITH: I appreciate it. 3 That's the nice thing about America. 4 MONSIGNOR KING: It's a matter of safety. 5 for us. And that's my concern. 6 COMMISSIONER KEITH: That's the nice thing 7 about America. But we also have a fourqane road here. 8 Thank you. 9 COMMiSSiONER RISHEL: Monsignor, I still 10 have some additional questions. Cmnmissioner Powe~l. I 1 was just about to make you a Monsignor also. 2 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I've been called a 13 lot of things, but that's not -- 14 COmMISS~ONEa RIS~EU: I didn't know if I 15 had tile authority to do that. 16 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Monsignor King, thank 17 you very much for coming before us tonight. I really 18 appreciate it. You've given us a lot more explanation 19 than you did the last time. And I'm floored, not by you, 20 sir, but by all of a sudden this easement. We didn't hear 21 about this the last time. This is brand new. Whew in 22 the world did this come from? And, again, Monsignor, I'm 23 not questioning you on this. You didn't bring it up. I'm 24 sure. You don't want it. It bothers me that tonight when 25 we're ready to make a decision on this, a whole new issue Page 60 I comes in, though. 2 Another thing that does bother me about 3 what you said, though, sir, was that you were afraid of 4 conm~ercial development, but, obviously, you know, that the 5 corner right in front of you is going to be commercial 6 development. 7 MONSIGNOR KING: The corner in front of us 8 is approximately six acres and we understand approximately 9 four and a half of those acres are flood plain. So that 10 won't be developed. We're really not too particularly 11 concerned. We made an offer of that property, and the 12 landowner asked for a price we didn't feet we could afford 13 or was practical. We have also had to give an easement 14 for that property owner across over here. I'm less 15 concea'ned about that than I am about this property, this 16 easement which comes in right adjacent to us because of 17 the road that comes through here and goes right in front 18 of the school. 19 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I understand your 20 concern about the easement, sir. I anti,stand that 21 clearly tonight. It's never been brought forward to me 22 before tonight though. One thing bothered me from the 23 beginning of this about your church and about what you 24 said that night is that tile property in question here is 25 asking for the exact same zoning that you have, NRMU. 12, )LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 12, 2002 Page 57 - Page 60 CondenseltTM Page 61 1 and you said that night without any comments about the 2 easement that I rern~nber -- they may have been brought up. 3 But I don't remember them, that you didn't want the 4 NRMU-12. ^nd I'm thinking to myself, that's what he's 5 got. Or that's not what he's got. But that's what your 6 church has got. And it just blew my mind that you 7 wouldn't want that to be ~q~Mu-t2 when the property 8 directly south of it is NRMU-12, and your property is 9 NV, MUq2. And I thought, whoa, what am I missing? So 10 maybe you could explain that. 11 MONSIGNOR KING: well, one of the problems 12 is that when that property was zoned, the City zoning plan 13 was initiated, this probably in question was agricultural, 14 and my understanding is that the owner requested it rennin 15 agricultural for reasons I don't understand. 16 When we came in with NRMU-12 -- that was 17 not NRMU-12 whenever it was first set up and we purchased 18 the property in 2000. I don't think the zoning had been 19 established there. 20 COMMISSIONER POWELL: NO, sir, it was not. 21 MONSIGNOR KING: SO, you know, we're not 22 using it for that kind of commercial, and I'm not sure 23 whether, had we realized it was going to go to the type of 24 development it was going, whether we would have been much 25 more incline to let the road go through, mst/west that Page 62 1 you had suggested, that we thought, because I think the -- 2 you know, I don't know how that would develop. But at 3 that rope, we would not have probably had to take this 4 road all the way through, although, I don't know that 5 either. The City Fire Marshal may have required wc have 6 to have that for connectivity anyway. 7 But at the time when this property was 8 developed, when we first purchased the property, the 9 issues that we're not talking about tonight were not -- 10 they're not a matter of concern or at least they weren't 11 an issue at that thee. 12 COMMISSIONER ?OWELL: Thank you very much, 13 sir. 14 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, any 15 further questions of Monsignor King? Thank you, 16 Monsignor. 17 MONSIGNOR KING: Thank you all very much. 18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: The next speaker 19 would be Scott Higgins followed by Johnny Guajardo. 20 MR. HIGGINS: My name is Scott Higgins. I 21 live at 2209 Lookout Lane. And I live in the Windsor 22 Ridge Estates, which is this neighborhood right here, and 23 I live two lots away from the land they're wanting to 24 rezone. 25 First of all, I am the treasurer of the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Page 63 1 Windsor Ridge Homeowners Association and just by speaking 2 to some of the neighbors in the neighborhood that can't 3 attend tonight, we are against ~MU-I~, period, because of 4 the uncertainty of what we don't know is going to be there 5 because it could be a broad range, anything from a gas 6 station to apartments and some of those things, we may not 7 mind, but we don't know, so we ask that you vote against 8 that. And we ask that you do your job in preserving our 9 neighborhood, because when I was going to go buy a house 10 -- this is my first home to buy. 11 I graduated from North Texas here in 12 Denton, decided to stay in Denton because I liked the 13 town. I researched around, checked out all the 14 neighborhoods. I checked the land around me because I 15 wanted to make sure that I was going to be in 16 neighborhoods, and not neighborhoods -- apartments. I 17 mean, just like zoning that's going to shake up in a bag, 18 .and kind of dumped out where you see a little bit of 19 everything in one area. 20 But my main concern was definitely 21 apartments coming nearby, and ~n~MU-12. even though it may 22 ^el be apartments, it allows them, so I feel that that's 23 why we are against that is because of what that could 24 bring in. So thanks for your time. 25 COMMISSIONER msueu: ^nd Mr. Higgins, I Page 64 1 think we had some Cenunissioners that had some questions 2 for you. Cormnissioner PowelL 3 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Higgins, thank 4 you very much. You mentioned that you were worried about 5 commercial zoning, I think, in the NRMU-12? 6 MP,. HtGO£NS: Right. Yes, we are look!ng 7 for homes, period. We want to keep it the way it's 8 akeady zoned, NR-3. 9 COMMISSIONER POWELL: .that answers my 10 question and thank you very much. 11 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. 12 Higgins. The next speaker would be Mr. Guajardo followed 13 by Scott Partridge (sic). 14 MR. OU^JARDO: Hello. My name is Johnny 15 Guajardo. 16 CO~IMISSIONER RISHEL: Mr. Ouajardo, you t 7 have the floor. 18 MR. OUAJARDO: Thank you. I live at 2124 19 Crest Meadow, and my home backs up west of the property 20 being considered for NRMU-12. And I am here before you to 21 ask you to not change the zoning from 3 to 12. I moved -- 22 as the previous gentlemen, i moved into that neighborhood 23 to -- of homes. But I've been there a lot longer than he 24 has. I've been there for 15years. I want that property 25 behind -- in my back yard to remain three. So I want to 12, 2002 Page 61 - Page 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CondenscltTM Page 65 make sure ~eryone understands that. I think that by having the NRMU-12, it's tOO broad of an option of what could be placed there. And because of that, I'm uncomfortable with having my wife and my chitdren there in that neighborhood if it were to be changed, I don't want apamnents. I don't want commercial development. I also want homes in that area. I'm a 35-year resident of Denton. t've seen Denton grow and I want Denton to continue to grow, but I also want Denton to continue to grow with neighborhoods and not just conunercial development. That's all. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. Ouarjardo. Mr. Partridge (sic). MR. PATRIDOE: My name is Scott Patridge. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: ?atridge. Thank you, Mr. Patridge. MR. PATRIDGE: I'm the president of the Windsor Ridge Homeowner's Association. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: sometimes it's the penmanship. Sometimes it's my pronunciation. MR. e^TRIOOE: we would like for this to remain as it's currently zoned as l~R-3 because, of course, we don't want apartments and we don't want high density commercial businesses. We feel we already have enough Page 67 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 12 people coming and going, and it's just going to be trashed 13 out. It is not an asset to the community. The church is 14 an asset to the community. This park is an asset to the 15 community. If you leave this remaining NR-3, put more 16 homes in here, that would be an asset to the community, 17 and you have plenty of room for high density businesses 8 elsewhere around our area. Thank you. .9 COMMISSIONER R[SHEL: Mr. Patridge, we have 20 a couple questions from Commissioners. Commissioner 21 ?dwell. 22 COMMISSIONER ?dWELL: I'm sorry, Mr. 23 Patridge, I couldn't resist this. Do you think this 24 apartment phenomenon that you're talking about, is this 25 student apartments only or all apartments? Page 66 I high density cormnercial businesses here on the University 2 Drive and there's a couple of places where, hero's an 3 empty lot right here. Good space for commercial business. 4 Comer of University and Bonnie Brae. There's a car wash 5 next to it and a laundromat facility next to that. So 6 there you go right there. 7 And there's -- right next to K-Mart, 8 there's probably about 11 acres going all the way up to 9 where the new Quick Car and the storage facility is. 10 Plenty of space there for high density cmra~ereial 11 businesses, and along the frontage road accessing the back 12 of our community. 13 One of the concerns, as the president of 14 the Homeowner's Association is we have a lot of young 15 children in our neighborhood. I drive in -- drive in 16 through here, and they're on their little scooters all out 17 going through the streets. With the church having a 18 playground here. We have a wall right here, but the 19 children are going to go around into this property, and 20 they already do that. And they play in the construction 21 site. So when these kids are going to come in and they're 22 going to access this playground, this road coining through 23 hero is also going to be a problem to them, not to mention 24 the people that are going to take the shortcut to the park 25 over hero. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 t4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 68 MR. PATRIDGE: A lot of this is student aparanents and I'm a student. I'm buying a home, and this is very close to school, so that would be a student apartment complex. And there's already been developers come forward with apartment plans, so we have no reason to believe that anything other than apartments would go into that spot. COMMISSIONER ?dWELL: one more question. The back half of Mr. Oamble's propm~y as I reatcrnber, he's asking for it to be }~a-6, how does that fit with your thoughts? MR. PATRIDGE: I believe the neighborhood has said that they wouldn't have a problem with it being tm-6, however, because they've tacked on that NRMU-12 though, we want HR-3. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I'm only talking about NR-6. MR. PATRIDOE: we would like it remaining NR-3, COMMISSIONER POWELLi Bnt would yon be less objectionable if it was all residential? MR. PATRIDGE: Ye.g, We would, COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you very much for your time. COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioners, any 12,2002 Page 65 - Page 68 1 Furthmnorel apartments -- I'm a college 2 student. I'm still in school. I have one year left. And 3 I've lived in apartments and I've seen what it dces tO 4 communities. We move in. We trash it out. And we leave. 5 You go to any apartment complex that's under one year 6 old and take a look at it. 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Like ants. 8 MR. PATRIDOE: YeS. Take a look at it. 9 There's going to be kids there partying. There's going to 10 be beer bottles everywhere and then come back die next 11 year, it's going to be half empty. You're going to have CondenseItTM Page 69 1 further questions of Mr. Patridge? Thank you, sir. 2 MR, PATRIDOE; Thank you. 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I have no other cards 4 of people that would like to speak, but I have several 5 cards of people that have filled out comment cards and 6 said they did not wish to speak at this point in time. I 7 have a card from Mrs. B. Saffron, and she's opposed to it. 8 I have a card from Mr. Bernard Saffron also opposed to it, 9 concerned about the zoning. 10 A card from Mr. Bob Ralph concerned about I 1 the zoning and would prefer to see single family NR-3. ^ 12 Mr. William Vogel, gill Vogel, opposed to it. A Ms. Lorn 13 Amyx was concerned about the increased traffic. Mr. 14 German who was opposed to it, and a Sharon Rhodes who also 15 was opposed to it. 16 And Mr. Reichhart had shed new light upon 17 things here and I have one other comment card from a Susan 18 Tenny that would like to speak regarding this issue. Is 19 Ms. Tenny here? That's the only other comment card that I 20 have at this time. Once again, would you give us your 21 name and address? 22 MS. TENNY: I'm Sue Tenny, 2407 Hillview 23 Drive in Krum. I wasn't intending to speak, but as I sat 24 here listening to other residents and to church community, 25 I realized that two years ago I had nothing to do with Page 70 I this property, and now I have everything to do it. I'm a 2 member of Immaculate Conception Church. I'm development 3 director for Immaculate Conception School. 4 My children go to school. My family goes 5 to church. Last year my husband and I purchased a house 6 in the neighborhood next door, so my mother and father who 7 are in their 70s could live close by. So we're taking a 8 property that we looked at for our family and thought, 9 this is a wonderful cormnunity with North Lakes, with the 10 soccer fields -- I looked across. My mom could took out 11 her back yard and see. The ambulance, in case there was a 12 problem. 13 So my concern as an individual is that the 14 whole, as these other homeowners said, that the whole area 15 is changing and in all the things that we looked for two 16 years ago, that the church looked for, that tho school 17 looked for, that my parents looked for will not be the 18 same if we become commercial. I also look at the town of 19 Denton and I see a lot of co~ranercial properties that are 20 available for rent and for other businesses to go in. 21 Just University is several blocks over. I 22 feel like there are many opportunities for commercial 23 businesses to move over to University and probably better 24 opportunities. That's my concm'n as a homeowner. I don't 25 know if it's appropriate or not, but would it be Page 71 1 appropriate for members of the parish or members of the 2 school to stand to represent how many we have? 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: It's your three 4 minutes. 5 MS. TEN'NY: well, that's okay. How many 6 people do we have from Irm~aculate Conception here? 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: JUSt by the way. 8 MS. TENNY: So I just wanted to point out 9 that this is how important we feel about this. And that's 10 -- you know, that's what we've been working for all these 11 years. 12 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: cormnissioners, any 13 further questions of Ms. Tenny? Thank you very much. 14 Once again, this is a public hearing and I have called and 15 either read or gone through the cards that I have at this 6 point in time. It's my understanding, at least, when we 7 started this meeting that the petitioner was not here and 18 did not present. And so I call once again for the 19 petitioner if they are here, would they like to rebuttal 20 anything that has been spoken, if they are the petitioner? 21 Seeing that the petitioner is not here, I will close the 22 public hearing and ask for staff to give us their 23 comments. 24 MR. REICHHART: NO additional comments. 25 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, Mr. Page 72 1 Reichhart. Commissioners, what is your discretion? 2 Commissioner Powell. 3 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I have 4 some questions of staff. Mr. Reichhart, if you'd come 5 forward, I'd appreciate it. I recognize that I'm a senior 6 citizen and I may have had a senior moment the last time 7 this was hem. But did anybody mention this easement the 8 last time I was here? Was that an issue at all? Where 9 did this come from? 10 MR. REICHHART: I don't recall that it was 11 a large issue if it was an issue. It might have been 12 raised. I don't recall per se, but I think as the members 13 of the church community looked at their site plan and 14 their plat, they realized that there was that access ! 5 easement on there, and it became a concern. 16 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I bet it did, yes. 17 The last time this was brought before us, what I remember 18 was the folks living around the area did not want 19 apartments, and they probably did not want cmmmercial 20 development, but I've never heard about this traffic 21 problem between the two sites. Boy, I wish -- and I 22 probably didn't read my backup as well as I should, 23 because I didn't know about it until I'm sitting here.. 24 Thank you much. 25 coMMISSIONER RISHEL: It wasn't a zoning ['LANNING AND ZON1NG COMMISSION JUNE 12, 2002 Page 69 - Page 72 CondenseltTM Page 73 1 issue. Once again, Mr. Reichhart, I might have you 2 review, although it does not affect the Planning and 3 Zoning Commission, the percentage of opposition. 4 MR. REICHHART: It's over 20 percent, close 5 to 30 percent. 6 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I think we have some 7 Commissioners that still have some questions, and I don't 8 know if that's staff or legal, i guess legal would be 9 staff. Commissioner Keith. 10 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Mr, Chairman, would 11 this be a time for -- rather than questions, just for 12 cotmuents? 13 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: whatever 14 clarification, if we could hold cormuents until after a 15 motion has been made. 16' COMMISSIONER KEITH: okay. I'll hold my 17 statement. Thank you. 18 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very 19 motion. Is there a motion, Cmmnissioners? 20 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I'm ready to move. 21 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: CO~muissioner Apple. 22 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I'd like to predicate 23 this with we hear a lot of rhetoric about preserving and 24 protecting neighborhoods, and, unfortunately, sometimes 25 it's just rhetoric. This is one of those cases where it's Page 74 1 clear what the long existing neighborhood wants. It seems 2 unfeasible to me to zone this NRMU-12 at this time not 3 knowing what would go in there directly across from a 4 children's park, directly across from a children's school, 5 backing up to neighborhoods. So I'd like to move to deny 6 the request to rezone the property. 7 COMMISSIONER MULROY: second. 8 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: ltrs been moved by 9 Commissioner Apple and seconded by Conunissior~er Mukoy. 10 We have some comments from other Conunissioners. 11 Commissioner Kcith. 12 COMMISSIONER KEITH: Thank you, Mr. 13 Chairman. This property brings a lot of memory to me, 14 having grown up in Denton. I remember when this was known 15 as the old Alien place, and it was on a two-lane country 16 road. Hardly anything was out there. Even the Gambles' 17 he,ne wasn't even there. Then they come along, and now the 18 proper~ that's the old Alien place now has a beautiful 19 new attractive buildlng that's going to be for schools. I 20 think it will be a great addition to the con~rnunity. 21 Any time a church comes in and expands its 22 facility to tile conmmnity and to the culture of tlle town, 23 I think it's a very positive feature to have. Yet we have 24 an adjacent piece of property here that the individual is 25 wanting -- that feels as though they should have the Page 75 1 opportunity to maximize the use of their property. 2 As I said, Bonnie Brae was once a two-lane 3 country road. It's now four lanes. It was designed for 4 . traffic and for increasing traffic. The school is going 5 to be having 400 students initially, and then expanding to 6 800 plus. I mean, that is going to be bringing in the 7 traffic, coming in from all over the colmnunlty. The 8 church itself, members from all over the city and the 9 County. This is going to be traffic. i0 Churches are event driven. You have 11 funerals. You have your masses. You have your weddings. 12 You have other social functions. I'm thankful that we 13 have a road there now, Bonnie Brae, strong enough to 14 handle that. But I think denying the neighbors the use to 15 Mve their property developed to its potential, to deny 16 them as one neighbor to another, that has NRMU-12, tO look 17 over the fence, I got what I want. You can't have yours. 18 I think goes a little bit, thou shall not covet. I may be 19 going a little deep there, but that's how I feel on it. 20 I also want to go on. The property that 21 was developed around the Gambles was originally zoned to 22 have just very few homes per acre. Now, you have areas 23 that are currently -- you have 4,500 -- 5,000, 6,000, 24 7,000 foot lots that are in the adjacent area. Some of 25 them are zero lot lined. The Gambles saw to it tllat when Page 76 1 tile developer came in that the proper water and sewage 2 lines were put it. He made certain the Planning 3 Department did their job. He helped that neighborhood 4 develop. And now to take the position to deny them the 5 petition, I think, is a little off center. 6 I remember in the last campaign a petition 7 went around town targeting their property. This is it. I 8 think this has a two-edged sword to it. I think to Sit 9 here and say if there's adjacent propexxy and alt that's 10 supposed to be there is cows, something is wrong with the 1 cormnunity as a whole when they think like that. Denton is 12 growing. We should allow the property owners. 13 Now, the ~qRMU-12, I agree, is too broad. 14 I'm hoping that this is one of thc grievances that we're 15 having -- or one of the -- I don't want to say grievance, 16 but rather issues on the review of the new Code, that we 17 should come in and narrow these down and to come in and 18 deny these, again, I think is wrong. I'm going to be 19 voting against this motion b~causo those p~ople wcr~ hem 20 and I think they deserve the right to have their property 21 used in the manner that they wish~ Thank you. 22 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: ~hank you, 23 Cormnissioner Keith. Conunissioner Powell. 24 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, Mr. 25 Chairman. Question of staff again. Are we stuck with PLANNING AlffD ZONING COMMISSION jIJNE 12, 2002 Page 73 - Page 76 CondenseltTM Page 77 1 this as it is either up or down or can we make some 2 changes in it? Do we have that option? 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: We have a motion on 4 the floor. 5 COMMISSIONER POWELL: But suppose that 6 motion were to fail, I'm just asking do we have any 7 options beyond this particular -- I mean, is this strictly 8 . an up or down deal? 9 MR. REICHHART: with the motion on the 10 floor, for that, it is. 11 COMMISSIONER POWELL: ! understand that. 12 MR. REICHHART: BUt if that motion failed 13 you could go, as was recmmuended at the last meeting 14 strictly NR-6 on the entire property if that's what you're 15 asking. 16 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Yes, that's what I'm 17 asking. 18 MR. REICHHART: YOU can go up and down on 19 any zoning category from NRMU-t2 down quite honestly. 20 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER mSH~.t~: vll put forth, would 22 you like to structure a friendly motion to the petitioner? 23 I don't know how you'd structure that, but -- 24 COMMISSIONER POWELL: 1 don't believe that 25 would be possible, but I would make clear to the Page 78 I Commission, that if the motion were ~o fail, that I would 2 propose a motion to make the whole property NR-6. 3 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, 4 Commissioner. Commissioner Holt. 5 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Yes. In looking at 6 this property and with the property to the south, this all 7 NRMU-12, it seems to me that coming down Bonnie Brae, that 8 is going to be, if we rezoned it as is requested, it would 9 be too much possible commercial going all the way from 10 University, all the way -- it could go alt the way up to 11 the school. And it semns to me that the way it is zoned 12 now, that will be a buffer for the school. That will be a 13 buffer for those neighborhoods. And it will be a -- it 14 could be a transition area into the NRMU-12 that's already 15 existing. Thank you. 16 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you, 17 Cormnissioner Holt. Cormnissioner Apple. 18 COMMISSIONER ^?CUE: I would just llke to 19 say that in keeping with thinking about changing it to an 20 NR-6 designation, I would suggest that you relook at the 21 uses that are allowed in ~a-6 because they would still be 22 not compatible with the neighbor's wishes. There are a 23 lot of things allowed even in NR-4 that would not be 24 compatible with the neighbors' wishes, so that is why my 25 motion is specifically to leave it as Page 79 1 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: commissioner Mu[roy. 2 COMMISSIONER MIJLROY: Yes. I appreciate my 3 fellow Cormnissioners' concern for looking for compromise, 4 but the applicant outright rejected a more favorable 5 compromise when they were here, so I would not be able to 6 support any eompromise~ Thank you. 7 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: I believe all of our 8 Conunissioners have weighed in. We have a motion on the 9 floor. The motion was made by Commissioner Apple, the 10 second by Commissioner Mukoy. Any ful~her comments? 1 Seeing none, please vo~. The motion carries for denial, .2 4-2 of the Commissioners present. 13 (COMMISSIONERS POWELL AND KEITH VOTED IN 14 OPPOSITION.) 15 COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank you very much 16 for your participation. I think we have done a day's work 17 at this point in time. We have several things still on 18 our Agenda. We have gone through Itmns I through 12 on 19 our Agenda and we will break if it meets with the 20 Commissioners' acceptance for about fifteen minutes. And 21 we will resmne on Item No. 13 at that point in time. 22 Thank yom Thank you, audience. 23 (Break taken.) 24 ' ' ~ a 25 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 ~8 t9 20 21 22 23 24 25 NO, a conu~ent and then we will t~ a correction to regardit~g our future sl One of the i wanted to put bac Highway 3, 7 and we ju! to make sure you to be a future COMMISSIONER RISHEL: Thank just wanled to handed ou! break was your backup work sessions. was left off that we ~ber 5, the Brushcreek It he original memo, correction, and :sion item. ?LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 12, 2002 Page 77 - Page 80 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROViDiNG FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD RESiDENTiAL 3 (NR-3) ZONING DiSTRiCT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL MIXED- USE 12 (NRMU-12) AND NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 6 (NR-6) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATIONS AND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 18 ACRES OF LAND, COMMOMLY KNOWN AS 2201 AND 2205 N. BONNIE BRAE, AND GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF BONNIE BRAE APPROXIMATELY 1,300 FEET SOUTH OF WINDSOR DRIVE AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS 17.805 ACRES OF TRACT 41 OF ABSTRACT 43, F. BATSON SURVEY; PROViDiNG FOR A PENALTY iN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROViDiNG A SEVERABiLiTY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z002-0019) WHEREAS, Gene Gamble initiated a change in zoning for approximately 18 acres of land from Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residential Mixed-Use 12 (NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning district classifications and use designation; and WHEREAS, on June 12, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission concluded a public hearing as required by law, and recommended denial of the requested change in zoning; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change in zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The zoning district classification and use designation of the approximately 17.8 acres, described as Abstract 4 F. Batson Survey Tract 41, and more clearly depicted on Exhibit A, is changed from Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residential Mixed-Use 12 (NRMU-12) and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning district classifications and use designation. SECTION 2. The City's official zoning map is amended to show the change in zoning district classification. SECTION 3. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid by any court, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. SECTION 4. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its Page 1 of 2 passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Demon Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2002. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Page 2 of 2 Exhibit A ~?~ < Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #32 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: July 16, 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 4 (NR-4) 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 Developmem Code zoning classifications. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (4-1-1) of Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3). BACKGROUND Applicam: City of DeNon Denton, TX Property Owner: Eric and Mary Janssen Denton, TX This specific case was originally heard by City Council on May 21, 2002. Due to the Planning and Zoning Commissions recommendation for Neighborhood Residemial 1 (NR-1) and the property owner's opposition to NR-1 zoning, a super majority vote (6-1), by City Council, was required for approval of any zoning category besides the NR-1. A super majority vote for either Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) or Neighborhood Residemial 4 (NR-4) could not be reached. Given the impass, and the fact that the property had recemly been purchased by Eric and Mary Janssen, the City Council remanded the case back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for reconsideration. Public notification and property owner responses are provided in Attachmem 3. Curremly, approximately 4% 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. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Deny. 3. Postpone consideration. 4. Table item. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (4-1-1, Apple opposed, Keith abstained and Roy absent) of Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3). 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 - DRC Date- P&Z Commission Date- CC Public Hearing P&Z Commission Date- March 4, 2002 March 14, 2002 April 24, 2002 May 21, 2002 June 12, 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. Correspondence from current property owner 2. Staff Analysis 3. Maps 4. Public Notification (Notification Map and Property Owner Responses) 5. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, April 24, 2002, May 21, 2002, June, 12, 2002 6. Draft Zoning Ordinance Prepared by: Tiffanie Willis Planner I Respectfully submitted: Douglas S. Powell, AICP Director of Planning and Development ATTACHMENT 1 Correspondence from Applicant May ! $, 2002 D~ M~r and Council Metal>ers, On the agenda fox' ll~ May 21. 2002 City Cotmeil mm~ is a zoning ease (Z02-0010) ~lv~g pzo~y [ ~cently pureed. ~ th ~w o~,l mm ~~ Feb~ 5. 2~32. I ~uest that 'y~u return to md adopt ~ NR-4 z~0nlng clnssifimiion for ~v NR*4 wffi ~ ~ngim~t ~lh the Code. comp~nt~ to the ~ea. ~ ~tible with t~ ~ ofadjac~t pro~ Iffbr ~ ~n you m~ ~t ~ to su~o~ NR-4 m '~ l~tlng, titan I ask 'that y~a ~ fl~ c~se ~ck to the Pl~mMg ~d, Zo~ng C~s[oa for ~mtb~ i~ ~c~ct~n ~h t~r p~d m'v~ ~d ~b~ r~ ~tives for ~ t~ NR-6 ~ N~L 12 ~s s~ou~g my prop~. 'lb '~.' --~*~l~km_/~mr~ - ~_ ~ '" zoning e~si~ation intended for ~ly e'xc}m~i~ de. loping. It md~y d~ ~m the st~:a or~ amen NR~6,~R-i2 re~~m:~n ~ A~ 2~1, ~om ~ Co~'s ~~qsi0~km publis~ on t~ Fe~W 5, 2002 ~Blon ~to~mt Code o~r/~ve~r~ Duri~ mx.ation proceed~s in 2001. staffrecomme~e~ *~Agrlcultuml (A)' zoz~, wi~ t~ p~ '~rm~$itiopAng to Neigh~r~od Cereus ONCR~ ~ - lg), u~n ~opt~r~ oft~ Dcvelop~m Code." (~t~b~t I) Wi~ t~t ~ ~ stag~ oft~ ~nton: Development Code, ~ pcnd~ NR~4 desertion was publ~i~d on the City or.men's lnter~i~ MaPs we~ite. (~mc~t 2) It ~ t~n p~. ~ NR:-4 on h~ fi~ '~ity of D~on Zo~ Map ~4hh Farm [~, dm~ Feb~ 5, 2~. (A~nt 3) the MR-4 zonir~ dM ~t ~ o~ due to a quemion a~ut o~r ~tffi~n d~p~s :~r newly ~x~ pro~i~,, If~t for t~t. ~e Develops:at Code ~ ~c~t ed L-tap ~ Feb--; 20~. (Am~m~m 3) Now; duri~ ~his cra'rem eity-inltiatcd rezoning process, st~chose to reemmnetd NR-3 zon~g for t~ pm~r~; How~er, t~ pm~r's o~ ~quest~ NR~6 '~, ~ ~iti~ rap% com~tent w~h t~. sta~$ orig~ m~nt~a reco~&tion t~t M did not op~. ~ 2~1~ ~ pro~y w~ ~v~d On the videotape oft~ P~ and Zonkng Corrani~sion's heark~g it 'i~ clear that not a single com~mion~ ~ e~n ~nt~fi NR-i dmMg t~ ~b~c co--at po~n of ~ ~t~g. TM NR-I ~fion ~ n~ o~ afl~ the m~b~ w~s eBs~ m ~her pub~ come,t, pmvem~g my ~ or op~s~m a~u¢ e~e ~m t~ di~ion ofNR-6, NR,-4, ~M NR-3~ The ~Dr NR-1 ~,tion then p~s:~ with a~o~ m dimuss~n~ (Referee: Ci~ or,men ~ha Li~-~d~ape of Pl~ning ~d Zoning Comlon ~d.124, 2002 Today, only m~ ~perty in ~ ea~'t~ Oty of Denton Z,o~ Map contains NR-i ~r~g, that one properly, is the "}1~ of Argyle' de~iopmenL In fact, ~the Oty Council mt~s my % acres NR-t. ~ wi~ fo~t~ properb~ to ~ome t~ tim a~ only property in t~ em~ city !~s of~nton to ~ zo~ NR-I withom o~ffdeve~oper pre-design p~s ~ fo~ ~t. (Atl~hm~l 3-Gr~fl Bilk KT) Fitfully, if my property were zo~ NR-I, it wot~ld place ~ fut~ leg~ and financial ~s or.zoning tequiremenls upon ~lfsho~d ! ever contemplate develolm'~t of any demity other t~ highly ~,~clusive one aere-pl~ estates. That ~ extremely harst~ ard arbitrary giv~ ~ ~ g bordered on tbzee s~s ~ NR-6 ard NRI~J~I2 :mni~. (Attachrr~ots 3 ~ 5) ,.~,An~NR4 zorn smtm for zor,~_ of ~ther mrce[s ~n, th~ m~ that are either o-.Taxt ~ or on the ~riphery of ~ L~eview ~h I~velop:mem, NR4 ~,4~ ~ mom restrictive than the curremNt~~ that La.review Ranch ~ o~ their ovm undeveB~ 56-acre tr~ ~dlately e~ of ~ ~rd~g my ~rty~ (^ttachment 5) NR~ ~q~ ~ ~ rote reslr[cti~ t~ ~ cm'-mm NR-6 m~~.~;!lg of ~r o~ter'~ 97~acre t~l op.~osite my pmpe~y on the north side of B~gg Ro~ (Attachment 5) NR-4 w~ ~ ~ m~ re~rictive tl~ the ~t..NRIvlUA2 zonh].g oft~ 2{1. acres mdi~ly re, dh of~ bord~ my property. (A~lae~t 5) NR-4 wffi ~ rare restricti-¢e than the, Fmta>e Zoning ~ dep~fion of~r6 ~ for a 29~,acre tr~:l ~iately ~u~ ofm~ ~~ my pm~y. (A:tt~t~m 5) ~ at pro~rty ~n the periphery of~e~w Ranch, ~,rR.4 would ~ ~omgt~t with ~o other pro~s ~n~d NR-4 on its ~m ~ge. ~ fist NR-4 ~ ~r~t~r L~ev~ De~op~nt g0~re ~cel ~nh ofBh~ Road~ ~M]~ the "E~ehve", w~h is akeady [n t~ phit~g range. The s~o~ NR~4 cox~m 72 ~s mulh ofBNgg Ro~ ~q~ L~keview Drive ~ Tr~ Drip, (At~achmat 5) Fkm!J% Lakeview Deve!opmcm ov~.~ ~ remainder o£its 736 acres on the somh ~de of Cooper Creek, ~atJ.e~ Tr~ Road, and aLl ofwNch is zon~ NR~, NR-6, NRNFLLI2, o~rd N~LI. (At~h~t 5) Your init~ ~ning h ~ ~ could be very expensive and d~ult, ff not impossible, 'for ~ to We changed :in years ~d~ I ask that you horst my r~hts ~d inmrca a~ the mw properly owner by t~;l.~a~ the overly restrictive esm:e-on!y li,mitatDm inhm'em to ~R,I .~ning. RalheL I urge you to graat a hk and reasonable zoning status of NR4 th~ w~ ~p~rtigjg~ion.in gr59~lagj~..gutat :r~~s..,~ ~ a ba~d way._ Orm¢: aga~ if you find it ~ssible to annrove NR4 at ~ time, ~n haw the I would x~leome t~ opportunity to di~mam this rnatt~ permnally m any~ prioJ to ~: Council meeting on May 21~ [ wi~! gl~b~ answer ~ q~m you ma)~ lave ~garrting my~ o,r the ~ighboring prop~rt~s at your convenieanm:, c-ithcr by pho~ or in person. Your consideration of my request mq~d yo~ time ~ set, See to our city i~ great~ appreciated. 8in~:rcb~, Eric O, J~sm-~ (Ovmer) 4 ! 3 Fox. Creek Court. Denton~ TX 76209 HP: (940) 382-0392 Mary. Ellen Iron (Owne~) 413 Fox Crmk Court ~.nmm TX 762.09 HP: (940) 382,,0392 ARac~nls I. H~ ~ D~lopmeat Department Memorandum; Apr~ l i, 200l 2. City o£Denton Interactive Maps; Janums, 10, 2~ 3. City of Denton ~ning Map with Future ~tting; February 5, 2002 4. Pl:annJa'~ and. Zo~ Ag~ Info 8heett~dtaffRepo~; April 24, 2002 5. City o fDcmmn ~ Future. Zoning Districts Map; l~ay i4, 2002 PLANNING M EM O RAND UM TO~ PLA~r4ING ~ ZONING t:KOM: BETH tIUDSON, PL~I SI~JECT: g~ go~ ~~ON ~ ZO~C~G 9.A - Co~r ~ t~k~fion ~ega~dmg ~h~ ~vol~ a~ex~tion ~nd s~ice p~ for ~ufis~, on ~ sou~ ~ide of Bhag Road, ~p~ox{m~ly ~000' ~t ~f L~k~:vi~w Boulev~, A single f~mfly sub~v~s~on is pr~, (A-01~02~ Bh~ Road 9.B - Hold a pub]ia h~fi~ to Neig~ C~i~ ~CR~ ~d-12), up~ adoption of ~e D~v~]o~ Code, ~di~g ~c ~bovc t~c~ p~, (Z-Ol-OOO4, Bla~ ~d Zo~i=8~ Bc~h & DEVELOPMENT DEPAR~ENT Piea*¢ find arta~ ~ copy oi the Apr~ 17, 2001 ~x~.~totial t~ai~tioa, ~ 6~ ga~ ~a= of BlaSS Bouleva~ Stuff roo~m~ ~e Piing ~ Z~ing Cmmi~i~ ~m~xali~ ~ ~ing at ~ a~ fim~ to ~i~ commcn~ ~d, aa~ closing ~ public hea~, ma~ sep~ate mmiona ~ ~e intonations aaa m~ Staff has recommen~a the ~p~ a~xa~ioa pro~y Neighb~ho~ Coni~ ~R-6 aaa ~,12), e~n ad~ti~ of the Development Code, ~ A~culture zone4 dis~t is ~: m~t r:s~ofive di.~a and ~1t Ci~ finishes ~c ~uing ~ff~ that began ia ~ically used ~ the first 7~ing aiwa* a rrop~ ~cclvca u~n ~cxat~on ~to t~ ~i~ limils~ C]i~ of D~ M~p~ 1~ Iff I Map Res~ts Maps 1/10/2002 ~00~ '~ ~enjqe=l PROPERTY OWNER CORRESPONDE Nit. Doug Dire~lor, PlainsOng ~ Deve~prnent City of Denton 221 N, E~ ~nto~ TX 76201 May 22, 2002 Dcm* Mr, Powea, As I am s~ you know, ;last ~t the City .Coanei! voted to ~mand ~2,0010 (Bla~ Road m~ case) ~k m ~¢ P~t~g ~ 7~ Co~sion lbr ~ r~,~w ~ co~juncdo~ ~h. thek ~w oft~ Bl~g Ro~e~w Blvd pro~ ~nter. ~ did ~t approve NR.4, but a~ c~se no~ to i~o.se HR-l. 2ho~ Im. $~ ~s ~t[ ~eate addit~ t~ d~s on your staff~ t'~ C~m~s~n, I ~e ga your convenience, I wouM gladb' ~et to m~swer .any qmdons about the area wilh a~~ member of yom staff. ~ I t~: I meutDned, I cxamin~ t~ are.,a ~ &tag ~ am familiar with just aborn .every property owner's m, acreage, impro~qements, ~:d sueh~ l£there is anything I m l~ of assi~slam¢ w~th~ p~ ~w that I m a.t yo~ service. As a forrn~ matter,,, I wou~d appreciate beir~g notified of when the re'zo~ will co~ ~f~re the Ptarming ~d Zordng Contra as I w~ould like to attend. ~ Eric 413 Fox Crmk ~ P~emon, TX 7,6209 HP: (940) 382-0392 Pi~NNI~G & DEVELOPMENT ATTACHMENT 2 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. 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, the property owner has taken no additional action towards developing the property. Following the city-wide rezoning, the property owner had 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 original rezoning request was advertised as NR-6. However, the City of Denton requested to rezone the 46 acres from an Agriculture (A) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) zoning district. Any Neighborhood Residemial zoning district would bring the zoning of this property imo compliance with the Developmem Code. At the April 24, 2002 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 a Neighborhood Cemers future land use designation in this location may need to be re-evaluated and that the zoning classification should more closely reflect the currem use. The Planning and Zoning meeting, the Commission recommended Neighborhood Residemial 1 (NR-1) for the subject property. Shortly after the Planning and Zoning meeting, Mr. Eric Janssen purchased the subject property and protested the NR-1 zoning designation and requested Neighborhood Residemial 4 (NR-4). Due to the Planning and Zoning Commissions recommendation and the owner's protest, a super majority vote (6-1) was required by City Council to approve any zoning category between NR-1 and NR-6 for the property. At the May 21, 2002 City Council meeting, a super majority vote could not be reached, four of the Council were in favor of Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) and three were in favor of Neighborhood Residemial 4 (NR-4). Given the impasse by Council and the fact that there is a new property owner, Council remanded the case back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for reconsideration. Based on the City Council discussion, the case was re-noticed as NR-4 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. February 20, 2002 - Ordinance 2002-040 left the subject property in the Agricultural (A) zoning district and land use classification. 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. April 24, 2002 - Planning and Zoning meeting, the Commission recommended Neighborhood Residemial 1 (NR-1) for the subject property. May 21, 2002 City Council meeting, a super majority vote could not be reached, four of the Council were in favor of Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) and three were in favor of Neighborhood Residemial 4 (NR-4). June 12, 2002 - Planning and Zoning meeting, the Commission recommends Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) instead of the advertised Neighborhood Residemial (NR-4). 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. StaffFindings 1. 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 3 Maps NORTH Location/Zoning Map Scale: None NORTH Land Use Map Scale: None ATTACHMENT 4 Public Notification Map Public Notification Date: June, 12 2002 200' Legal Notices* sent via Certified Mail: 14 500' Courtesy Notices* sent via 1st Class Mail: 1 Number of responses to 200' Legal Notice · In Opposition: 1 · In Favor: 0 · Neutral: 0 Scale: None *A copy of the notification list can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 Property Owner Responses Property Owner within IN FAVOR Comments 200' Name and Address /OPPOSED* 3 units per acre is just too dense for this rural area. Blagg Road is made up of all private residences on Lyn Thames Opposed multiple acreage. Also any type of commercial 5533 Blagg Road 6-12-02 fax development would adversely affect our rural Denton,TX environment. Blagg Road cannot handle a high traffic impact without major improvement *A copy of the original notice can be ~icked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 ATTACHMENT 5 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, April 24, 2002 19. Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council concerning the rezoning of 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 new Development Code zoning classifications. (Z02-0010, Blagg Road, Tiffanie Willis) Motion by Bob Powell and seconded by Bill Keith to recommend approval of (NR- 1) to City Council. *Discussion of item is included in the Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 69 & 133). Motion carries -7-0 Nm 19 on o~r A~da ,~ flfi.~ 2g ]~t four 7~[ng ca~$ P~ 135 2 fl case, ~'c, ~idlng i= d= <:by !imt~s; an~ on~ in ~ ikr 13 Cr~MMI~%~ONq~ ROy; ~'t'tl a IJ~ bit Page I34 Ti'mm ca~s lu~,~: ~a h:kiaic~l by rrm City heaing ~,as held on ~m~r 4'Ih, 2001. *Dm tmfi~' for 4 t~ panic bcm'ing wa~ ~l: a, ,a~l pretty ~q~rs on ~e approved tax roks. ~c rotes ~'em a~r~wed ~n St~tmn~r 8 pm~n>,: t~rs wcm not ire'tiffed of the panic ~adng ] t ffro~ zoni~ ~-si~a!~on iadim~d ia ead~ s~ff ~port i2 for tach of t~ ca~s will: brir~ t~ 7tuning of tl~m [4 Tffl'mnm wil.[ p~nt Itmn No: 9, 15' ]<mki~ a~ taking ink~ ~ognt BI~ Road~ 46-~ frae;:. 18 ~ ha::~p providm ~}~ inf'om~at~on ~mil~i, ~:,is is a 19 ~:m,~gllt z~:i% ca~ a~ Mi. RaCand indim'tal Saff is 20 w~'li:ng you Jo awie** tb~ fhct ti,mt ~ did m, iv¢~;i~ ibis 22 n~ fl'~at shook] ~ cons~&t'cd. We ~d r~i've ~veml 24 yotu' al'tfindoa. P~ MS. w]tals: one pro~'iy o~mea' of COMMISSIONER M~}I ~OY nai~h is -- Ma. Rasl;~od~ do ymt recur7 MS l:tAGf..,~NI3: 'T~ pro~5' ewer MS. Z&GLAKD: Mr. Pa~ as Tiffaaie imikat~d, we oo~fied it: m NR-6. T~t ~S at t~ pa~mrty ownee's ~q~t. ~ ~R-~ is whm ~ wou}d li~ ~o ~c 1~ pm[~ny mtn: COMMiSSiONER MUL~OY~ ~y. Corta~fi~sk~ Roy's qm:st.[~ ~ndJc~tcd NR4~ ~ cmrtt'~rits ~ in m~m~: ~o tha~: c~sid~ NR-3? M~ RAG1.AND; '[~1 is C~l~t. COMMISSIONER ROY ~x'ithout i1 being ~dvc~ afl NR-3? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AP~L 24TH, 2002 Page 133 - Page I36 Con~i~ m 2 J2 21 22 23 Page 137 M~. ~A(H,AND: 'r[~['s Why W6 ad~rti~d k a~ a higher -- i= additk~ m thc pro~ty owner a2~ST i$ -- COMM~SSIONt~ RL~]iEL: ~, th~nk. A~ 1 apologia2 [bt tkar. If a pro~y is 5 ? l0 13 he~? z~mg damification But y~'a ea~9: .go ~?tt'm,. ~v~:[~ for NR=t, yon would not ~mvc ~ aNlity to go ~ ~ 8 ~aJ:n,. alff~:)~b witlXmt an.y input from t[~ pr,~ty analy~ iaclicmat, ~g-~ was appropriam ba~$ on wishm, ~ ad'~z-rtised ?<,~. t~ sa-~ whkb wouM eve yon the I-[exiN[ity to do an¢.Nag in, bc~va~m or k~s, Roy. Page ~ 38 C'OMNIiSS[ON'E;R [-~SHEL. ¥¢s~ Commisatotv.~r 2 3 6 ~a~Jz= ~hm the Cily 7 was ~vc~[~4 ~$ NR-6? 9 (7~MMISStONER ~OY; ~nk yOkl, i i b~ica~ly wMt ~ saw as mapping e~ors and J2 tN petiqot~r so d/e~'s no cm~t to ~.~ ~;~1~ot~r wklh 13 ~ard to dti¢ 18 any~J~ ~n writing: from d)e pr(,p¢.y owner r(~ardi~g Ns ~h¢: zontag? (X)MMI&SIONER KISIrlt:: We have m, writing ]4 t6 24 fl~- pm~y ow~xx's input or him ~iug M& wl:kL~s, okay. At ~fis I~& p~m~in~ ~ ynu a s~r~[~l[ zoni~ ~han~ d~aring if~ ~essJf~. So it would - Page 140 2: N.~ paz~k, nlar 4 ~uld t~e ~,~ ~ ~f ~ can t~ ¢~rJfy, 6 ~fin.k it was pmsen~ ~rric~ by ~s, g~d, ~1 ~ 8 ~n ~ ~a,4 wi~ ~ ztming ~ap ~mt: Was ado~I~ ~k 1 ~ v,~.ing ca~e, This i¢ not ha!~N~ by t~ pK~ny ~:~w~,, 14 just like ~he [~velopmen]: C~ wa.sW ¢ iahJa~ by ~ ~ CHy's applicadl:~. But l~ was no,li~t ~d M M~ ,,, PLANNinG AND ZONING ~MMISSION APRIL NTH, 2~2 Page 137 * Page t40 6 7 8 ~7 25 ~hc £'i~'~: c~ !i~ ~]~ ~+,,~ )~d ~Of~ <k~v~ I1~ pik~~ ~ ~ m~'~ l]~Jl w~ ~m ~i~ rma confimmlkm 9 o~' m~k~ a ~, AP~ [ ~hJnk in t1~ intuit, I'd 12 ft~h a moti,:m9 P~e I{2 ~ (-~,~MM[SSR3NER ~lSHF[.: i:~ I~ ~ ~co~d to 2 Pa, ge 143 COMMf~IONBR A~PLE; ~, COMM[SS[Os:ER ,,%J'PLt~: '~nk you. COMMIgSlONE~ IISi{Eli.: O~ay any t~.b~r q~sdo~ of sr.a~? And ~ do ~ing l~r¢, (~-ay. ~ank Moa vm7 m~h, Ms, WiHLS, cards of pmple who w~mid ]ik~ to s~ a e~d ~ Fit kn~' which Ag~da i~m ~:[mt t~t ~F~. Cm~]s a.~ ~st¢~ out fr[mt, Spicss, $-P-bg-S-S I'1[ kt you '~51 ttm~, w~n you co~ up ~rc. MS Spi~s, if you'd p~a~ 7501 $~[3iCm S~,, ~c~'iew Ranc~t, 144 t mex:tir~ 5 COM~]SSlONJ2R MULROY: Y'¢~.. Tifl'a~b+ 7 ~co~mendati~, NR-3, <~a this p~:a~ i~ o~qxv from ~0 Mg. WII.L[g oh, no, h6 ea~ certainly a~ly ~ ] te d~e P&Z fc~ a ~m~ing 12 COMbHSSIONER M~LROY: 80 1:~ wou~dn':t ~: 14 caukl ~:ou~ in on his: mm ~iL fm his ~. imtiati~ and CIJMMISS[ONER MULROY: Okay l~mk you. J9 cOMb~iSSiONER Kcrnk 'r~k yOUa And just 2o in folk~w up tn Ns tnq~ic% wmdd ~ Pmr~Y o~ ~'2 ~4s. wa.~ss y~% l,eca~ it ~uld be d]cir 2,~, *~:8i g~ ~o ~ail;~ a z~i~ c~a~sil'k'ad~ 01al is riel on c~ 24 1~¢1 u~' map. ~5 i O,~Mtss{ON'E~ KE~T~: '!:~k : ~ uS an u~aI:t'Jcia[ s~k~an. Tm~> of t~ faX¢~ ~h~ 1,~k~vk~' Ranch 20 And ins is Lakm'~ J~ch which 23 ~y ~ a li~ bit rooK:, btll ~ll tlmt N p~S~- P~eI4!-P~¢I~ PLANNTNG AND ZONING COMMISSION ~RIL 24TH, 2002 Page I45] Page147 12 ~ r~ 1~ or~ !4 m · s~way, 23 of' a= impact ~ 2 3 4 $ 6 ? 8 9 lO 15 16 ~25 Page 146] comMOn[ion, So it' yoo'm going to yom (m iL [ thi~ And t~ last tMng is M,r. P%% why ]m b<mght t~ pm~n:.y was to mil it Lo L~¢yJc3~' ~llC~ w}ly Wotl:~d l~ have it rm ~lc? MS. SPICE: COMMIgfllONE~ RiS~EL: co~gmi~er COMMISS!ON/~I] KEEI'H: Tl~ )mU- Po~H~ I'm got yo'~ but[Ga, (:OL{MISS~(~ER RLSI.tEL Cmmissio~r C~MISS[ONER KEJIi::[: ~y. ]~ia j~t ~sking Enmm: P~m~m~ L~c~r Thomm% a M,i~i Gl. ks, arc th~' h~e? Okay_ i '~as 8o~ag h> ask ym~ COMM[SS~ONE~ RLSItE/: Th~k y~, And the ot~r ilaDad: [hal wm~ld ~u.~ ~ 1 ~le ~ha:!: ean~ e~l ~ and bruit at L~vi, ew, ~; b~usht 2 eat bern hecau~ wc wan~ mom of a mtn] eav~mnmmt, I 3 [A~ in L~visvt!k for t~ yc~. I was in a i * I 2 4 ..q, n¢igtlbnrho~ that/m~d six h(m~s l~'r atm. I thomugSly 8 and t:~ 9 And th~ 18 wh~t fi~e pr~om k~l.d il'~azt~ that c~xmm:'n~ical~7 it would bc 22 ~ ~]c ~hat live out t~. 25 N~:L ~ d(~q think m]'ylx:xty out hem ~ati:~ l:}~t ~s a P~ 148 MS, SPI~gS T]~k yOLL punk. I~aring, I ~m~x~ am~ltteg card from ~ 5 Beitin~, ~k, Beitin~r. Commim~ Mul~, 7 in~:rmptJng but ~ mi~ ~ heJpfu[ if 9 t~m ~fifim~r for ~,a etna'[ m¢~: that t~ Cky', 12 orator old Ag degLgmt;i~m and ~hal;'s t~ J ~ (:OMMIsSIONER Ri~H~[.: Mr. ReicJ~h~. !6 f~l -- ~d, ~ah~, 1 ~an, this will ~ ~ am th~ wilI !7 ~ &velc~ed cwm~tualty, we l'~Iiev¢, Ami with ms~t ~ 8 sprawl and aB t1:~¢ ot~:r ihings, ~m ~* ti} vow ~mpamible to dm: .~. it: is a Sing[e-Family zoning ~[/ desigmati~m. g} COMMISfiIONER MULR,OY; lllfl l~ ~g no Ag 25 mb&mt a~ z~m:ing districts. PLANNING AND ZOI'~N'G CO--SS!ON APRIL 24TII, 2002 Page !45 - P~c 148 Conde. n~ItTM Page t 49 ! Page t51 8 CRy cf 10 w~ml~ abtmt I~ ~r~'fJc m [~[mview Da~mJev~, ix addktim, I:1 Iff ~9 22 23 2:5 is a ,,~ slm~t ~d. ~t's on~ :mJ~ from w~g m Ma~iH 1~ wke~; you ~ m Lak~wk~,~ m~d t~ j~s~ r~lat l~'c J~ a ~ma~l r~d, We're r~o~ ta~m~ t~sc few ~ I:i~g ]~ [i~ Jn t~ City. T~ ~bably sight ~e ~ ~k~ms: fl~t m ]m'e ca~, s~y~ of~m a~ misi~ hay, A~ld 'T~$ is ~ a C~[3' ~iRJ~rl~nc4. We r:Llr[ in ~ couo~'. [ dri~ dawn g~ ~4 a:t ~s~ once from ymxL Now, wha~ mv 1~ ~ple ~at mo~ $ 14 15 16 I; 8: 19 2O 21 22 Page a~c I:ivm~ m~t !~ IJ~, ~h¢ mra!~-¢~ of fl~ a~. We ~mO& We ha~,~: a mutifu] living4 a~ I~: and ~'d llke to k~ i;'L !ik¢ ~baL ~f at al! Bc~tb~. ~ ~]~ aaot~ card J'n~ a Cyn(kia Thnmas ~s time, A~I ]:~r c~ sa~, "~m ad~tkm t,f ~Js many ho~ w~u~d ~z C~m~[ ta tl~ am, ~ roads a~ muc~ 1~ namow, Mayh~ili aad 91a~ ~ haadk ~b kind o~ ~affk, A1~,, fl~.eavimaa:m~t impact is a~atiwT' ~ I app~im ym~r ¢ommea~s am] ca~s, I You tm-n~ a card b~? %'(m~ ynu c(~ rurwant and MS, ~M~4S: ~Ul Lyari T'i~u~t~ an~ ! [Jx,~: ag Page 152 ~x~ W~n w~ ~m at C~' go[mcg ~st ~r, C~uncJl mm~¢ rrm& ~ com~t that Bi~ fllat tl~T ~t~mald one ha~e m improve ~}m rind cm fl~r w~flxml o~ d fi~ pu~ ~,, And i~ or~ O~:, l ~a, Ws.}na,t gc~mu~ t~ a:Q ~ w~ down. Walk ~'~ you go to ~p~ i& ~t]'mgtd~ to mkc msam:~m and ~wl~ are ~ing m: c~ all and y~'m,j~sl ~fi~ to ~: ia: fl~ ntMd~ q~' m'a'n again. ~ J~ tl~ mlddl~ af m,~.m A~] I'm m~a ~in~!. [ff a mil~ a~y, ~;m~ i~ ]~s a tara! lk~:~ m ~. And wF~t would ~Uy t~k~ ~ fi~r yX~ll ~0 ~ ab~ Jo k~ it Page I49- Page [52 PL:ANNqNG AND ZONING COMIalSSIO~ AP~L 41 H, 2002 ? 9 12 20 24 P~¢ ]53 lhought tlmt Agdcc ~tum was aa · ~t ~ go~ a ~y o¢ say~ al'mt that's whz t~y t~l like b~;~< I'm ]mt lm/dng 12 hours on nw ol~ mhd ~ half COMM[SSff)N E:R RISHEL, Page 155 CO~,,IM£SSIONER ~IS]]EL 1~ y(~ CO~d ym~r comtmnt~ fr,m dm ~lk~', Bu~ 1-~ ~[d tb~[ bc*s mos~ disp~ wkth it, ~s ~11, COMMfs~tONE~ ~"['~: okay, ~ank yo= very rash. m'~ry, fft~y arc wid].ia thi~ 5~,f~ not.i:~tion bu',t they do ]mt Ih, e: in tk~ City, &~ ~bey ¢:i11' 8e~ ~- okay= COMM!Ss,ION~ ~tf:; ~.tr, chamnmt 19 CDMMi&SIONER KEIWlt: [ k~': I ~]~ tM 22~~ G}~M[SS[ONEg RIsI:IEL: YOU have t]~ fl~. 23 ~:dS b~y ~tys tl~y didn't ~t ~y notificatim~ tl~y'm Page 154. 2 qms~kms, C~mmish~v Keith. 5 pricey o~ in 1~[ arm? 6 Me. TtMMS Ail of them d~m ~.~t no(,i~es, I 7 8 9 what's m~ ~ ~st m~ ~st skie ~d ~m~,h si~ of l:hN !2 ~mlcman tb,~t ~ive~ ~3 waq h~e lag1: year and gp&e. And I dm't:km~w w~m she ~ 4 is this 16 ~e a~,i= na~s ~ ~m, by chan~? 1 ~ ~soas and ]7 Giics oa BI~ k~. Am you i~milim- with ~l~]n a~ aJt? 24 ~ this_ Page 156 3 into ~ Ckty. po*~ax~ b'~ cfi w;:,([c¢ "i'~'t wou!8 ha~e ~a back ix /~ i 6 mr[y l~m,b~, I ~lJo'c, i~, i'[ would ]m~ bmr1 PLANNING AND ZONING ~MMISSION APRIL 24T11, 2~2 P~e 153 - P~:e ! 56 Page 4 Fm wrong hut ] ~k ] 3 ~ui~ by law bm ] 5 ~mm~d. N~m'~ 15~y can ~'ays ca~ back m. g ~I~, want a.~$$~iica6oa if' I~'~ noL l~ppy 21 6 20 22 25 Pag~ ] 59 !1o inh~atc a zoni~ cha~. C(}MMISSII)N'Eg APPLE2 'l!mak yo~. ~l~at pm~mr~y? I~t ~ divec[ ~his to ~,L-. ~[eh~t. ~ by I1:t¢ p~o~rty back to il:re Compmhc~Ne P~n of irons to aci~bo~m~ ~ntea w~re if you [iv~ in tl~is arm,. you woukBq have I:o &i~; om m University or iam t~ City i~ ~c~ m ~'t a~l your arvk~h but th~. them w~uM ~ tl-~ to s~lppo~ tbo~ ~rv'ices, ~u ~ ~ So l[~e intent, and we':~ ~in8 a pi~x~ of this pu~gJe m~h [hi~, ig ~be [utu~ 7~[ag map would J&mlifi.~ wb~t ~ ~minder el' a~e H~:J would be JI's cveatuaBy ma~r~d inta er annexed ~n~* tim City, ~ (hal wmld cream a ~ter picum, if you wj [L of wl~m P~¢ 158 ~ ~ c~ wb~ ~mr~ ~vi[~ would bc av&ib~k. [ 4on't ~8 kn~ if I'd s~y ifs a mJ:s~k~, It mien ~ g ~ in ~ rmmisi~ m ]Jghl cfi wha~ ~[~ 22 ~aCs n~l appmpria]~ f~ ~Ls but ~mJd h 2 ~ ~bt t~ ~0 ~':isirt !,l~d ~g 11~ (;nd: Of OUr Page 160 I lhal ncg~bt>fb~, ~:h~t ~¢ would ~, So wtmt 2 ~ing: ~5 a p<)akm 0f.a nci~bo~(~t ~n~v 4 a Jktle Nt q~/ticka~; l'he ~ma, i~ ~'t~¢ t'o provi~ a J;~ COMMISSIONER KEmI: Thank I ] COMM:BS[ONI~B ~SiiEL; C:o~s~ 12 CE~MISS~ON[(B mwfu.t,,; is Ik~ public h~ri~ 13 still o~7 [¢~j~st a q~ti(n bc~u~ I'm ~ty 14 rtxwe but l mt~'t l~ove duht}g the l~i~. 15 CC~IMBS[ONE'R RISI{EL: t ~O not ~ticve l 0 ~ [m~c cl~d tb~ pUb!tO [~'aring at Otis ~,im in time. I I 7 have alit mr~m mom commeni,s tk~t i was ~h~ 18 COMMIBSIONER POwer: '~l~k y~, 19 COMMISSIONER ~]$~EI ~ Appcecb~e yo~ 2~ asking 1F yo0 ~vte a Card, H' you'd ~ug it ]-o~h g2 sl~ ~1 aa)~ ~:. fl~is is fi-oJZt a J~y' M%an~ Z3 ami she .says ~h[~ (kwdop~m wmfld ~vcr~ly arr~rCl the 24 M~i]y lif~iyk ~nd rur,i ~ife. Mr, 25 MR. G[I,,BS ~rsl of ail Pm not PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APICAL 24TH, 2002 Page i57 - Page 160 CondenserTM ~yott~. ~l:[s is ~t a ccn~cr oily. I doW L km~w wkaL -- ~i~, (;It~S Wc did not gc~ ~ noti~. Okay, 3 4 ]0 12 19 2:0 22 23 Pa~ 162 COMMLqSIONER [.[NHI~:I.z HOW !0ag [~a~,e Page [63 &~[ a severed. 21 [:~- dhm[s~i~]? We have a ~ cm ~ fl~m Any 22 t'U~r dJ~c~msJcm7 Comm,iss[on~ Roy. owr~ed d~e, proia~rty9 mum? COMMISSIONER RLSHEL; Cormmis~si~¢r ~iik, COMHtSSI0,?,gER KI!'T]'lt: 'l']'t&~ y~(l. And ~ q~es~¢n to Mr R~:eN~rh wc h~m ~hi~ mo[i~ ~ ~hs pco~rty at N~,L ~'ve got ~nt to :it, m¥o. c~ t~ City con~ m and ~itkm to dmt~c t~m~? at per.mai name. But dm fact remains: t~*t this is mmJ n~vcd out ~. It's st[[~ a mrnl a~ An~ l sum Anyo~ c}~ who ~s a ~'d or wou~d liks to is ~ public h~ring =nd nnyom c:l~ who has pm~a[ed us with a mrd tMt 'wo~ like ~o sl~? Smmg wM I:u~s ~ dcsi~- to s~ to ~he Cqmu~[mJt~, [ will c[o~ d~: pah[ic ~ring and ask 1~ C~ty~ who is ~tit,ime[ to give us ~a c1,o~ s~,~tt'mcni:. to <~cr to thc in[orn~li~ ~n ym.u back'ap ~l~is h'R-] m]g I'm ~dy Lo ta~k ubout why 12 n~y ~d~r~' ~T~t F~ tho prc~y o~er' as it ~and¢ 14 tidal willm:m doing some anal~Ms. 22 cl~'i/'i~d<m fhm~ c~mn~l mx[ ~ sum ~:mt - ~ust to PLATO A~ ZONING CO~SSION ~RIL 24~I, 2002 Page 161 . Pag~ 164 Con~k:nseltTM ? 9 :12 16 ~8 3 6 7 10 12 ].5 16 12 24 Page Con'mfis,sm~mr Pow~l~ to ~[me hia m,u~:i:[m, C©MM[~MON, E~ ~O\k:ELL: M~iiOn to remorse this CO~lM[$$~O!',:~g ~lS}IEL: commi.saioaer ? 9 Il £2 13 14 15 16 17 19 2~ 24 25 PLANNING AN'I) ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24Ttt, 2002 Page t67 P%~ 168 [ 4 5 6 7 9 17 19 ~, 23 24 Page I65- Page 168 ATTACHMENT 5 TRANSCRIPT FROM CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, May 21, 2002 DRAFT Transcript from City Council Meeting, May 21, 2002 on Item #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) Mayor Brock: Agenda Item #17 which is to hold a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 46 acres from Agticulture zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential 6 zoning district. This 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 NR-1 or Neighborhood Residential 1 by a vote of 7 to 0. Larry Reichhart: On the overhead is the subject site and this indicates that the area surrounding this property is in the neighborhood centers land use category and again the lighter colored site is the subject property, the darker gray area is ETJ. This property was going through annexation when we were going through the public heatings for the Development Code and retained its Agticultural zoning classification and that is why it is here tonight. The original property owner at the time requested that we consider NR6 and it was advertised at P&Z for NR6. A Neighborhood Residential 6 units per acre. Staff had recommended Neighborhood Residential 3 and then the Planning Zoning Commission recommended Neighborhood Residential 1. With that recommendation if you wanted to approve anything other than NR1, such as NR2, NR3, 4 or 6 it would take a super majority vote to do that with a denial or recommendation from P&Z for a denial basically. Additionally you have backup from the new property owner who purchased the property after the Planning and Zoning Commission public heating that he is opposed to NR1. So any zoning recommendation tonight is going to require a super majority. Additionally I would like to show you on the overhead regarding opposition. Originally there were three letters of opposition. This area around the property is in the ETJ. It is not included in our opposition so what is represented, the two properties in red represent approximately 10% opposition. We did receive which we passed out earlier letters in favor, which identified in this green property from the owners of the Lakeview Ranch and then additionally we received from this property owner later today via fax also a recommendation for NR4. Both these two properties believe NR4 would be appropriate. The property owner is here and I believe he is also requesting NR4 at this time but again that's a super majority vote. One point of clarification, this property tight here we did receive a letter of opposition but the letter that we received that person is no longer the property owner so that letter doesn't count towards the opposition. If it did it would be a 15%, which is still below 20. Regardless its super majority vote whichever way we go. I would be happy to answer any questions and as I said I do know the property owner is here. Mayor Brock: Mr. Reichhart is the staff recommendation NR3. We have here "however the City of Denton requested to rezone the 49 acres from Agricultural zoning district to a NR 3 zoning district". This is on the first page of our backup. Larry Reichhart: Yes. The short answer is yes and it goes back to when this property was annexed and the concerns some of the neighbors had about a higher density. If you recall at one time it was NR6 and possibly NRMU12 proposed for this property. We thought NR3 and possibly NR4 would be appropriate for this area. Council Member Montgomery: When today's owner bought the property, what was exactly the status of zoning the day he signed the contract. Larry Reichhart: Agricultural. It had just gone to Planning and Zoning Commission and it was two days prior, and the property owner could clarify. But up to today its still zoned Agricultural. Council Member Montgomery: And at that point it was his impression that he would either receive NR3 or maybe NR6 zoning. Larry Reichhart: Yes. He lmew that the staff was recommending NR3. He thought possibly NR 3 or 4 would be which way P&Z would go but the NR1 threw him for a surprise. Council Member McNeill: Larry seems like when I was still on P&Z when we annexed this the staff recommendation at that point a higher density than 6. I don't remember if it was NRMU 12. Larry Reichhart: Yes. Council Member McNeill: There was a lot of concern about that. Larry Reichhart: And it goes back again to the Comprehensive Plan and the idea of Neighborhood Centers. And this was one of the areas that staff had identified for potentially a neighborhood center and again its in conjunction with the future zoning map and your only getting a portion of that picture but it was this area was identified as potentially some higher density and we had NRMU12s in here and 6 and 4 as you went out from that area. And you're correct at the time of the original annexation a lot of neighbors came out and voiced their concerns towards the higher density. Council Member McNeill: So the recommendation from P&Z at that point was just to bring it in as Ag and defer rezoning it until such time as... Larry Reichhart: Right. At that time we were trying to bring annexation cases in, trying to do a dual public hearing. One for the future zoning and that got very confusing and that's why we dropped it and are bringing these cases forward now. Mayor Brock: Are there any other questions for Mr. Reichhart at this time? The public hearing is now open. Is there anyone who would like to address the council on this agenda item? I have a request to speak from Eric Janssen. Would you like to speak Mr. Janssen? Mr. Janssen: Mayor and City Council Members thank you very much. As the owner but not the petitioner of this zoning case I will be limited to three minutes therefore I'll try to briefly state my opposition to the NR1. If I run out of time I'd appreciate additional moments for enough questions to clarify anything I didn't adequately cover. My name is Eric Janssen. I reside at 413 Fox Creek Court here in Denton and I just purchased the property. I would like to thank each of you first for receiving my protest letter and the informational packet that I delivered to you. I appreciate the time and the conversations that you've given me. As I said in my package, my wife and I protest the NR1 recommendation that is before you. I believe the recommendation was reached without the full benefit of some of the information that I have put before you. Its our hope that instead tonight you will vote to rezone the property or actually to zone the property NR4 classification far more reasonable and compatible in the area. Second as suggested by some of you I have contacted the three property owners to the west, to the south and to the east who had not spoken previously on the matter and I have received two letters of support for NR4 from the owner to the south as well as from the Lakeview Development developer himself who controls and determines all the process for Lakeview Development. I have that letter right here and you have it before you. The third owner who owns the property to the west, he's here this evening. He may or may not choose to speak to you. Third regarding the letters of opposition, I think it's important that you lmow because the property was posted NR4 the response were in that context. Not in the context of NR, excuse me it was posted NR6. So the responses were in context of NR6, not NR4 or NR3. Mr. Reichhart has already identified those on the map. As I explained in the package NR1 exist nowhere else in the Denton City Limits except for the Hills of Argyle Development and they specifically requested that designation. Such an initial zoning in any case an NR1 would place all future legal and financial burdens upon the property owner and I hope you will not do that here tonight. On the contrary, being as my land is on the periphery of the Lakeview Development I believe NR4 is the most appropriate for the future city growth and development plans. As you see on the map and attachment 5, NR4 already exist on the east sides of the Lakeview Development and on the south sides of the Lakeview Development. Their 80-acre parcel here on the northeast comer is currently under platting as NR4. Also their north/south strip of land between my property and the current Lakeview existing lots is zoned NR6. I hope again that you will vote for NR4 for this property tonight. I'd like to close by reviewing that the property was involuntary annexed as Mr. Reichhart pointed out last year with the City staff's recommendation at the time for NR6/12. In that context the previous owner did not protest the involuntary annexation. From my attachments it became NR4 during the Denton Development Code process. It has since been recommended now NR3 by the staff and now you have the NR1 recommendation before you. I would like to take one extra moment to thank all of the staff, the Planning Development Department, Mr. Powell, Mr. Reichhart and all of their assistants in that department as well as Mr. Snyder for helping me understand this whole process that I have all of a sudden gotten myself into. I would like to take any questions you might have. Council Member Burroughs: I'm sorry, you purchased it when? Mr. Janssen: I purchased it on the Monday following the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. Council Member Burroughs: Ok, what date? Mr. Janssen: April 29th. Council Member Burroughs: Of this year? Mr. Janssen: Yes sir. Council Member Burroughs: A month ago. Do you have any emanate development plans? Mr. Janssen: I do not. As Mr. Pruitt pointed out, I'm going to continue leasing pasture to him for cattle. And as a matter of fact he approached me about me buying some cattle and calves. And my wife and daughter are keen on the idea but they don't want to name them because if they do you can't sell them later. That is the sole and exclusive near term plan for the property. Council Member McNeill: If we do NR3 that would be 15 houses you could put their roughly is that right. It's 3 houses per acre. Sorry 3 times 46 versus 4 times 46. Mr. Janssen: Yes the NR4 means 4 houses per acre for the entire parcel. Council Member McNeill: So you feel it would be a financial problem when you go to develop it. Mr. Janssen: Well number 1, I am not a developer. Perhaps somewhere down the road I might be. But I recognize the difference in the distinction between the number of homes allowed and how that might have a higher profit potential for a future developer and certainly an investment value for myself. Council Member McNeill: But at that point the person you had sold it to could come forward for NR6 or whatever that they desire. Mr. Janssen: Yes sir I understand the technical correctness of that but I have been told that its dam difficult once a property has been zoned of a certain idea or certain amount with the expected future use to then try to come in later with all of the newer arriving neighbors now buying into properties. All of a sudden they bought with the expectations of being one thing and it would be dam difficult to try to get that changed at a future date. And that's why I think it ought to be done in the appropriate manner right nOW. Council Member Burroughs: What does the property look like? Is there much on it? Mr. Janssen: It is a cattle pasture. There is one small blackberry thicket. But aside from that it is one big cattle pasture. There are some trees on the very, very north line right at Blagg road and there are a few trees that mark basically the dividing line between the south edge of my property and the north edge of Mr. Pruitt's 29 acres. Council Member Montgomery: Tonight what you're protesting is NR1. The staff's recommendation was NR3. Would you protest an NR3 if you got it? Mr. Janssen: Yes sir I probably will if that time comes. The reason why is because if you look at the map and as you have seen on your attachments, in bold is the 46 acres. It is divided into 3 lines for some reason I don't know because its one contiguous parcel. But to the south and this is the January Future Use Map, I also have the February 5th final map, it shows basically the same NR6 to the south, NR6 to the east, NRMU right here in this center, NRMU12 to my north and NRMU6 to the opposite side of Blagg Road and by the way the north side of that property abuts to University. So the property is surrounded by higher density zonings. I think an NR3 in that context doesn't fit and I believe NR4 is appropriate. Council Member Montgomery: One more thing, there's a little portion to your northwest comer that I noticed is blacked out, tell me again what that is. Mr. Janssen: That is the designation of NRMU which is Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use which allows an even higher level of usage and activity in a commercial manner than does the 20 acres directly across the road. This is NRMU and these are the two people that protested NR6 on this property. Council Member Montgomery: Now you don't own that fragment on the northwest comer. Mr. Janssen: No I do not own that chunk right there. If I may, that one point about that is that with this neighborhood concept that was destined to sort of be maybe the center of the neighborhood, the business center where some of this commercial activity would take place. But as I pointed out University Drive is the next street, east/west street north of Blagg Road. University Drive is less than a half a mile north of Blagg Road. So the likelihood of a lot of commercial development centering in this theoretical neighborhood ! think is slim. ! think people would probably go a half-mile up to University with all the commercial development that'll probably take place on a 7-lane highway. Thank you for your time. Mayor Brock: Is there anyone else who would like to talk to the council on agenda item #177 Anyone else who would like to talk on agenda item #177 Then the public hearing is closed. I would like to say that this property in general ! personally have received more communication about over a period of months than maybe any other. I think there is a great deal of concern among people who live there. They like the large lot concept so I just wanted to preface the comments by that. Council Member Fulton: I too have received a lot of contact over the past several months but since the NR6 is already there between this property and the big lots that are there at the present time I don't understand, I guess that came in with the original Development Code or the Comprehensive Plan or something but I really don't like NR6 but I could live with NR4. Since they are going to have to deal with the NR6 next to those big houses or those big lots, that is going to be more of a problem than this issue will be probably. Mayor Brock: I think if this were an activity center and perhaps Mr. Reichhart you might want to address this that NR6 would be a way of buffering out of it but if its not going to be a activity center perhaps there would be less justification for NR6. Larry Reichhart: I think that's correct. And a point of clarification, I did want to point out if you recall that a lot of that property is surrounded by ETJ and that was on the future-zoning map, which we really haven't gotten into and looked at. So all this NRMU, NRMU6 in this area around here, currently there isn't anything on it, its ETJ there's no zoning, so we can still as we go through and review that future zoning map change those designations very easily. Additionally, the Planning and Zoning Commission at our last work session has asked us to put on an agenda item to possibly reconsider this entire area and take a look at rezoning. They have even asked if they can start a zoning petition regarding that area. But they wanted to take a closer look to see what the future zoning was going to be in that area. Mayor Brock: Which Planning and Zoning can, as I understand, initiate zoning. Larry Reichhart: Yes. Council Member Burroughs: I am keeping in mind that we have to reach some kind of consensus as a council or this poor guy is going to have a situation where he's going to have to come back and go through it. This is his freebie shot at zoning basically that we're giving him because we brought it in without zoning it. This is the freebie. Anything else if he has to come through he has to do it himself. I would like to give him something that is possible to use. I don't think it's reasonable to expect NR1. I read the Planning and Zoning Minutes and as much as I can make out of it I don't think they made a real policy decision about this particular property. So I really think it is on our plates to try to think that we can come up with a consensus. My view on this is that we are looking at the Lakeview Ranch Estates which when that was passed it was a very large development, lots of different uses, lots of different zoning. As you can see part of what they ended up doing is having this NR2 designation, but its really one-acre plus lots. Very large lots that run up to Lakeview on this side. Then they have the NR6 which they were using as basically a buffer of this higher intensity use that the city was kind of imposing on them. It is not a likely use, which I agree with the owner that NR6 and NRMU12 is not likely uses. The ETJ around there I don't think is going to be there. I think that what our Comprehensive Plan basically has as a goal is approximately NR3. That's what the goal, the overall average single-family residential is to try to get a little bit more than NR3, but NR3 is the closest zoning category we have to it. I think that it certainly makes this property usable. Its certainly not out of step with the area to have it as NR3 and if the property owner comes up with a development, when they're ready to develop and that might be years from now, it may be that even NR3 or NR4 doesn't make sense at that point. It may be a higher intensity that makes more sense or it might make more sense to have a continuation of the one-acre lots if it is large houses that are in demand in that area. So I think at that point they can make that decision but I think that it would be usable as NR3. I think that's the more or less, in my opinion, the default zoning that is usable zoning for this property and that's what I would recommend is to go forward with the staff's recommendation not the Planning and Zoning's recommendation and not the original recommendation but what the staff's recommendation was and what the comprehensive plan basically calls for. Mayor Brock: So is that in the form of a motion? Council Member Burroughs: I guess I'll make that now. I'll move that we adopt an ordinance rezoning this 46-acre tract from Agriculture to NR3. Council Member Redmon: Second. Mayor Brock: It has been moved and seconded and Mr. Phillips you have a request to speak. Council Member Phillips: I have a question. First of all I believe this should be NR4. All the rationale for making it NR4 seems more clear to me than NR3. For future zoning NR4 based on the knowledge we have now would be clearly the choice. If we don't approve NR3, which will take a super majority, do we have an option to come back and try NR4? Attorney Herb Prouty: Yes that would take a super majority too. You have the option to vote until you get six votes. Council Member Phillips: Mr. Burroughs I see your rationale but I don't necessarily agree with it and I think that the owner has presented a very strong case for NR4 here that the abutting property is clearly a much higher density between there. NR4 since this is what he desires and what looks very appropriate seems to me a better zoning for this area and that's what I would prefer to support. Attorney Herb Prouty: I'd like to say just one other thing. There's only one vote that would not require a super majority and looks like this is a default position that Mr. Janssen has set out in some of his materials. He's saying if that for some reason you aren't ready to support NR4 then I ask you to send the case back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for reconsideration. That would not require a super majority that would just be a simple majority vote since it's not a zoning decision, its just a decision to send it back. Council Member McNeill I had two questions. Mr. Reichhart, the northwest comer that the applicant spoke about in some of the drawings that appeared to be in the City limits but in your drawing that is in the ETJ. Larry Reichhart: It is in the ETJ. Council Member McNeill: Even though it is in the ETJ it was zoned NRMU. Larry Reichhart: Well that was part of that future zoning map that we were just considering. Council Member McNeill: So it has never really been zoned yet. So that northwest comer is just ETJ. Larry Reichhart: Yes. Council Member McNeill: The other question, the NR6 property over here belongs to Lakeview Estates doesn't it? Larry Reichhart: Yes. Council Member McNeill: There has been no development on that NR6. Larry Reichhart: No, and in a conversation I had this afternoon with Tommy Baine they thought it would probably be densities around NR4. Council Member McNeill: So the prospect of that happening to be a buffer, that is really where I was going with that, I can't see Lakeview putting NR6 out there next to those large lots that they've got. Council Member Fulton: I agree with Colonel Phillips that I would be more in favor of the NR4 because all that property to the east of the Lakeview big houses, shall we say, is NR4 so I feel like NR4 would be compatible and that would work for this area. So I would support NR4. Council Member Phillips: I had a question about NRMU12 across the road. What is the plans for that? Are we planning to try and downzone that? Larry Reichhart: I don't believe there are any plans to date but I think the way Planning and Zoning Commission is heading would be to downzone. Council Member Phillips: Ok, what's the owner of that property going to say about that? Larry Reichhart: The owners of the properties across the front, I'm not sure about the panhandle parcel there but these property owners said at the Planning and Zoning Commission that they would not oppose a downzoning. They intend to keep it in one lot, their homesteads. Council Member Montgomery: Mr. Reichhart did you say P&Z is going to do a review of the whole picture. If that happens will that re-include this site as a part of the review. Larry Reichhart: It very well could. Mayor Brock: But not if we zone it. Larry Reichhart: But they're looking at rezoning the whole area. The ETJ and the parcels in the city. Council Member Burroughs: I was going to ask a question of the applicant, not the applicant, the property owner. When you and I spoke on the phone you gave an indication that you would prefer NR4 zoning. You also indicated that in a pinch basically that you would accept NR3. Is it your feeling now that you not do that? Mr. Janssen: That's correct. I'm sorry ifI gave you the impression that in a pinch I would go with NR3. That's not our desire. That's not our goal and as I said surrounded by the current city limits zoning issues I think NR3 would be most inappropriate. I believe as I explained to a member of the staff when I was first trying to put a letter together for this body, as I looked at the map I thought I'm stupid requesting NR4 and in my first draft edition I should be asking for NR6 also, looking at the map. Then I thought you lmow I'm not trying to force that and I didn't come here to try to play a game of cards to negotiate for this and I'll come off with something less. That's not what I came about and that's not how I wrote my letter and that's not what our intention is. I think NR4 is appropriate and that is what we seek. Council Member Burroughs: So if the property surrounding the NRMU12 and the NR6 particularly and the NRMU12 is not zoned that but projected, if that all became NR4 or less, NR4, NR3, NR2, what would your position be at that point. Mr. Janssen: I would certainly participate or try to attend the Planning and Zoning Commissions meetings if they were going to start doing that and I would have to reevaluate at that time. Obviously, if the whole neighborhood goes NR2, well if there is going to be that much change to the development then there is a contingency. If I may say, that NRMU12, that is in the city limits and that is currently zoned that way. It's that small block on the northwest comer of my site that's still in the ETJ but it was on the future-zoning map and I apologize for not identifying it that way. It was on the future map as NRMU, but the NRMU 12 is currently zoned in the city that way. Mayor Brock: I would like to point out about the kind of development and the kind communications that I've been getting. You lmow we do have this zoning that in a way is sort of theoretical that's there because it was based on the idea of having a dense center there that would be a center of commercial activity. One of the things that we don't have much of in the City of Denton is the larger lots and yet the standard for our Denton Plan is that overall it would be about 3 ½ units per acre. We are not headed in that direction and I know that in some areas I'm very much in favor of having small lot/large house development because I think there is a real market for that. People want really nice maybe even very large houses without a lot of yard. But we have the president in this area of lots that are quite a bit larger than the zoning and in fact some estate type lots and this is really the only area of town that we have the prospect of that kind of development. And NR3, those are not really large lots. NR2 is half-acre lots. We have a half-acre lot and it is not terribly big. I'm just making a plea in support of Mr. Burroughs' motion because I think it's most appropriate for that area because that's the perfect area for that kind of development. It's very compatible with what's already going in and what is already there and its something that we need as a community. We need at least one area where we can have slightly larger lots. We have an awful lot of NR6 and NR4 coming on line with the zoning that we've done recently. Council Member McNeill: I am just looking again at the map of the Lakeview Estates and those are NR2 that they've developed and I have trouble believing that they would even go to NR4 when they develop that area that is NR6. It would seem to me that they're more likely a maximum of NR3. But I'm not the developer; I can't say what he's going to do. But that would look reasonable to me. I think this whole area out there is an area, it's a very nice area and it's a very nice development and it has some really nice sites there. They're doing very well I think in terms of selling them. I could go with the NR3 and be comfortable with it. Council Member Fulton: Is Terra Baine who owns Lakeview? Larry Reichhart: Yes. Council Member Fulton: And we have their letter that says they support the NR4. Larry Reichhart: Yes, we received that today. Council Member Fulton: Which would almost indicate that they may end up going with NR4 instead of NR6. Cause that would make a better transition for those big houses or even if they go to NR3 as they're stepping down away. They have NR4 on the backside of those big lots to the east. Right? Mayor Brock: But they haven't developed that area yet, have they? Larry Reichhart: No, they do have a preliminary plat in for an area up further north what were SF7 lot now NR4. The remaining has not been developed. Council Member Fulton: If we put NR4 on Mr. Janssen's site, he says he's not a developer; he's just planning to hold it as an investment. That doesn't necessarily mean that whoever does buy it in view of the Lakeview area wouldn't choose to put big expensive homes on that and not go with the NR4. Larry Reichhart: They could do anything NR4 or less. Council Member Fukon: That would just give them the option. Mayor Brock: Any further discussion of the motion? Well we will vote. The motion is on the floor to zone this property NR3. Please vote on the board. Vote is 4-3. (Nay, Phillips, Redmon, Fukon) Since it requires a super majority it does not pass. ! would move that we send this issue and this case back to Planning and Zoning for their further study in the context of the whole area. Council Member Redmon: I second. Mayor Brock: Its been moved and seconded that we return this to Planning and Zoning. Is there any discussion of the motion? Council Member Redmon: Question for Herb. Could ! withdraw my second? Attorney Prouty: Sure, anytime before you vote. Council Member Redmon: Because we had talked about being a default zoning that earlier if the NR3 didn't make it the vote could be for NR4. Attorney Prouty: That was just my term. Basically you can bring other motions and what I think I read from Mr. Janssen's letter, if you don't adopt NR4 his second position would be to send it back to Planning and Zoning for reconsideration. Council Member Redmon: With that I would like to withdraw my second. Council Member Burroughs: Then I would make the second. Mayor Brock: Its now been moved by Euline Brock and seconded by Mr. Burroughs that we return this to Planning and Zoning for further study and recommendation. Is there any further discussion of that motion? Council Member Phillips: I just can't understand why we need to drag this out to this extent. It's pretty obvious which way this is going to go. We are going to delay this whole zoning issue, course its going to come out in the wash sooner or later and he's not going to sell it sooner or later but its not a rush true but I just think that we're.., disregard. Council Member Montgomery: Did I understand Mr. Prouty to say that this motion could go by simple majority? Attorney Prouty: That is correct. Council Member McNeill: Well I think two things will happen by sending it back to Planning and Zoning. We will in effect have asked them to reconsider their recommendation to Neighborhood Residential 1. They may come forward then with an NR4 or NR3 or whatever but it does give Planning and Zoning another opportunity to look at it. There is a new property owner that's appeared on the scene since they've made their recommendation. So I think there's some validity in asking P&Z to look at it again. I can support that particular motion to request that assistance. We have these commissioners, we appoint these folks to these boards and we've got to listen to them. Let's let them have another look at it. Mayor Brock: Is there any further discussion of the motion? Please vote on the board. The motion passes with a vote of 5-2 (nay Phillips, Fulton). ATTACHMENT 5 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes, June 12, 2002 20. Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council regarding the rezoning approximately 46 acres from an Agriculture (A) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) 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. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) (4-1). (Z02-0010, Blagg Road Drive, Tiffanie Willis) Motion with recommendation by Commissioner Mulroy was second by Commissioner Powell to recommend approval to the City Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the straight zone change to the Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR- 3) zoning district. *Discussion of item is included in the Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 149 - 197 ). Motion carries -(4-1) note Commissioner Apple voted no Commissioner Joe Roy was absent and Commissioner Keith abstained from the vote on this public hearing agenda item. n~v~ wi~b you .... wi:Il J<fc~ you, mid ~m ~zbam~ pla.n which I' H put ricer tl~. 13 Eebrea~'. N~-~ will Ma~ Da <om~tibLe with o~h~ zor)ings 15 m~w given yea. immc~JL~c n~tk af my prr~rty is City S~m~h ~ff my s~jcct propc~.y i,S 24 cu~cm~]y N~-~k a!r~My ~m~ ~m~ Page 182 $ ~ cx~m~ty am~a. A [~ ~ r~'~:b~xl two lclk;rs in fav~ 7 pt~')t wx~u% Mr, Erb Jm~sm, as v<l[ as a y~ lady 9 n~qi~ ~ld [~ May ware twx) letters.. ~e from Lakeview 10 msi~ats, as ~1 ~ an [2 after l~c <e time oF p~bti~xti, o~ 20 ~a',,e is a Mr. t)rJc Jm~vm, Mr 2 i t[ckh~, 22 MR. JANSSEN: 'l'h~aN ,,25 heft~. Imnnotff~deoncr Imnlimilcqloi[mx~ PLA~NG AND ZONING COMMISSION JIJ'~E 12, 2002 And d~,~ son~b s~ppoa o,f tim m~'~,' B,~, Doug ~ui.lt ~bu, Page. 181 - P~¢ t84 Cot~de~]tTM 3 ? ~3 2J 3 5 ~5 a,~ ~j~r~i~:Li'*~ oF my irfformati~ ~o ~Lm. 2 ~up~ ~t ~hc CLty Cmmci! m~ting oF M.ay 2 L~L. ALs~ 6 i~ b~u<zk to the Co~'ii for NR,~ ~=ceive ~m.ir ~m~'al. ~mor~ndUm, ~ ~lk.ve it ~s pmb0b~y a *~o m m~sla~. 23 ~e r~m~my ~mlly~ Pag~ .If, I.?~ d~g'~ a pm~s~ Tha. Lsk Page n.xttJes~.. ,\wd tf~m [havc ~ car~ frc,m Lyng ~'~ms. Bla~ R~d. And ~crO~ 1 d~fl, Mr. -- lmm% I c~a~ pr~om,~ Ms las~ nallle, [re gem tkm l~dy mm'~thing t~tat had com~mLs on ~r. NO, i[ was a w~te stol Ri[hi befi:m be ld'L ~ h,andeA Lt to y'all, smc~ wc dLdn't get Iha~ bd ~e did gc~ t~h~ tmfices tl~ We also d~d not brays a~y nal~c~ or lh= C,~y abra. 13 dmF~ g~a,a mt b~Jlcliog t~yt~iag em it, ~ ~. I lo ANo. dz. Uaff~c. B~4~[~ R-C~6 J& ~t m~tch 21 rarm~ tNm wi'mt ym~ wnuld cnn sk~ a o[~'~y [*tle. [t 24 <:~:~ple of ~ ngn in EI~ d%;hm al d'~ bogcOBl O[ ~[~- PLANNING A~ ZONer} COMMISSION JUNE 12, 2002 Page 185 ~ P~e 188 Page 189 20 mo~ h%~. IF tk~ mt~m str~; w,~ i~ (he C~Ly iimit~ 12 c[~ !~ quasi [ylaB for probably m~ r:D~ whic[t is R~ra Page 190 Pagm 191 m hch~f of th~ ea~,, Staff ~ukl ]ik~ jt~t ~:~ th~ c~a, ~is was Jn~ 1 I~ It weat om: ~ May June ]~, m~eiva/{n June I ltk D~zX h~to our Ami thLm sqarf had r~) cm're~)ond sa~o'm~d[~ ~e remit from t;b~ CJ!:y CobmcJ~ ~k [o the co~ondod by ~x to, pcrs~tts WhO =a~led I~'XVtMI,SS1ONEg R~SI'[ET.: ]~q>p~m;[~ iL I L~ca:a~ ~ got !h~m k~;k, ~at it ~aaJn]5' COMMISS[ON'E, It [I~HEI,.: '~hank you. 192 ~ l tmlfi-famJly pm~ic~ o-at t~, ~'s 13 T!~a~n~ 24 wi[ ~s~ M~, Will~ 25 will ckw;= ff~ public, OOMMI3,SIONEI~ ~EI:'Ft'I: F~ like ~;> ~mkc a IL2 ~mtl~k~io~~ Keh[~ and ~Oa~ by Ck~m~issioo~ Pn~dl. 14 CO!l~m;s~i~r App'. j 23 ~u,lif'al ~m] a~ wkl~ k~' dem~ty ami ~,~s PLANNING A~ ZON'D, IO COMMISSION jUNE 12, 2002 P~e 189 - Page !92 Pa~ 193 6 a 3-3 dc? Cotv, mJs~a~ 8 ~o m~ke another ramie% perhaps ~s ~0 COMM.IgSEC)~?~ ~[$~IEI: ~e'~ had t~: public /Pagc 194 6 of fi:J~s pL~'r~ny, ~ l fl~i~k: ~ S~O~d 8mJ',t 1~ man ] 4 (~:D M M t S~lfJ~4 ~l~ 5. ~DI..~Y, ~l~ .1~ AND ~iS!~EL L 7 ~:) C'i~ Council a~ a .,.. VI~ 1~ Mr, ~oyd~ cbrify 24 >~mr ~c~t ln~ti~18 ~:, vA'~e y~u [~qve ~ fu l~ bmly m~d Pa&~ 196 3 C(~mis~ k,m' Mu[my, ~',m~ by Comm~s~' l ~jl. { ] l~ tZom Ol~ ~ 8 m~ m[aa~a~. It I cmikJ g-~[ ~{,e lal{y ~.~td back 19 Let ~ ask f<~r a m%'o~¢ ~{~d I' !1 sex: if' c~,~xmu w~l.I 20 p~mr'iic~pa~ ~e. We're ~fiR rb~d,img 11~1 No, 37 PLANNING AND ZONING CO~ISSION Jl[~ 12, 2002 Page i 93 - P~ge 196 this ~ (COMM~S~ON[~ APPLB VOTED IF OPPOSe'ION) 44 o~ Imm No. ]7~ I] i2 ]3 14 ~? 21 ) 2 7 9 lO P~ge 199' PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 12, 2~2 Page !97 - Page 199' 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 NEiGHBOGHOOD RESiDENTiAL 4 (NR-4); 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 PROViDiNG AN EFFECTIVE DATE (Z02-0010). WHEREAS, the City of DeNon 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 4 (NR-4); and WHEREAS, on June 12, 2002, the Planning and Zoning commission recommended approval of the Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the zoning is consistem with the Comprehensives 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 Exhibited "A" is hereby changed from Agricultural (A) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residemial 4 (NR-4) 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, up conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00 Each day that 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 and separate and distinct offence. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is herby directed cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the DeNon 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 S:\Our Docmments\Ordinances\02kZ02 0010. doc ~ ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: S:\Onr Docmments\Ordinances\02kZ02 0010. doc 2 Exhibit "A" Being a tract of land situated in the M. Forrest Survey, Abstract No. 417, Demon 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 comer of said Musgrave tract and being the northwest comer of a tract of land described in deed to Lakeview Tech 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 tact, a distance of 1643.50 feet to a fence post being the northeast comer of a 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 Demon County, Texas; THENCE West with the south line of said Musgrave tract, ard the north line of said Prewitt tract, and the north line of the H.O. and Lavonia Jo Prewitt tract recoded in Volume 820, Page 614, of the Deed Records of Demon County, Texas, a distance of 1421.00 fee to a point on the north line of a tract of land desa'ibed 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 comer of a 15 foot road easement conveyed to Beatrice J. Peterman, recorded in Volume 481, Page 526, Deed Records of Demon County, Texas, from said poim 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 1/2 inch iron rod found for a comer; THENCE East, a distance of 165.00 feet, to a 1/2 inch iron rod set with a cap stamped "Precise Land Surv." being and ell comer of said Musgrave tract; THENCE North, a distance of 261.78 feet, to a 1/2 inch iron rod set with a cap stamped "Precise Land Surv. "being an ell comer of said Musgrave tract; THENCE West, a distance of 165.00 feet, to a 1/2 inch iron rod found for a comer, on the east line of the aforesaid 15 foot road easement; THENCE North, with said east line, a distance of 247.72 feet, to a 3/8 inch iron rod found being the southwest comer 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 Denton County, Texas; S:\Our Docmments\Ordinances\02kZ02 0010. doc 3 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 comer of a tract of land described in a deed to Ernest B. Parsons recorded in Claerk's File No. 97-068152 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas; 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-or-way line begin the northeast comer of said Parsons tract; THENCE North 89 degrees 28 minutes 01 second East, said south righl, of-way line, a distances of 745.32 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, and containing 2,003,300 square feet or 45.989 acres of land. S:\Onr Docmments\Ordinances\02kZ02 0010. doc 4 This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #33 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: July 16, 2002 Planning and Development Department David Hill, ACM, 349-8314 SUBJECT - Z02-0028: (Hinkle Drive) Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 1.1 acres of land from the Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning district. The site is generally located west of Hinkle Drive, between Haggard Lane and Greenbriar street commonly known as 2309 Hinkle Drive. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial (6-0). BACKGROUND Applicant: Kelly Brooks Denton, TX As part of the citywide rezoning, a related to the Development Code Adoption, City Council reviewed this request at the January 15, 2002 Work Session meeting. At that time, a consensus was reached to rezone the property to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12). However, at the January 28, 2002 Work Session meeting, Council reverted the zoning of the property back to Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) due to concerns related to adequate notice. The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject property from a Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU- 12) zoning district. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Deny. 3. Postpone consideration. 4. Table item. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial (6-0, Roy absent). Due to the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation of denial, a super majority vote (6-1) by City Council will be required to approve this request. 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 ofZ02-0028, commonly known as 2309 Hinkle Drive: Application Date - DRC Date- P&Z Commission Date - May17,2002 May30,2002 June 12, 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) 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 applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 1.1 acre of land from the Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning district. The property is located west of Hinkle drive, between Nowlin road, and F.M. 2181 (Teasley Lane) and Robinson Road. The NRMU- 12 zoning district allows single-family and multi-family uses, and some commercial and institutional land uses. Existing Condition of Property Property History. February 20, 2002 - Ordinance 2002-040 left the subject property in the Agriculture (A) zoning district and land use classification. Adjacent zoning. North: Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use district South: Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use district East: Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use district West: Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district 12 (NRMU-12) zoning 12 (NRMU-12) zoning 12 (NRMU-12) zoning The property is currently undeveloped. Comprehensive Plan Analysis The Comprehensive Plan designates the area as a Existing Neighborhoods / In Fill Compatibility District and a portion of this property is designated in the 100-Year Flood Plain/Environmentally Sensitive Area (Attachment 2). The subject site is located in an "Existing Neighborhoods/Infill Compatibility" future land use area. New development within the Existing Neighborhoods/Infill compatibility district should respond to existing development with compatible land use, patterns and design standards. The plan recommends that existing neighborhoods within the city be vigorously protected and preserved. Housing that is compatible with the existing density, neighborhood service, and commercial land uses is allowed. Developed areas of floodplain may be reclaimed after the appropriate drainage study are approved. 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. STAFF FINDINGS The proposed Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning district is consistem with the Comprehensive Plan. And is compatible with surrounding zoning classifications. ATTACHMENT 2 Maps NORTH Location/Zoning Map NRMU,12 0 © 0 NR-4 LOCATION MAP Land Use Map NORTH ATTACHMENT 3 Public Notification Map Public Notification Date: April 12, 2002 200' Legal Notices* sent via Certified Mail: 19 500' Courtesy Notices* sent via 1st Class Mail: 60 Number of responses to 200' Legal Notice · In Opposition: 0 · In Favor: 0 · Neutral: 0 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 200 Foot and 500 Foot Property Owner Responses Property Owner within In Favor Comments 200' Name and Address /Opposed* Martha Daughtry Opposed No comment provided 1218 Greenbriar John W. Stewart Opposed No comment provided 1200 Greenbriar Damiana Garrett Neutral No comment related to case 1221 Haggard *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 June 12, 2002 20. Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding there zoning of approximately 1.1 acres of land from the Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district to the Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning district. The site is generally located west of Hinkle Drive between Haggard Lane and Greenbriar street commonly known as 2309 Hinkle Drive. (Z02-0028, 2309 Hinkle Drive, Tiffanie Willis) Motion with recommendation by Commissioner Powell was second by Commissioner Apple to recommend denial to the City Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial of the straight zone change to the Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU- 12 zoning district. *Discussion of item is included in the Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page ~ ~48 ). Motion carries -6-0 note ~i~ ~ ~ ~ absent ~ ~ Pre d~ ~i~ ~etigg P&Z ATTACHMENT 4 Commission Minutes May 22, 2002 20. Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council concerning the rezoning of approximately 3.0 acres of land from a Regional Center Residential 1 (RCR-1) zoning district to a Regional Center Commercial Downtown (RCC-D) zoning district. The site is generally located to the east of Interstate 35E northbound service road, adjacent to the Finfer Furniture Outlet. Future commercial development is proposed. (Z02-0013, Robson Ranch North, Tiffanie Willis) Motion with recommendation by Susan Apple was second by Joy Mulroy to recommend approval to the City Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the straight zone change to the Regional Center Commercial Downtown (RCC-D) zoning district. *Discussion of item is included in the Court Reporter's transcript attached to this set of minutes (Page 145-148 ). Motion carries -7-0 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ZONING A TRACT OF LAND, COMPRISING APPROXIMATELY 1.1 ACRES iN THE CITY OF DENTON FROM NEIGHBORHOOD RESiDENTiAL 3 (NR-3) ZONING DISTRICT TO A NEIGHBORHOOD RESiDENDiTAL MIXED USE 12 (NRMU-12); SAiD TRACT BEING GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF HINKLE DRIVE, BETWEEN HAGGARD LANE AND GREENBRiAR STREET AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 2309 HINKLE DRIVE; PROVIDING A PENALTY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z02-0028). WHEREAS, the City of DeNon has initiated a change in zoning for an approximate 1.1 acres of property commonly known as 2309 Hinkle Drive and more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the "Property") from an Neighborhood Residemial - 3 (NR-3) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use - 12 (NRMU-12) zoning district; and WHEREAS, on June 12, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial 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 Property is hereby changed from Neighborhood Residemial - 3 (NR-3) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use - 12 (NRMU-12) 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 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 3 Exhibit "A" "PROPERTY" All that certain lot, tract or parcel of land, lying and situated in Denton County, Texas, a part of the Robert Beaumont Survey, Abst. No. 31, and being a part of a tract described in a deed from Thomas Morris, Jr., and wife, Meriam E. Morris, to Lowell F. Henn and wife, Fern Henn, dated Oct. 24, 1949, recorded in Vol. 354, Page 107, Deed Records of Denton County, Texas, and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the NEC of said last mentioned tract; THENCE West with NBL thereof 241.61 feet for the most northerly northwest comer of said tract; THENCE South 70 feet for comer; THENCE West 195 feet the most southerly NWC of said tract; THENCE South 82 1/2 feet for comer in the west boundary line of said tract; THENCE East parallel with the South boundary line of said tract; THENCE North with the east boundary line of said tract 152 1/2 feet to the place of beginning. Page 3 of 3 This page left blank intemionally. Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #34 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: July 16, 2002 Fiscal Operations Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT Consider approval of a resolution nominating a member to the Board of Directors of the Denton Central Appraisal District; and declaring an effective date. BACKGROUND The Demon Cemral Appraisal District (DCAD) has notified the City that there is a vacancy on their Board of Directors, as Mary Horn is no longer eligible. Therefore, DCAD is seeking nominations from taxing jurisdictions in the district. The attached resolution is available for City Council to make a nomination(s) for members to the DCAD Board of Directors. Nominations are due back to the chief appraiser within ten (10) days after the vacancy notification from the district. The chief appraiser shall prepare and deliver to the Board of Directors within the next five (5) days a list of the nominees. The Board of Directors shall elect by majority vote of its members, one of the nominees to fill the vacancy. Generally, the Board of Directors are nominated and elected by the taxing jurisdictions once every other year. The currem DCAD Board Members include Richard Smith (Flower Mound), Vacam (Demon), Rick Woolfolk (Demon), Lee Baker (Flower Mound), Ben Harmon (Lewisville) and Steve Mossman (Demon). Eligibility Guidelines: · The selection process is set forth in Section 6.03 of the Property Tax Code. An appraisal district director must reside in the appraisal district for at least two (2) years immediately preceding the date he or she takes office. Most residents are eligible to serve as a director. · An employee of a taxing unit served by the appraisal district is not eligible to serve as a director. However, if the employee is an elected official, he or she is eligible to serve. A statute relevant to the Board selection process prohibits nepotism and conflict of interest for appraisal district directors and chief appraisers. In summary, the law states that: ....... "a person may not serve as director of closely related to anyone in the appraisal district or if related to anyone who represents owners in the district, or if the person has an interest in a business that contracts with the district or a taxing unit. A chief appraiser may not employ someone closely related to a member of the board of directors". EXPERIENCE - In considering individuals to serve as directors, taxing units should look for expertise in such areas as accounting, finance, management, personnel administration, contracts, computers, real estate or taxation. Historical involvement in local government activities also indicates that someone should make an excellent Board member. FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS - The applicable statutes require the board of directors to meet not less often than once each calendar quarter. The DCAD Board meets more often than is required by law. FISCAL INFORMATION There is no fiscal impact to the City of Denton. EXHIBITS DCAD Notification Letter Resolution Respectfully submitted: Diana G. Ortiz Director of Fiscal Operations DENTON CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT 3911 MORSE STREET, P O BOX 2816 DENTONt TEXAS 76202~2816 DATE: July 1, 2002 TO: All Taxiug Jurisdictions FROM: Denton Central Appraisal District Board of Directors SUBJECT: Vacancyon Board of Directors The Denton Central Appraisal District Board of Directors is requesting nominalions for a vacancy on the Board of Directors, All nominations must be submitted to the Chief Appraiser by resolution within ten days alter receiving this notification. The Chief Appraiser will deliver the nominations to the Board of Directors and by majority vote one of the nominees wilt be selected to fill the vacancy. PHONE: (940) 566-0904 METRO: (972} 434-2602 FAX: (940) 387-4824 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION NOMINATING MEMBERS TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE DENTON CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, a vacancy exists for the Board of Directors of the Denton Central Appraisal District; and WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas wishes to nominate a member to said Board; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1. That the City of Denton, Texas hereby nominates as a member to the Board of Directors of the Denton Central Appraisal District for the remaining term and expiring December, 2003. SECTION 2. That this resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2002. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Agenda 02-022 07/16/02 #35 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: July 16, 2002 DEPARTMENT: Legal Department CM/DCM/ACM: Herb Prouty, City Attorney SUBJECT: Consider and approve a resolution of the City of DeNon, Texas, authorizing intervention at the Railroad Commission of T~xas in the TXU Lone Star Pipeline request to establish rates, GUD Docket No. 9304; authorizing the hiring of attorneys and consultants; requiring reimbursemem of rate case expenses incurred by the City; finding that the meeting complied with the Open Meetings Act; making other findings and provisions related to the subject; and declaring an effective date. BACKGROUND: On May 8, 2002, TXU Lone Star Pipeline (TXU LSP) filed an application with the Railroad Commission in Docket No. 9304 to recover its costsrelated to his compliance with the requiremems of Railroad Commission Rule 16. Under this Railroad Commission Rule, TXU LSP was required in its Pipeline integrity and Safety Assessment Program to select certain pipelines that would be subject to a risk-based program and others that would be subject to a prescriptive plan. TXU's application contemplates an annual integrity and safety assessment of its facilities within its system including the City of Denton and Denton County, the cost of which would be paid by a supplememal rate that would be charged to all customers with gasconsuming equipment at an end-use location specifically attached to TXU LSP's pipeline system or the system of a local distribution company that is physically attached to that pip4ine system. As we currently understand their request, TXU LSP will seek a onetime surcharge to recover costs for 2002 at a supplemental rate based on projected costs for 12 months of 2003. TXU LSP anticipates it will recover $2.05 per MMBtu producing mnual revenues of $4,115,407 the first year, or a 3.7% increase in the total annual revenues of the Company. TXU proposes to recover the costs of the pipeline testing and repair and classification changes, including the installation of any new classification pipe through an annual and incremental rate adjustment each year over a ten-year period. Like the other TXU pipeline case (Northside Project Pipeline Expansion) in which TXU was trying to recover $64 million in costs for the surcharge to the rate pa~ers for a pipeline that was not to be constructed for several years, this appears to be an attempt by TXU to bypass the usual due-diligence in ratemaking cases by attempting to get the Railroad Commission to preapprove future expenditures. In that pipeline case--GUD Docket No. 9292--the Railroad Commission properly dismissed TXU's application upon the filing of the Motion to Dismiss by another coalition of cities, which the City of DeNon joined. This application, although not involving the many millions of dollars that the earlier pipeline filing involved, also represents piecemeal ratemaking, which we do not believe is authorized by law. instead of pursuing the case, after TXU has some actual experience with safety assessment programs, TXU has chosen to preemptively obtain a ruling from the Commission which authorizes its recovery of these costs without any of the traditional ratemaking safeguards such as basing actual rates and costs on a historic test year. We anticipate that the same cities who joined together to oppose TXU's application in the earlier pipeline case will also join this case. Jim Boyle's office has already filed a Motion to Dismiss in this case, which is based on similar grounds to the successful S:\Our DocmmentshMiscellaneous~agenda infarmarion sheer 9304 resolution.doc Motion to Dismiss that the Railroad Comnission granted in the Northside Project Pipeline Expansion case. OPTIONS: 1. Pass the resolution authorizing the City of Denton to intervene in this GUD Docket No. 9304 before the Railroad Commission and to join other cities, which will form a Steerirg Committee in this matter. 2. Choose not to intervene in this case. RECOMMENDATION: Although the amount of the requested rate increase of this Integrity and Safety Assessment case is much less than the amount at stake in the earlier TXU LSP Northside Project Pipeline Expansion case, the need to preserve the due diligence of the current ratemaking process and not to allow piecemeal ratemaking is at issue here. We would recommend that the City Council choose Option 1, authorize intervention at the Railroad Commission and join a coalition of cities which is represented by the Law Offices of Jim Boyle. It is my understanding that there may be as many as forty miles of TXU LSP pipeline, which TXU LSP is charging to pipeline customers within Denton County. Ihave been told that TXU has already transferred the same pipeline to TXU Gas Distribution (TXU GD) and that TXU GD also may be charging distribution customers for the same pipeline. If this is true, it demonstrates the problems with "one issue" or "piecemeal" rate making. FISCAL INFORMATION: The costs of this rate case filing should be spread not only among the cities that join to form a steering committee, but all the cities within the TXU pipeline system. Reasonable costs of consultants who represent the cities in this rate case are reimbursable in accordance with Section 103.022 of the Gas Utility Regulatory Act. If the Railroad Commission handles this TXU LSP case similar to the Northside Project Pipeline Expansion case, which they recently dismissed, the costs should be minimal. Respectfully submitted, Herb Prouty, City Atto~ey Page 2 S:\Onr DocmmentskMiscellaneous~agenda information sheer 9304 resolution.doc S:\Our Docmments~esolurions\02~9304 resolution.doc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING INTERVENTION AT THE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS IN THE TXU LONE STAR PiPELiNE REQUEST TO ESTABLISH RATES, GUD DOCKET NO. 9304; AUTHORIZING THE HiRiNG OF ATTORNEYS AND CONSULTANTS; REQUiRiNG REIMBURSEMENT OF RATE CASE EXPENSES iNCURRED BY THE CITY; FiNDiNG THAT THE MEETING COMPLIED WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT; MAKING OTHER FiNDiNGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, on May 8, 2002, TXU Lone Star Pipeline (TXU LSP) filed a request at the Railroad Commission of Texas, GUD Docket No. 9304, to increase directly the rates of TXU LSP customers and indirectly the rates of residential and commercial customers of TXU Gas residing within the City of Denton (City), Texas, and within other cities served by TXU Gas; and WHEREAS, TXU LSP is seeking to impose a surcharge related to expenditures for pipeline integrity and safety at an estimated cost of at least $15 million per year; and WHEREAS, the City is a regulatory authority under the Gas Utility Regulatory Act (GURA); and WHEREAS, the City has a fiduciary responsibility to its citizen-gas customers to insure that the rates charged by public utilities do not exceed what is reasonable or necessay; and WHEREAS, the evaluation of TXU LSP's Application to Increase Rates requires the specialized expertise of lawyers and consultants who regularly practice before the Railroad Commission of Texas; and WHEREAS, pursuant to GURA, Section 103.022 a municipality is entitled to reimbursement of its reasonable rate case expenses; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1. That the findings set out in the preamble to this resolution are hereby in all things approved and adopted. SECTION 2. The City is authorized to intervene at the Railroad Commission with regard to any matters at issue in GUD Docket No. 9304. SECTION 3. The City is authorized to join with other cities to form a steering committee of cities served by TXU Gas at the city gate in order to coordinate the efforts to ensure that ratepayers are not charged more than what is reasonable and necessary. The coalition of cities is known informally as the Association of TXU Municipalities (ATM). S:\Our Docmments~esolurions\02~9304 resolution.doc SECTION 4. Subject to the right to terminate employment at any time, the City of Demon hereby authorizes the Law Offices of Jim Boyle, PLLC to act as legal counsel and to work with the experts approved by the steering committee. SECTION 5. The City, in coordination with the steering committee, shall review the invoices of its consultants for reasonableness before submitting such invoices for reimbursemem pursuant to Section 103.022 of GURA. SECTION 6. That the City Council has found and determined thatthe meeting at which this resolution is considered is open to the public and that notice thereof was given in accordance with provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Law, Tex. Gov't Code ch. 551, as amended, and that a quorum of the City Council was presem. SECTION 7. That this resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2002. MARK BURROUGHS, MAYOR PRO TEM ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Page 2