The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNovember 19, 2002 Agenda AGENDA CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL November 19, 2002 After determining that a quorum is present, the City Council will convene in a Work Session on Tuesday, November 19, 2002 at 4:30 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall, 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas at which the following items will be considered: Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the Fry Street Fair, related public safety issues, and staff recommendation to relocate the event. Requests for clarification of consent agenda items listed on the consent agenda for today's City Council regular meeting of November 19, 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: Consultation with Attorney -- Under TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE Section 551.071. Discuss and consider the status of Charter Communications Effective Competition Petition and discuss legal issues conceming this petition in a contested administrative proceeding 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. Discuss and consider the status of the City Attorney's research and analysis of whether to pursue a claim for franchise fees for Charter Communications' refusal to pay franchise fees on cable modem as a result of the FCC Order in March of this year and whereas to discuss these matters in public would conflict with the duty of the City's attomeys 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, November 19, 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: 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE U.S. Flag Texas Flag "Honor the Texas Flag -- I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one and indivisible." City of Denton City Council Agenda November 19, 2002 Page 2 2. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS A. Proclamations/Awards B. November Yard-of-the-Month Awards C. Recognition of staff accomplishments 3. CITIZEN REPORTS A. Receive citizen reports from the following: 1. David Wier regarding revisiting the selective enforcement of ordinances. 2. Ross Melton regarding Code Enforcement, Municipal Court, trash ordinance, and the Council. 3. Mike Sotny regarding the Fry Street Fair. 4. 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 A-U). 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 AU below will be approved with one motion, if items are pulled for separate discussion, they will be considered as the first items following approval of the Consent Agenda. Consider approval of the minutes of October 15, 2002, October 22, 2002 and November 5, 2002. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute on behalf of the City of Denton an acceptance of an offer from the Texas Department of Transportation relating to a grant for routine airport maintenance program; authorizing the City Manager to expend funds provided for in the grant program; and declaring an effective date (TxDOT Project No. AM2003DNTON; and TxDOT CSJ No.: M318DNTON). Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute change order number three to the contract between the City of Denton and Tim Beaty Builders, Inc.; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (File 2920 - Bid 2749 - New Central Fire Station Change Order Number Three in the amount of $29,851). City of Denton City Council Agenda November 19, 2002 Page 3 Consider adoption of an ordinance awarding a contract for the purchase of public access computers for the City of Denton Public Library System, Parks and Recreation Centers, Senior Center, and select community facilities as defined in the Denton Community Network Plan from Dell Computer as awarded by the State of Texas Building and Procurement Commission (formerly known as State of Texas General Services Commission) through the Qualified ÕŸ_q¼|eîO^ãiçqì#¡èöçtcx9 ÊÛtå…Ðßkl¯žcò·¯‰-(ì.Æ )/×å ‘G|×,Owem}c-ci&EÑcõô%JªrV6~zH¶”ŠDÎÐ’K;\Öª¡Î–c7¢S|—W9þ&¿ã«ë6‹7ùz ßö´Éè~™IûšBÙôÑù{Ÿ|äÏ÷8´j„¿‡“†Z}¼Ñ•Ñ‘ÁK™´ß ˆÓÜÿØ[îÇï*˜ÓY¤ár¥´”˜–Ù™˜ßÛ˜ÕŽ+ÓÍºßÐ²”“ßÀÚLœÑ‘Ü›×.ÀÂ’–‘˜ï‘óƒž‹K¬ –ß‹—šãóKšœ×‹š,œ¥ÿ½´Öœ˜Ò=Y5–vÒœÚ‘‹¦™EÜ»°¶¯ßjk“Bµß°É„ßD™ºÃš‹_ˆ1•U’œ¯×ßož˜Ð É–“‹ J…ršƒžK…•§ÜÃ?Ö˜¦‹þ¼Š|+•ÈâZ„‰ˆœšãŒª`„ææ§ß×|xÆ®'ÈÉ“ß<ÓŒ;ÖÙü’ˆ_ ‘¥š“ß9”¥Šß¬ËÖÑ4™u±Ò‚`w±Á½ö=œ8—aøÝ¯39îÒSº Ý¬°>"³_*ž?Z$ºð¢$ª?•ƒŸöˆ²IB-¸&‚Aïnÿú·Š3“;Ñ›¡¡©œ(ÀÍF¬Ñœi¸À±[€¦n9E„0²ª…/©ÿ$uÂ ´ÝÄûYõ¶)ÔLWÊ¬ãñX;H)=¶}¼©A U˜,× Æ²=jÕcõdÙèG§à©sç^(DÊEG$a'LT¹’jq~åB+Ä¡d% ~+§îQu"3)(‡OBwÏTXa–ñ½ÈSxcìR=B»PM÷1¨c²CzµõE8àX|yâaÛBVçaç®ÂÜíP~1Sdx ü˜»ã'T7hóqiì´1¼’’–ŒŒ–´D“açö7V”úiJö&yP#mIxCsây6,÷ã}Åüà=!t ¶uqânÈw¥ptkãû–ýTùŠ3îbh8!ª2ó^,D Õ›V"à¬Ñ´&‘2’LÃW—VÍm+Ñøšµ€Dváõ²˜à<Æ¿ùN¸€oÏ¥ˆ4‡ŸŽŸ€)Ó‚á×â9‘LÖ‘ŒÛÝ»#µŠú“4‹¯K•žœš\ï±Ú›|†·:º™˜ÄßY@Ú†Í‘ä”\ï.ØSNšé™6ŒˆœNÙÞwñ–ŒÞ?®Ä®Þr÷õã¬SŒ27ßšw{–•RˆNß"?ê®®ŠË0Ã?Öœì–¾‡Œ’ì§[FË#¿«²Î}ÒØÖñ²7¯Ñ•Ÿš±›žvxÊ”ï*ÖÛÞš“ºŒšß¾‰žŸã¶.W¼_´‡œ(ûÏ½ŒÖÓ©¡ÊÜ˜žÛ¤“}aVuÝ”ÁŒº–ÀŸÊØMŒl¶XÊ: ”}M¬:¾W.lo„ÅthN¸»"Ç´²Ÿ´µa×4HEBÜü†×)¿-ÃvcJïÁj{\m›AÂE(I(wa}a<d,w5-<7äñ¤®Ás.g6d%³þTjI$Óöß‹—šß¬‹ž;ÍÖ3hòÙZd¤½yéÜ”Z¦ª\lRñí©ýRª¶pËêÌ½W uËÅ¤¦Ø#4ŠF^G”„‡†È¾d!UrýA«tÄ¿ÔÄœ¯¸8˜]¾Ãl¢Íœ“œ:ð%šÀ×“–T?5çE¸¸\,@þ-NN%¤ 7î.ˆØïbCXû¯j"L¶ì™sÎ¦.«›,b™WéÝ`ŽÞTËrf!o\iê¯Çe$W”OfSÅ7¢Ñ@kõcm~BcaXcDÀ9G0ôiìMnó•õ.ëgÅ%>¬c+ŒODs}äÿÄ[0yJR3‹éÐÕX:áŠ¹vts]% o÷vAlÊ¬|*q`¯§CàDO‘8Oæze¸wý8Ê•¾D@º^ÛK§naió`xj±ÑübZ¦/Ýìèäî†A; ýË¼¸UûKàÐÉÈÍ‘ÚÚÍ®„…ÓÁ™ ÝÌ²ÄŠ(àCù)+³r(Ø2Kˆà”’ã„òL´´\.óºpq‡±“šš›Ù„£íßÅ™ìÃ&ˆ2‹÷¾¿Á‰½›OÄ„˜6Ž_<§%%€ƒ6ž÷”ÛH“F>8Þ9w®4§·šãŸÕæÇƒˆÞ¹V–¨Û°‘6Ô}˜‹™š‘È‹°Ÿ>ÔŒ,ÞÃâköë”SØ«šK…ŒO–‘sþ½˜“Š’½¶‘Ï²šŸ†è‚ÉÿæØ“˜]Ý™¦»š‘‹ÐßÌ¶2›þŸôß³Ñ¯Á¾÷8 °œóñ=ŸÌÖ½¬Œ_¾ßŸ··ÿ:u‹†×Èýš˜v‘‘ž“ßû›ªå5›ñ5w¨T2›¸PÈÛ †˜ÙÔŸ=€šßæVüA ô²^„žðExØŒ÷ƒ:œŠ+B«Ÿð)ÚŒõ¦-µ ¶²¼¸¸ÿ°ÅU/·3Cš ©©Ó½&>%. R!÷KˆC9¤c$—²Mí”Ø†lØ¥e1óO³"¬&ª´´^³•Ëuh%¦³¡—ÓŽÍ›ÄCióóçòˆ€øÊÆéƒÃêøFž·Ç@{Uˆ[:4¯Ñ¾ÿ°÷Bˆ^áWñÅ«óEŠ-ËH4Ç¤5"Ú4iâ,~õ Á{ý{><¸Jgbb½ú@x"Úu3b·ôÙkæQ$ô'ªtEmâÄI|,Óèewc¡vÑqäSFíãdvç£2è;eè eÖuµW}gí´H}bY|háÏÀ0_f=1Ei:Q{1mÄ&4Ë>!d!re~1vÚ€Qš¸Ég,Õ«ŠaX¬|è¥Éæ˜ß™ß‹—¶2}|–¹¤RV”ñ>×¯¸²ä<ÃÚ<Öçz™©‘Ü%)cú'^yæ3.y|mhòcÿ]:¾b« þDÑÕcý÷D6éutå6k$ré$×03µîùw¸¥Vž~•qzpž«ïh¥Ý\úá’'Î²2-MwA¢Ÿ¦rQ‚„“›”ƒžœÛ…›Ž¶Ø“ß¸“ÿ¾¼ŠÀ™’´¹–šû™ÍžÚ—ø9f£P‘ua^|Ìûº“¢*|DñBõðï¹ˆV7—‡æÆ¿>I˜N½M¸j¦I¾êÞè¯IsäÇñÇvL'Xæ‹¢ë©C@EìüÊ0ÊVÂP‘H¢(Fùàþj3$,¸K¡û(G+Ú™¤ò‹p?nI¹$/DÇb£4í}m¢N1wf1 *L,BpTeÝÀ[qygSpËOcdÿ"öz}Wêa*û`–Oj"7lì,kfq¸-YSa}å$/¢$}®Cm`[+~,¸oâ5vd*g13N5Ý}\c&§ú‰m¤&æ¸PÍ.ÒóÿÿÄ*:×‘bfglEtqê&Ó×b|óÎãcíÄ"ñ1–ð+`HÕòØBsn: ß¬1©pmvæêËhn¢Áh City of Denton City Council Agenda November 19, 2002 Page 4 Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Denton, Texas and Denton State School, acting by and through The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation for the acquisition of easements, a water tank site, and the installation of a reuse water irrigation system; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a public works contract for the construction of an 18" reuse waterline to Oakmont Country Club, providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid No. 2899 - 18" Reuse Waterline to Oakmont Country Club awarded to Texas Electric Utility Construction, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $1,147,995.37.) Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas approving a Real Estate Agreement between the City of Denton and Dale irwin and Craig irwin, relating to the exchange of an approximate 0.3238 acre parcel of land being a part of the Wm. Loving Survey A-759 owned by the City of Denton for an approximate 0.2939 acre parcel of land being a part of the M.E.P. & P.RR. Survey A-927 owned by Dale irwin and Craig irwin for use as right-of-way required for future road improvements to Duchess Drive; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date. Consider the adoption of an ordinance declaring a public necessity exists and finding that public welfare and convenience requires the taking and acquiring of an approximate 3.6469 acre tract or parcel of land in fee simple for municipal landfill facilities and improvements, such title to be in the name of the City of Denton and said property being located in the G. Walker Survey Abstract Number 1330 in the City of Denton, Denton County Texas; authorizing the City Manager or his designee to make an offer to purchase the property for its just compensation and if such offer is refused, authorizing the City Attomey, or his designee, to institute the necessary proceedings in condemnation in order to acquire the property necessary for the public purpose of municipal landfill facilities and improvements, and other municipal purposes; and declaring an effective date. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a contract for an Electrical Utility Easement consisting of 6.85 acres being part of a tract conveyed to the Hudson Family Partnership, Ltd. by deed recorded in County Clerk's File Number 95-R0080500 of the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas, said property being located in J.W. Hardin Survey, Abstract No. 1656, Denton County Texas; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date. (West Denton Electric Project- Hudson) Consider approval of a partial exaction variance of Section 35.20.2(L.2.) of the Code of Ordinances concerning perimeter paving. The 4.357-acre parcel is located on the southwesterly comer of Bonnie Brae and Corbin Road. The property is located in a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district. A single-family residence is proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of a partial variance (5-1). (V02-0024) City of Denton City Council Agenda November 19, 2002 Page 5 Consider approval of a partial exaction variance of Section 35.20.3 (B.) of the Code of Ordinance concerning perimeter sidewalk. The 4.357-acre parcel is located on the southwesterly comer of Bonnie Brae and Corbin Road. The property is located in a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district. A single-family residence is proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of a partial variance (5-1). (V02-0022) Consider approval of a resolution of the City of Denton, Texas supporting a "Safe Routes to Schools" grant application to the Texas Department of Transportation for the funding of the construction of sidewalks along Ryan Road and providing for an effective date. Consider approval of a resolution of the City of Denton, Texas, adopting the City of Denton's 2003 State Legislative Program; and providing an effective date. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the initiation of the rezoning of certain real property located at 1822, 1828 and 1902 Oak Street in the City of Denton, Texas from MF-1 to Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3); and providing an effective date. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the Mayor to execute an interlocal cooperation agreement between the City of Denton and Denton County for the impoundment and disposition of dogs and cats and the collection of fees pursuant to the provisions of said agreement; and providing for an effective date. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the Mayor to execute an interlocal cooperation agreement between the City of Denton, Texas, and the City of Roanoke, Texas, for the impoundment and disposition of dogs and cats and the collection of fees pursuant to the provisions of said agreement; and providing for an effective date. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS Continue a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 80 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) to a Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning district. The five tracts are generally located on Brush Creek Road west of the intersection of Brush Creek Road and Country Club. No development is proposed at this time. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (4-3). (Z02-0036) Continue a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 6.8 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) to a Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning district. The five tracts are generally located on Woodcreek Circle, south of Brush Creek and east of Fort Worth Drive. No development is proposed at this time. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-0). (Z02-0037) City of Denton City Council Agenda November 19, 2002 Page 6 Continue a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 9.6 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) to a Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning district. The two tracts are generally located on Fort Worth Drive, north of Hamilton. No development is proposed at this time. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial (5-2). (Z02- 0035) Continue a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 21 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) to a Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning district. The three tracts are generally located on Fort Worth Drive south of Hamilton Road and north of Brush Creek. No development is proposed at this time. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-1). (Z02-0039) Continue a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 43.7 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) to a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district. The nine tracts are generally located on Fort Worth Drive south of Brush Creek. No development is proposed at this time. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (5-2). (Z02-0040) Hold a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance granting the request for a Specific Use Permit for approximately 45.7 acres allowing for gas well development. The site is in a Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning district. The subject property is located at the northeast comer of Roselawn Drive and Bonnie Brae Drive. Two gas well sites are proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0). (Z02-0049, Chamberlain/Elder Gas Well) Hold a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 35.3 acres of land generally located north and south of Audra, and east of Mayhill Road, from Planned Development 191 (PD-191) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2), Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning districts. A residential subdivision and open space is proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commissions recommends denial (5-2). (Z02- 0045, Prominence Square) Hold a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 1.1 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning district. The site, commonly known as 2309 Hinkle Drive, is generally located 300 feet north of Greenbrier Street along the west side of Hinkle Drive. No development is proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-1). (Z02-0050) Hold a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance approving a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a gas station on an approximately 2-acre site. The site is located approximately 1,200 feet north of Interstate 35 E on the east side of Fort Worth Drive. The property is in a Downtown Commercial General (DC-G) zoning district. A convenience store and gas station is proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0) with conditions. (Z02-0048) City of Denton City Council Agenda November 19, 2002 Page 7 6. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION Consider approval of an exaction variance of Section 35.20.2(L.2.) of the Code of Ordinances conceming perimeter paving. The 1.0-acre parcel is located on the easterly side of Mockingbird Lane and just south of Mingo Road. The property is currently in a Neighborhood Residential (NR-4) zoning district. The property is presently being subdivided into two (2) lots and one esidence on one of the lots currently exists. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the full variance (6-0). (V02-0023) Consider approval of an exaction variance of Section 35.20.3 (B.) of the Code of Ordinance concerning perimeter sidewalks. The 1.0-acre parcel is located on the easterly side of Mockingbird Lane and just south of Mingo Road. The property is currently in a Neighborhood Residential (NR-4) zoning district. The property is presently being subdivided into two (2) lots md one residence on one of the lots currently exists. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the full variance (6-0). (V02-0021) Consider denial of an exaction variance of Section 35.20.2 (P.1.) of the Code of Ordinance concerning coordination with surrounding streets and connectivity. The 5.0-acre parcel is located on the westerly side of Old North Road and across from Chebi Lane (approximately 900 feet north of US380/University Drive). The property is located in a Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning district. No development currently exists. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial of the variance (7-0). (V02-0020) Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas funding, after reasonable notice and heating, that TXU Gas Distribution's rates and charges within the City should be changed; determining just and reasonable rates; adopting general service rates including rate adjustment provisions and miscellaneous service charges to be charged for sales md transportation of natural gas to residential, commercial and industrial customers; providing for recovery of rate case expenses and the City's share of rate case expenses related to GUD Docket Nos. 9267-9270, 9278-9279, & 9284-9288; preserving regulatory rights of the City; providing for repeal of conflicting ordinances; and providing for an effective date. New Business This item provides a section for Council Members to agendas or to request information from the City Manager. suggest items for future Items from the City Manager 1. Notification of upcoming meetings and/or conferences 2. Clarification of items on the agenda Possible Continuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. City of Denton City Council Agenda November 19, 2002 Page 8 H. 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. WS Item 1 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: November 19, 2002 Police and Fire Jon Fortune, Public Safety and Transportation Operations SUBJECT Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the Fry Street Fair, related public safety issues, and staff recommendation to relocate the event. BACKGROUND The Council directed staff to research the economic impact of the Fry Street Fair as well as alternatives to the Fair as held last year. During the month of October 2002, the Finance Department conducted two surveys to evaluate the financial impact of the Fry Street Fair on 46 businesses in Fry Street area and the City of Denton. The first survey was primarily designed to gather mixed beverage tax and sales tax information. The survey also gathered data on how the Fry Street Fair affected operating hours, impacted expenses, and other revenues. The surveys were conducted through personal interviews with business owners/managers. The survey was voluntary but City staff conducted follow-up visits and telephone calls to those who did not respond. The estimated time to complete each survey was fifteen to thirty minutes and was based on whether or not the business had automated or manual financial records. Five of thirty-two businesses reported that they actually closed on the day of the fair and nine of the thirty-two indicated they experienced a decrease in revenue on that date because of closing or reducing their operating hours. Sixteen of the thirty-two businesses reported additional expenses that include added employees, private security, more dumpsters, and repairs to property necessitated by the fair; all totaling approximately $13,600. Five of the thirty-two businesses collected new revenues that included charging for access to restrooms, sale of food, parking fees, renting out businesses for private use; totaling approximately $2,000. The second survey was designed to gather hotel/motel tax information. The surveys were mailed or faxed to individual hotels/motels. City staff conducted follow-up telephone calls to clarify data and to follow-up on those who had not responded. The estimated time to complete each survey was fifteen to thirty minutes and was based on whether or not the hotel/motel had automated or manual financial records. The individual surveys were compiled and evaluated on an aggregate basis, based on the questionnaire. It is not at all apparent that there is a significant positive economical impact on the City of Denton from this data. A review of hotel/motel tax receipts for the Fair weekend reveals $5,717 was generated in hotel/motel tax for that date. However, it is difficult to know how much revenue is attributed to the Fair since there were other special events, such as the Texas Woman's University Homecoming, held on the same weekend last year. As a comparison the hotel/motel tax receipts on the weekend of the last NASCAR event generated $15,222 in revenue. The City of Austin Police DepartmeN assigned approximately 200 of it's total of 1,400 officers to the recent Halloween Festival on Sixth Street. It is generally felt that this is a major even for the City of Austin and is promoted as a family even with no alcohol permitted in the street. This figure represents but 14% of the total police manpower available and this is advertised as family orieNed. In comparison, the DeNon Police Department allocates 50% of its staff to the Fry Street Fair and another 45% are dedicated to regular duties for that weekend and therefore unavailable for assignments anywhere, much less to this event. The calls for service for the Denton Police Department during this even and in the Fry Street area are significantly increased from an average of about 15 calls for service to an increase of about 70 calls for service. A review of other data reflects this significant impact on calls for service in the Fry Street area and those calls can be and are directly attributed to the Fry Street Fair. An informal telephonic survey conducted by the Police DepartmeN in order to verify claims of significant charitable contributions by the Delta Lodge reflects that approximately $21,000 has been coNributed to charitable organizations in the City of DeNon since 1990. This figure is based solely on information gathered from the Delta Lodge and those charities identified by representatives of the Lodge and confirmed by the respective charities. A list of those charities and the specific information relative to those coNributions for each charity is attached hereto. The Fry Street Fair requires a substantial amount of resources to handle the wide range of activity that occurs during the eveN. To handle a crowd of approximately 20,000, only 75 officers from the Denton Police Department, Denton Fire Marshals, UNT, Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, and the Denton County Sheriffs office work the event at different times and on an assortment of schedules. This level of staffing is, in the opinion of Police and Fire Department staff, severely inadequate. While the Delta Lodge pays the cost of security for the Fair area proper, the Police Department is also required to staff additional personnel (jailers, communications operators, and reserves) for which the Delta Lodge does not pay. Additionally, on duty police and fire personnel are required to respond to calls for service created by the Fair in the surrounding neighborhoods. While planning to provide service to a special event such as the Fair, the Police and Fire Departments must not only consider the large number of people attending, but their ability to respond to a large-scale emergency or disaster, and the exceptional demands that the activity places on response services city-wide. It is the consensus of the Denton Police Department management that the following enhancements are necessary to mitigate the previously identified public safety concerns: no expansion of the event beyond that which was provided over the last several years, additional police officers, firefighters, and EMS personnel, additional pedestrian barricades, and a limit to the number of entertainment venues to that of the previous years and not beyond the established boundaries, restricted parking adjacent to the fenced areas, and greater access for emergency vehicles. The projected cost for these enhancements is approximately $32,000. It is our recommendation that the Delta Lodge incur all associated cost for the conduct of this event. Representatives from the Denton Police and Fire Departments initially met with representatives from the Delta Lodge pursuant to the direction of City Council and they left that meeting committed to not meet again on this matter. Thereafter, the Police and Fire Departments spent considerable time in the preparation of plans that would address the concerns of city council, the citizens most affected by the event, and issues of public safety without the benefit of input from Delta Lodge until Monday, November 11, 2002. It has only been within the last few days that new leadership of the Delta Lodge has indicated some willingness to meet and discuss our concerns. At a meeting on November 11th, 2002, Mr. Mike Sotny, President of the Delta Lodge met with Chief Wiley, Captain Abbott, Lt. Burns, and Officer Rachael Fleming, the West Side Co-coordinator from the Police Department and Fire Marshals Rick Jones and Laura Behrens from the Fire Department. Mr. Sotny had apparently spent some time in considering previous concerns of the Fire Department and Police Department and proposed several changes that, in fact, were consistent with the concerns of City personnel. In general, it is agreed that Hickory, Fry Street, and Avenue A can be kept free and clear of vehicular traffic and pedestrian traffic will be minimal and managed differently than in previous years. The number and location of the entertainment venues continue to be negotiated, but staff is optimistic in this regard. The number of Police and Fire personnel on scene should increase and the associated cost of personnel that are assigned elsewhere as an indirect expense should be borne by the Delta Lodge. Vendors should not be permitted on the streets and Police and Fire personnel would be dedicated and otherwise assigned to specific geographical areas within and around the event. It is expected that a plan could be formalized within the next few weeks and that all parties to that plan would sign off on it. Further, it is expected and recommended that any such plan that provides for this event at or near the Fry Street location be reviewed, modified, and approved by all parties annually and no later than November of each year if it is the intent of City Council to provide this venue for the Fry Street Fair. OPTIONS Option 1 - Advise the Police and Fire Departments to grant permits to locate the Fair in the Fry Street area as in the past. Option 2 - In the interest of public safety, advise the Police and Fire Departments to deny permits to locate the Fair in the Fry Street area, and encourage the Lodge to locate the event at a more conducive site. Option 3 - Advise staff to negotiate enhanced standards that provide for an increase in manpower, supplies, materials, and equipment that adequately address public safety concerns at the cost of the Lodge. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Option 2. EXHIBITS Fry Street Charitable Contribution Information Copies of Slide Presentation Fry Street Charitable Contribution Information Friends of the Family Contacted Kathy Brooks on 9/23. She checked their records and could not locate any donations received from Delta Lodge or Fry Street Fair. Double-checked with a Director who confirmed that they have never received any donations from Fry Street and have even requested that they quit using Friends of the Family name. United Way of Denton Contacted Pat Gobble on 9/23. She said that they have never received any donations from Delta Lodge or Fry Street Fair. She did say that Denton Christian Preschool (a United Way agency) has. Denton Christian Preschool Contacted Judy Royal, Director, on 9/23. She said that they have received donations from the Delta Lodge/Fry Street Fair in the past. I recontacted Mrs. Royal on 9/27. They received the following donations: 4/27/99 $1,000, 4/27/99 $1,250 (believed to be a match from Lodge member) 5/12/00 $1,250 and 1/29/02 $1,000. They are not sure about donations received before 1999. Keep Denton Beautiful Contacted Lancine Bentley on 9/23. She said that they have never received any donations from Delta Lodge or Fry Street Fair. She added that the Deltas come to them for donations of trashcans and bags for the event. She said that this year she solicited $500 from Ben E. Keith to cover the cost of Parks and Rec. putting out trashcans and liners. Denton Community Food Bank Contacted Ed Ellis, Volunteer Accountant. He stated that he found a donation on 5/26/00 for $1,250 and 1/29/02 for $1,000. No other donations were located and he could not find any food donations. Denton Humane Society Patricia Barrington, Animal Control, spoke with Cathy Wenger. Wenger said that the Organization has been a beneficiary of the Delta Lodge fundraiser for about five years, and they receive between $2000 and $3000 annually. Friends of the UNT Library On 9/30/02, contacted Sandra Atcheson with the Dean's Office at UNT Libraries. She said that in May 1990 they received $500.00 from the Delta Lodge and have not received anything since then. Denton Cancer Research Have not located a contact. Fry Street Development Corp. On 9/30/02, contacted Anita Bruno. She said that they have received one donation from the Delta Lodge in the past for $1,500 but she does not remember when it was. Denton Co. MHMR On 9/30/02, contacted Megan Harris, Public Relations, who directed me to Teresa Heimdal. Contacted Ms. Heimdal on 10/02/02. She said that in January 2002 they received a donation of $1,000 from the Delta Lodge. She said that she did not locate any donation for 2001 and that the records were not computerized before that so she does not know about any past years. Red Cross On 9/30/02, contacted Tonya Mahoney. She said that they received $1,250 in April 99 and $1,000 on 10/25/01 from the Delta Lodge. Mahoney said that she had continually contacted them until they finally made the promised donation. Denton Fire Fighters Association Contacted Brian Glenn with the Denton Firefighters Association on 10/16/02. He said that for the last 3 or 4 years the Association has been volunteering at the Fry street Fair. The Association is given a $1,000 to $1,500 donation for this volunteer work. Brian said that the agreement gives them a set donation amount and then possibly a percentage of the profits. Brian said that they did not receive the donation from the 2001 Fair until late December. He was told that the Fair lost money in 2002 and they have not received the 2002 donation. He said that if they worked with them again this year, that he would require the money up front. Denton Police Bike Unit $1000 contribution in 1991. © Item 4A CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 15, 2002 After determining that a quorum was presem, the City Council convened in a Work Session on Tuesday, October 15, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Brock; Council Members Fulton, McNeill, Momgomery, Phillips, and Redmon ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Burroughs 1. The staff responded to requests for clarification of consent agenda items listed on the consem agenda for the City Council regular meeting of October 15, 2002. Following the Work Session, the Council convened in a Closed Session: 1. The Council considered the following in Closed Meeting: mo Consultation with Attorney - Under TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE Section 551.071. Received a status report on pending litigation emitled: GN#200100, City of San Antonio, Texas vs. Brazos Power Cooperative, et al and GN#200090, Reliant Energy, Inc. vs. Big Country Electric Cooperative, et al, both pending before the 353rd Judicial District Court in and for Travis County, Texas, in which litigation Denton Municipal Electric was one of the many parties defendam. Discussed, considered, and took action regarding a settlement offer proposed by the parties to both causes of action, which would dismiss said causes of action. Discussed and considered other legal issues concerning this litigation with the City's 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 Professiona 1 Conduct of the State Bar of Texas. Bo Deliberations regarding real property -- Under TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE Section 551.072 and Consultation with Attorney -- Under TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE Section 551.071. Deliberated the purchase and value of real property imerests for electric mility purposes in the J.W. Hardin Survey, Abstract No. 1656 DeNon County, Texas, and being an approximate 6.85 acre tract located along the west side of Corbin Road, south of F.M. 1515; which acquisition was for a public purpose. Received legal advice from the City Attorney or his staff concerning legal issues regarding the acquisition and/or condemnation of such real property imerests. (West Electric Transmission Line) Deliberated the purchase and value of real property hterests for electric utility purposes in the W. Neil Survey, Abstract No. 970 Denton County, Texas, and being an approximate 1.18 acre tract located along the west side of Corbin Road, south of F.M. 1515; which acquisition is for a public purpose. Received legal advice from the City Attorney or his staff concerning legal issues regarding the acquisition and/or condemnation of such real property imerests. (West Electric Transmission Line) City of DeNon City Council Minutes October 15, 2002 Page 2 Regular Meeting of the City of DeNon City Council on Tuesday, October 15, 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. 2. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS Mayor Brock presemed the fo llowing proclamations: Relationship Violence Awareness Month World Population Awareness Week Make A Difference Day ICMA Award to Mike Conduff The October Yard-of-the-Month Awards were presented to: J.D. & Roxie McNeely Rebecca Mullett Daniel & Lisa Bidleman Denise Wallace Mark Holiman Tommy & Teresa Nelson Cecil & Alis Adkins - Xeriscaped Yard University Courtyard Apartmems - Commercial D. City Manager Conduff presemed recognition of staff accomplishmems. 3. CITIZEN REPORTS A. The following individuals presemed citizen reports: 1. Loretta May regarding the name change at the Denton Senior Center. Ms. May, 2000 Cindy Lane, stated she was opposed to the name change for the Senior Cemer and provided a signed petition. 2. Nikolas Eassa regarding the name change at the Denton Senior Center. Mr. Eassa stated that Denton had the best senior center there ever was. He was opposed to the name change. Clifford "Pop" Sickles regarding the name change at the DeNon Senior Center. Mr. Sickles stated that he opposed the name change for the Senior Cemer. 4. Pam Snider regarding the name change at the DeNon Senior Cemer. Ms. Snider was presem but could not speak but she also opposes the name change for the Senior Center. City of DeNon City Council Minutes October 15, 2002 Page 3 5. Elsie Cames regarding the name change at the Denton Senior Center. Ms. Carnes was not presem but gave her statemem to Loretta May to read to the Council. 4. CONSENT AGENDA McNeill motioned, Momgomery seconded to approve the Consem Agenda and accompanying ordinances and resolutions. On roll vote, Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Momgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", Redmon "aye", and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carried 6-0. A. NO. 2002-332 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON APPROVING A LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY ("ONCOR"), AND THE CITY OF DENTON RELATING TO THE ENCROACHMENT OF A CITY SANITARY SEWER LINE ACROSS AN EXISTING ONCOR EASEMENT LOCATED IN THE BERRY MERCHANT SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 800 AND BEING LOCATED IN PART OF TWO TRACTS OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEEDS RECORDED IN VOL. 605, PAGE 621 AND DOCUMENT NO. 2002- R0073881 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS. NO. 2002-333 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON APPROVING A LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY ("TMPA"), AND THE CITY OF DENTON RELATING TO THE ENCROACHMENT OF A CITY SANITARY SEWER LINE ACROSS AN EXISTING TMPA EASEMENT AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEXINGTON PARK PHASE 1 ADDITION, LOCATED WITHIN A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE B. MERCHANT SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 800, CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS AND BEING A PORTION OF A CALLED 37.817 ACRE TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM A.L. LONG AND WIFE, ETHEL LONG TO HERSCHEL V. FORESTER RECORDED UNDER VOLUME 605 PAGE 621 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS AND ALSO BEING A PORTION OF A CALLED 253.926 ACRE TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM WHEELER RANCH, LTD. TO CENTEX HOMES RECORDED BY COUNTY CLERK FILE NUMBER 2002-R0073881 OF THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS. NO. 2002-334 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE DENTON HOUSING AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SENIOR HOUSING FACILITY AT 2501 N. BELL AVENUE, AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE, NOT TO EXCEED $60,000; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Approved an exaction variance of Section 35.20.2 (L.3.a.) of the Code of Ordinances concerning improvements to a perimeter street. The 98.0-acre parcel was located on the City of DeNon City Council Minutes October 15, 2002 Page 4 westerly side of Smart Road and just north of LP288. The property was curremly in a NR-4, a Neighborhood Residemial (4 lots to the acre) zoning district. No developmem curremly existed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the variance as requested (7-0) (V02-0019). mo NO. 2002-335 AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY OF DENTON ABANDONING AND VACATING ITS GAS AND UTILITY EASEMENT RECORDED IN VOLUME 569, PAGE 681, DEED RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Fo NO. 2002-336 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR A NON-DRILLING, PAID-UP POOLING AGREEMENT FOR AN OIL AND GAS LEASE AGREEMENT FOR SOUTH LAKES PARK WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Go NO. 202-337 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING A PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND LYNN CARDONA FOR CONSULTING SERVICES AND SYSTEM ASSISTANCE IN THE FINANCIAL/HUMAN RESOURCES SOFTWARE KNOWN AS JD EDWARDS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH LYNN CARDONA IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $89,000). Ho NO. 2002-338 AN ORDINANCE AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF NOVELL PRODUCT LICENSES, THE ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATED WITH THE ADDITIONAL LICENSES, AND THE ANNUAL MAINTENANCE FOR THE CURRENTLY LICENSED PRODUCTS AS AWARDED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS BUILDING AND PROCUREMENT COMMISSION THROUGH THE QUALIFIED iNFORMATiON SERVICE VENDOR (QiSV) CATALOGUE PROGRAM; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (FILE 2903 TO SHi GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $115,362.88). NO. 2002-339 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS PROViDiNG FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR AN ANNUAL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR THE JD EDWARDS ONEWORLD SOFTWARE PACKAGE WHICH IS 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 2904 TO JD EDWARDS iN THE AMOUNT OF $80,400). City of Demon City Council Minutes October 15, 2002 Page 5 Jo NO. 2002-340 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE RENEWAL OF AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES FOR CELLULAR DIGITAL PACKET DATA (CDPD) AND FRAME RELAY SERVICES WHICH ARE AVAILABLE FROM ONLY ONE SOURCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (FILE 2905 TO AT&T WIRELESS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $98,000). Ko NO. 2002-341 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE CITY OF FORT WORTH FOR THE MITIGATION OF LEAD BASED PAINT HAZARDS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Lo NO. 2002-342 AN ORDINANCE CREATING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE §395.058 AS A REQUIREMENT BEFORE AUTHORIZING IMPACT FEES; APPOINTING THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S MEMBERS AS MEMBERS OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE; PROVIDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF AND APPOINTING ONE ADDITIONAL AD HOC MEMBER TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM THE EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF PROCEDURAL RULES FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO FOLLOW IN PERFORMING OUT ITS DUTIES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mo NO. 2002-343 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF A SETTLEMENT OFFER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, OR HIS DELEGATE, THE AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO EFFECT AND COMPLETE THE SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF TWO LAWSUITS NOW PENDING BEFORE THE 353RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS, STYLED: GN#200090 RELIANT ENERGY, INC. VS. BIG COUNTRY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, ET AL AND GN#200100 CITY OF SAN ANTONIO VS. BRAZOS POWER COOPERATIVE, ET AL, IN WHICH LAWSUITS THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS IS A PARTY DEFENDANT; AUTHORIZING SAID CITY MANAGER TO EXPEND A SUM OF MONIES, NOT TO EXCEED $37,500 IN ORDER TO OBTAIN SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF BOTH SAID LAWSUITS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City of Demon City Council Minutes October 15, 2002 Page 6 No NO. R2002-050 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS SUPPORTING NECESSARY LEGiSLATiON AND DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT (DART) POLICY CHANGES TO ALLOW EXPANSION AND EXTENSION OF DART SERVICES TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT JURISDICTIONS THROUGH LOCAL OPTION CITIZEN ELECTIONS PLEDGING PAYMENTS TO THE DART SYSTEM IN AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO A ONE-CENT SALES TAX; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Oo NO. 2002-344 AN ORDINANCE DECLARING A PUBLIC NECESSITY EXISTS AND FINDING THAT PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE REQUIRES THE TAKING AND ACQUIRING OF AN APPROXIMATE 6.85 ACRE TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND FOR ELECTRIC UTILITY PURPOSES BEING PART OF A TRACT CONVEYED TO THE HUDSON FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. BY DEED RECORDED IN COUNTY CLERK'S FILE NUMBER 95-R0080500 OF THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS, SAID PROPERTY BEING LOCATED IN J. W. HARDIN SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1656, DENTON COUNTY TEXAS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO MAKE AN OFFER TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FOR JUST COMPENSATION AND IF SUCH OFFER IS REFUSED, AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO INSTITUTE THE NECESSARY PROCEEDINGS IN CONDEMNATION IN ORDER TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY NECESSARY FOR THE PUBLIC PURPOSE OF ELECTRIC UTILITY FACILITIES AND INSTALLATION; DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (WEST ELECTRIC PROJECT) Po NO. 2002-345 AN ORDINANCE DECLARING A PUBLIC NECESSITY EXISTS AND FINDING THAT PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE REQUIRES THE TAKING AND ACQUIRING OF AN APPROXIMATE 1.18 ACRE TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND FOR ELECTRIC UTILITY PURPOSES BEING PART OF A TRACT CONVEYED TO WILLIAM F. CHESTER BY DEED RECORDED IN VOLUME 4989, PAGE 1571 OF THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS, SAID PROPERTY BEING LOCATED IN W. NElL SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 970, DENTON COUNTY TEXAS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO MAKE AN OFFER TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FOR JUST COMPENSATION AND IF SUCH OFFER IS REFUSED, AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO INSTITUTE THE NECESSARY PROCEEDINGS IN CONDEMNATION IN ORDER TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY NECESSARY FOR THE PUBLIC PURPOSE OF ELECTRIC UTILITY FACILITIES AND INSTALLATION; DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (WEST ELECTRIC PROJECT) Qo NO. R2002-051 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ENDORSING THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES HOMETOWN SECURITY DAY TO EMPHASIZE City of DeNon City Council Minutes October 15, 2002 Page 7 THE ESSENTIAL ROLE OF AMERICA'S CITIES IN HOMELAND DEFENSE AND THE NEED FOR A FEDERAL-LOCAL PARTNERSHIP; URGING CONGRESS TO PASS THE HOMELAND SECURITY BILL AND TO FINALIZE FUNDING FOR HOMELAND SECURITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Ro NO. 2002-346 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF A CONSENT AGREEMENT AND FINAL ORDER BY THE CITY MANAGER REGARDING THE SETTLEMENT OF A DISPUTED CLAIM, IN CASE NO. CWA-06-2002-1628 WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT OF $46,800, IN SETTLEMENT AND COMPROMISE THEREOF; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption of an ordinance regarding amendments to Subchapter 5 of the Development Code related to the NRMU-12 and NRMU zoning districts. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7-0 on 5 amendmems and 4-3 on one amendment). (SI02-0010, NRMU-12 & NRMU Zoning Districts) Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Developmem, stated the following changes had been proposed to the NRMU-12 and NRMU zoning districts: NRMU-12 (1) Change limitation of"Retail Sales and Service" to L-15. (2) Change limitation of "Professional Services and Office" to L-14. (3) Require an SUP for multi-family developmem within 200 feet of an existing single- family house. NRMU (4) Change to allow SUP for "Quick Vehicle Servicing" & "Drive Through Facilities". (5) Change L- 11 to eliminate the "take out" restriction for restaurams. (6) Allow "Attached Single Family Dwellings" at a maximum density of 12 units per acre by right. Council Member McNeill asked what would happen with a project that was underway and the owner did not want to go thru the SUP process. City Attorney Prouty stated that if a property owner had spent substantial sums of money or made substamial progress on a project it would be unfair to change the zoning at that poim in time and that property could be grandfathered. The Mayor opened the public hearing. The following citizens spoke during the public hearing: Ed Wolski, 2301 Hollyhill, spoke in opposition Elise Ridenour, 2205 W. Oak, complememed the council on having a quarterly review, expressed concerns that public hearings would be eliminated City of Demon City Council Minutes October 15, 2002 Page 8 Mike Cochran, 610 W. Oak, in favor of part of it and not in favor of part of it - need to protect right of public input Mark Donaldson, 3216 Staghorn Circle, spoke in support of removing the requiremem for a Specific Use Permit from single-family attached residences (Town Homes) in the NRMU zoning district Mayor Pro Tem Burroughs arrived at the meeting. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The Mayor asked for clarification on the proposed change to attached single-family dwellings in NRMU. Powell stated that the proposed change to NRMU was that attached single-family dwellings would be allowed by right at a maximum density of 12 units per acre. Council Member Phillips asked if they had to vote on all the changes at once or if they could vote on each change one at a time. Powell stated they could vote on them one at a time or all at once. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2002-347 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING PORTIONS OF SUBCHAPTER 5 OF THE DENTON DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING TO THE NRMU-12 AND NRMU ZONING DISTRICTS; PROVIDING A PENALTY CLAUSE WITH A MAXIMUM FINE OF $2000.00 PER DAY FOR A VIOLATION THEREOF; A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (SI02-0010) Burroughs motioned to approve Change Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, McNeill seconded. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", Redmon "aye", and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion approved unanimously. Burroughs stated that he had not heard a good explanation of Change #3 but that he was ok with Change #6. McNeill motioned to approve Change #6, Burroughs seconded. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", Redmon "aye", and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion approved unanimously. Consensus of the Council was to have staff work on Change #3 and bring it back to the Council. Fulton motioned, McNeill seconded to cominue the public hearing umil December 10, 2002 and have staff work on Change #3 and bring it back to the Council. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", Redmon "aye", and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion approved unanimously. City of DeNon City Council Minutes October 15, 2002 Page 9 B. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption of an ordinance regarding an amendmem to Subchapter 5 of the Developmem Code related to multi-family density calculations. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7-0). (SI02-0011, Multi- family Density) Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Developmem, stated that for multi-family developmem, especially studem housing, the use of density did not adequately measure the number of units or the impact. Using the number of units vs. bedrooms to calculate density in essence penalized efficiency and one-bedroom developments. He stated that the recommended change was to calculate multi-family density, in the Dowmown University Core District only, on the number of bedrooms as opposed to the number of units. The result was a better relationship between the impact of a studem multi-family developmem and stated density. The Mayor opened the public hearing. No one spoke during the public hearing. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2002-348 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING PORTIONS OF SUBCHAPTER 5 OF THE DENTON DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING TO MULTI-FAMILY DENSITY CALCULATIONS WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN UNIVERSITY CORE DISTRICTS; PROVIDING A PENALTY CLAUSE WITH A MAXIMUM FINE OF $2000.00 PER DAY FOR A VIOLATION THEREOF; A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (SI02-0011) Burroughs motioned, McNeill seconded to approve the ordinance. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Momgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", Redmon "aye", and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion approved unanimously. C. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption of an ordinance graining approval of a sub-surface use of a portion of Airport Open Space Park on Masch Branch Road 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. The Mayor opened the public hearing No one spoke during the public hearing. The Mayor closed the public hearing The following ordinance was considered: City of Demon City Council Minutes October 15, 2002 Page 10 NO. 2002-349 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SUB-SURFACE USE OF A PORTION OF AIRPORT OPEN SPACE PARK ON MASCH BRANCH ROAD 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. Burroughs rrotioned to approve the ordinance, Redmon seconded. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Momgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", Redmon "aye", and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion approved unanimously. 6. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION A. New Business The following items of New Business were suggested by Council for future agendas: plan. 2. late. Council Member Redmon requested a discussion about CDBG targeted area funding and Council Member Redmon expressed concern about the U.S. mail in his district arriving B. Items from the City Manager The City Manager did not have any additional items C. There was no cominuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. D. There was no official action on Closed Meeting Item(s) under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. EULINEBROCK MAYOR CITY OFDENTON, TEXAS JANE RICHARDSON ASSISTANT CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 22, 2002 After determining that a quorum was present, the City Council convened in a Planning Session on Tuesday, October 22, 2002 at 4:30 p.m. in the City Council Work Session Room at City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Brock; Mayor Pro Tem Burroughs; Council Members McNeill, Montgomery, Phillips, and Redmon. ABSENT: Council Member Fulton 1. The Council received a report and held a discussion concerning Long Range (50 Year) planning issues for Water, Wastewater and Solid Waste. Howard Martin, Assistant City Manager for Utilities, stated that staff would be making presentations regarding water, wastewater and solid waste long range planning issues. Tim Fisher, Assistant Director for Water Utilities, stated that Denton had transitioned from a predominantly groundwater system to a surface water system over the last 50 years. One primary issue to consider was whether Denton wanted to be a partner or a raw water customer in water supply options. Currently the City viewed water opportunities as a partner but that approach might not be the most cost effective approach to provide water resources. Alternatives would be to continue wholesale customer relationship with Dallas Water Utilities; parmer with one or more entities to sponsor a new water supply project; direct reuse program; indirect reuse permit; and increased water conservation effort. Consensus of Council was that they were supportive of the current efforts and staff should continue to ensure that Denton had an adequate water supply in the future years by utilizing a mix of the above approaches. P.S. Arora, Assistant Director of Wastewater, presented the history of the wastewater system in Denton and projections of flows in the next 50 years. Jim Coulter, Director of Water Utilities, presented the history and future of the City's beneficial reuse program. Vance Kemler, Director of Solid Waste, presented details on factors affecting disposal capacity requirements; public education programs to help with source reduction in packaging; waste diversion; current and future legislation and regulations; continue current programs including yardwaste collection, roll out curbside recycling and public education programs. Near and long term programs included "pay as you throw" to residential customers, landfill gas to energy, implement bioreactor technology and future technologies including mining and waste to energy. Consensus of the Council was to stay in an ownership position with the municipal solid waste landfill. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS EULINE BROCK MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES November 5, 2002 After determining that a quorum was present, the City Council convened in a Work Session on Tuesday, November 5, 2002 at 4:30 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room. PRESENT: Mayor Pro Tem Burroughs; Council Members Fulton, McNeill, Montgomery, Phillips, and Redmon. ABSENT: Mayor Brock 1. The Council held a joint City Council/Planning & Zoning Commission work session and received a report and held a discussion regarding the draft Downtown Master Plan. John Fregonese, Fregonese Calthorpe Associates, presented details regarding the Denton Downtown Master Plan. He stated that the downtown study area included about 440 acres with 1,000 buildings that contained a wide variety of uses. Topics studied included parking both current and future needs; economics and growth; reinvestment analysis; opportunity sites for redevelopment; breakdown of the area into districts; analysis of a successful downtown; transportation plan; and key findings. Implementation included adopting the Plan as an official guide; adopting a street map as an official plan; developing special design guidelines for the core area; developing and adopting sidewalk use policies; implementing tax increment investment zones; and making the downtown area an economic development project. Council discussed the pros and cons of the Plan. Suggestions from Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission included a priority of strategies; an identification of possible uses for an initial investment of city funds; goals from city initiatives versus goals from outside sources; how to best direct people to the downtown area; and starting with a performing arts/conference center to attract business to the area. Council Member McNeill suggested that the Planning and Zoning Commission continue to study the issue and present a recommendation to the Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned its portion of the meeting. 2. Staff responded to requests for clarification of consent agenda items listed on the consent agenda for the City Council regular meeting of November 5, 2002. Regular Meeting of the City Council on Tuesday, November 5, 2002 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 215 E. McKinney Street. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the U. S. and Texas flags. 2. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS A. Mayor Pro Tem Burroughs presented a proclamation for National Nurse Practitioner Week. City of Denton City Council Minutes November 5, 2002 Page 2 The following awards were presented: Association Award. TML Municipal Excellence Awards; Texas Planning 3. CITIZEN REPORTS A. The Council received citizen reports from the following: Ross Melton regarding Code Enforcement, Municipal Court, trash ordinance, and the Council. Mr. Melton stated that his lawsuit against the city had been dismissed in Municipal Court and should be an embarrassment to the City. Dessie Goodson regarding the City of Denton's public transportation and the Denton Housing Authority. Ms. Goodson was not present at the meeting. Bob Clifton regarding residency requirements for City Council members and outrageous salaries over $60,000 and benefits for employees. Mr. Clifton was not present at the meeting. 4. CONSENT AGENDA McNeill motioned, Fulton seconded to approve the Consent Agenda and accompanying ordinances and resolutions. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", and Redmon "aye". Motion carded unanimously. A. Approved the minutes of October 8, 2002. 2002-350 - An ordinance authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a Pipeline Crossing Agreement with Union Pacific Railroad Company for a pipeline crossing located at Mile Post 723.10, Choctaw Subdivision, City of Denton, Denton County, Texas; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date. 2002-351 - An ordinance authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute an Interlocal Agreement with Texas Woman's University to enable an exchange of easements and services to accommodate utility relocations and easements in conjunction with the widening of US 380; and declaring an effective date. 2002-352 An ordinance amending Chapter 18, Article VIII "SCHOOL SAFETY SPEED ZONES" Section 18-210 (E.1.) of the Code of Ordinance conceming the removal of the entire portion which concerns the Immaculate Conception Catholic school zone, being both directions of Bolivar Street from its intersection with Second Street to its intersection with Third Street. The Traffic Safety Commission recommended approval of this item (7-0). City of Denton City Council Minutes November 5, 2002 Page 3 2002-352 An ordinance amending Chapter 18, Article VIII "SCHOOL SAFETY SPEED ZONES" Section 18-210 (A.9.) of the Code of Ordinance conceming the removal of the entire portion which concerns the Sullivan Keller Elementary school zones, being: Both directions of Wood Street beginning 230 feet south of where Wood Street intersects the center line of Davis Street to 300 feet north of where Wood Street intersects the center line of Davis Street; Both directions of Ruddell Street beginning 230 feet south of where Ruddell Street intersects the center line of Davis Street to 300 feet north of where Ruddell Street intersects the center line of Davis Street; both directions of Davis Street from its intersection with Wood Street to the intersection of Ruddell Street and Davis Street. The Traffic Safety Commission recommended approval of this item (7-0). 2002-353 An ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas approving a real estate contract between the City of Denton and E. J. Dane, relating to the purchase of an approximate 0.2383 acre tract or parcel of land, being part of Lot 4, Block A, 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. 2002-354 - 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, 0.959 acre and 0.028 acre, respectively, all of which are located in Stephen A. Venter Survey, Abstract Number 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 1044, 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. 2002-355 An ordinance authorizing the execution of a change order to the contract for annual maintenance of the City of Denton phone system; providing for the addition of a sixth year of service; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (File 2902 - Verizon Southwest in the amount of $40,000.08). 2002-356 - An ordinance of the City of Denton authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a purchase order with the Houston-Galveston Area Council of Governments (HGAC) for the acquisition of two 40 yard front load refuse truck bodies by way of an Inteflocal Agreement with the City of Denton; and providing an effective date (File 2911 - HGAC - Two 40 Yard Front Load Refuse Truck Bodies in the amount of $152,888). City of Denton City Council Minutes November 5, 2002 Page 4 2002-357 - An ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a public works contract for the construction of parking lot improvements to Evers Park; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2900 - Evers Park Parking Lot imprevement Project Phase iV a,varded to Jones and Jeffery Construction Co., inc. in the amount of $718,529). 2002- 358 - An ordinance authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a Professional Services Agreement with ETTL Engineering and Consulting, Inc. for hydro geological consulting and ground water monitoring services at the Denton Municipal Landfill as set forth in the contract; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (File 2910 to ETTL Engineering and Consulting, inc. in an amount not to exceed $40,940.48). 2002-359 - An ordinance of the City of Denton authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Camp Dresser & McKee, inc. for professional engineering services related to the design of the Clear Creek Water Reclamation Plant project; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (RFP 2897 - Design of Clear Creek Water Reclamation Plant awarded to Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $499,347). 2002-360 - An ordinance of the City of Denton authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Freese and Nichols, inc. for professional engineering services related to the City of Denton Clear Creek intercepter and Water Reuse Line project; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (RFP 2898 - Clear Creek WRP intercepter and Reuse Lines awarded to Freese and Nichols, inc. in an amount not to exceed $431,120). 2002-361 - An ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas authorizing the City Manager to execute a fa'st amendment to professional services agreement with RJN Group, inc. for professional engineering services respecting the final design services related to infiltration/inflow corrections for the Eastern Pecan Creek and Hickory Creek Basins; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (File 2913 - RJN Group inc. in an amount not to exceed $375,680). 2002-362 - An ordinance awarding a contract for the purchase of software upgrades and services to enhance the existing LaserFiche Document imaging Application and Enhancement Services currently being used by the City of Denton from VP imaging as awarded by the State of Texas Building and Procurement Commission (formerly known as the General Services Commission) through the Qualified Information Services Vendor (QiSV) Catalogue Program; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (File 2909 - VP Imaging in an amount not to exceed $177,823). City of Denton City Council Minutes November 5, 2002 Page 5 2002-363 - An ordinance awarding a contract for the purchase of fiber optic cable, patch panels and cable assemblies as awarded by the State of Texas Building and Procurement Commission (formerly known as State of Texas General Services Commission); providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (PO 107601 to FMS Technologies, Inc. in the amount of $30,021.15). 2002-364 - An ordinance authorizing the Mayor to execute an Inteflocal Agreement between the City of Denton and the University of North Texas to provide for the purchase and restoration of buses to provide express passenger service for UNT students, staff and faculty; and providing for an effective date. R. Approved tax refunds for the following property taxes: Name Reason Tax Amount Year i ~llS ~rg ~° ¢~ Cfo ~rb~ ~ 200~ $ ~994 2. Texas Title for Terry & Susan Wilson Duplicate Payment 2001 538.78 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. The Council held a public heating and considered adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 80 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) to a Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning district. The five tracts were generally located on Brush Creek Road west of the intersection of Brush Creek Road and Country Club. No development was proposed at this time. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (4-3). (Z02-0036) Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Development, stated that the first 5 items in the Public Heating section were related. He reviewed the Planning and Zoning Commission's discussion on the five tracts and the zoning history of the tracts. Council Member McNeill stated that there was a supermajority requirement for the fa'st five public heatings and only six council members were present. He suggested opening the public heatings, taking comments from those present and then continue the public heatings until the next regular meeting, assuming there would be a full council at the next regular meeting. The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public heatings for the fa'st five public heatings listed A-E. The following individuals spoke during the public hearings for Items A-E: Larry McGehee, 2001 Christina Court, Denton - favor of A-E Michael Gielink, 1240 Brush Creek Road, Argyle, 76226 - favor orA, B, D, E Carol Haesle, 4701 Upper Glenwick Court, Argyle, 76226 - favor A-E Bill Lewis, 900 Brush Creek Road, Argyle, 76226 - favor A-E Gina and Dick Shanhouse, 8001 Woodcreek Circle, Argyle, 76226 - favor A-E City of Denton City Council Minutes November 5, 2002 Page 6 Hugh Pruett, 4024 Pruett, Argyle, 76226 - opposed to E Sharon Cox, 8008 Woodcreek, Argyle, 76226 - favor A-E Tim House, Double Oak - favor orE, against B Lona Wolfe, 4801 Argyle Lane, Argyle, 76226 - favor McNeill motioned, Redmon seconded to postpone and continue the public hearings for Items A E until the November 19, 2002 Council meeting. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", and Redmon "aye". Motion carded tmanimously. B. The Council held a public heating and considered adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 6.8 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) to a Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning district. The five tracts were generally located on Woodcreek Circle, south of Brush Creek and east of Fort Worth Drive. No development was proposed at this time. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (6-0). (Z02-0037) Comments for the public heating for this item were received as noted under 5A. This item was postponed with a continued public heating until November 19, 2002. C. The Council held a public heating and considered adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 9.6 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) to a Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning district. The two tracts were generally located on Fort Worth Drive, north of Hamilton. No development was proposed at this time. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial (5-2). (Z02-0038) Comments for the public heating for this item were received as noted under 5A. This item was postponed with a continued public heating until November 19, 2002. D. The Council held a public heating and considered adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 21 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) to a Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning district. The three tracts were generally located on Fort Worth Drive south of Hamilton Road and north of Brush Creek. No development was proposed at this time. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (6-1). (Z02-0039) Comments for the public heating for this item were received as noted under 5A. This item was postponed with a continued public heating until November 19, 2002. E. The Council held a public heating and considered adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 43.7 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) to a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district. The nine tracts were generally located on Fort Worth Drive south of Brush Creek. No development was proposed at this time. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (5-2). (Z02-0040) Comments for the public heating for this item were received as noted under 5A. This item was postponed with a continued public heating until November 19, 2002. City of Denton City Council Minutes November 5, 2002 Page 7 F. The Council held a public heating and considered adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 2.8 acres of land from Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) and Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning districts to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use (NRMU) zoning district. The property was generally located north of McKinney Avenue, west of Joshua Street. A professional office building was proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7-0). (Z02-0034) Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Development, presented the details of the proposal. The Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval. A neighborhood meeting had been held with details of the meeting included in backup materials. The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public heating. The following individuals spoke during the public heating: Vicki Oppenheim and Lee Allison, representing the petitioner - favor The Mayor Pro Tem closed the public heating. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2002-365 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, REZONING APPROXIMATELY 2.82 ACRES OF LAND IN THE CITY OF DENTON FROM NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 3 (NR-3) AND NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 4 (NR-4) ZONING DISTRICTS TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE (NRMU); SAID REAL PROPERTY BEING GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE WEST OF BELLAIRE ON MCKINNEY AVENUE, EAST OF MACK, WEST OF JOSHUA DRIVE; PROViDiNG A PENALTY CLAUSE WITH A MAXIMUM FiNE OF $2000.00 PER DAY FOR A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE; A SEVERABiLiTY CLAUSE; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z02-0034) McNeill motioned, Montgomery seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", and Redmon "aye". Motion carried unanimously. G. The Council held a public heating and considered adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 23.2 acres of land from Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) to Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning district. The property was generally located north of McKinney Avenue, west of Joshua Street. A single-family subdivision was proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7-0). (Z02-0035) The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public heating. No one spoke during the public heating. City of Denton City Council Minutes November 5, 2002 Page 8 The Mayor Pro Tem closed the public heating. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2002-366 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, REZONING APPROXIMATELY 22.55 ACRES OF LAND IN THE CITY OF DENTON FROM NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 3 (NR-3) TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 4 (NR-4) ZONING DISTRICT; SAID REAL PROPERTY BEING GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE WEST OF BELLAIRE ON MCKINNEY AVENUE, EAST OF MACK, WEST OF JOSHUA DRIVE; PROVIDING A PENALTY CLAUSE WITH A MAXIMUM FINE OF $2000.00 PER DAY FOR A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE; A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z02- 0035) Redmon motioned, Montgomery seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", and Redmon "aye". Motion carried unanimously. H. The Council held a public heating and considered adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 4 acres from a Regional Center Residential 1 (RCR-1) zoning district to a Regional Center Commercial Downtown (RCC-D) zoning district. The property, commonly known as 4405 Pockrus Page Road, was generally located north of Pockrus Page Road approximately 1100 feet east from Interstate 35E Service Road and Pockrus Page Road intersection. No development was proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7-0). (Z02-0044) Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Development, presented the details of the proposal. The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public heating. No one spoke during the public heating. The Mayor Pro Tem closed the public heating. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2002-367 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM REGIONAL CENTER RESIDENTIAL 1 (RCR-1) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO REGIONAL CENTER COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN (RCC-D) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 4 ACRES OF LAND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 4405 POCKRUS PAGE ROAD AND GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF POCKRUS PAGE 1100 FEET EAST FROM INTERSTATE 35 EAST SERVICE ROAD AND POCKRUS City of Denton City Council Minutes November 5, 2002 Page 9 PAGE ROAD INTERSECTION AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS TRACT 161 OF THE B. WALKER 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. (Z02-0044) Phillips 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. I. The Council held a public heating and considered adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 0.19 acres from a Downtown Residential 1 (DR-l) to a Downtown Residential 2 (DR-2) zoning district. The site was generally located at 1115 Eagle Drive to the east of Avenue A. Multi-family residential was proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7-0). (Z02-0041) Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Development, presented the details of the proposal. The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public heating. The following individual spoke during the public heating: Karen Mitchell, Mitchell Planning Group - favor The Mayor Pro Tem closed the public heating. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2002-368 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL 1 (DR-l) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL 2 (DR-2) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 0.19 ACRE OF LAND LOCATED AT 1115 EAGLE DRIVE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF LOT 3, BLOCK 2, OF THE WATTAM ADDITION IN THE CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z02-0041) McNeill motioned, Redmon seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", and Redmon "aye". Motion carried unanimously. J. The Council held a public heating and considered adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 1.2 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) to a Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district. The site was generally located at the southwest comer of City of Denton City Council Minutes November 5, 2002 Page 10 the intersection of Fards Road and Silverdome Road. Three single-family lots were proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7-0). (Z02-0046) Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Development, presented the details of the proposal. The proposal would comply with the surrounding development pattern. The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public heating. No one spoke during the public heating. The Mayor Pro Tem closed the public heating. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2002-369 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 3 (NR-3) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 1.4 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF FARRIS ROAD AND SILVERDOME, BEING DESCRIBED AS TRACT 12 IN THE JAMES P. COLTART SURVEY, ABSTRACT 288, IN THE CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z02-0046) Phillips motioned, Fulton seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", and Redmon "aye". Motion carded tmanimously. K. The Council held a public heating and considered adoption of an ordinance regarding the expansion of a Special Exemption for 1.75 acres, commonly known as the Service Center Expansion. The property was located at the northwest comer of Ruddell and Willis Streets. A material storage yard was proposed. The property was zoned Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12). The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7-0). (Z02-0043) Council Member Fulton left the meeting with a conflict of interest. Doug Powell, Director of Planning and Development, stated that this was an expansion of a special exception for the City's Service Center. A supermajority vote of council was required as there was more than 20% opposition by the adjoining property owners. The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public heating. City of Denton City Council Minutes November 5, 2002 Page 11 The following individual spoke during the public heating: Edwin Fulton, 729 Greenwood, Demon, 76202 - opposed The Mayor Pro Tem closed the public heating. Phillips motioned, Redmon seconded to postpone the item and cominue the public heating to the next regular meeting (November 19, 2002) to allow staff additional time for discussions with the adjoining property owner. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", and Redmon "aye". Motion carded unanimously. Council Member Fulton returned to the meeting. 6. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION Appraisal date. The Council considered approval of a resolution nominating members to the Review Board of the Denton Central Appraisal District; and declaring an effective The following resolution was considered: NO. R2002-052 A RESOLUTION NOMINATING MEMBERS TO THE APPRAISAL REVIEW BOARD OF THE DENTON CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Montgomery motioned, McNeill seconded to re-nominate the three individuals from Denton whose terms were expiring this year. Those individuals were John Solberg~ W. Garland Thornton, Jr., and Robbie Gober. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Fulton "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Phillips "aye", and Redmon "aye". Motion carded unanimously. B. New Business There were no items of New Business suggested by Council for future agendas. Items from the City Manager 1. Notification of upcoming meetings and/or conferences 2. Clarification of items on the agenda City Manager Conduff did not have any items for Council. D. There was no continuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. E. 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 November 5, 2002 Page 12 With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. EULINE BROCK MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS Item 4B AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: November 19, 2002 Airport and Transportation Operations Jon Fortune, Public Safety and Transportation Operations SUBJECT Consider adoption of an Ordinance of the City of Demon authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute on behalf of the City of Demon an acceptance of an offer from the Texas Department of Transportation relating to a grant for routine Airport Maintenance Program; authorizing the City Manager to expend funds provided for in the gram program; and declaring an effective date (TxDOT) Project No.: AM2003DNTON; and TxDOT CSJ No.: M318DNTON). BACKGROUND On February 18, 1997 the City of Denton entered into an Agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), Aviation Division known as the Routine Airport Maimenance Program (RAMP). The RAMP gram provides for a fifty percem (50%) State-funding match with the local government sponsor. The grant has a cap of $30,000 of State assistance. This is an increase of $20,000 over the original 1997 RAMP gram. The Demon Airport budget has $30,000 in matching funds for a total of $60,000 to be applied toward Airport maimenance projects. Airport Staff has idemified several projects that could be completed with this grant. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT TxDOT is requesting two signed agreements to be returned expeditiously. The State must approve its share of funding prior to the start of the project. It is anticipated that all projects will be completed by August 31, 2003. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The City Attorney's Office has reviewed and approved this ordinance. Advisory Board recommends approval of this Agreemem. The Airport FISCAL INFORMATION The City's fifty percent (50%) match of $60,000 is $30,000. for the RAMP grant in the 2002-2003 Airport budget. Funds have been authorized EXHIBITS Ordinance TxDOT Grant Agreement Respectfully submitted: Mark Nelson Director of Airport and Transit Operations S:\Our D ocmm ent s\Or din an ces\02\TxI) OT Airport Maintenance Grant.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO EXECUTE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DENTON AN ACCEPTANCE OF AN OFFER FROM THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RELATING TO A GRANT FOR ROUTINE AIRPORT MAINTENANCE PROGRAM; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXPEND FUNDS PROVIDED FOR iN THE GRANT PROGRAM; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (TxDOT Project No.: AM2003DNTON; AND TxDOT CSJ No.: M318DNTON). THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City Manager of the City of Demon, or his designee, is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City of Demon an acceptance of an offer from the Texas Departmem of Transportation relating to a grant for Routine Airport Maintenance l~ogram, a copy of such grant being attached hereto and made a part hereof for all purposes (the "Grant Agreement"). SECTION 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to expend such funds as are provided for in the Grant Agreemem. 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: TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GRANT FOR ROUTINE AIRPORT MAINTENANCE PROGRAM (State Assisted Airport Routine Maintenance) TxDOT Project No.: AM 2003DNTON TxDOT CSJ No.: M318DNTON Part I - Identification of the Project TO: The City of Denton, Texas FROM: The State of Texas, acting through the Texas Department of Transportation This Grant is made between the Texas Department of Transportation, (hereinafter referred to as the "State"), on behalf of the State of Texas, and the City of Denton, Texas, (hereinafter referred to as the "Sponsor"). This Grant Agreement is entered into between the State and Sponsor shown above, under the authority granted and in compliance with the provisions of the Transportation Code, Chapter 21. The project is for airport maintenance at the Denton Municipal Airport. Part II - Offer of Financial Assistance For the purposes of this Grant, the annual routine maintenance project cost, Amount A, is estimated as found on Attachment A, Scope of Services, attached hereto and made a part of this grant agreement. State financial assistance granted will be used solely and exclusively .for airport maintenance and other incidental items as approved by .the State. Actual work to be performed under this agreement is found on Attachment A, Scope of Services. State financial assistance, Amount B, will be for fifty percent (50%) of the eligible project costs for this proje6t or $30,000.00, which ever is less, per fiscal year and subject to availability of state appropriations. The Sponsor may request the State to provide mowing services, services to be provided at the discretion of the State. However, mowing services will not be eligible for state financial assistance. Sponsor will be responsible for 100% of costs of any mowing services. AVN4301 .DOC (10/2002) Page 1 of 16 Scope of Services, Attachment A, of this Grant, may be amended, subject to availability of state funds, to include additional approved airport maintenance work. Scope amendments require submittal of an Amended Scope of Services, Attachment A. Services will not be accomplished by the State until receipt of Sponsor's share of project costs. Scope of Services, Attachment A, of this Grant, may be modified by letter at the request of the Sponsor with concurrence of the State if no additional funds are required. Only work items as described in Attachment A of this Grant or as described in the. concurrence letter from the State are reimbursable under this grant. Work shall be accomplished by August 31, 2002, unless otherwise approved by the State. The State shall determine fair and eligible project costs for work scope. Sponsor's share of estimated project costs, Amount C, shall be as found on Attachment A and any amendments. It is mutually understood and agreed that if, during the term of this agreement, the State determines that there is an overrun in the estimated annual routine maintenance costs, the State may increase the grant to cover the amount of the overrun within the above stated percentages and subject to the maximum amount of state funding as found in Part II, Item 1, above. The State will not authorize expenditures in excess of the dollar amounts identified in this Agreement and any amendments, without the consent of the Sponsgr. Sponsor, by accepting this Grant certifies and, upon request, shall furnish proof to the State that it has sufficient funds to meet its share of the costs. The Sponsor grants to the State the right to audit any books and records of the Sponsor to verify expended funds. Upon execution of this Agreement and written demand by the State, the Sponsor's financial obligation (Amount C) shall be due in cash and payable in full to the State. State may request the Sponsor's financial obligation in partial payments. Should the Sponsor fail to pay their obligation, either in whole or in part, within 30 days of written demand, the State may eXercise its rights under Paragraph V-3. Likewise, should the State be unwilling or unable to pay its obligation in a timely manner, the failure to pay shall be considered a breach and the Sponsor may exercise any rights and remedies it has at law or equity. The State shall reimburse or credit the Sponsor, at the financial closure of the project, any excess funds provided by the Sponsor which exceed Sponsor's share (Amount C). The Sponsor specifically agrees that it shall pay any project costs Which exceed the amount of financial participation agreed to by the State. It is further agreed that the Page 2 of 16 AVN4301.DOC (10/2002) o ° Sponsor will reimburse the State for any payment or payments made by the State which are in excess of the percentage of financial assistance (Amount B) as stated in Paragraph II-1. Scope of Services may be accomplished by State contracts or through local contracts of the Sponsor as determined appropriate by the State. All local contracts must be approved by the State for scope and reasonable cost. Reimbursement requests for local contracts shall be submitted on forms provided by the State and shall include copies of the invoices for materials or services. Payment shall be made for no more than 50% of allowable charges. The State will not participate in funding for force account work conducted by the Sponsor. This Grant shall terminate upon completion of the scope of services. The term of this grant may be extended by the execution of an Amendment to the Agreement. Part III - Sponsor Responsibilities In accepting this Grant, if applicable, the Sponsor guarantees that: it will, in the operation of the facility, comply with all applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations, procedures, covenants and assurances required by the State in connection with this Grant; and the Airport or navigational facility which is the subject of this Grant shall be controlled by the Sponsor for a period of at least 20 years; and do consistent with safety and security requirements, it shall make the airport or air navigational facility available to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical use without discrimination between such types, kinds and classes and shall provide adequate public access during the period of this Grant; and -~ it shall not grant or permit anyone to exercise an exclusive right for the conduct of aeronautical activity on or about an airport landing area. Aeronautical activities include, but are not limited to scheduled airline flights, charter flights, flight instruction, aircraft sales, rental and repair, sale of aviation petroleum products and aerial applications. The landing area consists of runways or landing strips, taxiways, parking aprons, roads, airport lighting and navigational aids; and it shall not enter into any agreement nor permit any aircraft to gain direct ground access to the sponsor's airport from private property adjacent to or in the immediate area of the airport. Further, Sponsor shall not allow aircraft direct Page 3 of 16 AVN4301.DOC (10/2002) f. go ho jo k° ground access to private property. Sponsor shall be subject to this prohibition, commonly known as a "through-the-fence operation," unless an exception is grantcd in writing by the State due to extreme circumstances; and it shall not permit non-aeronautical use of airport facilities without prior approval of the State; and the Sponsor shall submit to the State annual statements of airport revenues and expenses when requested; and all fees collected for the use of the airport shall be reasonable and nondiscriminatory. The proceeds from such fees shall be used solely for the development, operation and maintenance of the airport or navigational facility; and an Airport Ftmd shall be established by resolution, order or ordinance in the 'treasury of the Sponsor, or evidence of the prior creation of an existing airport fund or a properly executed copy of the resolution, order, or ordinance creating such a fund, shall be submitted to the State. The fund may be an account as part of another fund, but must be accounted for in such a manner that all revenues, expenses, retained earnings, and balances in the account are discernible from other types of moneys identified in the fund as a whole. All fees, charges, rents, and money from any source derived from airport operations.must be deposited in the Airport Fund and shall not be diverted to the general revenue fund or any other revenue fund of the Sponsor. All expenditures from the Airport Fund shall be solely for airport purposes. Sponsor shall be ineligible for a subsequent grant or loan by the State unless, prior to such subsequent approval of a grant or loan, Sponsor has complied with the requirements of this subparagraph; and the Sponsor shall operate runway lighting at least at low intensity from sunset to sunrise; and insofar as it is reasonable and within its power, Sponsor shall adopt and enforce zoning regulations to restrict the height of structures and use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to heights and activities compatible with normal airport operations as provided in Tex. Loc. Govt. Code Ann. Sections 241.001 et seq. (Vernon and Vernon Supp.). Sponsor shall also acquire and retain avigation easements or other property interests in or rights to use of land or airspace, unless sponsor can show that acquisition and retention of such interest will be impractical or will result in undue hardship to Sponsor. Sponsor shall be ineligible for a snbsequent grant or loan by the State unless Sponsor has, prior to subsequent approval of a grant or loan, adopted and passed an airport hazard zoning ordinance or order approved by the State. AVN4301.DOC (10/2002) Page 4 of 16 o The Sponsor, to the extent of its legal authority to do so, shall save harmless the State, the State's agents, employees or contractors from all claims and liability due to activities of the Sponsor, the Sponsor's agents or employees performed under this agreement. The Sponsor, to the extent of its legal authority to do so, shall also save harmless the State, the State's agents, employees or contractors from any and all expenses, including attorney fees which might be incurred by the State in litigation or otherwise resisting claim or liabilities which might be imposed on the State as the result of those activities by the Sponsor, the Sponsor's agents or employees. The Sponsor's acceptance of this Offer and ratification and adoption of this Grant shall be evidenced by execution of this Grant by the Sponsor. The Grant shall comprise a contract, constituting the obligations and rights of the State of Texas and the Sponsor with respect to the accomplishment of the project and the operation and maintenance of the airport. If it becomes unreasonable or impractical to complete the project, the State may void this agreement and release the Sponsor from any further obligation of project costs. Upon entering into this Grant, Sponsor agrees to name an individual, as the Sponsor's Authorized Representative, who shall be the State's contact with regard to this project. The Representative shall receive all correspondence and documents associated with this grant and shall make or shall acquire approvals and disapprovals for this grant as required on behalf of the Sponsor, and coordinate Schedule for work items as required. By the acceptance of grant funds for the maintenance of the hangar building(s) the Sponsor certifies that the hangar is owned by the City and/or County. The hangar may be leased but if the lease agreement specifies that the lessee is responsible for the upkeep and repairs of the building no state funds shall be used for that purpose. Sponsor shall request reimbursement of eligible project costs on forms provided by the State. All reimbursement requests are required to include a copy of the invoices for the ' materials or services. The reimbursement request will be submitted no more than once a month. The Sponsor's accePtance of this Agreement shall comprise a Grant Agreement, as provided by the Transportation Code, Chapter 21, constituting the contractual obligations and rights of the State of Texas and the Sponsor with respect to the accomplishment of the airport maintenance and compliance with the assurances and conditions as provided. Such Grant Agreement shall become effective upon the State's written Notice to Proceed issued following execution of this agreement. AVN4301.DOC (10/2002) Page 5 of 16 PART IV - Nomination of the Agent The Sponsor designates the State as the party to receive and disburse all funds used, or to be used, in payment of the costs of the project, or in reimbursement to either of the parties for costs incurred. The State shall, for all purposes in connection with the project identified above, be the Agent of the Sponsor. The Sponsor grants the State a power of attorney to act as its agent to perform the following services: accept, receive, and deposit with the State any and all project funds granted, allowed, and paid or made available by the Sponsor, the State of Texas, or any other entity; b. 'enter into contracts as necessary for execution of scope of services; Co if State enters into a contract as Agent: exercise supervision and direction of the project work as the State reasonably finds appropriate. Where there is an irreconcilable conflict or difference of opinion, judgment, order or direction between the State and the Sponsor or any service provider, the State shall issue a written order which shall prevail and be controlling; receive, review, approve and pay invoices and payment requests for services and materials supplied in accordance with the State approved contracts; e. obtain an audit as may be required by state regulations; reimburse sponsor for approved contract maintenance costs no more than once a month. PART V - Recitals This Grant is executed for the sole benefit of the contracting parties and is not intended or executed for the direct or incidental benefit of any third party. It is the intent of this grant to not supplant local funds normally utilized for airport maintenance, and that any state financial assistance offered under this grant be in addition to those local funds normally dedicated for airport maintenance. o This Grant is subject to the applicable provisions of the Transportation Code, Chapters 21 and 22, and the Airport Zoning Act, Tex. Loc. Govt. Code Ann. Sections 241.001 et seq. AVN4301.DOC (10/2002) Page 6 of 16 o (Vernon and Vernon Supp.). Failure to comply with the terms of this Grant or with the rules and statutes shall be considered a breach of this contract and will allow the State to pursue the remedies for breach as stated below. ao Of primary importance to the State is compliance with the terms and conditions of this Grant. If, however, after all reasonable attempts to require compliance have failed, the State finds that the Sponsor is unwilling and/or unable to comply with any of the terms of this Grant, the State, may pursue any of the following remedies: (1) require a refund of any financial assistance money expended pursuant to this Grant, (2) deny Sponsor's future requests for aid, (3) request the Attorney General to bring suit seeking reimbursement of any financial assistance money expended on the project pursuant to this Grant, provided however, these remedies shall not limit the State's authority to enforce its rules, regulations or orders as otherwise provided by law, (4) declare this Grant null and void, or (5) any other remedy available at law or in equity. 'Venue for resolution by a court of competent jurisdiction of any dispute arising under the terms of this Grant, or for enforcement of any of the provisions of this Grant, is specifically set by Grant of the parties in Travis County, Texas. The State reserves the right to amend or withdraw this Grant at any time prior to acceptance by the Sponsor. The acceptance period cannot be greater than 30 days after issuance unless extended by the State. This Grant constitutes the full and total understanding of the parties concerning their rights and responsibilities in regard to this project and shall not be modified, amended, rescinded or revoked unless such modification, amendment, rescission or revocation is agreed to by both parties in writing and executed by both parties. All commitments by the Sponsor and the State are subject to constitutional and statutory limitations and restrictions binding upon the Sponsor and the State (including Sections 5 and 7 of Article 11 of the Texas Constitution, if applicable) and to the availability of funds which lawfully may be applied. AVN4301.DOC (10/2002) Page 7 of 16 Part VI - Acceptances Sponsor The City of Denton, Texas, does ratify and adopt all statements, warranties, covenants, agreements, and all terms and conditions of this Grant. Executed this day of ,2002. City of Denton, Texas Sponsor Witness Signature Witness Title Sponsor Signature City Manager Sponsor Title representations, Certificate of Attorney I, ~?.-l>~.~,Y f,~'/~,~--- , acting as attorney for c/'~'~ r£~ tg~_~o~J , Texas, do certify that I have fully examined the Grant and the proceedings taken by the Sponsor relating to the acceptance of the Grant, and find that the manner of acceptance and execution of the Grant by the Sponsor, is in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas. Dated at /~2e~_~o!O ~ , Texas, this // Witness Signature Witness Title ure AVN4301.DOC (10/2002) Page 8 of 16 Acceptance of 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: AVN4301 .DOC (10/2002) Page 9 of 16 Attachment A Scope of Services TxDOT CSJ No.:M318DNTON PAVEMENTS $45,700.00 $22,850.00 $22,850.00 GENERAL MAINTENANCE $7,000.00 $3,500.00 $3,500;00 PAVEMENT MARKINGS $1,000.00 $500.00 '$500.00 GRADING/DRAINAGE $700.00 $350.00 $350.00 MISCELLANEOUS - $5,600.00 $2,800.00 $2,800.00 MOWING Total $60,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000[00 Accepted by: City of Denton, Texas Title: Date: Signature City Manager NOtes: (exPlanations of any specifications or variances as needed for above scope items). See description as attached on following pages Only work items as described in Attachment A, of this Grant, or as described in the concurrence letter from the State are reimbursable under this grant. AVN4301.DOC (10/2002) Page 10 of 16 2003 RAMP GRANT Scope of Services - Request (Revised) Denton Airport 0O/lO/O2) Note: See attached map for location of all proposed projects. Bold indicates revisions. PAVEMENTS: (1) Taxiway H Enhancements & Repair of'East Ramp-Business Ain $19,000. Competitive bid process; vendor/s. [Note- may be combined with (2), (3) and (4)1. (2) Repair West Business Air Ramp. Competitive bid process, vendors. (Note- FBO tenant has a "non-exclusive" lease on this ramp area.) 4,500. (3) Resurface Skylane Road (North from J. CarrelI). Competitive bid process, vendors. 19,500. (4) Widen Helipad access road; add mm-around area. Competitive bid process, vendors. (See faxed sketch.) Widen access road 2' on both sides; move existing east and west side white concrete blocks out to 20' line (from pad); add turn-around asphalt area 120'(north/south-length) x 20' (east/west-width) on the east side of pad and east of the white blocks. _._2..,700. 45,700. GENERAL MAINTENANCE: (5) J. Carrell gate - Add Opticom, battery backup, new keypad. Contracted effort- materials and installation. 2,500 (6) Equipment Maintenance Shed (30'L x 16'W x 10'Ht) to be located adjacent to existing maintenance office. Contracted materials and installation; Airport will provide millings and install flooring sar[ace only. Form 7460 in process. 3,500. (7) '(Note. Herbicide. Purchased materials only. Of thc items under General MaintenanCe, One is security related.) !,QO0, 7,0~0. GRADING / DRAINAGE: (8) Relocate/repair 5' high fencing, enhance drainage area - adjacent MLSR (west side of Masch Branch Rd) & repair fencing adjacent Tom Cole Rd Purchased materials only; Airport will install. (See Comments) (9) Culvert - Access to South Ramp parking from Spartan. Culvert material only; Airport will install. 200. .500.~ 700. Page 11 of 16 PAVEMENT MARKINGS: (10) Stripping - To identigy Movement Areas (New Tower) Contracted equipment and materials only, MISCELLANOUS: (11) Beacon; obstruction light, photocell & installation. Contracted materials and installation. (12) Gate locks. Materials only. 1,000. 5,500. 100. 5,600. Total RAMP 2003 Request: $60,000. COMMENTS: Item No. 1 was originally scheduled for RAMP 2002 however, due to the anticipated build of a new hangar between existing Business Air hangar and the hm~gar to the south, it. was determined construction traffic would damage a new taxiway/ramp area if resurface& It is Prop°sed that this effort ShoUld occur during the latter Part 'of the 2003 RAMP year, after construction of the hangar is complete Item No. 2 is an approximate 40'x 40' area requiring repair. Item No. 3 was originally scheduled for resurfacing under RAMP 2002. However, because of the subsequent building of a two hangars, one very large, on Spartan Drive (which Skylane tums into) and the anticipated heavy construction traffic, it was determined resurfacing of Skylane, south from the John Carrell intersection, would be a better course of action. This was accomplished under the RAMP 2002 Grant. Item No. 3 is for resurfacing the north portion of Skylane. .Item No. 4 is for widening the access road to the Helipad and. constructing a'{urn-arou.nd area on the east side of the Pad to enable aircraft refueling. (See attached sketch.) ' ... Item No. 8 - Form 7460 in process. Airport has FAA signed Supplemental Agreement No.1 to Lease No. DTFA07-92-L-0100 regarding this fence relocation. Also, it was coordinated with and approved by the FAA Alliance System Support Center Coordinator, Cheryl Chang, Lone Star srvlo Technlcal Support Staff, Buddy Lohman and the SW Regional Real Estate Office. " Bill Gresslin, Ai .rport Operations Manager (940) 349-7744 / 7736 Page 12 of 16 -. FRON :D~nton Airport FRX NO. :940 349-7289 o Oct. 11 2~82 11:53F~M P4 DENTOI . I'(AMP 2003 Reque.~t (1) Ea.~ ramp & Taxiway H ]raprovcmcnts (2) Repair wc~t ramp (3) Kesurfacc Skyhnc-north (4) Hc]ipad azccss (5) J.Carrc~[ gatc- Opficom (6) Maintenance shed (7) ,:.~tqerhlcide (8) Relocate / repair f'~nce (9) Culvcrt- south ramp (I0) Stripping (I I) Beacon / installation (12) Gate locks Page 13 of 16 DENTON AIRPORT HELI.PAD I..[ghts blocks ~ O t, I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T.xlway A · Page 14 of 16 CERTIFICATION OF AIRPORT FUND TxDOT CSJ No.: M318DNTON The City of Denton does certify that an Airport Fund has been established for the Sponsor, and that all fees, charges, rents, and money from any source derived from airport operations will be deposited for the benefit of the Airport Fund and will not be diverted for other general revenue fund expenditures or any other special fund of the Sponsor and that all expenditures from the Fund will be solely for airport purposes. The fund may be an account as part of another fund, but must be accounted for in such a manner that all revenues, expenses, retained earnings, and balances in the account are discernible from other types of moneys identified in the fund as a whole. The City of Denton, Texas (Sponsor) By: ,, I Date: AVN4301.DOC (10/2002) Page 15 of 16 DESIGNATION OF SPONSOR'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE TxDOT CSJ Number: M318DNTON The City of Denton designates, Mark Nelson, Director of A±rport (Name, Title) as the Sponsor's authorized representative, who shall receive all correspondence and documents associated with this grant and who shall make or shall acquire approvals and disapprovals for this grant as required on behalf of the Sponsor. City of Denton, Texas (Sponsor) By: Title: Michael A. Conduff City Manager DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE Mailing Address: 5000 Airport Road Denton, TX 76207 Date: Overnight Mailing Address: Telephone/Fax Number: (940) 349-7702 (940) 349-7289 Email address (if available): mark.nelson@c±tyofdenton, com AVN4301 .DOC (10/2002) Page 16 of 16 Item 4C AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: November 19, 2002 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Bruce Henington 349-8433 ACM: Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT Consider adoption of an Ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute change order number three to the contract between the City of Denton and Tim Beaty Builders, Inc.; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (File 2920-Bid 2749-New Central Fire Station Change Order Number Three in the amount of $29,851). BID INFORMATION On March 5, 2002, Council awarded a contract to Tim Beaty Builders, Inc. for the construction of a New Central Fire Station in the amount of $3,138,000. This contract was for the renovation of the i Old Power Pland structure into the New Central Fire Station. Change order three in the amount of $29,851 is for a radio-public announcement system to be installed in the new station. Although it was not included in the original scope of work, it is an integral part of the station operations. Change order one was under $25,000 and not presented to Council. Council approved change order two on August 6, 2002. All change orders have been at the request of the City of Denton. The new contract total including all change orders to date is $3,260,921. RECOMMENDATION We recommend that change order number three be approved in the amount of $29,851 and Tim Beaty Builders, Inc. be authorized to proceed. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Tim Beaty Builders, Inc. Denton, Texas ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT This change order will not affect the scheduled completion date of February 2003. FISCAL INFORMATION Change order number three will be funded from project account 10001500.1365.40100. Agenda Information Sheet November 19, 2002 Page 2 Attachment 1: Change Order 3 1-AIS-File 2920 Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent At[ac~menc ~ 2000 Edition - Electronic Format AIA Document G701- 2000 Change Order PROJECI: "_~.&~_e z~ ~,~-es$. oity ot Denton Central Fire ~tataon 332 East Hickory Street Denton, Texas 76201 TO CONTRACTOR: Tim Beaty Buildem~ Inc. 421 East Hickory Street Dentom Texas 76201 CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 3 D^TE: 30 October 2002 ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NUMBER: CONTRACI DAf E: 5 March 2002 CONTRACT FOR:General Construction OWNER ~. ~RCHiT~"CT ~i CONTRACTOR ~ FIELD ? OTNER ~ THE CONTRACT IS CHANGED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Provide a~d install Cent~t Fire St~ion Sound Sy~em ~r s~ifi~rons as r~u~ by C~ Add $20.57fi.00 AUTHENT/CA ~O~ OF ,ELEL"T,RQNtCAj. ZY DR.A,m'£D DOCUt~ENT MAY EE AJA DOCUh~NT D40 Install directional antenna systems,and omni- directional system I~ar sc.ecific~ions as requested by Add 9,275.00 The original, Contract Sum) (C~"~':t~%~4~ Ma.~.urr. Price} ~ s 3.1 ~.~. 00 The net ch~ge by pre~4o~ly auto,ed Ch~ge ~den s 93 070.~ The ,Contract S~:~ ~.Cu~mmccd ).[&~m~m ~c~ prior to ~ Ch~ge ~der w~ s 3,231 The; Con~l S~ ~ ~ ~t~cd M~'~ ~ce ) ~ ~ C mcre~d ) ( decreed;; uncF.~ngcd ~ by t~s Ch~ge Order m ~e ~o~t ors 29 ~1 _~ TEe new :Con,act Sm) ~C~-~tccd Mz~mmm ~cc: ~clu~g ~is Change Order ~d]l ~ ~ 3.260 921 O0 The Conm,XT~e~ ~' - ' ~ - ) (~ch~ged~ by ~ ) ~vs. The ~te of Sub~g~ Compte~on ~ of ~e ~te of ~ Ch~ge ~der ~erefore ~ 03 March 2003 NOTE: T~ Ch~ge Order d~s not include ch~ges ~ ~e Cont~l S~, Contrad T~e or Gun, teed Mm~m ~ce ~,~ch have ~en au~o~ by Constm~on Ch~ge D2e~x-e for Not valid until signed by the Architect, Contractor and Owner. ~' 2,3oc AmA ~ AIADOCUMENTG701 2000 CHANGE ORDER The American rn?i-u-e of Archi'ecTs 1735 New York Avenue, N W. Washinston, D.C. 20006-5292 & 2000 The American Institute of Archil'ects. Reproduction of the material herein or substantiaJ quotation ot its provisions without written permission of the ArA violates the copyrisht laws of the United S,al'es and will suajec- the violator to legal prosecuticm. WARNrNG: Unlicensed photocopying violates U.S. copyrishr laws and ~ilJ ~ubject the violator to lesaJ prosecution. This document was eleci'ronicatly produced with permission of the AIA and can be reproduced Jn accordance with your license without violation until the date of expiration as noted below, expiration a~ noted below, e:~piratian as noted below, expiration as noted below User Document: ory-fire co 3aia - ]O,r30/2~2. AIA License Number ]O13778, which expires on 2728/2003 ARCH ITECT =~?~'~=~.' James R. Kirkpatdck~ Architect CONTRACTOR Tim Beaty Builders OWN E R, ~?=' :~=~ City of Denton BY E~"~ ~.~:r~ BY DAT DATE DATE ¢ 20C0 The American Institute of Architects. Reproduction of the material herein or subsranda[ quotation of irs pro,,ision~ ~,'ichou* wri~en permission of the AIA violates the capyrisht Jaws of ~he Un[t~ States and will su~j~ *he violator to I~al pros~ut]on. WARNING: unlicens~ phot~opyin8 violates US. copyright laws and ~[ s~.b~t the violator to I~al pros~ution. This d~ument w~ el~r~ically Dr~uc~ with permission of ~he AiA and can be reprod~ in ~cordance wffh y~r lic~se wit~t vioiati~ until the date of expiration as noted below expirat~o~ ~ noted Delow. ~p~ratlo~ as not~ below. ~piratJom as not~ below. Use, D~ument: ti-f-fire ca ~aia - 1~2 AIA License Number ]O13~8, which ~pires on Z~'2~3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDERNUMBER THREE TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND TIM BEATY BUILDERS, INC.; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (FILE 2920-BID 2749-NEW CENTRAL FIRE STATION CHANGE ORDER N UMBER THREE IN THE AMOUNT OF $29,851). WHEREAS, on March 5, 2002 by Ordinance No. 2002-063, the City awarded a public works contract to Tim Beaty Builders, Inc., in the amount of $3,138,000 for the New Central Fire Station; 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 Provideris 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. Three, increasing the amount of the contract between the City and Tim Beaty Builders, Inc., which is on file in the office of the Purchasing Agent, in the amount of Twenty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty One and 0/100 ($29,851) 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 $3,260,921. 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: -File 2920-Bid 2749-Change Order Three Item 4D AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET November 19, 2002 Materials Management Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Alex Pettit 349-8595 Eva Poole 349-7735 SUBJECT Consider adoption of an Ordinance awarding a contract for the purchase of public access computers for the City of Denton Public Library System, Parks and Recreation Centers, Senior Center, and select community facilities as defined in the Denton Community Network Plan from Dell Computer as awarded by the State of Texas Building and Procurement Commission (formerly known as State of Texas General Services Commission) through the Qualified Information Services Vendor (QISV) Catalogue Program; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (File 2918-Dell Computer in an amount not to exceed $319,459). FILE INFORMATION The Denton Public Library representing the Denton Community Network was awarded a Community Networking 2 Grant from the Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund Board in the amount of $500,000 on March 19, 2002. Grant funds will enable the Denton Public Library along with a broad-based range of twelve (12) community groups and organizations to share information in a multi-purpose and community based network. The Denton Community Network will provide for the placement of Internet-connected public access workstations and training in highly used areas of the community and a large, interactive Distance Learning Center at the new North Branch Library. File 2918 provides for the purchase of the public access computers that will be used to operate the Denton Community Network grant program. PRIOR ACTION/VIEW (COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS) Council approved the expenditure of funds for project management, project evaluation, training and volunteer coordination for the Denton Community Network on July 23, 2002. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the award of a contract to Dell Computer (QISV#1742616805400) in an amount not to exceed $319,459. Agenda Information Sheet November 19, 2002 Page 2 PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Dell Computer Round Rock, Texas ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT The installation of computer equipment at existing facilities will be completed by April 2003. The installation of equipment at the North Branch Library will be contingent upon the libraryi s completion date. FISCAL INFORMATION This purchase will be funded from account 318001.8545. Respectfully submitted: Attachment 1: Quote from Dell 1-MS-File 2918 Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1 Location Description Quantity City Facilities Desktop PC 127 Flat Panel Display Non-City Desktop PC 14 Facilities CRT Monitor Mobile Notebook PC 16 Classroom W/Wireless LAN Mobile Access Point For 1 Classroom Wireless LAN Mobile Security Cart For 1 Classroom Notebook PCs *Quotes are on file at the office of the Purchasing Agent. Price/Each $2,032.00 $1,496.00 $2,415.00 $ 552.00 $1,259.00 Total $258,064 $ 20,944 $ 38,640 $ 552 $ 1,259 $319,459 Quote~ 93649607 93313017 93283890 93276917 93276199 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF PUBLIC ACCESS COMPUTERS FOR THE CITY OF DENTON PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM, PARKS AND RECREATION CENTERS, SENIOR CENTER, AND SELECT COMMUNITY FACILITIES AS DEFINED IN THE DENTON COMMUNITY NETWORK PLAN FROM DELL COMPUTER AS AWARDED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS BUILDING AND PROCUREMENT COMMISSION (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE GENERAL SERVICES COMMISSION) THROUGH THE QUALIFIED INFORMATION SERVICES VENDOR (QISV) CATALOGUE PROGRAM; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (FILE 2918-DELL COMPUTER IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $319,459). 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 building and Procurement Commissioni s Qualified Information Service Vendor Catalogue Purchase Method provided for in Sub chapter B of Chapter 2157 of the Texas Government Code (the i QISV Cataloguei ); 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 file for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "File Number" listed hereon, and on file in the office of the Purchasing Agent, are hereby approved: FILE NUMBER VENDOR AMOUNT 2918 Dell Computer $319,459 SECTION 2. By the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items set forth in File 2918, 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, quantifies 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 File 2918 wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the City's ratification of bids awarded by the State of Texas Building and Procurement 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 State of Texas Building and Procurement 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 file, 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. 2002. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EUL1NEBROCK, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 3-ORD-File 2918 Item 4E AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: November 19, 2002 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Alex Pettit 349-8595 ACM: Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT Consider adoption of an Ordinance awarding a contract for the purchase of Cisco equipment for VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) phone implementation at the Customer Service Department (City Hall East), New Central Fire Station, New North Branch Library, New Solid Waste Operations Building, City Hall West, Economic Development, Community Development, Main Street and Public Transportation Offices (New Wells Fargo Building) from the Forsythe Solutions Group as awarded by the State of Texas Building and Procurement Commission (formerly known as the State of Texas General Services Commission) through the Qualified Information Services Vendor (QISV) Catalogue Program; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (File 2919-Forsythe Solutions Group in an amount not to exceed $208,516). FILE INFORMATION This purchase is for a total of 208 Cisco IP 7940G phones and associated hardware and software to support these phones in the City of Denton network infrastructure. These phones are to be installed at the following City facilities: Customer Service Department (City Hall East), New Central Fire Station, North Branch Library, Solid Waste Operations Building, City Hall West, Economic Development, Community Development, Main Street, and Public Transportation offices which were recently relocated to the new Wells Fargo Building. Quotes were solicited from three QISV vendors: Cisco Systems, Avnet Enterprise Solutions, and Forsythe Solutions Group. Forsythe Solutions Group provided the lowest quote in the amount of $208,516. RECOMMENDATION We recommend the award of a contract for the purchase of Cisco phone equipment to Forsythe Solutions Group (QISV#136337391800186036) in an amount not to exceed $208,516. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Forsythe Solutions Group Dallas, Texas Agenda Information Sheet November 19, 2002 Page 2 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT Installation is scheduled to begin in December 2002 and to be completed by May 2003. FISCAL INFORMATION The individual departments receiving the phone installations will fund this project. following account numbers will be used: Customer Service 63005300.1360.40100 New Central Fire Station 10003300.1365.40100 New North Branch Library 10005704.1365.40100 New Solid Waste Operations 66000200.1355.30100 City Hall West Building 83000100.1355.30100 New Wells Fargo Building 84000200.1355.30100 $19,350 $47,268 $53,346 $52,327 $17,144 $19,081 The Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Quote from Forsythe Solutions Group 1 -AIS-File2919 Attachment 1 Forsythe Solutions Group Quote Summary Location New Wells Fargo Bldg. Customer Service New Central Fire Station New North Branch Library New Solid Waste Operations City Hall West # of Phones 22 38 44 44 44 16 Total Quote Quote~ $19,081 $19,350 $ 47,268 $ 53,346 $ 52,327 $17,144 $208,516 *Quotes are on file at the office of the Purchasing Agent ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF CISCO EQUIPMENT FOR VOIP (VOICE OVER INTERNET PROTOCOL) PHONE IMPLEMENTATION AT THE CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPARTMENT (CITY HALL EAST), NEW CENTRAL FIRE STATION, NEW NORTH BRANCH LIBRARY, NEW SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS BUILDING, CITY HALL WEST, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, MAIN STREET AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION OFFICES (NEW WELLS FARGO BUILDING) FROM FORSYTHE SOLUTIONS GROUP AS AWARDED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS BUILDING AND PROCUREMENT COMMIS SION (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE GENERAL SERVICES COMMISSION) THROUGH THE QUALIFIED INFORMATION SERVICE VENDOR (QISV) CATALOGUE PROGRAM; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (FILE 2919-FORSYTHE SOLUTIONS GROUP IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $208,516). 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 building and Procurement Commissioni s Qualified Information Service Vendor Catalogue Purchase Method provided for in Sub chapter B of Chapter 2157 of the Texas Government Code (the i QISV Cataloguei ); 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 file for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "File Number" listed hereon, and on file in the office of the Purchasing Agent, are hereby approved: FILE NUMBER VENDOR AMOUNT 2919 Forsythe Solutions Group $208,516 SECTION 2. By the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items set forth in File 2919, 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, quantifies 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 File 2919 wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the City's ratification of bids awarded by the State of Texas Building and Procurement 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 State of Texas Building and Procurement 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 file, 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. 2002. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EUL1NEBROCK, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 3-ORD-File 2919 Item 4F AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: November 19, 2002 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Charles Fiedler 349-8948 ACM: Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT Consider adoption of an Ordinance awarding a contract for the purchase of a Printer/Plotter Scanner for the City of Denton Engineering Department from Stewart Engineering Supply, Inc. as awarded by the State of Texas Building and Procurement Commission (formerly known as State of Texas General Services Commission) through the Qualified Information Services Vendor (QISV) Catalogue Program; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (File 2921-Metro-Repro, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $28,771.25). FILE INFORMATION This printer/plotter scanner replaces an existing Xerox copier and will be used by the Engineering Department to increase their scanning capabilities and improve accessibility of information to the public. Increased capabilities will include the ability to run multiple sets of drawings, to change the scale of drawings, the ability to send plots to the printer to be plotted, and the ability to scan large documents. The scanner will also be used to scan Development Review Committee comments onto development plats and plans and then import them into i Track Itt so that developers can have access to the comments. The Engineering Department will also be scanning all existing filed documents such as plats, record drawings, and plans into a digital format. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the award of a contract to Metro- Repro, Inc. (QISV#1752043881700) in an amount not to exceed $28,771.25. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Metro-Repro, Inc. Dallas, Texas Agenda Information Sheet November 19, 2002 Page 2 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT Delivery is estimated to be 10-12 days from receipt of a purchase order. FISCAL INFORMATION This purchase will be funded from account 35009000.1355.30100. Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Quote from Metro-Repro, Inc. 1-MS-File 2921 Attachment ! Purchasing Department Karcn E. Smith Ph: 940.349.7100 Men-o 817.267.0042 Fax: 940_349.7302 REQUEST FOR QUOTATION: NovemDcr 1, 2002 Please quote on the following lip plotters and return to my attention before noon on November 6, 2002: · (1) EA Xcro~ 88~0 (Synergix~8850D4) l'ri.ier/Plotter, scanner $3 2,3 9 6.2 5 include~ 9.1 gig HR, 64mb, 1 ca jet direct card, 1 each tone,' cartridge Document retrieval tool "scan to net"- wt4ips scanner $includ~d · (1) Accounting Software- with 4ips scan.er $included · 1) EA Color scan to net (# SYCOLOR) $l 1 25.00 TRADE IiN FOR XIROX include a Full Mamte. aaacc Agreement- Please include any shipping ~ee attached comment 2500.O0p/year,plus .0!8 p/sq.~t. over 30,000. I,clude installation, and training c~sts. Are you a Iexas QISV {:ertified vendor? YES ifycs, vendor ID# ~ -75-204-388~ -700 · Estimated Delivery ARO ~ 0-~ 2 ~usinessdays o Additional fce~or comments: S~e attached. Municipal references available upon request. i~_~me: I Louis ~{elsen Rip-ally ~/~a llle: Metro-.Repro, i Phnne ~: : i _888-484-9292 ThC. METRO-REPRO. INC. November 6, 2002 ~Zrom: Karen E. Smit, ln City of Denton, Purchasing Dept. Louis Helsen Metro-Repro, Inc. Re: Additional Comments Related to Request for Quotation (Dated Nov. 1, 2002) Thanks for the opportun/D, to provide this equipment quotation. In doing fffis, I v~nted to point out a couple of specifications related to the equipment that may 1~ ofintere~:. First, the new AccXES HFT conlrollers that come with the system now come standard w/th a 20 gig bid (vs. 9.1 gig) and 128 bfB of~co, nd~d BDRAM m~mory (vs. 64 Iv[B). Basically, you're getting more for your money. The other point [ wanted to add w'a~ that, a~ a part of'your pre-packed sraxt-up supplies, the unit wilI come with your start-up developer (the offiy t/me you'll ever need it) and a 36"x 150' roll of 20~ bond media. These things are in addkion to the start-up toner cartridge you indicated in your equipment specifications. Trade-in Consideration In mfe~euce to the trade in value for your current Xerox 3Or:K} unxt, we axe prepared to offer the following... c2 We will waive the ~rst~_ year's ha~ charge to the ...... l m~:..atenemc¢ ,,~recmenr. Since the machine comes with a 90-Day factory warranty, you're first .,,'ear's maintenance agreement would start on the 91~t day and then span 12 months from teat date. Only applicable meter chm'ges would still apply. ($2500 value). = The annual maintenance agreements for year~ 2 & 3 will be discounted $1500 each_ Only applicable meter charges would still apply. ($3000 value) ~ A $500 supply credit will be offered as additional trade-in consideration. ($500 value) Please note the following as it pertains to annual maintenance agreements from Metro-Repro... a Covers ~LL parts and labor · Covers printer, scanner, and controller · Includes qua~rty preventive maintenance visits · Includesfreefactoryftrrnware upgrades if/when applicable · Base charges are billed annually in advance- Meter charges, if applicable, will be billed annually at the end of each contn~ perio~L (Only square footage over 30,000 will be billed at .O18 per sq. ff ) '~~rgo Lane · Dallas, Texas 75229 · (972) 484-9292 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A PRINTER/PLOTTER SCANNER FOR THE CITY OF DENTON ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FROM STEWART ENGINEERING SUPPLY, INC. AS AWARDED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS BUlLDING AND PROCUREMENT COMMISSION (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE STATE OF TEXAS GENERAL SERVICES COMMISSION) THROUGH THE QUALIFIED INFORMATION SERVICES VENDOR (QISV) CATALOGUE PROGRAM; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (FILE 2921-METRO-REPRO, INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $28,771.25). 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 building and Procurement Commissioni s Qualified Information Service Vendor Catalogue Purchase Method provided for in Sub chapter B of Chapter 2157 of the Texas Government Code (the i QISV Cataloguei ); 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 file for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "File Number" listed hereon, and on file in the office of the Purchasing Agent, are hereby approved: FILE NUMBER VENDOR AMOUNT 2921 Metro-Repro, Inc. $28,771.25 SECTION 2. By the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items set forth in File 2921, 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, quantifies 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 File 2921 wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the City's ratification of bids awarded by the State of Texas Building and Procurement 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 State of Texas Building and Procurement 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 file, 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. 2002. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EUL1NEBROCK, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 3-ORD-File 2921 Item 4G AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: November 19, 2002 DEPARTMENT: Utility Administration ACM: Howard Martin, 349-8232 SUBJECT Consider approval of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas approving a Beneficial Reuse Water Contract by and between the City of Denton, Texas and Denton Regional Medical Center; providing for the City Manager's execution thereof; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND The City of Denton has beneficially used treated effluent from the Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant (PCWRP) to provide cooling water for the Spencer Generating Plant since the middle 1970s. The recent year's very dry summer and the projected population increase in Denton by the year 2020 has sharpened the focus to develop infrastructure for beneficial reuse of effluent water to decrease reliance on potable water for turf irrigation and industrial uses. Staff obtained a reuse permit from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) in February 2000 allowing use of up to 10 million gallons per day of treated effluent for beneficial reuse. Staff has negotiated beneficial reuse water agreements with Oakmont Country Club ("Oakmont"), Denton State School and Denton Regional Medical Center (See Exhibit ii). These contracts are a take-or-pay contract for a term of 5 years. The total amount of monthly payments to be received by the City from the three contracts will be $6,700. in general, effluent volumes utilized in excess of the amount established in the take-or-pay contract will be sold at $1.35/1,000 gallons. The annual revenue generated by these three contracts cover the anticipated debt service requirements attributable to the construction of the effluent water reuse line. OPTIONS 1. Approve the Beneficial Reuse Water Contract 2. Reject the Beneficial Reuse Water Contract 3. Counter the terms/offer of Denton Regional Water Contract Medical Center for the Beneficial Reuse RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the Beneficial Reuse Water Contract with Denton Regional Medical Center. [This Contract is related to, and the passage is interdependent on each of the three Beneficial Reuse Water Contracts being approved; together with the Bid for the pipeline; and the Interlocal Agreement with the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.] ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT Effective upon Denton Regional Medical Center's receipt of reuse water. Pipeline completed in May 2003. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (COUNCIL~ BOARDS~ COMM.) The Beneficial Reuse Water Contract with Denton Regional Medical Center has been discussed at previous PUB meetings. The Contract is on the November 18, 2002 PUB Agenda for final action. BID INFORMATION None. MAP See Exhibit I EXHIBITS Exhibit I: Exhibit 1I: Exhibit HI: Location Map Beneficial Reuse Water Contract Ordinance Respectfully submitted: Prepared by: Jim Coulter Director of Water/Wastewater Utilities Gayla Wright Beneficial Reuse Manager Quail Creek Rd. £ Prop. 18" Edwards N.T.S. Denton Regional Medical Center Prop. D~ 1 2" School ie 0 0 c- O Robinson Rd. Exhibit I Location Map THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DENTON BENEFICIAL REUSE WATER CONTRACT THIS CONTRACT for beneficial reuse of water is made and entered into on this the day of ,2002, by and between the CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, a Texas Municipal Corporation, 215 East McKinney Street, Denton, Texas 76201 (hereafter"CITY"); and the COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER OF DENTON SUBSIDIARY, L.P., DOING BUSINESS AS THE DENTON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, acting herein by and through its duly authorized officers and directors, of 3535 South 1-35, Denton, Texas 76210 (hereafter "PURCHASER"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the PURCHASER has identified a use for treated wastewater effluent, for beneficial reuse, hereinafter sometimes alternatively referred to as the "reclaimed water," or "reuse water" in order to maintain its general landscaping at the Denton Regional Medical Center in Denton, Texas and to be a more viable and cost-effective alternative than purchasing potable irrigation water; and WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas, through its Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant, expects to be able to supply to the PURCHASER treated wastewater effluent, for the purpose of its reuse; and WHEREAS, in connection with this Wastewater Effluent Transmission Line Project ("Project") the CITY shall construct a transmission line for the purpose of serving several entities with treated wastewater effluent, which line extends by and is contiguous to the Denton Regional Medical Center, the Denton State School property, with its South terminus at the Oakmont Country Club in Corinth, Texas; and WHEREAS, this Project generally involves a water-recycling project, and the quality of effluent produced from the Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant presently meets the highest standard for effluent reuse (Type I); and EXHIBIT II WHEREAS, because this Contract involves the sale of treated wastewater effluent, as distinguished from treated potable water suitable for human consumption, the ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas concerning potable water rates do not apply to this Contract; and WHEREAS, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (hereafter "TNRCC") has adopted the 30 TAC Chapter 210 Rules which regulate the use of reclaimed water, and WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas has incorporated the 30 TAC Chapter 210 Rules in the "Beneficial Reuse Water User's Handbook;" and WHEREAS, on the 8th day of November, 2000, PURCHASER and the CITY entered into a "Letter of Subscription and Commitment" ("Commitment Letter") providing for PURCHASER'S purchase of treated wastewater effluent from the CITY; specifying a monthly base payment, as in a "take or pay" agreement utilized in the water industry, plus a volume rate per thousand gallons of treated wastewater effluent, over a certain usage level; the Commitment Letter further provided for delivery of the treated wastewater effluent by the CITY to the PURCHASER'S individual meter point; made the delivery of treated wastewater effluent not subject to rationing; and provided for the PURCHASER to increase its minimum monthly base amount of treated wastewater effluent in order to meet its increased needs; and other relevant provisions; and NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the terms and conditions contained herein; the promises and covenants made herein; the terms and provisions of the Letter of Subscription and Commitment hereinabove referred to, and the consideration paid and to be paid by the Denton Regional Medical Center, the owner of the described Property, hereafter called "PURCHASER", to the City of Denton, Texas, hereafter called "CITY", the parties do hereby CONTRACT and AGREE as follows: ARTICLE I. PURCHASE, TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY OF REUSE WATER § 1.1 OBLIGATIONS. PURCHASER has previously signed a Letter of Commitment and Intent (hereafter the "Commitment Letter") attached hereto and incorporated herewith by reference as Exhibit "A". The Letter provides that the PURCHASER will purchase reuse water from the CITY. 2 PURCHASER hereby agrees to take and pay for the quantity of reuse water that PURCHASER has made a commitment per the Letter, for the purpose of on-site irrigation of the property owned or used by PURCHASER at the point of delivery hereinafter described in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and incorporated herewith by reference. If the PURCHASER at any time during the term of this Contract needs, and can beneficially use reuse water in excess of the volume of re-use water set forth in Exhibit "A", PURCHASER may request an additional supply of reuse water, which shall be made available by CITY, in good faith, subject however, to product availability and transmission considerations. § 1.2 DELIVERY OF REUSE.WATER. CITY agrees to deliver, under the limitations and conditions hereafter set forth in this Contract, the reuse water which PURCHASER needs on a continuous basis at the delivery/individual meter point shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto. PURCHASER shall be responsible for construction and maintenance of all distribution lines on PURCHASER'S property from the existing CITY reuse lines. PURCHASER shall pay all associated costs for tapping fees, meters, batching stations, and any other reasonable costs incurred by the CITY to provide the reuse water to the PURCHASER. Each treated wastewater effluent customer of the CITY along the Project, shall have its own reinforced concrete buried meter station. Title to, possession, and control of the reuse water shall remain with the CITY until it passes through the PURCHASER'S meter and control valve at the point or points of delivery as herein described; where title to, possession, and control of the reuse water shall pass from the CITY to the PURCHASER. The CITY does not guarantee its ability to furnish any reuse water supplied under this Contract at any particular pressure, but rather the pressure delivered shall be such pressure as the CITY'S system will render at the PURCHASER'S point of delivery. § 1.3 NO RATIONING OF WATER. The treated wastewater effluent sold by the CITY to the PURCHASER shall not be subject to rationing during any period of drought, or during any period of time that the use of potable water is curtailed or otherwise restricted pursuant to any drought contingency plan, then in force and effect. ARTICLE II. QUALITY AND USE OF REUSE WATER §2.1 QUALITY OF REUSE WATER. The quality ofthe reuse water to be supplied by CITY to PURCHASER under this Contract shall meet the quality requirements established in 30 TAC Chapter 210 for "Type I," as they may be amended from time-to-time, which quality requirements are currently as shown below: BOD5 or CBOD5 Turbidity Fecal Coliform Fecal Coliform * Geometric mean 5mg/L 3 NTU 20 CFU/100 ml* 75 CFU/100 mi** ** Single grab sample (not to exceed) The CITY shall perform required sampling and analysis on the reuse water as prescribed by applicable regulatory agencies. §2.2 USE OF REUSE WATER BY PURCHASER. PURCHASER SHALL USE THE WATER RECEIVED BY AND UNDER THIS CONTRACT FOR ON-SITE IRRIGATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF 30 TAC CHAPTER 210.22, 210.23 AND 210.24. "On-site irrigation" refers to the use of water for maintenance and beautification of the landscaping and facilities of the PURCHASER. THE REUSE WATER SUPPLIED UNDER THIS CONTRACT IS NOT SUITABLE FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION AND SHALL NOT BE USED BY PURCHASER OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ORDINARY DOMESTIC USE. PURCHASER shall take all necessary precautions to prevent consumption of the subject reuse water by its employees or other persons, including the posting of warning signs in both English and Spanish, in large and conspicuous printed letters at least four (4") inches high, at all places where employees or other persons are likely to have access to the reuse water. The actual establishment, maintenance, and enforcement of such safety precautions shall be under the exclusive dominion and control of PURCHAS ER. PURCHASER assumes full legal responsibility for any and 4 all damages resulting from human consumption of the subject reuse water after it reaches the PURCHASER'S point of delivery. PROVIDED HOWEVER, PURCHASER does not hereby waive any defense that may be available under the laws and the Constitution of the State of Texas, or otherwise, in the event of any suit or action brought against it by any third-party for damages. {}2.3 USE OF REUSE WATER BY THIRD PARTIES. PURCHASER shall not sell, trade, exchange, donate, or otherwise transfer the reuse water provided by this Contract to any third party, and shall not permit or allow the reuse water to be used in any manner by any third parties. §2.4 COMMINGLING'OF REUSE WATER. PURCHASER shall construct or cause to be constructed supply lines such that it is not possible for any reuse water supplied to PURCHASER under this Contract from PURCHASER to re-enter any potable water system. However, this shall not prevent the commingling in water storage facilities of PURCHASER'S reuse water with other water obtained by PURCHASER from another system or source for irrigation purposes. All such commingling shall be subject, however, to applicable City of Denton regulations and ordinances, or those of other governmental agencies governing the use of reuse water. §2.5 DISCHARGE OF REUSE WATER PURCHASER shall use its reasonable best efforts not to cause or permit the discharge of reuse water off-site, either airborne or by surface runoff, unless permitted by the TNRCC. §2.6 EXCESS AMOUNTS OF REUSE WATER PURCHASER shall use its reasonable best efforts to ensure that excess reuse water is returned to the wastewater collection system. §2.7 WET GRASS CONDITIONS. PURCHASER shall apply reuse water in such manner as to minimize wet grass conditions in unrestricted landscaped areas during the periods that the area should be in use. §2.8 EFFECT ON GROUND WATER. PURCHASER shall use its reasonable best efforts to utilize reuse water in a manner that does not threaten or adversely affect ground water. §2.9 CONDITION OF SOIL. PURCHASER shall not apply any reuse water to the ground when the ground is either saturated or frozen. §2.10 NUISANCE. PURCHASER shall be solely responsible for the prompt clean-up of any nuisance conditions that exist on PURCHASER'S real property, which result from storage or the use of reuse water received from the CITY. §2.11 BENEFICIAL REUSE WATER USERS' HANDBOOK. PURCHASER confirms its receipt of the "Beneficial Reuse Water Users' Handbook" (hereafter the "Handbook") published by the City of Denton, Wastewater Utilities, and which Handbook was approved by the City of Denton Public Utilities Board on the 7~h day of January, 2002. The CITY confirms that it will promptly issue PURCHASER a copy of any new or amended Handbook that it may issue in the future. PURCHASER is fully responsible for knowing the contents of the Handbook and fully complying with it. §2.12 RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PARTIES. CITY shall not be responsible, nor liable for any contamination of the reuse water or the inappropriate use or application of the reuse water supplied under this Contract after it passes through the PURCHASER'S described point of delivery (Exhibit "B" hereto). PURCHASER shall fully and absolutely indemnify the CITY for any and all damages and claims for damages arising from any contamination of the reuse water supplied under this Contract after it passes through the PURCHASER'S point of delivery; except regarding any damages resulting from the CITY'S failure to deliver the quality of reuse water required by State law and by the failure by City to abide by and fulfill its obligations under the terms and conditions of this Contract. ARTICLE III. RATE AND METERING §3.1 RATE CHARGED FOR REUSE WATER. The rate for reuse water based on the Commitment Letter (Exhibit "A"), and this Contract, for a period of five (5) years from the effective date of this Contract shall be two-fold: (A) A monthly base charge of $2,000 per month, which covers up to 1,500,000 gallons per month of treated wastewater effluent. This monthly base rate provision is similar to a "take or pay" provision used in the water industry. The monthly base charge shall be due and payable by PURCHASER for each and every month that the Contract is in effect, whether or not PURCHASER has utilized any treated wastewater effluent for that month or not. There shall also be no carryover of surplus wastewater effluent from year to year, based on the fiscal year October 1 through September 30. (B) If applicable, a volume rate of $1.35 per thousand gallons of treated wastewater effluent, plus a facility charge of $16.20, per thirty- (30) days. This rate, however, shall apply only to monthly quantities of treated wastewater effluent metered to PURCHASER in excess of 1,500,000 gallons. §3.2 RATES AFTER FIVE YEARS. After five (5) years from the effective date of this Contract, the terms znay be adjusted by negotiation of the parties, and the rates for reuse water shall be subject to change by the CITY on each October 1, thereafter, effective with the CITY'S fiscal year rate ordinance beginning effective October 1, 2007. The revised rates, if any, will be based on water reclamation plant operation and maintenance and non-operating expenses and wastewater treatment volumes from the most recently completed fiscal year. §3.3 METERING. CITY shall operate, maintain and read the reuse meter/meters and shall bill PURCHASER monthly based on such meter reading. If for any reason the meter shall fail to register for any period, PURCHASER shall be billed for the amount of reuse water delivered for the corresponding month of the year immediately preceding the failure, if such record is available. If 7 these records are not available, CITY shall reasonably estimate the amount of the consumption during the period in question and bill PURCHASER on the basis of such estimate. In determining the estimate of PURCHASER'S consumption, CITY shall average the applicable month for the past three years. If there is not a three-year history, the CITY shall consider as a factor the rain or drought conditions for the applicable period. Further PURCHASER agrees that it shall not in any manner interfere, tamper, or attempt to do anything with regard to the operation or functioning of such meter/meters. §3.4. PURCHASER'S OPTION. Purchaser may increase its minimum monthly base amount of treated wastewater effluent purchased during the term of this Contract in order to meet its increased needs by notifying the CITY, in writing, who will then determine a new monthly minimum monthly base charge in light of the increase of the monthly base amount of treated wastewater effluent purchased. The CITY shall be obligated to increase such monthly minimum base amount, subject only to the condition that the CITY must be able to transport the increased volume of treated wastewater effluent to PURCHASER through the existing treated wastewater effluent transmission line. ARTICLE IV. TERM {}4.1 TERM AND RENEWAL OF CONTRACT. This Contract shall be for a term beginning with the effective date, and ending five (5) years after that date. This Contract may then be re- negotiated by CITY and PURCHASER for subsequent minimum five (5) year term(s) with the concurrence of both parties. The Purchaser shall provide written notice to the CITY at least six months in advance of expiration of the Contract stating that the PURCHASER desires to re-negotiate this Contract. §4.2 EFFECTIVE DATE. This Contract shall be effective upon PURCHASER'S and CITY'S execution of this Contract; and upon thc date that CITY has connected its treated wastcwater effluent transmission line to the PURCHASER'S delivery point and the same is operational; and 8 upon the CITY'S issuance of a written "Notice to Proceed" to PURCHASER. §4.3 TERMINATION OF CONTRACT. This Contract shall be terminated if either party is prevented from fulfilling an obligation under this Contract by any final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, legislation, or other force majeure. PURCHASER may terminate the Contract if PURCHASER is of the opinion that the reuse water quality is such as to prevent the PURCHASER from using it for the purpose ofin-igation. In that event, PURCHASER shall provide the CITY at least sixty (60) days written notice of its intention to terminate the Contract. CITY may terminate this Contract if monies required to be paid by PURCHASER pursuant to this Contract are not paid within thirty (30) days of written notification issued by the CITY to PURCHASER at PURCHASER'S billing address according to the CITY'S records. Either party may terminate this Contract upon the failure of the other party to abide by the provisions of this Contract and to cure the alleged default, after being provided thirty (30) days written notice to do so by the other party. This Contract also may be terminated by the mutual agreement of PURCHASER and CITY. ARTICLE V. FACILITIES §5.1 ON-SITE FACILITIES. PURCHASER shall construct and pay for all necessary facilities to deliver, store, use and discharge or dispose of the reuse water from the point of delivery onto Purchaser's property, until such re-use water is used, discharged, or disposed of, which facilities shall be described for purposes of this Contract, as on-site facilities. Design and construction must meet criteria established by CITY regulation and ordinance as well as those established by 30 TAC §210, as determined by CITY in its reasonable judgment. §5.2 SECURITY OF PURCHASER'S SERVICE SYSTEM. PURCHASER'S service system shall be installed by PURCHASER so as to prevent operation by unauthorized personnel pursuant to 30 TAC §210.25. §5.3 REQUIRED PIPING. PURCHASER shall use an existing separate non-potable, or shall design and construct a separate non-potable water distribution system in compliance with 30 TAC {}210.25 and any other applicable local and state regulations. §5.4 STORAGE PURCHASER shall comply with storage as required by 30 TAC §210.23 and any other applicable local and state requirements. §5.5 TAILWATER WATER CONTROLS. PURCHASER shall construct any required tail water controls, as required by applicable local and state regulations. §5.6 COST OF PURCHASER'S ON-SITE FACILITIES. PURCHASER shall have title and bear all responsibilities including the costs of installing, operating, maintaining, permitting, licensing, and repairing any and all of PURCHASER'S on-site facilities, other than those facilities owned by the CITY unless provided for by other mechanisms. §5.7 ACCESS TO PURCHASER'S PROPERTY. PURCHASER shall allow the CITY 24- hour access onto PURCHASER'S property (only that property which is the subject of this Contract) as necessary to operate, maintain, and inspect facilities owned by the CITY. CITY shall use its best efforts to minimize interruption with PURCHASER'S use and operation of its property. ARTICLE VI. GENERAL PROVISIONS §6. I GOVERNING LAW; VENUE; LEGAL CONSTRUCTION. This Contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas. The obligations of the parties to this Contract are performable in Denton County, Texas, and if legal action is necessary to enforce same, exclusive venue shall lie in Denton County, Texas. In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Contract shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other 10 provision of this Contract, and this Contract shall be considered as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained in this Contract. §6.2 ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT. written consent of the other party. This Contract cannot be assigned without the prior §6.3 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS. This Contract is subject to all legal requirements of the City Charter of the City of Denton, Texas, the Denton Code of Ordinances, and other laws and regulations both state and federal; and PURCHASER agrees that it will promptly comply with all applicable laws, regulations, orders, and rules of the Federal, State, County, City, and all other applicable governmental agencies. Specifically, PURCHASER will comply with all provisions of 30 TAC §210 as it is currently adopted or as it may be hereafter amended. These regulations are included in the above-referenced "Beneficial Reuse Water Handbook." {}6.4 FORCE MAJEURE. Neither CITY nor PURCHASER shall be required to perform any term, condition, or covenant in this Contract, so long as such performance is delayed or prevented by force majeure, which shall mean acts of God, civil riots, floods, and any other cause, not reasonably within the control of CITY and/or PURCHASER and which by the exercise of due diligence, CITY or PURCHASER is unable, wholly or in part, to prevent or overcome. §6.5 ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Contract embodies the complete agreement of the parties hereto, superseding any and all oral or written previous and contemporary contracts or agreements between the parties and relating to matters contained in this Contract, except as otherwise provided herein. This Contract may not be modified without the written agreement of both parties hereto. §6.6 HOLD HARMLESS. PURCHASER, only to the extent permitted by applicable law, agrees to protect, defend, and save the CITY, its representatives, officers, agents, employees, and attorneys harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, and causes of action of every kind 11 and character, losses, costs, expenses, attorney's fees, and damages of every kind and character, for injury to, or death of any person or damage to any property arising out of or in connection with the construction, use, storage, maintenance, disposal, or discharge of reuse water of or from PURCHASER'S on-site facilities. However, this provision shall not apply if any claim arises and is proximately caused by the CITY'S failure to deliver the quality of reuse water required by State law; or by the City's failure to comply with the provisions of this Contract. The provisions of this Subsection 6.6 shall not apply to any liability resulting from the sole negligence of CITY, its representatives, officers, agents, employees, or attorneys. {}6.7. HOLD HARMLESS - GOVERNMENT REGULATION. In its performance of this Contract, PURCHASER shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws or regulations related to the use or reuse of reuse water, or the environment, and will hold the CITY, its representatives, officers, agents, employees, and attorneys harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, suits, causes of action, losses, damages, costs, attorney's fees, and expenses arising out of any noncompliance violation or alleged noncompliance violation by PURCHASER of any such laws; PROVIDED HOWEVER, only to the extent provided by applicable law. §6.8 REMEDIES. In the event that CITY is unable in good faith to comply with the delivery of reuse water requirements to PURCHASER in this Contract, then PURCHASER'S sole remedy shall be to take CITY potable water and to pay for the potable water so taken at the rates established for the potable water used. It is expressly understood that so long as the CITY is unable, in good faith to produce reuse water for PURCHASER under this Contract, that the obligation of the PURCHASER to pay City the monthly "take or pay" payment(s) as set forth in {}3.1 of this Contract shall abate, and PURCHASER shall only pay CITY for the potable water which it uses on a monthly basis, until such time as reuse water is restored to delivery by the CITY. The exercise of this remedy by PURCHASER shall require ten (10) days prior written notice by PURCHASER to the CITY. 12 §6.9 REQUIRED PERMITS AND LICENSES. The parties shall each maintain in effect during the term of this Contract, any and all federal, state, and/or local licenses and permits which may be required of parties generally regarding the subject of reuse water. §6.10 REQUIRED RECORDS. Both CITY and PURCHASER shall maintain such records as are required by state regulations and shall notify the TNRCC in writing within five (5) days of obtaining knowledge of reuse water use not specified and approved by the Executive Director of the TNRCC. §6.11 POLICE POWERS NOT AFFECTED. This provision does not affect the police powers of the CITY of Denton, Texas or of any other governmental agency. §6.12 BINDING EFFECT ON SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. This Contract shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and their assigns. {}6.13 CAPTIONS AND COUNTERPARTS. The captions to the various Articles and Subsections of this Contract are for informational purposes only and shall in no way alter the substance or meaning of the terms and conditions of this Contract. This Contract shall be executed in duplicate original counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and constitute one and the same instrument. EXECUTED by the City of Denton, Texas ("CITY") and the DENTON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER (hereafter the PURCHASER), acting by and through their respective duly authorized and empowered officers, officials, and representatives, on this the day of ,2002. 13 "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 By: "PURCHASER" COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER OF DENTON, SUBSIDIARY, L.P., DOING BUSINESS AS DENTON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER Title: Vf) ATTEST By: ~ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: S:\Our Documents\Contracts\02~Beneficial Reuse Water Contract - Denton Rgnl Med Ctr.doc 14 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVING A BENEFICIAL REUSE WATER CONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AND COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER OF DENTON SUBSIDIARY, L.P., DOING BUSINESS AS THE DENTON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; PROVIDING FOR THE CITY MANAGER'S EXECUTION THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a Beneficial Reuse Water Contract (the "Contract") by and between the City of Denton, Texas and Columbia Medical Center of Denton Subsidiary, L.P., d/b/a The Denton Regional Medical Center, in substantially the form of the Contract which is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance for all purposes. SECTION 2. That the expenditure of funds as provided for in said Contract is hereby authorized. SECTION 3. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2002. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR By: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY Contract - DRMC 2002.doc EXHIBIT III Item 4H AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: November 19, 2002 DEPARTMENT: Utility Administration ACM: Howard Martin, 349-8232 SUBJECT Consider approval of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas approving a Beneficial Reuse Water Contract by and between the City of Denton, Texas and Denton State School; providing for the City Manager's execution thereof; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND The City of Denton has beneficially used treated effluent from the Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant (PCWRP) to provide cooling water for the Spencer Generating Plant since the middle 1970s. The recent year's very dry summer and the projected population increase in Denton by the year 2020 has sharpened the focus to develop infrastructure for beneficial reuse of effluent water to decrease reliance on potable water for turf irrigation and industrial uses. Staff obtained a reuse permit from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) in February 2000 allowing use of up to 10 million gallons per day of treated effluent for beneficial reuse. Staff has negotiated beneficial reuse water agreements with Oakmont Country Club ("Oakmont"), Denton State School and Denton Regional Medical Center (See Exhibit ii). These contracts are a take-or-pay contract for a term of 5 years. The total amount of monthly payments to be received by the City from the three contracts will be $6,700. in general, effluent volumes utilized in excess of the amount established in the take-or-pay contract will be sold at $1.35/1,000 gallons. The annual revenue generated by these three contracts cover the anticipated debt service requirements attributable to the construction of the effluent water reuse line. OPTIONS 1. Approve the Beneficial Reuse Water Contract 2. Reject the Beneficial Reuse Water Contract 3. Counter the terms/offer of Denton State School for the Beneficial Reuse Water Contract RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the Beneficial Reuse Water Contract with Denton State School. [This Contract is related to, and the passage is interdependent on each of the three Beneficial Reuse Water Contracts being approved; together with the Bid for the pipeline; and the Inteflocal Agreement with the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.] ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT Effective upon Oakmom's receipt of reuse water. Pipeline completed in May 2003. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (COUNCIL~ BOARDS~ COMM.) The Beneficial Reuse Water Contract with Denton State School has been discussed at previous PUB meetings. The Contract is on the November 18, 2002 PUB Agenda for final action. BID INFORMATION None. MAP See Exhibit I EXHIBITS Exhibit I: Location Map Exhibit II: Beneficial Reuse Water Contract Exhibit III: Ordinance Respectfully submitted: Jim Coulter Director of Water/Wastewater Utilities Prepared by: Gayla Wright Beneficial Reuse Manager Quail Creek Rd. £ Prop. 18" Edwards N.T.S. Denton Regional Medical Center Prop. D~ 1 2" School ie 0 0 c- O Robinson Rd. Exhibit I Location Map THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DENTON BENEFICIAL REUSE WATER CONTRACT THIS CONTRACT for beneficial reuse of water is lnade and entered into on this the day of ,2002, by and between the CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, a Texas Municipal Corporation, 215 East McKinney Street, Denton, Texas 76201 (hereafter "CITY"); and the DENTON STATE SCHOOL, acting by and through the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, of P.O. Box 368, Denton, Texas 76202 (hereafter "PURCHASER"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the PURCHASER has identified a use for treated wastewater effluent, for beneficial reuse, hereinafter sometimes alternatively referred to as the "reclaimed water," or "reuse water" in order to maintain its general landscaping at the Denton State School in Denton, Texas and to be a more viable and cost-effective alternative than purchasing potablc irrigation water; and WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas, through its Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant, expects to be able to supply to the PURCHASER treated wastewater effluent, for the purpose of its reuse; and WHEREAS, in connection with this Wastewater Effluent Transmission Line Project ("Project") the CITY shall construct a transmission line for the purpose of serving several entities with treated wastewater effluent, which line extends by and is contiguous to the Denton State School property, with its South terminus at the Oakmont Country Club in Corinth, Texas; and WHEREAS, this Project generally involves a water-recycling project, and the quality of effluent produced from the Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant presently meets the highest standard for effluent reuse (Type I); and WHEREAS, because this Contract involves the sale of treated wastewater effluent, as distinguished from treated potable water suitable for human consumption, the ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas concerning potable watcr rates do not apply to this Contract; and WHEREAS, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (hereafter "TNRCC") EXHIBIT II has adopted the 30 TAC Chapter 210 Rules which regulate the use of reclaimed water, and WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas has incorporated the 30 TAC Chapter 210 Rules in the "Beneficial Reuse Water User's Handbook;" and WHEREAS, on the 20th day of December, 2000, PURCHASER and the CITY entered into a "Letter of Subscription and Commitlnent" ("Comnfitment Letter") providing for PURCHASER'S purchase of treated wastewater effluent from the CITY; specifying a monthly base payment, as in a "take or pay" agreement utilized in the water industry, plus a volume rate per thousand gallons of treated wastewater effluent, over a certain usage level; the Commitment Letter further provided for delivery of the treated wastewater effluent by the CITY to the PURCHASER'S individual meter point; made the delivery of treated wastewater effluent not subject to rationing; and provided for the PURCHASER to increase its minimum monthly base amount of treated wastewater effluent in order to meet its increased needs; and other relevant provisions; and WHEREAS, PURCHASER and CITY have entered into that certain Interlocal Agreement providing for utility easements, a water tank site and the installation of a reuse water irrigation system on PURCHASER's property (the "Interlocal Agreement"); and NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the terms and conditions contained herein; the promises and covenants made herein; the terms and provisions of the Letter of Subscription and Commitment hereinabove referred to, and the consideration paid and to be paid by the TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND MENTAL RETARDATION, the owner of the described Property, hereafter called "PURCHASER", to the City of Denton, Texas, hereafter called "CITY", the parties do hereby CONTRACT and AGREE as follows: ARTICLE I. PURCHASE, TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY OF REUSE WATER § 1.1 OBLIGATIONS. Purchaser has previously signed a Letter of Commitment and Intent (hereafter the "Commitment Letter") attached hereto and incorporated herewith by reference as Exhibit "A". The Letter provides that the PURCHASER will purchase reuse water fi'om the CITY. PURCHASER hereby agrees to take and pay for the quantity of reuse water that PURCHASER has 2 made a commitment per the Letter, for the purpose of on-site irrigation of the property owned or used by PURCHASER at the point of delivery hereinafter described in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and incorporated herewith by reference. If the PURCHASER at any time during the term of this Contract needs, and can beneficially use reuse water in excess of the volume of're-use water set forth in Exhibit "A", PURCHASER may request an additional supply of reuse water, which shall be made available by CITY, in good faith, subject however, to product availability and transmission considerations. § 1.2 DELIVERY OF REUSE.WATER. CITY agrees to deliver, under the limitations and conditions hereafter set forth in this Contract, the reuse water xvhich PURCHASER needs on a continuous basis at the delivery/individual meter point shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto. PURCHASER shall be responsible for construction and maintenance of all distribution lines fi'om the existing CITY reuse lines. PURCHASER shall pay all associated costs for tapping fees, meters, batching stations, and any other costs incurred by the CITY to provide the reuse water to the PURCHASER. Each treated wastewater effluent customer of the CITY along the Project, shall have its own reinforced concrete buried meter station. Title to, possession, and control of the reuse water shall remain with the CITY until it passes through the PURCHASER'S meter and control valve at the point or points of delivery as herein described; where title to, possession, and control of the reuse water shall pass from the CITY to the PURCHASER. The CITY does not guarantee its ability to furnish any reuse water supplied under this Contract at any particular pressure, but rather the pressure delivered shall be such pressure as the CITY'S system will render at the PURCHASER'S point of delivery. § 1.3 NO RATIONING OF WATER; The treated wastewater effluent sold by the CITY to the PURCHASER shall not be subject to rationing during any period of drought, or during any period of time that the use of potable water is curtailed or otherwise restricted pursuant to any drought contingency plan, then in force and effect. ARTICLE II. QUALITY AND USE OF REUSE WATER §2.1 .QUALITY OF REUSE WATER. The quality of the reuse water to be supplied by CITY to PURCHASER under this Contract shall meet the quality requirements established in 30 TAC Chapter 210 for "Type I," as they may be amended from time-to-time, which quality requirements are currently as shown below: BOD5 or CBOD5 Turbidity Fecal Colifonr~ Fecal Coliform * Geometric mean 5mg/L 3 NTU 20 CFU/100 ml* 75 CFU/100 ml** ** Single grab sample (not to exceed) The CITY shall perform required sampling and analysis on the reuse water as prescribed by applicable regulatory agencies. §2.2 USE OF REUSE WATER BY PURCHASER. PURCHASER SHALL USE 27q]E WATER RECEIVED BY AND UNDER THIS CONTRACT FOR ON-SITE IRRIGATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF 30 TAC CHAPTER 210.22, 210.23 AND 210.24. "On-site irrigation" refers to the use of water for maintenance and beautification of the landscaping and facilities of the PURCHASER. THE REUSE WATER SUPPLIED UNDER THIS CONTRACT IS NOT SUITABLE FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION AND SHALL NOT BE USED BY PURCHASER OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ORDINARY DOMESTIC USE. PURCHASER shall take all necessary precautions to prevent consumption of the subject reuse water by its employees or other persons, including the posting of warning signs in both English and Spanish, in large and conspicuous printed letters at least four (4") inches high, at all places where employees or other persons are likely to have access to the reuse water. The actual establishment, maintenance, and enforcement of such safety precautions shall be under the exclusive dominion and control of PURCHASER. PURCHASER assumes full legal responsibility for any and all damages resulting Ii'om human consumption of the subject reuse water after it reaches the PURCHASER'S point of delivery. PROVIDED HOWEVER, PURCHASER does not hereby waive 4 any defense that may be available under the laws and the Constitution of the State of Texas, or otherwise, in the event of any suit or action brought against it by any third-party for damages. §2.3 USE OF REUSE WATER BY THIRD PARTIES. PURCHASER shall not sell, trade, exchange, donate, or otherwise transfer the reuse water provided by this Contract to any third party, and shall not permit or allow the reuse water to be used in any manner by any third parties. §2.4 COMMINGLING OF REUSE WATER. PURCHASER shall construct or cause to be constructed supply lines such that it is not possible for any reuse water supplied to PURCHASER under this Contract from PURCHASER to re-enter any potable water system. However, this shall not prevent the commingling in water storage facilities of PURCHASER'S reuse water with other water obtained by PURCHASER from another system or source for irrigation purposes. All such commingling shall be subject, however, to applicable City of Denton regulations and ordinances, or those of other governmental agencies governing the use of reuse water. §2.5 DISCHARGE OF REUSE WATER PURCHASER shall not cause or permit the discharge of reuse water off-site, either airborne or by surface runoff, unless permitted by the TNRCC. §2.6 EXCESS AMOUNTS OF REUSE WATER Excess reuse water, if any, must be returned by PURCHASER to the CITY's waste collection system. §2.7 DRIFT OR SPRAY OF REUSE WATER PURCHASER shall not use reuse water in any manner where the result would be any drift or spray to areas where the general public would be exposed. §2.8 WET GRASS CONDITIONS. PURCHASER shall apply reuse water in such manner as to minimize wet grass conditions in unrestricted landscaped areas during the periods that the area 5 should be in use. §2.9 EFFECT ON GROUND WATER. PURCHASER shall utilize reuse water in a rammer that does not tlzreaten or adversely affect ground water. §2.10 CONDITION OF SOIL. PURCHASER shall not apply any reuse water to the ground when the ground is either saturated or frozen. §2.11 NUISANCE. PURCHASER shall be solely responsible for the prompt clean-up of any nuisance conditions that exist on PURCHASER'S real property, which result from storage or the use of reuse water received from the CITY. §2.12 BENEFICIAL REUSE WATER USERS' HANDBOOK. PURCHASER confirms its receipt of the "Beneficial Reuse Water Users' Handbook" (hereafter the "Handbook") published by the City of Denton, Wastewater Utilities, and which Handbook was approved by the City of Denton Public Utilities Board on the 7th day of January, 2002. The CITY confirms that it will promptly issue PURCHASER a copy of any new or amended Handbook that it may issue in the future. PURCHASER is fully responsible for kmowing the contents of the Handbook and fully complying with it. §2.13 RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PARTIES. CITY shall not be responsible, nor liable for any contamination of the reuse water or the inappropriate use or application of the reuse water supplied under this Contract after it passes through the PURCHASER'S described point of delivery (Exhibit "B" hereto). PURCHASER shall fully and absolutely indemnify the CITY, to the extent provided for and allowed by law, for any and all damages and claims for damages arising fi'om any contamination of the reuse water supplied under this Contract after it passes through the PURCHASER'S point of delivery; except regarding any damages resulting from the CITY'S failure to deliver the quality of reuse water required by State law and by thc terms and conditions of this Contract. 6 ARTICLE III. RATE AND METERING §3.1 RATE CHARGED FOR REUSE WATER. The rate for reuse water based on the Commitment Letter (Exhibit "A"), for a period of five (5) years from the effective date of this Contract shall be two-fold: (A) A monthly base charge of $700.00 per month, which covers up to 518,000 gallons of treated wastewater effluent. This monthly base rate provision is similar to a "take or pay" provision used in the water industry. The monthly base charge shall be due and payable by PURCHASER for each and every month that the Contract is in effect, whether or not PURCHASER has utilized any treated wastewater effluent for that month or not. There shall also be no carryover of surplus wastewater effluent from year to year, based on the fiscal year October 1 tl~ough September 30 (the "Fiscal Year"). However, the monthly 518,000 gallon usage may be carried over within the fiscal year so long as the total gallon usage for any given month does not exceed 1,000,000 gallons and the total gallon usage for the Fiscal Year does not exceed 6,216,000 gallons. Usage in excess of these limits shall be billed at the rate specified in §3.1(B). (B) If applicable, a volume rate of $1.35 per thousand gallons of treated wastewater effluent, plus a facility charge of $16.20, per monthly billing period in which the volume rate is applied. §3.2 RATES AFTER FIVE YEARS. After five (5) years from the effective date of this Contract, these rates may be adjusted annually by the CITY, on each October 1. The revised rates, if any, will be based on water reclamation plant operation and maintenance and non-operating expenses and wastewater treatment volumes from the most recently completed fiscal year. PROVIDED HOWEVER, because of special considerations provided to the CITY by PURCHASER, the parties agree that the applicable rate to be charged to PURCHASER after five (5) years from the effective date of this Contract, shall not exceed fifty (50%) percent of the potable water rate for the City of Denton, Texas. §3.3 METERING. CITY shall operate, maintain and read the reuse meter/meters and shall bill 7 PURCHASER monthly based on such meter reading. If for any reason the meter shall fail to register for any period, PURCHASER shall be billed for the amount of reuse water delivered for the corresponding month of the year immediately preceding the failure, if such record is available. If these records are not available, CITY shall reasonably estimate the amount of the consumption during the period in question and bill PURCHASER on the basis of such estilnate. In determining the estimate of PURCHASER'S consumption, CITY shall average the applicable month for the past three years. If there is not a three-year history, the CITY shall consider as a factor the rain or drought conditions for the applicable period. Further PURCHASER agrees that it shall not in any manner interfere, tamper, or attempt to do anything with regard to the operation or functioning of such meter/meters. §3.4. PURCHASER'S OPTION. Purchaser 1Tlay increase its minimum monthly base amount of treated wastewater effluent purchased during the term of this Contract in order to meet its increased needs by notifying the CITY, in writing, who will then determine a new monthly minimum monthly base charge in light of the increase of the monthly base amount of treated wastewater effluent purchased. The CITY shall be obligated to increase such monthly minimum base amount, subject only to the condition that the CITY must be able to transport the increased volume of treated wastewater effluent to PURCHASER through the existing treated wastewater effluent transmission line. ARTICLE IV. TERM §4.1 TERM AND RENEWAL OF CONTRACT. This Contract shall be for a term beginning with the effective date, and ending five (5) years after that date. This Contract may be renewed for subsequent ten (10) year periods with the concurrence of both parties. Such extensions will be permitted for the twenty (20) year period of the Water Easement provided for in the Site Contract. The Purchaser shall provide written notice to the City at least six months in advance of expiration of the Contract that the Purchaser desires to renew this Contract. {}4.2 following have been satisfied: (A) PURCHASER'S and CITY'S execution of this Contract; and (B) CITY has connected its treated wastewater effluent transmission line PURCHASER'S delivery point and the same is operational; and (C) CITY'S issuance of a written "Notice to Proceed" to PURCHASER. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Contract shall be effective as of the date when all of the to the §4.3 TERMINATION OF CONTRACT. This Contract shall be terminated if either party is prevented from fulfilling an obligation under this Contract by any final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, legislation, or other force majeure. PURCHASER may terminate the Contract if PURCHASER is of the opinion that the reuse water quality is such as to prevent the PURCHASER from using it for the purpose of i~Tigation. In that event, PURCHASER shall provide the CITY at least sixty (60) days written notice of its intention to terminate the Contract. CITY may terminate this Contract if monies required to be paid by PURCHASER pursuant to this Contract are not paid within thirty (30) days of written notification issued by the CITY to PURCHASER at PURCHASER'S billing address according to the CITY'S records. Either party may terminate this Contract upon the failure of the other party to abide by the provisions of this Contract and to cure the alleged default, after being provided thirty (30) days written notice to do so by the other party. This Contract also may be terminated by the mutual agreement of PURCHASER and CITY. ARTICLE V. FACILITIES {}5.1 ON-SITE FACILITIES. PURCHASER shall construct and pay for all necessary facilities to deliver, store, use and discharge or dispose of the reuse water from the point of delivery onto Purchaser's property, until such re-use water is used, discharged, or disposed of, which facilities shall be described for purposes of this Contract, as on-site facilities. Design and construction must meet criteria established by CITY regulation and ordinance as well as those established by 30 TAC §210. {}5.2 SECURITY OF PURCHASER'S SERVICE SYSTEM. PURCHASER'S service system shall be installed by PURCHASER so as to prevent operation by unauthorized perso~mel pursuant to 30 TAC {}210.25. {} 5.3 REQUIRED PIPING. PURCHASER shall use an existing separate non-potable, or shall design and construct a separate non-potable water distribution system in compliance with 30 TAC {}210.25 and any other applicable local and state regulations. 10 §5.4 STORAGE PURCHASER shall comply with storage as required by 30 TAC §210.23 and any other applicable local and state requirements. § 5.5 TAILWATER WATER CONTROLS. PURCHASER shall construct m~y required tailwater water controls, as required by applicable local and state regulations. §5.6 COST OF PURCHASER'S ON-SITE FACILITIES. PuRCHASER shall have title m~d bear all responsibilities including the costs of installing, operating, maintaining, permitting, licensing, and repairing any and all of PURCHASER'S on-site facilities, other than those facilitics owned by the CITY, unless provided for by other mechanisms. §5.7 ACCESS TO PURCHASER'S PROPERTY. PURCHASER shall allow the CITY 24- hour access onto PURCHASER'S property (only that property which is the subject of this Contract) as necessary to operate, maintain, and inspect facilities owned by the CITY. §5.8 THE DENTON STATE SCHOOL ELEVATED WATER STORAGE TOWER. Asapartof the bargained for consideration provided for herein, PURCHASER agrees to convey to the CITY the sole and exclusive right of use and benefit, in the form of an easement or other form of conveyance, permitting the CITY's possession of the Elevated Water Storage Tower on-site for its treated wastewater effluent operations. PURCHASER further agrees that once the CITY has discontinued its usage of the Elevated Water Storage Tower for its effluent operations, that CITY, at CITY's sole cost, will notify PURCHSAER and will be solely responsible for removing the Elevated Water Storage Tower from PURCHASER's premises in a safe and prudent manner. ARTICLE VI. GENERAL PROVISIONS §6.1 GOVERNING LAW; VENUE; LEGAL CONSTRUCTION. This Contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas. The obligations of the 11 parties to this Contract are performable in Denton County, Texas, and if legal action is necessary to enforce same, exclusive venue shall lie in Denton County, Texas. In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Contract shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceabitity shall not affect any other provision of this Contract, and this Contract shall be considered as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained in this Contract. §6.2 ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT. xvritten consent of the other party. This Contract cannot be assigned without the prior §6.3 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS. This Contract is subject to all legal requirements of the City Charter of the City of Denton, Texas, the Denton Code of Ordinances, and other laws and regulations both state and federal; and PURCHASER agrees that it will promptly comply with all applicable laws, regulations, orders, and rules of the Federal, State, County, City, and all other applicable governmental agencies. Specifically, PURCHASER will comply with all provisions of 30 TAC §210 as it is currently adopted or as it may be hereafter amended. These regulations are included in the above-referenced "Beneficial Reuse Water Handbook." §6.4 FORCE MAJEURE. Neither CITY nor PURCHASER shall be required to perfonn term, condition, or covenant in this Contract, so long as such performance is delayed or prevented by force majeure, which shall mean acts of God, civil riots, floods, and any other cause, not reasonably within the control of CITY and/or PURCHASER and which by the exercise of due diligence, CITY or PURCHASER is unable, wholly or in part, to prevent or overcome. §6.5 ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Contract embodies the complete agreement of the parties hereto, superseding any and all oral or written previous and contemporary contracts or agreements between the parties and relating to matters contained in this Contract, except as otherwise provided herein. This Contract may not be modified without the written agreement of both parties hereto. 12 §6.6 HOLD HARMLESS. PURCHASER, only to the extent allowed by applicable law, agrees to protect, defend, and save the CITY, its representatives, officers, agents, employees, and attorneys harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, and causes of action of every kind and character, losses, costs, expenses, attorney's fees, and damages of every kind and character, for injury to, or death of any person or damage to any property arising out of or in connection with the construction, use, storage, maintenance, disposal, or discharge of reuse water of or from PURCHASER'S on-site facilities. Also, this provision shall not apply if any claim arises and is proximately caused by the CITY'S failure to deliver the quality of reuse water required by State law, and by the provisions of this Contract. The provisions of this Subsection 6.6 shall not apply to any liability resulting from the sole negligence of CITY, its representatives, officers, agents, employees, or attorneys. §6.7. HOLD HARMLESS - GOVERNMENT REGULATION. In its performance of this Contract, PURCHASER shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws or regulations related to the use or reuse of reuse water, or the environment, and will hold the CITY, its representatives, officers, agents, employees, and attorneys ham~less from and against any and all claims, demands, suits, causes of action, losses, damages, costs, attorney's fees, and expenses arising out of any noncompliance violation or alleged noncompliance violation by PURCHASER of any such laxvs; PROVIDED HOWEVER, only to the extent provided by applicable law. §6.8 REMEDIES. In the event that CITY is unable in good faith to comply with the delivery of reuse water requirements to PURCHASER in this Contract, then PURCHASER'S sole remedy shall be to take CITY potable water and to pay for the potable water so taken at the rates established for the potable water used less a discount of $23.00 dollars per day for any 24-hour period in which the CITY is unable to deliver reuse water. The exercise of this remedy by PURCHASER shall require ten (10) days prior written notice by PURCHASER to the CITY. The CITY shall give PURCHASER ten (10) days prior written notice of its inability to ,'omply with the reuse water 13 requirements for foreseeable events and 24 hour notice for emergencies. §6.9 REQUIRED PERMITS AND LICENSES. The parties shall each maintain in effect during the te~Tn of this Contract, any and all federal, state, and/or local licenses and permits which may be required of parties generally regarding the subject of reuse water. §6.10 REQUIRED RECORDS. Both CITY and PURCHASER shall maintain such records as are required by state regulations and shall notify the TNRCC in writing within five (5) days of obtaining knowledge of reuse water use not specified and approved by the Executive Director of the TNRCC. §6.11 POLICE POWERS NOT AFFECTED. This provision does not affect the police powers of the CITY of Denton, Texas or of any other governmental agency. §6.12 BINDING EFFECT ON SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. TNs Contract shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and their assigns. §6.13 CAPTIONS ANDCOUNTERPARTS. The captions to the various Articles and Subsections of this Contract are for informational purposes only and shall in no way alter the substance or meaning of the terms and conditions of this Contract. This Contract shall be executed in duplicate original counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and constitute one and the same instrument. EXECUTED by the City of Denton, Texas ("CITY") and the DENTON STATE SCHOOL, acting by and through the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation (hereafter the PURCHASER) acting by and through their respective duly authorized and empowered officers and representatives, on this the __ day of ,2002. 14 "CITY" CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS A Texas Municipal Corporation BY: MICHAEL CONDUFF, City Manager ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY: BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: "PURCHASER" DENTON STATE SCHOOL Acting By and Through the Texas Dept. of Mental Health and Mental Retardation ATTEST BY: Karen F. Hale Colnmissioner APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: ~oYir Doc u ntracts\02\Beneilc~al Reuse Water Contract Denton State School-MHM R(3).doc 15 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVING A BENEFICIAL REUSE WATER CONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AND THE DENTON STATE SCHOOL; PROVIDING FOR THE CITY MANAGER'S EXECUTION THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a Beneficial Reuse Water Contract (the "Contract") by and between the City of Denton, Texas and the Denton State School (acting by and through the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation), in substantially the form of the Contract which is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance for all purposes. SECTION 2. That the expenditure of funds as provided for in said Contract is hereby authorized. SECTION 3. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2002. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR By: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY By: ..... S :\Our Documents\Ordinances\~.~enefici~a~ Reuse Water Contract - DSS 2002.doc EXHIBIT III Item 41 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: November 19, 2002 DEPARTMENT: Utility Administration ACM: Howard Martin, 349-8232 SUBJECT Consider approval of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas approving a Beneficial Reuse Water Contract by and between the City of Denton, Texas and Oakmont Management Corp.; providing for the City Manager's execution thereof; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND The City of Denton has beneficially used treated effluent from the Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant (PCWRP) to provide cooling water for the Spencer Generating Plant since the middle 1970s. The recent year's very dry summer and the projected population increase in Denton by the year 2020 has sharpened the focus to develop infrastructure for beneficial reuse of effluent water to decrease reliance on potable water for turf irrigation and industrial uses. Staff obtained a reuse permit from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) in February 2000 allowing use of up to 10 million gallons per day of treated effluent for beneficial reuse. Staff has negotiated beneficial reuse water agreements with Oakmont Country Club ("Oakmont"), Denton State School and Denton Regional Medical Center (See Exhibit II). These contracts are a take-or-pay contract for a term of 5 years. The total amount of monthly payments to be received by the City from the three contracts will be $6,700. The annual revenue generated by these three contracts cover the anticipated debt service requirements attributable to the construction of the effluent water reuse line. OPTIONS 1. Approve the Beneficial Reuse Water Contract 2. Reject the Beneficial Reuse Water Contract 3. Counter the terms/offer of Oakmont Country Club Contract for the Beneficial Reuse Water RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the Beneficial Reuse Water Contract with Oakmont Country Club. [This Contract is related to, and the passage is interdependent on each of the three Beneficial Reuse Water Contracts being approved; together with the Bid for the pipeline; and the Interlocal Agreement with the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.] ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT Effective upon Oakmont's receipt of reuse water. Pipeline completed in May 2003. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (COUNCIL~ BOARDS~ COMM.) The Beneficial Reuse Water Contract with Oakmont has been discussed at previous PUB meetings. The Contract is on the November 18, 2002 PUB Agenda for final action. BID INFORMATION None. MAP See Exhibit I EXHIBITS Exhibit I: Exhibit 1I: Exhibit HI: Location Map Beneficial Reuse Water Contract Ordinance Respectfully submitted: Prepared by: Jim Coulter Director of WaterAVastewater Utilities Gayla Wright Beneficial Reuse Manager Quail Creek Rd. £ Prop. 18" Edwards N.T.S. Denton Regional Medical Center Prop. D~ 1 2" School ie 0 0 c- O Robinson Rd. Exhibit I Location Map THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DENTON BENEFICIAL REUSE WATER CONTRACT THIS CONTRACT for beneficial reuse of water is made and entered into on this the day of ,2002, by and between the CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, a Texas Municipal Corporation, 215 East McKinney Street, Denton, Texas 76201 (hereafter "CITY"); and OAKMONT MANAGEMENT CORP., a Texas Corporation, acting herein by and through its duly authorized Board of Directors, of 1200 Club House Drive, Corinth, Texas 76210 (hereafter "PURCHASER"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the PURCHASER has identified a use for treated wastewater effluent, for beneficial reuse, hereinafter sometimes alternatively referred to as the "reclaimed water," or "reuse water" in order to maintain its general landscaping at the Oalm-tont Country Club (hereinafter "OAKMONT") and to be a more viable and cost-effective alternative than purchasing potable irrigation water; and WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas, through its Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant, expects to be able to supply to the PURCHASER treated wastewater effluent, for the purpose of its reuse; and WHEREAS, in connection with this Wastewater Effluent Transmission Line Project ("Project") the CITY shall construct a transmission line for the purpose of serving several entities with treated wastewater effluent, which line extends by and is contiguous to the Denton State School property, with its South terminus at the Oakmont Country Club in Corinth, Texas; and WHEREAS, this Project generally involves a water-recycling project, and the quality of effluent produced from the Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant presently meets the highest standard for effluent reuse (Type I); and EXHIBIT II WHEREAS, because this Contract involves the sale of treated wastewater effluent, as distinguished fi-om treated potable water suitable for human consumption, the ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas concerning potable water rates do not apply to this Contract; and WHEREAS, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (hereafter "TNRCC") has adopted the 30 TAC Chapter 210 Rules which regulate the use of reclaimed water, and WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas has incorporated the 30 TAC Chapter 210 Rules in the "Beneficial Reuse Water User's Handbook;" and WHEREAS, on the 10th day of November, 2000, PURCHASER and the CITY entered into a "Letter of Subscription and Commitment" ("Commitment Letter") providing for PURCHASER'S purchase of treated wastewater effluent fi-om the CITY; specifying a monthly base payment, as in a "take or pay" agreement utilized in the water industry; the Commitment Letter further provided for delivery of the treated wastewater effluent by the CITY to the PURCHASER'S individual meter point; made the delivery of treated wastewater effluent not subject to rationing; and containing other relevant provisions; and NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the terms and conditions contained herein; the promises and covenants made herein; the terms and provisions of the Letter of Subscription and Commitment hereinabove referred to, and the consideration paid and to be paid by OAKMONT MANAGEMENT CORP., hereafter called "PURCHASER", to the City of Denton, Texas, hereafter called "CITY", the parties do hereby CONTRACT and AGREE as follows: ARTICLE I. PURCHASE, TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY OF REUSE WATER § 1.1 OBLIGATIONS. Purchaser has previously signed a Letter of Commitment and Intent (hereafter the "Commitment Letter") attached hereto and incorporated herewith by reference as Exhibit "A". The Letter provides that the PURCHASER will purchase reuse water fi-om the CITY. HOWEVER, PURCHASER shall purchase such reuse water fi:om CITY, subject to terms other than as provided for in said Commitment Letter. In each month during the Term (as defined herein), CITY agrees to produce, and PURCHASER agrees to take, an amount of reuse water xvhich is sufficient to 2 meet PURCHASER's on-site irrigation needs for all of PURCHASER'S property for that month. The parties aclcnowledge and agree that the exact amount taken by PURCHASER may vary from month to month. However, so long as CITY is not in default hereunder, PURCHASER agrees to pay CITY the sum of $4,000 for each and every month during the Term, regardless of the exact amount taken by PURCHASER. The parties agree that this is consistent with a "take or pay" arrangement. PURCHASER will accept reuse water from CITY at the point of delivery hereinafter described in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and incorporated herewith by reference (hereinafter referred to as "PURCHASER'S delivery point"). § 1.2 DELIVERY OF REUSE.WATER. CITY agrees to deliver, under the limitations and conditions hereafter set forth in this Contract, the reuse water which PURCHASER needs on a continuous basis at the delivery/individual meter point shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto. PURCHASER shall be responsible for construction and maintenance of all distribution lines from the existing CITY reuse lines. PURCHASER shall not be responsible for associated costs for tapping fees, meters, and any other costs incurred by the CITY to provide the reuse water to the PURCHASER. Each treated wastewater effluent customer of the CITY along the Project, shall have its own reinforced concrete buried meter station. Title to, possession, and control of the reuse water shall remain with the CITY until it passes through the PURCHASER'S meter and control valve at the point or points of delivery as herein described; where title to, possession, and control of the reuse water shall pass from the CITY to the PURCHASER. The CITY shall furnish all reuse water supplied under this Contract at sufficient volumes to allow PURCHASER to properly irrigate its property. If CITY should fail to furnish water at such sufficient volumes, as determined in the good faith discretion of PURCHASER, then PURCHASER shall, if the situation is not remedied within fifteen (15) days after written notice is received by CITY, be entitled to terminate this Contract immediately with no further obligation to CITY. § 1.3 NO RATIONING OF WATER. The treated wastewater effluent sold by the CITY to the PURCHASER shall not be subject to rationing during any period of drought, or during any per/od of time that the use of potable water is curtailed or otherwise restricted pursuant to any drought contingency plan, then in force and effect. ARTICLE II. QUALITY AND USE OF REUSE WATER §2.1 QUALITY OF REUSE WATER. The quality of the reuse water to be supplied by CITY to PURCHASER under this Contract shall meet the quality requirements established in 30 TAC Chapter 210 for "Type I," as they may be amended fi.om time-to-time, which quality requirements are currently as shown below: BOD5 or CBOD5 Turbidity Fecal Coliform Fecal Coliform * Geometric mean 5mg/L 3 NTU 20 CFU/100 ml* 75 CFU/100 mi** ** Single grab sample (not to exceed) The CITY shall perform required sampling and analysis on the reuse water as prescribed by applicable regulatory agencies. §2.2 USE OF REUSE WATER BY PURCHASER. PURCHASER SHALL USE THE WATER RECEIVED BY AND UNDER THIS CONTRACT FOR ON-SITE IRRIGATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL REQUISLEMENTS OF 30 TAC CHAPTER 210.22, 210.23 AND 210.24. "On-site irrigation" refers to the use of water for maintenance and beautification of the landscaping and facilities of the PURCHASER. THE REUSE WATER SUPPLIED UNDER THIS CONTRACT IS NOT SUITABLE FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION AND SHALL NOT BE USED BY PURCHASER OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ORDINARY DOMESTIC USE. PURCHASER shall take all necessary precautions to prevent consumption of the subject reuse water by its employees or other persons, including the posting of warning signs in both English and Spanish, in large and conspicuous printed letters at least four (4") inches high, at all places where employees or other persons are likely to have access to the reuse water. The actual establishment, maintenance, and enforcement of such safety precautions shall be under the exclusive dominion and control of PURCHASER. PURCHASER assumes full legal responsibility for any and all damages resulting from human consumption of the subject reuse water after it reaches the PURCHASER'S point of delivery. PROVIDED HOWEVER, PURCHASER does not hereby waive any defense that may be available under the laws and the Constitution of the State of Texas, or otherwise, in the event of any suit or action brought against it by any third-party for damages. §2.3 USE OF REUSE WATER BY THIRD PARTES. PURCHASER shall not sell, trade, exchange, donate, or otherwise transfer the reuse water provided by this Contract to any third party, and shall not permit or allow the reuse water to be used in any manner by any third parties. §2.4 COMMINGLING OF REUSE WATER. PURCHASER shall construct or cause to be constructed supply lines such that it is not possible for any reuse water supplied to PURCHASER under this Contract from PURCHASER to re-enter any potable water system. However, this shall not prevent the commingling in water storage facilities of PURCHASER'S reuse water with other water obtained by PURCHASER from another system or source for irrigation purposes. ~.~All such commingling shall be subject, however, to applicable City of Denton regulations and ordinances, or those of other governmental agencies governing the use of reuse water. §2.5 DISCHARGE OF REUSE WATER PURCHASER shall not cause or permit the discharge of reuse water off-site, either airborne or by surface runoff, unless permitted by the TNRCC. §2.6 DRIFT OR SPRAY OF REUSE WATER PURCHASER shall not use reuse water in any manner where the result would be any drift or spray to areas where the general public would be exposed. §2.7 WET GRASS CONDITIONS. PURCHASER shall apply reuse water in such manner as to minimize wet grass conditions in unrestricted landscaped areas during the periods that the area should be in use. §2.8 EFFECT ON GROUND WATER. PURCHASER shall utilize reuse water in a mariner that does not threaten or adversely affect ground water. §2.9 CONDITION OF SOIL. PURCHASER shall not apply any reuse water to the ground when the ground is either saturated or frozen. §2.10 NUISANCE. PURCHASER shall be solely responsible for the prompt clean-up of any nuisance conditions that exist on PURCHASER'S real property, which result from storage or the use of reuse water received from the CITY. §2.11 BENEFICIAL REUSE WATER USERS' HANDBOOK. PURCHASER eox~rms its receipt of the "Beneficial Reuse Water Users' Handbook" (hereafter the "Handbook") published by the City of Denton, Wastewater Utilities, and which Handbook was approved by the City of Denton Public Utilities Board on the 7th day of January, 2002. The CITY confu-ms that it will promptly issue PURCHASER a copy of any new or amended Handbook that it may issue in the future. PURCHASER is fully responsible for knowing the contents of the Handbook and fully complying with it. §2.12 RESPONSI]3ILITY OF THE PARTIES.CITY shall not be responsible, nor liable for any contamination of the reuse water or the inappropriate use or application of the reuse water supplied under this Contract after it passes through the PURCHASER'S described point of delivery (Exhibit "B" hereto). PURCHASER shall indemnify the CITY for any and all damages and claims Ibr damages arising from any contamination of the reuse water supplied under this Contract after it passes through the PURCHASER'S point of delivery; except regarding any damages resulting from the CITY'S failure to deliver the quality of reuse water required by State law and by the terms and conditions of this Contract. CITY shall indemnify the PURCHASER, to the extent provided by applicable la,v, for any and all damages and claims for damages arising fi.om any contamination of the reuse water supplied under this Contract before it passes through the PURCHASER'S point of delivery. ARTICLE IlL RATE AND METERING §3.1 RATE CHARGED FOR REUSE WATER. During the Term, the rate of payment for reuse water provided hereunder shall be as follows.: A. A monthly base charge of $4,000 for each month during the Term of this Contract, take or pay. This monthly base rate provision is similar to a "take or pay" provision used in the water industry. In other words, so long as the CITY is not in default hereunder, the monthly base charge shall be due and payable by PURCHASER to CITY for each and every month that the Contract is in effect, whether or not PURCHASER has utilized any treated wastewater effluent for that month or not, and regardless of the amount of treated wastewater effluent taken by and used by PURCHASER; and B. A monthly facility charge of $16.20, per thirty days. §3.2 METERING. CITY shall operate, maintain and read the reuse meter/meters and shall record monthly usage, based on such meter readings. This shall be for the purpose of research and data gathering by CITY, and shall have no effect on the rates to be charged hereunder for reuse water. 7 CITY shall provide to PURCHASER copies of any and all readings, data and other information obtained from such readings, which in any way relates to usage or consumption by PURCHASER, at PURCHASER'S request. Further PURCHASER agrees that it shall not in any manner interfere, tamper, or attempt to do anything with regard to the operation or ftmctioning of such meter/meters. §3.3. PURCHASER'S OPTION. The CITY shall be obligated to increase the reuse flow to PURCHASER, subject however, to the condition that the CITY must be able to transport the increased volume of treated wastewater effluent to PURCHASER through the existing treated wastewater effluent transmission hne. If the CITY cannot transport a volume of reuse water or supply potable water at the rate charged herein for reuse water until the supply of reuse water is resumed through the existing treated wastewater effluent transmission line, which is sufficient to meet PURCHASER'S on-site irrigation needs, then CITY will be in default of this Contract. ARTICLE IV. TERM §4.1 TERM AND RENEWAL OF CONTRACT. This Contract shall be for a term beginning with the effective date, and ending five (5) years after that date (the "Term"). This Contract may then be re-negotiated by CITY and PURCHASER upon mutually agreeable terms and conditions. §4.2 EFFECTIVE DATE. This Contract shall be effective upon the occurrence or-all of the following: PURCHASER'S and CITY'S execution of this Contract; connection by the CITY of its treated wastewater effluent transmission line to the PURCHASER'S delivery point; issuance by the CITY of a written '2qotice to Proceed" to PURCHASER. For purposes of this Contract, the "Effective Date" will be the date on which the final necessary condition occurs. §4.3 TERMINATION OF CONTRACT. This Contract shall be terminated if either party is prevented from fulfilling an obligation under this Contract by any final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, legislation, or other force majeure. PURCHASER may terminate the Contract if PURCHASER is of the opinion that the reuse water quality or volume is such as to prevent the PURCHASER from using it for the purpose of irrigation. In that event, PURCHASER shall provide the CITY at least sixty (60) days written notice of its intention to terminate the Contract. CITY may terminate this Contract if monies required to be paid by PURCHASER pursuant to this Contract are not paid within thirty (30) days of written notification issued by the CITY to PURCHASER at PURCHASER'S billing address according to the CITY'S records. Either party may terminate this Contract upon the failure of the other party to abide by the provisions of this Contract and to cure the alleged default, after being provided thirty (30) days written notice to do so by the other party. This Contract also may be terminated by the mutual agreement of PURCHASER and CITY. ARTICLE V. FACILITIES § 5.1 ON-SITE FACILITIES. PURCHASER shall construct and pay for all necessary facilities to deliver, store, use and discharge or dispose of the reuse water from the point of delivery onto PURCHASER'S property, until such re-use water is used, discharged, or disposed of, which facihties shall be described for purposes of this Contract, as on-site facilities. Design and construction must meet criteria established by CITY regulation and ordinance as well as those established by 30 TAC §210, despite the fact that the facilities are situated in the City of Corinth, Texas. §5.2 SECURITY OF PURCHASER'S SERVICE SYSTEM. PURCHASER'S service system shall be installed by PURCHASER so as to prevent operation by unauthorized personnel pursuant to 30 TAC §210.25. §5.3 REQUIRED PIPING. PURCHASER shall use an existing separate non-potable water distribution system, or shall design and construct a separate non-potable water distribution system in compliance with 30 TAC §210.25 and any other applicable local and state regulations. §5.4 STORAGE PURCHASER shall comply with storage as required by 30 TAC §210.23 and any other applicable local and state requirements. §5.5 TAILWATER WATER CONTROLS. PURCHASER shall construct any required tailwater water controls, as required by applicable local and state regulations. §5.6 COST OF PURCHASER'S ON-SITE FACILITIES. PURCHASER shall have title and bear all responsibilities including the costs of installing, operating, maintaining, permitting, licensing, and repairing any and all of PURCHASER'S on-site facilities, other than those facilities owned by the CITY unless provided for by other mechanisms. §5.7 ACCESS TO PURCHASER'S PROPERTY. PURCHASER shall allow the CITY 24- hour access onto PURCHASER'S property (only that property which is the subject of this Contract) as necessary to operate, maintain, and inspect facilities owned by the CITY. ARTICLE VI. GENERAL PROVISIONS §6.1 GOVERNING LAW; VENUE; LEGAL CONSTRUCTION. This Contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas. The obligations of the parties to this Contract are performable in Denton County, Texas, and if legal action is necessary to enforce same, exclusive venue shall lie in Denton County, Texas. In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Contract shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality, or unenfomeability shall not affect any other lO provision of this Contract, and this Contract shall be considered as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained in this Contract. §6.2 ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT. written consent of the other party. This Contract cannot be assigned without the prior §6.3 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS. This Contract is subject to all legal requirements of the City Charter of the City of Denton, Texas, the Denton Code of Ordinances, and other laws and regulations both state and federal; and PURCHASER agrees that it will promptly comply with all applicable laws, regulations, orders, and rules of the Federal, State, County, City, and all other applicable governmental agencies. Specifically, PURCHASER will comply with all provisions of 30 TAC §210 as it is currently adopted or as it may be hereafter amended. These regulations are included in the above-referenced "Beneficial Reuse Water Handbook." §6.4 FORCE MAJEURE. Neither CITY nor PURCHASER shall be required to perform any term, condition, or covenant in this Contract, so long as such performance is delayed or prevented by force majeure, which shall mean acts of God, civil riots, floods, and any other cause, not reasonably within the control of CITY and/or PURCHASER and which by the exercise of due diligence, CITY or PURCHASER is unable, wholly or in part, to prevent or overcome. §6.5 ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Contract embodies the complete agreement of the parties hereto, superseding any and all oral or written previous and contemporary contracts or agreements between the parties and relating to matters contained in this Contract, except as otherwise provided herein. This Contract may not be modified without the written agreement of both parties hereto. §6.6 HOLD HARMLESS. (a) PURCHASER, only to the extent allowed by applicable law, agrees to protect, defend, and save the CITY, its representatives, officers, agents, employees, and attorneys harmless fi:om and against any and all claims, demands, and causes of action of every kind 11 and character, losses, costs, expenses, attorney's fees, and damages of every kind and character, for injm-y to, or death of any person or damage to any property arising out of or in connection with the construction, use, storage, maintenance, disposal, or discharge of reuse water of or from PURCHASER'S on-site facilities. Also, this provision shall not apply if any claim arises and is proximately caused by the CITY'S failure to deliver the quality of reuse water required by State law, and by the provisions of this Contract. The provisions of this Subsection 6.6(a) shall not apply to any liability resulting from the sole negligence of CITY, its representatives, officers, agents, employees, or attorneys. (b) CITY, only to the extent allowed by applicable law, agrees to protect, defend, and save the PURCHASER, its representatives, officers, agents, employees, and attorneys harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, and causes of action of every kind and character, losses, costs, expenses, attorney's fees, and damages of every kind and character, for injury to, or death of any person or damage to any property arising out of or in connection with the construction, use, storage, maintenance, disposal, or discharge of reuse water of or from CITY'S on-site facilities, which arise prior to delivery of such water to PURCHASER'S delivery point. The provisions of this Subsection 6.6(b) shall not apply to any liability resulting from the sole negligence of PURCHASER, its representatives, officers, agents, employees, or attorneys. §6.7. HOLD HARMLESS - GOVERNMENT REGULATION. In its performance of this Contract, PURCHASER shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws or regulations related to the use or reuse of reuse water, or the environment, and will hold the CITY, its representatives, officers, agents, employees, and attorneys harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, suits, causes of action, losses, damages, costs, attorney's fees, and expenses arising out of any noncompliance violation or alleged noncompliance violation by PURCHASER of any such laws; PROVIDED HOWEVER, only to the extent provided by applicable law. 12 §6.8 REMEDIES. In the event that CITY is unable in good faith to comply with the delivery of reuse water requirements to PURCHASER in this Contract within the first year fi:om the Effective Date, then PURCHASER, at its option, shall be entitled to take CITY potable water and to pay for the potable water so taken at the contract rates established for reuse water herein, until such time as CITY is able to comply with PURCHASER'S requirements or for a period of three (3) years, whichever is less. In the event that CITY is unable in goad faith to comply with the delivery of reuse water requirements to PURCHASER in this Contract at any time after the first year of this Contract, then PURCHASER, at its option, shall be entitled to take CITY potable water and to pay for the potable water so taken at the contract rates established for reuse water herein, until such time as CITY is able to comply with PURCHASER'S requirements or for a period of two (2) years, whichever is less. The exercise of this remedy by PURCI-IASER shall require three (3) days prior written notice by PURCHASER to the CITY. This remedy is intended to be inclusive of any other remedies provided to PURCHASER herein. In the event that the CITY is unable to furnish reuse water because of any change of legal status by the TNRCC or other government agency, it shall be excused from further performance of this Contract. In the even that PURCHASER is unable to accept reuse water because of any change of legal status by the TNRCC or other government agency, it shall be excused from further performance of this Contract. §6.9 REQUIRED PERMITS AND LICENSES. The parties shall each maintain in effect during the term of this Contract, any and all federal, state, and/or local licenses and permits which may be required of parties generally regarding the subject of reuse water. §6.10 REQUIRED RECORDS. Both CITY and PURCHASER shall maintain such records as are required by state regulations and shall notify the TNRCC in writing within five (5) days of obtaining knowledge of reuse water use not specified and approved by the Executive Director of the TNRCC. § 6.11 POLICE POWERS NOT AFFECTED. This provision does not affect the police powers 13 of the CITY of Denton, Texas or of any other governmental agency. §6.12 BINDING EFFECT ON SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. This Contract shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and their assigns. §6.13 CAPTIONS AND COUNTERPARTS. The captions to the various Articles and Subsections of this Contract are for informational purposes only and shall in no way alter the substance or meaning of the terms and conditions of this Contract. This Contract shall be executed in duplicate original counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and constitute one and the same instrument. EXECUTED by the City of Denton, Texas ("CITY") and OAKMONT MANAGEMENT CORP., acting by and through its Board of Directors (hereafter the "PURCHASER") acting by and through their respective duly authorized and empowered officers and representatives, on this the __ day of ., 2002. "CITY" CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS A Texas Municipal Corporation BY: MICHAEL CONDUFF, City Manager ATTEST: JENN~ER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY: BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY 14 BY: "PURCHASER" OAKMONT MANAGEMENT CORP. "~ Vice President BY: MONT~~CTON,' ATTEST APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: BY: /I~ W:\Oakmont238\GENERAL.0\Reuse Water agr3.doc 15 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVING A BENEFICIAL REUSE WATER CONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AND OAKMONT MANAGEMENT CORP. PROVIDING FOR THE CITY MANAGER'S EXECUTION THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a Beneficial Reuse Water Contract (the "Contract") by and between the City of Denton, Texas and the Oakmont Management Corp., in substantially the form of the Contract which is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance for all purposes. SECTION 2. That the expenditure of funds as provided for in said Contract is hereby authorized. SECTION 3. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the . day of ,2002. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY By: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY By: /~~ ) S:\Our DocumentsNOrdinances\02~neficial' Reuse Water Contract - Oakmont 2002.doc EXHIBIT III Item 4J AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET November 19, 2002 Engineering Dave Hill, 349-8314 -~ SUBJECT Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Denton, Texas and Denton State School, acting by and through The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation for the acquisition of easements, a water tank site, and the installation of a reuse water irrigation system; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND Staff has been working with Denton State School to negotiate a Beneficial Re-use Water Agreement, the acquisition of a Public Utility Easement, and a Water Easement that includes the use of an existing water storage tank as part of the 18" Water Re-Use Line Project. This project is an expansion of the current re-use line from the intersection of Spencer Road and Mayhill Road to Oakmont Country Club. The project will provide access to re-use water for irrigation, industrial, and Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC) approved commercial uses. We have reached an equitable understanding and have come to terms with Denton State School regarding acquisition of the necessary easements for a total sum of $44,000.00. OPTIONS 1. Approve the Ordinance, or 2. Denial, or 3. Table for future consideration RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Ordinance. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Spring2003 PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW None FISCAL INFORMATION Wastewater approved project bond funding $44,000.00. ATTACHMENTS Location Map Draft Ordinance Interlocal Agreement Attachment A (Beneficial Reuse Water Contract) Attachmem B (Reuse Water Easement) Attachment C (Public Utility Easement) Prepared By: Pamela England Real Estate Specialist Respectfully submitted: Charles Fiedler, Director ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON AUTHORIZING AN iNTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AND DENTON STATE SCHOOL, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND MENTAL RETARDATION FOR THE ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS AND WATER TANK SITE AND THE INSTALLATION OF A REUSE WATER IRRIGATION SYSTEM; PROViDiNG FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROViDiNG AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Demon (the "City") and DeNon State School, acting by and through the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation (the "State") desire to enter into an interlocal Agreement for the City's acquisition of easements and a water tank site on the State's property and to provide for the installation of a reuse water irrigation system, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Agreemem"); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Agreemem is in the public imerest; 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 imo 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 Agreemem and to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the City under the Agreement, including the expenditure of funds as provided in the Agreemem. 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 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF DENTON AND DENTON STATE SCHOOL THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the effective date provided below by and between the City of Denton, Texas, a Texas Home Rule Municipal Corporation (the "City") and the Denton State School, acting by and through the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation (the "State"). WHEREAS, the City and State are entering into to this Agreement pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act, being Chapter 791 of the Government Code (the "Act"); and WHEREAS, the governmental functions or services provided for in this Agreement are functions or services each party is authorized to perform individually; and WHEREAS, each party paying for the performance of governmental functions or services under this Agreement shall make such payments from current revenues available to the paying party and such amounts will fairly compensate the performing party for the services or functions performed under this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the State is the owner and operator of the Denton State School which is located on certain real property in Denton County, Texas (the "State School Property"); and WHEREAS, the City and the State by separate agreement are entering into a Beneficial Reuse Water Contract a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Attachment "A" (the "Reuse Water Contract") whereby the State will purchase from the City treated wastewater effluent ("Reuse Water") for irrigation purposes at the State School Property; and WHEREAS, the State is the owner of an elevated water storage tank (the "Water Tank") which is located on the State School Property (the "Water Tank Site") as described and shown in Exhibits "A" and "B" of that certain water easement which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Attachment "B (the "Water Easement"); and WHEREAS, the City is in need of the Water Easement and also that certain Public Utility Easement which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Attachment "C" (the "Public Utility Easement") (collectively called the "Easements") to provide services under the Reuse Water Contract and to fulfill other public purposes; and WHEREAS, the State is need of the installation of an irrigation system on its property to utilize the reuse water for irrigation purposes (the "Irrigation System"); NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the terms and conditions contained herein the City and State agree as follows: Subject to the terms and conditions provided herein, on or before June 20, 2002, or on suchI other date that is mutually agreed in writing by the parties (the "Closing Date"), such closing to be held at the office of Texas Title Company, Attention: Stacie Holbert (the "Title Company)I the parties shall consummate this Agreement as follows: a. The State shall grant and deliver the Easements to the City free and clear of all liens and ecumbrances. If the Easements cannot be granted free and clear of all liens and encumbrancesI then the City at its option may terminate this Contract, in which case it shall have no furtherI force or effect. b. The parties shall execute the Reuse Water Contract c. The City shall pay the sum of $44,000.00 into escrow (the "Escrow") with the Title Company to be held in a federally insured interest bearing account and distributed as provided in Article II below. d. The State shall execute and deliver to the City a written right-of-entry authorizing the City and the Landscape Firm, and their employees and agents to enter upon the State's property~ to design and construct the Landscape System. The City and Title Company are authorized to accept delivery of the Easements and record them at Closing notwithstanding the Escrow. The Escrow shall be utilized for the purpose of designing and constructing the Irrigation System. The design shall meet the State's specifications and shall be designed and constructed to meet City and TNRCC standards for reuse water irrigation systems. The City, with the consent of the State, shall select and contract with a landscape firm (the "Landscape Firm") to design and construct the Irrigation System (the "Landscape Contract"). The Landscape Contract shall provide for performance and payment bonds as required by law and shall contain the City's standard insurance requirements with the City and State named as additional insureds. The total cost of the Irrigation System shall not exceed the amount of the Escrow unless the parties agree to an increase in writing. In the event of an increase the State shall immediately pay the City the increased amount. Upon the completion of the Irrigation System the Title Company shall pay the Escrow over to the City for payment to the Landscape Firm upon receipt of a written certification from the City and State that the Irrigation system is completed ("Completion Certification"). At time of completion the City shall assign the Landscape Contract and any warranties to the State. If any of the Escrow funds, including interest earned, remain unexpended upon completion of the Irrigation System, as evidenced by the Completion Certification, then all such remaining funds shall be remitted to the State at the following address: TDMHMR Attn: Cashier P.O. Box 12688 Austin, Texas PAGE 2 78711. The City will provide the State with support, guidance and consultation upon request and as needed to assure that the State is aware of and educated about the safe operation of the reuse water irrigation system and pertinent TNRCC regulations. III. If State fails to fully and timely perform any of its obligations under this Contract or fails to consummate the sale of the Easement for any reason, except City's default, City may enforce specific performance of this Contract as its sole remedy under this Contract. In the event City fails to consummate the purchase of the Easements or fully and timely perform its obligations under this Contract, if State is not in default under this Contract, State will have the right to enforce specific performance of this Contract as its sole remedy under this Contract. If the City permanently discontinues use of the Water Tank it shall remove the Water Tank from the Water Tank Site. State represents and warrants that the City shall have a right of ingress and egress between the Water Tank Site and State School Road. The current access drive is sufficient for such purpose (the "Current Access Drive"). Should the Current Access Drive be closed, Seller shall provide an alternate access drive that is equal to or better than the Current Access Drive. In accessing the Easements, the City and its contractors will observe the State's safety rules which are designed to provide safety to the School's residents and staff. The pipeline to be installed at the School entrance will be bored so as to avoid damage to the entrance sign and surrounding trees. 1. Assignment of Contract. This Contract cannot be assigned without the prior written consent of the other party. 2. Survival of Covenants. Any of the representations, warranties, 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 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 Contract 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 Contract shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the PAGE parties and their respective successors and assigns. 6. Legal Construction. In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Contract shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, said invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision hereof, and this Contract shall be construed as if the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein. 7. Prior Agreements Superseded. This Contract 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. Time is of the essence in this Contract. 9. Gender. Words of any gender used in this Contract 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.' Effective Date. The term "Effective Date" means the latter of the dates on which this Contract is signed by either the City or the State, as indicated by their signature below. 11. Expiration Date. Unless otherwise extended in writing by mutual consent of both parties, this Agreement shall expire on the twenty first anniversary of the Effective Date. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and State have executed this Contract as of the Effective Date: CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY: MICHAEL A. CONDUFF CITY MANAGER 215 E. McKinney Denton, Texas 76201 ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: PAGE 4 ATTEST: BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND MENTAL REHABILITATION BY: Karen F. Hale Commissioner PAGE 5 THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DENTON BENEFICIAL REUSE WATER CONTRACT THIS CONTRACT for beneficial reuse of water is made and entered into on this the day of ,2002, by and between the CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, a Texas Municipal Corporation, 215 East McKinney Street, Denton, Texas 76201 (hereafter"CITY"); and the DENTON STATE SCHOOL, acting by and through the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, of P.O. Box 368, Denton, Texas 76202 (hereafter "PURCHASER"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the PURCHASER has identified a use for treated wastewater effluent, for beneficial reuse, hereinafter sometimes altematively referred to as the "reclaimed water," or "reuse water" in order to maintain its general landscaping at the Denton State School in Denton, Texas and to be a more viable and cost-effective alternative than purchasing potable irrigation water; and WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas, through its Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant, expects to be able to supply to the PURCHASER treated wastewater effluent, for the purpose of its reuse; and WHEREAS, in connection with this Wastewater Effluent Transmission Line Project ("Project") the CITY shall construct a transmission line for the purpose of serving several entities with treated wastewater effluent, which line extends by and is contiguous to the Denton State School property, with its South terminus at the Oakmont Country Club in Corinth, Texas; and WHEREAS, this Project generally involves a water-recycling project, and the quality of effluent produced from the Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant presently meets the highest standard for effluent reuse (Type I); and WHEREAS, because this Contract involves the sale of treated wastewater effluent, as distinguished from treated potable water suitable for human consumption, the ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas concerning potable water rates do not apply to this Contract; and WHEREAS, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (hereafter "TNRCC") has adopted the 30 TAC Chapter 210 Rules which regulate the use of reclaimed water, and WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas has incorporated the 30 TAC Chapter 210 Rules in the "Beneficial Reuse Water User's Handbook;" and WHEREAS, on the 20~ day of December, 2000, PURCHASER and the CITY entered into a "Letter of Subscription and Commitment" ("Commitment Letter") providing for PURCHASER'S purchase of treated wastewater effluent from the CITY; specifying a monthly base payment, as in a "take or pay" agreement utilized in the water industry, plus a volume rate per thousand gallons of treated wastewater effluent, over a certain usage level; the Commitment Letter further provided for delivery of the treated wastewater effluent by the CITY to the PURCHASER'S individual meter point; made the delivery of treated wastewater effluent not subject to rationing; and provided for the PURCHASER to increase its minimum monthly base amount of treated wastewater effluent in order to meet its increased needs; and other relevant provisions; and WHEREAS, PURCHASER and CITY have entered into that certain Interlocal Agreement providing for utility easements, a water tank site and the installation of a reuse water irrigation system on PURCHASER's property (the ,Interlocal Agreement"); and NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the terms and conditions contained herein; the promises and covenants made herein; the terms and provisions of the Letter of Subscription and Commitment hereinabove referred to, and the consideration paid and to be paid by the TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND MENTAL RETARDATION, the owner of the described Property, hereafter called "PURCHASER", to the City of Denton, Texas, hereafter called "CITY", the parties do hereby CONTRACT and AGREE as follows: ARTICLE I. PURCHASE, TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY OF REUSE WATER § 1.1 OBLIGATIONS. Purchaser has previously signed a Letter of Commitment and Intent (hereafter the "Commitment Letter") attached hereto and incorporated herewith by reference as Exhibit "A". The Letter provides that the PURCHASER will purchase reuse water from the CITY. PURCHASER hereby agrees to take and pay for the quantity of reuse water that PURCHASER has 9 made a commitment per the Letter, for the purpose of on-site irrigation of the property owned or used by PURCHASER at the point of delivery hereinafter described in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and incorporated herewith by reference. If the PURCHASER at any time during the term of this Contract needs, and can beneficially use reuse water in excess of the volume of re-use water set forth in Exhibit "A", PURCHASER may request an additional supply of reuse water, which shall be made available by CITY, in good faith, subject however, to product availability and transmission considerations. § 1.2 DELIVERY OF REUSE.WATER. CITY agrees to deliver, under the limitations and conditions hereafter set forth in this Contract, the reuse water which PURCHASER needs on a continuous basis at the delivery/individual meter point shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto. PURCHASER shall be responsible for construction and maintenance of all distribution lines fi:om the existing CITY reuse lines. PURCHASER shall pay all associated costs for tapping fees, meters, batching stations, and any other costs incurred by the CITY to provide the reuse water to the PURCHASER. Each treated wastewater effluent customer of the CITY along the Project, shall have its own reinforced concrete buried meter station. Title to, possession, and control of the reuse water shall remain with the CITY until it passes through the PURCHASER'S meter and control valve at the point or points of delivery as herein described; where title to, possession, and control of the reuse water shall pass fi:om the CITY to the PURCHASER. The CITY does not guarantee its ability to furnish any reuse water supplied under this Contract at any particular pressure, but rather the pressure delivered shall be such pressure as the CITY'S system will render at the PURCHASER'S point of delivery. § 1.3 NO RATIONING OF WATER. The treated wastewater effluent sold by the CITY to the PURCHASER shall not be subject to rationing during any period of drought, or during any period of time that the use of potable water is curtailed or otherwise restricted pursuant to any drought contingency plan, then in force and effect. ARTICLE II. QUALITY AND USE OF REUSE WATER 3 QUALITY OF REUSE WATER. The quality of the reuse water to be supplied by CITY to PURCHASER under this Contract shall meet the quality requirements established in 30 TAC Chapter 210 for "Type I," as they may be amended from time-to-time, which quality requirements are currently as shown below: BOD5 or CBOD5 Turbidity Fecal Coliform Fecal Coliform * Geometric mean 5mg/[ 3 NTU 20 CFU/100 ml* 75 CFU/100 ml** ** Single grab sample (not to exceed) The CITY shall perform required sampling and analysis on the reuse water as prescribed by applicable regulatory agencies. USE OF REUSE WATER BY PURCHASER. PURCHASER SHALL USE THE WATER RECEIVED BY AND UNDER THIS CONTRACT FOR ON-SITE IRRIGATION PURPOSES ONLY AND ~ COMPLIANCE WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF 30 TAC CHAPTER 210.22, 210.23 AND 210.24. "On-site irrigation" refers to the use of water for maintenance and beautification of the landscaping and facilities of the PURCHASER. TIlE REUSE WATER SUPPLIED UNDER THIS CONTRACT IS NOT SUITABLE FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION AND SHALL NOT BE USED BY PURCHASER OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ORDINARY DOMESTIC USE. PURCHASER shall take all necessary precautions to prevent consumption of the subject reuse water by its employees or other persons, including the posting of warning signs in both English and Spanish, in large and conspicuous printed letters at least four (4") inches high, at all places where employees or other persons are likely to have access to the reuse water. The actual establishment, maintenance, and enforcement of such safety precautions shall be under the exclusive dominion and control of PURCHASER. PURCHASER assumes full legal responsibility for any and all damages resulting from human consumption of the subject reuse water after it reaches the PURCHASER'S point of delivery. PROVIDED HOWEVER, PURCHASER does not hereby waive any defense that may be available under the laws and the Constitution of the State of Texas, or otherwise, in the event of any suit or action brought against it by any third-party for damages. USE OF REUSE WATER BY THIRD PARTIES PURCHASER shall not sell, trade, exchange, donate, or otherwise transfer the reuse water provided by this Contract to any third party, and shall not permit or allow the reuse water to be used in any manner by any third parties, COMMINGLING OF REUSE WATER. PURCHASER shall construct or cause to be constructed supply lines such that it is not possible for any reuse water supplied to PURCHASER under this Contract from PURCHASER to re-enter any potable water system. However, this shall not prevent the commingling in water storage facilities of PURCHASER'S reuse water with other water obtained by PURCHASER from another system or source for irrigation purposes. All such commingling shall be subject, however, to applicable City of Denton regulations and ordinances, or those of other governmental agencies governing the use of reuse water. DISCHARGE OF REUSE WATER PURCHASER shall not cause or permit the discharge of reuse water off-site, either airborne or by surface runoff, unless permitted by the TNRCC EXCESS AMOUNTS OF REUSE WATER Excess reuse water, if any, must be returned by PURCHASER to the CITY's waste collection system. DRIFT OR SPIL~\Y OF REUSE WATER PURCHASER shall not use reuse water in any manner where the result would be any drift or spray to areas where the general public would be exposed. WET GRASS CONDITIONS PURCHASER shall apply reuse water in such manner as to minimize wet grass conditions in unrestricted landscaped areas during the periods that the area 5 should be in use. EFFECT ON GROUND WATER, PURCHASER shall utilize reuse water in a manner that does not threaten or adversely affect ground water. §2.10 CONDITION OF SOIL. PURCHASER shall not apply any reuse water to the ground when the ground is either saturated or frozen. NUISANCE. PURCHASER shall be solely responsible for the prompt clean-up of any nuisance conditions that exist on PURCHASER'S real property, which result from storage or the use of reuse water received from the CITY. BENEFICIAL REUSE WATER USERS' HANDBOOK. PURCHASER confirms its receipt of the "Beneficial Reuse Water Users' Handbook" (hereafter the "Handbook") published by the City of Denton, Wastewater Utilities, and which Handbook was approved by the City of Denton Public Utilities Board on the 7th day of January, 2002. The CITY confirms that it will promptly issue PURCHASER a copy of any new or amended Handbook that it may issue in the future. PURCHASER is fully responsible for knowing the contents of the Handbook and fully complying with it. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PARTIES CITY shall not be responsible, nor liable for any contamination of the reuse water or the inappropriate use or application of the reuse water supplied under this Contract after it passes through the PURCHASER'S described point of delivery (Exhibit "B" hereto). PURCHASER shall fully and absolutely indemnify the CITY, to the extent provided for and allowed by law, for any and all damages and claims for damages arising from any contamination of the reuse water supplied under this Contract after it passes through the PURCHASER'S point of delivery; except regarding any damages resulting from the CITY'S failure to deliver the quality of reuse water required by State law and by the terms and conditions of this Contract 6 ARTICLE III. RATE AND METERING RATE CHARGED FOR REUSE WATER. The rate for reuse water based on the Commitment Letter (Exhibit "A"), for a period of five (5) years from the effective date of this Contract shall be two-fold: A monthly base charge of $700.00 per month, which covers up to 518,000 gallons of treated wastewater effluent. This monthly base rate provision is similar to a "take or pay" provision used in the water industry. The monthly base charge shall be due and payable by PURCHASER for each and every month that the Contract is in effect, whether or not PURCHASER has utilized any treated wastewater effluent for that month or not. There shall also be no carryover of surplus wastewater effluent from year to year, based on the fiscal year October through September 30 (the "Fiscal Year"). However, the monthly 518,000 gallon usage may be carded over within the fiscal year so long as the total gallon usage for any given month does not exceed 1,000,000 gallons and the total gallon usage for the Fiscal Year does not exceed 6,216,000 gallons. Usage in excess of these limits shall be billed at the rate specified in §3.1(B). If applicable, a volume rate of $1.35 per thousand gallons of treated wastewater effluent, plus a facility charge of $16.20, per monthly billing period in which the volume rate is applied. RATES AFTER FIVE YEARS. After five (5) years from the effective date of this Contract, these rates may be adjusted annually by the CITY, on each October 1. The revised rates, if any, will be based on water reclamation plant operation and maintenance and non-operating expenses and wastewater treatment volumes from the most recently completed fiscal year. PROVIDED HOWEVER, because of special considerations provided to the CITY by PURCHASER, the parties agree that the applicable rate to be charged to PURCHASER after five (5) years from the effective date of this Contract, shall not exceed fifty (50%) percent of the potable water rate for the City of Denton, Texas. METERING. CITY shall operate, maintain and read the muse meter/meters and shall bill 7 PURCHASER monthly based on such meter reading. If for any reason the meter shall fail to register for any period, PURCHASER shall be billed for the amount of reuse water delivered for the corresponding month of the year immediately preceding the failure, if such record is available. If these records are not available, CITY shall reasonably estimate the amount of the consumption during the period in question and bill PURCHASER on the basis of such estimate. In determining the estimate of PURCHASER'S consumption, CITY shall average the applicable month for the past three years. If there is not a three-year history, the CITY shall consider as a factor the rain or drought conditions for the applicable period. Further PURCHASER agrees that it shall not in any manner interfere, tamper, or attempt to do anything with regard to the operation or functioning of such meter/meters, PURCHASER' S OPTION. Purchaser may increase its minimum monthly base amount of treated wastewater effluent purchased during the term of this Contract in order to meet its increased needs by notifying the CITY, in writing, who will then determine a new monthly minimum monthly base charge in light of the increase of the monthly base amount of treated wastewater effluent purchased. The CITY shall be obligated to increase such monthly minimum base amount, subject only to the condition that the CITY must be able to transport the increased volume of treated wastewater effluent to PURCHASER through the existing treated wastewater effluent transmission line. ARTICLE IV. TERM TERM AND RENEWAL OF CONTRACT. This Contract shall be for a term beginning with the effective date, and ending five (5) years after that date. This Contract may be renewed for subsequent ten (10) year periods with the concurrence of both parties. Such extensions will be permitted for the twenty (20) year period of the Water Easement provided for in the Site Contract. The Purchaser shall provide written notice to the City at least six months in advance of expiration of the Contract that the Purchaser desires to renew this Contract. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Contract shall be effective as of the date when all of the following have been satisfied: (A) PURCHASER'S and CITY'S execution of this Contract; and (B) CITY has connected its treated wastewater effluent transmission line to the PURCHASER'S delivery point and the same is operational; and (C) CITY'S issuance of a written "Notice to Proceed" to PURCHASER. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT. This Contract shall be terminated if either party is prevented from fulfilling an obligation under this Contract by any final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, legislation, or other force majeure. PURCHASER may terminate the Contract if PURCHASER is of the opinion that the reuse water quality is such as to prevent the PURCHASER from using it for the purpose of irrigation In that event, PURCHASER shall provide the CITY at least sixty (60) days written notice of its intention to terminate the Contract. CITY may terminate this Contract if monies required to be paid by PURCHASER pursuant to this Contract are not paid within thirty (30) days of written notification issued by the CITY to PURCHASER at PURCHASER'S billing address according to the CITY'S records. Either party may terminate this Contract upon the failure of the other party to abide by the provisions of this Contract and to cure the alleged default, after being provided thirty (30) days written notice to do so by the other party. This Contract also may be terminated by the mutual agreement of PURCHASER and CITY. ARTICLE V. FACILITIES ON-SITE FACILITIES. PURCHASER shall construct and pay for all necessary facilities to deliver, store, use and discharge or dispose of the reuse water from the point of delivery onto Purchaser's property, until such re-use water is used, discharged, or disposed of, which facilities shall be described for purposes of this Contract, as on-site facilities. Design and construction must meet criteria established by CITY regulation and ordinance as well as those established by 30 TAC §210. SECURITY OF PURCHASER'S SERVICE SYSTEM. PURCHASER'S service system shall be installed by PURCHASER so as to prevent operation by unauthorized personnel pursuant to 30 TAC §210.25, REQUIRED PIPING, PURCHASER shall use an existing separate non-potable, or shall design and construct a separate non-potable water distribution system in compliance with 30 TAC §210.25 and any other applicable local and state regulations, 10 STORAGE PURCHASER shall comply with storage as required by 30 TAC §210.23 and any other applicable local and state requirements. TAILWATER WATER CONTROLS. PURCHASER shall construct any required tailwater water controls, as required by applicable local and state regulations. §5.6 COST OF PURCHASER'S ON-SITE FACILITIES. PURCHASER shall have title and bear all responsibilities including the costs of installing, operating, maintaining, permitting, licensing, and repairing any and all of PURCHASER'S on-site facilities, other than those facilities owned by the CITY, unless provided for by other mechanisms. ACCESS TO PURCHASER'S PROPERTY. PURCHASER shall allow the CITY 24. hour access onto PURCHASER'S property (only that property which is the subject of this Contract) as necessary to operate, maintain, and inspect facilities owned by the CITY. THE DENTON STATE SCHOOL ELEVATED WATER STORAGE TOWER. Asapartof the bargained for consideration provided for herein, PURCHASER agrees to convey to the CITY the sole and exclusive right of use and benefit, in the form of an easement or other form of conveyance, permitting the CITY's possession of the Elevated Water Storage Tower on-site for its treated wastewater effluent operations. PURCHASER further agrees that once the CITY has discontinued its usage of the Elevated Water Storage Tower for its effluent operations, that CITY, at CITY's sole cost, will notify PURCHSAER and will be solely responsible for removing the Elevated Water Storage Tower from PURCHASER's premises in a safe and prudent manner. ARTICLE VI. GENERAL PROVISIONS GOVERNING LAW; VENUE; iLEGAL CONSTRUCTION. This Contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas. The obligations of the parties to this Contract are performable in Denton County, Texas, and if legal action is necessary to enforce same, exclusive venue shall lie in Denton County, Texas. In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Contract shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision of this Contract, and this Contract shall be considered as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained in this Contract. ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT. written consent of the other party. This Contract cannot be assigned without the prior COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS This Contract is subject to all legal requirements of the City Charter of the City of Denton, Texas, the Denton Code of Ordinances, and other laws and regulations both state and federal; and PURCHASER agrees that it will promptly comply with all applicable laws, regulations, orders, and rules of the Federal, State, County, City, and all other applicable governmental agencies. Specifically, PURCHASER will comply with all provisions of 30 TAC §210 as it is currently adopted or as it may be hereafter amended These regulations are included in the above-referenced "Beneficial Reuse Water Handbook. FORCE MAJEURE. Neither CITY nor PURCHASER shall be required to perform any term, condition, or covenant in this Contract, so long as such performance is delayed or prevented by force majeure, which shall mean acts of God, civil riots, floods, and any other cause, not reasonably within the control of CITY and/or PURCHASER and which by the exercise of due diligence, CITY or PURCHASER is unable, wholly or in part, to prevent or overcome. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Contract embodies the complete agreement of the parties hereto, superseding any and all oral or written previous and contemporary contracts or agreements between the parties and relating to matters contained in this Contract, except as otherwise provided herein. This Contract may not be modified without the written agreement of both parties hereto. 12 HOLD HARMLESS. PURCHASER, only to the extent allowed by applicable law, agrees to protect, defend, and save the CITY, its representatives, officers, agents, employees, and attorneys harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, and causes of action of every kind and character, losses, costs, expenses, attorney's fees, and damages of every kind and character, for injury to, or death of any person or damage to any property arising out of or in connection with the construction, use, storage, maintenance, disposal, or discharge of reuse water of or from PURCHASER'S on-site facilities. Also, this provision shall not apply if any claim arises and is proximately caused by the CITY'S failure to deliver the quality of reuse water required by State law, and by the provisions of this Contract. The provisions of this Subsection 6.6 shall not apply to any liability resulting from the sole negligence of CITY, its representatives, officers, agents, employees,. or attorneys. §6.7 HOLD HARMLESS - GOVERNMENT REGULATION. In its performance of this Contract, PURCHASER shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws or regulations related to the use or reuse of reuse water, or the environment, and will hold the CITY, its representatives, officers, agents, employees, and attorneys harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, suits, causes of action, losses, damages, costs, attorney's fees, and expenses arising out of any noncompliance violation or alleged noncompliance violation by PURCHASER of any such laws; PROVIDED HOWEVER, only to the extent provided by applicable law. REMEDIES. In the event that CITY is unable in good faith to comply with the delivery of reuse water requirements to PURCHASER in this Contract, then PURCHASER'S sole remedy shall be to take CITY potable water and to pay for the potable water so taken at the rates established for the potable water used less a discount of $23.00 dollars per day for any 24-hour period in which the CITY is unable to deliver reuse water. The exercise of this remedy by PURCHASER shall require ten (10) days prior written notice by PURCHASER to the CITY. The CITY shall give PURCHASER ten (10) days prior written notice of its inability to comply with the reuse water 13 requirements for foreseeable events and 24 hour notice for emergencies. REQUIRED PERMITS AND LICENSES. The parties shall each maintain in effect during the term of this Contract, any and all federal, state, and/or local licenses and permits which may be required of parties generally regarding the subject of reuse water. REQUIRED RECORDS. Both CITY and PURCHASER shall maintain such records as are required by state regulations and shall notify the TNRCC in writing within five (5) days of obtaining knowledge of reuse water use not specified and approved by the Executive Director of the TNRCC. POLICE POWERS NOT AFFECTED. This provision does not affect the police powers of the CITY of Denton, Texas or of any other governmental agency. BINDING EFFECT ON SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. This Contract shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and their assigns. CAPTIONS AND COUNTERPARTS. The captions to the various Articles and Subsections of this Contract are for informational purposes only and shall in no way alter the substance or meaning of the terms and conditions of this Contract. This Contract shall be executed in duplicate original counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and constitute one and the same instrument EXECUTED by the City of Denton, Texas ("CITY") and the DENTON STATE SCHOOL, acting by and through the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation (hereafter the PURCHASER) acting by and through their respective duly authorized and empowered officers and representatives, on this the ~ day of ., 2002. ATTACHMENT B REUSE WATER EASEMENT THE STATE OF TEXAS, COUNTY OF DENTON KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: THAT Denton State School by and through the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retar- dation, (the "Grantor"), in consideration of the payment of the sum of One Dollar and No Cents ($1.00) in hand paid by the City of Denton, Texas (City), receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, grants, and conveys to the City a water utility easement across the real property owned by Grantor, as described in EXHIBIT "A" and illustrated in EXHIBIT "B", attached to and incorporated into this document by ref- erence. The grant made includes and is subject to the following: 1. Purpose. This easement grants to the City this easement for the purpose of constructing, recon- structing, installing, repairing, and maintaining water facilities, upon and across said premises, with the right and privilege at all times of the grantee herein, his or its agents, employees, workmen and repre- sentatives having ingress, egress, and regress in, along, upon and across said premises for the purpose of making additions to, improvements on and repairs to said water facilities or any part thereof. This grant specifically includes the right to use, maintain, construct and reconstruct the existing elevated water tank (the "Existing Water Tank")on the water tank site described and illustrated on EXHIBITS "A" and "B". If the City permanently discontinues use of the Existing Water Tank (as definded in Section 9 be- low), or upon cessation of this easement, it shall remove the Existing Water Tank from the water tank site. Grantor represents and warrants that the City shall have a right of ingress and egress between the Water Tank Site and State School Road. The current access drive is sufficient for such purpose (the "Current Access Drive"). Should the Current Access Drive be closed, Grantor shall an alternate access drive that is equal to or better than the Current Access Drive provide, as is reasonably practicable. 2. Temporary Construction Easement. In addition to the permanent easement, the City is hereby granted a temporary construction easement for the initial construction of water facilities and appurtenances, as described in EXHIBIT "C" and illustrated in EXHIBIT "B", attached to and incorporated into this document by reference. Upon conclusion of the initial construction, the temporary construction easement shall terminate and the City shall remove all debris, surplus material, and construction equipment and leave the property substantially equal in appearance to the condition existing prior to construction, except for any trees or shrubs removed. 3. Building and Structures. Grantor shall not construct, erect or place any buildings, signs, or other permanent structures, or portions thereof, in, on, or over the permanent easement. The City will replace or repair any sidewalk, parking lot, or driveway in as good or better condition as is reasona- bly practicable, that exists on the easement on the date of execution of this instrument if removed or damaged by the City during the initial construction of the reuse water facilities. If the Grantor con- structs or places buildings, signs, parking lots, driveways, private walkways, or other structures or im- Page 1 of 4 provements over the permanent easement after execution of this easement document, the City may re- move all or part of the structures and improvements as necessary to construct, reconstruct, replace, re- pair, alter, relocate, operate or otherwise exercise its rights herein without any obligation to replace or repair the structures or improvements and without any liability to Grantor including the obligation to make further payment to Grantor. 4. Fences and Gates. If necessary to remove or relocate any fence or gate during the initial construction of the sanitary sewer line, the City will remove or relocate the fence or gate at City ex- pense. After completion of the initial construction, the City shall reinstall any fence or gate initially re- moved or relocated to their original locations, or at the option of the Grantor, reimburse the Grantor for the cost to reinstall any such fence or gate. The reimbursement amount shall be limited to the line item cost to reinstall the fence or gate contained in the City's construction contract. The Grantor, but not the City, may construct new fences and gates on the permanent easement after the date of this instrument but the fences and gates shall be placed substantially perpendicular to the easement. Any fences placed across the easement shall contain gates or removable panels so that the easement is readily accessible by the City's employees and agents at all times. If the gates are to be kept locked by Grantor, the City shall be provided the keys or other means, as applicable, so that the City may open all locks for access without prior notice to Grantor. 5. Access. For the purposes of exercising its rights, the City shall have access to the easement by way of existing public property or right-of-way and not from other lands owned by Grantor outside the permanent easement. 6. Trees and Landscaping. Grantor shall not plant any tree upon the permanent easement property. City may cut, trim, or completely remove any trees or portions of trees now or hereafter located within the easement without liability to Grantor including the obligation to make further payment to Grantor. Grantor may plant shrubs, vines, grass, or install irrigation systems and other system landscape features within the permanent easement, but the City may remove all or part of any shrubs, vines, grass, or other landscape features as is necessary to construct, reconstruct, replace, repair, alter, relocate, operate its utilities or otherwise exercise its rights herein without any liability to Grantor including the obligation to make further payment to Grantor. Any area disturbed during construction shall be seeded by the City as per City of Denton project specifications. Subsidence associated with said construction will be repaired by the City of Denton in a timely manner. 7. Crops. The payment herein made includes any damage or loss to crops sustained in the future by Grantor resulting from the City's construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, or other use of the easement for the purposes granted. 8. Grantor's Rights. Grantor shall have the right to make use of the easement for any purpose that does not interfere with the City's rights in the easement for the purposes granted, subject to the restrictions contained herein. 9. This easement shall expire upon permanent discontinuation of use by City or twenty Page 2 of 4 years from the date of this easement, whichever occurs first. Permanent discontinuation of use shall be construed to mean no use of the easement for the purposes permitted by the easement for a period of at least two years 10. Neither party has made any representations or promises outside the written provisions of this easement document relating to the subject matter of this easement document. 11. Successors and Assigns. This grant shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the parties and their heirs, successors and assigns. Witness my hand, this the day of ,2002 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND MENTAL REHABILITATION BY: Nalne: Title: Address: ATTEST: BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Page 3 of 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENT THE STATE OF § COUNTY OF § This instrument was acknowledged before me on ,2002 by. Notary Public, in and for lhe State of Texas My Conanissim~: Accepted this day of 073). 2002 for the City of Denton, Texas (Resolution No. 91- By: Paul Williamson AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: City of Denton Engineering Department 601 East Hickory Suite B Denton, Texas 76205 ATTN: Paul Williamson Page 4 of 4 Page ofl EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION M.E.P. & P.R.R. SURVEY, ABST. No. 950 CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS SITUATED in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas and being a strip of land out of a tract of land conveyed to Denton State School by deed as recorded in Volume 435, Page 12 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas (D.R.D.C.T.) said strip of land being herein described as a proposed Public Water Easement and being herein more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows: BEGINNING at a point within the said State School tract, said beginning point being located South 63 degrees 55 minutes 05 seconds West 2,118.03 feet from the northeast property comer of the said State School tract. THENCE, South 0 degrees 27 minutes 30 seconds West 150.00 feet to a point; THENCE, North 89 degrees 32 minutes 31 seconds West 146.00 feet to a point; THENCE, North 0 degrees 27 minutes 30 seconds East 150.00 feet to a point; THENCE, South 89 degrees 32 minutes 31 seconds East 146.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; The proposed Permanent Water Easement being herein described contains 0.5028 (21,900 Sq. Ft.) of land to be acquired. I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED FROM PUBLIC RECORDS AND FROM AN ACTUAL AND ACCURATE SURVEY UPON THE GROUND AND THAT SAME IS TRUE AND CORRECT. Company Name: Spooner and Associates, Inc. B Shaun Spooner / Registered Professional Land Surveyor, Texas No. 4183 Date of Survey: 4-18-02 SURVEY: M. E. P. & P. R. R. SURVEY, ABS NO. 950 LOCATION: CITY OF DENTON, DENTON CO., TEXAS PERMANENT WATER EASEMENT ~= I P£RMANENT FATER EASEMENT 0.5028 ACRES (21,900 Sq. Ft.) S89'32'31"E 146.00' PROPEH I ¥/~uDRESS: STATE SCHOOL ROAI PERMANENT WATER EASEMENT: 0.5028 ACRE; POINT OF COMMENCEMENT BRIGHTON DRIVE R. O.W. LINE POINT OF BEGINNING 146.00~/~~'~ N89'32'31"W PROPOSED WATER LINE EASEMENT o AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT BYOTHERINSTRUMENT 201.38 ACRES DENTON STATE SCHOOL VOLUME 435, PACE 12 D.R.T.C.T. 0 40' 80' GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 1"= 40' SPOONER & ASSOC. REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS 7417 CONTINENTAL TRAIL No. RICHLAND HILLS, 1EXAS 76180 817-281-2355 SHAUN G, SPOON[R DATE 4-18-02 JOB NO. 1053-7-01 ACAD FILE 1053-EASE-8 Page l of 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION M.E.P. & P.R.R. SURVEY, ABST. No. 950 CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS SITUATED in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas and being a strip of land out ora tract of land conveyed to Denton State School by deed as recordcd in Volume 435, Page 12 o£the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas (D.R.D.C.T.) said strip of land being herein described as a proposed variable width Perm:mcnt Water Easement and being herein more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows: COMENCING from the northeast property corner of the said State School tract, said commencement point being on the southerly right-of-way of Brighton Drive and on the apparent westerly right-of-way of State School Road. THENCE, South 2 degrees 30 minutes 51 seconds West, along the east property line of the said State School tract and along the said westerly right-bf-way of State School Road and generally along a fence, 432.49 feet to a point; THENCE, South 2 degrees 17 minutes 56 seconds West, continuing along the said east property line of the State School tract and along the said westerly right-of-way of State School Road and generally along a fence, 657.62 feet to a point; THENCE, North 87 degrees 42 minutes 04 seconds West 38.12 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE, South 01 degree 41 minutes 33 seconds West 24.00 feet to a point'. THENCE, North 87 degrees 47 minutes 57 seconds West 618.76 feet to a point; THENCE, North 89 degrees 47 minutes 22 seconds West 35 feet to a point; TItENCE, North 70 degrees 36 minutes 06 seconds West 625.05 feet to a point; THENCE, South 40 degrees 07 minutes 52 seconds West 119.03 feet to a point; THENCE. South 83 degrees 50 minutes 50 seconds West 502.13 feet to a point; THENCE North 00 degrees 27 minutes 30 seconds East 16.11 feet to a point; THENCE, North 83 degrees 50 minutes 57 seconds East 493.84 feet to a point'~ THENCE, North 40 degrees 07 minutes 52 seconds East 123.67 feet to a point': THENCE, South 70 degrees 35 minutes 34 seconds East 602.16 feet to a point; THENCE South 87 degrees 47 minutes 57 seconds East 681.37 feet to the POINT OF' BEGINNING; Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT C PAGE "Continued" LEGAL DESCRIPTION M.E.P. & P.R.R. SURVEY, ABST. No. 950 CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS Thc proposed Permanent Water Easement being herein described contains 0.8206 (35,744 Sq. Ft.) of land to be acquired. I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED FROM PUBLIC RECORDS AND FROM AN ACTUAL AND ACCURATE SURVEY UPON THE GROUND AND THAT SAME IS TRUE AND CORRECT. Company Name: Spooner and Associates, Inc, Registered Professional Land Surveyor, Texas No. 4183 Date of Survey: 02-20-02 Revised 4-18-02 Page I of EXHIBIT C PAGE 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION M.E.P. & P.R.R. SURVEY, ABST. No. 950 CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS SITUATED in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas and being a strip of land out ora tract of land conveyed to Denton State School by deed as recorded in Volume 435, Page 12 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas (D.R.D.C.T.) said strip of land being herein described as a proposed variable width Temporary Construction Easement and being herein more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows: BEGINNING at a point within the said Denton State School tract, said point bears South 04 degrees 25 minutes 03 seco,Ids West 1075.84 feet I¥om the northeast property corner of the said Denton State School tract; THENCE, South 01 degree 41 minutes 33 seconds West, 15.00 feet to a point; TItENCE, North 87 degrees 47 minutes 57 seconds West, 681.37 feet to a point; THENCE, North 70 degrees 35 minutes 34 seconds West, 480.71 feet to a point; THENCE, North 19 degrees 18 minutes 30 seconds East, 25.00 feet to a point; THENCE, South 70 degrees 34 minutes 40 seconds East, 511.02 feet to a point: THENCE South 87 degrees 47 minutes 57 seconds East, 654.04 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thc proposed Temporary Construction Easement being herein described contains 0.5145 acres (22,415 Sq. Ft.) of land to be acquired. I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED FROM PUBLIC RECORDS AND FROM AN ACTUAL AND ACCURATE SURVEY UPON THE GROUND AND THAT SAME IS TRUE AND CORRECT. Company Name: Spooner and Associates, Inc. Registered Professional Land Surveyor, Texas No. 4183 Date of Survey: 02-20-02 Page I of EXHIBIT C PAGE 4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION M.E.P. & P.R.R. SURVEY, ABST. No. 950 CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS SITUATED in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas and being a strip of land out of a tract of land conveyed to Denton State School by deed as recorded iu Volume 435, Page 12 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas (D.R.D.C.T.) said strip of land being herein described as a proposed variable width Temporary Construction Easement and being herein more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows: BEGINNING at a point within the said Denton State School tract, said point bears South 55 degrees 08 minutes 06 seconds West 1515.12 feet from the northeast property corner of the said Denton State School tract; TItENCE, South 19 degrees 18 minutes 30 seconds TItENCE, North 70 degrees 35 minutes 34 seconds TItENCE, South 40 degrees 07 minutes 52 seconds THENCE, South 83 degrees 50 minutes 57 seconds THENCE, North 00 degrees 27 minutes 30 seconds THENCE, North 83 degrees 51 minutes 09 seconds West, 25.00 l~et to a point West, 85.64 feet to a point: West, 123.67 feet to a point: West, 493.84 feet to a point; East, 13.09 feet to a point; East, 487.09 feet to a point: THENCE, North 40 degrees 07 minutes 52 seconds East 140.30 feet to a point; TItENCE, South 70 degrees 41 minutes 31 seconds East 90.04 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The proposed Temporary Construction Easement being herein described contains 0.2361 acres (I0,287 Sq. Ft.) of land to be acquired. I DO HFREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED FROM PUBLIC RECORDS AND FROM AN ACTUAL AND ACCURATE SURVEY UPON THE GROUND AND THAT SAME IS TRUE AND CORRECT. Company Name: Spooner and Associates, Inc. Registered Professional Land Surveyor, Texas No. 4183 Date of Survey: 02-20-02 Page I of EXHIBIT C PAGE 5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION M.E.P. & P.R.R. SURVEY, ABST. No. 950 CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS SITUATED in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas and being a strip of land out ora tract of land conveyed to l)cnton St:fie School by deed as recorded in Volume ,135, Page 12 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas (D.R.D.C.T.) said strip of land being herein described as a proposed variable width Temporary Construction Easement and being herein more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows: BEGINNING at a point within the said Denton State School tract, said point bears South 56 degrees 02 minutes 48 seconds West 1584.15 feet from the northeast property comer of the said Denton State School tract; THENCE, South 40 degrees 07 minutes 52 seconds West, 129.14 feet to a point; THENCE, South 83 degrees 50 minutes 50 seconds West, 508.85 feet to a point; THENCE, North 00 degrees 27 minutes 30 seconds East, 13.09 feet to a point; TIIENCE, North 83 degrees 50 minutes 50 seconds East, 502.13 feet to a point; THENCE, North 40 degrees 07 minutes 52 seconds East, 119.03 feet to a point; THENCE, South 70 degrees 29 minutes 01 second East, 13.89 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Tile proposed Temporary Construction Easement being herein described contains 0.1878 acres (8,184 Sq. Ft.) of land to be acquired. I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED FROM PUBLIC RECORDS AND FROM AN ACTUAL AND ACCURATE SURVEY UPON THE GROUND AND THAT SAME IS TRUE AND CORRECI'. Company Name: Spooner and Associates, Inc. B Registered Professional Land Surveyor, Texas No. 4183 Date of Survey: 02-20-02 EXHIBIT B M. E. P. & P. R. R. SURVEY, ABS NO. 950 CITY OF DENTON, DENTON CO., TEXAS 'HIBIT 'A ' PERMANENT WA TER EASEMENT HIBITS 'B', 'C', AND 'D' TEMPORARY ~NSTRUCTION EASEMENTS ,EVlSED 4-18-02 ~[HIBIT " C") VARIABLE FIDTH MPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ACRES (10,2a? Sq. Ft.) L27 L12 L1; 1.24 'EXHIBIT ' D' ) VARIABLE FglDTH TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ). 1a78 ACRES (8,184 Sq. lUMBER DIRECTION DISTANCE .1 S01'41'33'W 24.00' N87'4T57'W 618.76' 3 N89'47'22'W ' 35.11' 4. N70'56'O6'W 625.05' 5 $40'OT52-W 119,03' 6 S83'50'50'W 502.15' Ii NOO'27'30'F 16.11' ~ N83'50'57'£ 493.84' ~' N40'07'52'£ 123.67' 14 S70'35'34'E 602.16' 15 S87'4T57"E 681.37' 16 501'41'33'W 15.00' 17 N70'35'34"W 480.71' 18 N19q8'30"E 25.00' 19 S70'34'40"E 511.02' ZO S87'47'57'E 645.04' Zl S70'29'01'£ 13.89' Z2 S40'07'52'W 129.14' ;'3 S83'50'50'W 508.85' Z4 NOO'27'30'E 13.09' N83'51'O9'E 487.09' 26 N 40'07'52'E 140,30' ~7 $70'41'31'E 90.04' Z8 Si9'18'30"W 25.00' ;'9 N70'35'34"W 85.6¢' -A N87'42'O4'W 38.12' SPOONER & ASSOC. :~EGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS I PROPERTY ADDRESS: STATE SCHOOL ROAD PERMANENT WATER EASEMENT: 0.8206 ACRES POINT OF COMMENCEMENT BRIGHTON DRIVE I? O.W. LINE 201.38 ACRES I DENTON STATE SCHOOL VOLUME 435, PAGE 12 II D.R.T.C.T. Ih L26 ~L29 P.O.B. EXHIBIT "C" L18 j L19 / P 0 B ~ A EXHIBIT "A" (EXHIBIT 'A') V~LE WIDTH PERCENT rATER EASEMENT o. 8~o~ ~c~s (~s,~44 sq. st) o ' 201.38 ACRES I J~ DENTON STATE SCHOOL VOLUME 435, PAGE 12 PROPERTYLINE~ D.R.T.C.T. , ,~~~j RUTH MITCHELL k. (rinse r~cr) o.R.o.c.r. ~ j 0 ,300' 600' GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 1" = 300' 7417 CONTINENTAL TRAIL No. RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS 76180 817-281-2355 DATE 9-26-01 JOB NO. 1053-7-01 ACAD FILE 1053-EASE-8 ATTACHMENT C PUBLIC UTILI~ EASEMENT THE STATE OF TEXAS, COUNTY OF DENTON KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: THAT Denton State School, by and through the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retar- dation (the "Grantor"), in consideration of the payment of the sum of One Dollar and No Cents ($1.00) in hand paid by the City of Denton, Texas (City), receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, grants, and conveys to the City a permanent public utility easement across the real property owned by Grantor, as described in EXHIBIT "A" and illustrated in EXHIBIT "B", attached to and incorporated into this document by reference. The grant made includes and is subject to the following: 1. Purpose. This easement grants to the City the right to construct, install, reconstruct, repair, relocate, operate, and maintain water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm water pipelines, valves, facilities and appurtenances, electric poles, wires and related facilities, communication lines and other public utilities and other related facilities in, on, over, under and across the permanent easement. 2. Building and Structures. Grantor shall not construct, erect or place any buildings, signs, or other permanent structures, or portions thereof, in, on, or over the permanent easement. The City will replace or repair any sidewalk, parking lot, or driveway in as good or better condition as is reasona- bly practicable, that exists on the easement on the date of execution of this instrument if removed or damaged by the City during the initial construction of the sanitary sewer line. If the Grantor constructs or places buildings, signs, parking lots, driveways, private walkways, or other structures or improve- ments over the permanent easement after execution of this easement document, the City may remove all or part of the structures and improvements as necessary to construct, reconstruct, replace, repair, alter, relocate, operate or otherwise exercise its rights herein without any obligation to replace or repair the structures or improvements and without any liability to Grantor including the obligation to make further payment to Grantor. 3. Fences and Gates. If necessary to remove or relocate any fence or gate during the initial construction of the public utility facilities, the City will remove or relocate the fence or gate at City of Denton expense. After completion of the initial construction, the City shall reinstall any fence or gates initially removed or relocated to their original locations, or at the option of the Grantor, reimburse the Grantor for the cost to reinstall such fence or gate. The reimbursement amount shall be limited to the line item cost to reinstall the fence or gate contained in the City's construction contract. The Grantor, but not the City, may construct new fences and gates on the permanent easement after the date of this instrument but the fences and gates shall be placed substantially perpendicular to the easement. Any fences placed across the easement shall contain gates or removable panels so that the easement is read- ily accessible by the City's employees and agents at all times. If the gates are to be kept locked by Page 1 of 4 Grantor, the City shall be provided the keys or other means, as applicable, so that the City may open all locks for access without prior notice to Grantor. 4. Access. For the purposes of exercising its rights, the City shall have access to the easement by way of existing public property or right-of-way and not from other lands owned by Grantor outside the permanent easement. 5. Trees and Landscaping. Grantor shall not plant any tree upon the permanent easement · property. City may cut, trim, or completely remove any trees or portions of trees now or hereafter located within the easement without liability to Grantor including the obligation to make further payment to Grantor. Grantor may plant shrubs, vines, grass, or install irrigation systems and other system landscape features within the permanent easement, but the City may remove all or part of any shrubs, vines, grass, or other landscape features as is necessary construct, reconstruct, replace, repair, alter, relocate, operate its utilities or otherwise exercise its rights herein without any liability to Grantor including the obligation to make further payment to Grantor. Any area disturbed during construction shall be seeded by the City as per City of Denton project specifications. Subsidence associated with said construction will be repaired by the City of Denton in a timely manner. 6. Crops. The payment herein made includes any damage or loss to crops sustained in the future by Grantor resulting from the City's construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, or other use of the easement for the purposes granted. 7. Grantor's Rights. Grantor shall have the right to make use of the easement for any purpose that does not interfere with the City's rights in the easement for the purposes granted, subject to the restrictions contained herein. 8. This easement shall expire upon permanent discontinuation of use by City. Permanent discontinuation of use shall be construed to mean no use of the easement for the purposes permitted by the easement for a period of at least two years. 9. Neither party has made any representations or promises outside the written provisions of this easement document relating to the subject matter of this easement document. 10. Successors and Assigns. This grant shall mn with the land and shall be binding upon the parties and their heirs, successors and assigns. Witness my hand, this the day of ,2002. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND MENTAL REHABILITATION BY: Page 2 of 4 ATTEST: BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: NalTlel Title: Address: ACKNOWLEDGMENT THE STATE OF § COUNTY OF § This instrument was acknowledged before me on ,2002 by. Page 3 of 4 Nolary Public, in and for the Slate of Texas My Commission ~: Accepted this day of 073). 2002 for the City of Denton, Texas (Resolution No. 91- By: Paul Williamson AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: City of Denton Engineering Department 601 East Hickory Suite B Denton, Texas 76205 ATTN: Paul Williamson Page 4 of 4 Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION M.E.P. & P.R.R. SURVEY, ABST. No. 950 CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS SITUATED in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas and being a strip of land out of a tract of land conveyed to Denton State School by deed as recorded in Volume 435, Page 12 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas (D.R.D.C.T.) said strip of land being herein described as a proposed variable width Permanent Public Utility Easement and being herein more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the north property line of the said Denton State School tract said point also being on the existing south right-of-way line of Brighton Drive and bears South 89 degrees 19 minutes 58 seconds West, 17.30 feet from the northeast property comer of the said Denton State School tract; THENCE, South 01 degree 41 minutes 33 seconds East 1,014.21 feet to a point; THENCE, South 00 degrees 13 minutes 23 seconds East 111.67 feet to a point in a fence line on the east property line of the said State School tract, said point also being on the apparent west right-of-way line of State School Road; THENCE, South 02 degrees 17 minutes 25 seconds West, continuing along the said east property line and the said apparent west right-of-way line and generally along a fence, 692.34 feet to a point; THENCE, South 02 degrees 19 minutes 10 seconds West, continuing along the said east property line, apparent right-of-way line and fence, 212.64 feet to a point at the beginning ora curve to the right whose center bears North 82 degrees 14 minutes 41 seconds West, 1,040.00 feet; THENCE, in a southerly direction, departing the said east property line, apparent right-of-way line and fence and proceeding along the said curve through a central angle of 07 degrees 57 minutes 39 seconds and an arc length of 144.50 feet having a chord direction of South 11 degrees 44 minutes 08 seconds West and chord length of 144.38 feet to a point; THENCE, South 62 degrees 09 minutes 55 seconds East, 152.15 feet to a point on an easterly property line of the said State School tract, said point also being on a westerly property line ora tract of land conveyed to Robert H. Mitchell and Ruth Mitchell by deed recorded.in Volume 394, Page 3, D.R.D.C.T.; THENCE, South 02 degrees 04 minutes 13 seconds West, along the common property line between the said State School tract and the said Mitchell tract, 26.65 feet to a point; THENCE, North 62 degrees 09 minutes 54 seconds West 193.51 feet to a point at the beginning of a non- tangent curve to the left whose center bears North 73 degrees 18 minutes 13 seconds West 1006.00 feet; THENCE, in a northerly direction, along the said curve through a central angle of 15 degrees 00 minutes 14 seconds and an arc length of 263.44 feet having a chord direction of North 09 degrees 11 minutes 40 seconds East and chord length of 262.69 feet to a point; THENCE, North 01 degree 41 minutes 33 seconds East 973.72 feet to a point; THENCE, North 07 degrees 14 minutes I0 seconds East 103.90 feet to a point; THENCE, North 01 degree 41 minutes 24 seconds East 842.79 feet to a point on the aforementioned north property line of the Denton State School tract and south right-of-way line of Brighton Drive; THENCE, North 89 degrees 19 minutes 58 seconds East along the common line between the said State School tract and right-of-way 24.02 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Page 2 of 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION "CONTINUED" M.E.P. & P.R.R. SURVEY, ABST. No. 950 CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS The proposed Permanent Public Utility Easement being herein described contains 1.5782 (68,744 Sq. Ft.) of land to be acquired. I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED FROM PUBLIC RECORDS AND FROM AN ACTUAL AND ACCURATE SURVEY UPON THE GROUND AND THAT SAME IS TRUE AND COR. RECT. Company Name: Spooncr and Associates, Inc. Registered Professional Land Surveyor, Texas No. 4183 Date of Survey: 02-20-02 Revised 4-18-02 BIT B SURVEY: M. E. P. & P. R. R. SURVEY, ABS NO. 950 I LOCATION: CITY OF DENTON, DENTON CO., TEXAS I REV, SEO4-,8-o2 PROPERTY ADDRESS: STATE SCHOOL ROAC PERMANENT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT: 1.5782 ACRE~ P.O.B. EXHIBIT "A " BRIGHTON DRIVE R. O W. LINE . 201.38 ACRES DENTON STATE SCHOOL VOLUME 435, PAGE 12 D.R.T.C.T. 0 300' 600' GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 1" = 300' II LIO-~ VARLtBLE ~IDTH PERMANENT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT . L5782, ACRES ($a, 744 Sq. Ft.) 201.38 ACRES DENTON STATE SCHOOL VOLUME 435, PAGE 12 D.R.T.C.T. il PROPER FY LINE l,J ~ 0 ROBERT H. MITCHELL RUTH MITCHELL REMAINDER 5.278 ACRES VOLUME 394. PACE 3 (fiRs? T~Cr) D.R.D.C.T. ic~ io?'s~'~' c2 115'oo'l 4.' S?O0 R &: ASSOC. REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS RADIUS I&RC LENOIH ITANGIrNT [CHORD LENGTH 1040.00' 1144.50' )72.37' 1144.38' 1006.00' 1263.,~4' p32.48' 12s2.69' \ ICHORO DIREC'RON 11 S 11'4.4'08' W N 09'11'40' E SHAUN G. SPOONER 7417 CONTINENTAL TRAIL No. RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS 76180 817-281-2355 DATE 9-26-01 JOb NO. 1053-7-01 ACAD FILE 1053-EASE-8 Item 4K AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET November 19, 2002 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Charles Fiedler 349-8948 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT Consider adoption of an Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a public works contract for the construction of an 18i reuse waterline to Oakmont Country Club; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2899-18i Reuse Waterline to Oakmont Country Club awarded to Texas Electric Utility Construction, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $1,147,995.37). BID INFORMATION The City of Denton has beneficially used treated effluent water from the Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant (PCWRP) to provide cooling water for the Spencer Generating Plant since the middle 1970s. The recent yearis very dry summer and the projected population increase in Denton by the year 2020 has sharpened the focus to develop infrastructure for beneficial reuse of effluent water to decrease reliance on potable water for turf irrigation and industrial uses. Staff obtained a reuse permit from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) in February 2000 allowing use of up to ten million gallons per day of treated effluent for beneficial reuse. This project is an expansion of the current reuse line from the intersection of Spencer Road and Mayhill Road to Oakmont Country Club. The project will provide access to reuse water customers for irrigation, industrial, and TCEQ approved commercial uses. Bids were received for construction of the project on October 29, 2002. Six bidders submitted bids for the project. Texas Electric Utility was the low bidder in the amount of $1,147,995.37. The wastewater effluent transmission line will be approximately 14,860 linear feet in length, and consists of 18i, 12i, 8i and a shorter length of 6i diameter PVC line. This line will tie into the existing 18i line previously installed between Spencer and Edwards Road by the City of Denton. Staff has negotiated reuse water agreements with Oakmont Country Club, Denton State School and Denton Regional Medical Center. They have agreed to a take or pay contract for five years. Each business has negotiated a contract based on their estimated volume usage. The rate established for the effluent reuse water is $1.35/1,000 gallons. Agenda Information Sheet November 19, 2002 Page 2 PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW {CO[INCIL~ BOARDS~ COMMISSIONS~ The Public Utility Board will review this item at the November 19, 2002 meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends award of this contract to Texas Electric Utility Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1,147,995.37. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BIJSINESS Texas Electric Utility Construction, Inc. Sherman, Texas STAFF COST ESTIMATE The engineeri s estimate for this project was $1,350,000. ESTIMATED SCHED[ILE OF PROJECT This projected is estimated to begin December 2002 with a completion date of June 2003. FISCAL INFORMATION Funding for this project is available from account 64004900.1360.40100. Attachment l:Bid Tabulation Attachment 2: Location Map 1-MS-Bid 2899 Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent 0 0 v 0 0 ._ ~ Attachment 2 Quail Creek Rd. £ Prop. 18" Edwards N.T.S. Denton Regional Medical Center Prop. D~ 1 2" School ie 0 0 c- O Robinson Rd. Exhibit I Location Map ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 18i REUSE WATERLINE TO OAKMONT COUNTRY CLUB; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2899~18i REUSE WATERLINE TO OAKMONT COUNTRY CLUB AWARDED TO TEXAS ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,147,995.37). 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 2899 Texas Electric Utility Construction, Inc. $1,147,995.37 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 EUL1NEBROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 4-ORD- BID 2899 - CONTRACTUAL ORDiNANCE Item 4L AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: November 19, 2002 Engineering Dave Hill, 349-8314 SUBJECT Consider adoption of an Ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas approving a Real Estate Agreement between the City of Denton and Dale irwin and Craig irwin, relating to the exchange of an approximate 0.3238 acre parcel of land Being A Part Of The WM. Loving Survey A, 759 owned by the City of Denton for an approximate 0.2939 acre parcel of land Being A Part Of The M.E.P. & P.RR. Survey A-927 owned by Dale irwin and Craig irwin for use as Right-Of-Way required for future road improvements to Duchess Drive; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND Staff has been approached various times over the past 12 years by Mr. Dale irwin regarding the possibility of purchasing or trading the city for surplus property along Carroll Boulevard just north of Eagle Drive. His interest is to include the property as part of the A.G. Edwards office building development. Over the years we have gone to Mr. irwin for various parcels of right-of-way, none of which were viable exchange parcels. The City is now interested in acquiring a 0.2939-acre parcel of right-of-way from Mr. Irwin on Duchess Drive south west of McKinney Street for 0.3238 acres of surplus City property along Carroll Boulevard north of Eagle Drive. The Duchess Drive parcel would consist of a 30' strip of right-of-way that would benefit the City's future plans providing connectivity for the Loop 288 and McKinney interchange. The City surplus property will be used by the irwin's to expand the A.G. Edwards building which will provide additional office space in the area and clean up a vacant parcel of land that has been surplus for many years. The City has no plans in the area for infrastructure improvements other than a bus tum out lane at the intersection of Carroll Boulevard and Eagle Drive. There is adequate land remaining to allow for these future improvements. OPTIONS 1. Approve the Real Estate Agreement, 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 March 31, 2003 PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW None FISCAL INFORMATION The properties were appraised within a nominal range of each other. There will be no exchange funds. The City will be responsible for one half of the closing costs, which are estimated at $1500.00. ATTACHMENTS Location Map Draft Ordinance Real Estate Agreement of Prepared by: Pamela England Real Estate Specialist Respectfully submitted: Charles Fiedler, Director Engineering Department SIT ST. MILLS LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE DRAWN BY: MARK A. LAIRD HICKORY /[ MULBERRY SYCAMORE HIGHLAND I.O.O.F. CEMETERY EAGLE SIT COLLINS LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE DRAWN BY: MARK A. LAIRD S:\Our Docmments\Or dinances\02\Irwin Exchange Ordinance.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING A REAL ESTATE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND DALE IRWIN AND CRAIG IRWIN, RELATING TO THE EXCHANGE OF AN APPROXIMATE 0.3238 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PART OF THE WM. LOVING SURVEY A-759 OWNED BY THE CITY OF DENTON FOR AN APPROXIMATE 0.2939 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PART OF THE M.E.P. & P. RR. SURVEY A-927 OWNED BY DALE IRWIN AND CRAIG IRWIN, FOR USE AS RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIRED FOR FUTURE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS TO DUCHESS DRIVE; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City Manager, or his designee is hereby authorized to execute a Real Estate Agreement between the City and Dale Irwin and Craig Irwin in substantially the form of the Real Estate Agreement which is attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance for all purposes, for the exchange of approximately 0.3238 acre for 0.2939 acre for use as a righ~of- way for future road improvements to Duchess Drive. SECTION 2. The City Manager is authorized to make the expenditures as set forth in the attached Real Estate Agreement. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage ard 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: REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between Dale Irwin and Craig Irwin (hereinafter referred to as "Irwins") and the City of Denton, a home rule municipality located in Denton County, Texas, (hereinafter referred to as "City"), upon the terms and conditions set forth herein. Whereas, the Irwins are the owners of that certain tract or parcel of land in the City of Denton, Texas which is more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the "Irwin Tract") which is needed for street right-of-way; and Whereas, the City is the owner of that certain tract or parcel of land in the City of Denton, Texas which is more particularly described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the "City Tract") which was originally acquired by the City for street fight-of-way purposes; and Whereas, the City desires to exchange the City Tract for the Irwin Tract upon the terms and conditions contained in this agreement; and Whereas, in compliance with Chapter 272 of the Texas Local Government Code, based on an appraisal obtained by the City the fair market value of the Irwin Tract is equal to the fair market value of the City Tract; Now, Therefore, for good and valuable consideration, including the covenants contained herein, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1) EXCHANGE OF TRACTS. a)At Closing, and subject to the terms and conditions contained herein, the Irwins shall convey to the City the Irwin Tract with all rights and appurtenances pertaining to the Irwin Tract, including any right, title, and interest of the Irwins in and to adjacent streets, alleys, or rights-of-way, and together with any improvements fixtures, and personal property situated on and attached to the Irwin Tract (hereinafter called the "Irwin Property"). The Irwin Property shall be conveyed by a "Street Right-of-Way Deed" in substantially the same form as the Street Right-of-Way Deed attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "C" (the "Irwin Deed"). The Irwins' sole consideration for the conveyance of the Irwin Property to the City is the City's quitclaiming of the City Property to the Irwins. b)At Closing, and subject to the terms and conditions contained herein, the City shall quitclaim all of its right, title and interest to the Irwins in the City Tract with all rights and appurtenances pertaining to the City Tract, together with any improvements fixtures, and personal property situated on and attached to the City Tract (hereinafter called the "City Property"). The City Property shall be granted by a "Quit Claim Deed" in substantially the same form as the Quit Claim Deed attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "D" (the "City Deed"). The City's sole consideration for the quitclaiming of the City Property to the Irwins is the conveyance of the Irwin Property to the City. 2) CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO CLOSING a) On or before fifteen days after the Effective Date of this agreement, the Irwins at their expense shall obtain a current commitment hereinafter called the ("Title COmmitment'') for the Irwin Property for the issuance of an Owner's Policy of Title Insurance from the Title Company, together with legible copies of all documents constituting exceptions to title as reflected in the Title Commitment. b)City shall have a period of ten days following the receipt of the Title Commitment, and legible copies of title exception documents to review such items and to deliver to the Irwins in writing such objections as the City may have to anything set forth in the Title Commitment. Any items to which the City does not object within the ten day period shall be deemed to be "Permitted Exceptions". In the event the City timely objects to any matter in the Title Commitment, the Irwins shall have the right, but not the obligation, for a period of thirty days to cure any such matters objected to by the City, to the City's satisfaction. Should the Irwins fail to cure such matters to the satisfaction of the City, the City in its sole discretion, by a written notice to Irwins within fifteen days following the expiration of the thirty day period either (a) terminate this agreement and the parties hereto shall have no further obligation one to the other, or (b) City may waive any such defects and consummate this agreement with such uncured objections being deemed additional Permitted Exceptions. c)The Closing, and the parties' obligations to consummate this agreement, is subject to the City Property being rezoned from DR-1 to DC-G. It is also subject to the property being platted to allow construction of a small office building and any applicable variances issued if required. If the rezoning, platting, and applicable variances are not approved this agreement will become null and void and of no further effect. Except for the rezoning, platting, and applicable variances the City Property is being conveyed "AS IS" and the Irwins will pursue development of the City Property at their own risk and expense subject to any and all federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, regulations, restrictions, reservations, or any other stipulations in effect by any jurisdiction. 3) CLOSING a)The closing shall be held at the office of Reunion Title Company, 2925 Country Club Road, Suit 104, Denton, Texas 76210 on or before March 31, 2003, or within ten days after the title cure period provided above, which ever occurs first, or at such time, date, and place as the Irwins and City may mutually agree upon (which is herein referred to as the "Closing"). b)At Closing the Irwins shall deliver the Irwin Deed to the City and the City shall deliver the City Deed to the Irwins. c)At Closing the Irwins shall deliver a Title Policy to the City issued by the Title Company in the amount of $45,000.00, insuring good and indefeasible fee simple title to the Irwin Property, subject to the standard printed exceptions and subject to such other exceptions to title that are agreed to by the Irwins and the City as a result of the title cure period. d)The Irwins and the City agree to pay closing costs as outlined below: i) The Irwins and the City will bear the cost of any expenses other than those outlined herein and directly incurred by each, including their own attorney's fees, if any. ii) The Escrow Fees, Document Preparation Fees, and other related fees charged by the Title Company to complete this transaction will be shared equally between the parties. iii) All Costs to obtain, deliver, and record releases of all liens to be released at closing, if any, will be shared equally between the parties. iv) All costs to obtain, deliver, and record all documents to cure title objections, as set forth above will be shared equally between the parties. v) All costs to obtain and deliver reports or certificates of ad valorem taxes will be shared equally between the parties. vi) The cost of the Restricted Appraisal Report to determine the fair market value of the properties will be shared equally between the parties. The invoice from the Appraiser for these services shall be included in the settlement statements and paid by the Title Company at Closing. The total amount due for these services is Six Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($600.°°). vii)Ad valorem taxes for the Irwin Property shall be prorated as of the date of closing. The tax rates and values shall be based upon the most current tax appraisal and rates available. In the event that additional taxes are due and owning as a result of a new tax appraisal or rates, the Irwins agree to pay the City additional sums due within Thirty (30) days of being billed for same. The City shall provide and pay for current tax certificates upon which the adjustments for taxes shall be based. This section shall survive the closing of this agreement. 4) REAL ESTATE COMMISSION The Irwins and the City 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 If the Irwins fail to fully and timely perform any of their obligations under this agreement or fails to consummate the exchange of the properties for any reason, except the City's default, City may enforce specific performance of this agreement, as its sole and exclusive remedy under this agreement. If the City fails to fully and timely perform any of its obligations under this agreement or fails to consummate the exchange of the properties for any reason, except the Irwins' default, the Irwins may enforce specific performance of this agreement, as its sole and exclusive remedy under this agreement. 6) MISCELLANEOUS Assignment of Agreement. This agreement may not be assigned without the written consent of the other party. ii) Survival of Covenants.. Any of the representations, wan'anties, 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 hereby shall survive the closing and shall not be merged therein. iii) Sole Agreement. 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. iv) ~ 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 the Irwins or City, as the case may be, at the address set forth below or when sent via fax to the fax number set forth below. To Irwins: Dale Irwin 525 South Carroll Suite 100 Denton, Texas 76201 To City: City Attomey City Hall 215 E. McKinney Denton, Texas 76201 Fax No. 940.382.7923 v) Texas Law to Apply. This Agreement shall be construed under and in accordance with thc laws of thc Statc of Texas. All obligations of the pmie.~ created l~reundcr ar~ fully performable in Denton County, Texas. ; vi) Parties Bound. This as, roomer shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the patties ~ ~eir respective heirs, executors, a~tministrators, legal re~?res~tativ~, successors and assigns wk~rc p~'nitted by this ag~eem~t. vii)Lega. I Construction. In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this a~rncat shall for any reason be h~ld to be invi~licl, ill,gal, or unenforceable in any resgcct, said invalidity, illegality, or unenforc ~ability shall no: affect any other provision hereof, and this a~reemcnt shall bc ctlnstrued ia if the invalid, illegal, or uncnfomeablc provision had never been containe~ hcreiv.. viii) Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in this x) Gender. Words of any gender used in this agreement shall be held and construed to include any other g~der, and words in the sin~flar number shall be held to include th'~ plural, and vice versa, unless the context requ'res otherwise. Memorandum o£ Coarser, Upon request o[' elffer party, both parties shall promptly execute a memorandum et thLs Agreement su~tab [e for tiling of record xi) Compliance. In accordance with the requireme.~ts of the, Texas R. eal Estaie License Act, each party advises the other that it should !obtain a policy of title insuranc¢ or have the abstract covering the property examiaedt by an attorney of'its own selection. xii)Effective Date. The term "EFfective Dare" mea~ thc lat~er of thc ctatcs on which this agreement is signocI by either the lrwins or thelCity, ~ indicated by ~h¢ir signature below. If the last party to ex,cute this agr.¢~mcnt fails to complet~ th= date of ex,cation below that party's signature, the da~e thc Title Company acknowledges receipt eta copy of'this fully executed contract i} th¢ Effective Date. 1N WITNESS WHEREOF. the patties have executed this a~reement as follows. Date Irwin Crag Ir~fln APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY: Date: Michael A. Conduff, City Manager TITLE COMPANY ACCEPTANCE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Title Company acknowledges receipt of the fully executed Agreement on ., 2002. TITLE COMPANY: Name: Texas Title Company Address: 2215 South Loop 288 Denton, Texas 76205 Telephone: 940-382-8251 day of__ By: Printed Name: Title: EXHIBIT 1 OF 2 lEGAl DESCRIPTIO/V for the DIJCEESS DRIVE Right-of- Way Expansion Denton, Denton County, Texas Being ail that certain tract, parcel, or strip of land out of the M.E.P. & P. RR. Survey A-927 in the City of Denton Records, Denton County, Texas and a portion of that tract described hy deed recorded at County Clerks' File/11o. 95- R0050144, Rea/Property Records, Denton County, Texas and more particularly described as fo/lows: BEGI/V/VltVG at a one-half inch iron rod found at the south corner of J.B. ADO/T/O/V, an add/t/on to the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas according to the p/at thereof recorded in Cab/net "D'; SI/de 151, P/at Records Denton County, Texas and iff the northwest centerline of Duchess Drive, said iron rod being 191.5 feet, S 28 °57' W from a one-half inch iron rod found in the southwest//ne of East McK/nney Street and the east corner of the said J.B. ADD/T/O/V; T/VE/VCE: with the said northwest line of PEBBLE DROOl(ADD/T/O/V, S 31 o§0, 37" W, a distance of 433.61 feet to a three-fourths inch iron rod found for the south corner of the tract described by deed recorded at County Clerks file 95- R£§5£144 and the east corner of the tract described by deed recorded in Volume 3373, Page 1£, Deed Records, Denton County, Texas; THE/VCE: with the said common//ne, N 37 °12' 40" W, a d/stance of 32.31 feet to a five-eights inch iron rod set for a corner; T/tE/VCE: N 31 o£0,37. E, a distance of 419.63 feet to a five-eights inch iron rod set for corner at the south corner of Lot 1, B/oc/~ 1, J.B. ADDITIO/V; THE/VCE: with the southwest//ne of the said add/t/on; S B2 o47, 53" E, a d/stance of 30.07 feet to the P/ace of Beginning and containing 0.2939 acres of/and more or/ess as surveyed by john na//jr rp/s #1£7§ during the month of Apr//2002. Corners set and/or found are/dent/f/ed. (See survey sketch jn[L.£§23) SCALE: '%. E×:H~B~T A 2 OF 2 PEEBLE BROOK ABBITiON EXHIBIT B 1 OF 2 DENTON lEGAl DESCRIPTIO/V for a 0.3238 acre tract out of the Wm./OVIAIG SORVEY A-759 Denton, Denton County, Texas Being ail that certain tract, parcel or lot of/and out of the Wm. lOVING SURVEY A-759 in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas that is the east remainder parcels out of tracts described hy deeds recorded in Volume 5£5, Page 120, Volume 775, Page 62 and Volume 769, Page 613, Deed Records, Denton County, Texas and more particularly described as follows: BEGItVNIAIG at a five-eights inch iron and found for the southwest corner of Lot 1, Block A, CARROLL PAR/( P/ACE TWO, an addition to the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas according to the p/at thereof recorded in Cahinet /, Si/de 149, P/at Records Denton County, Texas and further being in the east right-of-way//ne of Carroll Boulevard; THENCE: leaving the said east fight-of-way line of Carroll Boulevard and with the south line of Lot 1, Block A, CAR/tO// PAR/( P/ACE TWO, N 89°19'21"E, a d/stance of 2£.4B feet to an angle point; THENCE: continuing with the said south//ne of Lot 1, Block A, N 88°1£' 02" E; passing the southeast corner of the said lot at 45.19 feet; in ail a distance of 55.19 feet to a five-eights inch iron rod set for corner in the west//ne of Pacific; TH£/VC£: with the west i/ne of Pacific, SOl o 3~' ~5" £ a d/stance of 200.00 feet to a five eights inch iron rod set for corner in the north//ne of the tract described by deed recorded in Volume 766, Page 783, Deed Records of Denton County, Texas; T//EIVCE: with the said line, S 88© 37' 41" W, a distance of 60.06 feet to a five-eights inch iron rod set for corner in the east right-of-way line of Carroll Boulevard and in a tangent curve to the left having a central angle of £5° 51' 33", a radius of 1971.62 feet, and whose center bears S 84°16'14' W; THENCE: with the said fight-of-way curve, an arc d/stance of 201.62 feet to the P/ace of Be#inning and containing 0.3238 acres of/and more or/ess as surveyed by john nalljr rp/s # 1970 during the month of June 21702. Corners set and/or found are identified. (See attached survey s/retch jo[$-0005) I-~HII~IT 2 OF I 2 N89 ~92:~ E 29.48 ,, . ,'~ =05"51'33' R = fg?'L62' ~,, = EAGLE DRIVE i C, orf oll ¢ou/c"vordl EXHIBIT "C' THE IRWIN DEED STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY DEED STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DENTON KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: THAT Dale Irwin and Craig Irwin, hereinafter called "Grantors," for and in consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration to Grantor in hand paid by the CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, a home rule municipal corporation, hereinafter called "Grantee," the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and for which no lien is retained, express or implied, do hereby GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL and CONVEY unto the Grantee all of that certain tract or parcel of land containing approximately 0.3238 acre of land, situated in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" and as illustrated in Exhibit "B", both of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof for all purposes, together with all improvements situated thereon and all singularly the rights and appurtenances thereto and any and all right, title and interest of Grantors in and to any adjacent streets, alleys or rights-of-way, hereinafter collectively called the "Property." It is acknowledged and agreed that Grantee is acquiring the Property for the purpose of permitting Grantee or its agents or assigns to construct, maintain, repair and operate thereon street, highway, right-of-way, drainage improvements, utilities and other related improvements. This provision shall not be construed as any restraint on the right of Grantee to convey fee simple title to the Property. Grantor represents and warrants that the consideration paid by Grantee for this conveyance constitutes full and final compensation for the proPerty interests conveyed to Grantee hereunder, including without limitation, the right or claim to severance damages, or any damages to, or diminution in value of, other lands belonging to Grantors, that may be claimed or asserted by virtue of such acquisition of the Property by Grantee. Notwithstanding the area and shape of the Property, this Deed shall be construed as conveying all rights and appurtenances incident to any ordinary conveyance of land. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the Property, together with all and singular the rights and appurtenances thereto in anywise belonging unto said Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever. Grantors do hereby bind Grantors and Grantor's heirs, successors, executors and assigns, to wan'ant and forever defend, all and singular the Property unto the Grantee and Grantee's successors and assigns, against every person whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim the same or any part thereof, by, through, or under Grantors, but not otherwise. SIGNED this day of .,2002. Dale Irwin Craig Irwin ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DENTON § This instrument was acknowledged before me this ,2002, by Dale Irwin. day of Notary Public, State of Tennessee Print Name: My commission expires ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DENTON § This instrument was acknowledged before me this ,2002, by Craig Irwin. day of Notary Public, State of Tennessee Prim Name: My commission expires EXHIBIT "D" THE CITY DEED QUIT CLAIM DEED THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DENTON KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT the City of Denton, Texas, a municipal corporation of the County of Denton, State of Texas (the "Grantor"), in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars and No Cents ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration in hand paid by the Dale Irwin and Craig Irwin of the County of Denton, State of Texas (the "Grantee"), the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does by these presents, QUIT CLAIM unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, all its right title and interest in and to that certain tract or parcel of land lying in the City of Denton, County of Denton and State of Texas, described in Exhibit "A" and illustrated in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part by reference (called the "Property"). TO HAVE AND TO HOLD all of Grantor's right, title and interest in and to the Property unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever, so that neither Grantor nor its successors or assigns shall have, claim or demand any right or title to the Property or appurtenances or any part thereof. Wimess my hand, this the day of ,2002 CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS By: Michael A, Conduff City Manager THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DENTON § ACKNOWLEDGMENT This instrument was acknowledged before me on Michael A. Conduff, City Manager, City of Denton. ,2002 by Notary Public, in and for the State of Texas. My Commission Expires: Item 4M AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: November 19, 2002 Engineering Dave Hill, 349-8314 ~.:I! ;~'~ SUBJECT Consider adoption of an Ordinance declaring a public necessity exists and finding that public welfare and convenience requires the taking and acquiring of an approximate 3.6469 acre tract or parcel of land in fee simple for municipal landfill facilities and improvements, such title to be in the name of the City of Denton and said property being located in the G. Walker Survey Abstract Number 1330 in the City of Denton, Denton County Texas; authorizing the City Manager or his designee to make an offer to purchase the property for its just compensation 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 municipal landfill facilities and improvements, and other municipal purposes and declaring an effective date. BACKGROUND Staff has been working with the owners to negotiate the purchase of a 3.6469 acre tract of land throughout the past year. The property is located at 1481 S. Mayhill Road and lies just West of the Denton Municipal Landfill. The 3.6469 acres includes a rental house and two deteriorated mobile homes. The purpose of the acquisition is to provide additional land for the Denton Municipal Landfill operations to expand their facilities md operations. In addition, the property also provides for a Public Utility Easement necessary for the 18" Mayhill Re-Use Water Line Project. OPTIONS 1. Authorize condemnation to acquire, or 2. Denial, or 3. Table for future consideration RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the authorization to condemn. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Early 2003 PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW None FISCAL INFORMATION The property has been appraised for a fair market value of $100,000.®. ATTACHMENTS Location Map Draft Ordinance Survey Illustration P[epared by: ; Pamela England Real Estate Specialist Respectfully submitted: Charles Fiedler, Director Engineering Department FOSTER Location Map S:\Our Documents\Ordinances\02\Chavez Condemnation Ordinance .doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE DECLARING A PUBLIC NECESSITY EXISTS AND FINDING THAT PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE REQUIRES THE TAKING AND ACQUIRING OF AN APPROXIMATE 3.6469 ACRE TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND IN FEE SIMPLE FOR MUNICIPAL LANDFILL EXPANSION PURPOSES, SUCH TITLE TO BE IN THE NAME OF THE CITY OF DENTON AND SAID PROPERTY BEING LOCATED IN THE G.WALKER SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 1330 IN THE CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY TEXAS, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MAYHILL ROAD BETWEEN SPENCER ROAD AND FOSTER ROAD; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO MAKE AN OFFER TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FOR ITS JUST COMPENSATION 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 DENTON MUNICIPAL LANDFILL EXPANSION, AND OTHER MUNICIPAL PURPOSES; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, it is hereby determined that a public necessity exists and tMt public welfare and convenience hereby require the acquisition of fee simple title for the public purposes described herein, with such fee simple title vesting in the City of Denton; and WHEREAS, the hereinafter described property is believed to be ow-red by the Rosa Lee Chaves, as to a life estate, and Ronald Brown, Terry Brown, and Wanda Nell Harris, as to a remainder interest ("Owners"); NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Public necessity exists and public welfare and convenience require the acquisition of fee simple title, with such fee simple title vesting in the City of Denton in that certain tract or parcel of land containing approximately 3.6469 acres, together with improvements thereon and appurtenances thereto as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" and illustrated in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the "Property"). The Property is being acquired for expansion of the Denton Municipal Landfill facilities and operations. SECTION 2. The City Council finds that $100,000.°° (the "Compensation") is just compensation for the Property including damages to the remainder, if any, said sum being based on an independent appraisal obtained by the City. The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized and directed to make an offer for the Property to the Owners of the Property in the amount of the Compensation. SECTION 3. In the event the offer as described in Section 2 is refused by the Owners of the Property, the City Attorney or his designee is hereby authorized and directed to file the necessary condemnation proceedings or suit and take whatever action that may be necessary against the Owners and any other parties having an interest in the Property to acquirefee simple title in the Property for the purposes described in Section above, with such fee simple title vesting in the City of Denton. SECTION 4. If it should be subsequently determined that additional parties other than those named herein have an interest in the Property, then in that event, the City Attorney or his designee is authorized and directed to join said parties as defendants in said condemnation. SECTION 5. 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: EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: SITUATED in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas being a tract of land out of the Gideon Walker Survey, Abstract No. 1330, said tract being a portion of that parcel of land conveyed to Rosa Lee Chavez by deeds as recorded in Volume 385, Page 87, Volume 676, Page 369 and Volume 676, Page 371 of the Deed Records of DeNon County, Texas (D.R.D.C.T.), said tract being herein more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows: COMMENCING at a ~ capped iron rod at the southwest property comer of the said Chavez tract, said poiN being the northwest property comer of a tract of land conveyed to the City of DeNon by deed as recorded in Denton County Clerk's File No. 96-0034339 (D. C. C .F.No. ), said po iN also being on the existing easterly right- o f- way o f South Mayhill Road; THENCE, North 4 degrees 06 minutes 39 seconds East, along the west property line of the said Chavez tract and along the said right-of-way line of South Mayhill Road, 150.12 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE, North 4 degrees 06 minutes 39 seconds East, continuing along the said property line and said right-of-way line, 146.36 feet to a point; THENCE, North 88 degrees 21 minutes 07 seconds West 26.79 feet to a point on the west line of the said Gideon Walker Survey, said poiN being at the approximate centerline of South Mayhill Road; THENCE, North 3 degrees 37 minutes 40 seconds East, along the west property line of the said Chavez tract and along the said survey line, 118.49 feet to the northwest property comer of the said Chavez tract; THENCE, South 88 degrees 30 minutes 57 seconds East at 27.79 feet passing a RR-TIE comer post at the southwest property comer of a tract of land conveyed to the City of DeNon by deed as recorded in D.C.C.F.No. 99-0088982, coNinuing in all 740.93 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found at the northeast property comer of the said Chavez tract; THENCE, South 2 degrees 02 minutes 53 seconds West, along a easterly property line of the said Chavez tract and along a westerly property line of a tract of land conveyed to the City of DeNon by deed as recorded in D.C.C.F.No. 95-0072063, 180.40 feet to a RR-TIE comer post at a southeast property comer of the said Chavez tract, said poiN being the northeast property comer of a tract of land conveyed to the City of DeNon by deed as recorded in D.C.C.F.No. 96-0021132; THENCE, North 88 degrees 53 minutes 11 seconds West, along a southerly property line of the said Chavez tract and along the north property line of the said City of Denton tract (96-0021132), 417.21 feet to a 3/8" iron rod found at the northwest property comer of the said City of Denton tract (96-0021132); THENCE, South 2 degrees 24 minutes 40 seconds West, along a easterly property line of the said Chavez tract and along a westerly property line of the said City of Demon tract (96-0021132), 83.10 feet to a point on a north common property line of the remainder of land conveyed to Rosa Lee Chavez by deed recorded in Volume 676, Page 369 of the D.R.D.C.T.; THENCE, North 88 degrees 14 minutes 03 seconds West, along the said common property line, 304.97 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; The tract of land being herein described contains 3.6469 acres (158,859 Sq. Ft.) of land. Item 4N AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: November 19, 2002 Engineering David Hill, 349- 8314 SUBJECT Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a contract for an Electrical Utility Easement consisting of 6.85 acres, of which 3.17 acres lie within Corbin Road, being part of a tract conveyed to the Hudson Family Partnership, Ltd. by deed recorded in County Clerk's File Number 95-R0080500 of the Real Property Records of DeNon County, Texas, said property being located in J.W. Hardin Survey, Abstract No. 1656, DeNon County Texas; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date. (West DeNon Electric Project) BACKGROUND .The City of DeNon Real Estate Division has been in negotiations for the past five months regarding the acquisition of an electrical utility easemem with the landowner, Hudson Family Partnership, as part of the Denton West Electric Project. We have reached an equitable understanding and have come to terms with the Hudson Family Parmership regarding acquisition of the necessary easemem for a total sum of $27,600.00. OPTIONS 1. Approve the ordinance, or 2. Denial, or 3. Table for future consideration RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE DeNon West Electrical Utility project to be initiated upon possession of necessary parcels, Estimated in December, 2002. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW On October 15, 2002, Ordinance Number 2002-344 was approved for the purchase or condemnation of the subject parcel of land for easemem. A mutually equitable agreemem has since been reached, with the landowner accepting the City of Denton's final offer and retuming signed easement documemation. FISCAL INFORMATION An appraisal of this property was performed by John Hirschy & Associates of Dallas indicating a value of $20,258.00 for the necessary easemem area, which was subsequently rejected by the landowner. Staffwas successful in negotiating a settlemem for this acquisition for $27,600.00. ATTACHMENTS Location map Draft ordinance Survey Illustration Exhibits Prepared By: Respectfully submitted: Tod J. Taylor Real Estate Specialist Charles Fiedler, Director Engineering Department @~:~ o ~@~ S:\Our Docmments\Ordinances\02\3 Denton West Electric Project Hudson Property Ordinance. doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY THE CITY OF AN ELECTRICAL UTILITY EASEMENT CONSiSTiNG OF 6.85 ACRES BEING PART OF A TRACT CONVEYED TO THE HUDSON FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. BY DEED RECORDED iN COUNTY CLERK'S FILE NUMBER 95-R0080500 OF THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS, SAID PROPERTY BEING LOCATED IN J.W. HARDIN SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1656, DENTON COUNTY TEXAS; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (WEST DENTON ELECTRIC PROJECT) THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City Manager, or his designee, is hereby authorized to purchase for the Hudson Family Trust electrical utility easement in substantially the form of the Easement which is attached hereto and made part of the ordinance for all purposes regarding the Denton West Electrical Project. SECTION 2. The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to make the expenditures in the amount of the purchase price of $27,600.00for the Easement. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2002. EULiNE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: ELECTRIC UTILITY EASEMENT CITY OF DENTON THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OFDENTON KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That, The Hudson Family Partnership, Ltd. of Denton County, Texas, hereinafter called "Grantor" whether one or more, for and in consideration of Ten Dollars ($ 10.00), and other good and valuable consideration, to Grantor in hand paid by the City of Denton, a municipal corporation, which is located in Denton County, Texas, and whose mailing address is 215 E. McKinney, Denton, Texas 76201, hereinafter called "Grantee," has granted, sold and conveyed and by these presents does grant, sell and convey unto Grantee an easement and right of way for the purpose of erecting, operating, maintaining and servicing thereon one or more electric power and/or communication lines, each consisting of a variable number of wires, cables, and all necessary or desirable appurtenances, attachments and complete supporting structures, including foundations, guy wires and guy anchorages, and structural components in, on over, under, and across that real property situated in Denton County, Texas, and more particularly described as follows: Being all that certain lot, tract or parcel of land situated in the J. W. Hardin Survey, Abstract Number 1656, in Denton County, Texas, and being part of that certain tract of land recorded in deed to The Hudson Family Partnership, Ltd. Recorded in County Clerk's File Number 95-R0080500 of the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas, and being more particularly described as follows: BEGiNNiNG at the northeast comer of said Hardin Survey, same being the northeast comer of said Hudson tract; THENCE South 00 degrees 36 minutes 31 seconds West along the west line of said Hudson tract a distance of 2749.60 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 89 degrees 43 minutes 02 seconds West along the south line of said Hudson tract a distance of 1918.72 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 01 degrees 09 minutes 55 seconds East a distance of 62.69 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 89 degrees 38 minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 1853.00 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 00 degrees 31 minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 2690.53 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 88 degrees 51 minutes 35 seconds East a distance of 69.25 feet to the POiNT OF BEGINNiNG and containing approximately 6.85 acres of land more or less of which 3.17 acres lies in the road Grantee shall have the right to construct, operate, improve, reconstruct, increase or reduce the capability, repair, relocate, inspect, patrol, maintain or remove such lines within such easement as Grantee may from time to time find necessary, convenient or desirable to erect thereon and all rights necessary or convenient for full use of the above grant, including reasonable access over, across and upon the above referenced land to such easement. Grantee shall have the right to trim or remove trees and shrubbery to the extent necessary, in the sole judgment of Grantee, to prevent possible interference with the operation of such lines or to remove possible hazards thereto, together with the right to put gates in existing fences within such easement. Grantee shall remove from the easement tree limbs, and clean up other debris, resulting from Grantee's operations hereunder. Grantee shall have the right to remove or prevent the construction of any or all buildings, structures, signs and obstructions within such easement. If any such buildings, structures, signs or obstructions are hereafter constructed or permitted by Grantor to exist within the easement without prior written consent of Grantee then Grantee shall have the right to remove the same and Grantor agrees to pay to Grantee the reasonable cost of such removal. Grantees shall have no right to fence or enclose such easement or to use it for any purpose other than as set out above. The right of the Grantor to use the above described land, including the portion within the easement, for all other purposes that will not interfere with the exercise of the rights of Grantee is reserved to the Grantor, including the right to erect or maintain fences not more than 8 feet high across such easement, provided that gates or openings 12 feet wide or more are installed therein, to provide Grantee reasonable access to all parts of such easement; provided that all such facilities shall be properly grounded, and shall be so constructed as to provide with respect to Grantee's lines and other facilities the minimum clearance provided by law, and recognized as standard in the electrical industry. The payment of consideration herein made includes any damage or loss to crops sustained in the future by Grantor resulting from the Grantee's construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, or other use of this easement. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the above easement and right of way unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, and Grantor hereby warrants and forever agrees to defend the above described easement and right of way unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, against every person whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim the same or any part thereof, by, through, or under Grantor, and not otherwise. This easement, together with the other provisions of this grant, shall constitute a covenant running with the land for the benefit of Grantee, its successors and assigns. The right hereby granted is severable and may be assigned either in whole or in part. EXECUTED this day of ,2002. The Hudson Family Partnership, Ltd. By: Sharon Hudson Acton Managing General Partner ACKNOWLEDGMENT THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DENTON § This instrument was acknowledged before me on this the day of , 2002 by Sharon Hudson Acton, Managing General Partner for The Hudson Family Partnership, Ltd., on behalf of said limited partnership. Notary Public State of Texas My Commission Expires Accepted this day of of Denton, Texas (Resolution No. 91-073). ,2002 for the City By: Paul Williamson Manager, Real Estate and Capital Support After Recording, Return to: Paul Williamson City Hall East City of Denton 601 E. Hickory, Suite B Denton, Texas 76205 EXHIBIT "A" Being all that certain lot, tract or parcel of land situated in the J .w. Hardin Survey, Abstract Number 1656, in Denton County, Texas, and being part of that certain tract of land recorded in deed to The Hudson Family Parmership, Ltd. recorded in County Clerk's File Number 95- ROO80500 of the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas, and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the northeast comer of said Hardin Survey, same being the northeast comer of said Hudson tract; THENCE South 00 degrees 36 minutes 31 seconds West along the west line of said Hudson tract a distance of 2749.60 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 89 degrees 43 minutes 02 seconds West along the south line of said Hudson tract a distance of 1918.72 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 01 degrees 09 minutes 55 seconds East a distance of 62.69 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 89 degrees 38 minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 1853.00 feet to a point for comer; THENCE North 00 degrees 31 minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 2690.53 feet to a point for comer; THENCE South 88 degrees 51 minutes 35 seconds East a distance of 69.25 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing approximately 6.85 acres of land more or less of which 3.17 acres lies in the road Item 40 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET November 19, 2002 Engineering David Hill, 349 - 8314 ,~?;::~'i SUBJECT Consider approval of a partial exaction variance of Section 35.20.2(L.2.) of the Code of Ordinances concerning perimeter paving. The 4.357 acre parcel is located on the southwesterly comer of Bonnie Brae and Corbin Road. The property is located in a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district. A single family residence is proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval ora partial variance (5-1) (V02-0024) BACKGROUND Mr. Jerald Yensan RPLS (representing Mr. Shan-Wen Chang, the developer/owner of this property- the Gary Addition) has applied for an exaction variance of Section 35.20.2(L.2.) (concerning perimeter paving) of the Code of Ordinances regarding relief from all costs associated with pavement improvements to Bonnie Brae and Corbin Rd. The subject section of the ordinance requires construction improvements along the frontage of the development with city standard pavement with curb and gutter. South Bonnie Brae is currently a paved asphalt 2-lane roadway with no shoulder and with borrow ditches on both sides, all the way from IH35E to a little south of Roselawn and constitutes about 9,000fl of country road, in reasonably good shape. Bonnie Brae is classified as a collector street on the Denton Mobility Plan, Roadway Component. Corbin Rd. is currently a gravel roadway with small spots of asphalt from Bonnie Brae to IH35W and is up to 20fl wide in various locations. The applicant based the reason for the full variance request on the cost for the subject improvements in comparison to the size and type of development. A copy of the applicant's letter is attached. City's staff essentially agrees with the assessment by Mr. Yensan, relative to requiring the developer to be responsible for the full design and construction of pavement of both of these streets. However, some payment by the developer to account for additional traffic trips, in this case an average lot cost, is typically requested by the City for instances like this and as is noted below in the Fiscal Information section. The City Council may approve an exaction variance if the following criterion is met: b) Criteria for variances from development exactions. Where the commission finds that the imposition of any development exaction pursuant to these regulations exceeds any reasonable benefit to the property owner or is so excessive as to constitute confiscation of the tract to be platted, it may recommend approval of variances to waive such exaction's, so as to prevent Page 1 such excess, to the City Council. Waiver of developmental exactions shall be approved by the City Council. The price the applicant paid for the parcel, or the cost of the proposed building improvements is not a factor in determining reasonable costs. The City Council must decide if the costs associated with the public improvements required by city regulations are reasonable and consistent for the type of development proposed and are proportional to the demand for services created by the development. OPTIONS 1. Approve full variance 2. Approve full variance with conditions 3. Approve a partial variance 4. Deny variance RECOMMENDATION Staff recommended approval of a partial variance, resulting in the developer's payment of a total of $5,400.00 in lieu of pavement design and construction improvements to both Bonnie Brae and Corbin Rd. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval of the partial variance, on October 9, 2002. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval October 9, 2002. of a partial variance on FISCAL INFORMATION City staff estimates typical installation of 25ft wide pavement with curb and gutter at $75/foot. The required pavement improvement, for approximately 350ft of frontage along Bonnie Brae, would cost an estimated $26,250.00 and for approximately 570ft of frontage along Corbin Rd. at $42,750 (total $69,000). City staff understands the cost to construct perimeter pavement with curb and gutter for both of these streets to City standards is prohibitive in the development of a residential lot with a frontage as noted above. Current City ordinance has allowed for a per lot average cost (of a typical lot in a residential area in Denton) payment in lieu of the costs that are associated with the design and construction of full improvements. City staff has determined that the average cost per residential lot for pavement improvements as being $5,400 for 25fl wide pavement with curb and gutter. The fee of $5400.00 applies per lot even though it may have two or more frontages. Therefore, this single lot fee would for the pavement improvements for both Bonnie Brae and Corbin Rd. In the past staff has recommended and the City Council has granted partial variances for similar developments, based on the cost of such improvements for an average sized lot in the City of Denton. In accordance with the current ordinance, the fee associated with the costs of construction may be posted with the City in lieu of actual construction. The City maintains this money in an interest beating account and if the improvements are not complete, under construction or under design within 10 years (of the time of deposit of this money), the City is required to return the money to the payee(s) with interest. ATTACHMENTS 1. Site location map Page 2 2. Applicant's letter 3. Plat 4. P & Z minutes Prepared By: David Salmon, Assistant Director Engineering Respectfully submitted: Charles Fiedler Director, Engineering Page 3 7 ATTACHMENT 1 NORTH ROSELAWN - ~ ANDMARK SURVEYORS, INC. September23, 2002 ATTACHMENT 2 Applicant's Letter 4238 1-35 North Denton, Texas 76207-3408 (940) 382-4016 Fax (940) 387-9784 landmarksv@aol.com City of Denton, Engineering Department David Salmon, P.E. t 1t West McKinney St. Denton, TX 76201 Re: Gary Addition variance request Dear Mr. Salmon, The variance being asked for in this case is a general "blanket" variance, as it all relates to paving, curb and gutter, sidewalks and storm drain that would all result from the requirement for perimeer paving, and is a repeat of the variance we asked for and got, on the Liverpool Addition. The Gary Addition is immediatly adjacent to, and north of Liverpool Addition. I am enclosing a copy of the letter I wrote to you on April 29, 2002 regarding Variance requests for Liverpool Addition, and would ask taht you consider this an identical request on behalf of the Gary Addition. 09-20-02P 4:52 RCVD April 29, 2002 City of Denton, Engineering Department David Salmon, P.E. 1t I WeSt McKinney St. Denton, TX 76201 Re: Liverpool Addition variance request Dear Mr. Salmon, This is to further specify what we have asked for In terms of the two variance requests that have already been submitted for the Liverpool Addition: 1)The requests were submitted for perimeter paving, sidewalk and storm drain improvements along the west side of South Bonnie Brae, just north of Roselawn. 2) I understand that engineering has a position that Mr Barber (the owner) could ask for a partial variance that would allow him to pay $7700 in lieu of actually making these Improvements, and engineering would support such a request. 3) I would like to hereby challenge that position, and ask for a full variance for the following reasons; SEP 2 0 ZOOZ PLANNING & DEVELOPMEN the curb and gutter would more than likely be above and west of the existing ditch. d. It is our feeling, particularly with the new zoning in effect, and given the already existing Solar Way Addition to the north, and there being a substantial portion in flood zone north of Solar Way and west of Laurel Addition that is undevelopable, that very little development will occur in this area, and unless the City has a bond election for specific road improvements in this area, the road construction will never take place. e. Mr. Barber intends to build one single family residence on a 5 acre tract of land, and it should not be his responsibility to partake in development of 9,000 feet of roadway unless all property owners on each side are assessed equally. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 09-20-02P04:52 RCVD s CondonsoltTM 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 COMMISSIONER APPLE; Good evening. I'd 3 like to call to order the regular meeting of the Planning 4 and Zoning Commission for the City of Denton, Texas for 5 this Wednesday, October the 9th, 2002. If you'll please 6 join us in standing to say the pledge of allegiance to the 7 United States flag and the Texas flag. 8 (Thereupon, the Pledges of Allegiance were 9 recited.) 10 COMMISSIONER APPLE: JUst for informational 1 1 purposes this evening, Commissioner Powell has an excused 12 absence this evening. And Commissioner Roy has called and 13 let us know that he will be late. We do have a quorum, so 14 we'll just jump right into our Consent Agenda. No, I'm 15 sorry. The first item is to consider approval of the 16 minutes for September the 25th, 2002. Conm~issioners, do 17 I have any corrections or a motion? Commissioner Mukoy. 18 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Ye, i. Help my memory. 19 I don't believe -- member seeing Mr. Snyder here 20 September 25th. 21 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I would agree with 22 that. That's probably a correction that needs to be made. 23 The minutes do indicate that Ed Snyder was present rather 24 than Dogie Palumbo. And I don't think Dottle would 25 appreciate that, getting those mixed up. Page 2 1 I had one small correction, also. Oa page 2 75, next to the last cormnent. Commissioner Apple, it says 3 it was "significant." That should read it was 4 "insignificant." Are there any more corrections? We have 5 a motion -- 6 COMMISSIONER MULROY: second. Is there a 7 motion on the floor? 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: No. Is there a 9 motion.'? We have corrections -- 10 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. I move 11 approval -- move approval with the two corrections. 12 COMMISSIONER WATKINS: second. 13 COMMISSIONER APPLE: W6 have a motion and a 14 second, and I see Commissioner Roy has joined us. Vote, 15 please. Since you joined us late, Commissioner Roy, we're 16 voting on the minutes of the previous meeting. 17 COMMISSIONER ROY: Madam Chairman, I can't 18 vote because I don't know what the corrections were. I'm 19 sorry. So I will abstain. 20 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Motion 21 carries 5-0 with one abstention by Cormnissioner Roy. Thc 22 next item is our Consent Agenda, which has Items 3, 4, 5A 23 and B and 6A and B -- I'm sorry. Items 3 and 4. I'm so 24 sorry, i'm trying to move too quickly. Are there any 25 comments or -- Page 3 I COMMISSIONER MULROY: I'm ready to make a 2 motion, Madam Chair. 3 COMMISSIONER A?PLE: All right. 4 Commissioner Mulroy. $ COMMISSIONER MULROY: I move approval of 6 the Consent Agenda. 7 COMMISSIONER ROY: second. 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: We have a motion and a 9 second to approve the Consent Agenda. Is there any 10 discussion? Vote, please. Commissioner Mulroy and hanto,. lotl r es/% I - 14 individual consideration, And I believe Mr, Vokoun with 15 the City staff will bring you the presentation. 16 MR. voKotn,~: Good evening, Madam Chair. 17 Ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, Bud Vokoun, 18 Engineering. You have before you a request by Mr. Weldon 19 McBride, the applicant and owner of this property. The 20 Weldon Addition, who has applied for two exaction 21 variances. The one acre parcel is loca~xt on the easterly 22 side of Mockingbird Lane and just south of Mingo Road. 23 The property is located in a neigllborhood residential 4 24 zoning district. 25 The property is presently being subdivided Page 4 t into two lots and one resident on one of the lots 2 currently exists. The first request is for variance 3 02-0021, which concerns Section 35.20.3B of the Code of 4 Ordinance concerning parameter sidewalks. 5 Thc second request is for variance 02-0023 6 that concerns Section 35.20.2L3A of the Code of Ordinance 7 concerning parameter streets. Site is right in this area. 8 There currently is a residence in this area and they're 9 subdividing to provide another residence in this area. 10 The request is for parameter paving and sidewalk. 11 Staff agrees that the applicant because of 12 the type of development and the size of the development 13 should not be required to pay the full requirements of the 14 design of construction, both the sidewalk and of the 15 paving, however, we do -- staff does believe that the 16 applicant should be -- pay its fair share, not unlike what 17 a normal subdivision for a large development is where a 18 developer comes in, builds the roads, builds the 19 sidewalks, builds the other infrastructure and then passes 20 that cost on to each of the lots, and then the homeowner. 21 We feel that the homeowner should be 22 required to pay an average and, therefore, staff is 23 recommending a partial variance for both of these. 24 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. 25 Commissioners, do we have any questions? Commissioner PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 9TH, 2002 Page 1 - Page 4 CondenseItTM Page 5 I Johnson, 2 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: The -- the sidewalk 3 would run along the western side of the property; is that 4 right? 5 MR. VOKOUN: Yes, sir. The requirements 6 for parameter sidewalk, which would include the -- which 7 is thc sidewalk on the east side of Mockingbird or the 8 west side of thc property. 9 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: And it would 10 terminate at the railroad? 11 MR. VOKOUN: It would terminate at the 12 northem property, which is the southern right-of-way for 13 the railroad, just to give you an idea of current 14 situation out there. We have a large development if 15 you've driven out there recently, that's presently being 16 constructed in which they're being required to put both 17 sidewalk and roadway on this side of Audra and 18 Mockingbird. There's currently sidewalk and full road 19 width on this side of the road. And there's sidewalk and 20 road width on this -- and as well as in this area. 21 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: And the ordinance is 22 -- give me an idea exactly what the ordinance says 23 regarding the sidewalks. !24 MR. VOKOUN: The ordinance requires full 25 installation of sidewalk. In this case here, it's eight 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 i4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 7 Page 6 i feet wide required because Mockingbird is a collector 2 street. And it's required to be installed along a full 3 frontage. 4 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay. And there are 5 no provisions in the ordinance for anyplace where a 6 sidewalk might be deemed inappropriate. It just says 7 period. If it's a collector street, there's a sidewalk, 8 right? 9 MR. VOKOCrr~: That's correct. In this case I0 here we're saying that -- we're asking that the applicant 11 provide the money for the cost of this. It will be put in 12 an account that will be held for ten years with interest. 13 At the end of ten years, if the City hasn't either 14 constructed, is in the process of constructing the 15 improvements, then the applicant gets the money back. 16 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: okay. Does the 17 ordinance allow for reduction of the amount to be charged? 18 I mean, what you're doing is you're recommending that he 19 not be charged the full amount for the sidewalk, but 20 charged as if this was an average lot? 21 MR, VOKOUN: That's correct. 22 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON,. Okay. Then the 23 ordinance provides for that? 24 MR. VOKOUN: The ordinance provides for a i25 partial exaction, yes. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: okay. MR. voKou'~: 'the fee was determined based upon calculations by City staff some years ago. That doesn't mean that Planning and Zoning Commission could recommend an even smaller amount. That's just a typical average that we bring to the Commission. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Mr. Vokoun, Mr. Powell would like to help address Commissioner Jolnlson's question. MR. POWELL: If I may, a variance is the process by which a standard in the Code whether it's subdivision or zoning is to be not imposed on a property as it's developed. So the mechanism under the Code is to seek a variance. You can grant a full variance and say that no sidewalk or parameter paving is required. What staff has proposed to you is, is them something in between there as Mr. Vokoun pointed out? There also is two different types of variances, a hardship variance, which someone is physically unable, in our opinion, to build something or do it. And then there's an exaction variance where it really relates more to their desire not to do it primarily because of cost factors. In this case there's no obstruction or reason why they couldn't build the sidmvalk or couldn't do Page 8 I the parameter paving and that's why it's an exaction 2 variance and not a hardship variance. 3 MR. SALMON: one other item that I would 4 like to add is that in this ease the ordinance does allow 5 as Mr. Vokoun indicated fees in lleu of actual 6 construction. And the reason we're proposing a partial 7 variance is because one of the lots already has a house on 8 it. So even though the subdivision is two lots, we've 9 only calculated the fee based on one lot because they're 10 only adding one house. They're not building two brand new 11 houses. 12 C~MMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Arc there 13 any more questions? Commissioners? Is the applicant 14 hem, Mr. Vokoun? 15 MR. VOKOUN: I'm not aware that he is. Oh, 16 yes. 17 COMMISS~OtqeR ^PeLE: would you like to 18 address the Commission at all? 19 MR. MCSmr)E: oh, I guess I could. I have 20 a hearing problem. I heard most of what he said. 21 COMMISSIONER APPLU: If yOU would just 22 speak into that microphone and give us your name and 23 address. 24 Ma. Me,SIDe: okay. Weldon McBride. I've 25 had the property for a couple of years. I've sold a lot PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 9TH, 2002 Page 5 - Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I2 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 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CondenseltTM Page 9 to this Mexican couple about a year ago if I can get it 1 subdivided. The sidewalk in question leads up to the 2 railroad track. So that's -- you know, that's why I asked 3 for the variance. It would be -- a sidewalk would be 4 incompatible with the neighborhood. There's not any 5 around. The property adjacent is -- no sidewalk. The 6 property across the street, no sidewalk. There is a 7 sidewalk -- let's sec, up on the hill by a subdivision, g It had a three foot sidewalk, but that's it. 9 Then it crosses a little ravine that's in 10 the -- I think it's in the flood plain, the little ravine 11 is. It's a low, low elevation. So that's all I -- you 12 know, that -- I've already spent more on the property than 13 I think that -- I mean, on getting it done than I'm going I4 to get. If I built a sidewalk, I wouldn't -- if I had to 15 build a sidewalk, I won't sell the property because it 16 would be cost-prohibitive. Wouldn't be -- wouldn't be an' 17 good. Thank you. 18 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Are there any 19 questions for Mr. McBride? Thank you, sir. ; 20 MR. MCBRIDE: Sure. 21 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Holt. 22 COMMISSIONER HOLT: rll make a motion that 23 the exaction variance be approved. 24 COMMISSIONER MULROY: second. 25 Page 10 COMMISSIONER APPLE: It's been moved and 1 seconded. Any discussion7 Vole, please. Motion carries 2 6-0. 3 Next addressing Agenda Item 5B. 4 COMMISSIONI~t. HOLT: Make a motion that the 5 variance be approved, the exaction variance be approved 6 for 5B. 7 COMMISSIONER MULROY: second. 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: we have a motion and a 9 second. Any discussion? Vote, please. Commissioner 10 Mukoy, your vote didn't register. Thanks. Motion 11 carries 6-0. 12 The next item for individual consideration 13 is Itmn 6 regarding Gary Addition. And, again, Mr. Vokoun 14 will present. 15 MR. VOKOUN: Thank you, again. Mr. lerald 16 Yensan representing Mr. Shun-Wen Chang, the developer of 17 this property, the Gary Addition has applied for two 18 exaction variances. The 4.357 acre parcel is located on 19 the southwesterly comer of Bonnie Brae and Corbin Road. 20 The property is located in a neighborhood 2 zoning 21 district. A single family residence is proposed. This 22 concerns variance 02~002, which concerns Section 35.20.3B 23 of thc Code of Ordinance concerning parameter sidewalk as 24 well as variance 02-0024, it concerns Section 35.20.2L2 25 OCTOBER 9TH, 2002 Page 11 concerning parameter paving. Same situation as the previous ittan. Tho site located right hem. A closer view indicates that it has property both on Corbln as well as on Bonnie Brae. Staff's recommendation is for a partial variance. Staff is concerned with the property owner being required as by Code to build both and improve Corbin and Bonnie Brae, both pavement and sidewalk, we feel that the costs are exorbitant for this type of situation and, therefore, recommending the partial variance. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Commissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: Mr. Vokoun, in the backup material, the applicant states that he applied for and received these exaction variances for the property just to the south of it. I seem to recall that was the case, but could you verify that for me, please? MR. VOKOU~: Yes, they got a full variance on both the sidewalk and the pavement. And the property is this property right hem. COMMISSIONER ROY: thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: IS the applicant present? Commissioners, what's your pleasure? Commissioner Mukoy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I'm going to make a Page 12 motion to approve the variance as submitted, and with a short explanation that I know we have some history, but I'm looking at the City staff having reduced the pain to a small level to accommodate an extraordinary situation, and it seems their recommendation is reasonable in proportionality to the lot. So I'm moving approval as presented. COMMISSIONER HOLT: second. COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Mukoy, could you clarify that's the full variance? COMMISSIONER MULROY: AS presented by staff. COMMISSIONER APPLE'. And that is for Item A. We do need two separate motions again. We have a motion as presented by staff and a second. Any discussion? Cormuissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: Yes. It was just confirmed to us that the site just south of it, this Commission reviewed and provided a full variance for thc sidewalk in a very recent meeting, as I recall. So I will be voting against the motion because I feel that we need to be consistent in our judgment. And I don't see any differcnee between this case and the property just to the south of it. So I will be voting against the motion which I understand to be as Page 9 - Page 12 CondcnscItTM Page 13 1 per the staff recommendation to just provide a smaller fee 2 than what would normally be provided. So I will be votin 3 against the motion. 4 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Any further 5 discussion? Coma~issioner Johnson. 6 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Is that a true 7 statement that it was a full variance? Do we absolutely 8 know that? 9 MR. VOKOUN: Yes, sir. It was a full 10 variance. 11 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay. Maybe 12 Commissioner Mulroy could help me out with this a little 13 bit. Why would we go part way on one if we've gone all 14 the way on the other one? Is that a legal question? 15 COMMISSIONER MLILROY: If you address it to 16 the Chair. 17 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Mulroy, 18 I'll let you answer his question because he needs that -- 19 to know that. 20 . COMMISSIONER MULROY: And I do not recall 21 the specifics of the previous case. I guess them was -- 22 that case came along with the context of discussions of 23 Bonnie Brae and, perhaps, the City did not have a firm 24 plan at that time of what was going to happen and some 25 discussion occurred on estate-type lots in neighborhoods. Page 14 I This particular -- as time has passed, I 2 recognize with my earlier comment, that staff has put 3 forth a greater effort and a higher level of recognition 4 as to proportionality on variances and costs. And the 5 proposition by slaff to come with a partial variance and 6 narrow the financial contribution to really a pretty small 7 amount compared to past requirements, I thought 8 dcrnonstrated a great degree of consideration by the City, 9 so I'm -- in this case as in front of us does represent a 10 contribution by a homeowner to the public improvements 11 that will happen. If they don't happen they'll get their 12 money back and the proportionality of what's proposed 13 seems to make sense at this time. My recollection is Mr. 14 Johnson last time I think the hardship, because we didn't 15 have -- is -- the benefit of this type of compromise, the 16 hardship, I believe was much greater. So we took the 17 other choice and granted a full variance. This is -- you 18 know, my view is pretty nominal sum for the -- for four 19 acres. 20 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, 21 Conunissioner Mulroy. Did that help, Comanissioner Johnson? 22 Is there any further discussion? Vote, please. The vote 23 carries 6-1 -- I'm sorry, 5-1. Can't add tonight. 24 (COMMISSIONER ROY VOTING IN OPPOSITION.) 25 NOW, for 6B. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION presented. Page 15 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I move approval as 1 2 3 COMMISSIONER APPLE; We have a motion. 4 COMMISSIONER MULROY: FOr the same reason 5 that the reasonableness demonstrated by the City has 6 brought this down to a nominal sum. Thank you. 7 COMMISSIONER APPLE: DO we have a second7 8 COMMISSIONER HOLT: second. 9 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Roy. 10 COMMISSIONER ROY: For the same reason as 11 before, it has been I'm guessing no mom than two months 12 ago that we addressed this same issue and decided to grant 13 a full variance to the next-door neighbor and I don't s~ 14 any reason why we should make any difference. I accept my 15 esteemed colleague's comments, but I feel that it's more 16 important to be consistent. And espechlly considering 17 the extreme rural nature of this road, I'm going to be 18 voting against this proposal. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Mr. Powell, could you 20 offer any additional information in regard to -- 21 MR. POWELL: well, I do think it was more 22 than two months ago, and I don't know if Mr. Vokoun or if 23 Mr. Sahnon -- but I was thinking it was more in terms of 24 probably four or five months, six months, Time kind of 25 flies, and I really don't think it was on your Agenda as Page 16 I near as two months ago. 2 MR. VOKOtr~: I would agree that it was 3 somewhere in that area, and I think also that it was a 4 split vote. 5 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. 6 Commissioner Mulroy. 7 COMMISSIONER MULROY: If I may add a 8 cormnent. I understand where Commissioner Roy is coming 9 from, but it also cuts the other way. I tlfink part of our 10 rationale in granting a full variance is because the 11 choices were such that perhaps the City's position 12 occurred to us as being unreasonable, so, therefore, the 13 full variance was passed. 14 Tonight I tl~nk we should at the same -- if 15 that was our position then, then it's logical to me we 16 should reward tho efforts of City staff of being 17 reasonable with -- if their proposition makes sense, that 18 we should pass it. Thank you. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Roy. 20 COMmiSSIONeR ROY: with all due respect, I 21 don't think it's important whether it was two months or 22 four months or five months. It was very recent, and we 23 had an exlensive discussion. And as I recall I think I 24 voted against the issue at that time, and was ouwoted. 25 So I've come to accept the fact that that OCTOBER 9TH, 2002 Page 13 - Page 16 CondcnscltTM Page 17 1 road is going to be maintained rural. And I believe -- we 2 had the option at the time we made the vote on the 3 adjacent property, we could have done this. Maybe we just 4 didn't think about it or City didn't present to us. But I 5 feel if we gave full variance to the neighbor under the 6 same conditions, I don't see any logic to applying 7 different conditions to this person. So I will -- again, 8 I will be voting against this. 9 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Holt. 10 COMMISSIONF-~ HOLT: Yes. A difference to 11 me is that this is a corner lot and the other was an 12 interior lot. This has two sides that could be the 13 beginning of, you know, si&walks and roads out there, if 14 it ever happens. And the money is being put back and if 15 it never happens, then the money gets returned. So I 16 think there's a big difference in those two sites because 17 if -- we didn't know this one on the corner was coming up, 18 and if we had known, maybe we would have done something 19 different, but we didn't. Thank you. 20 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Watkins. 21 COMMISSIONER WATKINS' Thank you, Madam 22 Chair. I hear us talking about a rural road and I don't 23 think this is a rural road. I think the University of 24 North Texas bought Liberty Christian School which is a 25 short distance down the road. And wbcn you look at our Page 18 1 map, we're going to have to a way to Fort Worth Drive. It 2 may not be Bonnie Brae. And it may not be Roselawn. But 3 it's not a rural road anymore. That's the way I like to 4 remember it going to Hills and Hollows, but it's -- to Boy 5 Scout Camp. But it -- I've got gray hair and it's not a 6 rural road anymore, I think. 7 COMMISSIONER ^PPLE: Thank you. Is there 8 any further discussion? Vote, please. Motion carries 9 5-1. 10 (COMMISSIONER ROY VOTING IN OPPOSITION.) 11 COMMISSIONER APPLE: That just leaves 12 future A~ocnda items. Mr. Powell. 13 M~. POWELL: well, actually, before you get 14 off tiffs last one, I just want to briefly and I didn't 15 really want to impose on your deliberation, but maybe for 16 the benefit of the new members, I really do think that 17 variances and how the Board has treated variances has 18 changed over the last two years. 19 A year ago we had added the regulation that 20 allowed for payment in lieu of actual construction. And 21 I'm not sure if our analysis in terms of the impact or the 22 costs associated with the partial fee has gotten better, 23 but I do think that there has beeu somewhat of a change 24 from a year ago of how variances are looked at, and partly 25 due to the new regulations that we do now have. I don't 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 t9 know if that helped, but -- COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Commissioner Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Are we on the future Agenda items now? COMMISSIONER APPLE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I would like to have examined this ordinance that provides the return of the money after ten years. If they could bring the history of that ordinance and the rationale of the ten years. Perhaps, we might -- it might be beneficial to be looking at five year windows for some of these properties or even three might be more appropriate. And that's just what I would like to review. Thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Staff if you'll take note of that. Without objection, we are adjourned. ?LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 9TH, 2002 Page 17 - Page 19 Item 4P AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET November 19, 2002 Engineering David Hill, 349 - 8314 ,~?;::~'i SUBJECT Consider approval of a partial exaction variance of Section 35.20.3 (B.) of the Code of Ordinance concerning perimeter sidewalk. The 4.357 acre parcel is located on the southwesterly comer of Bonnie Brae and Corbin Road. The property is located in a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district. A single family residence is proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval ora partial variance (5-1) (V02-0022) BACKGROUND Mr. Jerald Yensan RPLS (representing Mr. Shan-Wen Chang, the developer/owner of this property- the Gary Addition) has applied for an exaction variance of Section 35.20.3(B) (concerning perimeter sidewalk) of the Code of Ordinances regarding relief from all costs associated with sidewalk improvements along Bonnie Brae and Corbin Rd. The subject section of the ordinance requires construction improvements along the frontage of the development with city standard sidewalk. South Bonnie Brae, in this section, is currently a paved asphalt 2-lane roadway with no shoulder or sidewalk and with borrow ditches on both sides. Bonnie Brae is classified as a collector street on the Denton Mobility Plan, Roadway Component. Corbin Rd. is currently a gravel roadway with small spots of asphalt with no sidewalk from Bonnie Brae to IH35W and is up to 20fi wide in various locations. The applicant based the reason for the full variance request on the cost for the subject improvements in comparison to the size and type of development. A copy of the applicant's letter is attached. City's staff essentially agrees with the assessment by Mr. Yensan, relative to requiring the developer to be responsible for all of the design and construction of sidewalk for both of these streets. However, some payment by the developer, in this case an average lot cost, is typically requested by he City for instances like this and as is noted below in the Fiscal Information section. The City Council may approve an exaction variance if the following criterion is met: b) Criteria for variances from development exactions. Where the commission funds that the imposition of any development exaction pursuant to these regulations exceeds any reasonable benefit to the property owner or is so excessive as to constitute confiscation of the tract to be platted, it may recommend approval of variances to waive such exaction's, so as to prevent such excess, to the City Council. Waiver of developmental exactions shall be approved by the City Council. Page 1 The price the applicant paid for the parcel, or the cost of the proposed building improvements is not a factor in determining reasonable costs. The City Council must decide if the costs associated with the public improvements required by city regulations are reasonable and consistent for the type of development proposed and are proportional to the demand for services created by the development. OPTIONS 1. Approve full variance 2. Approve full variance with conditions 3. Approve a partial variance 4. Deny variance RECOMMENDATION Staff recommended approval of a partial variance, resulting in the developer's payment of a total of $2,300.00 in lieu of sidewalk design and construction improvements to both Bonnie Brae and Corbin Rd. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval of the partial variance, on October 9, 2002. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval October 9, 2002. of a partial variance on FISCAL INFORMATION City staff estimates typical installation of 8-foot wide sidewalk, required adjacent to a collector street such as Bonnie Brae, at $20/foot and 5-foot sidewalk, required adjacent to a non-collector street such as Corbin Rd., at $12.50/foot. The required sidewalk improvement, for this development, for approximately 350ft of frontage along Bonnie Brae, would cost an estimated $7,000.00 and for approximately 570ft of frontage along Corbin Rd, would cost and estimated $7,125 (total $14,125). City staff understands the cost to construct sidewalk for both of these streets to City standards is prohibitive in the development of a residential lot with a frontage as noted above. Current City ordinance has allowed for a per lot average cost (of a typical lot in a residential area in Denton) payment in lieu of the costs that are associated with the design and construction of full improvements. City staff has determined that the average cost per residential lot for sidewalk improvements as being $2,300 for 8fl wide sidewalk. The fee of $2,300.00 applies per lot even though it may have two or more frontages. Therefore, this single lot fee would for the pavement improvements for both Bonnie Brae and Corbin Rd. In the past staff has recommended and the City Council has granted partial variances for similar developments, based on the cost of such improvements for an average sized lot in the City of Denton. In accordance with the current ordinance, the fee associated with the costs of construction may be posted with the City in lieu of actual construction. The City maintains this money in an interest beating account and if the improvements are not complete, under construction or under design within 10 years (of the time of deposit of this money), the City is required to return the money to the payee(s) with interest. ATTACHMENTS 1. Site location map 2. Applicant's letter 3. Plat Page 2 4. P & Z minutes Prepared By: David Salmon, Assistant Director Engineering Respectfully submitted: Charles Fiedler Director, Engineering Page 3 7 ATTACHMENT 1 NORTH ROSELAWN - ~ ANDMARK SURVEYORS, INC. September23, 2002 ATTACHMENT 2 Applicant's Letter 4238 1-35 North Denton, Texas 76207-3408 (940) 382-4016 Fax (940) 387-9784 landmarksv@aol.com City of Denton, Engineering Department David Salmon, P.E. t 1t West McKinney St. Denton, TX 76201 Re: Gary Addition variance request Dear Mr. Salmon, The variance being asked for in this case is a general "blanket" variance, as it all relates to paving, curb and gutter, sidewalks and storm drain that would all result from the requirement for perimeer paving, and is a repeat of the variance we asked for and got, on the Liverpool Addition. The Gary Addition is immediatly adjacent to, and north of Liverpool Addition. I am enclosing a copy of the letter I wrote to you on April 29, 2002 regarding Variance requests for Liverpool Addition, and would ask taht you consider this an identical request on behalf of the Gary Addition. 09-20-02P 4:52 RCVD April 29, 2002 City of Denton, Engineering Department David Salmon, P.E. 1t I WeSt McKinney St. Denton, TX 76201 Re: Liverpool Addition variance request Dear Mr. Salmon, This is to further specify what we have asked for In terms of the two variance requests that have already been submitted for the Liverpool Addition: 1)The requests were submitted for perimeter paving, sidewalk and storm drain improvements along the west side of South Bonnie Brae, just north of Roselawn. 2) I understand that engineering has a position that Mr Barber (the owner) could ask for a partial variance that would allow him to pay $7700 in lieu of actually making these Improvements, and engineering would support such a request. 3) I would like to hereby challenge that position, and ask for a full variance for the following reasons; SEP 2 0 ZOOZ PLANNING & DEVELOPMEN the curb and gutter would more than likely be above and west of the existing ditch. d. It is our feeling, particularly with the new zoning in effect, and given the already existing Solar Way Addition to the north, and there being a substantial portion in flood zone north of Solar Way and west of Laurel Addition that is undevelopable, that very little development will occur in this area, and unless the City has a bond election for specific road improvements in this area, the road construction will never take place. e. Mr. Barber intends to build one single family residence on a 5 acre tract of land, and it should not be his responsibility to partake in development of 9,000 feet of roadway unless all property owners on each side are assessed equally. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 09-20-02P04:52 RCVD s CondonsoltTM 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 COMMISSIONER APPLE; Good evening. I'd 3 like to call to order the regular meeting of the Planning 4 and Zoning Commission for the City of Denton, Texas for 5 this Wednesday, October the 9th, 2002. If you'll please 6 join us in standing to say the pledge of allegiance to the 7 United States flag and the Texas flag. 8 (Thereupon, the Pledges of Allegiance were 9 recited.) 10 COMMISSIONER APPLE: JUst for informational 1 1 purposes this evening, Commissioner Powell has an excused 12 absence this evening. And Commissioner Roy has called and 13 let us know that he will be late. We do have a quorum, so 14 we'll just jump right into our Consent Agenda. No, I'm 15 sorry. The first item is to consider approval of the 16 minutes for September the 25th, 2002. Conm~issioners, do 17 I have any corrections or a motion? Commissioner Mukoy. 18 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Ye, i. Help my memory. 19 I don't believe -- member seeing Mr. Snyder here 20 September 25th. 21 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I would agree with 22 that. That's probably a correction that needs to be made. 23 The minutes do indicate that Ed Snyder was present rather 24 than Dogie Palumbo. And I don't think Dottle would 25 appreciate that, getting those mixed up. Page 2 1 I had one small correction, also. Oa page 2 75, next to the last cormnent. Commissioner Apple, it says 3 it was "significant." That should read it was 4 "insignificant." Are there any more corrections? We have 5 a motion -- 6 COMMISSIONER MULROY: second. Is there a 7 motion on the floor? 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: No. Is there a 9 motion.'? We have corrections -- 10 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. I move 11 approval -- move approval with the two corrections. 12 COMMISSIONER WATKINS: second. 13 COMMISSIONER APPLE: W6 have a motion and a 14 second, and I see Commissioner Roy has joined us. Vote, 15 please. Since you joined us late, Commissioner Roy, we're 16 voting on the minutes of the previous meeting. 17 COMMISSIONER ROY: Madam Chairman, I can't 18 vote because I don't know what the corrections were. I'm 19 sorry. So I will abstain. 20 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Motion 21 carries 5-0 with one abstention by Cormnissioner Roy. Thc 22 next item is our Consent Agenda, which has Items 3, 4, 5A 23 and B and 6A and B -- I'm sorry. Items 3 and 4. I'm so 24 sorry, i'm trying to move too quickly. Are there any 25 comments or -- Page 3 I COMMISSIONER MULROY: I'm ready to make a 2 motion, Madam Chair. 3 COMMISSIONER A?PLE: All right. 4 Commissioner Mulroy. $ COMMISSIONER MULROY: I move approval of 6 the Consent Agenda. 7 COMMISSIONER ROY: second. 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: We have a motion and a 9 second to approve the Consent Agenda. Is there any 10 discussion? Vote, please. Commissioner Mulroy and hanto,. lotl r es/% I - 14 individual consideration, And I believe Mr, Vokoun with 15 the City staff will bring you the presentation. 16 MR. voKotn,~: Good evening, Madam Chair. 17 Ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, Bud Vokoun, 18 Engineering. You have before you a request by Mr. Weldon 19 McBride, the applicant and owner of this property. The 20 Weldon Addition, who has applied for two exaction 21 variances. The one acre parcel is loca~xt on the easterly 22 side of Mockingbird Lane and just south of Mingo Road. 23 The property is located in a neigllborhood residential 4 24 zoning district. 25 The property is presently being subdivided Page 4 t into two lots and one resident on one of the lots 2 currently exists. The first request is for variance 3 02-0021, which concerns Section 35.20.3B of the Code of 4 Ordinance concerning parameter sidewalks. 5 Thc second request is for variance 02-0023 6 that concerns Section 35.20.2L3A of the Code of Ordinance 7 concerning parameter streets. Site is right in this area. 8 There currently is a residence in this area and they're 9 subdividing to provide another residence in this area. 10 The request is for parameter paving and sidewalk. 11 Staff agrees that the applicant because of 12 the type of development and the size of the development 13 should not be required to pay the full requirements of the 14 design of construction, both the sidewalk and of the 15 paving, however, we do -- staff does believe that the 16 applicant should be -- pay its fair share, not unlike what 17 a normal subdivision for a large development is where a 18 developer comes in, builds the roads, builds the 19 sidewalks, builds the other infrastructure and then passes 20 that cost on to each of the lots, and then the homeowner. 21 We feel that the homeowner should be 22 required to pay an average and, therefore, staff is 23 recommending a partial variance for both of these. 24 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. 25 Commissioners, do we have any questions? Commissioner PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 9TH, 2002 Page 1 - Page 4 CondenseItTM Page 5 I Johnson, 2 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: The -- the sidewalk 3 would run along the western side of the property; is that 4 right? 5 MR. VOKOUN: Yes, sir. The requirements 6 for parameter sidewalk, which would include the -- which 7 is thc sidewalk on the east side of Mockingbird or the 8 west side of thc property. 9 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: And it would 10 terminate at the railroad? 11 MR. VOKOUN: It would terminate at the 12 northem property, which is the southern right-of-way for 13 the railroad, just to give you an idea of current 14 situation out there. We have a large development if 15 you've driven out there recently, that's presently being 16 constructed in which they're being required to put both 17 sidewalk and roadway on this side of Audra and 18 Mockingbird. There's currently sidewalk and full road 19 width on this side of the road. And there's sidewalk and 20 road width on this -- and as well as in this area. 21 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: And the ordinance is 22 -- give me an idea exactly what the ordinance says 23 regarding the sidewalks. !24 MR. VOKOUN: The ordinance requires full 25 installation of sidewalk. In this case here, it's eight 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 i4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 7 Page 6 i feet wide required because Mockingbird is a collector 2 street. And it's required to be installed along a full 3 frontage. 4 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay. And there are 5 no provisions in the ordinance for anyplace where a 6 sidewalk might be deemed inappropriate. It just says 7 period. If it's a collector street, there's a sidewalk, 8 right? 9 MR. VOKOCrr~: That's correct. In this case I0 here we're saying that -- we're asking that the applicant 11 provide the money for the cost of this. It will be put in 12 an account that will be held for ten years with interest. 13 At the end of ten years, if the City hasn't either 14 constructed, is in the process of constructing the 15 improvements, then the applicant gets the money back. 16 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: okay. Does the 17 ordinance allow for reduction of the amount to be charged? 18 I mean, what you're doing is you're recommending that he 19 not be charged the full amount for the sidewalk, but 20 charged as if this was an average lot? 21 MR, VOKOUN: That's correct. 22 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON,. Okay. Then the 23 ordinance provides for that? 24 MR. VOKOUN: The ordinance provides for a i25 partial exaction, yes. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: okay. MR. voKou'~: 'the fee was determined based upon calculations by City staff some years ago. That doesn't mean that Planning and Zoning Commission could recommend an even smaller amount. That's just a typical average that we bring to the Commission. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Mr. Vokoun, Mr. Powell would like to help address Commissioner Jolnlson's question. MR. POWELL: If I may, a variance is the process by which a standard in the Code whether it's subdivision or zoning is to be not imposed on a property as it's developed. So the mechanism under the Code is to seek a variance. You can grant a full variance and say that no sidewalk or parameter paving is required. What staff has proposed to you is, is them something in between there as Mr. Vokoun pointed out? There also is two different types of variances, a hardship variance, which someone is physically unable, in our opinion, to build something or do it. And then there's an exaction variance where it really relates more to their desire not to do it primarily because of cost factors. In this case there's no obstruction or reason why they couldn't build the sidmvalk or couldn't do Page 8 I the parameter paving and that's why it's an exaction 2 variance and not a hardship variance. 3 MR. SALMON: one other item that I would 4 like to add is that in this ease the ordinance does allow 5 as Mr. Vokoun indicated fees in lleu of actual 6 construction. And the reason we're proposing a partial 7 variance is because one of the lots already has a house on 8 it. So even though the subdivision is two lots, we've 9 only calculated the fee based on one lot because they're 10 only adding one house. They're not building two brand new 11 houses. 12 C~MMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Arc there 13 any more questions? Commissioners? Is the applicant 14 hem, Mr. Vokoun? 15 MR. VOKOUN: I'm not aware that he is. Oh, 16 yes. 17 COMMISS~OtqeR ^PeLE: would you like to 18 address the Commission at all? 19 MR. MCSmr)E: oh, I guess I could. I have 20 a hearing problem. I heard most of what he said. 21 COMMISSIONER APPLU: If yOU would just 22 speak into that microphone and give us your name and 23 address. 24 Ma. Me,SIDe: okay. Weldon McBride. I've 25 had the property for a couple of years. I've sold a lot PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 9TH, 2002 Page 5 - Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I2 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 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CondenseltTM Page 9 to this Mexican couple about a year ago if I can get it 1 subdivided. The sidewalk in question leads up to the 2 railroad track. So that's -- you know, that's why I asked 3 for the variance. It would be -- a sidewalk would be 4 incompatible with the neighborhood. There's not any 5 around. The property adjacent is -- no sidewalk. The 6 property across the street, no sidewalk. There is a 7 sidewalk -- let's sec, up on the hill by a subdivision, g It had a three foot sidewalk, but that's it. 9 Then it crosses a little ravine that's in 10 the -- I think it's in the flood plain, the little ravine 11 is. It's a low, low elevation. So that's all I -- you 12 know, that -- I've already spent more on the property than 13 I think that -- I mean, on getting it done than I'm going I4 to get. If I built a sidewalk, I wouldn't -- if I had to 15 build a sidewalk, I won't sell the property because it 16 would be cost-prohibitive. Wouldn't be -- wouldn't be an' 17 good. Thank you. 18 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Are there any 19 questions for Mr. McBride? Thank you, sir. ; 20 MR. MCBRIDE: Sure. 21 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Holt. 22 COMMISSIONER HOLT: rll make a motion that 23 the exaction variance be approved. 24 COMMISSIONER MULROY: second. 25 Page 10 COMMISSIONER APPLE: It's been moved and 1 seconded. Any discussion7 Vole, please. Motion carries 2 6-0. 3 Next addressing Agenda Item 5B. 4 COMMISSIONI~t. HOLT: Make a motion that the 5 variance be approved, the exaction variance be approved 6 for 5B. 7 COMMISSIONER MULROY: second. 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: we have a motion and a 9 second. Any discussion? Vote, please. Commissioner 10 Mukoy, your vote didn't register. Thanks. Motion 11 carries 6-0. 12 The next item for individual consideration 13 is Itmn 6 regarding Gary Addition. And, again, Mr. Vokoun 14 will present. 15 MR. VOKOUN: Thank you, again. Mr. lerald 16 Yensan representing Mr. Shun-Wen Chang, the developer of 17 this property, the Gary Addition has applied for two 18 exaction variances. The 4.357 acre parcel is located on 19 the southwesterly comer of Bonnie Brae and Corbin Road. 20 The property is located in a neighborhood 2 zoning 21 district. A single family residence is proposed. This 22 concerns variance 02~002, which concerns Section 35.20.3B 23 of thc Code of Ordinance concerning parameter sidewalk as 24 well as variance 02-0024, it concerns Section 35.20.2L2 25 OCTOBER 9TH, 2002 Page 11 concerning parameter paving. Same situation as the previous ittan. Tho site located right hem. A closer view indicates that it has property both on Corbln as well as on Bonnie Brae. Staff's recommendation is for a partial variance. Staff is concerned with the property owner being required as by Code to build both and improve Corbin and Bonnie Brae, both pavement and sidewalk, we feel that the costs are exorbitant for this type of situation and, therefore, recommending the partial variance. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Commissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: Mr. Vokoun, in the backup material, the applicant states that he applied for and received these exaction variances for the property just to the south of it. I seem to recall that was the case, but could you verify that for me, please? MR. VOKOU~: Yes, they got a full variance on both the sidewalk and the pavement. And the property is this property right hem. COMMISSIONER ROY: thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: IS the applicant present? Commissioners, what's your pleasure? Commissioner Mukoy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I'm going to make a Page 12 motion to approve the variance as submitted, and with a short explanation that I know we have some history, but I'm looking at the City staff having reduced the pain to a small level to accommodate an extraordinary situation, and it seems their recommendation is reasonable in proportionality to the lot. So I'm moving approval as presented. COMMISSIONER HOLT: second. COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Mukoy, could you clarify that's the full variance? COMMISSIONER MULROY: AS presented by staff. COMMISSIONER APPLE'. And that is for Item A. We do need two separate motions again. We have a motion as presented by staff and a second. Any discussion? Cormuissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: Yes. It was just confirmed to us that the site just south of it, this Commission reviewed and provided a full variance for thc sidewalk in a very recent meeting, as I recall. So I will be voting against the motion because I feel that we need to be consistent in our judgment. And I don't see any differcnee between this case and the property just to the south of it. So I will be voting against the motion which I understand to be as Page 9 - Page 12 CondcnscItTM Page 13 1 per the staff recommendation to just provide a smaller fee 2 than what would normally be provided. So I will be votin 3 against the motion. 4 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Any further 5 discussion? Coma~issioner Johnson. 6 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Is that a true 7 statement that it was a full variance? Do we absolutely 8 know that? 9 MR. VOKOUN: Yes, sir. It was a full 10 variance. 11 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay. Maybe 12 Commissioner Mulroy could help me out with this a little 13 bit. Why would we go part way on one if we've gone all 14 the way on the other one? Is that a legal question? 15 COMMISSIONER MLILROY: If you address it to 16 the Chair. 17 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Mulroy, 18 I'll let you answer his question because he needs that -- 19 to know that. 20 . COMMISSIONER MULROY: And I do not recall 21 the specifics of the previous case. I guess them was -- 22 that case came along with the context of discussions of 23 Bonnie Brae and, perhaps, the City did not have a firm 24 plan at that time of what was going to happen and some 25 discussion occurred on estate-type lots in neighborhoods. Page 14 I This particular -- as time has passed, I 2 recognize with my earlier comment, that staff has put 3 forth a greater effort and a higher level of recognition 4 as to proportionality on variances and costs. And the 5 proposition by slaff to come with a partial variance and 6 narrow the financial contribution to really a pretty small 7 amount compared to past requirements, I thought 8 dcrnonstrated a great degree of consideration by the City, 9 so I'm -- in this case as in front of us does represent a 10 contribution by a homeowner to the public improvements 11 that will happen. If they don't happen they'll get their 12 money back and the proportionality of what's proposed 13 seems to make sense at this time. My recollection is Mr. 14 Johnson last time I think the hardship, because we didn't 15 have -- is -- the benefit of this type of compromise, the 16 hardship, I believe was much greater. So we took the 17 other choice and granted a full variance. This is -- you 18 know, my view is pretty nominal sum for the -- for four 19 acres. 20 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, 21 Conunissioner Mulroy. Did that help, Comanissioner Johnson? 22 Is there any further discussion? Vote, please. The vote 23 carries 6-1 -- I'm sorry, 5-1. Can't add tonight. 24 (COMMISSIONER ROY VOTING IN OPPOSITION.) 25 NOW, for 6B. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION presented. Page 15 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I move approval as 1 2 3 COMMISSIONER APPLE; We have a motion. 4 COMMISSIONER MULROY: FOr the same reason 5 that the reasonableness demonstrated by the City has 6 brought this down to a nominal sum. Thank you. 7 COMMISSIONER APPLE: DO we have a second7 8 COMMISSIONER HOLT: second. 9 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Roy. 10 COMMISSIONER ROY: For the same reason as 11 before, it has been I'm guessing no mom than two months 12 ago that we addressed this same issue and decided to grant 13 a full variance to the next-door neighbor and I don't s~ 14 any reason why we should make any difference. I accept my 15 esteemed colleague's comments, but I feel that it's more 16 important to be consistent. And espechlly considering 17 the extreme rural nature of this road, I'm going to be 18 voting against this proposal. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Mr. Powell, could you 20 offer any additional information in regard to -- 21 MR. POWELL: well, I do think it was more 22 than two months ago, and I don't know if Mr. Vokoun or if 23 Mr. Sahnon -- but I was thinking it was more in terms of 24 probably four or five months, six months, Time kind of 25 flies, and I really don't think it was on your Agenda as Page 16 I near as two months ago. 2 MR. VOKOtr~: I would agree that it was 3 somewhere in that area, and I think also that it was a 4 split vote. 5 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. 6 Commissioner Mulroy. 7 COMMISSIONER MULROY: If I may add a 8 cormnent. I understand where Commissioner Roy is coming 9 from, but it also cuts the other way. I tlfink part of our 10 rationale in granting a full variance is because the 11 choices were such that perhaps the City's position 12 occurred to us as being unreasonable, so, therefore, the 13 full variance was passed. 14 Tonight I tl~nk we should at the same -- if 15 that was our position then, then it's logical to me we 16 should reward tho efforts of City staff of being 17 reasonable with -- if their proposition makes sense, that 18 we should pass it. Thank you. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Roy. 20 COMmiSSIONeR ROY: with all due respect, I 21 don't think it's important whether it was two months or 22 four months or five months. It was very recent, and we 23 had an exlensive discussion. And as I recall I think I 24 voted against the issue at that time, and was ouwoted. 25 So I've come to accept the fact that that OCTOBER 9TH, 2002 Page 13 - Page 16 CondcnscltTM Page 17 1 road is going to be maintained rural. And I believe -- we 2 had the option at the time we made the vote on the 3 adjacent property, we could have done this. Maybe we just 4 didn't think about it or City didn't present to us. But I 5 feel if we gave full variance to the neighbor under the 6 same conditions, I don't see any logic to applying 7 different conditions to this person. So I will -- again, 8 I will be voting against this. 9 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Holt. 10 COMMISSIONF-~ HOLT: Yes. A difference to 11 me is that this is a corner lot and the other was an 12 interior lot. This has two sides that could be the 13 beginning of, you know, si&walks and roads out there, if 14 it ever happens. And the money is being put back and if 15 it never happens, then the money gets returned. So I 16 think there's a big difference in those two sites because 17 if -- we didn't know this one on the corner was coming up, 18 and if we had known, maybe we would have done something 19 different, but we didn't. Thank you. 20 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Watkins. 21 COMMISSIONER WATKINS' Thank you, Madam 22 Chair. I hear us talking about a rural road and I don't 23 think this is a rural road. I think the University of 24 North Texas bought Liberty Christian School which is a 25 short distance down the road. And wbcn you look at our Page 18 1 map, we're going to have to a way to Fort Worth Drive. It 2 may not be Bonnie Brae. And it may not be Roselawn. But 3 it's not a rural road anymore. That's the way I like to 4 remember it going to Hills and Hollows, but it's -- to Boy 5 Scout Camp. But it -- I've got gray hair and it's not a 6 rural road anymore, I think. 7 COMMISSIONER ^PPLE: Thank you. Is there 8 any further discussion? Vote, please. Motion carries 9 5-1. 10 (COMMISSIONER ROY VOTING IN OPPOSITION.) 11 COMMISSIONER APPLE: That just leaves 12 future A~ocnda items. Mr. Powell. 13 M~. POWELL: well, actually, before you get 14 off tiffs last one, I just want to briefly and I didn't 15 really want to impose on your deliberation, but maybe for 16 the benefit of the new members, I really do think that 17 variances and how the Board has treated variances has 18 changed over the last two years. 19 A year ago we had added the regulation that 20 allowed for payment in lieu of actual construction. And 21 I'm not sure if our analysis in terms of the impact or the 22 costs associated with the partial fee has gotten better, 23 but I do think that there has beeu somewhat of a change 24 from a year ago of how variances are looked at, and partly 25 due to the new regulations that we do now have. I don't 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 t9 know if that helped, but -- COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Commissioner Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Are we on the future Agenda items now? COMMISSIONER APPLE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I would like to have examined this ordinance that provides the return of the money after ten years. If they could bring the history of that ordinance and the rationale of the ten years. Perhaps, we might -- it might be beneficial to be looking at five year windows for some of these properties or even three might be more appropriate. And that's just what I would like to review. Thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Staff if you'll take note of that. Without objection, we are adjourned. ?LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 9TH, 2002 Page 17 - Page 19 Item 40 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET November 19, 2002 Engineering David Hill, 349 - 8314 ..;~,~¢r' SUBJECT Consider approval of a resolution of the City of Denton, Texas supporting a "Safe Routes to Schools" grant application to the Texas Department of Transportation for the funding of the construction of sidewalks along Ryan Road and providing for an effective date. BACKGROUND Attached is the Safe Routes to Schools" call for projects sent to the City of Denton from the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). It includes some basic information about the program. In brief, some of the key features are as follows: · Can be used for sidewalks, bike paths, traffic calming, at grade and grade separated street crossings. · Only $3,000,000 available state wide and applications to be submitted by Dec. 6th. Application to include detailed cost estimate. · Maximum reimbursement per project is $500,000 · Requires 20% local match if off system. On system projects do not require local match. Local match may be provided in whole or part by in-kind services. · Requires Local Project Advance Funding Agreement (LPAFA) within 1 year of project selection. · Local government fronts the project and receives federal reimbursement. · Project to be within 2-mile radius of school and must be part of a comprehensive Traffic Safety Plan. · Project may not interfere with any proposed TxDOT projects. · All donations of ROW, services, or materials need to be documented with the application. · Eminent Domain is not permitted to obtain right of way or easements. · No reimbursable costs or ROW negotiation may occur prior to execution of LPAFA and Federal Highway Administration authorization of funding. Page 1 Project has to be endorsed by the local school district as well as sponsoring local government. Additional letters of support from PTA's, neighborhood associations, etc are encouraged. · Project design must comply with all federal, state and local guidelines. · TxDOT is responsible for construction administration and final acceptance of all selected projects. Staff has selected the Ryan Road sidewalk for the application for a number of reasons. The sidewalk will connect several subdivisions to Wayne Ryan Elementary School. The project has been requested by DISD so receiving documentation of the school district's support should not be difficult. Several residents in the neighborhood have requested the sidewalk. The sidewalk is shown on the City of Denton's adopted Pedestrian & Bicycle component of the Mobility Plan. The Ryan Road Route Study commissioned by the City of Denton in October of 2001 has identified placement of the proposed sidewalk so that it should not conflict with future Ryan Road reconstruction. The existing route study already has a rough cost estimate for the sidewalk. The project cost is well within the program limits. There are no problems anticipated in obtaining the needed fight of way or easements. Intelligent Transportation Solutions (ITS), the city's transportation consultant, will prepare the application and is in the process of obtaining documentation from DISD showing support for the project. OPTIONS 1. Approve the resolution 2. Disapprove the resolution RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the resolution. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW None FISCAL INFORMATION The proposed sidewalk will cost approximately $275,000 to construct. In accordance with the conditions of the grant, if the City receives and decides to accept it, a 20% match is required. The 20% match equates to $55,000 based on the rough estimate. The 20% match may be obtained by providing funding to TxDOT through a Local Project Advance Funding Agreement, donation of materials, donation of fight of way, or in-kind services. A more detailed and accurate estimate will be completed as pan of the grant application. ATTACHMENTS 1. Area map 2. Program Call 3. Resolution Page 2 Prepared By: David Salmon, Assistant Director Engineering Respectfully submitted: Charles Fiedler Director, Engineering Page 3 -16-0 Dep r men of 'Transportation P.O. BOX 133067 · DALLAS, TEXAS 75313-3.067 · (214) 320-6100 August 6, 2002 RCVD Re: Safe Routes to School Program 2002 Program Call Dear Sir or Madam Please see the attached announcement of the 2002 Safe Routes t° School Program Call. The Dallas District contact for the Safe Routes to School Program is Melanie Young, P.E. Please feel free to contact Ms. Young at (214) 320-6229 or via e-mail at myoung~dot.state.tx.us with any questions you may have. Please note that applications are due to be returned to the Dallas District Office, P. O. Box 133067, Dallas, TX 75313-3067, no later than 5:00 p.m., Friday, December 6, 2002. Sincerely, Attachment Te.~.y M. Sams, P.E. Director of Transportation Operations An Equal Opportunity Employer Texas Department of Transportation DEWITT C. GREER STATE HtGHYC~Y BLDG.- 125 E l lTH STREET- AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.2483, (512)463.8585 August 2, 2002 Safe Routes to School Program 2002 Program Call To All Interested Parties: The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is pleased to announce the 2002 Program Call for project proposals for the Safe Routes to School (SRS) Program as created by House Bill 2204 of the 77~ Texa.s Legislature. Funding in the amount of $3 million will be available for the 2002 SRS Program. The SRS Program is a competitive construction program designed to improve children's safety in and around school areas. Although ,applications for the program may only be submitted by cities and counties, we encourage school districts and other interested parties to develop projects in conjunction with the appropriate city or county. There are many different types of improvements that can be made under this program. Eligible types of SRS projects are: sidewalk improvements such as new sidewalks, widened sidewalks, sidewalk gap closures, sidewalk repairs, curb cuts for ramps, and the construction of curbs and gutters; pedestrian/bicycle crossing improvements such as new or upgraded traffic signals, .crosswalks, median refuges, pavement markings, traffic signs, pedestrian or bicycle over-crossings and under-crossings, flashing beacons, traffic signal phasing extensions, bicycle sensitive actuation devices, pedestrian activated signal upgrades, and sight distance improvements; on-street bicycle facilities such as new or upgraded bicycle lanes, widened outside lanes or roadway shouiders, geometric improvements, turning lanes, ci~annelization and roadway realignment, traffic signs, and pavement markings; traffic diversion improvements including improved pick-up/drop-off areas, separation of pedestrians and bicycles from vehicular traffic adjacent to school facilities, and traffic diversion away from school zones or designated routes to a school; off-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities including exclusive multi-use bicycle or pedestrian trails and pathways; and traffic calming measure for off-system roads such as roundabouts, traffic circles, curb extensions at intersections that reduce curb-to-curb roadway travel widths, center islands, full and half-street closures, and other speed reduction techniques. Projects must be located on public property and within a 2-mile radius of impacted school(s). "School" is defined as a public or pdvate elementary, intermediate, middle, junior high or high school. Eligible projects can be located either on or off the state highway system. ~1 !nt~erested Parties -2- August 2, 2002 The 2002 SRS Program is funded through federal transportation construction funds and will operate on a cost reimbursement basis. This means that eligible costs can only be reimbursed after the applicant has actually expended them~ In addition, no costs can be incurred until a project is selected for funding by the Texas Transportation Commission (Commission) and a Local Project Advance Funding Agreement has been executed. Some key requirements of the SRS Program are as-follows: The maximum federal funds requested for any single project cannot exceed $500,000 The funds approved by the Commission for a project are a fixed amount. Applicants are responsible for all cost overruns above the approved funds. Selected projects are eligible for reimbursement of up to 80 percent of allowable cost, which may include plans, specifications, estimates, environmental mitigation, acquisition of real property, constr=uction, construction management, administrative costs and other expenses. Applicants must provide a 20 percent local contribution toward the total cost of the project when the project is located on m~nicipal or county right of way. This 20 percent local contribution will not be required if the project is located on the state highway system. To nominate a project, the city or county must file its application, in the form prescribed by the department, with the district engineer of the district office responsible for the area in which the proposed SRS project will be implemented. Please note that we anticipate a high number of applications for the limited amount of funding. Therefore, we encourage you to submit your highest priority projects. TxDOT must receive completed applications no later than 5:00 p.m., Friday, December 6, 2002. Thank you for your interest in the SRS Program. The rules that apply to this program are located in the Texas Administrative Code under {}{}25.501 - 25.504. Information regarding the program, program guide, local district information, and application form are available from the department's district offices, the web site www.dot.state.tx.us/trafficsafety/srs, by contacting the Traffic Operations Division at (512) 416-3118, or by E-mail at trftepgm@dot.state.l:x.us. Sincerely, Mi~el W. Behrens, P.E. Executive Director CC: Texas Transportation Commission Administration All District Engineers Dan Reagan, Federal Highway Administration Gayle Cummins, Texas Bicycle Coalition S:\Our Documents\Resolutions\02\School Program Application Res.doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR THE FUNDING OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS ALONG RYAN ROAD IN THE CITY OF DENTON, IN DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Texas Department of Transportation has announced a 2002 Program Call for project proposals for the Safe Routes to School Program; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Safe Routes to School Program is to improve safety in and around school areas; and WHEREAS, Wayne Stuart Ryan Elementary School located at 528 Ryan Road in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas was opened in October of 2001; and WHEREAS, the City has idemified and evaluated the need for sidewalks along Ryan Road to separate children walking to Wayne Stuart Ryan Elementary School from motor vehicles, to improve pedestrian pathways, and to improve children's ability to cross streets; and WHEREAS, the City has completed a route study of Ryan Road, including the invemorying existing sidewalks and right-of-way and analyzed the need for sidewalks, sidewalk relocations and additional right-of-way that would allow the construction of the sidewalk prior to widening of Ryan Road; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1. The City of Demon endorses and supports the Safe Routes to Schools Program application for the funding of the construction of sidewalks along Ryan Road in Demon County, Texas. SECTION 2. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2002. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR BY: S:\Our Documents\Resolutions\02\School Program Application Res.doc APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Item 4R AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CITY ATTORNEY: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET November 19, 2002 Legal Department Herbert L. Prouty, City Attorney SUBJECT.- City of Denton's 2003 State Legislative Program. BACKGROUND. - The City Council has met in workshops, participated in legislative seminars and have had input from the city staff and various groups to develop the City of Demon's 2003 State Legislative Program. Attached is a resolution adopting the City of Demon's 2003 State Legislative Program. OPTIONS. - The City Council may adopt the resolution and the City of Demon's 2003 State Legislative Program or direct staff to make changes and then adopt the legislative program as amended. Respectfully submitted, Herbert L. Prouty City Attorney J: Nox, ember 19, 2002 Backa~p 2003 Legislalix, e Program agenda informalion- legis program.doc RESOLUTION NO, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ADOPTING THE CITY OF DENTON'S 2003 STATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Seventh-eighth Texas Legislature will convene in January, 2003; and WHEREAS, many legislative issues affecting local government will be considered; and WHEREAS, the City of Denton has developed a legislative program for consideration by the Legislature; NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1: That the City of Denton's 2003 State Legislative Program for the City of Denton is adopted as set tbrth in Attachment "A", incorporated herein and made a part of this resolution lbr all purposes. SECTION 2: That the Mayor and City Council, City Manager and the City Attorney shall communicate the items included in the state legislative program to members of the Texas Legislature. SECTION 3: That, for those items designated as priority, the City Attorney is directed to draft appropriate legislation, seek a sponsor, and actively pursue passage of such legislation by providing testimony from the Mayor and City Council and City staff and through other appropriate means. SECTION 4: That, roi' those items designated as support, the Mayor and City Council, City Manager and the City Attorney shall actively attempt to obtain passage of the appropriate legislation if it is introduced by some other entity. SECTION 5: That, for those items designated as endorse by the City of Denton or the Texas Municipal League, the City Manager and the City Attorney are directed as time allows to communicate to appropriate individuals the City Council's general support of such legislation. SECTION 6: That the City Manager and the City Attorney are directed to oppose any legislation which diminishes the City of Denton's home-rule authority. SECTION 7: This resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its passage in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Denton and it is accordingly so resolved. City of Dcnto~t 2003 Sta~c Legislative Program Page 4 PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of November, 2003. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CiTY ATTORNEY City of Dentoit 2o03 State Leglglalive I)rt~g~am Page 5 Attachment A Denton's Legislative Priorities The City of Demon has adopted the following legislative issues as priority issues for the 78th Legislative Session. The City Council of the City of Denton has met in workshops, participated in legislative seminars and have received information from city staff and various groups within the community to set these priorities. Homeland Security · Support legislation amending Chapter 418 of the Texas Government Code to allow increased funding for Homeland Security needs. · Support legislation to limit disclosure of public information that might benefit terrorist organizations. · Support legislation to allow security briefings in closed session under the Open Meetings Act Background Information. After September 11, cities are setting new priorities: Fire, police EMS and health officials need special equipment and extra personnel to respond to anthrax alarms, which in some mid-sized cities have totaled as many as 60 calls in one day. Cities must pay overtime for police to patrol power and water treatment plants and for training to respond to biological or chemical attacks. Security for power and water infrastructure is funded in most cities through the water and electric utilities, which are financed by customer charges. For other costs, cities depend on taxes, and sales tax revenues are declining in most areas. Federal grant money should be passed through to local governments, who are first responders and responsible for protecting citizen's water supply and electric power. Amendments to Chapter 418 of the Texas Government Code may be necessary to allow the Governor's Division of Emergency Management to provide technical and financial tools to assist municipal governments with implementing emergency management plans and services. Texas Open Records Act - does not contain an exception for documents containing security measures. The Open Meetings Act contains a provision that allows the city council to meet in closed session to discuss security devices but not overall security measures. Cities need to be able to protect security sensitive documents and closed sessions concerning security issues so that terrorists will not have access to information on security. Transportation Proposals The Texas Municipal League has put together an excellent program to increase the level and availability of state transportation funding, and Denton is fully behind these efforts. TML will: · Support legislation that would: Provide cities with revenue that can be used for transportation funding. Make it simpler to convert to dedicated sales tax revenue for street repair from sales tax revenue dedicated to any other purpose. Allow for a 1/8 cent street maintenance sales tax Dedicate state revenue to the Texas Mobility Fund. Establish desired levels of service for state-funded transportation infrastructure. Allow TXDOT to conduct protective right-of-way acquisition procedures, including right-of-way map and field note preparation, appraisal of right-of- way parcels at a time commencing after the final public meeting based on final determination by TxDOT as to the accuracy of the right-of-way requirements established on the geometric design schematic for the final meeting. Increase Texas trucking road use fees, but only as may be required to allow Texas to increase fees on out of state trucks, and allocate the resulting revenue to Fund 6 for highway funding. · Endorse legislation that would advance the concept of the Trans Texas Corridor as advocated by Governor Rick Perry, in pilot projects, as long as investment in other elements of transportation infrastructure is not endangered and adequate public input is allowed. · Oppose legislation that would further divert the state's transportation-related revenue to non-transportation projects. Background Information: Traffic congestion is a major problem in Denton. We have several major highways running through our city (identified on page 3). TXDOT procedures must be streamlined and a hard look at the development of mass transit systems in Texas is needed. Denton's bond election of January 2000 included for the first time a significant amount of bond money for the study of mass transit systems. If we ranked all of the economies and areas of the world, Texas would rank number 11. Texas has the second highest population among the 50 states, and the Dallas-Ft. Worth-Denton area is growing rapidly. Texas is in need of a first class transportation system to serve this economy and its citizens. Erosion of local control over the Right-of-way · Oppose legislation limiting the ability of cities to control the right-of-way and to collect franchise fees. Background Information. Under current federal or state law, no laws exist that reduce the authority of cities to exercise their police powers for the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the public in connection with the use of city streets and rights-of way by telecommunication companies and other entities providing service... The types of regulations that cities may impose on entities that use the city's right of way are numerous and will withstand legal challenge because they are reasonably connected to protection of the health, safety, or welfare of the public. Denton urges the Legislature not to adopt new legislation that limits the ability of cities to control the right of way. Cities collect franchise fees as compensation for the use of the right of way. These fees reimburse the public for the use of the right of way. Denton urges the Legislature not to adopt legislation that limits cities ability to collect franchise fees. Economic Development Issues · Retain a state level presence and retain beneficial programs in Economic Development. Background Information: The state plays an important role in attracting business investment, encouraging business growth, and supporting local economic development recruitment and retention efforts. As the Texas Department of Economic Development undergoes Sunset Review, we support the continuation of a revitalized state economic development entity whose functions include promoting Texas as a desirable location for future business expansions, new capital investment and local recruitment and retention programs. Denton supports improved public education programs to promote more college graduates. We support the expansion of state excellence funding to assist our public universities in national competition for engineering and science research funds. · Support Legislation allowing Logo Reader Boards in Urban Areas with a population of 50,000 or more. Background Information: Specific information logo signs have a blue background with a white reflective border for commercial establishments which provide gas, food, lodging or camping and are located not farther than three miles from an interchange on an eligible highway. TxDOT contracts with a private firm to provide the signs and administer the program. Amending Chapter 391 of the Texas Transportation Code to allow Denton and other Texas urban areas with a population of 50,000 or more to place logo reader boards on state highways is necessary to allow local business within three miles of the interchange to be eligible to purchase signs to be placed on the interstate. This would allow business owners to make available their services to interstate travelers and may increase sales tax revenue. Support Legislation that would provide adequate funding, at or exceeding current levels for the Texas Recreation and Parks Account. Background Information: The recreation and park system of the State of Texas provides a system of parks with opportunities for recreation and exercise, which leads to a healthier population, and increased opportunities for youth, which may lead to a reduction in juvenile crime. Denton fully supports conservation and preservation of cultural and natural resources in a park system for current and future generations of Texas. The quality and quantity of park and recreation facilities provides an incentive for economic development and increased property values. Denton is a fast growing city with increasing demands for park and recreation facilities. Denton, the Texas Municipal League and The Texas Recreation and Parks Society also support legislation that would provide adequate funding, at or exceeding levels to meet the future needs and demands of the citizens for park and recreation facilities. Development Issues and Fees · Retain local control over development and development fees. Background Information: Denton has allocated staff recourses and spent significant sums on development issues. We started the process by developing a vision and growth management strategy. We then used a Visual Quality Survey to find out what the citizens wanted. Denton then spent two years developing the Denton Plan, 1999- 2020. The plan deals with Land Use, The Street, Urban Design, Schools and undeveloped areas on the edge of the city. This plan has won numerous awards for its planning strategies including: Merit Award from the Society of Landscape Architects Comprehensive Planning Award and Visual Quality Survey Award from the Texas Chapter of the American Planning Association TML Excellence Award for the Visual Quality Survey Planning Project Award from the Midwest Chapter of APA Texas and Midwest APA Award for the Denton Development Code We believe that visioning and growth management are best done at the local level. Denton would not like to see growth management mandated by the state. What works in Denton may not work in other cities. Oppose legislation creating water districts in the ETJ and enact legislation to require water districts to notify and receive permission from cities before forming. Background Information: Denton provides water and wastewater to its own citizens and also provides water and wastewater services through interocal agreements with many smaller cities in Denton County. Water is a limited natural resource and being able to meet its commitments for water supply is a priority with Denton. Denton County does not need more water districts. Fresh water supply corporations should have to receive permission from cities before forming. There are 12 fresh water supply districts in Denton County. The City of Denton has had problems with a fresh water supply district forming inside the city limits and had to file litigation. Fresh water supply districts frequently have substandard infrastructure and cannot serve the development that the district projected at build out. These systems are not required to bid competitively and are very expensive. Developers will often structure the debt to include a bond balloon payment. This balloon payment is usually due around the time the system is failing. Cities are then pressured to take over the district through annexation and are forced to spend substantial sums to correct the problem. This is the same problem Houston faced in the early 80s. We urge legislators to consider amendments to the Texas Water Code to require that fresh water supply districts receive permission from cities before forming. Tax and Finance Issues · Amend Chapter 35 of the Texas Education Code concerning Higher Education Authorities Background Information: 'Chapter 35 of the Texas Education Code permits a city to create a higher education authority or a nonprofit corporation to exercise powers similar to those of a higher education authority. The nonprofit organization can issue tax-exempt bonds to buy educational facilities or dormitories within or outside the city that created the corporation. If the project is a dormitory, the bonds are to be paid from the rent from the dormitory. The dormitories must be rented exclusively to students or other persons officially connected with a university. The educational or dormitory facilities built by an authority are exempt from ad valorem property taxes. Some cities and private individuals, through the use of an authority, are financing the construction of student apartment complexes outside of their extraterritorial jurisdiction and claiming a property tax exemption. Senate Bill 914, which was introduced in the last legislative session but not passed would establish that educational and student housing facilities owned by higher education authorities or certain nonprofit entities that are financed by an authority must have a connection ~o an educational institution to qualify for tax exempt status. Under S.B. 914, before issuing tax exempt bonds for these kinds of projects within the city of Denton, they must obtain the consent of the City Council, Mayor, County Judge or Commissioners Court. Denton supports amending state law to require the consent of the city and other taxing entities (like school districts) that lose property tax revenue within the city that the authority locates the dormitories in. · Support amendments to Chapter 351 of the Texas Tax Code to allow cities to charge an additional 2% Hotel/Motel tax for the construction, maintenance and operation of convention centers. Background Information: Chapter 351 of the Texas Tax Code allows some cities to charge an additional 2% Hotel/Motel tax for convention center facilities. Denton supports amending Chapter 351 to allow cities to charge an additional 2% Hotel/Motel tax for the construction, maintenance and operation of convention centers. · Clarify the Use of Hotel/Motel Tax Funds Background Information: The Hotel/Motel industry has stated that all expenditures must directly promote tourism and the convention and hotel industry. This new emphasis on the interpretation of this statute is causing controversy in many cities. Research into the legislative history of the act indicates that the legislation was not originally enacted to benefit the hotel/motel industry.~ In 1987 S.B. 1532 was enacted and provided that the expenditures of the hotel/motel tax money directly promote tourism and the convention and hotel industry. The Hotel/Motel industry is putting a new emphasis on the word, "directly", to indicate that the expenditures must put "heads in beds". Denton supports beneficial amendments to Chapter 351 of the Texas Tax Code clarifying the use of Hotel/Motel tax funds. · Library Funding Denton recently received a TIF grant and fully supports continuation of the Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund (TIF) and TIF grants to libraries. Denton supports public libraries by providing state funding to increase access to full-text online information services and by funding the Loan Star Libraries program of the Texas State Library and Archives Commission. Finally, Denton supports increasing direct state aid for public libraries as long as there are no grant conditions that prohibit non-resident fees. · Oppose - Enacting a sales tax exemption that isn't a local option exemption. · Oppose - Enacting a property tax exemption that would be a substantial erosion of the tax base. t SB 911 enacted in 1971. · Support Internet Sales Tax Model Legislation. Background Information: Denton has numerous federal and state properties that do not pay ad valorem taxes. In 1994 Denton passed a 1Acent sales tax for the reduction of property tax. This means that we are heavily dependent on sales taxes. Denton has lost over $200,000 annually in sales tax revenue as a result of the sales tax holiday. Opting out of a sales tax holiday is not politically feasible for a municipality in an urban area, because shoppers would go to nearby cities to take advantage of the sales tax holiday. Expanding the sales tax holiday or adding additional items other than school supplies - or adding additional property tax exemptions - would significantly impact Denton. Denton asks legislators to be cautious in considering expanding the sales tax holiday. Expanding the number of sales tax holiday days will dramatically affect cities. We urge legislators to make minor amendments to exempt school supplies from sales tax during the sales tax holiday and to wait to make more amendments until after a study of the impact on cities is complete. Denton also supports model Internet sales tax legislation. Items sold over the Internet should be taxed the same as items sold within the city, so that one type of retailer does not have unfair advantage over another Support Legislation that directly affects Denton ISD Support increasing the state share of the Foundation School Program to 60 percent while maintaining local control over the allocation of resources. Provide additional state resources to local school districts to increase fiscal capacity of the school finance system and to provide districts with the resources needed to meet rising expectations. · Increase state funding for children with special needs. Adding a factor to the state funding formula for school districts that are heavily impacted by exempt state and federal property. Background Information: Denton ISD includes the University of North Texas, Texas Women's University, Denton State School, FEMA, County government and other tax-exempt properties. All of these entities feed students into Denton lSD without concomitant tax payments. Denton 1SD is among the lowest-ranked area schools in terms of taxable value per student. Because of the location in our community of the Denton State School, the Nelson Center and other entities that serve students with special needs, Denton has a disproportionate number of such students, many of whose families live elsewhere in Texas. Denton ISD expenses exceed the state average for providing educational services to specialized populations. Denton citizens make up this difference with local property taxes. We urge you to consider these issues when looking at school funding formulas. DME Legislative Objectives for 78th Legislature · Maintain the rights and protections provided to municipal electric utilities in SB 7. · Minimize the rising administrative costs associated with implementation of retail competition. Support an environment that supports cost-effective development of the electric transmission system in Texas, cost effective siting of generation in Texas, and maintains the reliability of the Texas electric grid. · Avoid excessive reliance on charges imposed upon electric consumers in order to satisfy the state's budget deficit Background Informatiol~ Electric Utility Issues are dynamic and ongoing in today's market. Denton will actively monitor proposed legislation and continue to inform legislators of Denton's position in the upcoming session. For several legislative sessions, Denton Municipal Electric has hired and anticipates hiring a utility expert, Jim Boyle, to act on its behalf before the Texas Legislature with regard to legislation affecting DME. As bills are filed, DME and is representative will contact legislators to convey Denton's position to protect its investment in DME, including its position as member of the 4-City Texas Municipal Power Authority. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Item 4S AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: November 19, 2002 Planning & Development Dave Hill, 349-8314 ;,":~',"~ SUBJECT Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the initiation of the rezoning of certain real property located at 1822, 1828 and 1902 Oak Street in the City of Denton, Texas from MF- 1 to Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3); and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND The subject property is currently zoned Multi-Family 1 (MF-1) and is proposed to be rezoned to Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3). A previous case (Z02-0016) to rezone the property to NR-3 was not approved. On May 14, 2002 the City Council did not reach a super majority to approve the rezoning request. OPTIONS 1. Approve 2. Approve with changes 3. Table or postpone 4. Deny RECOMMENDATION N/A PROJECT SCHEDULE N/A FISCAL INFORMATION N/A ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Draft Ordinance Respectfully submitted: Douglas S. Powell, AICP Planning and Development Director Attachment I 1822, 1828 and 1902 WEST OAK STREET NORTH ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE INITIATION OF THE REZONiNG OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1822, 1828 AND 1902 OAK STREET IN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS FROM MF-1 TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESiDENTiAL 3 (NR-3); AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, certain real property located at 1822, 1828 and 1902 Oak Street in the City of DeNon, Texas (the "Property") is curremly zoned MF-1; and WHEREAS, the City Council recommends that a zoning amendmem procedure be initiated to rezone the Property to Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3); and WHEREAS, on May 14, 2002 a similar zoning amendmem failed because only five affirmative votes were cast to rezone the Property, six affirmative votes being required because of the written protest of the owner of the Property; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that Subsection 35.3.4.C.6 of the DeNon Developmem Code pertaining to a resubmittal of a zoning application is not applicable to a City Council initiated zoning amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of DeNon, Texas hereby finds that the initiation of this zoning amendment is in the public interest; NOW, THEREFOR: THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The recitations and findings comained in the preamble of this ordinance are incorporated imo the body of this ordinance as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby initiates the rezoning of the Property from MF-1 to Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3). SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2002. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Page 2 S :\Ow Docttments \Ordinances\02\Oak Street Rezoning. doc Item 4T AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: November 19, 2002 Police Jon Fortune, Public Safety and Transportation Services SUBJECT Consider adoption of an Ordinance authorizing the Mayor to execute an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between the City of Denton and Denton County for the impoundment and disposition of dogs and cats and the collection of fees pursuant to the provisions of said agreemem; and providing for an effective date. BACKGROUND This is the nineteenth year that Denton County has requested an Interlocal Agreement for these services. The animals delivered by Denton County have not resulted in overcrowding at the Animal Comrol facility. The Agreement states that the City of Denton will provide the following services to DeNon County for the impoundmem and disposition of animals delivered to the City of Denton from Denton County: (1) The City of Denton will hold these animals for ninety-six (96) hours if not claimed by an owner. If the owner does not claim the animal within the prescribed ninety-six (96) hours, the animals will be euthanised or made available for adoption. (2) The City of Denton will accept and hold rabid suspects in quaramine for ten (10) days. (3) The City of DeNon will remove and ship the heads of rabid suspects for rabies testing by the Texas Department of Health. For the services, Denton County agrees to pay fees set forth in the Agreement as follows: (1) A holding fee in the amoum of fifteen dollars (15.00) for the first day or part of a day and five dollars ($5.00) for each subsequem day per animal held for reclamation by the owner. (2) A holding fee in the amoum of fifteen dollars (15.00) for the first day or part of a day and five dollars ($5.00) for each subsequem day per animal held in quarantine as a rabies suspect. (3) Thirty dollars ($30.00) for each animal euthanized. (4) Seventy ($70.00) for each decapitation and shipment. (5) Five dollars ($5.00) for each carcass disposal. RECOMMENDATION The Department recommends approval of the ordinance and renewal of the Interlocal Agreement with Denton County. 1. The Interlocal Agreement provides a valuable service to service to the citizens of Denton County. 2. The housing and disposal of dogs and cats has not, and is not projected, to create a hardship on Animal Control operations. 3. The Interlocal Agreement is a source of revenue for the City. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The City of Denton Legal Department has reviewed the attached Interlocal Agreement and ordinance for legal form and content. The Denton County Commissioners Court approved the Agreement. FISCAL IMPACT The prescribed fees in the Agreement are calculated to recover all costs of all services rendered and, therefore, this Agreement does not result in an increase in expenditures. Based on prior years, it is estimated that this Agreement will generate approximately $37,000 in revenue. Respectfully subm, itted, Charles Wiley Chief of Police Prepared by: Scott A. Langford, Lieutenant Support Services Division S:\Our D ocmm ent s\Or din an ces\02kD ent on County Animal Control.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN iNTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND DENTON COUNTY FOR THE IMPOUNDMENT AND DISPOSITION OF DOGS AND CATS AND THE COLLECTION OF FEES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SAID AGREEMENT; AND PROViDiNG FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the Mayor, or in his absence the Mayor ProTem, is hereby authorized to execute an interlocal Cooperation Agreement betw0en the City of Denton and Denton County for the impoundment and disposition of dogs and cats, substantially in the form of the copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. SECTION 2. That the City Council authorizes the collection of all fees as provided pursuant to the provisions of said Agreement. SECTION 3. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2002. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: S:\Our Docmments\Uontracrs\02~Denton Comity animal control.doc STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DENTON § iNTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT This Agreement made and entered into by and between the City of Denton, Texas, acting herein by and through its Mayor, duly authorized by resolution of the City Council of saidCity (hereinafter called "CITY"), and the County of Denton, Texas, acting herein by and through its County Judge, duly authorized by court order of the Commissioners Court of Denton County, Texas (hereafter called "COUNTY"). WHEREAS, CITY and COUNTY are both local governments with the authority and power to contract; and WHEREAS, CITY is engaged in the services of holding and disposing of dogs and cats for the benefit of the citizens of Denton; and WHEREAS, CITY is the owner of certain facilities and equipment designed for the holding and disposition of dogs and cats and has in its employ trained personnel whose duties are related to the use of such facilities and equipment; and WHEREAS, COUNTY desires to obtain impoundment and disposition servicesfor dogs and cats rendered by CITY, as more fully hereafter described, for the benefit of the residents of the Denton County, Texas; and WHEREAS, COUNTY and CITY mutually desire to be subject to the provisions of Texas Government Code, Chapter 791, the interlocal Cooperation Act and contract pursuant thereto; and WHEREAS, COUNTY and CITY have the authority to perform the services set forth in this Agreement individually in accordance with Texas Government Code §791.011 (c); and WHEREAS, COUNTY will make all payments for services out of available current revenues and CiTY agrees that the payments made by COUNTY hereunder will fairly compensate it for the services provided; NOW, THEREFORE, the COUNTY and the CITY, for the mutual consideration hereinafter stated, agree as follows: A. COVENANTS OF THE CITY OF DENTON: Holding of Dogs and Cats. CITY agrees to accept and hold dogs and cats lawfully impounded by authorized representatives of COUNTY under the following terms and conditions: S:\Our D ocmm ent s\C ontr act s\02~D ent on Comity animal control.doc Holding Period for Dogs and Cats. CITY agrees to hold such dogs and cats for a period of ninety-six (96) hours from the time they are accepted by the Animal Control Center in order to allow the owners of the impounded animal a reasonable amount of time to reclaim the impounded animal, if the animal is not reclaimed within the ninety-six (96) hour period, the ownership of the animal shall revert to the Animal Control Center. Animals will be humanely destroyed or placed for adoption at the discretion of the Animal Control staff. Holding Fees for Impounded Dogs and Cats. For the purpose of this Agreement, CiTY will charge Fifteen Dollars ($15.00) for first day or part of a day and Five Dollars ($5.00) for each subsequent day holding fee that an animal is held at the Animal Control Center. In determining the meaning of the term "animal" as used herein, it is agreed that a pregnant animal which has its litter while being held, or an animal which is nursing its litter and is being kept in the same cage, will be considered one animal for the assessment of charges provided for in this Agreement. This fee will be assessed against the owner of the animal at the time the animal is reclaimed. No animal will be released until all applicable fees are paid in full. Holding of Quarantine Animals. CITY agrees to accept and hold rabid suspects in quarantine for COUNTY when conditions permit, and such action is authorized by a representative of COUNTY. Holding Fees for Quarantined Animals. The holding fee for quarantined animals shall be Fifteen Dollars ($15.00) for the first day or part of a day and Five Dollars ($5.00) for each subsequent day that the animal is held. Head Shipments and Rabies Testing. Upon request of COUNTY, CITY will provide for the removal and shipment of heads of rabid suspects for clinical rabies testing at the Texas Department of Health. The fee for this service shall be Seventy Dollars ($70.00) for each head shipped. COVENANTS OF DENTON COUNTY: Financial Responsibilities. In order to reimburse CITY for its costs incurred under this Agreement, COUNTY agrees to pay for the holding fees and euthanasia fees on dogs and cats received from COUNTY or its authorized agent if the animal(s) is not reclaimed by the owner. These fees will be assessed on the fdlowing basis: Euthanized Animal: Fifteen Dollars ($15.00) for the first day or part of a day and Five Dollars ($5.00) for each subsequent day holding fee for each animal as determined herein, plus Thirty Dollars ($30.00) euthanasia fee. ANIMAL CONTROL INTER LOCAL COOPERATION AG REEMENT - COUNTY PAGE 2 OF 5 S:\Our D ocmm ent s\C ontr act s\02kD ent on Comity animal control.doc Adopted Animal: Adopted Animal: Fifteen Dollars ($15.00) for the first day or part of a day and Five Dollars ($5.00) for each subsequent day holding fee for each animal as determined herein. c. Head Shipments: Seventy Dollars ($70.00) shipping fee. d. Carcass disposal: Five dollars ($5.00). CITY will collect impound fees duly authorized by COUNTY and as specified in this paragraph from the owners of dogs and cats received from COUNTY. impound fee monies will be applied to fees owed CiTY by COUNTY for animals not recNmed by the owner: IMPOUND FEE 1 st Impoundment - $20.00 2nd Impoundment - $30.00 3rd impoundment - $45.00 4th impoundment - $70.00 3. COUNTY agrees payment shall be made within forty:five (45) days of receipt of invoice by COUNTY. CITY agrees to and accepts full responsibility for the acts, negligence, and/or omissions of all CITY's employees and agents, CITY's subcontractors and/or contract laborers doing work under a contract or agreement with CITY in performance of this Agreement with COUNTY. COUNTY agrees to and accepts full responsibility for the acts, negligence, and/or omissions of all COUNTY's employees and agents, COUNTY's subcontractors and/or contract laborers doing work under a contract or agreement with COUNTY in performance of this Agreenent with CITY. it is further agreed that if claim or liability shall arise from the joint or concurring negligence of both parties hereto, it shall be borne by them comparatively in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas. This paragraph shall notbe construed as a waiver by either party of any defenses available to it under the laws of the State of Texas. It is understood that it is not the intention of the parties hereto to create liability for the benefit of third parties, but that this Agreement shall be for the benefit of the parties hereto. The fact that COUNTY and CITY accept certain responsibilities relating to the collection and impounding of dogs and cats under this Agreement as part of their responsibility for providing protection for the public health and welfare and, therefore, makes it imperative that the performance of these vital services be recognized as a governmental immunity shall be, and is hereby invoked to the full extent possible under the law. Neither CiTY nor COUNTY vaives or ANIMAL CONTROL INTER LOCAL COOPERATION AG REEMENT - COUNTY PAGE 3 OF 5 S:\Our D ocmm ent s\L'ontr act s\02 ~D ent on Comity animal control.doc shall be deemed hereby to waive any immunity or defense that would otherwise be available to it against the claims arising from the exercise of governmental functions. The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of one (1) year, commenchg as of October 1, 2002 and ending September 30, 2003. Thereafter, this Agreement shall be renewed for successive additional one (1) year terms commencing on October 1 of each year if COUNTY and CITY agree in writing on or before the first day of Octoberto a successive term and the amount of consideration to be paid hereunder for each successive term; provided, however, either party may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other. This Agreement represents the entire md integrated agreement between CITY and COUNTY and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and/or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both CITY and COUNTY. This Agreement and any of its terms or provisions, as well as the rights and duties of the parties hereto, shall be governed by the laws of the State of Texas. In the event that any portion of this Agreement shall be found to be contrary to law, it is the intent of the parties hereto that the remaining portions shall remain valid and in full force and effect to the extent possible. The undersigned officer and/or agents of the parties hereto are the properly authorized officials and have the necessary authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto, and each party hereby certifies to the other that any necessary resolutions extending said authority have been duly passed and are now in full force and effect. 200 EXECUTED in duplicate originals this the day of CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY: EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ANIMAL CONTROL INTER LOCAL COOPERATION AG REEMENT - COUNTY PAGE 4 OF 5 S:\Our Docmments\Contracts\02\Denton Comity animal control.doc ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS COUNTY JUDGE ATTEST: DENTON COUNTY CLERK BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: DISTRICT ATTORNEY BY: ANIMAL CONTROL INTER LOCAL COOPERATION AG REEMENT - COUNTY PAGE 5 OF 5 Item 4U AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: November 19, 2002 Police Jon Fortune, Public Safety and Transportation Services SUBJECT Consider adoption of an Ordinance authorizing the Mayor to execute an Interlocal Cooperation Agreemem between the City of DeNon, Texas, and the City of Roanoke, Texas, for the impoundmem and disposition of dogs and cats and the collection of fees pursuant to the provisions of said agreement; and providing for an effective date. BACKGROUND The City of DeNon has maimained an Imerlocal Agreemem for the impoundmem and disposition of dogs and cats with the City of Roanoke for the past eleven years. The animals delivered to the City of DeNon under this Agreemem have not caused conditions of overcrowding at the Animal Comrol facility. The Agreement states that the City of Denton will provide the following services to the City of Roanoke for the impoundmem and disposition of animals delivered to the City of DeNon from the City of Roanoke: (1) The City of Denton will hold these animals for ninety-six (96) hours if not claimed by an owner. If the owner does not claim the animal within the prescribed ninety-six (96) hours, the animals will be euthanised or made available for adoption. (2) The City of Denton will accept and hold rabid suspects in quaramine for ten (10) days. (3) The City of DeNon will remove and ship the heads of rabid suspects for rabies testing by the Texas Department of Health. For the services, the City of Roanoke agrees to pay fees set forth in the Agreement as follows: (1) A holding fee in the amoum of fifteen dollars (15.00) for the first day or part of a day and five dollars ($5.00) for each subsequem day per animal held for reclamation by the owner. (2) A holding fee in the amount of fifteen dollars (15.00) for the first day or part of a day and five dollars ($5.00) for each subsequent day per animal held in quarantine as a rabies suspect. (3) Thirty dollars ($30.00) for each animal euthanized. (4) Seventy ($70.00) for each decapitation and shipment. (5) Five dollars ($5.00) for each carcass disposal. RECOMMENDATION The Department recommends approval of the ordinance and renewal of the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Roanoke. 1. The Interlocal Agreement provides a valuable service to the citizens of Roanoke. 2. The housing and disposal of dogs and cats for Roanoke has not, and is not projected to, create a hardship on the Animal Control operation. 3. The Interlocal Agreement is a source of revenue for the City of Denton. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The City of Denton Legal Department reviewed the Interlocal Agreement for legal form and content. The Roanoke City Council approved the Agreement. FISCAL IMPACT The prescribed fees in the Agreement are calculated to recover all costs of all services rendered and, therefore, this Agreement does not result in an increase in expenditures. The prescribed fees do reflect the increase in fees that were approved during the budget process for the current fiscal year. It is estimated that the revenue from this program will be approximately $2,000. Respectfully submitted, Charles Wiley Chief of Police Prepared by: Scott A. Langford, Lieutenant Support Services Division S:\Our D ocmm ent s\Or din an ces\02kRoan oke Animal Control.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORiZiNG THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN iNTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AND THE CITY OF ROANOKE, TEXAS, FOR THE IMPOUNDMENT AND DISPOSITION OF DOGS AND CATS AND THE COLLECTION OF FEES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SAID AGREEMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the Mayor, or in her absence the Mayor ProTem, is hereby authorized to execute an interlocal Cooperation Agreemem between the City of Demon and City of Roanoke for the impoundmem and disposition of dogs and cats, substantially in the form of the copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. SECTION 2. That the City Council authorizes the collection of all fees as provided pursuant to the provisions of said Agreement. SECTION 3. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2002. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: S:\Our Docmments\Uontr acrs\02~r oanoke animal control.doc STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DENTON § INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City of DeNon, Texas ("DENTON") and the City of Roanoke, Texas ("ROANOKE") are both local governmems with the authority and power to contract; and WHEREAS, DENTON is engaged in the services of holding and disposing of dogs and cats for the benefit of the citizens of DENTON; and WHEREAS, DENTON is the owner of certain facilities and equipmem designed for the holding and disposition of dogs and cats and has inits employ trained personnel whose duties are related to the use of such facilities and equipment; and WHEREAS, ROANOKE desires to obtain impoundmem and disposition services for dogs and cats rendered by DENTON, as more fully hereafter described, for tlc benefit of the citizens of ROANOKE; and WHEREAS, ROANOKE and DENTON mutually desire to be subject to the provisions of Texas Government Code, Chapter 791, the Interlocal Cooperation Act and contract pursuant thereto; and WHEREAS, both DENTON and ROANDKE have the authority to perform the services set forth in this Agreemem individually in accordance with Texas Government Code §791.01 l(c); and WHEREAS, ROANOKE will make all payments for services out of available current revenues and DENTON agrees tha the payments made by ROANOKE hereunder will fairly compensate it for the services provided; NOW, THEREFORE, ROANOKE and DENTON, for the mutual consideration hereinafter stated, agree as follows: A. COVENANTS OF THE CITY OF DENTON Holding of Dogs and Cats. DENTON agrees to accept and hold dogs and cats lawfully impounded by authorized representatives of ROANOKE under the following terms and conditions: Holding Period for Dogs and Cats, DENTON agrees to hold such dogs and cats for a period of ninety-six (96) hours from the time they are accepted by the Animal Control Center in order to allow the owners of the impounded animal a reasonable amount of time to reclaim the impounded animal. If the animal is not ANIMAL CONTROL INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT - ROANOKE PAGE 1 OF 5 S:\Our D ocmm ent s\C ontr act s\02~r oan oke animal control.doc reclaimed within the ninety-six (96) hour period, the ownership of the animal shall revert to the Animal Control Center. Animals will be humanely destroyed or placed for adoption at the discretion of the Animal Control staff. Holding Fees for Impounded Dogs and Cats For the purpose of this Agreement, DENTON will charge Fifteen Dollars ($15.00) for the first day or part of a day and Five Dollars ($5.00) for each subsequent day holding fee that an animal is held at the Animal Control Center. In determining the meaning of the term "animal" as used herein, it is agreed that a pregnant animal which has its litter while being held, or an animal which is nursing its litter and is being kept in the same cage, will be considered one animal for the assessment of charges provided for in this Agreement. This fee will be assessed against the owner of the animal at the time the animal is reclaimed. No animal will be released until all applicable fees are paid in full. Holding of Quarantine Animals. DENTON agrees to accept and hold rabid suspects in quarantine for ROANOKE when conditions permit, and such action is authorized by a representative of ROANOKE. Holding Fees for Quarantined Animals The holding fee for quarantined animals shall be Fifteen Dollars ($15.00) for the first day or part ora day ard Five Dollars ($5.00) for each subsequent day that the animal is held. Head Shipments and Rabies Testing Upon request of ROANOKE, DENTON will provide for the removal and shipment of heads of rabid suspects for clinical rabies testing at the Texas Department of Health. The fee for this service shall be Seventy Dollars ($70.00) for each head shipped. B. COVENANTS OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE Financial Responsibilities. In order to reimburse DENTON for its costs incurred under this Agreement, ROANOKE agreesto pay for the holding fees and euthanasia fees on dogs and cats received from ROANOKE or its authorized agent if the animal(s) is not reclaimed by the owner. These fees will be assessed on the following basis: Euthanized Animal: Fifteen Dollars ($15.00) for the first day or part of a day and Five Dollars ($5.00) for each subsequent day holding fee for each animal as determined herein, plus Thirty Dollars ($30.00) euthanasia fee. Adopted Animal: Fifteen Dollars ($15.00) for the first day or part of a d~y and Five Dollars ($5.00) for each subsequent day holding fee for each animal as determined herein. c. Head Shipments: Seventy Dollars ($70.00) shipping fee. ANIMAL CONTROL INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT - ROANOKE PAGE 2 OF 5 S:\Our D ocmm ent s\C ontr act s\02~r oan oke animal control.doc d. Carcass Disposal: Five Dollars ($5.00). DENTON will collect impound fees duly authorized by ROANDKE and as specified in this paragraph from the owners of dogs and cats received from ROANOKE. Impound fee monies will be applied to fees owed DENTON by ROANOKE for animals not reclaimed by the owner: IMPOUND FEE 1 st Impoundment - $20.00 2nd Impoundment - $30.00 3rd Impoundment- $45.00 4th Impoundment- $70.00 3. ROANOKE agrees payment shall be made within fort)~five (45) days of receipt of invoice by ROANOKE. DENTON agrees to and accepts full responsibility for the acts, negligence, and/or omissionsof all DENTON's employees and agents, DENTON's subcontractors and/or contract laborers doing work under a contract or agreement with DENTON in performance of this Agreement with ROANOKE. ROANOKE agrees to and accepts full responsibility for the acts, ne~igence, and/or omissions of all ROANOKE's employees and agents, ROANOKE's subcontractors and/or contract laborers doing work under a contract or agreement with ROANOKE in performance of this Agreement with DENTON. It is further agreed that if claim or libility shall arise from the joint or concurring negligence of both parties hereto, it shall be borne by them comparatively in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas. This paragraph shall not be construed as a waiver by either party of any defenses available to it under the laws of the State of Texas. It is understood that it is not the intention of the parties hereto to create liability for the benefit of third parties, but that this Agreement shall be for the benefit of the parties hereto. The fact that ROANOKE and DENTON accept certain responsibilities relating to the collection and impounding of dogs and cats under this Agreement as part of their responsibility for providing protection for the public health and welfare and, therefore, make it imperative that the performance of these vital services be recognized as a governmental immunity shall be, and is hereby invoked to the full extent possible under the law. Neither DENTON nor ROANOKE waives or shall be deemed hereby to waive any immunity or defense that would otherwise be available to it against the claims arising from the exercise of governmental functions. ANIMAL CONTROL INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT - ROANOKE PAGE 3 OF 5 S:\Our Docmments\Uontr acrs\02kcoanoke animal control.doc The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of one (1) year, commencing as of October 1, 2002 and ending September 30, 2003. Thereafter, this Agreement shall be renewed for successive additional one (1) year terms commencing on October 1 of each year if ROANOKE and DENTON agree in writing on or before the first day of October to a successive term and the amount of consideration to be paid hereunder for each successive term; provided, however, either party may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between DENTON and ROANOKE and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and/or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both DENTON and ROANOKE. This Agreement and any of its terms or provisions, as well as the rights and duties of the parties hereto, shall be governed by the laws of the State of Texas. In the event that any portion of this Agreement shall be found to be contrary to law, it is the intent of the parties hereto that the remaining pcrtions shall remain valid and in full force and effect to the extent possible. The undersigned officer and/or agents of the parties hereto are the properly authorized officials and have the necessary authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of tie parties hereto, and each party hereby certifies to the other that any necessary resolutions extending said authority have been duly passed and are now in full force and effect. EXECUTED in duplicate originals this the 200__. day of CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ANIMAL CONTROL INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT - ROANOKE PAGE 4 OF 5 S:\Our D ocmm ent s\C ontr act s\02\r oan oke animal control.doc BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: CITY OF ROANOKE, TEXAS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: CITY ATTORNEY BY: ANIMAL CONTROL INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT - ROANOKE PAGE 5 OF 5 Item 5A AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: November 19, 2002 Planning & Development Dave Hill, Assistant City Manager 349-8314 ~ !~';~¥>' SUBJECT - Z02-036 (Brush Creek Road) Continue a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning of approximately 80 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) to a Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1)zoning district. The five tracts are generally located on Brush Creek Road west of the intersection of Brush Creek Road and Country Club. No development is proposed at this time. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (4-3). BACKGROUND Applicant: City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission Denton, Texas The Planning and Zoning Commission initiated a request to have five parcels of land, totaling approximately 80 acres, rezoned from Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) to a Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning district. The zoning of this area was initially raised as an issue when the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Future Zoning map, specifically the southwest quadrant of the city. The Commission began to question the appropriateness of the zoning in the area based on the old zoning and the current land uses. Also, this issue was raised during the first Quarterly Review of the Development Code. The zoning of this area was one of the issues City Council instructed the Planning and Zoning Commission to review. The Commission reviewed this issue during several worksessions and voted unanimously to rezone the property on June 26, 2002. In worksessions, the Commission spent a great deal of time in discussing the issue of land use and zoning of this area and how the existing zoning came into place. At the time verbatim minutes of worksessions were not kept and therefore are not available for inclusion in the back up. However, a summary of the meeting discussion was provided in a separate memo. The public hearings before the Commission were supposed to be held on August 28, 2002 but had to be postponed due to notification errors. This delay resulted in the cases not being heard until September 25, 2002, at which time the make-up of the Commission had changed. The staff reports to the Commission were brief and did not contain the detail and history of this area. The elapsed time (3 months) between the worksessions and the public heating, and the minimum backup in the staff reports contributed to the confusion reflected in the public heating minutes. This request is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, an analysis is provided for in the Staff`Analysis (Attachment 1). Public notification and property owner responses are provided in Attachment 4. As of this writing, staff has received one opposing response from property owners of the subject site; therefore a supermajority vote (6-1) by City Council will be required to approve this rezoning. As of this writing, staff has received no responses from property owners within 200 feet of the subject site. At the City Council Meeting on November 5, 2002 the case was continued until November 19, 2002 in conjunction with the related zoning cases. Due to the necessity for a super majority vote a full quorum was desired. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Deny. 3. Postpone consideration. 4. Table item. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (4-3), Johnson, Roy, opposed and Powell ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The subject properties are not platted. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology ofZ02-0036, commonly known as Brush Creek Road Circle: Application Date - DRC Date - Planning and Zoning Public Hearing - City Council Public Heating - Jnly 15, 2002 August 1, 2002 September 25, 2002 November 5, 2002 No Neighborhood meeting was held FISCAL INFORMATION No short-term public improvements that are the responsibility of the city will be necessary. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Maps 3. Public Notification (Property Owner Notification Map and Property Owner Responses) 4. Photographs 5. Minutes from September 25, 2002 Planning and Zoning meeting 6. Draft Ordinance and Exhibit A Prepared by: Autumn Speer Planner I Respectfully submitted: S. AICP Director of Planning and Development for ATTACHMENT I Staff Analysis Summary of Zonin~ Request The Planning and Zoning Commission initiated a request to have five parcels of land, totaling approximately 80 acres, rezoned from its current Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) to a Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning district. The request was initiated in an effort to maintain the rural setting of surrounding areas. Existing Condition of Property Property History. February 20, 2002 - The subject property was placed in the Zoning Classification Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district and land use classification by Ordinance 2002-040. Prior to the adoption of the Development Code, the property was zoned Agricultural (A). The subject property currently contains single-family homes and vacant land. Adjacent zoning: North: Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ)- single-family homes South: Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ)- agricultural uses East: Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR- 1) zoning district - agricultural uses West: Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) - single-family homes Comprehensive Plan Analysis The subject site is located in an "Existing Neighborhoods/Infill Compatibility" future land use area. New development in this district should respond to existing development with compatible land uses, patterns and design standards. The plan recommends that existing neighborhoods within the city be vigorously protected and preserved. Housing that is compatible with the existing density, neighborhood service, and commercial land uses is allowed. The Denton Plan identifies the following Primary Residential 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 would serve to preserve the rural setting in this area and maintain the existing neighborhood as called for by the Denton Plan under "Existing neighborhoods/infill development" classification. Sprawl is characterized by low residential density housing, which the proposed zoning would create. This is not desirable according to the Denton Plan. Development Review Analysis Transportation Trip Generation. The proposed zoning change would allow a maximum of 1 single-family dwelling unit per acre, limiting the trip generation to approximately 764 trips per day. A traffic impact analysis is not required. Access and Connectivity Currently the access to the property is from Brush Creek. Brush Creek is identified as a primary major arterial not to standard by the Denton Mobility Plan. The future surrounding road system may not be compatible with this type of development. Public Infrastructure Currently the infrastructure in this area is adequate to serve the proposed development. Development Code/Zoning Analysis Current NR-2 zoning allows for single-family homes with a maximum of two (2) units per acre. The proposed Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning would allow only one (1) dwelling unit per acre. Staff Findings 1. The proposed zoning change is compatible with The Denton Plan in regards to compatibility and preservation of surrounding land uses. 2. The proposed zoning change would provide for a diversity of housing stock. 3. The proposed zoning change may not be compatible with the mobility plan for this area. 4. The proposed zoning change would facilitate sprawl, which is not desired by the Denton Plan. ATTACHMENT 2 Maps NORTH Location/Zoning Map ETJ ETJ LOCATION MAP Scale: None Mobility Map NORTH .,' MOBILITY MAP Scale: None .;",. ,,' Mobilit~collector ~ Freeway ~ Prim ar~ Major Alternate ~\~ Prima~ Major Arterial ??~i;~? Secondary Major Alternate ~'~ ~? ge¢onda~ Major Arterial FUTURE ATTACHMENT 3 Public Notification NORTH Notification Map 200' LN~if cation Scale: None Public Notification Date: August 15 & September 12, 2002 200' Legal Notices* sent via Certified Mail: 14 Number of responses to 200' Legal Notice · In Opposition: 1 (Owner) · In Favor: 0 · Neutral: 0 Percent of land within 200' in opposition: 0 % Percent of owner opposition: 45% *A copy of the notification list can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 ! Property Owner Responses Michael Pettibon, MD 1300 Brush Creek Road Opposed See Attached Letter David Yoder Favor See Attached Letter 940 Brush Creek Road Argyle, Texas 76226 Henry and Lona Wolfe Favor See Attached Letter 4801 Argyle Lane Argyle, Texas 76226 Richard and Gina Favor See Attached Letter Shanhouse 8001 Woodcreek Circle Argyle, Texas 76226 Dennis and Sharon Cox Favor See Attached Letter 8008 Woodcreek Circle Argyle, Texas 76226 *A copy of the original notice can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 September 24, 2002 To: Planning and Zoning Commission Members Mayor and City Council Members Re: Public Hearings on Brush Creek Road and Highway 377 area rezonings ~ am unable to attend the meeting~ but would like my comments on record in support of the zoning changes that are proposed. My wife and ! have lived at 940 Brush Creek Road since 1985. We moved from the City of Denton to this area to get away from the high-density houses and to a less busy, less stressful way of life. We have continued to watch the development of new homes In our area and were comfortable with the quality and density of these homes because they have all maintained the space and openness of the community. We were appalled to see that the new zoning map has changed the zoning along Brush Creek Road to NR 2, which ! understand is 2 homes to an acre of land. That is very scary to those of us who have lived here, are raising families and animals and enjoying our 'country" way of life. ! presume that this zoning would allow my neighbor, if he so chose, to subdivide his 10 acres and put 20 houses next to mine. Please support the change to NR 1 zoning. There are no undeveloped lots along this road and lot sizes range from 2 acres up to 80 acres. The other area that has us very concerned is the NR 4 zoning along the frontage of 377, south of Brush Creek Road, :just around the corner from our home. Who, in all common sense, could envision 4 homes to the acre out here? ! specifically remember Assistant City Manager, Dave Hill, telling us when this new plan was in the beginning stages that properties closer in to town would be denser and as you moved away from town you would have less density, with the least density being in the areas that bordered the ET3, or other towns. We are as far from ~own as you can get. We border Argyle and they, as a town, Just reaffirmed their commitment to keeping a rural, open feel with their new plan. ! just don't see how NR 4 fits. Directly across the highway, land with a railroad track running through it is even zoned less dense - NR 2. We ask that you support the rezoning change to NR 2 for this strip. Please, please take a good look at these and make them compatible for this area. There should not be more than one home, at the most, to an acre in this area. We feel we have already been greatly compromised by the NR 2 designation on the approximately 150 acre tract that is being developed as Country Club Village. We do not want to be downgraded any further. We keep hearin~qv~er,~nd over how the new plan is concerned with preserving and protecting ~l~i~l~~hoeds. Well, ~ preserve and protect us. '! can only hope understand the impact your decision will have on those and so long to build the very unique community we now I~( and~llerish. Thank you for Your time and kind consideration. /~- 940 Brush Creek Read Argyle, TX 76226 September 25, 2002 To: City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission Denton City Council and Mayor Re: Support for rezoning requests to less density re Brush Creek Road, Highway 377 and Hills of Argyle area We would 1/kc to respectfully request that a zoning change be seriously considered to correct what must surely be an error in the zoning map. In section L6, in an area where every existing home within a 1.5 mile radius is located on at least an acre, with most homes being on lots of 2 to up to I00 acres, there is a large section of land along Highway 377 designated to be NR-4. That would seem totally incompatible with the promise to "preserve and protect exisisting neighborhoods". The rural atmosphere and the large estate size lots, ARE the existing neighborhood and it is unfathomable that NR- 4 would be seen as a reasonable designation to be "plopped" down in the midst of this. There are other concerns as well, as there is an environmentally sensitive area along one side of this area as well as continuous flooding problems. We request that this area be rezoned to NR-2 to at least accommodate some of our concerns. There is undeveloped land adjoining this area that has been designated as NR-2, and that would seem more appropriate. Also, the land directly behind our home in the Hills of Argyle, along Brush Creek Road, has been designated on the new map as NR-2, which is also totally inconsistent with the surrounding area. To our knowledge, all of the lots on Brush Creek Road from Highway 377 to Highway 1830 are all developed, complete with homes, barns, animals, etc. All of these developed lots are large - about 2 acres up to about 80 acres. Why would you then "overzone" this area as NR-2? Makes no sense to us Please correct these mistakes by approving the rezoning for less density for this area. Sincerely, -, Henry and Lona Wolfe 4801 Argyle Lane Hills of Argyle Argyle, TX 76226 September 25, 2002 To: Denton Plaunln~ and Zoning Commission Re: September 25, 2002, meeting - agenda items 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 We Just recently purchased our dream home at 8001 Woodcreek Circle. We moved here from Piano expressly to get away from the crowded subdivisions and hurried lifestyle. Though we commute to work now, the drive is more than worth the peace and tranq~lity we find when we return home. We researched many area towns and looked at many homes trying to find an area that had estate-size lots and some semblance of nature. A realtor in Dallas actually suggested this area to us aft~, hea~ing our desi~'es and otu' f~ustration in locating what we were looking for. Every surrounding town has subdivision miter subdivision on small Iota or in some cases, on no lot at all !! This arem of Denton is unique in that you can offer large lots, in the midst of natural beauty, and yet be close to town. This area is somethln~ very special. Its uniqueness needs to be preserved. There a~e Hterally hundreds of crowded subdivisions to choose fron~ but extremely few that offer what we have. Please vote in support of the rezonlugs for this area that will help to maintain the wonderful quality of our new life here in your fair city. We will be so disappointed ff this area becomes what we searched for so long to escape from. d and Olna Shanhouse 8001 Woodcreek Circle Argyle, TX 76226 September 24, 2002 Dear Mayor Brock, City Council Members, and Planning and Zoning Commission Members, Please take another look at our neighborhood. We live in a cul-de-sac that was annexed into Denton in the tate 1970's. Our cul-de-sac contains 5 lots, with 4 homes that have been in existence for many years and one unbuilt lot. The 5 lots range in size from 1.022 acres up to 2.003 acres. On the new zoning map, apparently they have now zoned our area to NR 2, or 2 homes to the acre. This puts us in avery precarious position with regard to our wel{-established neighborhood. With this new zoning, the owner of the vacant lot could completely change the character of what we have worked so hard to create - a spacious, rural feel. Another seemingly incongruous zoning is the NR 4 zoning along 377 from Brush Creek Road south, which is located behind our cul-de-sac. This would appear to be better served by an NR 1 or NR 2 zoning and more in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood - to one side of the area now zoned NR 4 is a large (50 + acres) cattle farm and to the other side is a large horse farm. Another important consideration is that this area is adjacent to an already threatened environmentaJ[y sensitive area and an area that has had significant flooding problems, which would be exacerbated by higher density. We have also noted that across the street from us (in the as-yet-unannexed area along Brush Creek Road) you have now zoned that area to be NR 2 also, yet those homes are on even Jar§er lots, some 20 to 40 acres and more. Ptease correct these apparent oversights and consider something more approprfate, such as NR f. The future of our neighborhood is at stake. We would appreciate your vote in support of the rezoning for the lower densities which, in turn, is a vote for the integrity of our long-standing neighborhood. Most sincerely, Dennis and Sharon Cox 8008 Woodcreek Circle Argyle, TX 76226 940-243-1122 ATTACHMENT 4 Photographs Page 111 2 will take public hearings Nc go through and figure out 3 presentation since they are in the same area and so 3 who got to go to who. There are letters -- letters that ! 4 similar in nature, and then we will vote on them 4 passed out. Four of them are for Woodcreck Circle, four 5 individually. And Ms. Speer with the City planning office 5 of them are letters from the same owners concerning the 6 will present and I'll open the public hearing. 6 whole area. Some of them would apply to other cases as 7 MS. SPEER: Good evening, Comauissioners. 7 far as being in the 200-foot notice. 8 I'm going to do these together as one unit but I'm going 8 COMMISSIONER AVPtn: ~ecause some of them 9 to do each individual one separately, seeing as we have 9 actually address these Agenda items, not the other ones. 10 different forms of opposition. 10 Ms. SeEER: Right. Right. 11 Item Agenda No. 28 is again a Planning 11 COMMISSIONER ~eCE: SO I just want to make 12 and Zoning initiated zoning request. There's five parcels 12 the Commissioners aware to read the letters in the packet 13 of land, approximately 80 acres. The Planning and Zoning 13 because they're stuck behind the wrong Agenda item. Thank 14 Commission has requested they go from a Neighborhood 14 you. Commissioner Johnson has a question. 15 Residential 2 to a Neighborhood Residential 1. As I said, 15 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: AS we go along, 16 there's no opposition on this land. Most of the land is 16 could you indicate because it says in all cases the 17 vacant. There are several small home sites kind of hidden 17 applicant is the City of Denton. Could you tell me if the 18 back in there. 18 owner agrees with the requesteat zoning? 19 This property does have some opposing 19 Ms. senna: i can, That's one reason t 20 issues. In one sense thc idea of maintaining the 20 want to do them separately. In this particular case, I 21 integrity of the rural atmosphere by downzoning this 21 have not received any notification from the owner that 22 property is its -- the goal was achieved. However, the 22 they oppose. This particular 80-acre site, there are five 23 goal of the Denton Plan also is to prevent sprawl. So you 23 separate owners and they were all notified, twice 24 have kind of a catch 22. You have this downzoning which, 24 actually, and I haven't received any opposition from 25 by its nature, the definition of sprawl could facilitate 25 owners on this one.... Page 110 Page 112 1 that. However, it does preserve the neighborhood and 1 COMMISSIONER APPLE: And just for 2 maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. 2 clarification purposes, as she announced earlier, the 3 Also another case in question is the 3 Planning and Zoning Commission is actually who initiated 4 Mobihty Plan. On this map I've showed you Country Club 4 this. 5 and Brush Creek, they are on the Mobility Plan. Brush 5 MS. SPEER: correct. 6 Creek is not to standard. It's a secondary -- itrs a 6 COMMISSIONER APPLE: That's why it says the 7 primary major arterial. Right now we know that that's not 7 City. But it was actually this body that initiated. 8 what it looks like. So I just -- staff wants to make sure 8 Commissioner Mu[roy. 9 that we're aware of the conflicting items here. We have 9 COMMISSIONER MULROY: YeS. Thank you. Ms. 10 that the area of the downzoning does preserve the 10 Speer, were you in our work section? I think we had two 11 neighborhood, does provide compatible uses. However, the 11 work sessions dealing with these properties. 12 Mobility Plan and the issue of it could facilitate sprawl 12 MS. SPEER: I don't believe I was here at 13 is something to be considered on all of these cases. This 13 the time, sir, no. 14 one, however, does not have any opposition so it does not 14 COMMISSIONER MLJLROY: okay. So I want to ,15 require super-majority at this point for City Council. 15 take a small liberty to refresh our collective memories 16 The next ease I'll talk about, unless you 16 and perhaps impart some of the background to you. Your 17 want to have questions about this specific one. 17 comments which are repeated in each Agenda item that this 18 COMMISSIONER APPLE: t just want to 18 is kind of counter to the anti-sprawl portions of the Comp 19 interrupt you because I noticed that you stapled all of 19 Plan, that was fully recognized in our work shop. And we 20 these together go they appear that they're for Item 29 20 had -- the consideration was given first to reflecting the 21 when actually they cover all of them. 21 existing neighborhood, there was long-e~tablished homes m 22 MS. srE~: vdght. 22 that really one-acre and larger tradition. 23 COMMISSIOSmt ~PLE: SO I just was 23 Number two, also the Comp Plan wants 24 wondering if you made the Commission aware that these 24 diversified housing. We have many areas of the City that 25 probably shouldn't be stapled together. 25 we're looking at the new urbanization and upping the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 109 - Page 112 CondcnseltTM Page 113 1 density and pedestrian-oriented, et cetera, et cetera. 2 This is one already established area of the City that is 3 more of the larger estate-type lots and so in order to be 4 diversified, we need to have that offering. 5 Number three, on an economic development 6 standpoint, we are losing some potential housings of this 7 type to Argyle because they have an abundance of the 8 larger acreage and we don't. So for this body, in our 9 deliberations and examining in the total context, not just 10 a narrow focus but of all the things you mentioned, 11 evolved the decision that this would be the part of town 12 that we would like to keep this way. So I really want to 13 address -- reflect to your comments that have been 14 repeated here. Thank you. 15 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, i 16 Commissioner Mulroy. 17 MS. SPEER: Are there any further questions 18 on this particular site? I'll continue. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Watkins. 20 COMMISSIONER WATKINS: Did I understand you 21 to say that there were five comers? 22 MS. SPEER: NO, sir. There are five 23 separate tracts of land in this 80-acre parcel. It's 24 totaling 80 acres that's zoned right now, the NR-2, but 25 there's five different tracts. Page 114 1 COMMISSIONER WATKINS: okay. And we're not 2 allowed to know who the owners were or, I mean, it was 3 initiated by the Planning and Zoning, but I see a fellow 4 in the audience that owned a good bit of that property at 5 one time. 6 COMMISSIONER APPLE: well, I guess normally 7 we don't take who owns the property into deliberation, so 8 to speak. It's the property that we're looking at, not so 9 much who owns it. I0 COMMISSIONER WATK£NS: SUre. Sur~. 11 COMMISSIONER AP?CE: But if she has that 12 information available, I'm sure she'd he happy to sham it 13 with you. But I thought I understood her to say she did 14 not have that information. 15 MS. SPEER: on this particular site, this 16 was my easy one. Everybody else I could tell you who owns 17 what because they all -- there's opposition and favorable. 18 But this one I didn't receive anything except -- 19 COMM~ssIoNEa WATmNS: vll withdraws[ my 20 question. 21 MS. SPEER: I did want to address 22 Conmfissioner Mulroy, if I could. I wasn't aware of the 23 previous work session meetings. I do want to say that 24 that was part of my issue in writing the staff report is 25 that there is a catch 22 issue, you know, your diversify PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Page 115 1 housing. So you have this area of town however sprawl, 2 however compatibility with neighborhood. So that's why in 3 my staff report, the recommendations, I have kind of 4 opposing findings and I just want to make those clear. 5 COMMISSIONER APPLE: well, bless your 6 heart. It's unfortunate that the hours of commentary on 7 this during work sessions were not provided to you since 8 you have all five of these cases. I am perplexed as to 9 why that was not done. 10 MS. SPEER: Right. I am, as well. l l COMMISSIONE.R APPLE: commissioner Roy, 12 COMMISSIONER ROY: We're going to go 13 through several cases and I'm afraid that I'm going to 14 forget each ease as we go through it. I wonder would it 15 be mom appropriate to -- and we've talked about this t 6 particularl tract of land, to see if there's any comments 17 from tho audience about that tract of land, resolve it, 18 and then go to the next one. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: ! was just wondering 20 the same thing, if it might not be more prudent at this 21 point to separate them out for purposes of presentation. 22 It seems to be getting rather muddled. Without objection 23 -- and vote on each one as we go. All fight. That seems 24 to be the consensus. If you want to start back with 28. 25 MS. SPEEa: okay. I just wanted to -- Page 116 1 basically, I'm completed with 28, if you have any 2 questions. 3 COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. So were there 4 any questions on 28? Okay. So we're okay. We're on to 5 30. Oh, gosh, stop me. We need to vote. 6 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Yeah, we also need 7 to go for public comment. 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: We n{~l to do the 9 public hearing. Gosh, somebody stop me. Commissioner 10 Johnson has his -- 11 COMMISSIONER JOUNSON: Yeah. I still want 12 to make sure that I understand this. This property has 13 owners. We have tried to contact them. We know who they 14 are. I don't need to know but you have tried to contact 15 them and they have not responded to you; is that right? 16 MS. SPEER: rm required to contact them 17 via mail and we contact them certified mail. We actually 18 have sent out thre~ notifications for these cases because 19 of postal errors. So I have received several calls on thc 20 site. I don't have their names right now with me because 21 I received most of the calls back in August. This was 22 initially planned to go a month ago. But I haven't 23 received any written comments whatsoever on this 24 particular 80 acres. 25 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. This is a SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 113 - Page 116 CondenscItTM Page 117 1 public hearing and I do have several cards who wish to 2 address this issue. Tom McMurray, 3 MR, MCMURILAY: chairperson, Tom McMurray, 4 1800 Wickwood. Is this the shee~ that shows up here? I 5 live right there. Okay. This whole neighborhood here is 6 Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Hills of Argyle. It is 7 completely now sold and Phase 3 up here is now starting to 8 be developed. This site with Brush Creek, the way it's 9 designed with the right-of-way, would be more appropriate 10 to be 11 One reason is is we are in the City of 12 Denton, one of the rare properties like this thaCs 13 like this, but we are also in the school district of 14 Argyle ~SD. ~md one of the issues that I'm sure this 15 Commission is aware of is that Argyle just deannexed 8,000 16 acres to send a message to the City Council of Denton 17 because they force fed another deal. 18 And as a citizen of both Denton and the ISV 19 of Argyle, taxpayers of both, we would like to see not 20 only the conformity, but it's the natural conformity. 21 It's like, you know, all the terrain, if you've driven it, 22 it's got some hills, rolling to it. It's a natural 23 terrain for larger estate homes. It's the type of thing 24 that not only helps your tax base, it helps bring a 25 positive image to that area of town. Page 118 1 Although 377, you-all are working hard on 2 it, we're not offended by any of that. We understand 3 that. We drive in every day. And our position on that 4 is hhat we would like to see you do NR-1. The reason 5 being is that until Brush Creek is really redone, it's not 6 compatible at this point. I know on the plans it's got 7 the right-of-way. 8 Mr. Johnson, I don't know if you've driven 9 it, but I know that's part of your questions. But I drive 10 it every day and you don't drive too fast, it will tear 11 your car up. But assume all that is redone, across the 12 street here is actually ETJ, I believe, but fight now it's 13 just being produced as oil and gas royalty fight now. 14 That's the King area. And we would ask that y'all just 15 allow it to look a lot like this. Because if you do that, 16 it's going to be natural, it's going to be in conformity, 17 it's going to look good. It's got a lot of trees in that 18 area. We know Denton likes to save trees. So that's the 19 deal. I'd ask that you vote for NR-i. 20 COMMISSIONER APPLE; Thank you, I have a 21 card from a Larry McGehee. MeGehee, is that correct? 22 MR. MCGEHEE: Yes ma'am, My name is Larry 23 McGehee. I live at 2001 C1Mstina Court also one of those 24 little dots on the map in the Hills of Argyle. 25 When the Denton Plan was passed, our Page 119 I neighborhood was zoned ~R-2 and ~a-4, although it had been 2 platted and approved as one-acre lots and larger. And 3 when we spoke to Council about this, they basically said 4 we understand this is an oversight. This subdivision is 5 already here. They were overlaying a subdivision that had 6 been approved and plat for one and two-acre lots. So it 7 was a mistake and so that's where Na-X came from. I don't 8 know how staff could have rezoned this whole city and not 9 missed a few little things, and that one was one that was 10 missed. And so out of cou_nesy or respect or what~ver, 11 No-1 was created to take care of that subdivision. 12 I believe that all of these are the same 13 issue, that this land is rural. I've lived there for 14 almost a year and a half. I've never seen a Denton police 15 officer even in the subdivision. We had people steal some 16 signs from us and when we called them to come out, they 17 said, well, you're in Argyle. You don't even live in the 18 City of Denton. So we're not getting serviced to death 19 out there. We have to tell them where it is before they 20 can come out. You have to go through a large floodplain 21 area to even get to this area. And a big portion of this 22 tract in question is in a floodplain and probably will 23 never be developed in. I don't know what the actual 24 usable acreage is but I don't think that we're talking 25 about very many usable acres to begin with. Page I20 1 The road of Brush Creek Road is not a 2 two-lane black top. It's a one-lane death trap and you 3 can get killed there on any day because you've got two 4 blind hills. So I think it was an oversight. I think all 5 of this stuff is an oversight. And we request that you 6 keep it rural. Keep it Na-lr There will be nice big 7 homes built there. They'll pay a lot of taxes, The 8 developer is not going to get hurt on these deals. 9 They're going to sell them and make a lot of money. It's 10 just a question of how much. Thank you. 11 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. I have a 12 card from Bill Lewis. All right. You don't wish to 13 speak? 14 MR. LEWIS: Not on this issue, 15 COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. I have a card 16 from Chris Mellberg, 17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He wanted you to 18 read the back. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Traffic issues are 20 scary both -- that's not what this says. Traffic issues 21 are really bad both on Brush Creek and 377. And we wan 22 to preserve the feel of the neighborhood. 23 Is there anyone else who wants to speak in 24 support? Okay. I have two cards -- no, I have one card 25 on this particular item. Michael Pettibon. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 117 - Page 120 CondenseltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 12I MR. PETTIBON: Hi. I'm Mike Pettibon and I own 40 acres that abuts the Hills of Argyle. And I'm not really sure if I understand the zoning change all that well and maybe you can change my mind about opposing this. Page 123 NR-I? MS. SPEER: Just to clarify, the only difference in uses for NR-I and NR-2 is under NR-2 if yOU have an suP, you can put in manufactured homes. There are But I think the reason that I'm opposed, I want it to stay rural and I can tell you that 75 percent of the land that I own is floodplain and you couldn't build a house on it if you wanted to. And I have no plans to build anything else and I don't want anything else built on it. But I think that I have a problem with zoning it so that it's more prohibitive of what I could or couldn't do on my property. And I don't know if that is truIy the ease or not as far as animals or livestock or what I want to do with it. And I feel like the people in Hills of Argyle are looking at my property and trying to make sure that I conform to their standards. And while I guarantee you that, you know, I don't want to spend a million dollars on a piece of property and have it look terrible, I also moved out to the country sort of so that I was no longer in the gated neighborhood I used to be in with people telling me that I couldn't paint my front door this color or have a dog over this size or park my vehicle. That's why I'm opposed. I think that I am opposed to further regulation of land. And maybe that's not truly 5 no other residential differences. Just density and 6 manufactured housing. 7 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Does that 8 help you, sir? 9 M~. PETTIBON: Yes. 10 COMMISSIONER APPLE: IS therO anyone else 11 who wishes to address Item -- 12 COMMISSIONER ROY: I had a question. 13 COMM[SSIONERAPPLE: okay. Commissioner 14 Roy. 15 COMMISSIONF~ ROY: t had a question of the 16 person who just spoke. Sir, are you a property owner in 17 that lot that we're looking at right now? You own 18 property in that yellow area? 19 MR. PETTIBON: I own -- that's my this half 20 of the rectangle. 21 COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you. 22 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: 40 of the 80. 23 COMMISSlmmm APPLE: commissioner Johnson, 24 if you have a question. 25 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: 40 O[' thc 80 acres Page 122 the spirit of it but that's how I interpret it. COMMISSIONER APPLE: would you like us to explain to you what we're doing, what is proposed so you would understand? MR. PETTIBON: If you could. COMMISSIONER APPLE: what is being proposed, and I'll let probably Mr. Reichhart, if Mr. Reichhart would come up and explain what this -- what is happening here so that then he would maybe feel more comfortable. MR. REICHHART: very briefly, the difference between NO-1 and NR-2 is basically density. NR-1, you have a density of one unit per acre. NR-2 has a density of two units per acre. Regarding keeping animals or livestock, there are different ordinances that address that. You have to have so much acreage per type of animal you have or horses or cows, tkings like that. And the zoning, regardless if it's Ne-1 or NR-2, wouldn't matter. So the real difference is when or if the property were ever going to be subdivided in the future, it would be a density issue. COMMISSIONER APPLE: And could you also explain to him some uses such as the manufactured homes that could be allowed in NR-2 that cannot be allowed in i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 124 is yours, sir? MR. PETrlBON: Right. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: IS it the east half or the west half?. MR. PETTIBON: The west. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: The west? Have you decided yet if you're in favor of this or against it? MR. PETTIBON: You kllow, I guess that ! am still opposed. And it probably isn't my place to say it but, once again, it is just because I don't want added -~ someone telling me what I can do and can't do. Once again, I have no intention of decreasing the property values. And also I don't think if you tried as hard as you possibly could that you could put more than two more houses on that whole 40 acres. But I still stand opposed. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. I don't see any more questions. Is them anyone else who'd like to address Agenda Item No. 28? Seeing no one, does staff have any additional marks? MS. SPEER: My only additional remark would be with his opposition we'd be at about 50 percent opposition, it would require super-majority at City Council. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Commissioner Powell. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 121 - Page 124 CondenseltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 125 COMMISSIONER POWELL: IS is safe to assume that we haven't heard from the owners, owner or owners of the other 40 acres? MS. SPEER: Corro.,ct. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Comtnis siGners. Commissioner Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Ye...8, Madam Chair. I'm going to make a motion for approval. I understand the verbally stated opposition but the reality is the motion and the downzoning will be less restrictive is what the Page 127 1 hearing. 2 MS. SPEER: Good evening once again. I am 3 basically going to go through these cases and talk to you 4 about the opposition and the site location. Staff has the 5 same findings in all of the cases. This site is 6 approximately a roughly ten-acre site. Same exact 7 situation, going from Neighborhood Residential 2 to 8 Neighborhood Residential 1 zoning district. This case 9 will have to go forward to City Council for 10 super-majority. Both owners of the two tracts do oppose. 11 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. For commentary was directed towards. So I make a motion for approval as presented. Thank you. COMMISSIONER WATKINS: second. COMMISSIONER APPLE: we have a motion by Commissioner Mulroy and a second by Commissioner Watkins. For discussion, Commissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: I am greatly influenced by the landowner of half of this property that doesn't want to make a change and I don't see why we would do something he doesn't want to do. So I will be voting against approval of this. COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Johnson. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: ~ We going to register this as an opposing view that is going to drive Page 126 1 the City Council to a super-majority? 2 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Director Powell would 3 like to weigh in. 4 MR. POWELL: we really need, to make it 5 official, we do need the opposition in writing. Bm I'm 6 sure that we can get that in between now and the month it 7 takes from P&Z to City Council. $ COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: okay. And just for 9 the record, I'm going to agree with Cormnissioner Roy 10 because I'm going to give great deference to the 11 landowner' s stated preference on this. 12 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Powell. 13 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Discussion of Mr. 14 Mulroy's point. I would look at it as being more 15 restrictive because with an NR-2, he does have some 16 options that disappear when it goes to NR-1. I just want 17 to point -- I'm just looking at this a little differently 18 than you are, sir. I wanted to make that point. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Any 20 further discussion? Vote, please. Motion carries 4-3. 21 (Commissioners Johnson, Roy, Powcll voted 22 in opposition.) 23 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Next we'll address 24 . Agenda Item No. 30 which is a public hearing. Again, 25 Ms. Speer, if you'll present and I'll open the public 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Agenda Item No. 30 -- COMMISSIONER ROY: EXCUSe me. Can I ask clarification? COMMISSIONER APPLE: oh, Commissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: You said two tracts? MS. SPEER: correct, theret$ two tracts of land, two different parcels. COMMISSIONER ROY: Okay. All right. We're looking at it as one site. MS, SPEER: Correct. The line is right here. COMMISSIONER ROY: Okay. Both owners are in opposition, had written opposition to this change? MS. SPEER: correct. Page 128 1 COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you. 2 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Regarding this Agenda 3 item, we have severa[ people who would like to address 4 this, also. Again, Mr. McMurray. 5 MR. MCMURRAY: I have a question for the 6 staff to help with my -- is there a sewer down Fort Worth 7 Drive? No? Is there a sewer because if it's NR-2, 8 residential, you've got a problem with your septic. 9 Because we're all septic out here. There is sewer running l0 up Fort Worth Drive up here to the new part of Phase 3. 11 So I could see where it wouldn't be that, you know, it 12 wouldn't be that expensive to get it there. That is an 13 issue because NR-i iS the minimum for a septic 14 requirements of spacing for your aerobic system. So one 15 of the -- I understand the landowner may want opposition. 16 It's going to have to be an issue addressed at some point 17 whether or not there's going to be sewer. So we would 18 vote NR-1 because it really conforms with the land use as 19 in the neighborhood. 20 All of this is NR-! but I can understand 21 the landowner saying he doesn't want NR-2, but there's not 22 going to be a special use permit for mobile homes. Not 23 next to alt this. You talk about everybody coming down 24 here, y'all would have a good time. So that ain't going 25 to happen. So at this point, I would say that you ought PLANIqlNG AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 125 - Page 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 § 9 lO 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 Conden scltTM Page 129 to go with NR-1 for the purpose that he can't -- if the 1 landowner can't use it for anything other than NR-i anyway 2 because of the fact that you have to have a septic spacing 3 unless the City's deciding to put sewer there. Thank you. 4 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Mr. McGehee. 5 MR. MCGEHEE: I would have dressed up if 6 I'd known I was going to have to speak in front of this ? camera. Do I need to introduce myself each time? 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: please. 9 MR, MCGEHEE: Larry McGehee, 2001 Christina 10 Court, Denton, Texas. I believe and I need to ask staff 11 this but arc you allowed to build a house on a half an 12 acre without a sewer line? You're not o/lowed to do that. 3 Isn't this, in effect, an oversight in thc Denton zoning? .4 Why would this be zoned NR-2 when you can't use it as15 NR-2? This is an oversight. 16 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Could someone from 17 staff address that question? 18 MR. POWELL: I'd be happy to address it. 19 If you remember back to the previous cases, there's a20 differentiation between zoning and platting and providing, 21 as part of platting, you provide utilities. The zoning of 22 the property, could it be developed today at the higher 23 density because there's no utilities? No. But that's a 24 platting issue. It's not really a zoning issue. Though 25 Page 130 they're somewhat intertwined. So you really do need to 1 try to separate those two. The question may be can 2 someone develop that at a higher density? Yes. Would 3 they have to provide the utilities? Yes. But it is 4 possible. It might not be feasible. It might not be cost -- might be cost prohibitive right now. But that really 6 is a platting issue rather than a zoning issue. 7 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Did that 8 answer your question? 9 MR. MCGEHEE: Yeah, I guess. I still think 10 that this was an oversight. I don't believe it was 11 intentionally zoned NR~2 because there is no sewer line 12 there. It's also a 65 mile an hour State highway. The 13 traffic in there is horrible, I don't know if any of you 14 have tried to go from Argyle to Denton on Fort Worth 15 Drive. You can't get there very quickly, You're blocked 16 by that trestle down there. 17 Again, I don't think that even if it's 18 zoned NR-1 that it will -- somebody is going to come in 19 here and someday ask you for commercial zoning on this. 20 NP,-I, it may make sense because there's a railroad track 21 across there and it's a State highway, and anybody that 22 would develop that would want it to be at least one-acre 23 lots, which puts the house away from the road and the 24 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION train. It just doesn't make sense. It really needs to be SEPTEMBER 25TIt, 2002 Page 131 NR-I. And look at all the other stuff out there, We're all one-acre and bigger because there's no sewer line and that's why it's all like it is. Somebody is benefiting from a mistake. Thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Bill Lewis. All right. You just want to show support. MR, LEWIS: show me in favor of this one. COMMISSIONER APPLE:. chris Mellberg does not wish to speak but wants to express support. Sandra Lewis does not wish to speak but she wishes to offer support. Carol Haesle was not able to attend but she does want to offer support. She says all of these items include areas in rural neighborhoods with land, trees, and nature. Please allow the existing developments to maintain their environment and feel. Also, traffic on these rural roads is very bad. Please don't make it worse. And M.D. Williamson wishes not to speak but he offers support, Then I have a card from Paul Berry. He's one of the owners. Is he present? Would you like to speak? MR. BERRY: My name is Paul Berry and I am the owner of the south portion there. My address is P.O. Page 132 Box 101, Mena, Arkansas. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. MR. BERRY: I did live on this property for 20 years, but, like I say, I am now living out of state. Y'all seem to be spending some time talking about mobile homes. This property and all the property in that 30 acre group and back behind there is deed restricted from mobile homes. You couldn't put a mobile home in there if you wanted to. And -- but I do wish to express my opposition. Thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Question for staff for my education. Doesn't zoning supersede deed restrictions? MR. POWELL: No. The way it works is whichever is more restrictive. So in the case of a deed restriction that didn't allow mobile home parks but was allowed in zoning, you still couldn't do it. We wouldn't enforce that deed restriction but if it was valid, you could enforce it by private means. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Berry. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I have a question. COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Mulroy has a question for you, sir. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes, sir. Thank you Page 129- Page 132 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 CondonscltTM Page 133 for coming down. My question is prior to the adoption of 1 the Development Code, what was the zoning on this 2 property? 3 MR. BERRY: Oh, that was something else 4 that I meant to address. Until I got this notice, I was 5 still under the assumption that all that was unzoned. I 6 was never notified when the zoning was changed previously. 7 So if I ever g~ any acceptance for these two notices on 8 this issue, if I ever get any notice on hearings regarding 9 this property, it has always been after the meeting and 10 after the decision has been made. And I didn't know at 11 all when it was changed to NR-2. 12 COMMISSIONER MULROY: But previous to that, 13 to your knowledge, it was zoned Agricultural then? 14 MR. BERRY: Agricultural or unzoned or 15 something. 16 Page 135 and let's say'you had an old sF-7 and we're trying to take you to ~,m-l,well, shame on us. But that's really not the case. It's always been Ag. The policy was to assign it some zoning and we're just making that adjustment. So we're really not trying to take away something that you've had. MR. BERRY: But yOU are. But you are. COMMISSIONER MIJLROY: well, see, my comment COMMISSIONER MULROY: And how long have you owned it? MR. BeP, aY: Probably about 25, 26 years. COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. In all those times, you never had any intention or made any attempt to upzone it to two or three or four houses an acre? Mit. BERRY: NO. COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. So, see, what's transpired, we've gone -- where unzoned land was to you would be then these 20 years, did you ever come forward to try to upzone it? MR. BERRY: NO, but still you're taking something away. COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, but it's something you didn't have. MR. BERRY; NO) because I still had the land, I still have the land. Page 134 carded as Ag, we've assigned it the low end possibility as NR-I, NR-2. And really you never had NR-2, yOU had Ag. And we're trying to sustain the 'rural flavor of that area. We want to redesignate it as NP,-1 which is less dense and more rural. MR. BERRY: I never, I never -- well, I own it -- entertain this idea but yet I don't want to tie my hands behind my back. COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, I understand. I want to refresh our collective memory. One, it was originally Ag. It was assigned NR-2 during the Code 12 adoption. And in reflection -- 13 MR. BERRY: BUt I didn't know that. 14 COMMISSIONER MULROY: -- that NRq would 15 have been mom appropriate. So it's not that someone is 16 taking something away that you've had for 20 years. It is 17 attempting by this body to correct an oversight. When the 18 Code was adopted, rather than having the least dense, NR-2 19 was assigned rather than NR-1. In viewing the 20 neighborhood, we viewed it as very rural and the previous 21 makeup of tiffs body initiated the changes to go to Na-1 22 which would be our lowest designation or least dense. 23 So I just want to make it clear that these 24 deliberations have already been undertaken and it's not 25 that you had -- if you had made any effort over 20 years 17 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. Thank you. 18 COMMISSIONE~ APPLE: Thank you, Mr. Berry. 19 Is them anyone else who wishes to address the Commission 20 in regards to this Agenda item? 21 MR. REICHHART: I was just asked a question 22 in the audience and as a point of clarification I just 23 want to point out to remind everybody that Agricultural 24 zoning has a one-acm limit development similar to the 25 NR4. someone asked me that, regarding that question. Page 13 6 2 3 4 5 6 situation 7 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Commissioner Watkins. COMMISSIONER WATKINS: Just as a matter of information, and you possibly can't answer this question, but this didn't change actually or did it change the tax on the property when we went from Ag to this? MR. REICHHART: NOs sir. ?LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 8 COMMISSIONER WATKINS: I mean, they may 9 have seen an increase but that was because alt of Denton 10 County, I suppose, went up. 11 MR. REICHHART: That's correct. 12 COMMISSIONER WATK~NS: BUt it would be the 13 same. Okay. Thank you. 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Is there anyone else 1 $ who wants to address this Agenda item? Seeing no one 16 coming forward, I'm going to close the public hearing. 17 Commissioner Mulroy. 18 COMMISSIONER MULROY: That was the que, 19 right? No. I think I've already given my mini lecture 20 but in view that we had undertaken the deliberations as 21 I've stated, I'm going to remain consistent and make the 22 motion to approve as presented. Thank you. 23 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. We have a 24 motion on the table. The motion dies for lack of a 25 second. Commissioner Roy. SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 133 - Page 136 Cond_~n solt TM 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 137 COMMISSIONER ROY: we did have a lot of discussion about this area but I think I was under the assumption, I wont along with the discussion under the assumption that the property owners would be happy to have this changed. So it's obvious that in this particular case the property owners are not happy to have this changed so I move denial of this. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: second. COMMISSIONER APPLE: We have a motion and a second to deny. Any discussion? I have one polut of discussion only because I was just tolally not present at that moment. I was thinking of something else. And I would have seconded Commissioner Mulroy's motion. And for Page 139 1 property. However, we do live in a City. And sometimes 2 ii' you want to 'be -- if you would like to own a piece of 3 property that nobody can tell you what to do, perhaps you 4 ought to buy that piece of property that is further away 5 from file City than these parcels are. These parcels are 6 in the City. So, anyway, I do support this mainly 7 because that was already there. Thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, Mr. Lewis. 9 Tom McMurray. 10 MR. MCMURR~Y: Tom McMurray, 1800 Wickwood, 11 City of Denton. This piece of property is not unhke the 12 other piece o? property that y'all just discussed which 13 was the other parcel, there was two parcels in the one that, I apologize. I will be voting against the motion. Any discussion? Vote, please. Motion passes 5-2. (Commissioners Mulroy and Apple voted in Opposition.) COMMISSIONER APPLE: NeXt iS Agenda Item 31, a public hearing considering rezonlng 21 acres on Fort Worth Drive, south of Hamilton and north of Brush Creek. Ms. Speer will present and I'll open the public hearing. MS. SPEER: oood evening once again. Agenda Item No. 31, as Commissioner Apple had stated, is approximately 21 acres. The same situation down to the 14 tract. However, this one is a lot longer. And it is -- 15 being a Denton resident now for a long time, this is 16 exactly what gives us a bad name in the neighborhood is 17 that it's agricultural which is one-acre lot minimums and 18 then we come in and make a mistake as a City and now we 19 can't stand up and say we made a mistake and do the right 20 thing. Okay. We're telling you wc would tike to see it 21 done r~ght so it's in conformity with the whole area. 22 Just because of the Hills of Argyle was 23 done right} because that was an oversight and we had to 24 come down and tel1 y'all how to do that. Now we're not 25 going to get this done right. You need to vote for this Page 138 1 zoning of Residential Neighborhood 2 to Neighborhood 2 Residential 1. This particular case, I do have one owner 3 opposition and I have one owner in favor. However, the 4 opposition is right at 20 percent so the super-majority 5 rule will be required at City Council. 6 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. 7 Commissioner Powell. 8 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Is it safe to assume 9 the white area is the third owner that has not spoken? 10 MS. SPEER: Correct. 11 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I have several cards 13 for this Agenda item, also. Mr. Williamson does not wish 14 to speak but he wishes to express support. Carol Haesle 15 is not available to speak but she does express support. 16 Sandra Lewis does not wish to speak but she wants to t7 express support. Chris Mellherg is not available to speak 18 but does wish to express support. Bill Lewis, ii' you'll 19 give your name and address, please. 20 MR. LEWIS: Bill Lewis, 900 Brush Creek 21 Road. I support this zoning change. To me, it just makes 22 sense because it matches what's already them. That's the 23 main reason that I support it. I appreciate people not 24 being want -- not liking to be told how to run their .25 business, especially when it comes to using their own Page 140 1 to be NR4. There's still no sewer there. It's still the 2 same arguments. You're going to have to have development. 3 I understand there's a difference in zoning and platting. 4 The difference is that it needs to he in conformity with 5 the rural area. And I can't emphasize it enough, I like 6 the landowners. I'm a landowner. Got lots of land other 7 than this land. But this land right hem needs to be in 8 conformity with the area and the other citizens in it. 9 You have all those people that you mentioned awhile ago 10 that were for it. They all live out there. So it's like 11 the whole people are saying we need you to back up what 12 the City of Denton says. I understand the landowners may 13 or may not be for it. Here we've got one that's for it. 14 But you need to do what's right for the area, please. 15 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Mr. Larry 16 MeGehee. 17 MR. MCGEHEE: My name is Larry McGehee. I 18 live at 200 t Cl~ristina Court, Denton, Texas. I'm almost 19 breathless after this last vote. You know, it's like a 20 guy gees in a bank to make a deposit for $100.00 and he 21 finds some money in a bag and somehow that money becomes 22 his. This land has hccn zoned AgricultUral forever, one 23 acre. These people have never been down here before you 24 asking for it to be two houses per acre. There's no sewer 25 llne. And there's some kind of thought that people should PLANNING AND ZON1NG COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 137 - Page 140 CondenscItTM Page 141 1 profit from mistakes and this was a mistake. But nobody 2 wants to take away the right for someone to capitalize on 3 a mistake that the City has made. Now, I'm a property 4 owner. Iown 17 houses in this City. I've lived here 31 5 years. And to stand here and see people vote to allow 6 mistakes, I can't believe it. I'm sorry. 7 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, sir. Is 8 there anyone else who wishes to speak to this item? 9 Seeing no one coming forward, I'll close the public t0 hearing. Commissioner Roy. 11 COMMISSIONER ROY: I wanted to ask a 12 question of staff. Is the landowner who is in opposition, 13 is that landowner here? 14 MS. SPEER: That is Bill and Joyce Keenis 15 and I don't believe we have a card from them. COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Question of staff before you get away. Excuse me, Madam Chairman. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 143 1 body or the City to do it unless there is a tremendous 2 greater good. And I don't see a tremendous greater good 3 to make this particular change. I agree that it's not a 4 major issue. It's not a major change. But we discussed 5 it on the basis that this is something that the landowners 6 wanted to do, and that has not been the case. 7 Now, in this particular piece of property 8 there is I would say a significant piece of this one that 9 percentage-wise it's kind of overwhelnfing either in favor 10 or no comment. So I don't particularly feel strongly 11 about this one as opposed to the last one in which 100 12 percent of the property owners did not want to make the 13 change. 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Mulroy. 15 COMMISSIONER MULROY: YeS, With all 16 respect to my fellow Commissioners, my recollection was in 17 our discussions that perhaps because of time constraints, 18 due consideration wasn't given to this section of this next? Thank you. How big is the red property? MS. SPEER: The red property, I believe they have -- COMMISSIONER POWELL: I mean, approximately. Is it two acres? MS~ SPEER: About 15 acres, I think. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Got yOU. Thank you. Page 142 t 9 quadrant, this lower quadrant section of town. And we 20 reviewed it and we had that discussion of the Ag and 21 ~m-2, that ~4R-t was most appropriate generally for this 22 whole area. That it would, in fact, protect the majority 23 of the landowners. 24 I don't think, with all respect, I can't 25 recall that it was ever put forward that a specific Page 144 1 Ms. SPEER: I'm sorry. That's wrong. It's 2 about five acres. 3 COMMISSIONF31 POWELL: SO the gll~B property 4 would be 15 or more acres. Thank you. 5 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Mukoy. 6 COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, I'm going to 7 stay consistent. I'm ready to move approval. And I 8 remind you that, again, part of our discussion was that we 9 were looking at blanket taking it back to ~4R-t. And 10 people that wanted to do sometlfing, desired to do 11 something more dense could come and make the case with 12 their specifics in mind and we would be open to that. 13 Thank you. 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: second. Discussion? 15 Ihavejust a comment. I'm still Igness sorter 16 perplexed and fascinated by the fact that this body t7 brought these rezonings forward. And rm not sure if 18 there are lapses in the work sessions that we had and the 19 issues that were discussed or what, but I'm confused and 20 amazed. Cormnissloner Roy. 21 COMMISSIONER ROY: I am not confused and 22 amazed because at the work session it was made clear to mo 23 that this was sucfioned from the landowners and people who 24 lived in the area. And if the landowner does not want to 25 make this change, I don't feel it's appropriate for this 1 landowner of a specific plot was advocating this. No, 2 tiffs was initiated from P&Z solely and that we were 3 recognizing, a mistake may be too hash of a word, but 4 let's say not enough time in judgment in assigning tho 5 zonings when the Code was adop~d. And we hashed it over 6 and it was our consensus that t~a-~ would have been more 7 appropriate for this area and that's why we initiated it. 8 So in that sense, Mr. McG~hee is fight, the 9 net result was - is correcting the mistake. And I'll 10 reiterate and I was the one that spoke up and said, well, ~ 11 if someone comes, because I know there's some lqR-4 that 12 we're taking down, and that if they como back and say this 13 is what I want to do. Here's my amenities. Here's my 14 entranceways, et cetera, et cetera, that we'd give it the 15 fullest consideration when we had specifics. But in thc 16 meantime, in the interim, to go back to closest to Ag that 17 we can. I mean, that's my best recollection of the 18 discussion. That's why we've initiated it. Thank you. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Powell. 20 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Help me out her~. 21 How did we decide th~ configuration of this piece of 22 property to be rezoned? I saw a map earlier that showed 23 all these pieces. How do you figure this one as opposed 24 to another one or why weren't they all together7 Help me 25 out here. Why did you make the split right here? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 141 - Page 144 CondcnseltTM Page 145 1 MS. SPEER: AS far as I know, the split is 2 made simply by proximity. This is already NR-I. Then you 3 had the two parcels of NR-2, you had this NRMU section 4 that was rezoned a couple of years ago independently. 5 Then you have Brush Creek which divides these two 6 properties. This one is NR-2. And it didn't make sense 7 to have these two together because this one is NR-4. 8 COMMISSIONER POWELL: That. answered my 9 question. Thank you very much. 10 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Just to kind of weigh 11 in on that, that may be true that that was the logic for 12 it. But in our discussions my memory is the same as 13 Commissioner Muh-oy's, that we actually brought these up :14 because there were actually some oversights in this map. il 5 And I have no recollection of it being any landowners. It 16 was just a discussion amongst us at a work session and it 17 was -- the NR-4 which you're basing the NR-2 on seemed to 18 be a mistake, also. 19 And I will use the word mistake because I 20 actually was told that, that it was a mistake. 21 Especially when just across the street with a railroad 22 running through it is zoned NR-2. So if the NR-2 Was 23 based on the fact that it was between an NR-4, which was a 24 mistake, and an NRMU which had a very specific reason for 25 being an NRMU, that was a long going case and a very Page 146 1 particular parcel of land, you really can't use that 2 rationale for determining that that makes sense there. 3 MS. SPEER: I think we're addressing two 4 different questions. I think he just wondered why they 5 were stuck together the way they were, thc different 6 tracts. Why, you know, this owner is in favor but this 7 one opposes. Why are those three together as one case? 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I'm sorry. I thought 9 he was asking you how they ended up with the des[gnat[om 10 that they ended up with. 11 MS, SPEER: Right. 12 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Either way I'm 13 satisfied with the answer. 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. Thanks. 15 Commissioner Johnson. 16 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: This is an 17 interesting chart. Is that NR-6 on there correct? 18 MS. SPEER: Yes, sir. 19 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: well, why are we not 20 talking about that NR-6 then? 21 MS. SPEER: It'S a railroad and a 22 right-of-way. See, everything around here, I mean, 23 everything is eTJ. ~ll of thc white is ETJ. Only the 24 yellow is what's zoned and we are actually -- 25 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: what about south of PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION the NR-4 that's shown here? there. Page 147 1 2 3 4 5 6 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: But the way it's 7 drawn, it would look like it's NR-6. 8 MS. SPEER: It'S not. The color is hard, 9 the yellow is hard to discern from the green. 10 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay. And one more 11 question. The ETJ there that is just between what is now 12 NR-2 and what is now NR-1 -- 13 MS. SPEER: Right here? 14 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Yeah. Has not been 15 annexed by the City yet, right? 16 MS. SPEER: Correct. 17 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: SO what is the 18 requirements on who can build what in there? 19 MS. SPEER: AS far as I understand in the 20 ETJ -- larry's going to come talk. 21 MR. REICHHART: Any development in our 22 Division 1 ETJ that's approximately tttree and a half miles 23 from the City of which that area falls into, land use -- 24 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I'm sorry. We have a 25 point of order because we are actually getting off on MS. SPEER: That's also NR-2. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: It's NR-2? MS. SPEER: uh-hllh, along the right-of-way Page 148 1 another issue rather than we have a motion and a second on 2 the table and Legal has advised me that we are addressing 3 an issue that's not germane. 4 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I don't remember a 5 motion and a second. Am I wrong? 6 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Mu[roy 7 made the motion and I made the second, 8 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I'm sorry. Thank 9 you. 10 COMMISSIONF_,R APPLE: we have a motion and a 11 second. Any mom discussion on the motion and the second? 12 Vote, please. 13 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Can you restate the 14 motion just so we're sure what we're voting on? 1 $ COMMISSIONER APPLE: Certainly. 16 Commissioner Mulroy. 17 COMMISSIONER M[JLROY: ! move approval as 18 submitled. 19 COMMISSIONER POWELL: That was move to approve? 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER APPLE: HO moved approval as submitted and I seconded. Vote, please. Motion carries 6-1. (Commissioner Johnson voted in opposition.) COMMISSIONER APPLE: Moving onto our final SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 145 -Page t48 Cond~nscltTM t item, public hearing No. 32. Again, I'll open the 2 public hearing and Ms. Spear will present. 3 MS. SPE~: oood evening once again. This 4 particular item is a little bit different from our 5 previous four areas. This area is currently a 43.7 acm 6 site. It's the strip along 377 south of Brush Creek. 7 This strip is currently zoned Neighborhood Residential 4. 8 It's being requested by the Planning and Zoning Commission 9 to go to Neighborhood Residential 2. I have 15 acres of 10 opposition here, 15 acres of opposition, 20, 15 acres 11 here, and one home here and one neutral home. So I have 12 about 85, 90 percent opposition on this particular case. 13 Super-majority vote will be required at City Council. 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. 15 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Question. 16 COMMissIONER APPLE: commissioner Powell. 17 COMMISSIONER POWELL: when was this zoned 18 ~m.47 was this in the major rezoning or was this some 19 other time? And if it was in the major rezoning, why did 20 they plunk an t~R-4 there? Does anybody know? Can anybody 21 help me? 22 COMMISSIONF.~ APPLE: Mr. Powell. 23 ~. POWELL: If i may. This one is the one 24 that comes closest to the mistake word or oversight. The 25 majority of that property was in a Po and the eD had Page 150 i several variations and then it was finally hard zoned, the 2 back portion of thc property but not the front part. And 3 so if I believe the old PD had 16,000 square foot lots 4 really didn't match up with NR-4. SO it doesn't match 5 what was there prior to February 20th or February this 6 year. Now it's been upzoned since that time. 7 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I~t me add onto that 8 question then for Mr. Powell. If it doesn't match the 9 NR-4 that it was given, what did it match to? What would 10 have been a match? 11 MR. POWELL: I believe the NR-2. 12 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. 13 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Watkins. 14 COMMISSIONER WATKn~S: Thank you. I assume 15 if it's NR-4 that there's no utilities there and so there 16 will be nothing built there; is that correct? Doesn't it 17 take a one-acre site for a septic? 18 MR. PowELL: Yes. If I may, there is a 19 sewer that does run down through this area, kind of 20 bisecting it. So there is sewer. There is water. So 21 unlike the properties to the north, this one it doesn't 22 have sewer there but it's close. 23 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Again, we 24 have -- did you have a question? 25 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I have another Page 149 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 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION question. Powell. Page 151 COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. Commissioner COMMISSIONER POWELL: would that be a City of Argyle sewer? It's not a City of Denton sewer, is it? MR. POWELL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Yes, sir, what.'? MR. POWELL: City Of' Dellton sewer. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thatlk you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. We have a number of cards again who wish to speak in support of this. Mr. Williamson doesn't want to speak but wishes support. Carol Haesle in support. Sandra Lewis checked I wish to speak on this item. No? Okay. Hard to tell once both of them are checked. But she is in support. Chris Mellberg is in support. Bill Lewis. MR. LEWIS: Bill Lewis, 900 Brush Creek Road. We do support this issue. That is what is already there. The other issues here are that this is an environmentally sensitive area. You've heard a lot from us already on this property and i'm here to reiterate. Thank you for what you've done in the past to help protect that area. Making it NR-2 will help protect it some more, also. Page 152 There has also been some discussion, maybe it's differences of opinion about where the floodplain is out there. However, there is some floodplain out there. I think we can agree on that. As far as more general zoning issues go, I think that the possible strategy that some cities try to use is that the closer you are to the core of tho City, that's where higher densities occur. As you get further out away from the City, that's where the lower densities are. This is about as far away as you can get from Denton and still bc in Denton. And I think that pretty well summarizes my thoughts on this issue. I'll take any questions. COMMISSIONER APPLE: ?hank you. Tom McMurray. MR. MCMURRAY: Just in support. You've heard my arguments. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Larry McOehcc, MR. MCGEItEE: My name is Larry McGeh~e. I live at 2001 Ckfistina Court in Denton, Texas. My faith has been restored. We had one person found the money and got out of here but the rest of the money has been returned to the citizens. Thank you. This one is the biggest mistake that we're looking at tonight. NR-4 makes no sense. In fact, it ought to be ~m-t. t don't know how SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 149- Page 152 CondensoltTM Page 153 Page 155 1 we're going to NR-2 but that is what we're trying to do 1 2 here, right? NR-4toNR-2? well, I'min favor of that. 2 3 Thank you for your last vote. 3 4 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Is there 4 5 anyone else who wishes to address this item? Seeing no 5 6 one coming forward, I'll close the public hearing. 6 7 Commissioner Mulroy. 7 8 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I'm going to move 8 9 approval. 9 10 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Second. 10 11 COMMISSIONER POWELL: A question of staff. 11 12 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Roy is 12 13 13 prior to you. 14 COMMISSIONER ROY: I just wish that 14 15 somebody had explained this in more detail to the 5 16 landowners. Here we have another case of 85 percent .6 17 roughly opposition. You can argue about how we got here I7 18 but the fact is we are here at NR-4 and the landowners who 18 19 own this property don't want to change it, 85 percent of 19 20 them don't want to change it. And I'm just really 20 21 struggling with this, this whole concept, 21 22 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Powell. 22 23 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, ma'am. 23 24 That was not to get attention. That was getting over a 24 25 cold. Staff, a question. The owners who are in 25 Page 154 i opposition, did they make any attempt to get here? 2 There's nobody in opposition here and that bothers me. 3 MS. SPEER: If I can be blunt, they're 4 coming to City Council. The owners, the opposition on 5 this site has plans for this site and owns this land, they 6 will be at City Council. 7 COMMISSIONER POWELL: They own what land? 8 MS. SPEER: They own this property. 9 COMMISSIONER POWELL: They own the NR-2, as 10 well as the NR-4. 1 MS. SPEER: correct. This part. 2 COMMISSIONER POWELL: okay. But they own 13 all of the NR-2 beh/nd it, to the east of it? 14 MS. SPEER: 1 believe they do own all of 15 it. They even own the vacant lot up here. 16 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. 17 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Roy. 18 COMMISSIONER ROY: One question. That 19 vacant lot on the NR-i up there, they were not in 20 opposition to. that? 21 MS. SPEER: correct. They sent in a letter 22 for favor of that. 23 COMMISSIONER ROY; Thank you. 24 COMMISSIONER APPLE: we have a motion and a 25 second to approve. Any more discussion? Vote, please. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Motion can'[es 5-2. (Commissioners Roy and Powell voted in opposition.) COMMISSIONER APPLE: That ends our Agenda items. And if there's no further business, we are adjourned. SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 153 - Page 155 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 2 (NR-2) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 1 (DR-1) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 80 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 1300, 1360, AND TRACT 5 BRUSH CREEK ROAD LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS TRACTS 33, 34, 35, 36, 36A, 36B IN ABSTRACT 1343A IN THE J.W. WITHERS SURVEY, iN THE CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z02-0036) WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission initiated a change in zoning for approximately 80 acres of land being tracts 33, 34, 35, 36, 36A, 36B in abstract 1343A in the J.W. Withers survey the City of Demon, DeNon County, Texas, commonly known 1300, 1360, and tract 5 Brush Creek Road, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the "Property") from Neighborhood Residemial 2 (NR-2) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residemial 1 (NR-1) zoning district classification and use designation; and WHEREAS, on September 25, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval to change the zoning to Neighborhood Residemial 1 (NR-1); and WHEREAS, the City has received written protests pursuant to Texas Local Government Code Section 211.006, which requires a three quarter vote by the City Council to change the zoning district classification and use designation. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change 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 2 (NR-2) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residemial 1 (NR- 1) zoning district classification and use and such zoning change has been passed by a three quarter vote of the City Council. SECTION 2. The City's official zoning map is amended to show the change in zoning district classification. SECTION 3. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid by any court, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable SECTION 4. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Demon Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2002. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Exhibit A Z02-0036 (Brush Creek Road) NORTH LOCATION MAP Item 5B AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: November 19, 2002 Planning & Development Dave Hill, Assistant City Manager 349-8314 ~ !~';~¥>' SUBJECT - Z02-037 (Woodcreek Circle) Continue a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 6.8 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) to a Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1)zoning district. The five tracts are generally located on Woodcreek Circle, south of Brush Creek and east of Fort Worth Drive. No development is proposed at this time. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-0). BACKGROUND Applicant: City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission Denton, Texas The Planning and Zoning Commission initiated a request to have five parcels of land, totaling approximately 6.8 acres, rezoned from Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) to a Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning district. The zoning of this area was initially raised as an issue when the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Future Zoning map, specifically the southwest quadrant of the city. The Commission began to question the appropriateness of the zoning in the area based on the old zoning and the current land uses. Also, this issue was raised during the First Quarterly Review of the Development Code. The zoning of this area was one of the issues City Council instructed the Planning and Zoning Commission to review. The Commission reviewed this issue during several worksessions and voted unanimously to rezone the property on June 26, 2002. In worksessions, the Commission spent a great deal of time in discussing the issue of land use and zoning of this area and how the existing zoning came into place. At the time verbatim minutes of worksessions were not kept and therefore are not available for inclusion in the back up. However, a summary of the meeting discussion was provided in a separate memo. The public hearings before the Commission were supposed to be held on August 28, 2002 but had to be postponed due to notification errors. This delay resulted in the cases not being heard until September 25, 2002, at which time the make-up of the Commission had changed. The staff reports to the Commission were brief and did not contain the detail and history of this area. The elapsed time (3 months) between the worksessions and the public heating, and the minimum backup in the staff reports contributed to the confusion reflected in the public heating minutes. This request is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, an analysis is provided for in the Staff`Analysis (Attachment 1). Public notification and property owner responses are provided in Attachment 4. As of this writing, staff has received five favorable responses from property owners within 200 feet of the subject site. At the City Council Meeting on November 5, 2002 the case was continued until November 19, 2002 in conjunction with the related zoning cases. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Deny. 3. Postpone consideration. 4. Table item. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-0). Commissioner Apple had a legal conflict of interest and could not vote or participate in the deliberations. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The subject properties are platted. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology ofZ02-0037, commonly known as Woodcreek Circle: Application Date - DRC Date - Planning and Zoning Public Hearing - City Council Public Heating - July 23, 2002 August 1, 2002 September 25, 2002 November 5, 2002 No Neighborhood meeting was held FISCAL INFORMATION No short-term public improvements that are the responsibility of the city will be necessary. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Maps 3. Public Notification (Property Owner Notification Map and Property Owner Responses) 4. Photographs 5. Minutes from September 25, 2002 Planning and Zoning meeting 6. Draft Ordinance and Exhibit A Prepared by: / Autumn Speer Planner I Respectfully submitted: for Douglas S. Powell, AICP Director of Planning and Development ATTACHMENT I Staff Analysis Summary of Zonin~ Request The Planning and Zoning Commission initiated a request to have five parcels of land, totaling approximately 6.8 acres, rezoned from its current Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) to a Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning district. The request was initiated in an effort to maintain the rural setting of surrounding areas. Four of the five subject properties are developed and all five of the parcels are greater than one acre in size. Existing Condition of Property Property History. February 20, 2002 - The subject property was placed in the Zoning Classification Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district and land use classification by Ordinance 2002-040. Prior to the adoption of the Development Code, the property was zoned Agricultural (A) Four of the five sites currently contains single-family homes. Adjacent zoning: North: Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ET J) zoning district - single-family homes South: Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district - open space/single family East: Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) zoning district - golf course West: Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district - single-family homes Comprehensive Plan Analysis The subject site is located within a "Neighborhood Centers" future land use area. These areas may develop in conventional patterns or may be developed in a pattern of 'neighborhood centers'. Neighborhood centers are oriented inwardly, focusing on the center of the neighborhood and containing facilities vital to the day-to-day activity of the neighborhood. A neighborhood center might contain a convenience store, small restaurant, personal service shops, church or synagogue, daycare, individual office space, a small park and perhaps an elementary school. The Denton Plan identifies the following Primary Residential Land Use Principles: Preserve Neighborhoods: achieved by demanding and evenly applied. (page 35) The preservation of existing and future neighborhoods can be establishing design and construction standards that are fair and 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 would serve to preserve the rural setting in this area and maintain the existing neighborhood as called for by the Denton Plan under "Neighborhood Centers" classification. Sprawl is characterized by low residential density housing, which the proposed zoning would create. This is not desirable according to the Denton Plan. Development Review Analysis Transportation Trip Generation. A traffic impact analysis is not required. Access and Connectivity Currently the access to the property is from Brush Creek. Brush Creek primary major arterial not to standard by the Denton Mobility Plan. is identified as a Public Infrastructure Currently the infrastructure in this area is adequate to serve the proposed development. Development Code/Zoning Analysis Current NR-2 zoning allows for single-family homes with a maximum of two (2) units per acre. The proposed Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning would allow one (1) dwelling unit per acre. Staff Findings 1. The proposed zoning change is compatible with The Denton Plan in regards to compatibility and preservation of surrounding land uses. 2. The properties are platted and conform to the density and requirements of the proposed Neighborhood Residential i(NR- 1) zoning district. ATTACHMENT 2 Maps NORTH Location/Zoning Map ETJ ETJ ETJ LOCATION MAP Scale: None Mobility Map NORTH MOBILITY MAP .;",. ,,' Mobilit~collector ~ Freeway ~ Prim ar~ Major Alternate ~\~/~ Primar-f Major Arterial ?~i?'~ Secondar~ Major Alternate ~ ~'~ ~? ge¢ondaw Major Arterial FUTURE dot Scale: None ATTACHMENT 3 Public Notification NORTH Notification Map Limits o' 500' .imits of Notificatio 00' Scale: None Public Notification Date: August 15 & September 12, 2002 200' Legal Notices* sent via Certified Mail: 12 Number of responses to 200' Legal Notice · In Opposition: 0 · In Favor: 5 (Owners) · 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 Property Owner Responses Carmen Investments Favor See Attached Letter 500 Denton Tap Road (Owner) Ste 106 Coppell, Texas 75019 Sharon Cox Favor No Comments 8008 Woodcreek Circle (Owner) Argyle, Texas 76226 Larry and Susan Apple Favor "Why would "new" map change the zoning on 5 800 Woodcreek Circle (Owner) lot cul de sac in existence since 1978777 Argyle, Texas 76226 Ciro Lopez Favor "Wanted to live near nature on a big piece of land" 8011 Woodcreek Circle (Owner) Argyle, Texas 76226 Gina and Richard Favor "Moved here for rural feel from Piano- only 6 Shanhouse (Owner) months ago and would like to preserve the 8001 Woodcreek Circle lifestyle" Argyle, Texas 76226 David Yoder 940 Brush Creek Road Argyle, Texas 76226 Henry and Lona Wolfe 4801 Argyle Lane Argyle, Texas 76226 Richard and Gina Shanhouse 8001 Woodcreek Circle Argyle, Texas 76226 Favor Favor Favor See Attached Letter See Attached Letter See Attached Letter Dennis and Sharon Cox Favor See Attached Letter 8008 Woodcreek Circle Argyle, Texas 76226 *A copy of the original notice can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 Sop 20 02 02:3:3p FRO~ ; C T.House / Blue Pup FAX NO, : 972-dG2-7891 817-490-9096 ~ep. 2.8 2~ 12:58PM P1 September plamiing and Developmem Department City of Denton, Texa~ AtI~. Autumn Speer Vi~t F~ ~O. 34~97fl7 l~; Zo. le8 Ca,e Z02-~03~ Dear Ms. Spec~ C#r~en lnvestment9, l~c. is ~c o~er of e~ of t~ I~a i~uded ~ ~is p~p~ ~m~, It h my uude~l~ ~at ~ ~sral ~la~s (L~, minlmm lot width, ~backs, ~c.) a~ t~ same for ~.l, lmmi~g ~s undc~t~d[~ is c~ it .ap~n~ tb~ ~C p~d ~n~ug iff no way ~a~da~a that would ~ im~s~ ~ the NR*~ ~n~ ~at I am eot aw~ ~, P~ ad~ m~ 500 DENTON TAP ROAD - SUITE 106 · COPPELL, TEXAS 7501{) · 462-1723 NOT CE OF PUBL3;C HEARZNe Z02.0037 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City o$ Denton will hold a public hearing 0¢t Wed; September 25, 2002, to consider rezoning five tracts of land Iotaling approximately 6,8 acres gE located on Woodcreek Circle, souLh of Brush Creek and east of For[ Worth Drive, from a Nei Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning district (see backside). The property is legatly described as Lots 1-5, Block t of the Woodcreek Addition in of Denton, Denton County, Texas. No development is proposed at this time. The public headng wilt start at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall located at McKinney Street, Denton. Texas. Because you own property within two hundred (200) feel subject property, the Planning ancl Zoning Commf$~lon would like to hoar how you feel ~b~ zoning chenge request end invites you to attend the public headng. Please. in order for your op be taken into account, re[urn this form with your comments prior to the date of lhe public hearin in no way prohibits you from attending and participating id th~ public hearing,) You may fax number located at the bottom, mail it to the address below, or drop it off in. person: Planning and Development Department 22t N. Elm ST Denton, Texas 7620'1 Affn: Autumn Spoor, Planne~'l The zoning process includes (we public hearings designed to provide opporlunlfles for involvement and comment. Prior to the public hearings, landowners within two hundred {200) the subject property are notiFied of thc zoning request by way of this notice. The first public he held before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission is informed of the responses in support and in opposition, Second, the zoning petition is forwarded to the City COL final action providing the Commi,s$ion recommends approval. Should the Commission reco~ denial, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the City Council. If owners of more than (20) percent of the land area within two hundred (200} feet of the site submil wr[tlen opposition, out of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve thc zoning change. These used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposition, Reasons forOpposltion; Please circTe one: Neutral tO request Tolephgne Number: ~/0-~_ Physical Address of Proped~ within 200 feet: CiTY OF DENTON, TEXAS S£p 2 CITY HALL WEST , DENTON, TEXAS 76201 · g40.34g.83~rD . (F} NOTICE OF PUBLTC HEAR:I:N6 Z02-0037 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton Will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, September 25, 2002, to consider rezoning five tracts of land totaling approximately 6.8 acres generally located on Woodcreek Circle, south of Brush Creek and east of Fort Wodh Drive, from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning distdct (see map on backside). The property is legally described as Lots 1~5, Block 1 of the Woodcreek Addition in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. No development is proposed at this time. 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 ~ro..m.. attending, and participating in. the public hea#ng.) 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: Autumn Speer, Planner I 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 headng 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. 'Reasons for Opposition: Signature: Please circle one: Neutral to request Opposed to request Printed Name: Mailing Address: c ty, state z p: Telephone Number: ... ' ~,~ 7-,.~'~,~' g Physic[ Address of Properly ~thin 200 feet: ~ ~¢¢~r~ ~~ CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS cITY HALL WEST · DENTON, TEXAS 76201 · 940.349.8350 · (F) 940.349.7707 Z02.0037 200' Nofi~e NOTICE OF PUBLIC.' HEARING Z02-0037 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, September 25, 2002, to consider rezoning five tracts of land totaling approximately 6.8 acres generally ~ocated on Woodcreek 'Circle, south of Brush Creek and east of Fort Worth Drive, from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning district (see map on backside). The property is legalty described as Lots 1-5, Block 1 of the Woodcreek Addition in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. No development is proposed at this time. The public hearing witl 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 w. ay pr~ohib_i.t~_y_ou from ..attending and.part!cipating in the public h_earing.) You may fax it to the number located at the bottom, mail it to the address below, or drop it off imperson: Planning and Development Department 221 N. Elm ST Denton, Texas 76201 Attn: Autumn Speer, Planner I 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. Please circle one: __nnfa ~ _ vor of request......)' Neutral to request Opposed to request - ~' Reasons for OppOsition:; -. -~..~- .-~ ~ - Mailing Address: (:~) ~ / ~O ~ ~,~ ff ~ . City, State Zip:~~ ~', %~ 7 ~ ~~. T ephone 7 ¢ ~hysical Address of ~rope~y w~th[n 200 feet: ~// ~~~ CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CiTY HALL WEST · DENTON, TEXAS 76201 · 940.349.8350 · (F) 940.349.7707 Z02-0037 200' Notice NOT'J:¢E OF PUBL]:¢ HEAR N6 Z02-0037 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, September 25, 2002, to consider rezoning five tracts of land totaling approximately 6.8 acres generally located on Woodcreek Circle, south of Brush Creek and east of Fort Worth Drive, from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning district (see map on backside). The property is legally described as Lots 1-5, Block 1 of the Woodcreek Addition in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. No development is proposed at this time. The pubfic 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 ~/o hundred (200) feet of fhe 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 ypu f.._/;o_m.._ attending a. nd 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: Autumn Speer, Planner l 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 wdtten 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 Opposed to request ~Rea ' Signature: ~~. dY'~. ,~~~/~:~ MaifingAddress: ~ ~o¢~cr~ek Ci~, State Zip: Q~ . T~ Telephone Number: G~, '~S{ , Physi~l Address of Properly within 200 feet: CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS C~TY HALL WEST · DENTON, TEXAS 76201 · 940.349.8350 · (F) 940.349,7707 Z02~0037 200' Nofice September 24, 2002 To: Planning and Zoning Commission Members Mayor and City Council Members Re: Public Hearings on Brush Creek Road and Highway 377 area rezonings ~ am unable to attend the meeting~ but would like my comments on record in support of the zoning changes that are proposed. My wife and ! have lived at 940 Brush Creek Road since 1985. We moved from the City of Denton to this area to get away from the high-density houses and to a less busy, less stressful way of life. We have continued to watch the development of new homes In our area and were comfortable with the quality and density of these homes because they have all maintained the space and openness of the community. We were appalled to see that the new zoning map has changed the zoning along Brush Creek Road to NR 2, which ! understand is 2 homes to an acre of land. That is very scary to those of us who have lived here, are raising families and animals and enjoying our 'country" way of life. ! presume that this zoning would allow my neighbor, if he so chose, to subdivide his 10 acres and put 20 houses next to mine. Please support the change to NR 1 zoning. There are no undeveloped lots along this road and lot sizes range from 2 acres up to 80 acres. The other area that has us very concerned is the NR 4 zoning along the frontage of 377, south of Brush Creek Road, :just around the corner from our home. Who, in all common sense, could envision 4 homes to the acre out here? ! specifically remember Assistant City Manager, Dave Hill, telling us when this new plan was in the beginning stages that properties closer in to town would be denser and as you moved away from town you would have less density, with the least density being in the areas that bordered the ET3, or other towns. We are as far from ~own as you can get. We border Argyle and they, as a town, Just reaffirmed their commitment to keeping a rural, open feel with their new plan. ! just don't see how NR 4 fits. Directly across the highway, land with a railroad track running through it is even zoned less dense - NR 2. We ask that you support the rezoning change to NR 2 for this strip. Please, please take a good look at these and make them compatible for this area. There should not be more than one home, at the most, to an acre in this area. We feel we have already been greatly compromised by the NR 2 designation on the approximately 150 acre tract that is being developed as Country Club Village. We do not want to be downgraded any further. We keep hearin~qv~er,~nd over how the new plan is concerned with preserving and protecting ~l~i~l~~hoeds. Well, ~ preserve and protect us. '! can only hope understand the impact your decision will have on those and so long to build the very unique community we now I~( and~llerish. Thank you for Your time and kind consideration. /~- 940 Brush Creek Read Argyle, TX 76226 September 25, 2002 To: City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission Denton City Council and Mayor Re: Support for rezoning requests to less density re Brush Creek Road, Highway 377 and Hills of Argyle area We would 1/kc to respectfully request that a zoning change be seriously considered to correct what must surely be an error in the zoning map. In section L6, in an area where every existing home within a 1.5 mile radius is located on at least an acre, with most homes being on lots of 2 to up to I00 acres, there is a large section of land along Highway 377 designated to be NR-4. That would seem totally incompatible with the promise to "preserve and protect exisisting neighborhoods". The rural atmosphere and the large estate size lots, ARE the existing neighborhood and it is unfathomable that NR- 4 would be seen as a reasonable designation to be "plopped" down in the midst of this. There are other concerns as well, as there is an environmentally sensitive area along one side of this area as well as continuous flooding problems. We request that this area be rezoned to NR-2 to at least accommodate some of our concerns. There is undeveloped land adjoining this area that has been designated as NR-2, and that would seem more appropriate. Also, the land directly behind our home in the Hills of Argyle, along Brush Creek Road, has been designated on the new map as NR-2, which is also totally inconsistent with the surrounding area. To our knowledge, all of the lots on Brush Creek Road from Highway 377 to Highway 1830 are all developed, complete with homes, barns, animals, etc. All of these developed lots are large - about 2 acres up to about 80 acres. Why would you then "overzone" this area as NR-2? Makes no sense to us Please correct these mistakes by approving the rezoning for less density for this area. Sincerely, -, Henry and Lona Wolfe 4801 Argyle Lane Hills of Argyle Argyle, TX 76226 September 25, 2002 To: Denton Plaunln~ and Zoning Commission Re: September 25, 2002, meeting - agenda items 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 We Just recently purchased our dream home at 8001 Woodcreek Circle. We moved here from Piano expressly to get away from the crowded subdivisions and hurried lifestyle. Though we commute to work now, the drive is more than worth the peace and tranq~lity we find when we return home. We researched many area towns and looked at many homes trying to find an area that had estate-size lots and some semblance of nature. A realtor in Dallas actually suggested this area to us aft~, hea~ing our desi~'es and otu' f~ustration in locating what we were looking for. Every surrounding town has subdivision miter subdivision on small Iota or in some cases, on no lot at all !! This arem of Denton is unique in that you can offer large lots, in the midst of natural beauty, and yet be close to town. This area is somethln~ very special. Its uniqueness needs to be preserved. There a~e Hterally hundreds of crowded subdivisions to choose fron~ but extremely few that offer what we have. Please vote in support of the rezonlugs for this area that will help to maintain the wonderful quality of our new life here in your fair city. We will be so disappointed ff this area becomes what we searched for so long to escape from. d and Olna Shanhouse 8001 Woodcreek Circle Argyle, TX 76226 September 24, 2002 Dear Mayor Brock, City Council Members, and Planning and Zoning Commission Members, Please take another look at our neighborhood. We live in a cul-de-sac that was annexed into Denton in the tate 1970's. Our cul-de-sac contains 5 lots, with 4 homes that have been in existence for many years and one unbuilt lot. The 5 lots range in size from 1.022 acres up to 2.003 acres. On the new zoning map, apparently they have now zoned our area to NR 2, or 2 homes to the acre. This puts us in avery precarious position with regard to our wel{-established neighborhood. With this new zoning, the owner of the vacant lot could completely change the character of what we have worked so hard to create - a spacious, rural feel. Another seemingly incongruous zoning is the NR 4 zoning along 377 from Brush Creek Road south, which is located behind our cul-de-sac. This would appear to be better served by an NR 1 or NR 2 zoning and more in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood - to one side of the area now zoned NR 4 is a large (50 + acres) cattle farm and to the other side is a large horse farm. Another important consideration is that this area is adjacent to an already threatened environmentaJ[y sensitive area and an area that has had significant flooding problems, which would be exacerbated by higher density. We have also noted that across the street from us (in the as-yet-unannexed area along Brush Creek Road) you have now zoned that area to be NR 2 also, yet those homes are on even Jar§er lots, some 20 to 40 acres and more. Ptease correct these apparent oversights and consider something more approprfate, such as NR f. The future of our neighborhood is at stake. We would appreciate your vote in support of the rezoning for the lower densities which, in turn, is a vote for the integrity of our long-standing neighborhood. Most sincerely, Dennis and Sharon Cox 8008 Woodcreek Circle Argyle, TX 76226 940-243-1122 ATTACHMENT 4 Photographs 1 COMMISSIONER th~ all as a group. 2 Agenda are public hearings ann racy are numbers 28 2 COMMISSrONER POWELL: NO. We would be 3 through 32, and they are basically in the same geographic 3 exert that she has prop~y in 29. 4 area and very similar in nature. And I would have 4 ¢OMMISSrOr~ER IOHNSON; okay, So on 29 all 5 proposed to take all five at one time for the 5 the owners ar~ in agreement? 6 presentation. However, I own property in Item No. 29 so 6 MS. SPEP: correct. 7 I need to excuse myself, Vice-Chair Powell will kindly 7 COMMISSEONE~ JOSr~SON; okay, 8 take over the meeting and then I will return for -- and I 8 COMM~SSrO~ER POWELL: R looks like Nfl:. 9 will return after that item and then we will proceed with 9 Powelt wanted to say something. Okay. I don't see any 10 Items 28, 30, 3 I, and 32 without objection. 10' other questions. I wouldn't know if tho light was lit or 11 COMMISSIONER POWELL: At this time I'll 11 not so you'll have to raise your hand. Thank you. I'll 12 open the public hearing on Item No. 29 and ask for a 12 ask if there's anybody here that would like to speak on 13 staff report. 13 Item No. 29 for or against. If anybody would like to. 14 MS. SPEER: Good evening again, 14 Please. Please come down and give us your name and your 15 Commissioners. Agenda No. 29 is a Planning and Zoning 15 address. 16 initiated request. It is five parcels. Pve put up a map 16 m. MCOenee: my name is Larry McGchee. I 17 of the entire area so we can use the same map throughout. 17 live at 2001 Christina Court in the City of Denton. Was 18 But this is the Woodcreek Circle. Five parcels are in 18 that all I needed? 19 question. Currently the area is zoned Neighborhood 19 COMMISSIONER POWELL; Tel1 US whether 20 Residential 2. Four of the five lots do have homes on 20 you're in favor or against and why. 21 them. The one vacant lot is to the comer. What you've 21 MR. MCaEHEE: Vm in favor. It's obviously 22 received are five favorable opposite notifications that 22 -- I think there's only one lot really in question there 23 were received today and Monday. This property is located 23 and everything else is built out so I'm definitely in 24 within a Neighborhood Centers future land use area. The 24 favor of that. 25 main purpose of this downzoning of this property is to 25 COmmissioNER eOWgLL: Thank you, sir. Mr. Page 106 Page 108 1 maintain the rural integrity of this area. And these five I McMurray raised his hand a minute ago. Do you wish to 2 lots, being that they are already developed, they're 2 speak? I have your card in favor. 3 already over one-acre lots, staff finds that the zoning is 3 Ma. MCMURRAY: Tom McMurray, 1800 Wickwood, 4 compatible with the existing land use. I'll take any 4 City of Denton property. That parcel number 29, I would 5 questions. 5 vote in favor of that one. All of the other lots are 6 COMMISSIONER POWELL; Thank you. Are there 6 already conforming to the NR-1 and there's only one lot 7 any questions from the Commissioners? I don't have a clue 7 left. It's right at the end of the cul-de-sac. And it 8 how to work these lights so we'll go with hands. 8 would almost be harder to split that anyway to try to make 9 COMMrSSIONER JOHNSON: I didn't see on 9 two lots anyway. So I don't think this is a very I0 these that it indicated who the owners are of the 10 difficult discussion. 11 properties. 11 COMM~SmOr~e~ cOWerS: Thank you, sir. I 12 MS. SPEER: The notifications that you 12 also show a Mr. Fred Moell~r is in favor of Item 29. A 13 received today, the four, those are the owners, the four 13 Mr. Williamson, is he here to speak? A Mr. Bill Lewis. 14 that we just passed out. The last letter is the vacant i4 You didn't mention this one, did you? All right. That's 15 lot. 15 all I show in favor. None against. Anyone else who would 16 coMMISSIONER JOHNSON: okay. So all of the 16 like to speak on this issue? Close the public hearing and 17 Agenda itcans, the owners are in agrccraent with the zoning? 17 ask for whatever the Comrnissioncrs would enjoy hem. 18 MS. SPEER: Corll~t. Addenda No. 29, this 18 COMMISglONER MULROV: Vii move approval. 19 particular item, Woodcreek Circle, they're all in favor. : 19 COMMISSIONER WATKINS: second. 20 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: okay. What about 28 20 COMMISSIONER POWELL: we have a motion to 21 and30-- 21 approve and we have a second. I'll ask you to vote. And ,22 ms. S~EER: we're not to those yet. 22 I'll have to go down them to vote so my vote doesn't show 23 COMM~SSrONER eOWE[~: we're only doing 29 23 as Susan's vote. And if Mr. Powell will read the score. !24 at this time. 24 MR. ?OWE[~: MOtion carries 6-0 with one 125 COMMISS;IONERJOHNSON: okay. I'm sorry. I 25 abstention. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 105 - Page t 08 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 2 (NR-2) ZON1NG DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESDIENTIAL 1 (DR-1) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 6.8 ACRES OF LAND GERERALLY LOCATED AT WOODCREEK CIRCLE, SOUTH OF BRUSH CREEK ROAD AND EAST OF FORT WORTH DRIVE LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 - 5, BLOCK 1 OF THE WOODCREEK ADDITION, IN THE CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z02-0037) WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission initiated a change in zoning for approximately 6.8 acres of land being Lots 1-5, Block 1, of the Woodcreek Addition in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the "Property") from Neighborhood Residemial 2 (NR-2) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residemial 1 (NR-1) zoning district classification and use designation; and WHEREAS, on September 25, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the requested change in zoning; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change 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 2 (NR-2) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residemial 1 (NR-1) zoning district classification and use. SECTION 2. The City's official zoning map is amended to show the change in zoning district classification. SECTION 3. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid by any court, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable SECTION 4. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the DeNon Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Denton, 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 Exhibit A Z02-0037 (Woodcreek Circle) NORTH LOCATION MAP Item 5C AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: November 19, 2002 Planning & Development Dave Hill, Assistant City Manager 349-8314 ~ !~';~¥>' SUBJECT - Z02-038 (Fort Worth Drive N of Brush Creek) Continue a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 9.6 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) to a Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1)zoning district. The two tracts are generally located on Fort Worth Drive, north of Hamilton. No development is proposed at this time. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial (5-2). BACKGROUND Applicant: City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission Denton, Texas The Planning and Zoning Commission initiated a request to have two parcels of land, totaling approximately 9.6 acres, rezoned from Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) to a Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning district. The zoning of this area was initially raised as an issue when the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Future Zoning map, specifically the southwest quadrant of the city. The Commission began to question the appropriateness of the zoning in the area based on the old zoning and the current land uses. Also, this issue was raised during the first Quarterly Review of the Development Code. The zoning of this area was one of the issues City Council instructed the Planning and Zoning Commission to review. The Commission reviewed this issue during several worksessions and voted unanimously to rezone the property on June 26, 2002. In worksessions, the Commission spent a great deal of time in discussing the issue of land use and zoning of this area and how the existing zoning came into place. At the time verbatim minutes of worksessions were not kept and therefore are not available for inclusion in the back up. However, a summary of the meeting discussion was provided in a separate memo. The public hearings before the Commission were supposed to be held on August 28, 2002 but had to be postponed due to notification errors. This delay resulted in the cases not being heard until September 25, 2002, at which time the make-up of the Commission had changed. The staff reports to the Commission were brief and did not contain the detail and history of this area. The elapsed time (3 months) between the worksessions and the public heating, and the minimum backup in the staff reports contributed to the confusion reflected in the public heating minutes. This request is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, an analysis is provided for in the Staff`Analysis (Attachment 1). Public notification and property owner responses are provided in Attachment 4. The property owners have opposed the rezoning, therefore a supermajority vote (6-1) by City Council will be required to approve this rezoning. At the City Council Meeting on November 5, 2002 the case was continued until November 19, 2002 in conjunction with the related zoning cases. Due to the necessity for a super majority vote a full quorum was desired. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Deny. 3. Postpone consideration. 4. Table item. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial (5-2), Apple and Mulroy opposed ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The subject properties are not platted. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology ofZ02-0038, commonly known as Fort Worth Drive N of Brush Creek: Application Date - DRC Date - Planning and Zoning Public Hearing - City Council Public Heating - July 23, 2002 August 1, 2002 September 25, 2002 November 5, 2002 No Neighborhood meeting was held FISCAL INFORMATION No short-term public improvements that are the responsibility of the city will be necessary. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff'Analysis 2. Maps 3. Public Notification (Property Owner Notification Map and Property Owner Responses) 4. Photographs 5. Minutes from September 25, 2002 Planning and Zoning meeting 6. Draft Ordinance and Exhibit A Prepared by: / Autumn Speer Planner I Respectfully submitted: AICP Director of Planning and Development for ATTACHMENT I Staff Analysis Summary of Zoning Request The Planning and Zoning Commission initiated a request to have two parcels of land, totaling approximately 9.6 acres, rezoned from its current Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) to a Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning district. The request was initiated in an effort to maintain the rural setting of surrounding areas. Existing Condition of Property Property History. February 20, 2002 - The subject property was placed in the Zoning Classification Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district and land use classification by Ordinance 2002-040. Prior to the adoption of the Development Code, the property was zoned Agricultural (A) The subject property currently contains single-family homes and agricultural uses. Adjacent zoning: North: Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1)zoning district-single-family/agricultural South: Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use (NRMU) zoning district -single- family/agricultural East: Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) zoning district- single-family/agricultural West: Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) zoning district-single-family/agricultural Comprehensive Plan Analysis The subject site is located within a "Neighborhood Centers" future land use area. These areas may develop in conventional patterns or may be developed in a pattern of 'neighborhood centers'. Neighborhood centers are oriented inwardly, focusing on the center of the neighborhood and containing facilities vital to the day-to-day activity of the neighborhood. A neighborhood center might contain a convenience store, small restaurant, personal service shops, church or synagogue, daycare, individual office space, a small park and perhaps an elementary school. The Denton Plan identifies the following Primary Residential 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 would serve to preserve the rural setting in this area and maintain the existing neighborhood as called for by the Denton Plan under "Neighborhood Centers" classification. Sprawl is characterized by low residential density housing, which the proposed zoning would create. This is not desirable according to the Denton Plan. Development Review Analysis Transportation Trip Generation. A traffic impact analysis is not required. Access and Connectivity Currently the access to the property is from Fort Worth Drive. Fort Worth Drive is identified as a primary major arterial by the Denton Mobility Plan. The future surrounding road system may not be compatible with this type of development Public Infrastructure Currently the infrastructure in this area is adequate to serve the proposed development. Development Code/Zoning Analysis Current NR-2 zoning allows for single-family homes with a maximum of two (2) units per acre. The proposed Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning would allow one (1) dwelling unit per acre. Staff Findings 1. The proposed zoning change is compatible with The Denton Plan in regards to compatibility and preservation of surrounding land uses. 2. The proposed zoning change would provide for a diversity of housing stock. 3. The proposed zoning change may not be compatible with the mobility plan for this area. 4. The proposed zoning change would facilitate sprawl, which is not desired by the Denton Plan. ATTACHMENT 2 Maps NORTH Location/Zoning Map ETJ ETJ LOCATION MAP Scale: None Mobility Map NORTH MOBILITY MAP .:",. ,,' MobiliWcollector ~ Freeway ~* Prim ar'f Major Alternate ~\~/~ Primar'f Major A~erial ,?~?~? Seconda~ Major Alternate ~ ~? geconda~ Major A~erial FUTURE dot Scale: None ATTACHMENT 3 Public Notification NORTH Notification Map Limits of 500' Notification Limits of 200' Notification Scale: None Public Notification Date: August 15 & September 12, 2002 200' Legal Notices* sent via Certified Mail: 4 Number of responses to 200' Legal Notice · In Opposition: 2 (Owners) · In Favor: 0 · Neutral: 0 Percent of land within 200' in opposition: greater than 20% Owner Opposition: 100% *A copy of the notification list can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 Property Owner Responses Paul Berry PO Box 101 Board Camp, AR Ed Ruibal 608 S Pearl Dallas, TX 76201 Opposed (Owner) Opposed (Owner) David Yoder 940 Brush Creek Road Argyle, Texas 76226 Henry and Lona Wolfe 4801 Argyle Lane Argyle, Texas 76226 Richard and Gina Shanhouse 8001 Woodcreek Circle Argyle, Texas 76226 Favor Favor Favor See Attached Letter See Attached Letter See Attached Letter Dennis and Sharon Cox Favor See Attached Letter 8008 Woodcreek Circle Argyle, Texas 76226 *A copy of the original notice can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 NOTICE OF PUBL]:¢ HEARZN,G . Z02-0038 - The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, September 25, 2002, to consider rezoning two tracts of land totaling approximately 9.6 acres generally located on Fort Worth Drive, north of Hamilton, from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning district (see map on backside). The property is legally described as Tracts 7 and 9, in Abstract 1164A, Old DCAD TR 1H and 1 F, in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. No development is proposed at this time. The public hearing will start at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall located at 2'15 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 w_ay_p£ohibits_.you..£rorn attendin__~Land part~cipat_i~g_i_n th_e public hearing.) You may fax it to the number located at the bottom, mail it to the address below, or dro Planning and Development Department 221 N. Elm ST Denton, Texas 76201 Attn: Autumn Speer, Planner I ,PLANNING & D.E.+V,E.IT,,,0.P rE,,I T The zoning process includes two public hearings designed ,~, prcv=,,,c ;~p;,,'.:::.: ..... Iizen 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 . Reasons for Opposition: Please circle one: Neutral to request t~Opposed to request Signature: Printed Name; Mailing Address: Ci~, State Zip: ..... Physical Address of Prope~y within 200 feet: OlTY O~ DENTON, TEXAS c~ HALL WEST · DENTON, TEXAS 7620~ · 940.S4~.SS50 · (F) 940.349.7707 Z02-0038 200' Notice FROM : PHOTOS RESTORED NO. : 50~394~8~ Aug. 23 2~2 O~:iTPM Pi NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAR:I:N6 Z02-0038 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of' Denton will hold a public headng on Wednesday, August 28, 2002, to consider rezoning two tracts of land totaling approximately 9.6 acres generally located on Fort Worth Drive, north of Hamilton, from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential I (NR-I) zoning district (see map on backside), The property is legally described as Tracts 7 and 9, in Abstract '~ 164A, Old DCAD TR 1H and IF, In the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, No development is proposecl at this time. The public hearing will start at 7:00 p,m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall located at 215 E. McKinney Street, Dot'ton, Texas. Because you own property within two hundred (200) feet of the ,~ubject. property, the Planning end Zoning Cornmi~eion would like to hear how you feel about lhis zoning change request and fnvftes you to attend the public heating, Please, in order for your opinion to ........ be .ta.k.e..n.l.n.!.o...ap_..cg..u...n...t., ..r. eturn t.hi~ form witl~ ~L~_ur comments pdor to the date of the public headn~ (This 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 7620'1 Attm Autumn Spear, Planner I 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 pubtic hearing is held before the' Planning and Zoning Commission, The Commission is informed of the percent responses in support and in opposition, Second, the zoning petition is forwarded to the City Coundl for flna] action providing the Commission recommends approval. Should the Commission recommend deniat, 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 h~lndred (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 . Reasons for opposition: Z02.0038 2gO'Notice September 24, 2002 To: Planning and Zoning Commission Members Mayor and City Council Members Re: Public Hearings on Brush Creek Road and Highway 377 area rezonings ~ am unable to attend the meeting~ but would like my comments on record in support of the zoning changes that are proposed. My wife and ! have lived at 940 Brush Creek Road since 1985. We moved from the City of Denton to this area to get away from the high-density houses and to a less busy, less stressful way of life. We have continued to watch the development of new homes In our area and were comfortable with the quality and density of these homes because they have all maintained the space and openness of the community. We were appalled to see that the new zoning map has changed the zoning along Brush Creek Road to NR 2, which ! understand is 2 homes to an acre of land. That is very scary to those of us who have lived here, are raising families and animals and enjoying our 'country" way of life. ! presume that this zoning would allow my neighbor, if he so chose, to subdivide his 10 acres and put 20 houses next to mine. Please support the change to NR 1 zoning. There are no undeveloped lots along this road and lot sizes range from 2 acres up to 80 acres. The other area that has us very concerned is the NR 4 zoning along the frontage of 377, south of Brush Creek Road, :just around the corner from our home. Who, in all common sense, could envision 4 homes to the acre out here? ! specifically remember Assistant City Manager, Dave Hill, telling us when this new plan was in the beginning stages that properties closer in to town would be denser and as you moved away from town you would have less density, with the least density being in the areas that bordered the ET3, or other towns. We are as far from ~own as you can get. We border Argyle and they, as a town, Just reaffirmed their commitment to keeping a rural, open feel with their new plan. ! just don't see how NR 4 fits. Directly across the highway, land with a railroad track running through it is even zoned less dense - NR 2. We ask that you support the rezoning change to NR 2 for this strip. Please, please take a good look at these and make them compatible for this area. There should not be more than one home, at the most, to an acre in this area. We feel we have already been greatly compromised by the NR 2 designation on the approximately 150 acre tract that is being developed as Country Club Village. We do not want to be downgraded any further. We keep hearin~qv~er,~nd over how the new plan is concerned with preserving and protecting ~l~i~l~~hoeds. Well, ~ preserve and protect us. '! can only hope understand the impact your decision will have on those and so long to build the very unique community we now I~( and~llerish. Thank you for Your time and kind consideration. /~- 940 Brush Creek Read Argyle, TX 76226 September 25, 2002 To: City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission Denton City Council and Mayor Re: Support for rezoning requests to less density re Brush Creek Road, Highway 377 and Hills of Argyle area We would 1/kc to respectfully request that a zoning change be seriously considered to correct what must surely be an error in the zoning map. In section L6, in an area where every existing home within a 1.5 mile radius is located on at least an acre, with most homes being on lots of 2 to up to I00 acres, there is a large section of land along Highway 377 designated to be NR-4. That would seem totally incompatible with the promise to "preserve and protect exisisting neighborhoods". The rural atmosphere and the large estate size lots, ARE the existing neighborhood and it is unfathomable that NR- 4 would be seen as a reasonable designation to be "plopped" down in the midst of this. There are other concerns as well, as there is an environmentally sensitive area along one side of this area as well as continuous flooding problems. We request that this area be rezoned to NR-2 to at least accommodate some of our concerns. There is undeveloped land adjoining this area that has been designated as NR-2, and that would seem more appropriate. Also, the land directly behind our home in the Hills of Argyle, along Brush Creek Road, has been designated on the new map as NR-2, which is also totally inconsistent with the surrounding area. To our knowledge, all of the lots on Brush Creek Road from Highway 377 to Highway 1830 are all developed, complete with homes, barns, animals, etc. All of these developed lots are large - about 2 acres up to about 80 acres. Why would you then "overzone" this area as NR-2? Makes no sense to us Please correct these mistakes by approving the rezoning for less density for this area. Sincerely, -, Henry and Lona Wolfe 4801 Argyle Lane Hills of Argyle Argyle, TX 76226 September 25, 2002 To: Denton Plaunln~ and Zoning Commission Re: September 25, 2002, meeting - agenda items 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 We Just recently purchased our dream home at 8001 Woodcreek Circle. We moved here from Piano expressly to get away from the crowded subdivisions and hurried lifestyle. Though we commute to work now, the drive is more than worth the peace and tranq~lity we find when we return home. We researched many area towns and looked at many homes trying to find an area that had estate-size lots and some semblance of nature. A realtor in Dallas actually suggested this area to us aft~, hea~ing our desi~'es and otu' f~ustration in locating what we were looking for. Every surrounding town has subdivision miter subdivision on small Iota or in some cases, on no lot at all !! This arem of Denton is unique in that you can offer large lots, in the midst of natural beauty, and yet be close to town. This area is somethln~ very special. Its uniqueness needs to be preserved. There a~e Hterally hundreds of crowded subdivisions to choose fron~ but extremely few that offer what we have. Please vote in support of the rezonlugs for this area that will help to maintain the wonderful quality of our new life here in your fair city. We will be so disappointed ff this area becomes what we searched for so long to escape from. d and Olna Shanhouse 8001 Woodcreek Circle Argyle, TX 76226 September 24, 2002 Dear Mayor Brock, City Council Members, and Planning and Zoning Commission Members, Please take another look at our neighborhood. We live in a cul-de-sac that was annexed into Denton in the tate 1970's. Our cul-de-sac contains 5 lots, with 4 homes that have been in existence for many years and one unbuilt lot. The 5 lots range in size from 1.022 acres up to 2.003 acres. On the new zoning map, apparently they have now zoned our area to NR 2, or 2 homes to the acre. This puts us in avery precarious position with regard to our wel{-established neighborhood. With this new zoning, the owner of the vacant lot could completely change the character of what we have worked so hard to create - a spacious, rural feel. Another seemingly incongruous zoning is the NR 4 zoning along 377 from Brush Creek Road south, which is located behind our cul-de-sac. This would appear to be better served by an NR 1 or NR 2 zoning and more in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood - to one side of the area now zoned NR 4 is a large (50 + acres) cattle farm and to the other side is a large horse farm. Another important consideration is that this area is adjacent to an already threatened environmentaJ[y sensitive area and an area that has had significant flooding problems, which would be exacerbated by higher density. We have also noted that across the street from us (in the as-yet-unannexed area along Brush Creek Road) you have now zoned that area to be NR 2 also, yet those homes are on even Jar§er lots, some 20 to 40 acres and more. Ptease correct these apparent oversights and consider something more approprfate, such as NR f. The future of our neighborhood is at stake. We would appreciate your vote in support of the rezoning for the lower densities which, in turn, is a vote for the integrity of our long-standing neighborhood. Most sincerely, Dennis and Sharon Cox 8008 Woodcreek Circle Argyle, TX 76226 940-243-1122 ATTACHMENT 4 Photographs Page 111 2 will take public hearings Nc go through and figure out 3 presentation since they are in the same area and so 3 who got to go to who. There are letters -- letters that ! 4 similar in nature, and then we will vote on them 4 passed out. Four of them are for Woodcreck Circle, four 5 individually. And Ms. Speer with the City planning office 5 of them are letters from the same owners concerning the 6 will present and I'll open the public hearing. 6 whole area. Some of them would apply to other cases as 7 MS. SPEER: Good evening, Comauissioners. 7 far as being in the 200-foot notice. 8 I'm going to do these together as one unit but I'm going 8 COMMISSIONER AVPtn: ~ecause some of them 9 to do each individual one separately, seeing as we have 9 actually address these Agenda items, not the other ones. 10 different forms of opposition. 10 Ms. SeEER: Right. Right. 11 Item Agenda No. 28 is again a Planning 11 COMMISSIONER ~eCE: SO I just want to make 12 and Zoning initiated zoning request. There's five parcels 12 the Commissioners aware to read the letters in the packet 13 of land, approximately 80 acres. The Planning and Zoning 13 because they're stuck behind the wrong Agenda item. Thank 14 Commission has requested they go from a Neighborhood 14 you. Commissioner Johnson has a question. 15 Residential 2 to a Neighborhood Residential 1. As I said, 15 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: AS we go along, 16 there's no opposition on this land. Most of the land is 16 could you indicate because it says in all cases the 17 vacant. There are several small home sites kind of hidden 17 applicant is the City of Denton. Could you tell me if the 18 back in there. 18 owner agrees with the requesteat zoning? 19 This property does have some opposing 19 Ms. senna: i can, That's one reason t 20 issues. In one sense thc idea of maintaining the 20 want to do them separately. In this particular case, I 21 integrity of the rural atmosphere by downzoning this 21 have not received any notification from the owner that 22 property is its -- the goal was achieved. However, the 22 they oppose. This particular 80-acre site, there are five 23 goal of the Denton Plan also is to prevent sprawl. So you 23 separate owners and they were all notified, twice 24 have kind of a catch 22. You have this downzoning which, 24 actually, and I haven't received any opposition from 25 by its nature, the definition of sprawl could facilitate 25 owners on this one.... Page 110 Page 112 1 that. However, it does preserve the neighborhood and 1 COMMISSIONER APPLE: And just for 2 maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. 2 clarification purposes, as she announced earlier, the 3 Also another case in question is the 3 Planning and Zoning Commission is actually who initiated 4 Mobihty Plan. On this map I've showed you Country Club 4 this. 5 and Brush Creek, they are on the Mobility Plan. Brush 5 MS. SPEER: correct. 6 Creek is not to standard. It's a secondary -- itrs a 6 COMMISSIONER APPLE: That's why it says the 7 primary major arterial. Right now we know that that's not 7 City. But it was actually this body that initiated. 8 what it looks like. So I just -- staff wants to make sure 8 Commissioner Mu[roy. 9 that we're aware of the conflicting items here. We have 9 COMMISSIONER MULROY: YeS. Thank you. Ms. 10 that the area of the downzoning does preserve the 10 Speer, were you in our work section? I think we had two 11 neighborhood, does provide compatible uses. However, the 11 work sessions dealing with these properties. 12 Mobility Plan and the issue of it could facilitate sprawl 12 MS. SPEER: I don't believe I was here at 13 is something to be considered on all of these cases. This 13 the time, sir, no. 14 one, however, does not have any opposition so it does not 14 COMMISSIONER MLJLROY: okay. So I want to ,15 require super-majority at this point for City Council. 15 take a small liberty to refresh our collective memories 16 The next ease I'll talk about, unless you 16 and perhaps impart some of the background to you. Your 17 want to have questions about this specific one. 17 comments which are repeated in each Agenda item that this 18 COMMISSIONER APPLE: t just want to 18 is kind of counter to the anti-sprawl portions of the Comp 19 interrupt you because I noticed that you stapled all of 19 Plan, that was fully recognized in our work shop. And we 20 these together go they appear that they're for Item 29 20 had -- the consideration was given first to reflecting the 21 when actually they cover all of them. 21 existing neighborhood, there was long-e~tablished homes m 22 MS. srE~: vdght. 22 that really one-acre and larger tradition. 23 COMMISSIOSmt ~PLE: SO I just was 23 Number two, also the Comp Plan wants 24 wondering if you made the Commission aware that these 24 diversified housing. We have many areas of the City that 25 probably shouldn't be stapled together. 25 we're looking at the new urbanization and upping the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 109 - Page 112 CondcnseltTM Page 113 1 density and pedestrian-oriented, et cetera, et cetera. 2 This is one already established area of the City that is 3 more of the larger estate-type lots and so in order to be 4 diversified, we need to have that offering. 5 Number three, on an economic development 6 standpoint, we are losing some potential housings of this 7 type to Argyle because they have an abundance of the 8 larger acreage and we don't. So for this body, in our 9 deliberations and examining in the total context, not just 10 a narrow focus but of all the things you mentioned, 11 evolved the decision that this would be the part of town 12 that we would like to keep this way. So I really want to 13 address -- reflect to your comments that have been 14 repeated here. Thank you. 15 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, i 16 Commissioner Mulroy. 17 MS. SPEER: Are there any further questions 18 on this particular site? I'll continue. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Watkins. 20 COMMISSIONER WATKINS: Did I understand you 21 to say that there were five comers? 22 MS. SPEER: NO, sir. There are five 23 separate tracts of land in this 80-acre parcel. It's 24 totaling 80 acres that's zoned right now, the NR-2, but 25 there's five different tracts. Page 114 1 COMMISSIONER WATKINS: okay. And we're not 2 allowed to know who the owners were or, I mean, it was 3 initiated by the Planning and Zoning, but I see a fellow 4 in the audience that owned a good bit of that property at 5 one time. 6 COMMISSIONER APPLE: well, I guess normally 7 we don't take who owns the property into deliberation, so 8 to speak. It's the property that we're looking at, not so 9 much who owns it. I0 COMMISSIONER WATK£NS: SUre. Sur~. 11 COMMISSIONER AP?CE: But if she has that 12 information available, I'm sure she'd he happy to sham it 13 with you. But I thought I understood her to say she did 14 not have that information. 15 MS. SPEER: on this particular site, this 16 was my easy one. Everybody else I could tell you who owns 17 what because they all -- there's opposition and favorable. 18 But this one I didn't receive anything except -- 19 COMM~ssIoNEa WATmNS: vll withdraws[ my 20 question. 21 MS. SPEER: I did want to address 22 Conmfissioner Mulroy, if I could. I wasn't aware of the 23 previous work session meetings. I do want to say that 24 that was part of my issue in writing the staff report is 25 that there is a catch 22 issue, you know, your diversify PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Page 115 1 housing. So you have this area of town however sprawl, 2 however compatibility with neighborhood. So that's why in 3 my staff report, the recommendations, I have kind of 4 opposing findings and I just want to make those clear. 5 COMMISSIONER APPLE: well, bless your 6 heart. It's unfortunate that the hours of commentary on 7 this during work sessions were not provided to you since 8 you have all five of these cases. I am perplexed as to 9 why that was not done. 10 MS. SPEER: Right. I am, as well. l l COMMISSIONE.R APPLE: commissioner Roy, 12 COMMISSIONER ROY: We're going to go 13 through several cases and I'm afraid that I'm going to 14 forget each ease as we go through it. I wonder would it 15 be mom appropriate to -- and we've talked about this t 6 particularl tract of land, to see if there's any comments 17 from tho audience about that tract of land, resolve it, 18 and then go to the next one. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: ! was just wondering 20 the same thing, if it might not be more prudent at this 21 point to separate them out for purposes of presentation. 22 It seems to be getting rather muddled. Without objection 23 -- and vote on each one as we go. All fight. That seems 24 to be the consensus. If you want to start back with 28. 25 MS. SPEEa: okay. I just wanted to -- Page 116 1 basically, I'm completed with 28, if you have any 2 questions. 3 COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. So were there 4 any questions on 28? Okay. So we're okay. We're on to 5 30. Oh, gosh, stop me. We need to vote. 6 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Yeah, we also need 7 to go for public comment. 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: We n{~l to do the 9 public hearing. Gosh, somebody stop me. Commissioner 10 Johnson has his -- 11 COMMISSIONER JOUNSON: Yeah. I still want 12 to make sure that I understand this. This property has 13 owners. We have tried to contact them. We know who they 14 are. I don't need to know but you have tried to contact 15 them and they have not responded to you; is that right? 16 MS. SPEER: rm required to contact them 17 via mail and we contact them certified mail. We actually 18 have sent out thre~ notifications for these cases because 19 of postal errors. So I have received several calls on thc 20 site. I don't have their names right now with me because 21 I received most of the calls back in August. This was 22 initially planned to go a month ago. But I haven't 23 received any written comments whatsoever on this 24 particular 80 acres. 25 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. This is a SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 113 - Page 116 CondenscItTM Page 117 1 public hearing and I do have several cards who wish to 2 address this issue. Tom McMurray, 3 MR, MCMURILAY: chairperson, Tom McMurray, 4 1800 Wickwood. Is this the shee~ that shows up here? I 5 live right there. Okay. This whole neighborhood here is 6 Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Hills of Argyle. It is 7 completely now sold and Phase 3 up here is now starting to 8 be developed. This site with Brush Creek, the way it's 9 designed with the right-of-way, would be more appropriate 10 to be 11 One reason is is we are in the City of 12 Denton, one of the rare properties like this thaCs 13 like this, but we are also in the school district of 14 Argyle ~SD. ~md one of the issues that I'm sure this 15 Commission is aware of is that Argyle just deannexed 8,000 16 acres to send a message to the City Council of Denton 17 because they force fed another deal. 18 And as a citizen of both Denton and the ISV 19 of Argyle, taxpayers of both, we would like to see not 20 only the conformity, but it's the natural conformity. 21 It's like, you know, all the terrain, if you've driven it, 22 it's got some hills, rolling to it. It's a natural 23 terrain for larger estate homes. It's the type of thing 24 that not only helps your tax base, it helps bring a 25 positive image to that area of town. Page 118 1 Although 377, you-all are working hard on 2 it, we're not offended by any of that. We understand 3 that. We drive in every day. And our position on that 4 is hhat we would like to see you do NR-1. The reason 5 being is that until Brush Creek is really redone, it's not 6 compatible at this point. I know on the plans it's got 7 the right-of-way. 8 Mr. Johnson, I don't know if you've driven 9 it, but I know that's part of your questions. But I drive 10 it every day and you don't drive too fast, it will tear 11 your car up. But assume all that is redone, across the 12 street here is actually ETJ, I believe, but fight now it's 13 just being produced as oil and gas royalty fight now. 14 That's the King area. And we would ask that y'all just 15 allow it to look a lot like this. Because if you do that, 16 it's going to be natural, it's going to be in conformity, 17 it's going to look good. It's got a lot of trees in that 18 area. We know Denton likes to save trees. So that's the 19 deal. I'd ask that you vote for NR-i. 20 COMMISSIONER APPLE; Thank you, I have a 21 card from a Larry McGehee. MeGehee, is that correct? 22 MR. MCGEHEE: Yes ma'am, My name is Larry 23 McGehee. I live at 2001 C1Mstina Court also one of those 24 little dots on the map in the Hills of Argyle. 25 When the Denton Plan was passed, our Page 119 I neighborhood was zoned ~R-2 and ~a-4, although it had been 2 platted and approved as one-acre lots and larger. And 3 when we spoke to Council about this, they basically said 4 we understand this is an oversight. This subdivision is 5 already here. They were overlaying a subdivision that had 6 been approved and plat for one and two-acre lots. So it 7 was a mistake and so that's where Na-X came from. I don't 8 know how staff could have rezoned this whole city and not 9 missed a few little things, and that one was one that was 10 missed. And so out of cou_nesy or respect or what~ver, 11 No-1 was created to take care of that subdivision. 12 I believe that all of these are the same 13 issue, that this land is rural. I've lived there for 14 almost a year and a half. I've never seen a Denton police 15 officer even in the subdivision. We had people steal some 16 signs from us and when we called them to come out, they 17 said, well, you're in Argyle. You don't even live in the 18 City of Denton. So we're not getting serviced to death 19 out there. We have to tell them where it is before they 20 can come out. You have to go through a large floodplain 21 area to even get to this area. And a big portion of this 22 tract in question is in a floodplain and probably will 23 never be developed in. I don't know what the actual 24 usable acreage is but I don't think that we're talking 25 about very many usable acres to begin with. Page I20 1 The road of Brush Creek Road is not a 2 two-lane black top. It's a one-lane death trap and you 3 can get killed there on any day because you've got two 4 blind hills. So I think it was an oversight. I think all 5 of this stuff is an oversight. And we request that you 6 keep it rural. Keep it Na-lr There will be nice big 7 homes built there. They'll pay a lot of taxes, The 8 developer is not going to get hurt on these deals. 9 They're going to sell them and make a lot of money. It's 10 just a question of how much. Thank you. 11 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. I have a 12 card from Bill Lewis. All right. You don't wish to 13 speak? 14 MR. LEWIS: Not on this issue, 15 COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. I have a card 16 from Chris Mellberg, 17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He wanted you to 18 read the back. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Traffic issues are 20 scary both -- that's not what this says. Traffic issues 21 are really bad both on Brush Creek and 377. And we wan 22 to preserve the feel of the neighborhood. 23 Is there anyone else who wants to speak in 24 support? Okay. I have two cards -- no, I have one card 25 on this particular item. Michael Pettibon. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 117 - Page 120 CondenseltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 12I MR. PETTIBON: Hi. I'm Mike Pettibon and I own 40 acres that abuts the Hills of Argyle. And I'm not really sure if I understand the zoning change all that well and maybe you can change my mind about opposing this. Page 123 NR-I? MS. SPEER: Just to clarify, the only difference in uses for NR-I and NR-2 is under NR-2 if yOU have an suP, you can put in manufactured homes. There are But I think the reason that I'm opposed, I want it to stay rural and I can tell you that 75 percent of the land that I own is floodplain and you couldn't build a house on it if you wanted to. And I have no plans to build anything else and I don't want anything else built on it. But I think that I have a problem with zoning it so that it's more prohibitive of what I could or couldn't do on my property. And I don't know if that is truIy the ease or not as far as animals or livestock or what I want to do with it. And I feel like the people in Hills of Argyle are looking at my property and trying to make sure that I conform to their standards. And while I guarantee you that, you know, I don't want to spend a million dollars on a piece of property and have it look terrible, I also moved out to the country sort of so that I was no longer in the gated neighborhood I used to be in with people telling me that I couldn't paint my front door this color or have a dog over this size or park my vehicle. That's why I'm opposed. I think that I am opposed to further regulation of land. And maybe that's not truly 5 no other residential differences. Just density and 6 manufactured housing. 7 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Does that 8 help you, sir? 9 M~. PETTIBON: Yes. 10 COMMISSIONER APPLE: IS therO anyone else 11 who wishes to address Item -- 12 COMMISSIONER ROY: I had a question. 13 COMM[SSIONERAPPLE: okay. Commissioner 14 Roy. 15 COMMISSIONF~ ROY: t had a question of the 16 person who just spoke. Sir, are you a property owner in 17 that lot that we're looking at right now? You own 18 property in that yellow area? 19 MR. PETTIBON: I own -- that's my this half 20 of the rectangle. 21 COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you. 22 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: 40 of the 80. 23 COMMISSlmmm APPLE: commissioner Johnson, 24 if you have a question. 25 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: 40 O[' thc 80 acres Page 122 the spirit of it but that's how I interpret it. COMMISSIONER APPLE: would you like us to explain to you what we're doing, what is proposed so you would understand? MR. PETTIBON: If you could. COMMISSIONER APPLE: what is being proposed, and I'll let probably Mr. Reichhart, if Mr. Reichhart would come up and explain what this -- what is happening here so that then he would maybe feel more comfortable. MR. REICHHART: very briefly, the difference between NO-1 and NR-2 is basically density. NR-1, you have a density of one unit per acre. NR-2 has a density of two units per acre. Regarding keeping animals or livestock, there are different ordinances that address that. You have to have so much acreage per type of animal you have or horses or cows, tkings like that. And the zoning, regardless if it's Ne-1 or NR-2, wouldn't matter. So the real difference is when or if the property were ever going to be subdivided in the future, it would be a density issue. COMMISSIONER APPLE: And could you also explain to him some uses such as the manufactured homes that could be allowed in NR-2 that cannot be allowed in i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 124 is yours, sir? MR. PETrlBON: Right. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: IS it the east half or the west half?. MR. PETTIBON: The west. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: The west? Have you decided yet if you're in favor of this or against it? MR. PETTIBON: You kllow, I guess that ! am still opposed. And it probably isn't my place to say it but, once again, it is just because I don't want added -~ someone telling me what I can do and can't do. Once again, I have no intention of decreasing the property values. And also I don't think if you tried as hard as you possibly could that you could put more than two more houses on that whole 40 acres. But I still stand opposed. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. I don't see any more questions. Is them anyone else who'd like to address Agenda Item No. 28? Seeing no one, does staff have any additional marks? MS. SPEER: My only additional remark would be with his opposition we'd be at about 50 percent opposition, it would require super-majority at City Council. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Commissioner Powell. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 121 - Page 124 CondenseltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 125 COMMISSIONER POWELL: IS is safe to assume that we haven't heard from the owners, owner or owners of the other 40 acres? MS. SPEER: Corro.,ct. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Comtnis siGners. Commissioner Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Ye...8, Madam Chair. I'm going to make a motion for approval. I understand the verbally stated opposition but the reality is the motion and the downzoning will be less restrictive is what the Page 127 1 hearing. 2 MS. SPEER: Good evening once again. I am 3 basically going to go through these cases and talk to you 4 about the opposition and the site location. Staff has the 5 same findings in all of the cases. This site is 6 approximately a roughly ten-acre site. Same exact 7 situation, going from Neighborhood Residential 2 to 8 Neighborhood Residential 1 zoning district. This case 9 will have to go forward to City Council for 10 super-majority. Both owners of the two tracts do oppose. 11 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. For commentary was directed towards. So I make a motion for approval as presented. Thank you. COMMISSIONER WATKINS: second. COMMISSIONER APPLE: we have a motion by Commissioner Mulroy and a second by Commissioner Watkins. For discussion, Commissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: I am greatly influenced by the landowner of half of this property that doesn't want to make a change and I don't see why we would do something he doesn't want to do. So I will be voting against approval of this. COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Johnson. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: ~ We going to register this as an opposing view that is going to drive Page 126 1 the City Council to a super-majority? 2 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Director Powell would 3 like to weigh in. 4 MR. POWELL: we really need, to make it 5 official, we do need the opposition in writing. Bm I'm 6 sure that we can get that in between now and the month it 7 takes from P&Z to City Council. $ COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: okay. And just for 9 the record, I'm going to agree with Cormnissioner Roy 10 because I'm going to give great deference to the 11 landowner' s stated preference on this. 12 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Powell. 13 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Discussion of Mr. 14 Mulroy's point. I would look at it as being more 15 restrictive because with an NR-2, he does have some 16 options that disappear when it goes to NR-1. I just want 17 to point -- I'm just looking at this a little differently 18 than you are, sir. I wanted to make that point. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Any 20 further discussion? Vote, please. Motion carries 4-3. 21 (Commissioners Johnson, Roy, Powcll voted 22 in opposition.) 23 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Next we'll address 24 . Agenda Item No. 30 which is a public hearing. Again, 25 Ms. Speer, if you'll present and I'll open the public 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Agenda Item No. 30 -- COMMISSIONER ROY: EXCUSe me. Can I ask clarification? COMMISSIONER APPLE: oh, Commissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: You said two tracts? MS. SPEER: correct, theret$ two tracts of land, two different parcels. COMMISSIONER ROY: Okay. All right. We're looking at it as one site. MS, SPEER: Correct. The line is right here. COMMISSIONER ROY: Okay. Both owners are in opposition, had written opposition to this change? MS. SPEER: correct. Page 128 1 COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you. 2 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Regarding this Agenda 3 item, we have severa[ people who would like to address 4 this, also. Again, Mr. McMurray. 5 MR. MCMURRAY: I have a question for the 6 staff to help with my -- is there a sewer down Fort Worth 7 Drive? No? Is there a sewer because if it's NR-2, 8 residential, you've got a problem with your septic. 9 Because we're all septic out here. There is sewer running l0 up Fort Worth Drive up here to the new part of Phase 3. 11 So I could see where it wouldn't be that, you know, it 12 wouldn't be that expensive to get it there. That is an 13 issue because NR-i iS the minimum for a septic 14 requirements of spacing for your aerobic system. So one 15 of the -- I understand the landowner may want opposition. 16 It's going to have to be an issue addressed at some point 17 whether or not there's going to be sewer. So we would 18 vote NR-1 because it really conforms with the land use as 19 in the neighborhood. 20 All of this is NR-! but I can understand 21 the landowner saying he doesn't want NR-2, but there's not 22 going to be a special use permit for mobile homes. Not 23 next to alt this. You talk about everybody coming down 24 here, y'all would have a good time. So that ain't going 25 to happen. So at this point, I would say that you ought PLANIqlNG AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 125 - Page 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 § 9 lO 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 Conden scltTM Page 129 to go with NR-1 for the purpose that he can't -- if the 1 landowner can't use it for anything other than NR-i anyway 2 because of the fact that you have to have a septic spacing 3 unless the City's deciding to put sewer there. Thank you. 4 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Mr. McGehee. 5 MR. MCGEHEE: I would have dressed up if 6 I'd known I was going to have to speak in front of this ? camera. Do I need to introduce myself each time? 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: please. 9 MR, MCGEHEE: Larry McGehee, 2001 Christina 10 Court, Denton, Texas. I believe and I need to ask staff 11 this but arc you allowed to build a house on a half an 12 acre without a sewer line? You're not o/lowed to do that. 3 Isn't this, in effect, an oversight in thc Denton zoning? .4 Why would this be zoned NR-2 when you can't use it as15 NR-2? This is an oversight. 16 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Could someone from 17 staff address that question? 18 MR. POWELL: I'd be happy to address it. 19 If you remember back to the previous cases, there's a20 differentiation between zoning and platting and providing, 21 as part of platting, you provide utilities. The zoning of 22 the property, could it be developed today at the higher 23 density because there's no utilities? No. But that's a 24 platting issue. It's not really a zoning issue. Though 25 Page 130 they're somewhat intertwined. So you really do need to 1 try to separate those two. The question may be can 2 someone develop that at a higher density? Yes. Would 3 they have to provide the utilities? Yes. But it is 4 possible. It might not be feasible. It might not be cost -- might be cost prohibitive right now. But that really 6 is a platting issue rather than a zoning issue. 7 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Did that 8 answer your question? 9 MR. MCGEHEE: Yeah, I guess. I still think 10 that this was an oversight. I don't believe it was 11 intentionally zoned NR~2 because there is no sewer line 12 there. It's also a 65 mile an hour State highway. The 13 traffic in there is horrible, I don't know if any of you 14 have tried to go from Argyle to Denton on Fort Worth 15 Drive. You can't get there very quickly, You're blocked 16 by that trestle down there. 17 Again, I don't think that even if it's 18 zoned NR-1 that it will -- somebody is going to come in 19 here and someday ask you for commercial zoning on this. 20 NP,-I, it may make sense because there's a railroad track 21 across there and it's a State highway, and anybody that 22 would develop that would want it to be at least one-acre 23 lots, which puts the house away from the road and the 24 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION train. It just doesn't make sense. It really needs to be SEPTEMBER 25TIt, 2002 Page 131 NR-I. And look at all the other stuff out there, We're all one-acre and bigger because there's no sewer line and that's why it's all like it is. Somebody is benefiting from a mistake. Thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Bill Lewis. All right. You just want to show support. MR, LEWIS: show me in favor of this one. COMMISSIONER APPLE:. chris Mellberg does not wish to speak but wants to express support. Sandra Lewis does not wish to speak but she wishes to offer support. Carol Haesle was not able to attend but she does want to offer support. She says all of these items include areas in rural neighborhoods with land, trees, and nature. Please allow the existing developments to maintain their environment and feel. Also, traffic on these rural roads is very bad. Please don't make it worse. And M.D. Williamson wishes not to speak but he offers support, Then I have a card from Paul Berry. He's one of the owners. Is he present? Would you like to speak? MR. BERRY: My name is Paul Berry and I am the owner of the south portion there. My address is P.O. Page 132 Box 101, Mena, Arkansas. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. MR. BERRY: I did live on this property for 20 years, but, like I say, I am now living out of state. Y'all seem to be spending some time talking about mobile homes. This property and all the property in that 30 acre group and back behind there is deed restricted from mobile homes. You couldn't put a mobile home in there if you wanted to. And -- but I do wish to express my opposition. Thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Question for staff for my education. Doesn't zoning supersede deed restrictions? MR. POWELL: No. The way it works is whichever is more restrictive. So in the case of a deed restriction that didn't allow mobile home parks but was allowed in zoning, you still couldn't do it. We wouldn't enforce that deed restriction but if it was valid, you could enforce it by private means. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Berry. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I have a question. COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Mulroy has a question for you, sir. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes, sir. Thank you Page 129- Page 132 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 CondonscltTM Page 133 for coming down. My question is prior to the adoption of 1 the Development Code, what was the zoning on this 2 property? 3 MR. BERRY: Oh, that was something else 4 that I meant to address. Until I got this notice, I was 5 still under the assumption that all that was unzoned. I 6 was never notified when the zoning was changed previously. 7 So if I ever g~ any acceptance for these two notices on 8 this issue, if I ever get any notice on hearings regarding 9 this property, it has always been after the meeting and 10 after the decision has been made. And I didn't know at 11 all when it was changed to NR-2. 12 COMMISSIONER MULROY: But previous to that, 13 to your knowledge, it was zoned Agricultural then? 14 MR. BERRY: Agricultural or unzoned or 15 something. 16 Page 135 and let's say'you had an old sF-7 and we're trying to take you to ~,m-l,well, shame on us. But that's really not the case. It's always been Ag. The policy was to assign it some zoning and we're just making that adjustment. So we're really not trying to take away something that you've had. MR. BERRY: But yOU are. But you are. COMMISSIONER MIJLROY: well, see, my comment COMMISSIONER MULROY: And how long have you owned it? MR. BeP, aY: Probably about 25, 26 years. COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. In all those times, you never had any intention or made any attempt to upzone it to two or three or four houses an acre? Mit. BERRY: NO. COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. So, see, what's transpired, we've gone -- where unzoned land was to you would be then these 20 years, did you ever come forward to try to upzone it? MR. BERRY: NO, but still you're taking something away. COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, but it's something you didn't have. MR. BERRY; NO) because I still had the land, I still have the land. Page 134 carded as Ag, we've assigned it the low end possibility as NR-I, NR-2. And really you never had NR-2, yOU had Ag. And we're trying to sustain the 'rural flavor of that area. We want to redesignate it as NP,-1 which is less dense and more rural. MR. BERRY: I never, I never -- well, I own it -- entertain this idea but yet I don't want to tie my hands behind my back. COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, I understand. I want to refresh our collective memory. One, it was originally Ag. It was assigned NR-2 during the Code 12 adoption. And in reflection -- 13 MR. BERRY: BUt I didn't know that. 14 COMMISSIONER MULROY: -- that NRq would 15 have been mom appropriate. So it's not that someone is 16 taking something away that you've had for 20 years. It is 17 attempting by this body to correct an oversight. When the 18 Code was adopted, rather than having the least dense, NR-2 19 was assigned rather than NR-1. In viewing the 20 neighborhood, we viewed it as very rural and the previous 21 makeup of tiffs body initiated the changes to go to Na-1 22 which would be our lowest designation or least dense. 23 So I just want to make it clear that these 24 deliberations have already been undertaken and it's not 25 that you had -- if you had made any effort over 20 years 17 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. Thank you. 18 COMMISSIONE~ APPLE: Thank you, Mr. Berry. 19 Is them anyone else who wishes to address the Commission 20 in regards to this Agenda item? 21 MR. REICHHART: I was just asked a question 22 in the audience and as a point of clarification I just 23 want to point out to remind everybody that Agricultural 24 zoning has a one-acm limit development similar to the 25 NR4. someone asked me that, regarding that question. Page 13 6 2 3 4 5 6 situation 7 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Commissioner Watkins. COMMISSIONER WATKINS: Just as a matter of information, and you possibly can't answer this question, but this didn't change actually or did it change the tax on the property when we went from Ag to this? MR. REICHHART: NOs sir. ?LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 8 COMMISSIONER WATKINS: I mean, they may 9 have seen an increase but that was because alt of Denton 10 County, I suppose, went up. 11 MR. REICHHART: That's correct. 12 COMMISSIONER WATK~NS: BUt it would be the 13 same. Okay. Thank you. 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Is there anyone else 1 $ who wants to address this Agenda item? Seeing no one 16 coming forward, I'm going to close the public hearing. 17 Commissioner Mulroy. 18 COMMISSIONER MULROY: That was the que, 19 right? No. I think I've already given my mini lecture 20 but in view that we had undertaken the deliberations as 21 I've stated, I'm going to remain consistent and make the 22 motion to approve as presented. Thank you. 23 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. We have a 24 motion on the table. The motion dies for lack of a 25 second. Commissioner Roy. SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 133 - Page 136 Cond_~n solt TM 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 137 COMMISSIONER ROY: we did have a lot of discussion about this area but I think I was under the assumption, I wont along with the discussion under the assumption that the property owners would be happy to have this changed. So it's obvious that in this particular case the property owners are not happy to have this changed so I move denial of this. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: second. COMMISSIONER APPLE: We have a motion and a second to deny. Any discussion? I have one polut of discussion only because I was just tolally not present at that moment. I was thinking of something else. And I would have seconded Commissioner Mulroy's motion. And for Page 139 1 property. However, we do live in a City. And sometimes 2 ii' you want to 'be -- if you would like to own a piece of 3 property that nobody can tell you what to do, perhaps you 4 ought to buy that piece of property that is further away 5 from file City than these parcels are. These parcels are 6 in the City. So, anyway, I do support this mainly 7 because that was already there. Thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, Mr. Lewis. 9 Tom McMurray. 10 MR. MCMURR~Y: Tom McMurray, 1800 Wickwood, 11 City of Denton. This piece of property is not unhke the 12 other piece o? property that y'all just discussed which 13 was the other parcel, there was two parcels in the one that, I apologize. I will be voting against the motion. Any discussion? Vote, please. Motion passes 5-2. (Commissioners Mulroy and Apple voted in Opposition.) COMMISSIONER APPLE: NeXt iS Agenda Item 31, a public hearing considering rezonlng 21 acres on Fort Worth Drive, south of Hamilton and north of Brush Creek. Ms. Speer will present and I'll open the public hearing. MS. SPEER: oood evening once again. Agenda Item No. 31, as Commissioner Apple had stated, is approximately 21 acres. The same situation down to the 14 tract. However, this one is a lot longer. And it is -- 15 being a Denton resident now for a long time, this is 16 exactly what gives us a bad name in the neighborhood is 17 that it's agricultural which is one-acre lot minimums and 18 then we come in and make a mistake as a City and now we 19 can't stand up and say we made a mistake and do the right 20 thing. Okay. We're telling you wc would tike to see it 21 done r~ght so it's in conformity with the whole area. 22 Just because of the Hills of Argyle was 23 done right} because that was an oversight and we had to 24 come down and tel1 y'all how to do that. Now we're not 25 going to get this done right. You need to vote for this Page 138 1 zoning of Residential Neighborhood 2 to Neighborhood 2 Residential 1. This particular case, I do have one owner 3 opposition and I have one owner in favor. However, the 4 opposition is right at 20 percent so the super-majority 5 rule will be required at City Council. 6 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. 7 Commissioner Powell. 8 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Is it safe to assume 9 the white area is the third owner that has not spoken? 10 MS. SPEER: Correct. 11 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I have several cards 13 for this Agenda item, also. Mr. Williamson does not wish 14 to speak but he wishes to express support. Carol Haesle 15 is not available to speak but she does express support. 16 Sandra Lewis does not wish to speak but she wants to t7 express support. Chris Mellherg is not available to speak 18 but does wish to express support. Bill Lewis, ii' you'll 19 give your name and address, please. 20 MR. LEWIS: Bill Lewis, 900 Brush Creek 21 Road. I support this zoning change. To me, it just makes 22 sense because it matches what's already them. That's the 23 main reason that I support it. I appreciate people not 24 being want -- not liking to be told how to run their .25 business, especially when it comes to using their own Page 140 1 to be NR4. There's still no sewer there. It's still the 2 same arguments. You're going to have to have development. 3 I understand there's a difference in zoning and platting. 4 The difference is that it needs to he in conformity with 5 the rural area. And I can't emphasize it enough, I like 6 the landowners. I'm a landowner. Got lots of land other 7 than this land. But this land right hem needs to be in 8 conformity with the area and the other citizens in it. 9 You have all those people that you mentioned awhile ago 10 that were for it. They all live out there. So it's like 11 the whole people are saying we need you to back up what 12 the City of Denton says. I understand the landowners may 13 or may not be for it. Here we've got one that's for it. 14 But you need to do what's right for the area, please. 15 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Mr. Larry 16 MeGehee. 17 MR. MCGEHEE: My name is Larry McGehee. I 18 live at 200 t Cl~ristina Court, Denton, Texas. I'm almost 19 breathless after this last vote. You know, it's like a 20 guy gees in a bank to make a deposit for $100.00 and he 21 finds some money in a bag and somehow that money becomes 22 his. This land has hccn zoned AgricultUral forever, one 23 acre. These people have never been down here before you 24 asking for it to be two houses per acre. There's no sewer 25 llne. And there's some kind of thought that people should PLANNING AND ZON1NG COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 137 - Page 140 CondenscItTM Page 141 1 profit from mistakes and this was a mistake. But nobody 2 wants to take away the right for someone to capitalize on 3 a mistake that the City has made. Now, I'm a property 4 owner. Iown 17 houses in this City. I've lived here 31 5 years. And to stand here and see people vote to allow 6 mistakes, I can't believe it. I'm sorry. 7 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, sir. Is 8 there anyone else who wishes to speak to this item? 9 Seeing no one coming forward, I'll close the public t0 hearing. Commissioner Roy. 11 COMMISSIONER ROY: I wanted to ask a 12 question of staff. Is the landowner who is in opposition, 13 is that landowner here? 14 MS. SPEER: That is Bill and Joyce Keenis 15 and I don't believe we have a card from them. COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Question of staff before you get away. Excuse me, Madam Chairman. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 143 1 body or the City to do it unless there is a tremendous 2 greater good. And I don't see a tremendous greater good 3 to make this particular change. I agree that it's not a 4 major issue. It's not a major change. But we discussed 5 it on the basis that this is something that the landowners 6 wanted to do, and that has not been the case. 7 Now, in this particular piece of property 8 there is I would say a significant piece of this one that 9 percentage-wise it's kind of overwhelnfing either in favor 10 or no comment. So I don't particularly feel strongly 11 about this one as opposed to the last one in which 100 12 percent of the property owners did not want to make the 13 change. 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Mulroy. 15 COMMISSIONER MULROY: YeS, With all 16 respect to my fellow Commissioners, my recollection was in 17 our discussions that perhaps because of time constraints, 18 due consideration wasn't given to this section of this next? Thank you. How big is the red property? MS. SPEER: The red property, I believe they have -- COMMISSIONER POWELL: I mean, approximately. Is it two acres? MS~ SPEER: About 15 acres, I think. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Got yOU. Thank you. Page 142 t 9 quadrant, this lower quadrant section of town. And we 20 reviewed it and we had that discussion of the Ag and 21 ~m-2, that ~4R-t was most appropriate generally for this 22 whole area. That it would, in fact, protect the majority 23 of the landowners. 24 I don't think, with all respect, I can't 25 recall that it was ever put forward that a specific Page 144 1 Ms. SPEER: I'm sorry. That's wrong. It's 2 about five acres. 3 COMMISSIONF31 POWELL: SO the gll~B property 4 would be 15 or more acres. Thank you. 5 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Mukoy. 6 COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, I'm going to 7 stay consistent. I'm ready to move approval. And I 8 remind you that, again, part of our discussion was that we 9 were looking at blanket taking it back to ~4R-t. And 10 people that wanted to do sometlfing, desired to do 11 something more dense could come and make the case with 12 their specifics in mind and we would be open to that. 13 Thank you. 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: second. Discussion? 15 Ihavejust a comment. I'm still Igness sorter 16 perplexed and fascinated by the fact that this body t7 brought these rezonings forward. And rm not sure if 18 there are lapses in the work sessions that we had and the 19 issues that were discussed or what, but I'm confused and 20 amazed. Cormnissloner Roy. 21 COMMISSIONER ROY: I am not confused and 22 amazed because at the work session it was made clear to mo 23 that this was sucfioned from the landowners and people who 24 lived in the area. And if the landowner does not want to 25 make this change, I don't feel it's appropriate for this 1 landowner of a specific plot was advocating this. No, 2 tiffs was initiated from P&Z solely and that we were 3 recognizing, a mistake may be too hash of a word, but 4 let's say not enough time in judgment in assigning tho 5 zonings when the Code was adop~d. And we hashed it over 6 and it was our consensus that t~a-~ would have been more 7 appropriate for this area and that's why we initiated it. 8 So in that sense, Mr. McG~hee is fight, the 9 net result was - is correcting the mistake. And I'll 10 reiterate and I was the one that spoke up and said, well, ~ 11 if someone comes, because I know there's some lqR-4 that 12 we're taking down, and that if they como back and say this 13 is what I want to do. Here's my amenities. Here's my 14 entranceways, et cetera, et cetera, that we'd give it the 15 fullest consideration when we had specifics. But in thc 16 meantime, in the interim, to go back to closest to Ag that 17 we can. I mean, that's my best recollection of the 18 discussion. That's why we've initiated it. Thank you. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Powell. 20 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Help me out her~. 21 How did we decide th~ configuration of this piece of 22 property to be rezoned? I saw a map earlier that showed 23 all these pieces. How do you figure this one as opposed 24 to another one or why weren't they all together7 Help me 25 out here. Why did you make the split right here? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 141 - Page 144 CondcnseltTM Page 145 1 MS. SPEER: AS far as I know, the split is 2 made simply by proximity. This is already NR-I. Then you 3 had the two parcels of NR-2, you had this NRMU section 4 that was rezoned a couple of years ago independently. 5 Then you have Brush Creek which divides these two 6 properties. This one is NR-2. And it didn't make sense 7 to have these two together because this one is NR-4. 8 COMMISSIONER POWELL: That. answered my 9 question. Thank you very much. 10 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Just to kind of weigh 11 in on that, that may be true that that was the logic for 12 it. But in our discussions my memory is the same as 13 Commissioner Muh-oy's, that we actually brought these up :14 because there were actually some oversights in this map. il 5 And I have no recollection of it being any landowners. It 16 was just a discussion amongst us at a work session and it 17 was -- the NR-4 which you're basing the NR-2 on seemed to 18 be a mistake, also. 19 And I will use the word mistake because I 20 actually was told that, that it was a mistake. 21 Especially when just across the street with a railroad 22 running through it is zoned NR-2. So if the NR-2 Was 23 based on the fact that it was between an NR-4, which was a 24 mistake, and an NRMU which had a very specific reason for 25 being an NRMU, that was a long going case and a very Page 146 1 particular parcel of land, you really can't use that 2 rationale for determining that that makes sense there. 3 MS. SPEER: I think we're addressing two 4 different questions. I think he just wondered why they 5 were stuck together the way they were, thc different 6 tracts. Why, you know, this owner is in favor but this 7 one opposes. Why are those three together as one case? 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I'm sorry. I thought 9 he was asking you how they ended up with the des[gnat[om 10 that they ended up with. 11 MS, SPEER: Right. 12 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Either way I'm 13 satisfied with the answer. 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. Thanks. 15 Commissioner Johnson. 16 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: This is an 17 interesting chart. Is that NR-6 on there correct? 18 MS. SPEER: Yes, sir. 19 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: well, why are we not 20 talking about that NR-6 then? 21 MS. SPEER: It'S a railroad and a 22 right-of-way. See, everything around here, I mean, 23 everything is eTJ. ~ll of thc white is ETJ. Only the 24 yellow is what's zoned and we are actually -- 25 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: what about south of PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION the NR-4 that's shown here? there. Page 147 1 2 3 4 5 6 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: But the way it's 7 drawn, it would look like it's NR-6. 8 MS. SPEER: It'S not. The color is hard, 9 the yellow is hard to discern from the green. 10 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay. And one more 11 question. The ETJ there that is just between what is now 12 NR-2 and what is now NR-1 -- 13 MS. SPEER: Right here? 14 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Yeah. Has not been 15 annexed by the City yet, right? 16 MS. SPEER: Correct. 17 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: SO what is the 18 requirements on who can build what in there? 19 MS. SPEER: AS far as I understand in the 20 ETJ -- larry's going to come talk. 21 MR. REICHHART: Any development in our 22 Division 1 ETJ that's approximately tttree and a half miles 23 from the City of which that area falls into, land use -- 24 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I'm sorry. We have a 25 point of order because we are actually getting off on MS. SPEER: That's also NR-2. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: It's NR-2? MS. SPEER: uh-hllh, along the right-of-way Page 148 1 another issue rather than we have a motion and a second on 2 the table and Legal has advised me that we are addressing 3 an issue that's not germane. 4 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I don't remember a 5 motion and a second. Am I wrong? 6 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Mu[roy 7 made the motion and I made the second, 8 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I'm sorry. Thank 9 you. 10 COMMISSIONF_,R APPLE: we have a motion and a 11 second. Any mom discussion on the motion and the second? 12 Vote, please. 13 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Can you restate the 14 motion just so we're sure what we're voting on? 1 $ COMMISSIONER APPLE: Certainly. 16 Commissioner Mulroy. 17 COMMISSIONER M[JLROY: ! move approval as 18 submitled. 19 COMMISSIONER POWELL: That was move to approve? 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER APPLE: HO moved approval as submitted and I seconded. Vote, please. Motion carries 6-1. (Commissioner Johnson voted in opposition.) COMMISSIONER APPLE: Moving onto our final SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 145 -Page t48 Cond~nscltTM t item, public hearing No. 32. Again, I'll open the 2 public hearing and Ms. Spear will present. 3 MS. SPE~: oood evening once again. This 4 particular item is a little bit different from our 5 previous four areas. This area is currently a 43.7 acm 6 site. It's the strip along 377 south of Brush Creek. 7 This strip is currently zoned Neighborhood Residential 4. 8 It's being requested by the Planning and Zoning Commission 9 to go to Neighborhood Residential 2. I have 15 acres of 10 opposition here, 15 acres of opposition, 20, 15 acres 11 here, and one home here and one neutral home. So I have 12 about 85, 90 percent opposition on this particular case. 13 Super-majority vote will be required at City Council. 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. 15 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Question. 16 COMMissIONER APPLE: commissioner Powell. 17 COMMISSIONER POWELL: when was this zoned 18 ~m.47 was this in the major rezoning or was this some 19 other time? And if it was in the major rezoning, why did 20 they plunk an t~R-4 there? Does anybody know? Can anybody 21 help me? 22 COMMISSIONF.~ APPLE: Mr. Powell. 23 ~. POWELL: If i may. This one is the one 24 that comes closest to the mistake word or oversight. The 25 majority of that property was in a Po and the eD had Page 150 i several variations and then it was finally hard zoned, the 2 back portion of thc property but not the front part. And 3 so if I believe the old PD had 16,000 square foot lots 4 really didn't match up with NR-4. SO it doesn't match 5 what was there prior to February 20th or February this 6 year. Now it's been upzoned since that time. 7 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I~t me add onto that 8 question then for Mr. Powell. If it doesn't match the 9 NR-4 that it was given, what did it match to? What would 10 have been a match? 11 MR. POWELL: I believe the NR-2. 12 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. 13 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Watkins. 14 COMMISSIONER WATKn~S: Thank you. I assume 15 if it's NR-4 that there's no utilities there and so there 16 will be nothing built there; is that correct? Doesn't it 17 take a one-acre site for a septic? 18 MR. PowELL: Yes. If I may, there is a 19 sewer that does run down through this area, kind of 20 bisecting it. So there is sewer. There is water. So 21 unlike the properties to the north, this one it doesn't 22 have sewer there but it's close. 23 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Again, we 24 have -- did you have a question? 25 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I have another Page 149 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 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION question. Powell. Page 151 COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. Commissioner COMMISSIONER POWELL: would that be a City of Argyle sewer? It's not a City of Denton sewer, is it? MR. POWELL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Yes, sir, what.'? MR. POWELL: City Of' Dellton sewer. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thatlk you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. We have a number of cards again who wish to speak in support of this. Mr. Williamson doesn't want to speak but wishes support. Carol Haesle in support. Sandra Lewis checked I wish to speak on this item. No? Okay. Hard to tell once both of them are checked. But she is in support. Chris Mellberg is in support. Bill Lewis. MR. LEWIS: Bill Lewis, 900 Brush Creek Road. We do support this issue. That is what is already there. The other issues here are that this is an environmentally sensitive area. You've heard a lot from us already on this property and i'm here to reiterate. Thank you for what you've done in the past to help protect that area. Making it NR-2 will help protect it some more, also. Page 152 There has also been some discussion, maybe it's differences of opinion about where the floodplain is out there. However, there is some floodplain out there. I think we can agree on that. As far as more general zoning issues go, I think that the possible strategy that some cities try to use is that the closer you are to the core of tho City, that's where higher densities occur. As you get further out away from the City, that's where the lower densities are. This is about as far away as you can get from Denton and still bc in Denton. And I think that pretty well summarizes my thoughts on this issue. I'll take any questions. COMMISSIONER APPLE: ?hank you. Tom McMurray. MR. MCMURRAY: Just in support. You've heard my arguments. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Larry McOehcc, MR. MCGEItEE: My name is Larry McGeh~e. I live at 2001 Ckfistina Court in Denton, Texas. My faith has been restored. We had one person found the money and got out of here but the rest of the money has been returned to the citizens. Thank you. This one is the biggest mistake that we're looking at tonight. NR-4 makes no sense. In fact, it ought to be ~m-t. t don't know how SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 149- Page 152 CondensoltTM Page 153 Page 155 1 we're going to NR-2 but that is what we're trying to do 1 2 here, right? NR-4toNR-2? well, I'min favor of that. 2 3 Thank you for your last vote. 3 4 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Is there 4 5 anyone else who wishes to address this item? Seeing no 5 6 one coming forward, I'll close the public hearing. 6 7 Commissioner Mulroy. 7 8 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I'm going to move 8 9 approval. 9 10 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Second. 10 11 COMMISSIONER POWELL: A question of staff. 11 12 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Roy is 12 13 13 prior to you. 14 COMMISSIONER ROY: I just wish that 14 15 somebody had explained this in more detail to the 5 16 landowners. Here we have another case of 85 percent .6 17 roughly opposition. You can argue about how we got here I7 18 but the fact is we are here at NR-4 and the landowners who 18 19 own this property don't want to change it, 85 percent of 19 20 them don't want to change it. And I'm just really 20 21 struggling with this, this whole concept, 21 22 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Powell. 22 23 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, ma'am. 23 24 That was not to get attention. That was getting over a 24 25 cold. Staff, a question. The owners who are in 25 Page 154 i opposition, did they make any attempt to get here? 2 There's nobody in opposition here and that bothers me. 3 MS. SPEER: If I can be blunt, they're 4 coming to City Council. The owners, the opposition on 5 this site has plans for this site and owns this land, they 6 will be at City Council. 7 COMMISSIONER POWELL: They own what land? 8 MS. SPEER: They own this property. 9 COMMISSIONER POWELL: They own the NR-2, as 10 well as the NR-4. 1 MS. SPEER: correct. This part. 2 COMMISSIONER POWELL: okay. But they own 13 all of the NR-2 beh/nd it, to the east of it? 14 MS. SPEER: 1 believe they do own all of 15 it. They even own the vacant lot up here. 16 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. 17 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Roy. 18 COMMISSIONER ROY: One question. That 19 vacant lot on the NR-i up there, they were not in 20 opposition to. that? 21 MS. SPEER: correct. They sent in a letter 22 for favor of that. 23 COMMISSIONER ROY; Thank you. 24 COMMISSIONER APPLE: we have a motion and a 25 second to approve. Any more discussion? Vote, please. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Motion can'[es 5-2. (Commissioners Roy and Powell voted in opposition.) COMMISSIONER APPLE: That ends our Agenda items. And if there's no further business, we are adjourned. SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 153 - Page 155 S 5Our Documents~Ordina~ces~02~Z02-0038.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 2 (NR-2) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESDIENTIAL 1 (DR- 1) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 8.65 ACRES OF LAND, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS BEING A PORTION OF A TRACT IN ABSTRACT 1164 IN THE J.SEVERE SURVEY, IN THE DEED TO PAUL S. BERRY RECORDED IN VOLUME 4616, PAGE 1936 AND BEING A PORTION OF A TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO RUIBAL PROP INC. RECORDED IN VOLUME 4958, PAGE 691 OF THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS IN THE CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z02-0038) WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission initiated a change in zoning for approximately 8.65 acres of land described as being a portion of a tract in abstract 1164 in the J.Severe survey, in the deed to Paul S. Berry recorded in volume 4616, page 1936 and being a portion ora tract of land described in deed to Ruibal Prop Inc. recorded in volume 4958, page 691 of the real property records City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the "Property") from Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning district classification and use designation; and WHEREAS, on September 25, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial to change the zoning to Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR- 1); and WHEREAS, the City has received written protests pursuant to Texas Local Government Code Section 211.006, which requires a three quarter vote by the City Council to change the zoning district classification and use designation. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The zoning district classification and use designation of the Property is hereby changed from Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR- 1 ) zoning district classificat ion and use and such zoning change has been passed by a three quarter vote of the City Council. 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 S 5Our Documents~Ordina2~ces~02~Z02-0038.doc SECTION 4. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Demon Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Demon, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2002. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 8.65 Acres of Land All that certain tract or parcel of land lying and being situated in the County of Denton, State of Texas, and being part of the J. Severe Survey, Abstract Number 1164, and being a portion of a certain called tract of land described in the deed to Paul S. Berry recorded in Volume 4616, Page 1936 of the Real Property Records Demon County, Texas and being a portion of a certain called tract of land described in the deed to Ruibal Prop inc. recorded in Volume 4958, Page 691 of the Real Property Records Demon County, Texas and being more particularly described as follows: BEING only the area of those certain called tracts of land located within the present City limits line established by Ordinance 69-40 iii, City of Denton, Demon County, Texas: BEGINNING at a point in the existing U.S. 377 East Right-of-way line and being 12.44 feet more or less West of a Northwest property comer of said Ruibal Prop Inc. tract; THENCE East along the North boundary line of said Ruibal Prop Inc. tract a distance of 493 feet more or less to a point on the East boundary of the current City limits line established by said Ordinance; THENCE Southwest along the East boundary line of the currem City limits line established by said ordinance and passing the South boundary line of said Ruibal Prop Inc. tract also being the North boundary line of said Paul S. Berry tract a distance of 857.45 feet more or less to a point on the South boundary line of said Paul S. Berry tract. THENCE North 89 Degrees 59 Minutes 21 Seconds West along the South boundary of said Paul S. Berry tract a distance of 494.91 feet to a point for a comer and being the Southwest comer of said Paul S. Berry tract lying on the East Right-of-way line of said U.S. 377; THENCE Northeast along the existing U.S. 377 Right-of-way line and passing the Northwest comer of said Paul S. Berry tract also being the Southwest comer of said Ruibal Prop Inc. tract a distance of 859.08 feet more or less to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing in all 8.65 acres of land more or less. Exhibit A Z02-0038 (Fort Drive/North Brush Creek) NORTH LOCATION MAP Item 5D AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: November 19, 2002 Planning & Development Dave Hill, Assistant City Manager 349-8314 %/~ SUBJECT - Z02-039 (NE 377 & Brush Creek) Continue a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 21 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) to a Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1)zoning district. The three tracts are generally located on Fort Worth Drive south of Hamilton Road and north of Brush Creek. No development is proposed at this time. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-1). BACKGROUND Applicant: City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission Denton, Texas The Planning and Zoning Commission initiated a request to have three parcels of land, totaling approximately 21 acres, rezoned from Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) to a Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning district. The zoning of this area was initially raised as an issue when the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Future Zoning map, specifically the southwest quadrant of the city. The Commission began to question the appropriateness of the zoning in the area based on the old zoning and the current land uses. Also, this issue was raised during the first Quarterly Review of the Development Code. The zoning of this area was one of the issues City Council instructed the Planning and Zoning Commission to review. The Commission reviewed this issue during several worksessions and voted unanimously to rezone the property on June 26, 2002. In worksessions, the Commission spent a great deal of time in discussing the issue of land use and zoning of this area and how the existing zoning came into place. At the time verbatim minutes of worksessions were not kept and therefore are not available for inclusion in the back up. However, a summary of the meeting discussion was provided in a separate memo. The public hearings before the Commission were supposed to be held on August 28, 2002 but had to be postponed due to notification errors. This delay resulted in the cases not being heard until September 25, 2002, at which time the make-up of the Commission had changed. The staff reports to the Commission were brief and did not contain the detail and history of this area. The elapsed time (3 months) between the worksessions and the public heating, and the minimum backup in the staff reports contributed to the confusion reflected in the public heating minutes. This request is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, an analysis is provided for in the Staff`Analysis (Attachment 1). Public notification and property owner responses are provided in Attachment 4. As of this writing, staff has received two opposing responses from property owners of the subject site, therefore a supermajority vote (6-1) by City Council will be required to approve this rezoning. As of this writing, staff has received no responses from property owners within 200 feet of the subject site. At the City Council Meeting on November 5, 2002 the case was continued until November 19, 2002 in conjunction with the related zoning cases. Due to the necessity for a super majority vote a full quorum was desired. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Deny. 3. Postpone consideration. 4. Table item. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-1), Johnson opposed ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The subject properties are not platted. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology ofZ02-0039, commonly known as NE 377 & Brush Creek: Application Date - DRC Date - Planning and Zoning Public Hearing - City Council Public Heating - No Neighborhood meeting was held July 23, 2002 August 1, 2002 September 25, 2002 November 5, 2002 FISCAL INFORMATION No short-term public improvements that are the responsibility of the city will be necessary. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Maps 3. Public Notification (Property Owner Notification Map and Property Owner Responses) 4. Photographs 5. Minutes from September 25, 2002 Planning and Zoning meeting 6. Draft Ordinance and Exhibit A Prepared by: Autumn Speer Planner I Respectfully submitted: Douglas S. Powell, AICP Director of Planning and Development for ATTACHMENT I Staff Analysis Sunamry of Zonin~ Request The Planning and Zoning Commission initiated a request to have three parcels of land, totaling approximately 21 acres, rezoned from its current Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) to a Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning district. The request was initiated in an effort to maintain the rural setting of surrounding areas. Existing Condition of Property Property History. February 20, 2002 - The subject property was placed in the Zoning Classification Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district and land use classification by Ordinance 2002-040. Prior to the adoption of the Development Code, the property was zoned Agricultural (A) The subject property currently contains single-family homes and agricultural uses. Adjacent zoning: North: Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use (NRMU) - single- family homes South: Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning district-single-family/agricultural East: Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) -single- family homes/agricultural West: Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning district -single-family homes Comprehensive Plan Analysis The subject site is located within a "Neighborhood Centers" future land use area. These areas may develop in conventional patterns or may be developed in a pattern of 'neighborhood centers'. Neighborhood centers are oriented inwardly, focusing on the center of the neighborhood and containing facilities vital to the day-to-day activity of the neighborhood. A neighborhood center might contain a convenience store, small restaurant, personal service shops, church or synagogue, daycare, individual office space, a small park and perhaps an elementary school. The Denton Plan identifies the following Primary Residential 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 would serve to preserve existing neighborhood as called for by the classification. the rural setting in this area and maintain the Denton Plan under "Neighborhood Centers" Sprawl is characterized by low residential density housing, which the proposed zoning would create. This is not desirable according to the Denton Plan. Development Review Analysis Transportation A traffic impact analysis is not required. Access and Connectivity Currently the access to the property is from Fort Worth Drive. Fort Worth Drive is identified as a primary major arterial by the Denton Mobility Plan. The future surrounding road system may not be compatible with this type of development. Public Infrastructure Currently the infrastructure in this area is adequate to serve the proposed development. Development Code/Zonin~ Analysis Current NR-2 zoning allows for single-family homes with a maximum of two (2) units per acre. The proposed Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning would allow only one (1) dwelling unit per acre. Staff Findings 1. The proposed zoning change is compatible with The Denton Plan in regards to compatibility and preservation of surrounding land uses. 2. The proposed zoning change would provide for a diversity of housing stock. 3. The proposed zoning change may not be compatible with the mobility plan for this area. 4. The proposed zoning change would facilitate sprawl, which is not desired by the Denton Plan. ATTACHMENT 2 Maps NORTH Location/Zoning Map ETJ ETJ LOCATION MAP Scale: None Mobility Map NORTH MOBILITY MAP ,:', ,,' Mobili~collector ~ ~-~ Freew ay ~ ~'Primary Major Alternate / ~'f Primary Major Arterial ~i ~Seconda~ MajorAIternate FUTU RE dot Scale: None ATTACHMENT 3 Public Notification NORTH Notification Map Lil of 50 Notification Limits of 200' Notification Scale: None Public Notification Date: August 15 & September 12, 2002 200' Legal Notices* sent via Certified Mail: 6 Number of responses to 200' Legal Notice · In Opposition: 2 (Owner) · In Favor: 0 · Neutral: 0 Percent of land within 200' in opposition: 0 % Owner Opposition: 80% *A copy of the notification list can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 Property Owner Responses John David Monroe 7655 Ft Worth Drive Argyle, Texas 76226 Billy and Joyce Kenas 2126 Hamilton Drive Argyle, Texas 76226 Opposed (Owner) Opposed (Owner) See attached letter changing original favorable response to opposition See Attached Letter Ed Ruibal 608 South Pearl Dallas, Texas 75201 David Yoder 940 Brush Creek Road Argyle, Texas 76226 Henry and Lona Wolfe 4801 Argyle Lane Argyle, Texas 76226 Richard and Gina Shanhouse 8001 Woodcreek Circle Argyle, Texas 76226 Dennis and Sharon Cox 8008 Woodcreek Circle Argyle, Texas 76226 Opposed Favor Favor Favor Favor Property is in ETJ See Attached Letter See Attached Letter See Attached Letter See Attached Letter *A copy of the original notice can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Z02-0039 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton Will hold a pubtic hearing on Wednesday, August 28, 2002, to consider rezoning three tracts of land totaling approximately 21 acres (inside the city limits) generally located on Fort Worth Drive south of Hamilton Road and north of Brush Creek, from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning district (see map on back). The property is legally described as Tracts 16, 22, and 31 in Old DCAD TR #1D, #lB, and #1-C in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. No development is proposed at this time. . Note: Only those properties located inside the city limits of Denton will receive this notice. The public hearing will start at 7:00 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 pubfic hearing. Please, in order for your opinion to - be taken i-nto a~cJ3unt, 'mtur~n-~[h~form With"yC~Ur (~6mment~--PTib-r-to the date-bf th~e-~ublichearing: ('This it] no way prohibits you from attending and participating in fhe 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: Autumn Speer, Planner I The zoning process includes two pubfic 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 PIanning 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: Mailing Address', Ci~, State Zip: Telephone Number: Physical Address of Properly within 200 feet: ~~ CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY HALL WEST · DENTON, TEXAS 76201 · 940.349.8350 · (F) 940.349.7707 z02-0o39 200' Notice 08/14/2002 05:I5 019403823031 KENAS PAGE Aug. 26, 2002 To whom it may concern: Billy and Joyce Kenas feel that it will be in our best interest for the zoning on our property to stay as it is now. We feel that it is unfair to give a party a commercial rating with the majority of the zoning board agreeing that the proper zoning should be commercial and then decide within a five-year period to change it. This did not happen to us but it did to the property owners just north of us. If we were to try for a commercial ruling how long would it be before the zoning department decided to change it again? We ask your department to be more consistent and less political. AUG ~.,8 2002 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Yours truly~ Joyce Kenas NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIN6 Z02-0039 : Lccj The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will hold a~pub c. hearing on.Wednesday, September 25, 2002, to consider rezoning three tracts of land totaling approximately 21 acres (inside the city limits) generally located on Fort Worth Drive south of Hamilton Road and north of Brush Creek, from a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning district (see map on back). The property is legally described as Tracts 16, 22, and 31 in Old DCAD TR #lB, #lB, and #1-C in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. No development is proposed at this time. Note: Only those properties located inside the city limits of Denton will recei~)e this notice. 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 pubfic 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 of Planning and Development Department 221 N. Elm ST Denton, Texas 76201 Attn: Autumn Speer, Planner I The zoning process includes two public hearings designed to 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 pub[ic 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 Reasons forO~p.,~,posi~on: \ \ Printed Name: ,z~. % k~,,,.~_,,, ,'-~_~. ~. Mailing Address: /O0~ .~ Telephone Number: ~/L/ ~ -~f¢4:~ ' / ~ ] ~ Physical Address of Property within 200 feet: ..~, ]~;? ~/-jd x~/27~-,~ ..¢ -g;F-z~, ~E j'¢/,~ ,j~y3j~ J/¢~/ CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY HALL WEST · DENTON, TEXAS 76201 , 940.349.8350 · (F) 940.349.7707 Z02.0039 200' No~ice ll/05/2002 17:44 9404~4374§ REAL ESTATE STATION PAGE 02/02 I, John David Monroe, am against the change of zoning in the City of Denton at U~ 37? and Brush C~reek Rd. I hereby revoke my previou~ vote, as ! dJ&n't understand thc wording when I east my previous vote. John David Monroe Date September 24, 2002 To: Planning and Zoning Commission Members Mayor and City Council Members Re: Public Hearings on Brush Creek Road and Highway 377 area rezonings ~ am unable to attend the meeting~ but would like my comments on record in support of the zoning changes that are proposed. My wife and ! have lived at 940 Brush Creek Road since 1985. We moved from the City of Denton to this area to get away from the high-density houses and to a less busy, less stressful way of life. We have continued to watch the development of new homes In our area and were comfortable with the quality and density of these homes because they have all maintained the space and openness of the community. We were appalled to see that the new zoning map has changed the zoning along Brush Creek Road to NR 2, which ! understand is 2 homes to an acre of land. That is very scary to those of us who have lived here, are raising families and animals and enjoying our 'country" way of life. ! presume that this zoning would allow my neighbor, if he so chose, to subdivide his 10 acres and put 20 houses next to mine. Please support the change to NR 1 zoning. There are no undeveloped lots along this road and lot sizes range from 2 acres up to 80 acres. The other area that has us very concerned is the NR 4 zoning along the frontage of 377, south of Brush Creek Road, :just around the corner from our home. Who, in all common sense, could envision 4 homes to the acre out here? ! specifically remember Assistant City Manager, Dave Hill, telling us when this new plan was in the beginning stages that properties closer in to town would be denser and as you moved away from town you would have less density, with the least density being in the areas that bordered the ET3, or other towns. We are as far from ~own as you can get. We border Argyle and they, as a town, Just reaffirmed their commitment to keeping a rural, open feel with their new plan. ! just don't see how NR 4 fits. Directly across the highway, land with a railroad track running through it is even zoned less dense - NR 2. We ask that you support the rezoning change to NR 2 for this strip. Please, please take a good look at these and make them compatible for this area. There should not be more than one home, at the most, to an acre in this area. We feel we have already been greatly compromised by the NR 2 designation on the approximately 150 acre tract that is being developed as Country Club Village. We do not want to be downgraded any further. We keep hearin~qv~er,~nd over how the new plan is concerned with preserving and protecting ~l~i~l~~hoeds. Well, ~ preserve and protect us. '! can only hope understand the impact your decision will have on those and so long to build the very unique community we now I~( and~llerish. Thank you for Your time and kind consideration. /~- 940 Brush Creek Read Argyle, TX 76226 September 25, 2002 To: City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission Denton City Council and Mayor Re: Support for rezoning requests to less density re Brush Creek Road, Highway 377 and Hills of Argyle area We would 1/kc to respectfully request that a zoning change be seriously considered to correct what must surely be an error in the zoning map. In section L6, in an area where every existing home within a 1.5 mile radius is located on at least an acre, with most homes being on lots of 2 to up to I00 acres, there is a large section of land along Highway 377 designated to be NR-4. That would seem totally incompatible with the promise to "preserve and protect exisisting neighborhoods". The rural atmosphere and the large estate size lots, ARE the existing neighborhood and it is unfathomable that NR- 4 would be seen as a reasonable designation to be "plopped" down in the midst of this. There are other concerns as well, as there is an environmentally sensitive area along one side of this area as well as continuous flooding problems. We request that this area be rezoned to NR-2 to at least accommodate some of our concerns. There is undeveloped land adjoining this area that has been designated as NR-2, and that would seem more appropriate. Also, the land directly behind our home in the Hills of Argyle, along Brush Creek Road, has been designated on the new map as NR-2, which is also totally inconsistent with the surrounding area. To our knowledge, all of the lots on Brush Creek Road from Highway 377 to Highway 1830 are all developed, complete with homes, barns, animals, etc. All of these developed lots are large - about 2 acres up to about 80 acres. Why would you then "overzone" this area as NR-2? Makes no sense to us Please correct these mistakes by approving the rezoning for less density for this area. Sincerely, -, Henry and Lona Wolfe 4801 Argyle Lane Hills of Argyle Argyle, TX 76226 September 25, 2002 To: Denton Plaunln~ and Zoning Commission Re: September 25, 2002, meeting - agenda items 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 We Just recently purchased our dream home at 8001 Woodcreek Circle. We moved here from Piano expressly to get away from the crowded subdivisions and hurried lifestyle. Though we commute to work now, the drive is more than worth the peace and tranq~lity we find when we return home. We researched many area towns and looked at many homes trying to find an area that had estate-size lots and some semblance of nature. A realtor in Dallas actually suggested this area to us aft~, hea~ing our desi~'es and otu' f~ustration in locating what we were looking for. Every surrounding town has subdivision miter subdivision on small Iota or in some cases, on no lot at all !! This arem of Denton is unique in that you can offer large lots, in the midst of natural beauty, and yet be close to town. This area is somethln~ very special. Its uniqueness needs to be preserved. There a~e Hterally hundreds of crowded subdivisions to choose fron~ but extremely few that offer what we have. Please vote in support of the rezonlugs for this area that will help to maintain the wonderful quality of our new life here in your fair city. We will be so disappointed ff this area becomes what we searched for so long to escape from. d and Olna Shanhouse 8001 Woodcreek Circle Argyle, TX 76226 September 24, 2002 Dear Mayor Brock, City Council Members, and Planning and Zoning Commission Members, Please take another look at our neighborhood. We live in a cul-de-sac that was annexed into Denton in the tate 1970's. Our cul-de-sac contains 5 lots, with 4 homes that have been in existence for many years and one unbuilt lot. The 5 lots range in size from 1.022 acres up to 2.003 acres. On the new zoning map, apparently they have now zoned our area to NR 2, or 2 homes to the acre. This puts us in avery precarious position with regard to our wel{-established neighborhood. With this new zoning, the owner of the vacant lot could completely change the character of what we have worked so hard to create - a spacious, rural feel. Another seemingly incongruous zoning is the NR 4 zoning along 377 from Brush Creek Road south, which is located behind our cul-de-sac. This would appear to be better served by an NR 1 or NR 2 zoning and more in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood - to one side of the area now zoned NR 4 is a large (50 + acres) cattle farm and to the other side is a large horse farm. Another important consideration is that this area is adjacent to an already threatened environmentaJ[y sensitive area and an area that has had significant flooding problems, which would be exacerbated by higher density. We have also noted that across the street from us (in the as-yet-unannexed area along Brush Creek Road) you have now zoned that area to be NR 2 also, yet those homes are on even Jar§er lots, some 20 to 40 acres and more. Ptease correct these apparent oversights and consider something more approprfate, such as NR f. The future of our neighborhood is at stake. We would appreciate your vote in support of the rezoning for the lower densities which, in turn, is a vote for the integrity of our long-standing neighborhood. Most sincerely, Dennis and Sharon Cox 8008 Woodcreek Circle Argyle, TX 76226 940-243-1122 ATTACHMENT 4 Photographs Page 111 2 will take public hearings Nc go through and figure out 3 presentation since they are in the same area and so 3 who got to go to who. There are letters -- letters that ! 4 similar in nature, and then we will vote on them 4 passed out. Four of them are for Woodcreck Circle, four 5 individually. And Ms. Speer with the City planning office 5 of them are letters from the same owners concerning the 6 will present and I'll open the public hearing. 6 whole area. Some of them would apply to other cases as 7 MS. SPEER: Good evening, Comauissioners. 7 far as being in the 200-foot notice. 8 I'm going to do these together as one unit but I'm going 8 COMMISSIONER AVPtn: ~ecause some of them 9 to do each individual one separately, seeing as we have 9 actually address these Agenda items, not the other ones. 10 different forms of opposition. 10 Ms. SeEER: Right. Right. 11 Item Agenda No. 28 is again a Planning 11 COMMISSIONER ~eCE: SO I just want to make 12 and Zoning initiated zoning request. There's five parcels 12 the Commissioners aware to read the letters in the packet 13 of land, approximately 80 acres. The Planning and Zoning 13 because they're stuck behind the wrong Agenda item. Thank 14 Commission has requested they go from a Neighborhood 14 you. Commissioner Johnson has a question. 15 Residential 2 to a Neighborhood Residential 1. As I said, 15 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: AS we go along, 16 there's no opposition on this land. Most of the land is 16 could you indicate because it says in all cases the 17 vacant. There are several small home sites kind of hidden 17 applicant is the City of Denton. Could you tell me if the 18 back in there. 18 owner agrees with the requesteat zoning? 19 This property does have some opposing 19 Ms. senna: i can, That's one reason t 20 issues. In one sense thc idea of maintaining the 20 want to do them separately. In this particular case, I 21 integrity of the rural atmosphere by downzoning this 21 have not received any notification from the owner that 22 property is its -- the goal was achieved. However, the 22 they oppose. This particular 80-acre site, there are five 23 goal of the Denton Plan also is to prevent sprawl. So you 23 separate owners and they were all notified, twice 24 have kind of a catch 22. You have this downzoning which, 24 actually, and I haven't received any opposition from 25 by its nature, the definition of sprawl could facilitate 25 owners on this one.... Page 110 Page 112 1 that. However, it does preserve the neighborhood and 1 COMMISSIONER APPLE: And just for 2 maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. 2 clarification purposes, as she announced earlier, the 3 Also another case in question is the 3 Planning and Zoning Commission is actually who initiated 4 Mobihty Plan. On this map I've showed you Country Club 4 this. 5 and Brush Creek, they are on the Mobility Plan. Brush 5 MS. SPEER: correct. 6 Creek is not to standard. It's a secondary -- itrs a 6 COMMISSIONER APPLE: That's why it says the 7 primary major arterial. Right now we know that that's not 7 City. But it was actually this body that initiated. 8 what it looks like. So I just -- staff wants to make sure 8 Commissioner Mu[roy. 9 that we're aware of the conflicting items here. We have 9 COMMISSIONER MULROY: YeS. Thank you. Ms. 10 that the area of the downzoning does preserve the 10 Speer, were you in our work section? I think we had two 11 neighborhood, does provide compatible uses. However, the 11 work sessions dealing with these properties. 12 Mobility Plan and the issue of it could facilitate sprawl 12 MS. SPEER: I don't believe I was here at 13 is something to be considered on all of these cases. This 13 the time, sir, no. 14 one, however, does not have any opposition so it does not 14 COMMISSIONER MLJLROY: okay. So I want to ,15 require super-majority at this point for City Council. 15 take a small liberty to refresh our collective memories 16 The next ease I'll talk about, unless you 16 and perhaps impart some of the background to you. Your 17 want to have questions about this specific one. 17 comments which are repeated in each Agenda item that this 18 COMMISSIONER APPLE: t just want to 18 is kind of counter to the anti-sprawl portions of the Comp 19 interrupt you because I noticed that you stapled all of 19 Plan, that was fully recognized in our work shop. And we 20 these together go they appear that they're for Item 29 20 had -- the consideration was given first to reflecting the 21 when actually they cover all of them. 21 existing neighborhood, there was long-e~tablished homes m 22 MS. srE~: vdght. 22 that really one-acre and larger tradition. 23 COMMISSIOSmt ~PLE: SO I just was 23 Number two, also the Comp Plan wants 24 wondering if you made the Commission aware that these 24 diversified housing. We have many areas of the City that 25 probably shouldn't be stapled together. 25 we're looking at the new urbanization and upping the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 109 - Page 112 CondcnseltTM Page 113 1 density and pedestrian-oriented, et cetera, et cetera. 2 This is one already established area of the City that is 3 more of the larger estate-type lots and so in order to be 4 diversified, we need to have that offering. 5 Number three, on an economic development 6 standpoint, we are losing some potential housings of this 7 type to Argyle because they have an abundance of the 8 larger acreage and we don't. So for this body, in our 9 deliberations and examining in the total context, not just 10 a narrow focus but of all the things you mentioned, 11 evolved the decision that this would be the part of town 12 that we would like to keep this way. So I really want to 13 address -- reflect to your comments that have been 14 repeated here. Thank you. 15 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, i 16 Commissioner Mulroy. 17 MS. SPEER: Are there any further questions 18 on this particular site? I'll continue. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Watkins. 20 COMMISSIONER WATKINS: Did I understand you 21 to say that there were five comers? 22 MS. SPEER: NO, sir. There are five 23 separate tracts of land in this 80-acre parcel. It's 24 totaling 80 acres that's zoned right now, the NR-2, but 25 there's five different tracts. Page 114 1 COMMISSIONER WATKINS: okay. And we're not 2 allowed to know who the owners were or, I mean, it was 3 initiated by the Planning and Zoning, but I see a fellow 4 in the audience that owned a good bit of that property at 5 one time. 6 COMMISSIONER APPLE: well, I guess normally 7 we don't take who owns the property into deliberation, so 8 to speak. It's the property that we're looking at, not so 9 much who owns it. I0 COMMISSIONER WATK£NS: SUre. Sur~. 11 COMMISSIONER AP?CE: But if she has that 12 information available, I'm sure she'd he happy to sham it 13 with you. But I thought I understood her to say she did 14 not have that information. 15 MS. SPEER: on this particular site, this 16 was my easy one. Everybody else I could tell you who owns 17 what because they all -- there's opposition and favorable. 18 But this one I didn't receive anything except -- 19 COMM~ssIoNEa WATmNS: vll withdraws[ my 20 question. 21 MS. SPEER: I did want to address 22 Conmfissioner Mulroy, if I could. I wasn't aware of the 23 previous work session meetings. I do want to say that 24 that was part of my issue in writing the staff report is 25 that there is a catch 22 issue, you know, your diversify PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Page 115 1 housing. So you have this area of town however sprawl, 2 however compatibility with neighborhood. So that's why in 3 my staff report, the recommendations, I have kind of 4 opposing findings and I just want to make those clear. 5 COMMISSIONER APPLE: well, bless your 6 heart. It's unfortunate that the hours of commentary on 7 this during work sessions were not provided to you since 8 you have all five of these cases. I am perplexed as to 9 why that was not done. 10 MS. SPEER: Right. I am, as well. l l COMMISSIONE.R APPLE: commissioner Roy, 12 COMMISSIONER ROY: We're going to go 13 through several cases and I'm afraid that I'm going to 14 forget each ease as we go through it. I wonder would it 15 be mom appropriate to -- and we've talked about this t 6 particularl tract of land, to see if there's any comments 17 from tho audience about that tract of land, resolve it, 18 and then go to the next one. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: ! was just wondering 20 the same thing, if it might not be more prudent at this 21 point to separate them out for purposes of presentation. 22 It seems to be getting rather muddled. Without objection 23 -- and vote on each one as we go. All fight. That seems 24 to be the consensus. If you want to start back with 28. 25 MS. SPEEa: okay. I just wanted to -- Page 116 1 basically, I'm completed with 28, if you have any 2 questions. 3 COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. So were there 4 any questions on 28? Okay. So we're okay. We're on to 5 30. Oh, gosh, stop me. We need to vote. 6 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Yeah, we also need 7 to go for public comment. 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: We n{~l to do the 9 public hearing. Gosh, somebody stop me. Commissioner 10 Johnson has his -- 11 COMMISSIONER JOUNSON: Yeah. I still want 12 to make sure that I understand this. This property has 13 owners. We have tried to contact them. We know who they 14 are. I don't need to know but you have tried to contact 15 them and they have not responded to you; is that right? 16 MS. SPEER: rm required to contact them 17 via mail and we contact them certified mail. We actually 18 have sent out thre~ notifications for these cases because 19 of postal errors. So I have received several calls on thc 20 site. I don't have their names right now with me because 21 I received most of the calls back in August. This was 22 initially planned to go a month ago. But I haven't 23 received any written comments whatsoever on this 24 particular 80 acres. 25 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. This is a SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 113 - Page 116 CondenscItTM Page 117 1 public hearing and I do have several cards who wish to 2 address this issue. Tom McMurray, 3 MR, MCMURILAY: chairperson, Tom McMurray, 4 1800 Wickwood. Is this the shee~ that shows up here? I 5 live right there. Okay. This whole neighborhood here is 6 Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Hills of Argyle. It is 7 completely now sold and Phase 3 up here is now starting to 8 be developed. This site with Brush Creek, the way it's 9 designed with the right-of-way, would be more appropriate 10 to be 11 One reason is is we are in the City of 12 Denton, one of the rare properties like this thaCs 13 like this, but we are also in the school district of 14 Argyle ~SD. ~md one of the issues that I'm sure this 15 Commission is aware of is that Argyle just deannexed 8,000 16 acres to send a message to the City Council of Denton 17 because they force fed another deal. 18 And as a citizen of both Denton and the ISV 19 of Argyle, taxpayers of both, we would like to see not 20 only the conformity, but it's the natural conformity. 21 It's like, you know, all the terrain, if you've driven it, 22 it's got some hills, rolling to it. It's a natural 23 terrain for larger estate homes. It's the type of thing 24 that not only helps your tax base, it helps bring a 25 positive image to that area of town. Page 118 1 Although 377, you-all are working hard on 2 it, we're not offended by any of that. We understand 3 that. We drive in every day. And our position on that 4 is hhat we would like to see you do NR-1. The reason 5 being is that until Brush Creek is really redone, it's not 6 compatible at this point. I know on the plans it's got 7 the right-of-way. 8 Mr. Johnson, I don't know if you've driven 9 it, but I know that's part of your questions. But I drive 10 it every day and you don't drive too fast, it will tear 11 your car up. But assume all that is redone, across the 12 street here is actually ETJ, I believe, but fight now it's 13 just being produced as oil and gas royalty fight now. 14 That's the King area. And we would ask that y'all just 15 allow it to look a lot like this. Because if you do that, 16 it's going to be natural, it's going to be in conformity, 17 it's going to look good. It's got a lot of trees in that 18 area. We know Denton likes to save trees. So that's the 19 deal. I'd ask that you vote for NR-i. 20 COMMISSIONER APPLE; Thank you, I have a 21 card from a Larry McGehee. MeGehee, is that correct? 22 MR. MCGEHEE: Yes ma'am, My name is Larry 23 McGehee. I live at 2001 C1Mstina Court also one of those 24 little dots on the map in the Hills of Argyle. 25 When the Denton Plan was passed, our Page 119 I neighborhood was zoned ~R-2 and ~a-4, although it had been 2 platted and approved as one-acre lots and larger. And 3 when we spoke to Council about this, they basically said 4 we understand this is an oversight. This subdivision is 5 already here. They were overlaying a subdivision that had 6 been approved and plat for one and two-acre lots. So it 7 was a mistake and so that's where Na-X came from. I don't 8 know how staff could have rezoned this whole city and not 9 missed a few little things, and that one was one that was 10 missed. And so out of cou_nesy or respect or what~ver, 11 No-1 was created to take care of that subdivision. 12 I believe that all of these are the same 13 issue, that this land is rural. I've lived there for 14 almost a year and a half. I've never seen a Denton police 15 officer even in the subdivision. We had people steal some 16 signs from us and when we called them to come out, they 17 said, well, you're in Argyle. You don't even live in the 18 City of Denton. So we're not getting serviced to death 19 out there. We have to tell them where it is before they 20 can come out. You have to go through a large floodplain 21 area to even get to this area. And a big portion of this 22 tract in question is in a floodplain and probably will 23 never be developed in. I don't know what the actual 24 usable acreage is but I don't think that we're talking 25 about very many usable acres to begin with. Page I20 1 The road of Brush Creek Road is not a 2 two-lane black top. It's a one-lane death trap and you 3 can get killed there on any day because you've got two 4 blind hills. So I think it was an oversight. I think all 5 of this stuff is an oversight. And we request that you 6 keep it rural. Keep it Na-lr There will be nice big 7 homes built there. They'll pay a lot of taxes, The 8 developer is not going to get hurt on these deals. 9 They're going to sell them and make a lot of money. It's 10 just a question of how much. Thank you. 11 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. I have a 12 card from Bill Lewis. All right. You don't wish to 13 speak? 14 MR. LEWIS: Not on this issue, 15 COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. I have a card 16 from Chris Mellberg, 17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He wanted you to 18 read the back. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Traffic issues are 20 scary both -- that's not what this says. Traffic issues 21 are really bad both on Brush Creek and 377. And we wan 22 to preserve the feel of the neighborhood. 23 Is there anyone else who wants to speak in 24 support? Okay. I have two cards -- no, I have one card 25 on this particular item. Michael Pettibon. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 117 - Page 120 CondenseltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 12I MR. PETTIBON: Hi. I'm Mike Pettibon and I own 40 acres that abuts the Hills of Argyle. And I'm not really sure if I understand the zoning change all that well and maybe you can change my mind about opposing this. Page 123 NR-I? MS. SPEER: Just to clarify, the only difference in uses for NR-I and NR-2 is under NR-2 if yOU have an suP, you can put in manufactured homes. There are But I think the reason that I'm opposed, I want it to stay rural and I can tell you that 75 percent of the land that I own is floodplain and you couldn't build a house on it if you wanted to. And I have no plans to build anything else and I don't want anything else built on it. But I think that I have a problem with zoning it so that it's more prohibitive of what I could or couldn't do on my property. And I don't know if that is truIy the ease or not as far as animals or livestock or what I want to do with it. And I feel like the people in Hills of Argyle are looking at my property and trying to make sure that I conform to their standards. And while I guarantee you that, you know, I don't want to spend a million dollars on a piece of property and have it look terrible, I also moved out to the country sort of so that I was no longer in the gated neighborhood I used to be in with people telling me that I couldn't paint my front door this color or have a dog over this size or park my vehicle. That's why I'm opposed. I think that I am opposed to further regulation of land. And maybe that's not truly 5 no other residential differences. Just density and 6 manufactured housing. 7 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Does that 8 help you, sir? 9 M~. PETTIBON: Yes. 10 COMMISSIONER APPLE: IS therO anyone else 11 who wishes to address Item -- 12 COMMISSIONER ROY: I had a question. 13 COMM[SSIONERAPPLE: okay. Commissioner 14 Roy. 15 COMMISSIONF~ ROY: t had a question of the 16 person who just spoke. Sir, are you a property owner in 17 that lot that we're looking at right now? You own 18 property in that yellow area? 19 MR. PETTIBON: I own -- that's my this half 20 of the rectangle. 21 COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you. 22 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: 40 of the 80. 23 COMMISSlmmm APPLE: commissioner Johnson, 24 if you have a question. 25 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: 40 O[' thc 80 acres Page 122 the spirit of it but that's how I interpret it. COMMISSIONER APPLE: would you like us to explain to you what we're doing, what is proposed so you would understand? MR. PETTIBON: If you could. COMMISSIONER APPLE: what is being proposed, and I'll let probably Mr. Reichhart, if Mr. Reichhart would come up and explain what this -- what is happening here so that then he would maybe feel more comfortable. MR. REICHHART: very briefly, the difference between NO-1 and NR-2 is basically density. NR-1, you have a density of one unit per acre. NR-2 has a density of two units per acre. Regarding keeping animals or livestock, there are different ordinances that address that. You have to have so much acreage per type of animal you have or horses or cows, tkings like that. And the zoning, regardless if it's Ne-1 or NR-2, wouldn't matter. So the real difference is when or if the property were ever going to be subdivided in the future, it would be a density issue. COMMISSIONER APPLE: And could you also explain to him some uses such as the manufactured homes that could be allowed in NR-2 that cannot be allowed in i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 124 is yours, sir? MR. PETrlBON: Right. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: IS it the east half or the west half?. MR. PETTIBON: The west. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: The west? Have you decided yet if you're in favor of this or against it? MR. PETTIBON: You kllow, I guess that ! am still opposed. And it probably isn't my place to say it but, once again, it is just because I don't want added -~ someone telling me what I can do and can't do. Once again, I have no intention of decreasing the property values. And also I don't think if you tried as hard as you possibly could that you could put more than two more houses on that whole 40 acres. But I still stand opposed. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. I don't see any more questions. Is them anyone else who'd like to address Agenda Item No. 28? Seeing no one, does staff have any additional marks? MS. SPEER: My only additional remark would be with his opposition we'd be at about 50 percent opposition, it would require super-majority at City Council. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Commissioner Powell. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 121 - Page 124 CondenseltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 125 COMMISSIONER POWELL: IS is safe to assume that we haven't heard from the owners, owner or owners of the other 40 acres? MS. SPEER: Corro.,ct. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Comtnis siGners. Commissioner Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Ye...8, Madam Chair. I'm going to make a motion for approval. I understand the verbally stated opposition but the reality is the motion and the downzoning will be less restrictive is what the Page 127 1 hearing. 2 MS. SPEER: Good evening once again. I am 3 basically going to go through these cases and talk to you 4 about the opposition and the site location. Staff has the 5 same findings in all of the cases. This site is 6 approximately a roughly ten-acre site. Same exact 7 situation, going from Neighborhood Residential 2 to 8 Neighborhood Residential 1 zoning district. This case 9 will have to go forward to City Council for 10 super-majority. Both owners of the two tracts do oppose. 11 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. For commentary was directed towards. So I make a motion for approval as presented. Thank you. COMMISSIONER WATKINS: second. COMMISSIONER APPLE: we have a motion by Commissioner Mulroy and a second by Commissioner Watkins. For discussion, Commissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: I am greatly influenced by the landowner of half of this property that doesn't want to make a change and I don't see why we would do something he doesn't want to do. So I will be voting against approval of this. COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Johnson. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: ~ We going to register this as an opposing view that is going to drive Page 126 1 the City Council to a super-majority? 2 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Director Powell would 3 like to weigh in. 4 MR. POWELL: we really need, to make it 5 official, we do need the opposition in writing. Bm I'm 6 sure that we can get that in between now and the month it 7 takes from P&Z to City Council. $ COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: okay. And just for 9 the record, I'm going to agree with Cormnissioner Roy 10 because I'm going to give great deference to the 11 landowner' s stated preference on this. 12 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Powell. 13 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Discussion of Mr. 14 Mulroy's point. I would look at it as being more 15 restrictive because with an NR-2, he does have some 16 options that disappear when it goes to NR-1. I just want 17 to point -- I'm just looking at this a little differently 18 than you are, sir. I wanted to make that point. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Any 20 further discussion? Vote, please. Motion carries 4-3. 21 (Commissioners Johnson, Roy, Powcll voted 22 in opposition.) 23 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Next we'll address 24 . Agenda Item No. 30 which is a public hearing. Again, 25 Ms. Speer, if you'll present and I'll open the public 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Agenda Item No. 30 -- COMMISSIONER ROY: EXCUSe me. Can I ask clarification? COMMISSIONER APPLE: oh, Commissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: You said two tracts? MS. SPEER: correct, theret$ two tracts of land, two different parcels. COMMISSIONER ROY: Okay. All right. We're looking at it as one site. MS, SPEER: Correct. The line is right here. COMMISSIONER ROY: Okay. Both owners are in opposition, had written opposition to this change? MS. SPEER: correct. Page 128 1 COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you. 2 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Regarding this Agenda 3 item, we have severa[ people who would like to address 4 this, also. Again, Mr. McMurray. 5 MR. MCMURRAY: I have a question for the 6 staff to help with my -- is there a sewer down Fort Worth 7 Drive? No? Is there a sewer because if it's NR-2, 8 residential, you've got a problem with your septic. 9 Because we're all septic out here. There is sewer running l0 up Fort Worth Drive up here to the new part of Phase 3. 11 So I could see where it wouldn't be that, you know, it 12 wouldn't be that expensive to get it there. That is an 13 issue because NR-i iS the minimum for a septic 14 requirements of spacing for your aerobic system. So one 15 of the -- I understand the landowner may want opposition. 16 It's going to have to be an issue addressed at some point 17 whether or not there's going to be sewer. So we would 18 vote NR-1 because it really conforms with the land use as 19 in the neighborhood. 20 All of this is NR-! but I can understand 21 the landowner saying he doesn't want NR-2, but there's not 22 going to be a special use permit for mobile homes. Not 23 next to alt this. You talk about everybody coming down 24 here, y'all would have a good time. So that ain't going 25 to happen. So at this point, I would say that you ought PLANIqlNG AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 125 - Page 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 § 9 lO 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 Conden scltTM Page 129 to go with NR-1 for the purpose that he can't -- if the 1 landowner can't use it for anything other than NR-i anyway 2 because of the fact that you have to have a septic spacing 3 unless the City's deciding to put sewer there. Thank you. 4 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Mr. McGehee. 5 MR. MCGEHEE: I would have dressed up if 6 I'd known I was going to have to speak in front of this ? camera. Do I need to introduce myself each time? 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: please. 9 MR, MCGEHEE: Larry McGehee, 2001 Christina 10 Court, Denton, Texas. I believe and I need to ask staff 11 this but arc you allowed to build a house on a half an 12 acre without a sewer line? You're not o/lowed to do that. 3 Isn't this, in effect, an oversight in thc Denton zoning? .4 Why would this be zoned NR-2 when you can't use it as15 NR-2? This is an oversight. 16 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Could someone from 17 staff address that question? 18 MR. POWELL: I'd be happy to address it. 19 If you remember back to the previous cases, there's a20 differentiation between zoning and platting and providing, 21 as part of platting, you provide utilities. The zoning of 22 the property, could it be developed today at the higher 23 density because there's no utilities? No. But that's a 24 platting issue. It's not really a zoning issue. Though 25 Page 130 they're somewhat intertwined. So you really do need to 1 try to separate those two. The question may be can 2 someone develop that at a higher density? Yes. Would 3 they have to provide the utilities? Yes. But it is 4 possible. It might not be feasible. It might not be cost -- might be cost prohibitive right now. But that really 6 is a platting issue rather than a zoning issue. 7 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Did that 8 answer your question? 9 MR. MCGEHEE: Yeah, I guess. I still think 10 that this was an oversight. I don't believe it was 11 intentionally zoned NR~2 because there is no sewer line 12 there. It's also a 65 mile an hour State highway. The 13 traffic in there is horrible, I don't know if any of you 14 have tried to go from Argyle to Denton on Fort Worth 15 Drive. You can't get there very quickly, You're blocked 16 by that trestle down there. 17 Again, I don't think that even if it's 18 zoned NR-1 that it will -- somebody is going to come in 19 here and someday ask you for commercial zoning on this. 20 NP,-I, it may make sense because there's a railroad track 21 across there and it's a State highway, and anybody that 22 would develop that would want it to be at least one-acre 23 lots, which puts the house away from the road and the 24 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION train. It just doesn't make sense. It really needs to be SEPTEMBER 25TIt, 2002 Page 131 NR-I. And look at all the other stuff out there, We're all one-acre and bigger because there's no sewer line and that's why it's all like it is. Somebody is benefiting from a mistake. Thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Bill Lewis. All right. You just want to show support. MR, LEWIS: show me in favor of this one. COMMISSIONER APPLE:. chris Mellberg does not wish to speak but wants to express support. Sandra Lewis does not wish to speak but she wishes to offer support. Carol Haesle was not able to attend but she does want to offer support. She says all of these items include areas in rural neighborhoods with land, trees, and nature. Please allow the existing developments to maintain their environment and feel. Also, traffic on these rural roads is very bad. Please don't make it worse. And M.D. Williamson wishes not to speak but he offers support, Then I have a card from Paul Berry. He's one of the owners. Is he present? Would you like to speak? MR. BERRY: My name is Paul Berry and I am the owner of the south portion there. My address is P.O. Page 132 Box 101, Mena, Arkansas. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. MR. BERRY: I did live on this property for 20 years, but, like I say, I am now living out of state. Y'all seem to be spending some time talking about mobile homes. This property and all the property in that 30 acre group and back behind there is deed restricted from mobile homes. You couldn't put a mobile home in there if you wanted to. And -- but I do wish to express my opposition. Thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Question for staff for my education. Doesn't zoning supersede deed restrictions? MR. POWELL: No. The way it works is whichever is more restrictive. So in the case of a deed restriction that didn't allow mobile home parks but was allowed in zoning, you still couldn't do it. We wouldn't enforce that deed restriction but if it was valid, you could enforce it by private means. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Berry. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I have a question. COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Mulroy has a question for you, sir. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes, sir. Thank you Page 129- Page 132 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 CondonscltTM Page 133 for coming down. My question is prior to the adoption of 1 the Development Code, what was the zoning on this 2 property? 3 MR. BERRY: Oh, that was something else 4 that I meant to address. Until I got this notice, I was 5 still under the assumption that all that was unzoned. I 6 was never notified when the zoning was changed previously. 7 So if I ever g~ any acceptance for these two notices on 8 this issue, if I ever get any notice on hearings regarding 9 this property, it has always been after the meeting and 10 after the decision has been made. And I didn't know at 11 all when it was changed to NR-2. 12 COMMISSIONER MULROY: But previous to that, 13 to your knowledge, it was zoned Agricultural then? 14 MR. BERRY: Agricultural or unzoned or 15 something. 16 Page 135 and let's say'you had an old sF-7 and we're trying to take you to ~,m-l,well, shame on us. But that's really not the case. It's always been Ag. The policy was to assign it some zoning and we're just making that adjustment. So we're really not trying to take away something that you've had. MR. BERRY: But yOU are. But you are. COMMISSIONER MIJLROY: well, see, my comment COMMISSIONER MULROY: And how long have you owned it? MR. BeP, aY: Probably about 25, 26 years. COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. In all those times, you never had any intention or made any attempt to upzone it to two or three or four houses an acre? Mit. BERRY: NO. COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. So, see, what's transpired, we've gone -- where unzoned land was to you would be then these 20 years, did you ever come forward to try to upzone it? MR. BERRY: NO, but still you're taking something away. COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, but it's something you didn't have. MR. BERRY; NO) because I still had the land, I still have the land. Page 134 carded as Ag, we've assigned it the low end possibility as NR-I, NR-2. And really you never had NR-2, yOU had Ag. And we're trying to sustain the 'rural flavor of that area. We want to redesignate it as NP,-1 which is less dense and more rural. MR. BERRY: I never, I never -- well, I own it -- entertain this idea but yet I don't want to tie my hands behind my back. COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, I understand. I want to refresh our collective memory. One, it was originally Ag. It was assigned NR-2 during the Code 12 adoption. And in reflection -- 13 MR. BERRY: BUt I didn't know that. 14 COMMISSIONER MULROY: -- that NRq would 15 have been mom appropriate. So it's not that someone is 16 taking something away that you've had for 20 years. It is 17 attempting by this body to correct an oversight. When the 18 Code was adopted, rather than having the least dense, NR-2 19 was assigned rather than NR-1. In viewing the 20 neighborhood, we viewed it as very rural and the previous 21 makeup of tiffs body initiated the changes to go to Na-1 22 which would be our lowest designation or least dense. 23 So I just want to make it clear that these 24 deliberations have already been undertaken and it's not 25 that you had -- if you had made any effort over 20 years 17 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. Thank you. 18 COMMISSIONE~ APPLE: Thank you, Mr. Berry. 19 Is them anyone else who wishes to address the Commission 20 in regards to this Agenda item? 21 MR. REICHHART: I was just asked a question 22 in the audience and as a point of clarification I just 23 want to point out to remind everybody that Agricultural 24 zoning has a one-acm limit development similar to the 25 NR4. someone asked me that, regarding that question. Page 13 6 2 3 4 5 6 situation 7 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Commissioner Watkins. COMMISSIONER WATKINS: Just as a matter of information, and you possibly can't answer this question, but this didn't change actually or did it change the tax on the property when we went from Ag to this? MR. REICHHART: NOs sir. ?LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 8 COMMISSIONER WATKINS: I mean, they may 9 have seen an increase but that was because alt of Denton 10 County, I suppose, went up. 11 MR. REICHHART: That's correct. 12 COMMISSIONER WATK~NS: BUt it would be the 13 same. Okay. Thank you. 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Is there anyone else 1 $ who wants to address this Agenda item? Seeing no one 16 coming forward, I'm going to close the public hearing. 17 Commissioner Mulroy. 18 COMMISSIONER MULROY: That was the que, 19 right? No. I think I've already given my mini lecture 20 but in view that we had undertaken the deliberations as 21 I've stated, I'm going to remain consistent and make the 22 motion to approve as presented. Thank you. 23 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. We have a 24 motion on the table. The motion dies for lack of a 25 second. Commissioner Roy. SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 133 - Page 136 Cond_~n solt TM 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 137 COMMISSIONER ROY: we did have a lot of discussion about this area but I think I was under the assumption, I wont along with the discussion under the assumption that the property owners would be happy to have this changed. So it's obvious that in this particular case the property owners are not happy to have this changed so I move denial of this. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: second. COMMISSIONER APPLE: We have a motion and a second to deny. Any discussion? I have one polut of discussion only because I was just tolally not present at that moment. I was thinking of something else. And I would have seconded Commissioner Mulroy's motion. And for Page 139 1 property. However, we do live in a City. And sometimes 2 ii' you want to 'be -- if you would like to own a piece of 3 property that nobody can tell you what to do, perhaps you 4 ought to buy that piece of property that is further away 5 from file City than these parcels are. These parcels are 6 in the City. So, anyway, I do support this mainly 7 because that was already there. Thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, Mr. Lewis. 9 Tom McMurray. 10 MR. MCMURR~Y: Tom McMurray, 1800 Wickwood, 11 City of Denton. This piece of property is not unhke the 12 other piece o? property that y'all just discussed which 13 was the other parcel, there was two parcels in the one that, I apologize. I will be voting against the motion. Any discussion? Vote, please. Motion passes 5-2. (Commissioners Mulroy and Apple voted in Opposition.) COMMISSIONER APPLE: NeXt iS Agenda Item 31, a public hearing considering rezonlng 21 acres on Fort Worth Drive, south of Hamilton and north of Brush Creek. Ms. Speer will present and I'll open the public hearing. MS. SPEER: oood evening once again. Agenda Item No. 31, as Commissioner Apple had stated, is approximately 21 acres. The same situation down to the 14 tract. However, this one is a lot longer. And it is -- 15 being a Denton resident now for a long time, this is 16 exactly what gives us a bad name in the neighborhood is 17 that it's agricultural which is one-acre lot minimums and 18 then we come in and make a mistake as a City and now we 19 can't stand up and say we made a mistake and do the right 20 thing. Okay. We're telling you wc would tike to see it 21 done r~ght so it's in conformity with the whole area. 22 Just because of the Hills of Argyle was 23 done right} because that was an oversight and we had to 24 come down and tel1 y'all how to do that. Now we're not 25 going to get this done right. You need to vote for this Page 138 1 zoning of Residential Neighborhood 2 to Neighborhood 2 Residential 1. This particular case, I do have one owner 3 opposition and I have one owner in favor. However, the 4 opposition is right at 20 percent so the super-majority 5 rule will be required at City Council. 6 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. 7 Commissioner Powell. 8 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Is it safe to assume 9 the white area is the third owner that has not spoken? 10 MS. SPEER: Correct. 11 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I have several cards 13 for this Agenda item, also. Mr. Williamson does not wish 14 to speak but he wishes to express support. Carol Haesle 15 is not available to speak but she does express support. 16 Sandra Lewis does not wish to speak but she wants to t7 express support. Chris Mellherg is not available to speak 18 but does wish to express support. Bill Lewis, ii' you'll 19 give your name and address, please. 20 MR. LEWIS: Bill Lewis, 900 Brush Creek 21 Road. I support this zoning change. To me, it just makes 22 sense because it matches what's already them. That's the 23 main reason that I support it. I appreciate people not 24 being want -- not liking to be told how to run their .25 business, especially when it comes to using their own Page 140 1 to be NR4. There's still no sewer there. It's still the 2 same arguments. You're going to have to have development. 3 I understand there's a difference in zoning and platting. 4 The difference is that it needs to he in conformity with 5 the rural area. And I can't emphasize it enough, I like 6 the landowners. I'm a landowner. Got lots of land other 7 than this land. But this land right hem needs to be in 8 conformity with the area and the other citizens in it. 9 You have all those people that you mentioned awhile ago 10 that were for it. They all live out there. So it's like 11 the whole people are saying we need you to back up what 12 the City of Denton says. I understand the landowners may 13 or may not be for it. Here we've got one that's for it. 14 But you need to do what's right for the area, please. 15 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Mr. Larry 16 MeGehee. 17 MR. MCGEHEE: My name is Larry McGehee. I 18 live at 200 t Cl~ristina Court, Denton, Texas. I'm almost 19 breathless after this last vote. You know, it's like a 20 guy gees in a bank to make a deposit for $100.00 and he 21 finds some money in a bag and somehow that money becomes 22 his. This land has hccn zoned AgricultUral forever, one 23 acre. These people have never been down here before you 24 asking for it to be two houses per acre. There's no sewer 25 llne. And there's some kind of thought that people should PLANNING AND ZON1NG COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 137 - Page 140 CondenscItTM Page 141 1 profit from mistakes and this was a mistake. But nobody 2 wants to take away the right for someone to capitalize on 3 a mistake that the City has made. Now, I'm a property 4 owner. Iown 17 houses in this City. I've lived here 31 5 years. And to stand here and see people vote to allow 6 mistakes, I can't believe it. I'm sorry. 7 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, sir. Is 8 there anyone else who wishes to speak to this item? 9 Seeing no one coming forward, I'll close the public t0 hearing. Commissioner Roy. 11 COMMISSIONER ROY: I wanted to ask a 12 question of staff. Is the landowner who is in opposition, 13 is that landowner here? 14 MS. SPEER: That is Bill and Joyce Keenis 15 and I don't believe we have a card from them. COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Question of staff before you get away. Excuse me, Madam Chairman. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 143 1 body or the City to do it unless there is a tremendous 2 greater good. And I don't see a tremendous greater good 3 to make this particular change. I agree that it's not a 4 major issue. It's not a major change. But we discussed 5 it on the basis that this is something that the landowners 6 wanted to do, and that has not been the case. 7 Now, in this particular piece of property 8 there is I would say a significant piece of this one that 9 percentage-wise it's kind of overwhelnfing either in favor 10 or no comment. So I don't particularly feel strongly 11 about this one as opposed to the last one in which 100 12 percent of the property owners did not want to make the 13 change. 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Mulroy. 15 COMMISSIONER MULROY: YeS, With all 16 respect to my fellow Commissioners, my recollection was in 17 our discussions that perhaps because of time constraints, 18 due consideration wasn't given to this section of this next? Thank you. How big is the red property? MS. SPEER: The red property, I believe they have -- COMMISSIONER POWELL: I mean, approximately. Is it two acres? MS~ SPEER: About 15 acres, I think. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Got yOU. Thank you. Page 142 t 9 quadrant, this lower quadrant section of town. And we 20 reviewed it and we had that discussion of the Ag and 21 ~m-2, that ~4R-t was most appropriate generally for this 22 whole area. That it would, in fact, protect the majority 23 of the landowners. 24 I don't think, with all respect, I can't 25 recall that it was ever put forward that a specific Page 144 1 Ms. SPEER: I'm sorry. That's wrong. It's 2 about five acres. 3 COMMISSIONF31 POWELL: SO the gll~B property 4 would be 15 or more acres. Thank you. 5 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Mukoy. 6 COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, I'm going to 7 stay consistent. I'm ready to move approval. And I 8 remind you that, again, part of our discussion was that we 9 were looking at blanket taking it back to ~4R-t. And 10 people that wanted to do sometlfing, desired to do 11 something more dense could come and make the case with 12 their specifics in mind and we would be open to that. 13 Thank you. 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: second. Discussion? 15 Ihavejust a comment. I'm still Igness sorter 16 perplexed and fascinated by the fact that this body t7 brought these rezonings forward. And rm not sure if 18 there are lapses in the work sessions that we had and the 19 issues that were discussed or what, but I'm confused and 20 amazed. Cormnissloner Roy. 21 COMMISSIONER ROY: I am not confused and 22 amazed because at the work session it was made clear to mo 23 that this was sucfioned from the landowners and people who 24 lived in the area. And if the landowner does not want to 25 make this change, I don't feel it's appropriate for this 1 landowner of a specific plot was advocating this. No, 2 tiffs was initiated from P&Z solely and that we were 3 recognizing, a mistake may be too hash of a word, but 4 let's say not enough time in judgment in assigning tho 5 zonings when the Code was adop~d. And we hashed it over 6 and it was our consensus that t~a-~ would have been more 7 appropriate for this area and that's why we initiated it. 8 So in that sense, Mr. McG~hee is fight, the 9 net result was - is correcting the mistake. And I'll 10 reiterate and I was the one that spoke up and said, well, ~ 11 if someone comes, because I know there's some lqR-4 that 12 we're taking down, and that if they como back and say this 13 is what I want to do. Here's my amenities. Here's my 14 entranceways, et cetera, et cetera, that we'd give it the 15 fullest consideration when we had specifics. But in thc 16 meantime, in the interim, to go back to closest to Ag that 17 we can. I mean, that's my best recollection of the 18 discussion. That's why we've initiated it. Thank you. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Powell. 20 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Help me out her~. 21 How did we decide th~ configuration of this piece of 22 property to be rezoned? I saw a map earlier that showed 23 all these pieces. How do you figure this one as opposed 24 to another one or why weren't they all together7 Help me 25 out here. Why did you make the split right here? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 141 - Page 144 CondcnseltTM Page 145 1 MS. SPEER: AS far as I know, the split is 2 made simply by proximity. This is already NR-I. Then you 3 had the two parcels of NR-2, you had this NRMU section 4 that was rezoned a couple of years ago independently. 5 Then you have Brush Creek which divides these two 6 properties. This one is NR-2. And it didn't make sense 7 to have these two together because this one is NR-4. 8 COMMISSIONER POWELL: That. answered my 9 question. Thank you very much. 10 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Just to kind of weigh 11 in on that, that may be true that that was the logic for 12 it. But in our discussions my memory is the same as 13 Commissioner Muh-oy's, that we actually brought these up :14 because there were actually some oversights in this map. il 5 And I have no recollection of it being any landowners. It 16 was just a discussion amongst us at a work session and it 17 was -- the NR-4 which you're basing the NR-2 on seemed to 18 be a mistake, also. 19 And I will use the word mistake because I 20 actually was told that, that it was a mistake. 21 Especially when just across the street with a railroad 22 running through it is zoned NR-2. So if the NR-2 Was 23 based on the fact that it was between an NR-4, which was a 24 mistake, and an NRMU which had a very specific reason for 25 being an NRMU, that was a long going case and a very Page 146 1 particular parcel of land, you really can't use that 2 rationale for determining that that makes sense there. 3 MS. SPEER: I think we're addressing two 4 different questions. I think he just wondered why they 5 were stuck together the way they were, thc different 6 tracts. Why, you know, this owner is in favor but this 7 one opposes. Why are those three together as one case? 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I'm sorry. I thought 9 he was asking you how they ended up with the des[gnat[om 10 that they ended up with. 11 MS, SPEER: Right. 12 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Either way I'm 13 satisfied with the answer. 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. Thanks. 15 Commissioner Johnson. 16 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: This is an 17 interesting chart. Is that NR-6 on there correct? 18 MS. SPEER: Yes, sir. 19 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: well, why are we not 20 talking about that NR-6 then? 21 MS. SPEER: It'S a railroad and a 22 right-of-way. See, everything around here, I mean, 23 everything is eTJ. ~ll of thc white is ETJ. Only the 24 yellow is what's zoned and we are actually -- 25 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: what about south of PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION the NR-4 that's shown here? there. Page 147 1 2 3 4 5 6 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: But the way it's 7 drawn, it would look like it's NR-6. 8 MS. SPEER: It'S not. The color is hard, 9 the yellow is hard to discern from the green. 10 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay. And one more 11 question. The ETJ there that is just between what is now 12 NR-2 and what is now NR-1 -- 13 MS. SPEER: Right here? 14 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Yeah. Has not been 15 annexed by the City yet, right? 16 MS. SPEER: Correct. 17 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: SO what is the 18 requirements on who can build what in there? 19 MS. SPEER: AS far as I understand in the 20 ETJ -- larry's going to come talk. 21 MR. REICHHART: Any development in our 22 Division 1 ETJ that's approximately tttree and a half miles 23 from the City of which that area falls into, land use -- 24 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I'm sorry. We have a 25 point of order because we are actually getting off on MS. SPEER: That's also NR-2. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: It's NR-2? MS. SPEER: uh-hllh, along the right-of-way Page 148 1 another issue rather than we have a motion and a second on 2 the table and Legal has advised me that we are addressing 3 an issue that's not germane. 4 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I don't remember a 5 motion and a second. Am I wrong? 6 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Mu[roy 7 made the motion and I made the second, 8 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I'm sorry. Thank 9 you. 10 COMMISSIONF_,R APPLE: we have a motion and a 11 second. Any mom discussion on the motion and the second? 12 Vote, please. 13 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Can you restate the 14 motion just so we're sure what we're voting on? 1 $ COMMISSIONER APPLE: Certainly. 16 Commissioner Mulroy. 17 COMMISSIONER M[JLROY: ! move approval as 18 submitled. 19 COMMISSIONER POWELL: That was move to approve? 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER APPLE: HO moved approval as submitted and I seconded. Vote, please. Motion carries 6-1. (Commissioner Johnson voted in opposition.) COMMISSIONER APPLE: Moving onto our final SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 145 -Page t48 Cond~nscltTM t item, public hearing No. 32. Again, I'll open the 2 public hearing and Ms. Spear will present. 3 MS. SPE~: oood evening once again. This 4 particular item is a little bit different from our 5 previous four areas. This area is currently a 43.7 acm 6 site. It's the strip along 377 south of Brush Creek. 7 This strip is currently zoned Neighborhood Residential 4. 8 It's being requested by the Planning and Zoning Commission 9 to go to Neighborhood Residential 2. I have 15 acres of 10 opposition here, 15 acres of opposition, 20, 15 acres 11 here, and one home here and one neutral home. So I have 12 about 85, 90 percent opposition on this particular case. 13 Super-majority vote will be required at City Council. 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. 15 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Question. 16 COMMissIONER APPLE: commissioner Powell. 17 COMMISSIONER POWELL: when was this zoned 18 ~m.47 was this in the major rezoning or was this some 19 other time? And if it was in the major rezoning, why did 20 they plunk an t~R-4 there? Does anybody know? Can anybody 21 help me? 22 COMMISSIONF.~ APPLE: Mr. Powell. 23 ~. POWELL: If i may. This one is the one 24 that comes closest to the mistake word or oversight. The 25 majority of that property was in a Po and the eD had Page 150 i several variations and then it was finally hard zoned, the 2 back portion of thc property but not the front part. And 3 so if I believe the old PD had 16,000 square foot lots 4 really didn't match up with NR-4. SO it doesn't match 5 what was there prior to February 20th or February this 6 year. Now it's been upzoned since that time. 7 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I~t me add onto that 8 question then for Mr. Powell. If it doesn't match the 9 NR-4 that it was given, what did it match to? What would 10 have been a match? 11 MR. POWELL: I believe the NR-2. 12 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. 13 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Watkins. 14 COMMISSIONER WATKn~S: Thank you. I assume 15 if it's NR-4 that there's no utilities there and so there 16 will be nothing built there; is that correct? Doesn't it 17 take a one-acre site for a septic? 18 MR. PowELL: Yes. If I may, there is a 19 sewer that does run down through this area, kind of 20 bisecting it. So there is sewer. There is water. So 21 unlike the properties to the north, this one it doesn't 22 have sewer there but it's close. 23 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Again, we 24 have -- did you have a question? 25 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I have another Page 149 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 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION question. Powell. Page 151 COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. Commissioner COMMISSIONER POWELL: would that be a City of Argyle sewer? It's not a City of Denton sewer, is it? MR. POWELL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Yes, sir, what.'? MR. POWELL: City Of' Dellton sewer. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thatlk you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. We have a number of cards again who wish to speak in support of this. Mr. Williamson doesn't want to speak but wishes support. Carol Haesle in support. Sandra Lewis checked I wish to speak on this item. No? Okay. Hard to tell once both of them are checked. But she is in support. Chris Mellberg is in support. Bill Lewis. MR. LEWIS: Bill Lewis, 900 Brush Creek Road. We do support this issue. That is what is already there. The other issues here are that this is an environmentally sensitive area. You've heard a lot from us already on this property and i'm here to reiterate. Thank you for what you've done in the past to help protect that area. Making it NR-2 will help protect it some more, also. Page 152 There has also been some discussion, maybe it's differences of opinion about where the floodplain is out there. However, there is some floodplain out there. I think we can agree on that. As far as more general zoning issues go, I think that the possible strategy that some cities try to use is that the closer you are to the core of tho City, that's where higher densities occur. As you get further out away from the City, that's where the lower densities are. This is about as far away as you can get from Denton and still bc in Denton. And I think that pretty well summarizes my thoughts on this issue. I'll take any questions. COMMISSIONER APPLE: ?hank you. Tom McMurray. MR. MCMURRAY: Just in support. You've heard my arguments. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Larry McOehcc, MR. MCGEItEE: My name is Larry McGeh~e. I live at 2001 Ckfistina Court in Denton, Texas. My faith has been restored. We had one person found the money and got out of here but the rest of the money has been returned to the citizens. Thank you. This one is the biggest mistake that we're looking at tonight. NR-4 makes no sense. In fact, it ought to be ~m-t. t don't know how SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 149- Page 152 CondensoltTM Page 153 Page 155 1 we're going to NR-2 but that is what we're trying to do 1 2 here, right? NR-4toNR-2? well, I'min favor of that. 2 3 Thank you for your last vote. 3 4 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Is there 4 5 anyone else who wishes to address this item? Seeing no 5 6 one coming forward, I'll close the public hearing. 6 7 Commissioner Mulroy. 7 8 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I'm going to move 8 9 approval. 9 10 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Second. 10 11 COMMISSIONER POWELL: A question of staff. 11 12 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Roy is 12 13 13 prior to you. 14 COMMISSIONER ROY: I just wish that 14 15 somebody had explained this in more detail to the 5 16 landowners. Here we have another case of 85 percent .6 17 roughly opposition. You can argue about how we got here I7 18 but the fact is we are here at NR-4 and the landowners who 18 19 own this property don't want to change it, 85 percent of 19 20 them don't want to change it. And I'm just really 20 21 struggling with this, this whole concept, 21 22 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Powell. 22 23 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, ma'am. 23 24 That was not to get attention. That was getting over a 24 25 cold. Staff, a question. The owners who are in 25 Page 154 i opposition, did they make any attempt to get here? 2 There's nobody in opposition here and that bothers me. 3 MS. SPEER: If I can be blunt, they're 4 coming to City Council. The owners, the opposition on 5 this site has plans for this site and owns this land, they 6 will be at City Council. 7 COMMISSIONER POWELL: They own what land? 8 MS. SPEER: They own this property. 9 COMMISSIONER POWELL: They own the NR-2, as 10 well as the NR-4. 1 MS. SPEER: correct. This part. 2 COMMISSIONER POWELL: okay. But they own 13 all of the NR-2 beh/nd it, to the east of it? 14 MS. SPEER: 1 believe they do own all of 15 it. They even own the vacant lot up here. 16 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. 17 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Roy. 18 COMMISSIONER ROY: One question. That 19 vacant lot on the NR-i up there, they were not in 20 opposition to. that? 21 MS. SPEER: correct. They sent in a letter 22 for favor of that. 23 COMMISSIONER ROY; Thank you. 24 COMMISSIONER APPLE: we have a motion and a 25 second to approve. Any more discussion? Vote, please. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Motion can'[es 5-2. (Commissioners Roy and Powell voted in opposition.) COMMISSIONER APPLE: That ends our Agenda items. And if there's no further business, we are adjourned. SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 153 - Page 155 S 5Our Documents~Ordinances~02~Z02-0039.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 2 (NR-2) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 1 (NR- 1) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 19.69 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED AT FORT WORTH DRIVE NORTH OF BRUSH CREEK ROAD LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS BEING A PORTION OF A TRACT IN ABSTRACT 1164 IN THE J. SEVERE SURVEY, AND ABSTRACT 160 IN THE B.B.B. & C.R.R. SURVEY IN THE DEED TO ORAN E. MONROE RECORDED IN VOLUME 429, PAGE 247 DEED RECORDS AND BEING A PORTION OF A TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO WILLIAM L. FRYE & MARILYN J. FRYE RECORDED BY COUNTY CLERK NUMBER 94-R00082319, REAL PROPERTY RECORDS AND BEING A PORTION OF A TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO BILLY ROYCE KENAS RECORDED IN VOLUME 981, PAGE 737, DEED RECORDS IN THE CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z02-0039) WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission initiated a change in zoning for approximately 19.69 acres of land being legally described as being a portion of a tract in abstract 1164 in the J. Severe survey, and Abstract 160 in the B.B.B. & C.R.R. Survey in the deed to Oran E. Monroe recorded in volume 429, page 247 deed records and being a portion of a tract of land described in deed to William L. Frye & Marilyn J. Frye recorded by county clerk number 94 - r00082319, real property re cords and being a portion of a tract of land described in deed to Billy Royce Kenas recorded in volume 981, page 737, deed records, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made part hereof by reference (the "Property") from Neigh borhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) zoning district classification and use designation; and WHEREAS, on September 25, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval to change the zoning to Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR- 1); and WHEREAS, the City has received written protests pursuant to Texas Local Government Code Section 211.006, which requires a three quarter vote by the City Council to change the zoning district classification and use designation; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The zoning district classification and use designation of the Property is hereby changed from Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR- 1) zoning district classification and use and such zoning change has been passed by a three quarter vote of the City Council. SECTION 2. The City's official zoning map is amended to show the change in zoning S :~Our Documents~Ordinm~ces~02~Z02-0039.doc district classification. SECTION 3. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid by any court, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable SECTION 4. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Demon Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Demon, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2002. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 19.69 Acres of Land All that certain tract or parcel of land lying and being situated in the County of Denton, State of Texas, and being part of the J. Severe Survey, Abstract Number 1164, and being part of the B.B.B. & C.R.R. Survey, Abstract Number 160, and being a portion of a certain called tract of land described in the deed to Oran E. Monroe recorded in Volume 429, Page 247 Deed Records, DeNon County, Texas and being a portion of a certain called tract of land described in the deed to William L. Frye & Marilyn J. Frye ~ecorded by County Clerk file number 94-R00082319, Real Property Records, DeNon County, Texas and being a portion of a certain called tract of land described in the deed to Billy Royce Kenas recorded in Volume 981, Page 437 Deed Records, Denton County, Texas and being more particularly described as follows: BEING only the area of those certain called tracts of land located within the present City limits line established by Ordinance 69-40 iii, City of Denton, DeNon County, Texas: BEGiNNiNG at a poim in the existing U.S. 377 East Right-of-way line and being the Northwest property comer of said Billy Royce Kenas tract; THENCE East along the North boundary line of said Billy Royce Kenas tract a distance of 509 feet more or less to a poim on the East boundary of the current City limits line established by said Ordinance; THENCE Southwest along the East boundary line of the currem City limits line established by said ordinance and passing the South boundary line of said Billy Royce Kenas tract also being the North boundary line of said William L. Frye & Marilyn J. Frye tract then passing the South boundary line of said William L. Frye & Marilyn J. Frye tract also being the North boundary line of said Oran E. Monroe tract a distance of 1,985 feet more or less to a point on the South boundary line of said Oran E. Monroe tract. THENCE West along the South boundary of said Oran E. Monroe tract a distance of 344 feet more or less to a point for a for a comer; THENCE Northwest along a South boundary line of said Oran E. Monroe tract a distance of 109 feet more or less to a poim for a comer on the East Right-of-way line of said U.S. 377; THENCE Northeast along the West boundary line of said Oran E. Monroe tract a distance of 1065 feet more or less to a poim for a comer and being the Southwest comer of said William L. Frye & Marilyn J. Frye tract; THENCE North 28 Degrees 14 Minutes 33 Seconds East, along the East Right-of-way of said U.S. 377 and passing the Northwest comer of said William L. Frye & Marilyn J. Frye tract also being the Southwest comer of said Billy Royce Kenas tract a distance of 813.53 feet to the POINT OF BEGiNNiNG and containing in all 19.69 acres of land more or less. Exhibit A Z02-0039 (Northeast 377 and Brush Creek Road) NORTH LOCATION MAP Item 5E AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: November 19, 2002 Planning & Development Dave Hill, Assistant City Manager 349- 8314 SUBJECT - Z02-040 (SE 377 & Brush Creek) Continue a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 43.7 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) to a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR- 2) zoning district. The nine tracts are generally located on Fort Worth Drive south of Brush Creek. No development is proposed at this time. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (5-2). BACKGROUND Applicant: City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission Denton, Texas The Planning and Zoning Commission initiated a request to have nine tracts of land, totaling approximately 43.7 acres, rezoned from Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) to a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district. The zoning of this area was initially raised as an issue when the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Future Zoning map, specifically the southwest quadrant of the city. The Commission began to question the appropriateness of the zoning in the area based on the old zoning and the current land uses. Also, this issue was raised during the first Quarterly Review of the Development Code. The zoning of this area was one of the issues City Council instructed the Planning and Zoning Commission to review. The Commission reviewed this issue during several worksessions and voted unanimously to rezone the property on June 26, 2002. In worksessions, the Commission spent a great deal of time in discussing the issue of land use and zoning of this area and how the existing zoning came into place. At the time verbatim minutes of worksessions were not kept and therefore are not available for inclusion in the back up. However, a summary of the meeting discussion was provided in a separate memo. The public hearings before the Commission were supposed to be held on August 28, 2002 but had to be postponed due to notification errors. This delay ~esulted in the cases not being heard until September 25, 2002, at which time the make-up of the Commission had changed. The staff reports to the Commission were brief and did not contain the detail and history of this area. The elapsed time (3 months) between the worksessions and the public heating, and the minimum backup in the staff reports contributed to the confusion reflected in the public heating minutes. This request is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, an analysis is provided for in the Staff`Analysis (Attachment 1). Public notification and property owner responses are provided in Attachment 4. As of this writing, staff` has received three opposing responses from property owners of the subject site, therefore a supermajority vote (6-1) by City Council will be required to approve this rezoning. Staff` has also received one favorable response from property owners within 200 feet of the subject site. At the City Council Meeting on November 5, 2002 the case was continued until November 19, 2002 in conjunction with the related zoning cases. Due to the necessity for a super majority vote a full quorum was desired. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Deny. 3. Postpone consideration. 4. Table item. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (5-2), Powell and Roy opposed ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The subject properties are not platted. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology of Z02-0040, commonly known as SE 377 and Brush Creek: Application Date - DRC Date - Planning and Zoning Public Hearing - City Council Public Heating - No Neighborhood meeting was held July 23, 2002 August 1, 2002 September 25, 2002 November 5, 2002 FISCAL INFORMATION No short-term public improvements that are the responsibility of the city will be necessary. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Maps 3. Public Notification (Property Owner Notification Map and Property Owner Responses) 4. Photographs 5. Minutes from September 25, 2002 Planning and Zoning meeting 6. Draft Ordinance and Exhibit A Prepared by: Autumn Speer Planner I Respectfully submitted: AICP Director of Planning and Development for ATTACHMENT I Staff Analysis Summary of Zonin~ Request The Planning and Zoning Commission initiated a request to have nine tracts of land totaling approximately 43.7 acres be rezoned from its current Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) to a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district. The request was initiated in an effort to maintain the rural setting of surrounding areas. Existing Condition of Property Property History. February 20, 2002 - The subject property was placed in the Zoning Classification Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning district and land use classification by Ordinance 2002-040. Prior to the adoption of the Development Code, the property was zoned Planned Development 118 (PD-118) The subject property currently contains single-family homes and agricultural uses. Adjacent zoning: North: Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district -single-family homes/agricultural South: Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district -single-family home/agricultural East: Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district -single-family homes /agricultural West: Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) -single- family homes Comprehensive Plan Analysis The subject site is located within a "Neighborhood Centers" future land use area. These areas may develop in conventional patterns or may be developed in a pattern of 'neighborhood centers'. Neighborhood centers are oriented inwardly, focusing on the center of the neighborhood and containing facilities vital to the day-to-day activity of the neighborhood. A neighborhood center might contain a convenience store, small restaurant, personal service shops, church or synagogue, daycare, individual office space, a small park and perhaps an elementary school. The Denton Plan identifies the following Primary Residential Land Use Principles: Preserve Neighborhoods: achieved by demanding and evenly applied. (page 35) The preservation of existing and future neighborhoods can be establishing design and construction standards that are fair and 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 would serve to preserve the rural setting in this area and maintain the existing neighborhood as called for by the Denton Plan under "Neighborhood Centers" classification. Sprawl is characterized by low residential density housing, which the proposed zoning would create. This is not desirable according to the Denton Plan. Development Review Analysis Transportation A traffic impact analysis is not required. Access and Connectivity Currently the access to the property is from Fort Worth Drive. Fort Worth Drive is identified as a primary major arterial by the Denton Mobility Plan. The future surrounding road system may not be compatible with this type of development. Public Infrastructure Currently the infrastructure in this area is adequate to serve the proposed development. Development Code/Zonin~ Analysis Current NR-4 zoning allows for single-family homes with a maximum of four (4) units per acre. The proposed Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning would allow two (2) dwelling unit per acre. Staff Findings 1. The proposed zoning change is compatible with The Denton Plan in regards to compatibility and preservation of surrounding land uses. 2. The proposed zoning change would provide for a diversity of housing stock. 3. The proposed zoning change may not be compatible with the mobility plan for this area. 4. The proposed zoning change would facilitate sprawl, which is not desired by the Denton Plan. ATTACHMENT 2 Maps NORTH Location/Zoning Map ETJ ETJ ETJ LOCATION MAP Scale: None Mobility Map NORTH r~ I p,I I RFI'3 MOBILITY MAP .;",. ,,' Mobili~collector ~ Freeway ~'~ Prim ar~ Major Alternate ~\~/~,~ Primar-f Major Arterial ,?~i;4;~ Secondar~ Major Alternate ~*'~?' ge¢onda~ Major Arterial FUTURE dot Scale: None ATTACHMENT 3 Public Notification NORTH Notification Map 500' Notifi Scale: None Public Notification Date: August 15 & September 12, 2002 200' Legal Notices* sent via Certified Mail: 7 Number of responses to 200' Legal Notice · In Opposition: 3 (3 owners) · In Favor: 1 · Neutral: 1 (owner) Percent of land within 200' in opposition: 0 % Owner Opposition: Greater than 20% *A copy of the notification list can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 ! Property Owner Responses John David Monroe Favor 7655 Fort Worth Drive Argyle, Texas 76226 Dr. Hugh Pruett Opposed 4024 Pruett Lane (Owner) Argyle, Texas 76226 Morelle Miller Opposed "1 believe my property is included in the "site". 1811 Bolivar (Owner) There are four houses in a row- mine is the last Denton, Texas 76201 one (yellow). If it is in the site it would violate NR- 2. I suppose the grandfather clause would except it, but I would rather be in compliance." Carmen Investments Opposed See attached letter 500 Denton Tap Road, (Owner) Coppell, Texas 75019 Linda McGalliard Neutral "My husband, Thomas McGalliard, and I do have PO Box 994 (Owner) some concerns about how the land around us Argyle, Texas 76226 may be developed. This zone change as we understand it will change the number of houses allowed per acre. I called and asked questions and Autumn Speer very kindly answered them. At this time we do not have any major objection to the rezoning." David Yoder Favor See Attached Letter 940 Brush Creek Road Argyle, Texas 76226 Henry and Lona Wolfe Favor See Attached Letter 4801 Argyle Lane Argyle, Texas 76226 Richard and Gina Favor See Attached Letter Shanhouse 8001 Woodcreek Circle Argyle, Texas 76226 Dennis and Sharon Cox Favor See Attached Letter 8008 Woodcreek Circle Argyle, Texas 76226 *A copy of the original notice can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 NOT]:¢E OF PUBL.i:¢ HEAR]:NG Z02-0040 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, September 25, 2002, to consider rezoning nine tracts of land totaling approximately 43.7 acres generally located on Fort Worth Drive south of Brush Creek, from a Neighborhood Residential 4 zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district (see map on back). The property is legally described as Tracts 1, 2, 3, 3A, 4, 4A, 5, 5A, and 5B in Abstract 0586A, W,M. Hudson Survey, in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. No development is proposed at this time. Note: Only responses from those properties located inside the dty limits of Denton will be included for opposition. The public hearing will start at 6:00 p.m. in the City Coun¢it Chambers of City Hall located at 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas, Because you own property within Nlo hundred (200) feet of the subject property, the Planning and Zoning Commission would like to hear I~ow you feel about this zoning change request and invites you to attend the public hearing. Pk order for your opinion to be taken into account, return this form with your comments prior the hearing. (Thi~ in no way prohibits you from attending and participating in the tp°ubii-~L~~~ number located at the bottom, mail it to the address below, or drop it Planning and Development Department 221 N. Elm ST Denton, Texas 76201 Attm Autumn Spear, Planner l The zoning process includes two public hearings designed to provide opportunities 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, heating 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 fom/arded to the City Council for final act[on 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 Reasons forOppositio . ~. ~ ~ ~ Printed Name: C~ ~~/~. ~, /~,//r~ Mailing Address: / ~G'// ~ Telephone Number: f_.//~¢ '"'..-¢,¢'~7'~/~¢~''''/ ¢/ Physic_,al Address of Property within 200 feet: I~ ~)._~ ~' CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS iz, CITY HALL WEST ' DENTON, TEXAS 7620~ · ¢4D.349.8350 · (F) 948.34g.7707 Z02.0040 200'No,ce 26 02 05:56p HUGH & SPINDRR PRUETT 940-4SS-2~27 00/27/2082 17:01 9~046~3745 R£~d. £ST~TE STATION No'r CE OF PUBLIC' HEAR]:N The Planning and Zoning Commission o! the City of Denton ~ilJ hold a public headng on W~n~y, A~usl 28, Z~2, to c~siOer razzing ~ine ~ac~ of land totaling approximately 43.7 a~es generally lo.ted on Foal Woffh Drive sou~h of 8r~h Creek. from a Neighbo~ Residential 4 (NR~) zoni~ disldct to a Ne~hbor~d Res~en~l 2 (NR-2) zoning district (see map on back). The pmpe~ legal~ ~3cribed as Tracl$1,2, 3, 3A, 4, 4A, 5, SA, and 5B in Abst~ct 0585A, W.M. Huason 5u~ey, the C~ty of Denton. Denton ~unly, Texas. No development is ~ropos~ at this time. Note: Only those pmpe~es ~t~ inside the city limits ef Denton will receive th~s The public hearing will s~ at 7:00 p.m. tn the City Coun~l Cham~m o~ City Halt I~ted at 215 E. McK~ney St[~t, Denton, Te~. Because y~ own pro~dy w~in ~0 hundred (200) feet of subject p~e~y, the Planning and Zoning Commiss~n would like to hear how ~u feel about this zoning change ~guest and invite~ you to attend ~e public hearing. Please, in order for your opinion be ~ken into a~unt, mlum ~ fo~ with your c~enls pd~ to ~e da~e of the pubtic hear~g. (Th~s in no way p~hfblt~ you f~ affending a~d padicipating in the public hearing.) You may fax it to number I~le~ at ~e ~om, mail it to t~ address ~low, or drop it off in-~rson: Planning and Development Department 221 N. Elm ST Denton, Texas T6Z01 Attn: Autumn Spear, Planner I p.! PAG~ 8cJ/14 The zoning process includes two public hearings designed to provicle opportunities lot citizen invo(vement and ¢omment. Prior to the public hearings, landowners wilhin lwo hundred (200) feet of the subject propc:~y are notified of the zoning request by way of lhis notice. The f~rst public hearing is held before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission is informed of Ihe percent of re-'.pon¢es in support and in opposition. Second, the zoning petition is forwarded to the City Council t~or final action providing the Commission recommends approval. Should the Commission recommend denial, the petitioner may then appeal the requesl to the City Council. Jf owners of more than twenty (:20) percent of the land area within Iwe hundred (200) feet of the site Submit written opposition, then six out of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve ~he zoning change. These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposition, . - Please circle one: ~ In favor of request Neutral to request ~ Opposed to request PrintedName:---"'~'~;~/'Z "-/c//./~-~,,V' .Z"'~. ~)/~/~'~:~Z-~'~' L_. .... ------- Telephone Number: _ . ~~CLUPM/: Physicol Address of Prope~y~ithin 200 feet: ~)~"7'~~._~"~ 0~: ~ ~--~'~F~'/~'~----"''- ........... ' g40 349 835 · (F) 940.34a,??0-~ CiTY OFDENTON. TEXAS C~TY HALL WEST - DEN'TON, YEXA~[ 76201 · . _ .... ,, ,, ~ .... · "".'"' · -.~-~. ~ '"' __ _.~ ~ ...... Sep ~0 02 02:34p FI201~I : C T.House / Blue Pup FRX NO. : 972-q62-78~1 B1 ?-490-9096 September 20, ~002 PianniM: amd Development Departmeut City of Denton, Texas Attn. Autumn Speer 1~.* Zon[]q~ Cn~ Z02~0~40 Dear M& Spc~c Cameo bJvestmeots, ]f~ h abe owner of ~m~ of the pr~y I~lud~ in thia p~d ~onl~ ~m ~ to ~K-2. Weoppo~ thk pmp~cd Thank you for your notification aad conddcrat~ou. 500 0ENTON TAP ROAD · SUITE 106 · COPPELL, TEXAS?$0'I9 · 4S2-1723 Sep ~0 02 02:33p T.House / Blue Pup 817-490-~096 p.! SiTE LC(~ATiCN ~1~ Z02-0040 BUFFER BUFFEI CITY OI~DENTON, TEXAS Ct'FY HALLWEST · DENTON, TEXAS 76201 · 940.349.8350 - (F") 940.349.7707 Z02-0040 200' No~ice S~p 2~ 02 03:16p SOUTH~ST ~OULDI~G ~0~79209~ p.! NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Z02-0040 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, September 25, 2002, to consider rezoning nine tracts of land totaling approximately 43.7 acres generally located on Fed Worth Ddve south of Brush Creek, from a Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district (see map on back). The property is legally described as Tracts I, 2, 3, 3A, 4, 4A, 5, 5A, and 5B in Abstract 0586A, W.M. Hudson Survey, in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. No development is proposed at this time. Note: Only responses from those properties located inside the city limits of Denton will be included for opposition. The public headng will start at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hail 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 end invites you to attend the public heating, 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: Autumn Speer, Planner l The zoning process includes two public hearings designed to provide opporj ~ies for citizen involvement and comment. Prior to the public hearings, landowners within two h~ ~..~~ ~~ the subject property are notified of the zoning request by way of this notice. The held before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission is inforrg~j~ responses in support and in opposition. Second, the zoning petition is forwardedj~i .~ City final action providing the Commission recommends approval Should the C9/~f~J ;sion,.,eCq~rrkmend denial, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the City Council. If owng/~ ~ more tho"' (20) percent of the land area within two hundred (200) feet of the site submit wrLtl~..~ ~en s[~U~ out of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve the zoning chahlgeT~~r~e~emrms, are · used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposition. Please circle one: [n favor of request (~eutral to reques~ Opposed to request ?easons for~ oppo~sitioni,(Y~ t:tqs~ i':'T~u~$ .~---:~11,' .'~..) q~-[._T'do J~u'~ ~*o,'~e_ Printed Name: ~.~v,,~4.~ /.., 11I) L.~<AIt~-A.~ Iq.,.~c,,'~Ar~ -~-cdr' ~'~/ City, State Zip: ~t-c4Vl~ j j /~ .,--/~,~,~L, . kJe..~..~ .~ j~:l.[/a_ ~,vLy' PhysicaiAddress of Prope~within 206feet: ~O~! ~ ~l~ ;~. ~~~ ~ CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CiTY HALL WEST · DENTON, TEXAS 76201 * 940.349.8350 · (Fl 940.349.7707 Z02-O0,~O 200'Notice NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAI IN Z02-0040 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, August 28, 2002, to consider rezoning nine tracts of land totaling approximatefy 43.7 acres generally located on Fort Worth Drive south of Brush Creek, from a Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district (see map on back). The property is legally described as Tracts 1, 2, 3, 3A, 4, 4A, 5, SA, and 5B in Abstract 0586A, W.M. Hudson Survey, in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. No development is proposed at this time. Note: Only those properties located inside the city limits of Denton wili receive this notice. The public hearing will start at 7:00 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.attendingand 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: Autumn Speer, Planner I 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 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 (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 Opposed to request ............... ReasOnSsignature:fOr Opposition: _ Mailing Address: City, State Zip: Property within 200 feet: CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY HALL WEST · DENTON, TEXAS 76201 · 940.349.8350 · (F) 940.349.7707 Z02-0040 200' Notice September 24, 2002 To: Planning and Zoning Commission Members Mayor and City Council Members Re: Public Hearings on Brush Creek Road and Highway 377 area rezonings ~ am unable to attend the meeting~ but would like my comments on record in support of the zoning changes that are proposed. My wife and ! have lived at 940 Brush Creek Road since 1985. We moved from the City of Denton to this area to get away from the high-density houses and to a less busy, less stressful way of life. We have continued to watch the development of new homes In our area and were comfortable with the quality and density of these homes because they have all maintained the space and openness of the community. We were appalled to see that the new zoning map has changed the zoning along Brush Creek Road to NR 2, which ! understand is 2 homes to an acre of land. That is very scary to those of us who have lived here, are raising families and animals and enjoying our 'country" way of life. ! presume that this zoning would allow my neighbor, if he so chose, to subdivide his 10 acres and put 20 houses next to mine. Please support the change to NR 1 zoning. There are no undeveloped lots along this road and lot sizes range from 2 acres up to 80 acres. The other area that has us very concerned is the NR 4 zoning along the frontage of 377, south of Brush Creek Road, :just around the corner from our home. Who, in all common sense, could envision 4 homes to the acre out here? ! specifically remember Assistant City Manager, Dave Hill, telling us when this new plan was in the beginning stages that properties closer in to town would be denser and as you moved away from town you would have less density, with the least density being in the areas that bordered the ET3, or other towns. We are as far from ~own as you can get. We border Argyle and they, as a town, Just reaffirmed their commitment to keeping a rural, open feel with their new plan. ! just don't see how NR 4 fits. Directly across the highway, land with a railroad track running through it is even zoned less dense - NR 2. We ask that you support the rezoning change to NR 2 for this strip. Please, please take a good look at these and make them compatible for this area. There should not be more than one home, at the most, to an acre in this area. We feel we have already been greatly compromised by the NR 2 designation on the approximately 150 acre tract that is being developed as Country Club Village. We do not want to be downgraded any further. We keep hearin~qv~er,~nd over how the new plan is concerned with preserving and protecting ~l~i~l~~hoeds. Well, ~ preserve and protect us. '! can only hope understand the impact your decision will have on those and so long to build the very unique community we now I~( and~llerish. Thank you for Your time and kind consideration. /~- 940 Brush Creek Read Argyle, TX 76226 September 25, 2002 To: City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission Denton City Council and Mayor Re: Support for rezoning requests to less density re Brush Creek Road, Highway 377 and Hills of Argyle area We would 1/kc to respectfully request that a zoning change be seriously considered to correct what must surely be an error in the zoning map. In section L6, in an area where every existing home within a 1.5 mile radius is located on at least an acre, with most homes being on lots of 2 to up to I00 acres, there is a large section of land along Highway 377 designated to be NR-4. That would seem totally incompatible with the promise to "preserve and protect exisisting neighborhoods". The rural atmosphere and the large estate size lots, ARE the existing neighborhood and it is unfathomable that NR- 4 would be seen as a reasonable designation to be "plopped" down in the midst of this. There are other concerns as well, as there is an environmentally sensitive area along one side of this area as well as continuous flooding problems. We request that this area be rezoned to NR-2 to at least accommodate some of our concerns. There is undeveloped land adjoining this area that has been designated as NR-2, and that would seem more appropriate. Also, the land directly behind our home in the Hills of Argyle, along Brush Creek Road, has been designated on the new map as NR-2, which is also totally inconsistent with the surrounding area. To our knowledge, all of the lots on Brush Creek Road from Highway 377 to Highway 1830 are all developed, complete with homes, barns, animals, etc. All of these developed lots are large - about 2 acres up to about 80 acres. Why would you then "overzone" this area as NR-2? Makes no sense to us Please correct these mistakes by approving the rezoning for less density for this area. Sincerely, -, Henry and Lona Wolfe 4801 Argyle Lane Hills of Argyle Argyle, TX 76226 September 25, 2002 To: Denton Plaunln~ and Zoning Commission Re: September 25, 2002, meeting - agenda items 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 We Just recently purchased our dream home at 8001 Woodcreek Circle. We moved here from Piano expressly to get away from the crowded subdivisions and hurried lifestyle. Though we commute to work now, the drive is more than worth the peace and tranq~lity we find when we return home. We researched many area towns and looked at many homes trying to find an area that had estate-size lots and some semblance of nature. A realtor in Dallas actually suggested this area to us aft~, hea~ing our desi~'es and otu' f~ustration in locating what we were looking for. Every surrounding town has subdivision miter subdivision on small Iota or in some cases, on no lot at all !! This arem of Denton is unique in that you can offer large lots, in the midst of natural beauty, and yet be close to town. This area is somethln~ very special. Its uniqueness needs to be preserved. There a~e Hterally hundreds of crowded subdivisions to choose fron~ but extremely few that offer what we have. Please vote in support of the rezonlugs for this area that will help to maintain the wonderful quality of our new life here in your fair city. We will be so disappointed ff this area becomes what we searched for so long to escape from. d and Olna Shanhouse 8001 Woodcreek Circle Argyle, TX 76226 September 24, 2002 Dear Mayor Brock, City Council Members, and Planning and Zoning Commission Members, Please take another look at our neighborhood. We live in a cul-de-sac that was annexed into Denton in the tate 1970's. Our cul-de-sac contains 5 lots, with 4 homes that have been in existence for many years and one unbuilt lot. The 5 lots range in size from 1.022 acres up to 2.003 acres. On the new zoning map, apparently they have now zoned our area to NR 2, or 2 homes to the acre. This puts us in avery precarious position with regard to our wel{-established neighborhood. With this new zoning, the owner of the vacant lot could completely change the character of what we have worked so hard to create - a spacious, rural feel. Another seemingly incongruous zoning is the NR 4 zoning along 377 from Brush Creek Road south, which is located behind our cul-de-sac. This would appear to be better served by an NR 1 or NR 2 zoning and more in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood - to one side of the area now zoned NR 4 is a large (50 + acres) cattle farm and to the other side is a large horse farm. Another important consideration is that this area is adjacent to an already threatened environmentaJ[y sensitive area and an area that has had significant flooding problems, which would be exacerbated by higher density. We have also noted that across the street from us (in the as-yet-unannexed area along Brush Creek Road) you have now zoned that area to be NR 2 also, yet those homes are on even Jar§er lots, some 20 to 40 acres and more. Ptease correct these apparent oversights and consider something more approprfate, such as NR f. The future of our neighborhood is at stake. We would appreciate your vote in support of the rezoning for the lower densities which, in turn, is a vote for the integrity of our long-standing neighborhood. Most sincerely, Dennis and Sharon Cox 8008 Woodcreek Circle Argyle, TX 76226 940-243-1122 ATTACHMENT 4 Photographs "¡0h"¡0h"¡0h"¡0h"¡0h"¡0h"¡0h"¡0h"¡0h"¡0h"¡0h"¡0h"¡0h"¡0h"¡0h"¡0h"¡0h"¡0h"¡0h"¡0h"¡0h"¡0h"¡0h"¡0h"¡0h"rCEG/(UKNNVCIGRW@NKAJGCPKLEQlAEMVJPMWEJCLFDKEWPGMWV/(RPGQGì5A}mý.zmü#E)pú%Y)eà% æ=úAiáE$÷(àA(²E'ö:ýi²i²i²i²i²i²i²i²i²iåL&²C&æ=ý.ý=ý>úKg²p!÷V,²E;÷%÷P=÷V:² d²H,æP,àWiæL(æhŸ.}²W ÿM%óViûJiüE=çV,¾(ü@iæL,ü>÷>ûH%²R&æAiýBëÆD®ßë’«¦8B¨¦8B¨¦8B¨¦8B¨¦,Bø@õkìém¦Àwúé~BüIãuBéSã8çS¦O çEåjëJ¦[úBê}N¨Gém…+³8æEïnìTçtñ¦YìËkL¨rö}úñqàòp¨bïl¨QêyæHèBçGàqí¦8B¨¦8B¨¦8²i²|²i²K/²PáÝå«ÀàAiþA=æA;á/àK$²P!÷:óI,²K>üA;á*ýJ*÷V'ûJ.²P!÷)C¤>ûH%²T;÷W,üPióJ-²mnþHiýT,ü=úAiâQ+þM*²L,óV üCg²i²i²i²i²i²i²i²i²i²²S!ýèí¨éúíé¦¨Ûçåí¨çî¨üàíå¨ÿçýäì¨éøøäñ¨üç¨çüàíú¨ëéûíû¨éû…‚¿¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨ÅÛ¦¨ÛØÍÍÚ²¨Ïççì¨íþí üCe²g&ÿE<ûW:{ù <äw¶Ey¶Ey¶Ey¶Ey¶Ey¶Ey¶Ey¶Ey¶Ry¶Eyð+¶*¶<ÿ>¶7¶1óy¢dÔK¦æ%ýX ÑA§,èÏ¯æ˜MGŒ¨Ìç«EZîíøÝ8VA…üÐíùƒQéæî˜mLG–BêÍü«hÅOáçâÖÂB¨˜¨«Â¦¨«˜8ÚB¨˜¨«Â¦¨«ûWoc«1ÛñÇÅd°oÐØÿÖ"P‡éÍûî‘MCã¨äÞ8VF‡…²±«ÂZé¨ï×8GO ¨ÑæïH”KJóéç˜wLKÂíÈéù@–GBÿ¤«Ë}GGŒ¨Ùû«V‡Fçþî˜8ÂB¨˜¨«Â¦¨«8ÂëÌýêMŽ[çìïÊ}Q]ÂàÝûî£EKèìê˜qVK¤˜æäUÂVFã¨äÌpG\Â æÝû¥,è¦ìâÞ~G\‡üÛcm»ß_ëÝJë]A»Sùpk&N¾$"i°$"i°$"i°$"i°$"i°$"i°$"i°$"i°$"i¡4"i°$"i°$"S¾$Q,eÕV8irùcj=°Vk.Hä*C¡$"i°$"i°$"Tõi"Gõjf(Þk,i¨$k:ñcc N°e"Lñjl N÷$")1111111111111111111111 111111111111R^\\XBBX^_TC1otRT+1B^1X1{dbe1fpe1e~1|pzt #1111pu1K~xv1xxexpetu1k~xv1ct`dtbe""HõvgnS°bk?E°tc;Cõhq)‘i²i²i²i²{²i²P!÷ ýI$ûW:ûK'÷V:²E>óV,²P&²V,ó@iæL,²H,æP,àWiûJiâ <¶8õ<âh ™“¢eLˆÌãdN„€ãzZÚÏúcGÉÔçfSˆ˜²*KËÒçyˆôêo øÌãdDÁÎå*KÆÄ¢PEÆÉìm ˆ€¢* ˆ€¢* ˆ€¢* ˆ€³9 ÊÅák_ÛÅ¢~BÍÙ¥xOˆÓöIÃ€àoBÁÎæ*^ÀÅ¢}XÇÎå*kÏÅìnKˆÉöoG†€ÖbKÆËœ€¢* ëÏïgCÛÓëeDˆÈãy ÚÅóOÛÔ‘ô=úA0²C&²B;ý)|mµj,ûC!ðK;úK&öi²i²i²i²i²i²x¦i²0ýQg²g+))-77-+*!6d+,*7+*d,%7d%d51!70-+*jINuqd!7- !*0-%(dvd0+d%d !-#,&+6,++ d!7- !*0-%(dujd7”miáE öi²i²ë’ë’ë’k§y²Di²i¶y²D ÝdÑ‹úó9EéÇ ÖEBé#ef¦âèóP}Â¢¥F¼kfÈM‘È˜–P*‡¢¶Aùxo€ FóâÆÐeÔë¶@ód*È \ô«Ú€kÉæì ÑeyÓPEN¼¶ÁÅPfÆì¦ õy*‡P ¼â‰€P*‡¢â ¼;<‡P ÿÜÌ*Þí· õdnÎK\ùâËÅkÒñ§ õ~*ÔS[¼«Ç€fË¢¡Hïoy‡BM‘È˜—P|Æá£Gè$*óOZùâÈÒ*Ôç´Lîkf‡GIð®‰ÈgÂ¢±@èoy‡CFøâÆÆPbÎæ¦Lò**‡P ¼â‰€P*‡¢â ¼;=‡ZXð«ÊÁ~‡ë± èbo‡3C\åâÆÆPNÂì¶Fò$*äƒ/úyï ,ÉVKŽF0%g¡MvhvéAB3¹0h"ãEs#"èJ0<jäVuf¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¹°¨¨¨¨çÿæíú¨éïúííû¨ÿáüà¨üàí¨úíùýíûüíéü¨òçæáæ_%Û¹±¨¨¨¨¨¶`)$²H`w²0Rft÷2Tp"!«óWiúE?÷:ýI,²K9âK:Ïìm ˆ€¢* ˆ€¢* ˆ€¢* ˆ€¢* ˆ€¢* ˆ‘»* ˆ€¢* ˆ€¢* åÓ¬*YÍÎìkˆÉ¢iKÆŒ¢^BÉÔ¥y ÇÎç*XÍÁñeDˆÔ˜€ëyYÝÅñ$ áÎ¢eDÍ€ñoDÛÅ¢~BË€ënOÉ€íl ÅÁëd^ÉÉìcDÏ€öbOˆ€¢* ˆ€¢* ˆ€¢* ˆ€¢ „- ¨ScT>óJ=²P&²@&²04i\táA9óV(æA%ë iÛJiæL-7d4%60-'1(%6d'%7!hd INvud-*0!#6-0=d+"d0,!d616%(d%0)+7dª jD¤AÛ¥Ô›ñ±èK'ûJ.²P!ûW)‘ë’ë’ëQd|äå0Q17cöt|dpa*3°åbrr*² 8,py*3°¬vrv7*2,we\d(¬ 0fy&¶e(dpc|;vnäå0Qae,´ .xh7Bd5°¶0\<77¬ |k~v3=·åqy~&² 8"1_F!*¡·<Qe&äe|,17Qd|äå0Q17cöw|,17Y!%äª`~d&êedxdQA%.°¬s}v1ä}l!ptTd/±u]1c+¡7y¤lxsÄ™–ÁTœWjIééÇ."õLuhFäJd'l¡t|)l¡E|;m¡McVMRPGTGLVQRPCUNqM[MWQGRCPCVGMULGh¢¨éæì0vãpç*&âæ¹aë€±}|Mç)wl¡4eaGäM:d(äAiùM'ö&ô(²GP°s+,ö>cU^±0+mG¡07dX·0'cFªj,bXªwc{Ys+ ä0c,ä0c,ä0c,ä0q8¥s7yP¨|: ¥~',xäx"zTª÷äÀô…s‘4ñXz(ü]iýT9ýW f^ªp/àK$Ÿ.{§+ë æWd*%016!hd0,!d !"-*-0-+*d+"d746%3(ÜœŠÛ@iôE*ûH æE}Ôë’ë’37Q17cäe|,1%D++ª b1x-ä14eb7_!rêë>|G"£ |= 'Qd|äå0Q17cäe|,17Qd|äå0Q17cäe|,17Q]8öãÃ8³0Oy¶Ey¶©«˜¨«¶`)$²`)$²`Yeõ%85 M*VJCVjMUGTGPKVFMGQ’o>'Î }$æ(E)j÷)Gafý2Hfkv'öi²i²i²i²¨«¦8B¨·8BÈßßßi²i²gßiÀëK+çjÀÂt×iÓJ-¨âýûÌÚ™¿ýe{²i²I(ûJ=é7¶1óE‹LZ‡úÑüòDò–z•@3ô +þæäEÌŽ"¡0h"¡0h"¡0h"¡0h"¡¤¨¨¨¨Êßßß+gþ!R`bû#A}mý.yq`R 8÷We²E:²W!÷èÖv ýOå}žßÂ‘iÒ¶÷Ve²P!÷)C¦8 i²i²i²e%áKCLµ‹w›¡ä@ÎAiûJiãQ,áPHÙyÿyRF‡¦¨«˜8ÂÚßßßÿ¶Ey¶EÂÂBˆ`:$²`Yhó.N`jõ`Ag`2xMLK ßÅ…†ÙL’{|(Mò`skPô!~d]¡7*+L üM=ûE=÷@DEä0cA^v$h„?ÖÉ_b¡ÝJiæL á$C^¦Q ?÷:úK>÷@iëëý¨¼Š‘/à]iÑH<ði¨My¶Ey¶¨«˜8ÂB¨Œ@cp§ÊI“¬+%ë’M¥VQs6)·=Óvg,K¼$v!Eé$c;E°K*d0\i2A$òª\SP};qg7,¡fb=qé0h"¡0h¨¨ i²i²i²©¦8BÈßß_i²Á iÁtÌýJXˆG&àV,ñPgŸ.·`¨¨4- èŒí)9l¤&²W=óJ-óVE˜EâBê˜y]‡çÖìªR!Îqmu¸öµ’Më’l|äe|,5(¡`2(¡`2(¡`2(dddÜß2(gÎ _AwÒ ]FaÓ`<×iÆL(æb74dHäyVÑD0á=úADFä0mŒUõaÑ]iÿE#ýVióVUG8ûE%¼ûC!ü”©{úÇ·¶7ùâ–JOò¨ÿÐ;âB*¶çäUÂŽ0h"¡0h"¡0"¡(WxeÈ*"Uä$k=çeqiAóddøÜÄh8²F&ö]iæLèÌ8æH?ûE=÷@gŸ.ÚBÿI“làcP¬tcÄkþM"÷ iÁKiÁ¨øQ:æd¿:fƒ™ÑE.÷–Q– ¨Õéàa²lÔ"<XµEy¶EÂÂB¨ãûÔ›|âª"…áï%`(iô`g]¯M1}ypnr¿2E)eå!Rl$ý&}lwJêÍîq`r‡ñ æA$á!¡79"÷!óR,²iäå0cß·i²i²i²0±/QÀA07Q17Q172^Z<XDÛ‹fÒ‡{¼|ÐfÅø©(oô^*ókÉ*Þ‰Pá D˜y²PIG'µ¨,cdËÜÁlÛÑE-þÂçÏæñNôaŸ¸¥«ät’cê¡Qh”¨3t/Â1¯Xä’ë’ëbë’«! î¢z8õ‚˜Â)9~=73<RH01môy&"îQbhuîVJB•}!+n¨4:‰} Š49„4&€pn•c!ìÐ4."iNõme!Bÿvj&Oô("-Oõ7ÁPâkt Dõ$a&Mà%•{jHä`g{Aòn2@Kö%dmV`fíæ`2(¡`2(¡`2¥ßk¡$"içkp"ãaqzxžøWiöA(þM'k³y\äõa=u,²T;ýT,àP ÷WgŸ.`ŠýF þM=ë~ä5²E'ö=zàkûW:çAiýBiûPiqê.þ@iôE*{éz` zOI:âV(åHi²ÂB¨k²i²i²¡qºh=3“¸.³@c|äêe”–|e8«+{°e>¡)u S,²miåE:²L,àAióPD˜z²i²M:²W&¹.æL üCifš²F,²G&üW öA;÷ K'²E%þ>ÜdæL,áAiñE:íÄKyÂ ‹QÂB¨˜¨Ëo¸à˜Dy¶Tj¶Ey¶1óE-7óIyåçIyøÚKTœTm¶:øuöþ .ó‡PÂ‡gò~'v¡Lq>g¡E~12MR|tñëÂQAÂKZÂFA‡QŒMZÂÂÂÂÂ®©«‰¼«˜¨«˜¨«˜¨#/#gÎ _AwÒ ]FaÓ`_DnÍ]Ü)¬Îötp*²O)M²7Agp²4O¾q)v÷1Uà°Ì·3UyaàmMhný2I}}²!T)VF"S°tm Nä$d&bQÖ)Tp$Ñ/Uggû,)$²`)$²Â’$"i°$"i¥$e6ba²!zió,L)hû"ESVçFßv¢V,ôV,áLiý1.ä¦/¨äZäM?÷$÷I&àM,á)C£i²i²dÁ4nÁ$fG\’J,êPi÷E:÷5é?HæE%ù(ðK<æiçJ%÷W:²]&çi²i²i²i²i²k²i²x¤(ü@iâA;úE9á ÿT(àPiáKäÝ8 ŽÿæL,²F(ñO.ú÷Eg¼¶F¼»Féì Å\îÏ#õ ë£Gèâ]óâAý´¬ô&]ö'Qêí3²E+ýQ=²P!ûWiáT,qì=ûGiýJ,¼dÁ4Þi²i²i²i²é²i²i²i£iñK$ÿí¥æWiåL ñLióVì˜^,âA(æAí˜M'²A(ñLiÓC,ü@è˜E=÷IiæLèÌ=úM:Ÿ.xªäó"t¬(ã¼!3éñc†8b‹[AàŠâ|‡÷ëÆ8$íVaú7âE-ùEyô{¶Ey6ã‰=¶Ey¶EyNy¶Ey¶Eyvy¶Eh®EüyýÜ=¶ ?¶Ö ,øáKÚùE-þÂæÌá¦Õ:Pœ¤è&Ä®fPè/|{î&2|Lä`Ñ\Þ;þojæ%R{qâ4pkç`Blgó5Sl$Û`NfpûËbåd cõsÈ*7vàT|-f¡E|$"îB0h"¡0h"¡0h²`)$²`0$²`Yhó.i°Mq<"öEchdôH|1"óAs'eïMj¥ùj"&Uâ$u&Rû$q!Oà*"Nô$u,{k2¡Px-qäd'eäPx-p¡Cç˜Xé%k(Eñ0wiVa°=cõd gøb-"çKbhKõA}h°±+&¡0h"¡0h¢`1‘$"i°62iHñ`"d °dy*?¾äM-÷V(æM&|Qfv00â=÷JiôM;áPiæKiàA/NK*æM'õýÐíF˜x²i²S!÷JióG=çé§þ]iæL,ë*ýR‡P*þHiýBiæL,ÿ ©˜i²i²i²i²i²Â"¡ð²i²i²i²Â0°i²,êM:VG~¯²J,ûC!ðK;úK&ö¤«U!÷V,²S(QêwÜCd÷Z=óF%K]î}žoÞú4G½, o{ i²i²dl¸6ñº:àa7¨?öC!æ i²y²i²i2Qy²i²i²i²i²i²i²i²i²i²d|²i²{ =úE=²69 %þ]iýJ,¿E*àAióêì¶H(àC,à=`;öM=ûK'<¯.{¡i²i²i²i¨ÕkßmAëkÿPiìt×¾h%*ð)I)ã'÷teTó1Âì¦ê’ëQ17Q$qZMy¶Ey¶Eyi¶Wj¾ë’ë’ëäE…ÇA©×^ûÆ[¤žª¨¶QÚIëñC¦:7!}öKëÅME)S&ù†l|äe+ÝB¯×^¢Üµe5¢õËC¾ä¨qÐ¿ÚI3T|z*u˜—k"(WñvgiTøeviTøA7!¡`2(¡`2(¡`2(¡`2:¡`2(@è6÷~q FùafiHÿqq N…E°lc?E°ic'Y°ep,Aã$m/älgiQaPø`f`EõM:¡0`gFà"~ñ˜û#Oåhf'ä$`,ãpc9Lõ`"=O÷A0#Eâ*"i°$"i°$"i°$"i0‚0h"¡0h"¡(4ñ =ö%5zA¡,-+ Iþc"(T°pj,þauiUâfc'yRC¶Iÿj"(Nô$wya"N÷$v!ECpÜELGX¿¸0ÀWÊ3 ë.säciÑkßmqg,¨k²i²i²i²i²ii²wÂpßfÌê{§p¾{¢{Ÿ.D˜tƒEKé£p² iÂE.÷xF˜)CŸ. CondcnseltTM Page 113 1 density and pedestrian-oriented, et cetera, et cetera. 2 This is one already established area of the City that is 3 more of the larger estate-type lots and so in order to be 4 diversified, we need to have that offering. 5 Number three, on an economic development 6 standpoint, we are losing some potential housings of this 7 type to Argyle because they have an abundance of the 8 larger acreage and we don't. So for this body, in our 9 deliberations and examining in the total context, not just 10 a narrow focus but of all the things you mentioned, 11 evolved the decision that this would be the part of town 12 that we would like to keep this way. So I really want to 13 address -- reflect to your comments that have been 14 repeated here. Thank you. 15 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, i 16 Commissioner Mulroy. 17 MS. SPEER: Are there any further questions 18 on this particular site? I'll continue. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Watkins. 20 COMMISSIONER WATKINS: Did I understand you 21 to say that there were five comers? 22 MS. SPEER: NO, sir. There are five 23 separate tracts of land in this 80-acre parcel. It's 24 totaling 80 acres that's zoned right now, the NR-2, but 25 there's five different tracts. Page 114 1 COMMISSIONER WATKINS: okay. And we're not 2 allowed to know who the owners were or, I mean, it was 3 initiated by the Planning and Zoning, but I see a fellow 4 in the audience that owned a good bit of that property at 5 one time. 6 COMMISSIONER APPLE: well, I guess normally 7 we don't take who owns the property into deliberation, so 8 to speak. It's the property that we're looking at, not so 9 much who owns it. I0 COMMISSIONER WATK£NS: SUre. Sur~. 11 COMMISSIONER AP?CE: But if she has that 12 information available, I'm sure she'd he happy to sham it 13 with you. But I thought I understood her to say she did 14 not have that information. 15 MS. SPEER: on this particular site, this 16 was my easy one. Everybody else I could tell you who owns 17 what because they all -- there's opposition and favorable. 18 But this one I didn't receive anything except -- 19 COMM~ssIoNEa WATmNS: vll withdraws[ my 20 question. 21 MS. SPEER: I did want to address 22 Conmfissioner Mulroy, if I could. I wasn't aware of the 23 previous work session meetings. I do want to say that 24 that was part of my issue in writing the staff report is 25 that there is a catch 22 issue, you know, your diversify PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Page 115 1 housing. So you have this area of town however sprawl, 2 however compatibility with neighborhood. So that's why in 3 my staff report, the recommendations, I have kind of 4 opposing findings and I just want to make those clear. 5 COMMISSIONER APPLE: well, bless your 6 heart. It's unfortunate that the hours of commentary on 7 this during work sessions were not provided to you since 8 you have all five of these cases. I am perplexed as to 9 why that was not done. 10 MS. SPEER: Right. I am, as well. l l COMMISSIONE.R APPLE: commissioner Roy, 12 COMMISSIONER ROY: We're going to go 13 through several cases and I'm afraid that I'm going to 14 forget each ease as we go through it. I wonder would it 15 be mom appropriate to -- and we've talked about this t 6 particularl tract of land, to see if there's any comments 17 from tho audience about that tract of land, resolve it, 18 and then go to the next one. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: ! was just wondering 20 the same thing, if it might not be more prudent at this 21 point to separate them out for purposes of presentation. 22 It seems to be getting rather muddled. Without objection 23 -- and vote on each one as we go. All fight. That seems 24 to be the consensus. If you want to start back with 28. 25 MS. SPEEa: okay. I just wanted to -- Page 116 1 basically, I'm completed with 28, if you have any 2 questions. 3 COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. So were there 4 any questions on 28? Okay. So we're okay. We're on to 5 30. Oh, gosh, stop me. We need to vote. 6 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Yeah, we also need 7 to go for public comment. 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: We n{~l to do the 9 public hearing. Gosh, somebody stop me. Commissioner 10 Johnson has his -- 11 COMMISSIONER JOUNSON: Yeah. I still want 12 to make sure that I understand this. This property has 13 owners. We have tried to contact them. We know who they 14 are. I don't need to know but you have tried to contact 15 them and they have not responded to you; is that right? 16 MS. SPEER: rm required to contact them 17 via mail and we contact them certified mail. We actually 18 have sent out thre~ notifications for these cases because 19 of postal errors. So I have received several calls on thc 20 site. I don't have their names right now with me because 21 I received most of the calls back in August. This was 22 initially planned to go a month ago. But I haven't 23 received any written comments whatsoever on this 24 particular 80 acres. 25 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. This is a SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 113 - Page 116 CondenscItTM Page 117 1 public hearing and I do have several cards who wish to 2 address this issue. Tom McMurray, 3 MR, MCMURILAY: chairperson, Tom McMurray, 4 1800 Wickwood. Is this the shee~ that shows up here? I 5 live right there. Okay. This whole neighborhood here is 6 Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Hills of Argyle. It is 7 completely now sold and Phase 3 up here is now starting to 8 be developed. This site with Brush Creek, the way it's 9 designed with the right-of-way, would be more appropriate 10 to be 11 One reason is is we are in the City of 12 Denton, one of the rare properties like this thaCs 13 like this, but we are also in the school district of 14 Argyle ~SD. ~md one of the issues that I'm sure this 15 Commission is aware of is that Argyle just deannexed 8,000 16 acres to send a message to the City Council of Denton 17 because they force fed another deal. 18 And as a citizen of both Denton and the ISV 19 of Argyle, taxpayers of both, we would like to see not 20 only the conformity, but it's the natural conformity. 21 It's like, you know, all the terrain, if you've driven it, 22 it's got some hills, rolling to it. It's a natural 23 terrain for larger estate homes. It's the type of thing 24 that not only helps your tax base, it helps bring a 25 positive image to that area of town. Page 118 1 Although 377, you-all are working hard on 2 it, we're not offended by any of that. We understand 3 that. We drive in every day. And our position on that 4 is hhat we would like to see you do NR-1. The reason 5 being is that until Brush Creek is really redone, it's not 6 compatible at this point. I know on the plans it's got 7 the right-of-way. 8 Mr. Johnson, I don't know if you've driven 9 it, but I know that's part of your questions. But I drive 10 it every day and you don't drive too fast, it will tear 11 your car up. But assume all that is redone, across the 12 street here is actually ETJ, I believe, but fight now it's 13 just being produced as oil and gas royalty fight now. 14 That's the King area. And we would ask that y'all just 15 allow it to look a lot like this. Because if you do that, 16 it's going to be natural, it's going to be in conformity, 17 it's going to look good. It's got a lot of trees in that 18 area. We know Denton likes to save trees. So that's the 19 deal. I'd ask that you vote for NR-i. 20 COMMISSIONER APPLE; Thank you, I have a 21 card from a Larry McGehee. MeGehee, is that correct? 22 MR. MCGEHEE: Yes ma'am, My name is Larry 23 McGehee. I live at 2001 C1Mstina Court also one of those 24 little dots on the map in the Hills of Argyle. 25 When the Denton Plan was passed, our Page 119 I neighborhood was zoned ~R-2 and ~a-4, although it had been 2 platted and approved as one-acre lots and larger. And 3 when we spoke to Council about this, they basically said 4 we understand this is an oversight. This subdivision is 5 already here. They were overlaying a subdivision that had 6 been approved and plat for one and two-acre lots. So it 7 was a mistake and so that's where Na-X came from. I don't 8 know how staff could have rezoned this whole city and not 9 missed a few little things, and that one was one that was 10 missed. And so out of cou_nesy or respect or what~ver, 11 No-1 was created to take care of that subdivision. 12 I believe that all of these are the same 13 issue, that this land is rural. I've lived there for 14 almost a year and a half. I've never seen a Denton police 15 officer even in the subdivision. We had people steal some 16 signs from us and when we called them to come out, they 17 said, well, you're in Argyle. You don't even live in the 18 City of Denton. So we're not getting serviced to death 19 out there. We have to tell them where it is before they 20 can come out. You have to go through a large floodplain 21 area to even get to this area. And a big portion of this 22 tract in question is in a floodplain and probably will 23 never be developed in. I don't know what the actual 24 usable acreage is but I don't think that we're talking 25 about very many usable acres to begin with. Page I20 1 The road of Brush Creek Road is not a 2 two-lane black top. It's a one-lane death trap and you 3 can get killed there on any day because you've got two 4 blind hills. So I think it was an oversight. I think all 5 of this stuff is an oversight. And we request that you 6 keep it rural. Keep it Na-lr There will be nice big 7 homes built there. They'll pay a lot of taxes, The 8 developer is not going to get hurt on these deals. 9 They're going to sell them and make a lot of money. It's 10 just a question of how much. Thank you. 11 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. I have a 12 card from Bill Lewis. All right. You don't wish to 13 speak? 14 MR. LEWIS: Not on this issue, 15 COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. I have a card 16 from Chris Mellberg, 17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He wanted you to 18 read the back. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Traffic issues are 20 scary both -- that's not what this says. Traffic issues 21 are really bad both on Brush Creek and 377. And we wan 22 to preserve the feel of the neighborhood. 23 Is there anyone else who wants to speak in 24 support? Okay. I have two cards -- no, I have one card 25 on this particular item. Michael Pettibon. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 117 - Page 120 CondenseltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 12I MR. PETTIBON: Hi. I'm Mike Pettibon and I own 40 acres that abuts the Hills of Argyle. And I'm not really sure if I understand the zoning change all that well and maybe you can change my mind about opposing this. Page 123 NR-I? MS. SPEER: Just to clarify, the only difference in uses for NR-I and NR-2 is under NR-2 if yOU have an suP, you can put in manufactured homes. There are But I think the reason that I'm opposed, I want it to stay rural and I can tell you that 75 percent of the land that I own is floodplain and you couldn't build a house on it if you wanted to. And I have no plans to build anything else and I don't want anything else built on it. But I think that I have a problem with zoning it so that it's more prohibitive of what I could or couldn't do on my property. And I don't know if that is truIy the ease or not as far as animals or livestock or what I want to do with it. And I feel like the people in Hills of Argyle are looking at my property and trying to make sure that I conform to their standards. And while I guarantee you that, you know, I don't want to spend a million dollars on a piece of property and have it look terrible, I also moved out to the country sort of so that I was no longer in the gated neighborhood I used to be in with people telling me that I couldn't paint my front door this color or have a dog over this size or park my vehicle. That's why I'm opposed. I think that I am opposed to further regulation of land. And maybe that's not truly 5 no other residential differences. Just density and 6 manufactured housing. 7 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Does that 8 help you, sir? 9 M~. PETTIBON: Yes. 10 COMMISSIONER APPLE: IS therO anyone else 11 who wishes to address Item -- 12 COMMISSIONER ROY: I had a question. 13 COMM[SSIONERAPPLE: okay. Commissioner 14 Roy. 15 COMMISSIONF~ ROY: t had a question of the 16 person who just spoke. Sir, are you a property owner in 17 that lot that we're looking at right now? You own 18 property in that yellow area? 19 MR. PETTIBON: I own -- that's my this half 20 of the rectangle. 21 COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you. 22 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: 40 of the 80. 23 COMMISSlmmm APPLE: commissioner Johnson, 24 if you have a question. 25 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: 40 O[' thc 80 acres Page 122 the spirit of it but that's how I interpret it. COMMISSIONER APPLE: would you like us to explain to you what we're doing, what is proposed so you would understand? MR. PETTIBON: If you could. COMMISSIONER APPLE: what is being proposed, and I'll let probably Mr. Reichhart, if Mr. Reichhart would come up and explain what this -- what is happening here so that then he would maybe feel more comfortable. MR. REICHHART: very briefly, the difference between NO-1 and NR-2 is basically density. NR-1, you have a density of one unit per acre. NR-2 has a density of two units per acre. Regarding keeping animals or livestock, there are different ordinances that address that. You have to have so much acreage per type of animal you have or horses or cows, tkings like that. And the zoning, regardless if it's Ne-1 or NR-2, wouldn't matter. So the real difference is when or if the property were ever going to be subdivided in the future, it would be a density issue. COMMISSIONER APPLE: And could you also explain to him some uses such as the manufactured homes that could be allowed in NR-2 that cannot be allowed in i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 124 is yours, sir? MR. PETrlBON: Right. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: IS it the east half or the west half?. MR. PETTIBON: The west. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: The west? Have you decided yet if you're in favor of this or against it? MR. PETTIBON: You kllow, I guess that ! am still opposed. And it probably isn't my place to say it but, once again, it is just because I don't want added -~ someone telling me what I can do and can't do. Once again, I have no intention of decreasing the property values. And also I don't think if you tried as hard as you possibly could that you could put more than two more houses on that whole 40 acres. But I still stand opposed. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. I don't see any more questions. Is them anyone else who'd like to address Agenda Item No. 28? Seeing no one, does staff have any additional marks? MS. SPEER: My only additional remark would be with his opposition we'd be at about 50 percent opposition, it would require super-majority at City Council. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Commissioner Powell. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 121 - Page 124 CondenseltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 125 COMMISSIONER POWELL: IS is safe to assume that we haven't heard from the owners, owner or owners of the other 40 acres? MS. SPEER: Corro.,ct. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Comtnis siGners. Commissioner Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Ye...8, Madam Chair. I'm going to make a motion for approval. I understand the verbally stated opposition but the reality is the motion and the downzoning will be less restrictive is what the Page 127 1 hearing. 2 MS. SPEER: Good evening once again. I am 3 basically going to go through these cases and talk to you 4 about the opposition and the site location. Staff has the 5 same findings in all of the cases. This site is 6 approximately a roughly ten-acre site. Same exact 7 situation, going from Neighborhood Residential 2 to 8 Neighborhood Residential 1 zoning district. This case 9 will have to go forward to City Council for 10 super-majority. Both owners of the two tracts do oppose. 11 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. For commentary was directed towards. So I make a motion for approval as presented. Thank you. COMMISSIONER WATKINS: second. COMMISSIONER APPLE: we have a motion by Commissioner Mulroy and a second by Commissioner Watkins. For discussion, Commissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: I am greatly influenced by the landowner of half of this property that doesn't want to make a change and I don't see why we would do something he doesn't want to do. So I will be voting against approval of this. COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Johnson. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: ~ We going to register this as an opposing view that is going to drive Page 126 1 the City Council to a super-majority? 2 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Director Powell would 3 like to weigh in. 4 MR. POWELL: we really need, to make it 5 official, we do need the opposition in writing. Bm I'm 6 sure that we can get that in between now and the month it 7 takes from P&Z to City Council. $ COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: okay. And just for 9 the record, I'm going to agree with Cormnissioner Roy 10 because I'm going to give great deference to the 11 landowner' s stated preference on this. 12 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Powell. 13 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Discussion of Mr. 14 Mulroy's point. I would look at it as being more 15 restrictive because with an NR-2, he does have some 16 options that disappear when it goes to NR-1. I just want 17 to point -- I'm just looking at this a little differently 18 than you are, sir. I wanted to make that point. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Any 20 further discussion? Vote, please. Motion carries 4-3. 21 (Commissioners Johnson, Roy, Powcll voted 22 in opposition.) 23 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Next we'll address 24 . Agenda Item No. 30 which is a public hearing. Again, 25 Ms. Speer, if you'll present and I'll open the public 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Agenda Item No. 30 -- COMMISSIONER ROY: EXCUSe me. Can I ask clarification? COMMISSIONER APPLE: oh, Commissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: You said two tracts? MS. SPEER: correct, theret$ two tracts of land, two different parcels. COMMISSIONER ROY: Okay. All right. We're looking at it as one site. MS, SPEER: Correct. The line is right here. COMMISSIONER ROY: Okay. Both owners are in opposition, had written opposition to this change? MS. SPEER: correct. Page 128 1 COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you. 2 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Regarding this Agenda 3 item, we have severa[ people who would like to address 4 this, also. Again, Mr. McMurray. 5 MR. MCMURRAY: I have a question for the 6 staff to help with my -- is there a sewer down Fort Worth 7 Drive? No? Is there a sewer because if it's NR-2, 8 residential, you've got a problem with your septic. 9 Because we're all septic out here. There is sewer running l0 up Fort Worth Drive up here to the new part of Phase 3. 11 So I could see where it wouldn't be that, you know, it 12 wouldn't be that expensive to get it there. That is an 13 issue because NR-i iS the minimum for a septic 14 requirements of spacing for your aerobic system. So one 15 of the -- I understand the landowner may want opposition. 16 It's going to have to be an issue addressed at some point 17 whether or not there's going to be sewer. So we would 18 vote NR-1 because it really conforms with the land use as 19 in the neighborhood. 20 All of this is NR-! but I can understand 21 the landowner saying he doesn't want NR-2, but there's not 22 going to be a special use permit for mobile homes. Not 23 next to alt this. You talk about everybody coming down 24 here, y'all would have a good time. So that ain't going 25 to happen. So at this point, I would say that you ought PLANIqlNG AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 125 - Page 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 § 9 lO 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 Conden scltTM Page 129 to go with NR-1 for the purpose that he can't -- if the 1 landowner can't use it for anything other than NR-i anyway 2 because of the fact that you have to have a septic spacing 3 unless the City's deciding to put sewer there. Thank you. 4 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Mr. McGehee. 5 MR. MCGEHEE: I would have dressed up if 6 I'd known I was going to have to speak in front of this ? camera. Do I need to introduce myself each time? 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: please. 9 MR, MCGEHEE: Larry McGehee, 2001 Christina 10 Court, Denton, Texas. I believe and I need to ask staff 11 this but arc you allowed to build a house on a half an 12 acre without a sewer line? You're not o/lowed to do that. 3 Isn't this, in effect, an oversight in thc Denton zoning? .4 Why would this be zoned NR-2 when you can't use it as15 NR-2? This is an oversight. 16 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Could someone from 17 staff address that question? 18 MR. POWELL: I'd be happy to address it. 19 If you remember back to the previous cases, there's a20 differentiation between zoning and platting and providing, 21 as part of platting, you provide utilities. The zoning of 22 the property, could it be developed today at the higher 23 density because there's no utilities? No. But that's a 24 platting issue. It's not really a zoning issue. Though 25 Page 130 they're somewhat intertwined. So you really do need to 1 try to separate those two. The question may be can 2 someone develop that at a higher density? Yes. Would 3 they have to provide the utilities? Yes. But it is 4 possible. It might not be feasible. It might not be cost -- might be cost prohibitive right now. But that really 6 is a platting issue rather than a zoning issue. 7 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Did that 8 answer your question? 9 MR. MCGEHEE: Yeah, I guess. I still think 10 that this was an oversight. I don't believe it was 11 intentionally zoned NR~2 because there is no sewer line 12 there. It's also a 65 mile an hour State highway. The 13 traffic in there is horrible, I don't know if any of you 14 have tried to go from Argyle to Denton on Fort Worth 15 Drive. You can't get there very quickly, You're blocked 16 by that trestle down there. 17 Again, I don't think that even if it's 18 zoned NR-1 that it will -- somebody is going to come in 19 here and someday ask you for commercial zoning on this. 20 NP,-I, it may make sense because there's a railroad track 21 across there and it's a State highway, and anybody that 22 would develop that would want it to be at least one-acre 23 lots, which puts the house away from the road and the 24 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION train. It just doesn't make sense. It really needs to be SEPTEMBER 25TIt, 2002 Page 131 NR-I. And look at all the other stuff out there, We're all one-acre and bigger because there's no sewer line and that's why it's all like it is. Somebody is benefiting from a mistake. Thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Bill Lewis. All right. You just want to show support. MR, LEWIS: show me in favor of this one. COMMISSIONER APPLE:. chris Mellberg does not wish to speak but wants to express support. Sandra Lewis does not wish to speak but she wishes to offer support. Carol Haesle was not able to attend but she does want to offer support. She says all of these items include areas in rural neighborhoods with land, trees, and nature. Please allow the existing developments to maintain their environment and feel. Also, traffic on these rural roads is very bad. Please don't make it worse. And M.D. Williamson wishes not to speak but he offers support, Then I have a card from Paul Berry. He's one of the owners. Is he present? Would you like to speak? MR. BERRY: My name is Paul Berry and I am the owner of the south portion there. My address is P.O. Page 132 Box 101, Mena, Arkansas. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. MR. BERRY: I did live on this property for 20 years, but, like I say, I am now living out of state. Y'all seem to be spending some time talking about mobile homes. This property and all the property in that 30 acre group and back behind there is deed restricted from mobile homes. You couldn't put a mobile home in there if you wanted to. And -- but I do wish to express my opposition. Thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Question for staff for my education. Doesn't zoning supersede deed restrictions? MR. POWELL: No. The way it works is whichever is more restrictive. So in the case of a deed restriction that didn't allow mobile home parks but was allowed in zoning, you still couldn't do it. We wouldn't enforce that deed restriction but if it was valid, you could enforce it by private means. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Berry. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I have a question. COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Mulroy has a question for you, sir. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes, sir. Thank you Page 129- Page 132 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 CondonscltTM Page 133 for coming down. My question is prior to the adoption of 1 the Development Code, what was the zoning on this 2 property? 3 MR. BERRY: Oh, that was something else 4 that I meant to address. Until I got this notice, I was 5 still under the assumption that all that was unzoned. I 6 was never notified when the zoning was changed previously. 7 So if I ever g~ any acceptance for these two notices on 8 this issue, if I ever get any notice on hearings regarding 9 this property, it has always been after the meeting and 10 after the decision has been made. And I didn't know at 11 all when it was changed to NR-2. 12 COMMISSIONER MULROY: But previous to that, 13 to your knowledge, it was zoned Agricultural then? 14 MR. BERRY: Agricultural or unzoned or 15 something. 16 Page 135 and let's say'you had an old sF-7 and we're trying to take you to ~,m-l,well, shame on us. But that's really not the case. It's always been Ag. The policy was to assign it some zoning and we're just making that adjustment. So we're really not trying to take away something that you've had. MR. BERRY: But yOU are. But you are. COMMISSIONER MIJLROY: well, see, my comment COMMISSIONER MULROY: And how long have you owned it? MR. BeP, aY: Probably about 25, 26 years. COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. In all those times, you never had any intention or made any attempt to upzone it to two or three or four houses an acre? Mit. BERRY: NO. COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. So, see, what's transpired, we've gone -- where unzoned land was to you would be then these 20 years, did you ever come forward to try to upzone it? MR. BERRY: NO, but still you're taking something away. COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, but it's something you didn't have. MR. BERRY; NO) because I still had the land, I still have the land. Page 134 carded as Ag, we've assigned it the low end possibility as NR-I, NR-2. And really you never had NR-2, yOU had Ag. And we're trying to sustain the 'rural flavor of that area. We want to redesignate it as NP,-1 which is less dense and more rural. MR. BERRY: I never, I never -- well, I own it -- entertain this idea but yet I don't want to tie my hands behind my back. COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, I understand. I want to refresh our collective memory. One, it was originally Ag. It was assigned NR-2 during the Code 12 adoption. And in reflection -- 13 MR. BERRY: BUt I didn't know that. 14 COMMISSIONER MULROY: -- that NRq would 15 have been mom appropriate. So it's not that someone is 16 taking something away that you've had for 20 years. It is 17 attempting by this body to correct an oversight. When the 18 Code was adopted, rather than having the least dense, NR-2 19 was assigned rather than NR-1. In viewing the 20 neighborhood, we viewed it as very rural and the previous 21 makeup of tiffs body initiated the changes to go to Na-1 22 which would be our lowest designation or least dense. 23 So I just want to make it clear that these 24 deliberations have already been undertaken and it's not 25 that you had -- if you had made any effort over 20 years 17 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. Thank you. 18 COMMISSIONE~ APPLE: Thank you, Mr. Berry. 19 Is them anyone else who wishes to address the Commission 20 in regards to this Agenda item? 21 MR. REICHHART: I was just asked a question 22 in the audience and as a point of clarification I just 23 want to point out to remind everybody that Agricultural 24 zoning has a one-acm limit development similar to the 25 NR4. someone asked me that, regarding that question. Page 13 6 2 3 4 5 6 situation 7 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Commissioner Watkins. COMMISSIONER WATKINS: Just as a matter of information, and you possibly can't answer this question, but this didn't change actually or did it change the tax on the property when we went from Ag to this? MR. REICHHART: NOs sir. ?LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 8 COMMISSIONER WATKINS: I mean, they may 9 have seen an increase but that was because alt of Denton 10 County, I suppose, went up. 11 MR. REICHHART: That's correct. 12 COMMISSIONER WATK~NS: BUt it would be the 13 same. Okay. Thank you. 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Is there anyone else 1 $ who wants to address this Agenda item? Seeing no one 16 coming forward, I'm going to close the public hearing. 17 Commissioner Mulroy. 18 COMMISSIONER MULROY: That was the que, 19 right? No. I think I've already given my mini lecture 20 but in view that we had undertaken the deliberations as 21 I've stated, I'm going to remain consistent and make the 22 motion to approve as presented. Thank you. 23 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. We have a 24 motion on the table. The motion dies for lack of a 25 second. Commissioner Roy. SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 133 - Page 136 Cond_~n solt TM 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 137 COMMISSIONER ROY: we did have a lot of discussion about this area but I think I was under the assumption, I wont along with the discussion under the assumption that the property owners would be happy to have this changed. So it's obvious that in this particular case the property owners are not happy to have this changed so I move denial of this. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: second. COMMISSIONER APPLE: We have a motion and a second to deny. Any discussion? I have one polut of discussion only because I was just tolally not present at that moment. I was thinking of something else. And I would have seconded Commissioner Mulroy's motion. And for Page 139 1 property. However, we do live in a City. And sometimes 2 ii' you want to 'be -- if you would like to own a piece of 3 property that nobody can tell you what to do, perhaps you 4 ought to buy that piece of property that is further away 5 from file City than these parcels are. These parcels are 6 in the City. So, anyway, I do support this mainly 7 because that was already there. Thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, Mr. Lewis. 9 Tom McMurray. 10 MR. MCMURR~Y: Tom McMurray, 1800 Wickwood, 11 City of Denton. This piece of property is not unhke the 12 other piece o? property that y'all just discussed which 13 was the other parcel, there was two parcels in the one that, I apologize. I will be voting against the motion. Any discussion? Vote, please. Motion passes 5-2. (Commissioners Mulroy and Apple voted in Opposition.) COMMISSIONER APPLE: NeXt iS Agenda Item 31, a public hearing considering rezonlng 21 acres on Fort Worth Drive, south of Hamilton and north of Brush Creek. Ms. Speer will present and I'll open the public hearing. MS. SPEER: oood evening once again. Agenda Item No. 31, as Commissioner Apple had stated, is approximately 21 acres. The same situation down to the 14 tract. However, this one is a lot longer. And it is -- 15 being a Denton resident now for a long time, this is 16 exactly what gives us a bad name in the neighborhood is 17 that it's agricultural which is one-acre lot minimums and 18 then we come in and make a mistake as a City and now we 19 can't stand up and say we made a mistake and do the right 20 thing. Okay. We're telling you wc would tike to see it 21 done r~ght so it's in conformity with the whole area. 22 Just because of the Hills of Argyle was 23 done right} because that was an oversight and we had to 24 come down and tel1 y'all how to do that. Now we're not 25 going to get this done right. You need to vote for this Page 138 1 zoning of Residential Neighborhood 2 to Neighborhood 2 Residential 1. This particular case, I do have one owner 3 opposition and I have one owner in favor. However, the 4 opposition is right at 20 percent so the super-majority 5 rule will be required at City Council. 6 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. 7 Commissioner Powell. 8 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Is it safe to assume 9 the white area is the third owner that has not spoken? 10 MS. SPEER: Correct. 11 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I have several cards 13 for this Agenda item, also. Mr. Williamson does not wish 14 to speak but he wishes to express support. Carol Haesle 15 is not available to speak but she does express support. 16 Sandra Lewis does not wish to speak but she wants to t7 express support. Chris Mellherg is not available to speak 18 but does wish to express support. Bill Lewis, ii' you'll 19 give your name and address, please. 20 MR. LEWIS: Bill Lewis, 900 Brush Creek 21 Road. I support this zoning change. To me, it just makes 22 sense because it matches what's already them. That's the 23 main reason that I support it. I appreciate people not 24 being want -- not liking to be told how to run their .25 business, especially when it comes to using their own Page 140 1 to be NR4. There's still no sewer there. It's still the 2 same arguments. You're going to have to have development. 3 I understand there's a difference in zoning and platting. 4 The difference is that it needs to he in conformity with 5 the rural area. And I can't emphasize it enough, I like 6 the landowners. I'm a landowner. Got lots of land other 7 than this land. But this land right hem needs to be in 8 conformity with the area and the other citizens in it. 9 You have all those people that you mentioned awhile ago 10 that were for it. They all live out there. So it's like 11 the whole people are saying we need you to back up what 12 the City of Denton says. I understand the landowners may 13 or may not be for it. Here we've got one that's for it. 14 But you need to do what's right for the area, please. 15 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Mr. Larry 16 MeGehee. 17 MR. MCGEHEE: My name is Larry McGehee. I 18 live at 200 t Cl~ristina Court, Denton, Texas. I'm almost 19 breathless after this last vote. You know, it's like a 20 guy gees in a bank to make a deposit for $100.00 and he 21 finds some money in a bag and somehow that money becomes 22 his. This land has hccn zoned AgricultUral forever, one 23 acre. These people have never been down here before you 24 asking for it to be two houses per acre. There's no sewer 25 llne. And there's some kind of thought that people should PLANNING AND ZON1NG COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 137 - Page 140 CondenscItTM Page 141 1 profit from mistakes and this was a mistake. But nobody 2 wants to take away the right for someone to capitalize on 3 a mistake that the City has made. Now, I'm a property 4 owner. Iown 17 houses in this City. I've lived here 31 5 years. And to stand here and see people vote to allow 6 mistakes, I can't believe it. I'm sorry. 7 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, sir. Is 8 there anyone else who wishes to speak to this item? 9 Seeing no one coming forward, I'll close the public t0 hearing. Commissioner Roy. 11 COMMISSIONER ROY: I wanted to ask a 12 question of staff. Is the landowner who is in opposition, 13 is that landowner here? 14 MS. SPEER: That is Bill and Joyce Keenis 15 and I don't believe we have a card from them. COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Question of staff before you get away. Excuse me, Madam Chairman. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 143 1 body or the City to do it unless there is a tremendous 2 greater good. And I don't see a tremendous greater good 3 to make this particular change. I agree that it's not a 4 major issue. It's not a major change. But we discussed 5 it on the basis that this is something that the landowners 6 wanted to do, and that has not been the case. 7 Now, in this particular piece of property 8 there is I would say a significant piece of this one that 9 percentage-wise it's kind of overwhelnfing either in favor 10 or no comment. So I don't particularly feel strongly 11 about this one as opposed to the last one in which 100 12 percent of the property owners did not want to make the 13 change. 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Mulroy. 15 COMMISSIONER MULROY: YeS, With all 16 respect to my fellow Commissioners, my recollection was in 17 our discussions that perhaps because of time constraints, 18 due consideration wasn't given to this section of this next? Thank you. How big is the red property? MS. SPEER: The red property, I believe they have -- COMMISSIONER POWELL: I mean, approximately. Is it two acres? MS~ SPEER: About 15 acres, I think. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Got yOU. Thank you. Page 142 t 9 quadrant, this lower quadrant section of town. And we 20 reviewed it and we had that discussion of the Ag and 21 ~m-2, that ~4R-t was most appropriate generally for this 22 whole area. That it would, in fact, protect the majority 23 of the landowners. 24 I don't think, with all respect, I can't 25 recall that it was ever put forward that a specific Page 144 1 Ms. SPEER: I'm sorry. That's wrong. It's 2 about five acres. 3 COMMISSIONF31 POWELL: SO the gll~B property 4 would be 15 or more acres. Thank you. 5 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Mukoy. 6 COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, I'm going to 7 stay consistent. I'm ready to move approval. And I 8 remind you that, again, part of our discussion was that we 9 were looking at blanket taking it back to ~4R-t. And 10 people that wanted to do sometlfing, desired to do 11 something more dense could come and make the case with 12 their specifics in mind and we would be open to that. 13 Thank you. 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: second. Discussion? 15 Ihavejust a comment. I'm still Igness sorter 16 perplexed and fascinated by the fact that this body t7 brought these rezonings forward. And rm not sure if 18 there are lapses in the work sessions that we had and the 19 issues that were discussed or what, but I'm confused and 20 amazed. Cormnissloner Roy. 21 COMMISSIONER ROY: I am not confused and 22 amazed because at the work session it was made clear to mo 23 that this was sucfioned from the landowners and people who 24 lived in the area. And if the landowner does not want to 25 make this change, I don't feel it's appropriate for this 1 landowner of a specific plot was advocating this. No, 2 tiffs was initiated from P&Z solely and that we were 3 recognizing, a mistake may be too hash of a word, but 4 let's say not enough time in judgment in assigning tho 5 zonings when the Code was adop~d. And we hashed it over 6 and it was our consensus that t~a-~ would have been more 7 appropriate for this area and that's why we initiated it. 8 So in that sense, Mr. McG~hee is fight, the 9 net result was - is correcting the mistake. And I'll 10 reiterate and I was the one that spoke up and said, well, ~ 11 if someone comes, because I know there's some lqR-4 that 12 we're taking down, and that if they como back and say this 13 is what I want to do. Here's my amenities. Here's my 14 entranceways, et cetera, et cetera, that we'd give it the 15 fullest consideration when we had specifics. But in thc 16 meantime, in the interim, to go back to closest to Ag that 17 we can. I mean, that's my best recollection of the 18 discussion. That's why we've initiated it. Thank you. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Powell. 20 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Help me out her~. 21 How did we decide th~ configuration of this piece of 22 property to be rezoned? I saw a map earlier that showed 23 all these pieces. How do you figure this one as opposed 24 to another one or why weren't they all together7 Help me 25 out here. Why did you make the split right here? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 141 - Page 144 CondcnseltTM Page 145 1 MS. SPEER: AS far as I know, the split is 2 made simply by proximity. This is already NR-I. Then you 3 had the two parcels of NR-2, you had this NRMU section 4 that was rezoned a couple of years ago independently. 5 Then you have Brush Creek which divides these two 6 properties. This one is NR-2. And it didn't make sense 7 to have these two together because this one is NR-4. 8 COMMISSIONER POWELL: That. answered my 9 question. Thank you very much. 10 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Just to kind of weigh 11 in on that, that may be true that that was the logic for 12 it. But in our discussions my memory is the same as 13 Commissioner Muh-oy's, that we actually brought these up :14 because there were actually some oversights in this map. il 5 And I have no recollection of it being any landowners. It 16 was just a discussion amongst us at a work session and it 17 was -- the NR-4 which you're basing the NR-2 on seemed to 18 be a mistake, also. 19 And I will use the word mistake because I 20 actually was told that, that it was a mistake. 21 Especially when just across the street with a railroad 22 running through it is zoned NR-2. So if the NR-2 Was 23 based on the fact that it was between an NR-4, which was a 24 mistake, and an NRMU which had a very specific reason for 25 being an NRMU, that was a long going case and a very Page 146 1 particular parcel of land, you really can't use that 2 rationale for determining that that makes sense there. 3 MS. SPEER: I think we're addressing two 4 different questions. I think he just wondered why they 5 were stuck together the way they were, thc different 6 tracts. Why, you know, this owner is in favor but this 7 one opposes. Why are those three together as one case? 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I'm sorry. I thought 9 he was asking you how they ended up with the des[gnat[om 10 that they ended up with. 11 MS, SPEER: Right. 12 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Either way I'm 13 satisfied with the answer. 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. Thanks. 15 Commissioner Johnson. 16 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: This is an 17 interesting chart. Is that NR-6 on there correct? 18 MS. SPEER: Yes, sir. 19 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: well, why are we not 20 talking about that NR-6 then? 21 MS. SPEER: It'S a railroad and a 22 right-of-way. See, everything around here, I mean, 23 everything is eTJ. ~ll of thc white is ETJ. Only the 24 yellow is what's zoned and we are actually -- 25 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: what about south of PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION the NR-4 that's shown here? there. Page 147 1 2 3 4 5 6 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: But the way it's 7 drawn, it would look like it's NR-6. 8 MS. SPEER: It'S not. The color is hard, 9 the yellow is hard to discern from the green. 10 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay. And one more 11 question. The ETJ there that is just between what is now 12 NR-2 and what is now NR-1 -- 13 MS. SPEER: Right here? 14 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Yeah. Has not been 15 annexed by the City yet, right? 16 MS. SPEER: Correct. 17 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: SO what is the 18 requirements on who can build what in there? 19 MS. SPEER: AS far as I understand in the 20 ETJ -- larry's going to come talk. 21 MR. REICHHART: Any development in our 22 Division 1 ETJ that's approximately tttree and a half miles 23 from the City of which that area falls into, land use -- 24 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I'm sorry. We have a 25 point of order because we are actually getting off on MS. SPEER: That's also NR-2. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: It's NR-2? MS. SPEER: uh-hllh, along the right-of-way Page 148 1 another issue rather than we have a motion and a second on 2 the table and Legal has advised me that we are addressing 3 an issue that's not germane. 4 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I don't remember a 5 motion and a second. Am I wrong? 6 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Mu[roy 7 made the motion and I made the second, 8 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I'm sorry. Thank 9 you. 10 COMMISSIONF_,R APPLE: we have a motion and a 11 second. Any mom discussion on the motion and the second? 12 Vote, please. 13 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Can you restate the 14 motion just so we're sure what we're voting on? 1 $ COMMISSIONER APPLE: Certainly. 16 Commissioner Mulroy. 17 COMMISSIONER M[JLROY: ! move approval as 18 submitled. 19 COMMISSIONER POWELL: That was move to approve? 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER APPLE: HO moved approval as submitted and I seconded. Vote, please. Motion carries 6-1. (Commissioner Johnson voted in opposition.) COMMISSIONER APPLE: Moving onto our final SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 145 -Page t48 Cond~nscltTM t item, public hearing No. 32. Again, I'll open the 2 public hearing and Ms. Spear will present. 3 MS. SPE~: oood evening once again. This 4 particular item is a little bit different from our 5 previous four areas. This area is currently a 43.7 acm 6 site. It's the strip along 377 south of Brush Creek. 7 This strip is currently zoned Neighborhood Residential 4. 8 It's being requested by the Planning and Zoning Commission 9 to go to Neighborhood Residential 2. I have 15 acres of 10 opposition here, 15 acres of opposition, 20, 15 acres 11 here, and one home here and one neutral home. So I have 12 about 85, 90 percent opposition on this particular case. 13 Super-majority vote will be required at City Council. 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. 15 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Question. 16 COMMissIONER APPLE: commissioner Powell. 17 COMMISSIONER POWELL: when was this zoned 18 ~m.47 was this in the major rezoning or was this some 19 other time? And if it was in the major rezoning, why did 20 they plunk an t~R-4 there? Does anybody know? Can anybody 21 help me? 22 COMMISSIONF.~ APPLE: Mr. Powell. 23 ~. POWELL: If i may. This one is the one 24 that comes closest to the mistake word or oversight. The 25 majority of that property was in a Po and the eD had Page 150 i several variations and then it was finally hard zoned, the 2 back portion of thc property but not the front part. And 3 so if I believe the old PD had 16,000 square foot lots 4 really didn't match up with NR-4. SO it doesn't match 5 what was there prior to February 20th or February this 6 year. Now it's been upzoned since that time. 7 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I~t me add onto that 8 question then for Mr. Powell. If it doesn't match the 9 NR-4 that it was given, what did it match to? What would 10 have been a match? 11 MR. POWELL: I believe the NR-2. 12 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. 13 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Watkins. 14 COMMISSIONER WATKn~S: Thank you. I assume 15 if it's NR-4 that there's no utilities there and so there 16 will be nothing built there; is that correct? Doesn't it 17 take a one-acre site for a septic? 18 MR. PowELL: Yes. If I may, there is a 19 sewer that does run down through this area, kind of 20 bisecting it. So there is sewer. There is water. So 21 unlike the properties to the north, this one it doesn't 22 have sewer there but it's close. 23 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Again, we 24 have -- did you have a question? 25 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I have another Page 149 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 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION question. Powell. Page 151 COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. Commissioner COMMISSIONER POWELL: would that be a City of Argyle sewer? It's not a City of Denton sewer, is it? MR. POWELL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Yes, sir, what.'? MR. POWELL: City Of' Dellton sewer. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thatlk you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. We have a number of cards again who wish to speak in support of this. Mr. Williamson doesn't want to speak but wishes support. Carol Haesle in support. Sandra Lewis checked I wish to speak on this item. No? Okay. Hard to tell once both of them are checked. But she is in support. Chris Mellberg is in support. Bill Lewis. MR. LEWIS: Bill Lewis, 900 Brush Creek Road. We do support this issue. That is what is already there. The other issues here are that this is an environmentally sensitive area. You've heard a lot from us already on this property and i'm here to reiterate. Thank you for what you've done in the past to help protect that area. Making it NR-2 will help protect it some more, also. Page 152 There has also been some discussion, maybe it's differences of opinion about where the floodplain is out there. However, there is some floodplain out there. I think we can agree on that. As far as more general zoning issues go, I think that the possible strategy that some cities try to use is that the closer you are to the core of tho City, that's where higher densities occur. As you get further out away from the City, that's where the lower densities are. This is about as far away as you can get from Denton and still bc in Denton. And I think that pretty well summarizes my thoughts on this issue. I'll take any questions. COMMISSIONER APPLE: ?hank you. Tom McMurray. MR. MCMURRAY: Just in support. You've heard my arguments. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Larry McOehcc, MR. MCGEItEE: My name is Larry McGeh~e. I live at 2001 Ckfistina Court in Denton, Texas. My faith has been restored. We had one person found the money and got out of here but the rest of the money has been returned to the citizens. Thank you. This one is the biggest mistake that we're looking at tonight. NR-4 makes no sense. In fact, it ought to be ~m-t. t don't know how SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 149- Page 152 CondensoltTM Page 153 Page 155 1 we're going to NR-2 but that is what we're trying to do 1 2 here, right? NR-4toNR-2? well, I'min favor of that. 2 3 Thank you for your last vote. 3 4 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Is there 4 5 anyone else who wishes to address this item? Seeing no 5 6 one coming forward, I'll close the public hearing. 6 7 Commissioner Mulroy. 7 8 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I'm going to move 8 9 approval. 9 10 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Second. 10 11 COMMISSIONER POWELL: A question of staff. 11 12 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Roy is 12 13 13 prior to you. 14 COMMISSIONER ROY: I just wish that 14 15 somebody had explained this in more detail to the 5 16 landowners. Here we have another case of 85 percent .6 17 roughly opposition. You can argue about how we got here I7 18 but the fact is we are here at NR-4 and the landowners who 18 19 own this property don't want to change it, 85 percent of 19 20 them don't want to change it. And I'm just really 20 21 struggling with this, this whole concept, 21 22 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Powell. 22 23 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, ma'am. 23 24 That was not to get attention. That was getting over a 24 25 cold. Staff, a question. The owners who are in 25 Page 154 i opposition, did they make any attempt to get here? 2 There's nobody in opposition here and that bothers me. 3 MS. SPEER: If I can be blunt, they're 4 coming to City Council. The owners, the opposition on 5 this site has plans for this site and owns this land, they 6 will be at City Council. 7 COMMISSIONER POWELL: They own what land? 8 MS. SPEER: They own this property. 9 COMMISSIONER POWELL: They own the NR-2, as 10 well as the NR-4. 1 MS. SPEER: correct. This part. 2 COMMISSIONER POWELL: okay. But they own 13 all of the NR-2 beh/nd it, to the east of it? 14 MS. SPEER: 1 believe they do own all of 15 it. They even own the vacant lot up here. 16 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. 17 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Roy. 18 COMMISSIONER ROY: One question. That 19 vacant lot on the NR-i up there, they were not in 20 opposition to. that? 21 MS. SPEER: correct. They sent in a letter 22 for favor of that. 23 COMMISSIONER ROY; Thank you. 24 COMMISSIONER APPLE: we have a motion and a 25 second to approve. Any more discussion? Vote, please. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Motion can'[es 5-2. (Commissioners Roy and Powell voted in opposition.) COMMISSIONER APPLE: That ends our Agenda items. And if there's no further business, we are adjourned. SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 153 - Page 155 S 5Our Documents~Ordina~ces~02~Z02-0040.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 4 (NR-4) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESDIENTIAL 2 (NR-2) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 34.16 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED AT FORT WORTH DRIVE SOUTH OF BRUSH CREEK ROAD LAND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS BEING A PORTION OF A TRACT IN ABSTRACT 517 IN THE H. HAGGOOD SURVEY AND A PORTION OF A TRACT IN ABSTRACT 568 IN THE W. HUDSON SURVEY AND A PORTION OF A TRACT IN ABSTRACT 351 IN THE GEORGE W. DAUGHERTY SURVEY AND BEING ALL OF A TRACT SHOWN BY DEED TO JOE W. RHOADES RECORDED IN VOLUME 639, PAGE 486, DEED RECORDS AND BEING ALL OF A CERTAIN TRACT SHOWN BY DEED TO HERBERT E. WYSS RECORDED IN VOLUME 1042, PAGE 834, DEED RECORDS AND BEING ALL OF A TRACT OF LAND SHOWN BY DEED TO EWELL BURKALTER, ET AL, RECORDED IN VOLUME 886, PAGE 602, DEED RECORDS IN THE CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS;PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z02-0040) WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission initiated a change in zoning for approximately 34.16 acres of land being legally described as being a portion of a tract in abstract 517 in the H. Haggood Survey and a portion of a tract in abstract 568 in the W. Hudson Survey and a portion ora tract in abstract 351 in the George W. Daugherty Survey and being all ora tract shown by deed to Joe W. Rhoades recorded in volume 639, page 486, Deed Records and being all of a certain tract shown by deed to Herbert E. Wyss recorded in volume 1042, page 834, Deed Records and being all of a tract of land shown by deed to Ewell Burkalter, Et Al, recorded in volume 886, page 602, Deed Records in the city of Denton, Denton County, Texas, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made part hereof by reference (the "Property") from Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district classification and use designation; and WHEREAS, on September 25, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval to change the zoning to Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR -2); and WHEREAS, the City has received written protests pursuant to Texas Local Government Code Section 211.006, which requires a three quarter vote by the City Council to change the zoning district classification and use designation; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The zoning district classification and use designation of the Property is hereby S 5Our Documents~Ordina2~ces~02~Z02-0040.doc changed from Neighborhood Re sidential 4 (NR-4) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district classification and use and such zoning change has been passed by a three quarter vote of the City Council. SECTION 2. The City's official zoning map is amended to show the change in zoning district classification. SECTION 3. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid by any court, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable SECTION 4. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Demon Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Demon, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2002. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 34.16 Acres of Land All that certain tract or parcel of land lying and being situated in the H. Haggood Survey, Abstract Number 517; The W. Hudson Survey, Abstract Number 568; and the George W. Daugherty Survey, Abstract Number 351, Denton County, Texas, and being all of a tract shown by deed to Joe W. Rhoades, recorded in Volume 639, Page 486, Deed Records, and being all of a certain tract shown by deed to Herbert E. Wyss, recorded in Volume 1042, Page 834, Deed Records, and being all of a tract of land shown by deed to Ewell Burkhalter, Et Al, recorded in Volume 886, Page 602, Deed Records of said county and being more fully described as follows; BEGINNING at the intersection of the East right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 377 and the South right-of-way line of Brush Creek Road, said point being 371.33 feet more or less West of the Southwest comer of the present city limits as established by Ordinance No. 69-40, also being the Northwest comer of the current city limits line established by Ordinance No. 86-21; THENCE North 89 Degrees 41 Minutes 42 Seconds East, along the South right-of-way line of said Brush Creek Road a distance of 299.99 feet more or less to a point for a comer; THENCE South 00 Degrees 18 Minutes 20 Seconds East, a distance of 261.15 feet to a point for a comer; THENCE South 22 Degrees 13 Minutes 00 Seconds West, a distance of 1,123.24 feet to a point for a comer; THENCE North 89 Degrees 47 Minutes 00 Seconds West, a distance of 17.00 feet to a point for a comer and being the beginning of curve to the fight having a radius of 363.06; THENCE along said curve to the right having a arc length of 172.67 feet and a chord bearing of North 76 degrees 09 minutes 30 seconds West, a distance of 171.05 feet to a point for a comer; THENCE North 62 Degrees 32 Minutes 00 Seconds West, a distance of 90.00 feet to a point for a comer, said point lying 390 feet East of and perpendicular to the centerline of U.S. Highway 377; THENCE South 27 Degrees 28 Minutes 00 Seconds West, parallel with and 390 feet East of the centefline of U.S. Highway 377 a distance of 2,468.99 feet to a point for a comer; THENCE North 50 Degrees 07 Minutes 44 Seconds West, a distance of 337.88 feet to a point for a comer lying on the East fight-of-way line of said U.S. 377; THENCE North 27 Degrees 28 Minutes 00 Seconds East, along the East right-of-way line of said U.S. 377 a distance of 2,926.42 feet to a point for a comer; 34.16 Acres of Land THENCE North 33 Degrees 09 Minutes 14 Seconds East, along the East right-of-way line of said U.S. 377 a distance of 301.15 feet to a point for a comer; THENCE North 27 Degrees 37 Minutes 11 Seconds East, along the East right-of-way line of said U.S. 377 a distance of 294.39 feet to a point for a comer; THENCE North 58 Degrees 35 Minutes 38 Seconds East, a distance of 156.33 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing in all 34.16 acres of land more or less. Exhibit A Z02-0040 (Southeast 377 and Brush Creek Road) NORTH Il LOCATION MAP Item 5F AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: November 19, 2002 Planning and Development Department Dave Hill, Assistant City Manager 349-8314 ....... : ~ SUBJECT - Z02-0049 (Chamberlain/Elder Gas Well) Hold a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance granting a Specific Use Permit for gas wells on approximately 45.7 acres. The site is in a Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning district. The subject property is located at the northeast comer of Roselawn Drive and Bonnie Brae Drive. Two gas well sites are proposed. Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0). BACKGROUND Applicant: Bob Cates, Lynx Oil Denton, Texas The applicant has submitted a request for a Specific Use Permit (SUP) proposing two gas well sites on the subject property. The gas well regulations allow gas well sites only with the approval of a Specific Use Permit in the Neighborhood Residential 4 zoning district. Public notification and property owner responses are provided in Attachment 4. As of this writing, staff has received three responses: one favorable, one neutral and one opposed - from property owners within 200 feet of the subject site. Staff has also received two favorable responses from the general public. As opposition is less than 20%, a simple majority vote by City Council will be required to approve this request. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Approve with conditions. 3. Deny. 4. Postpone consideration. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 7-0. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE A Gas Well Development Plat must be approved prior to any permits being issued. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology of Z02-0049, commonly known as Chamberlain/Elder Gas Wells: Application Date - DRC Date - Planning and Zoning Public Hearing - September 12, 2002 September 26, 2002 October 23, 2002 No Neighborhood meeting was held. FISCAL INFORMATION Development of this property will increase the assessed value of the city. short-term public improvements that are the responsibility of the city. It will ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff'Analysis 2. Maps 3. Public Notification (Property Owner Notification Map and Property Owner Responses) 4. Photographs 5. Minutes from October 23, 2002 Planning and Zoning meeting 6. Draft Ordinance and Exhibit A 7. Site Plan Prepared by: require no Autumn Speer Planner I Respectfully submitted: Douglas S. Powell, AICP Director of Planning and Development ATTACHMENT I Staff Analysis Summar~ of Zoning Request The subject property is zoned Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4). The applicant must obtain the approval of a Specific Use Permit (SUP) to allow for the construction of a gas well site. The SUP is required in Neighborhood Residential 4 because it was assumed that it would be developed for single-family homes. Existing Condition of Proper ,ty Property History. February 20, 2002 - The subject property was placed in the Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning district and land use classification by Ordinance 2002-040. Prior to the adoption of the Development Code, the property was zoned Agricultural (A) The subject property currently contains 3 single-family homes and accessory uses. Gas wellhead sites are not allowed within 500' of any residential structure, place of assembly, institution, or school. Gas wellhead sites may be located no less than 250' from a residential structure if the owner of said structure agrees in writing. The Texas Railroad Commission regulates how close the gas wellhead can be located to the property line depending upon the filed location and acreage. Adjacent zoning: North: Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) and Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning districts- single-family/agricultural South: Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) and Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) zoning districts- single-family/agricultural East: Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning district - vacant/Rayzor Investments West: Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district - vacant Comprehensive Plan Analysis The subject site is located within a "Neighborhood Centers" future land use area. These areas may develop in conventional patterns or may be developed in a pattern of 'neighborhood centers'. Neighborhood centers are oriented inwardly, focusing on the center of the neighborhood and containing facilities vital to the day-to-day activity of the neighborhood. A neighborhood center might contain a convenience store, small restaurant, personal service shops, church or synagogue, daycare, individual office space, a small park and perhaps an elementary school. Currently the areas surrounding the site are predominantly vacant and agriculturally used land. The proposed specific use permit would not be detrimental to the existing or future development of this area since future development can take place surrounding the gas well site once it has been completed. Development Review Analysis Transportation Trip Generation. No significant vehicle trips will be generated. A TIA will not be required. Access. The gas well development will have access from Bonnie Brae and Roselawn Drive Development Code/Zoning Analysis The applicant has proposed the construction of two gas well sites. The Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning designation allows gas well sites only with the approval of a specific use permit. Section 35-112 of the Zoning Ordinance (69-01) states that a Specific Use Permit shall be issued only if all of the following conditions have been found: That the specific use will be compatible with and not injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property nor significantly diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity; The operation of the two gas well sites should not diminish or impair property values in the immediate vicinity as the proposed location of the well heads are entirely located on the subject property. e That the establishment of the specific use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property; It is unlikely that establishment of this specific use will impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding property. e That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage facilities have been or will be provided; All necessary supporting facilities will be provided. and other necessary supporting e The design, location and arrangement of all driveways and parking spaces provides for the safe and convenient movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic without adversely affecting the general public or adjacent developments; All proposed parking areas and driveways meet the requirements of the City of Denton. That adequate nuisance prevention measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration; Adequate nuisance prevention measures will be taken. With the exception of drilling the well, no noise, odor or fumes will be produced. e That directional lighting will be provided so as not to disturb or adversely affect neighboring properties; and Proposed lighting will not adversely affect neighboring properties. e That there is sufficient landscaping compatibility with adjacent property. Landscaping information is not required. 4 and screening to ensure harmony and However, Section 35-113 allows the Commission to recommend additional conditions on the proposal to protect the public interest and the welfare of the community. STAFF FINDINGS 1. The proposed use is compatible with The Denton Plan and the Denton Developmem Code. The applicant has met all requiremems ora Specific Use Permit. The establishmem of two gas well sites at this location will not have any detrimental impacts on the surrounding area. ATTACHMENT 2 Maps NORTH Location/Zoning Map Approximate Location of Proposed Gas Wells Scale: None NORTH Land Use Map Scale: None ATTACHMENT 3 Public Notification NORTH 2117 ress SITE No address Newspaper Notification Date: 200' Legal Notices* sent via Certified Mail: *500' Courtesy Notices* sent via 1st Class Mail: Number of responses to 200' Legal Notice · In Opposition: 1 · In Favor: 3 · Neutral: 1 October 10, 2002 8 11 5 Percent of land within 200' in opposition: approximately 8 % Scale: None *Sites in the 500' notification area without addresses are not notified via courtesy notice. *A copy of the notification list can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 Property Owner Responses Philip Baker Opposed "The tract is too small for 2 gas wells. Two (2) gas 1204 W. University Drive wells would pose a significant danger to the Ste 400 existing neighborhood adjacent to the north Denton, Texas boundary of the tract as well as future residential development on our tract of land adjacent to the east boundary of the tract. Only 1 well should be approved and it should be located in the south and west portion of the tract away from residential developments." Mark Atkins Neutral NA 7481 Mesquite Sanger, Texas 76266 Jay Anthony Favor See Attached Letter 12770 Coit Road Ste 1170 Dallas, Texas Randy Barber Favor NA 936 Fort Worth Drive Denton, Texas Jay Rodgers Favor See Attached Letter 1277 Porter Road Flower Mound, Texas *A copy of the original notice can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 October 22, 2002 Sent Via Fax: 940-349-7707 Dee Ring, Inc. 1277 Porter Road Flower Mound, TX 75022 817-430.8793 phone 814-430-0853 fax Denton County Planning and Zoning Commission city of Denton Texas Attn: Autumn Spear, Planner 1 221 N Elm Street Denton, TX 76201 OCT £ 2 2002 Dear ~ir: We recently received a notice of public hearing (Z09-0049) regarding approval of a specific use permit for a gas well site on apProximately 45.7 acres at the northeast intersection of Roselawn Drive and Bonnie Brae. The public hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, October 23, 2002, at 6:30p.m, I will not be able to attend the hearing, however, I do want to let you know that I am in favor of granting this specific use permit. Lynx Oil, the petitioner for this permit, I~as drillect on two other tracts of land in Denton, one of which we own outright and the other of which we partially owm through a partnership. I both instances, Lynx has performed their obligations without fail, have cleaned up the sites, and I would consider them a good neighbor to have. I wholeheartedly endorse granting this permit. I appreciate your consideration. Sincerely, Jay D, Rodgem Vice President JDPJhb NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Z02-0049 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton wilt hold a public hearing on Wednesday, October 23, 2002, to consider approving specific use permit for a gas wen site on'an approximately 45,7 acre site generally located at the northeast intersection of Rosetawn Drive and Bonnie Brae (see map on backside). The property is legally described as tract 18 of Abstract 521 in the A. Hickman Survey, tract 1 of Abstract 400 in the J. Edmonson Survey, and tract 58 of Abstract 56 in the O. Brewster Survey, in the City of'Denton,.. Denton County, Texas. Two gas well sites are proposed at this time. The public hearing win start at 6:30 p.m. in the City CouncD Chambers of City Hail 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. (T?~ in no. way prohibits you from attending and participating in the public.~.~..ear, i..~[l:)_..Y._o_..u_~.a)/_f..a_x.~the number located at the bottom, mail it to the ....... address below, or drop it ~tr~ ,~ ~' ['~'~..,~'b'n:"-~l~, !, ''''~ ?~\V/''' ~ ,~-I h~ ~;~ ..... .............. ' Attn: Autumn Speer, Planner I PL.P D3? !P G & DEVELOP , IENT The specific use permit process includes two public hearings de.~ citizen involvement add comment. Prior tO the public hearings, landowners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property are notified of the specific use permit request by way of this notice. The first public hearing is held before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission is informed of the percept of responses in support and in opposition. Second, the specific use peFmit'petJ[Jon Js 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 bNeDty (20) percent of the [aDd 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 request. These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposition. Please circle one: Neutral to request Opposed to request Printed Name: --'--~*-fC~'-~'"'-'~'~,.,,,,----,, - ~.[~ ,,~"~',,,.~ Mailing Address: I~'~D ~-~c Il7 City, State Zip: ~)~, ~% ~ ~/ Telephone Number'. ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ]- ~ V ~¢ Physical Address of Property within 200 feet: CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS Z02-0049 200' Notice CITY HALL WEST · DENTON, TEXAS 76201 · 940.349.8350 · (F) 940.349.7707 '10/22/02 10:54 99729814494 ANTItONY PROPERTY ~002/002 October 22, 2002 ANTHONY PROPERTIES 2770 Colt Road, guiL~ TI 70 · Dallas, Texas 7525'1 (9~} 99'1-.1484 · Fa~ (972) 99144~4 '7: ..... Denton County Planning and Zoning Commission City of Denton, Texas At'm: Autumn Speer, Planner I 221 N, Elm Street Denton, TX 76201 VIA: Fax 940-349-7707 Dear Sits, We recently received a notice of public hearing (Z02-0049) regarding approval of a specific use permit for a gas well site on approximately 45.7 acres at the northeast intersection of Roselawn Drive and Bonoie Brae. The public hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, October 23, 2002 at 6:30 p_m. I will not be able to attend thc hearing; however, I do want to let you know that I am in favor of granting this specific use permit. Lynx Oil, the petitioner for this permit, has drilled on two other tracts of land in Denton, one of which we own outright and the other of which we partially own through a partnership. In both instances, Lynx has performed their obligations without fail, have cleaned up the sites, and I would consider them a good neighbor to have. I wholeheartedly endorse granting this permit. I appreciate your consideration. Sincerely yours, R, Jay Anthony RJA./rlg cc: Bob Cares Oct 18 02 02:57p COLOR CUSTOM 940 381 0240 p.1 NOTICE OF PUBLZ¢ HEAR'rN- Z02-0049 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denlon will hotda public hearing on Wednesday, October 23, 2002, Io consider approving specific use permit for a gas well site on an approximately 45.7 acre site generally located at the northeast intersection of Roselawn Drive and Bonnie i~rae (see map on backside). The property is legally descrlbed es tract 18 or Abstract 521 in lhe A. Hickman Survey, tract I of Abstract 400 in the J. Edmonson Survey. and tract- 58 o! Abstract ,56 in the O. Brewsler Survey, in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas.' Two gas well sites are proposed at Ihis time. The public hearing wilt start at 6:3D p,m. in the City Council Chambers of Cily Hall tocated at 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas. Because you own proper~y within two hundred (ZOO) feet of the subject property, tl~e Planning and Zoning Commission would like Jo hear how you feel about this zoning cl~ange request end invites you to eitencf the public hearing. Please, in order for your opinion to be taken into account, return this form w~th your commenls prior to the date of the public hearing, {This in no way prohibits you fi'om attending and participating in the public hearing.) You may fax it fo [he numDer located at t-he bottom, mail it to Ihe address befow, or drop it off in-person: Planning and Development Department 221 N. Elm St Denton, Texas 76201 Affn: Autumn Spear, Planner l The specific use permit process Includes two public hearings designed to provide opportunities .~or cilizen involvement and comment. Prior to the public hearings, landowners within two hundred (200) ~'eet of the subject properly are notified of the specific use permit request by way of this notice. The first public hearing is held before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission is informed of Ihe percem of responses in support and in opposition, Second, lhe specific use permit petition is forwarded to the City Council for final action providing the Commission recommends approval. ~houlcl the Commission recommend denial, the petitioner may lhen appeal the request to the City Council. [I owners of more than twenty (20} percent of the tend area within two hundred {200) feet of lhe silo submit wr;tten opposition, then six out et' seven votes of the City Council are required ~o approve the request, These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposition, Please circle eno: Ne~trat to toques[ Opposed 1o request for Oppe¢ition~ Signature: Physical Address of Prope~y within 200 feet; ,,~J~ ~ , ~.~_ ~ CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS C~W HALL WEST · DENTON, TEXAS 76201 . ~0,~,8350 , (F) 940.~,7707 ~ NOT:I::¢E OF PUI3LI:¢ HEAR:I:N Z02-0049 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, October 23, 2002, to consider approving specific use permit for a gas well site on'an approximately 45.7 acre site generaliy located at the northeast intersection of Roselawn Drive and Bonnie Brae (see map on backside). The property is legally described as tract 18 of Abstract 521 in the A. Hickman Survey, ' tract 1 of Abstract 400 in the J. Edmonson Survey, and tract 58 of Abstract 56 in the O. Brewster Survey, in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. Two gas well sites are proposed at this time. The public hearing will start at 6:30 p.m. in the' City Council Chambers of City Hail 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 heal number located at the bottom, mail it to the address below,-or.drop it off in-p Planning and Development Department 221 N. Elm St Denton, Texas 76201 Attn: Autumn Speer, Planner l The specific use permit 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 properly are notified of the specific use permit 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 specific use permit 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 request. These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposition. In favor of request Reasons for Opposition: Please circle one: Signature: Printed Name: Mailing Address: City, State Zip: . Telephone Number: c~ q 07"-- (~ ~' ~9~.- ~ ~5' ~ ~ Physical Address of Properly within 200 feet: Opposed to request 10-22-02P02:$1 RCYD CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS Z02-0049 200' Notico CITY HALL WEST , DENTON, TEXAS 76201 · 940.349.8350 · (F) 940.349.7707 10/10/02 'I~ 14:00 FA,~ 940 566 1591 THE RAYZOR COM?AIqY ~002 NOT'J:¢E OF PUBL.Z¢ I.. Z02-0049 Ih The Planning and Zoning'Commission of the City of Denton will'S. October 23, 2002, to consider approving specific use permit foJ//~i 45.7 acre site generally located at the northeast intersection of/o,p~ map on backside). The property is legally described as tract'fl.8; Survey, tract 1 of Abstract 400 in the J. Edrnonson Survey, and Drowsier Survey, in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. Two time. nan O. this The public hearing will start at {5:30 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 heating. 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 heating.) You may fax it to the __n. umber loce.t_ed at the bottom, mail.it to the address-below, or drop.it off-imperson; Planning and Development Department 221 N. Elm St Denton, Texas 76201 Attn: Autumn Spoor, Planner l The specific use permit process includes two public hearings designed to provide opportunities for citizen involvement and comment, Prior to the public hearings, lan. downers within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property are notified of the specific use permit request by way of this notice. The first public hearing is held before the Piannfng and Zoning Commission. The Commission is informed of the percent of responses in support and in opposition. Second, the specific use permit 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 request. These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposition. Please circle one: . ~....-- . -....., In favor of request Neutral to request <'0pposed to mqu~qu~qu~qu~q?~ Reasons for Opposition: be t~rac~ is too eaa3.3, for 2 gas wells. 'pose 'a' $~gmff~¢a'E[" Eahg~i t6 khe ek[st'ing'~ighborhood adj'~e~"to the noyth bo~mda=y the tract as well as future residential development on our ~rae~ of land'adjaceu~ to ~he earl boumdary~ne of the trace. Only 1 well should b~ approved mud i~ should be locat~ im ~he sou~h $~d~wesc po~tie~ of ~he ~zact away.from ~he zestd,ential developments. Printed Name: ' ~!i~ ~: Baker _ Mailing Addr~s; 12o4 W. U:2ve!~_i~y Dr, Suite 400 Ci~, State Zip: De=tom, ~ 76201-1771 Telephone Numben 940-387-871 l Phyui~l Address of Prope~ within 200 feet: 260 acres a~acent =o the the 45.7 ac=e site. Cl~ oF DENTON, T~AS C~ HALL WEST · DENTON, ~S 76201 · ~0.~9.8350 · (Fl 940.~9.7707 Z02.0049 2DO' No,ice ATTACHMENT 4 Photographs ATTACHMENT 4 Photographs CondenseItTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 49 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Item No. 10 is a public hearing. And Mr. Reichhart with the City Planning Staff will present. And I'll open the public hearing. MR. REICHHART: Thank you. What we are looking at here is a request for a Specific Use Permit to allow the construction operation of two gas wells on approximately 45.7 acres. The property is located to the east of Bonnie Brae, north of Rose Lawn. The two dots on this map represent the approximate location of the proposed gas wells. Prior to the meeting in your backup you received some additional information regarding letters of -- in favor and opposition. Currently, there are -- one property owner opposed. It's the orange property on here. I apologize for this. Our color printer wasn't working great today. But it's one property owner representing both of those properties that equals approximately eight I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Page 51 probably, I think, in the neighborhood of 25 gas wells approved under the new City Gas Well Ordinance. In fact I think we were the first ones to get an application approved in the City of Denton under thc new Ordinance. This particular property slipped through the cracks in the rezoning. And we just simply didn't get our application in before the zoning changed. And that threw us into the sup application on this one. But we have a good track record in Denton with the planning and development. I think we've complied with all of their requests on this. We've got approvals from surrounding landowners. This property has already got gas wells in very close proximity, 467 feet south of it. 660 feet southeast and a couple thousand feet to the northwest. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Is there anyone present who would like to address this issue? Seeing no one coming forward, I'll close the public percent. The two property owners to the west are in favor of this application. And also in your backup was a development plat, gas well development plat that shows a little bit more detail of what is being proposed, the distances between any structures and such. And the reason that we're here tonight, if you recall, in the gas well plat or the gas well ordinance, and now it's part of the Page 50 Development Code, it was determined that if you were within a residential zoning district, single fmnily 18 hearing. Commissioner Mulroy. 19 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes. [ move approval 20 of the Special Use Permit. 21 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I have several 22 Commissioners in the cue. If they have questions -- 23 Commissioner Roy. 24 COMMISSIONER ROY': I'll hold my second if 25 there is to be some discussion. COMMISSIONER POWELL: JUSt to be a smart guy, I'm going to second the motion. Page 52 1 2 3 residential zoning district other than agricultural at the 4 time, that you would need a Specific Use Permit. 5 And it was really the idea, I think, behind 6 that was if you're in an NR-4 zoned area, there's going to 7 be houses around there. It's going to be developed. And, 8 you know, we want to take a close look at what is 9 happening on that property. In this case, this property 10 is not developed. So we still maintain the 500 foot 11 separations that we nonmlly required. In the backup, ~ 12 there is the seven criteria that have to be met for the 13 granting of a Specific Use Permit. Staff has done an 14 analysis of that. We believe all seven criteria are met. 15 Additionally, we do not believe that the 16 establishment of two gas wells in this area, because there 17 are other gas wells in the immediate area that are 18 currently being developed, is going to be detrimenta[ or 19 impact any of the surrounding areas. That concludes my 20 presentation. I do know the applicant is here. 21 COMMISSIONER APPLE: would the applicant 22 like to address the Commission? Good evening. If you 23 will give us your name and address. 24 MR. CATES: BoB Cares with Links Oil 25 Company. 4226 Interstate 35 in Denton. We've got 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. Then we'll open -- he just steps on everybody's toes, doesn't he? Now, any discussion? We have a motion and a second. I actaally have a question. Just for infommfional purposes, and I don't know if it would be more appropriate for the applicant or the staff, so Yll throw the question out there, and whoever -- I know that tho ordinance calls for one well per 40 acres. And I noticed that this is two wells on 45.7 acres. And I know there are ways to get around that. Could you elaborate on that? MR, CATES: we have the minerals leased under the Rose Lawn Cometary that joins us to the south. And we will not be drilling on Rose Lawn Ceanetary, but we can pull in the minerals with this property and make an 80-acre unit. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Ihope you're not drilling through the cemetery. MR. CATES: Not yet. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Vote, please. Motion passes 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 23RD, 2002 Page 49 - Page 52 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A GAS WELL DEVELOPMENT ON 45.7 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ROSELAWN DRIVE AND BONNIE BRAE, WiTHiN A NEIGHBORHOOD RESiDENTiAL 4 (NR-4) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSiFiCATiON AND USE DESIGNATION; PROViDiNG FOR A PENALTY iN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR ViOLATiONS THEREOF; AND PROViDiNG FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z02-0049) WHEREAS, Bob Cates, on behalf of Alan Chamberlain and Curtis Elder, has applied for a specific use permit for gas well development on 45.7 acres of land located at the northeast comer of Roselawn Drive and Bonnie Brae, within a Neighborhood Residemial 4 (NR-4) zoning district classification and use designation; and WHEREAS, on October 23, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of a Specific Use Permit for gas well sites; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Specific Use Permit is consistem with the Denton Plan policies; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Article III, Division 4, of Chapter 35.6.5 of the Development Code, the City Council finds that all of the following conditions exist: That the use is in conformance with all the standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with the DeNon Plan and federal, state, or local law; That the gas well sites will be compatible with and not injurious to the use and enjoymem of other property nor significantly diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity; That the establishment of the gas well sites lot will not impede the normal and orderly developmem and improvemem of surrounding property; That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary supporting facilities have been or will be provided; That the design, location, and arrangemem of all driveways and parking spaces provides for the safe and conveniem movemem of vehicular and pedestrian traffic without adversely affecting the general public or adjacem developmems; That adequate nuisance prevention measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise, and vibration; PAGE 1 That directional lighting will be provided so as not to disturb or adversely affect neighboring properties; and That there is sufficiem landscaping and screening to ensure harmony and compatibility with adjacem property; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. A specific use permit is hereby granted to allow two gas well sites on 45.7 acres of land described in the legal description attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" and located at the northeast comer of Bonnie Brae and Roselawn Drive, within a Neighborhood Residemial 4 (NR-4) zoning district classification and use designation. SECTION 2. The City's official zoning map is amended to show the change in zoning district classification. SECTION 3. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Demon Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2002 ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY PAGE 2 BY~ PAGE 3 fIELD NOTES 45.715 ACRES . BEING oil that certain lot, tract or parcel of land situated in . the O. Brewster Survey Abstract Number 56 and in the J. Edmondson Survey Abstract Number 400 and in the Asa Hickman Survey Abstract Number 521 in fha City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, being all that certain tract of land convey_ed by deed from Estate of Larry B. White Sr. to Estate of Edgar Horace Linden recorded in Volume 3578, page 412, Real Property Records Denton County, Texas and being all th. of car. rain tract ofland conve ed by deed from Viviam Mae (Ables) Vaughn ef al to Alanm R. Chamberlain and curtis J. Dder recorded in Volume 4542, Page 950, Real PropertZ Records, Denton County, Texa~, and being more particularly described as follows: · BEGINNING at o fence corner for corner in fha ea$~ line of South Bonnie Brae, a public roadway, said po'int being the southwest corner of fhaf certain tract of land conveyedby deed from Earl M. Wilson to. Sue M. Wilson recorded in Volume 774, Page 633, ' Deed Records, Denton County, Texas; THENCE N 86' 22' 52" E, 267.97 feet with the south line of said Wilson troc~ to a fence corner for corner in fha wes~ line of thQt certain tract of_lon~ c~v~yed, b~ d;;~r~;~n 8¢~2;~? and Weldon O. Toytor to Om P. 5-ingta er ~ r Page 1~4, Deed, Denton County, Tex~s and in the west line of the A. Tompkins Survey Absfrocf Number 1246; ~ .~ Qb' 25' 13' E, ~33.04 feet with said wist liq~ of sold urve fo on iron rod found for corner m rne nor[ ~ c~,nd~nn Survev Abstract Number 400 said point bein~ th~,,. ;o;~;;;~-~rner o~ the A. Tompkins Survey Abstroct Numoer ,z,o, -, ,-,,~ N ~' ~8' 48" E 814 11 feet with the sou[h lin~ of sold S'~in I'~t'~Yt~o;t ond wiih th~ south I,Ne of ,old [ompK,~s Survey to on iron rod found for corned sold poin't being the southwest corner of soi8 Choberloin ond Drier troct; THENCE N 00' 0~' 42" E, 40Z91 feet with the west line of soid Chomberloin ond Elder troct to on iron rod found for corner, son point being the northwest corner of son Ch~mberloin end Eider trect; THENCE N 89' 14' 28" E, 561.25 feet with the north line of soid Chomberloin ond Elder trocf to on iron rod found for corner in the west line of the Gulf, Colorodo ond Sonfo Fe Roilrood right-of~woY; NCE alan the arc of o curve to the riqht having a central- THE,. .... g,?, 7~, .~ ,.,~;,~ of 7565 10 feet, an' arc length of 9~90 feet, who~e cnora oeoru ~ ~v ~ . said west tine of said Railroad Company right-of-way fo o cross-tie fence corner for corner; THENCE along the ~[c of o curve 'to the right having o central o 8' 15' O0 o radius of 5654.70 feet~ on arc lenqth of said west line of said Railroad Company right-of-way fo o cross-~ie fence corner for corner in the west line of Home Acres, on addition fo the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas according to the plot thereof recorded in Volume [ Page 71/2, Plot Records, Denton County, Texas; THENCE S 00' 19' 17" E, 470.58 feet- with said wes~ line of said Home Acres ~o o cross-tie fence corner for corner in the north line of Roselown Rood, o public roadway; THENCE N 84' 19' 50" ~, 692.45 feet with said north line of said Roselown Rood fo o 36 oak free for corner; THENCE N 77' 44' 47" W, 28~.79 feet with said north fine of said Roselown Rood fo on iron rod set for corner in the east line of said J. Edmondson Survey Abstract Number 400; THENCE N 89' 45' ~7" W, 12~5.09 feet with' said north l(ne of said Roselown Rood to o fence corner for. corner in said east line of said South Bonnie Brae; THENCE N 11' ~4' 43" E, 510.58 feet wi~h said eos~ line of said South Bonnie Brae to o fence post for corner; THENCE N 05' 42' 48" E, 555.89 feet with said east line of said South Bonnie Brae to the PLACE OF BEGINNING and containing 45.715 acres of land. I t NOI dT.¥DO'I Item 5G AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: November 19, 2002 Planning and Development Department Dave Hill, 349-8314 =~¥~ SUBJECT - Z02-045 (Prominence Square) Hold a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 35.3 acres of land generally located north and south of Audra, and east of Mayhill Road, from Planned Development 191 (PD-191) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2), Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning districts. A residential subdivision and open space is proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commissions recommends denial (5-2). BACKGROUND Applicant: Millennium Home Builders, Ronald Slovecek Denton, Texas The applicant is requesting three parcels of land totaling approximately 35.3 acres be rezoned from Planned Development 191 (PD-191) to Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2), Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning districts. Public notification and property owner responses are provided in Attachment 3. As of this writing, staff has received two (2) responses in favor and two (2) responses opposed from the property owners within 200' of the subject property. The opposition represents less than 18%. As the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended denial, a super majority vote by City Council will be 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 denial (5-2), Joe Mulroy and Vicki Holt opposed. 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 ofZ02-0045, commonly known as Prominence Square: Application Date - August 19, 2002 DRC Date - August 29, 2002 Planning and Zoning Public Heating- October 23, 2002 City Council Public Heating- Neighborhood meetings- November 19, 2002 July 1, 2002 September 20, 2002 October 21, 2002 FISCAL INFORMATION Future development of this property will increase the assessed value of the property. public improvements that are the responsibility of the city will be necessary. No short-term ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis. 2. Maps. 3. Public Notification (Property Owner Notification Map and Property Owner Responses). 4. Applicants Correspondence 5. Neighborhood Meeting Minutes. 6. (Ordinance 2000-417) The Concept Plan and Planned Development conditions. 7. Photographs. 8. Planning and Zoning Commission October 23, 2002 and September 25, 2002 minutes. 9. Draft Ordinance. Prepared by: Tiffanie Willis Planner Respectfully submitted: Douglas S. Powell, AICP Director of Planning and Development ATTACHMENT I Staff Analysis Summary of Zoning Request The applicant is requesting one parcel of land totaling 35.3 acres of land to be rezoned from Planned Development 191 (PD-191) to Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2), Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR- 4) and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning district. Attached Zoning Single Family Duplex Units Density/Units Use District Use allowed Allowed Per acre Allowed per site NR-2 Yes No No 2 units / acre NR-4 Yes Yes No 4 units / acre NR-6 Yes Yes Yes 6 units / acre Maximum Zoning Proposed Density Units TOTAL (Max) per Allowed UNITS District Acreage Acre per Site NR-2 2.2 2 units/acre 8.8 * NR-4 16.9 4 units/acre 67.6 NR-6 16.1 6 units/acre 96.6 163 · Proposed use Park land The subject site is generally located east of Loop 288 and north and south of Audra. This property is in a Planned Development (PD-191) zoning district. PD-191 encompasses approximately 112 acres and was approved as a mixed-use development with approximately 35 acres of single family residential, 10 acres of attached single-family residential, 48 acres of office/retail uses, 4 acres of light industrial uses, and a considerable amount of land will be dedicated for public parkland. The subject 35.3 acre property is currently predominantly vacant and will be divided into three zoning district classifications. One zone is 2.2 acres of land to be rezoned to NR-2, secondly 16.1 acres to be rezoned to the NR-6 zoning district classification and thirdly 16.9 acres of land proposed zoning change to NR-4 zoning districts separately. Adjacent to the subject site PD-191 includes retail and office use along Loop 288 and attached single family and parkland to the north. Adjacent property to the south is single-family and ranges from 2.5 acres to 5 acres in size. Existing Condition of Property Property History. November 7, 2000 - PD- 191 approved (Ordinance 2000-417, Attachment 4). April 1, 2001 - A General Development Plan (GDP01-0001) was approved for this entire development allowing for a variety of uses. The GDP identified major infrastructure improvements associated with the development. February 20, 2002 - The subject property maintained the Planned Development 191 (PD-191)zoning district and land use classification by Ordinance 2002-040. Prior to the adoption of the Development Code, the property was designated Agricultural (A) zoning district and Planned Development 191. June 26, 2002 - a zoning change request to rezone PD 191 to the NR-6 zoning classification was processed. The applicant requested a withdrawal and at the June 26, 2002 Planning and Zoning public heating meeting the Commission unanimously granted the applicants request. Staff closed the case back up file. Adjacent zoning: North: Planned Development 191 (PD 191) zoning district - vacant land South: Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning district - vacant land East: Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) zoning district -single-family & vacant land West: Planned Development 191 (PD 191) zoning district - vacant land The property is currently undeveloped. Comprehensive Plan Analysis The subject property is located within the "Neighborhood Centers" future land use area. These areas may develop in conventional patterns or may be developed in a pattern of 'neighborhood centers'. Neighborhood centers are oriented inwardly, focusing on the center of the neighborhood and containing facilities vital to the day-to-day activity of the neighborhood. A neighborhood center might contain a convenience store, small restaurant, personal service shops, church or synagogue, daycare, individual office space, a small park and perhaps an elementary school. The Denton Plan identifies the following Primary Residential Land use Principles and Goals: Persevere Neighborhoods: The preservation of existing and future neighborhoods can be achieved by demanding high-quality development 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 line in Denton by allowing a variety of housing types, sizes and types. The housings 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, accommodate projected housing demand and allows quality high density development where it is close to jobs, shopping, schools and transit. (page 35) 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) The proposed zoning does promote a diversity of housing stock and the increased density would limit construction of a limited lot size as this area is identified by neighborhood centers. The proposed new development will be compatible with the existing uses although slightly denser than the zoning of the surrounding properties at this time. The general area surrounding the site includes a variety of Neighborhood Residential uses. The majority of the properties located within five hun&ed to one thousand feet of this site are single-family type dwellings. Several sites in this area are vacant or small professional offices/ retail establishments. New development in this area would improve the viability of surrounding residential properties. The construction of single-family homes would ensure the accessibility of quality housing within the City limits of Denton. This proposed zoning designation allows greater density than the existing Planned Development 191 (PD 191) zoning district classification. Development Review Analysis Transportation As part of the PD-191 rezoning, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was submitted. The TIA identified required road improvements necessary to mitigate the impacts associated with the development. The increased density may require an amendment to the TIA to ad&ess that increase. .4ccess and Connectivity The GDP for Prominence Square development identifies that access for this parcel will be from an internal road running east/west between Loop 288 and Mayhill Road. Additionally, connectivity to adjacent property to the south will be required. It is anticipated the surrounding road system will be sufficient to handle increased traffic generated from this proposal. Public Infrastructure A drainage study for the entire Prominence Square development is required prior to platting. currently underway and Environmental Quality Impacts No negative environmental impacts have been identified. Development Code/Zoning Analysis As this is a Planned Development, the details of the proposed single family would be considered with a Detailed Plan submission. If this property is rezoned to NR-2, NR-4 and NR-6 development would be subject to the requirements of the Denton Development Code. If rezoned any proposed development: 1) Must meet the minimum requirements for transportation and road capacity; pedestrian linkages; utilities; drainage and topography; signs; landscaping; open space; lighting and environment quality impacts and 2) Will be required to be in compliance with the standards of the Denton Development Code, including subdivision and site design. Staff Findings 1. The proposed zoning is consistent with the overall theme of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The single-family use is compatible with surrounding zoning classifications, but density. is higher ATTACHMENT 2 Public Notification NORTH SITE ETJ Scale: None Public Notification Date: September 14, 2002 200' Legal Notices* sent via Certified Mail: 40 Number of responses to 200' Legal Notice · In Opposition: 2 · In Favor: 1 · Neutral: 0 Percent of land within 200' in opposition: less than 18% *A copy of the notification list can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 ATTACHMENT 2 Map Location/Zoning Map NORTH NR-~ Scale: None Property Owner Responses Henry Rife In favor 2248 Stone Gate (Owner) I feel this request is compatible with the surrounding Denton, TX 76205 zoning. JC Wallace In favor 1018 Lindale See citizen letter Richardson, TX 75080 Charles Smelser 3850 Holland Lane Opposed See citizen letter Denton 76208 L.T. Holland 3760 Holland Lane Opposed See citizen letter Denton, Texas 76208 *A copy of the original notice can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 NO~¢E OF PUBIC HEAR~N~ Z02:'004{~ (Ptomi~e~=e Square Zon!n~) ~']~ e c~le ~: Comme~s,: Z02-0045 The 'P~n,~r~ ~.~d Z.~hin~ ~m~m~i~ o? ~he Ci;~ ~ Ocli. on w~l ho~d a pub{it 14ea6~D on S~p~mbmr ~, ~D2, [o c~nsid~;' rez~nin9 a 36,6 ~es o~ larval ~r~ ~ ~Plar~ad O~o~me~t ~eside~t~ 4 (NR-4) ~d N~hbor~ Resid~i;al 6 (NR~) =On~ dis~ls. The si~ R~d and, e~ of L~p 2~. t~(tr~ber I~a~ed a~ l~,~ b~om, mail it ~u, th~ ~ddr~8 b~l~4 ofd~ ~ off 22~ N, Et~m ST ~hr~ su~ec;t p~p~y are ~a~if~d ~f ~he ~ng ~eque~.~ b~ ~aY ~ this ne~i~, The ~t p~lic ~n~ act~n pra~ldin~ ~ C~mis~icn, rec~m~nd~ approval. Si]oui~ M"~e Cammission: re~mf~nd ~niai, the pe~tio~¢r r~' th,an, appel ~he m~uest to ~'~e Ci~' Council, if ~¢ne~ c~ m~re ~eu{r~ ~ mq~st Op~ed Lo ~u~ NO ¢E OF PUBLIC HEA ZN ZO2.1D045 (P~emina~¢e S~ Zonirt§) The p~blic ~eari~ will s~a~ Mc~in~y $~ee~, D~n~n. Texas, 8~a~,~ ~ ~n pro~y ~'fl~ the ~se~ a~a or ¢~th~ ~'~ invo~vem~r~ 8~ c~mrnent Pdo¢ ~he ~ebje,~ p~pe~' ~r~ notl¢i~d ~eld befo~ ~he Planning and ~ni¢¢ C~mis¢On ~,e Commission Is i¢,f~r~d ~ I~ ~r~r'~t of O~p~ed ~¢ req;L~st ) CI~Y O.F ~7'0~, T~XA~ OI'T¥ !,~A',.L. WE:ST ~ DE,irON, TEY,-A~J, ?.6201 , 945.349 8380 ~ (F) 9~0.549~ 7707 COMMISSION: a~m~y ovcr-~mw~ t~a~ic pm'bJem a~ PD-I9t is not ~onomica{~y fea~i'bte, lie obviot~]y many opting-maybe h~gcw ho~e~ a~ {o~ he can ago~ Al} ofokg k~m~ ha~ b~n ~ 'l'~a~ a[c o~[ homca. We do a~t plan ~o ~ove you ~o ~[p m ~rv= iL currant proposal allows [tim to ke~p ~h¢ pa~ tffPD 191 hc wamc~ a~ to awid ma~ng ~ ~otcesskms he a~ced m, ~]s b ~ ~, we ~gc yeu ~ m 1¢~ ii happe~, ~t was appm~d ~ PD ~9~ & We ~o not believe 'that ~Dy c~t~lli~g m~oD hms City of D~mmh T~,xas 76~6! 22~ N. Elm De~on, TX 7620 ~:~. We; ~p.<t Ntt. R~f~ Plaything De~lopmem Department ~0t'k T~ 76201 ~p~embe~ 18, ~20~2 AT~NTION: Tiffati~ WiIIN, Ca,~ M~a~r working with t~ C~t>, ~c~d~ SF t0 zon.m~ as app~pdma tbr ~he area, Whom Mr: Rife ~me m ~ al~d asked f~our ,s~a for t~ P~19t lb~ '~ amc ofA,u~m l~ne~ we ~lnctm~fly agreed to t:~ ~o wo~ <mt. We wm~d m ha;m ~mmhi~ tba.t would have t~ minimum advc~e effect ~: o~ pmpe~y ~ the somh bm we'aM ,mfis~ Mr. ~fe's requirements a~ stiit me~ Ci~, a~m~nt wi'th Mr, :Rife ~d ~ other pmp~y' ownem m Uae somh. h was page Tl'ae propos~ change would a,~ar m cancel or void para: ~ al! of the a~mem desed~ in Oalina~ce 2000417. ~'~e' rcq~st m Nei~t~rlmod Res, i~mlal 6 {NR-6) is, as ym~ ~w, lhe [.o~st categoo' allowed ~' i.~ L%~opme,nt C~e. It a~[owa $uch a:~i.~s 'f~t ~nl and hack yard :~Lh~. 6 f~ si:de yam ~b~ka. and 6,000 parkin8--c~, t~lem, ~m-~, no space ~ ~,.,.e f~m i'mnt to back I~:s~ mid no play area ~hr child~a, it c~uld ~ an inamnt and [~a!"t~ertt We h:ave a private road, HoB:and Lam. alo;:~g fl~e so~ side of Mr. Rife We mab~ta~. ~he n.~d ,m o~ ~'n expense,. We k~l ~t't~ 8 f~t b~ck t~ As y~u can see from At~ach~m 2, tke proposed hours back ~p to our ~6~, Wit~ut the ~nce, we wouM ~: loekia~ imo *~ back ya~s of these hon~s, Wood ~nces ~ ~ ~a:s:t and a~ s~; ~ubb. We swon~y ob.~ect to thes~ ctYaages, We ~ ~t believe the add~g of 2~28 ac~s of F[o~ Zone land ~ &a:ny si~ifi:ca~e ~o the ~i:st[~ a~menL l~ is r~p.amted ~om ~e ~sideatia! pmpe~ by Auflm ~ m~ camot be ahs0~utely no plan to deYetop this pm~ay. ktm~m~ TI'~ remu~ing oft:~k ~mffie ~tto the I,;~ ~s made We lmve the. same prape~y ~[<rs ~:h:at prepared and approved ~e PD-] 91 zoning bm, a dfft~rem, appfk:am, We ha~e the sa~m area excep~ Plain ac~5 the Development ~,f i:1~ p~g¢, a~ ~he City $:~mlary is hereby di~e:ct~ ~o ~na~= thc cap~ion ofthi~ o=dtmar~:e to Le~{ie Tx Holhnd 3760 Holland L~ne exp~8 r~g~lng the ~ing ~ic~on i ~ve m~ on ~n~s you h~ ~i~ we~ ~ ~f~iv~ and ~, w~t m ~ d~stu~ nos ~ you want ~ ~ ~i~ ~e d~c~m~. We We made s~,eral off~ to m~ you~ ~ k ~ ~d h~ ~n my intea~ ~ ~k wkh yo~ d~ ~ fil~ M~hin the ~p!~fi~ f~ ~Jng.'! Mve ~d he ~ ~a~ me ~h~ h~ w~ld al[~v for th~ ~mm~[on o tog~er ~ m~i~ an ~ment satj,f~ m~u ~ufing y~u of our compli~m~ Presiden~ Cc; Doug P~ell, City 11~07-D2~2:45 R[V[I ~lSA batlas Dr~ve ATTACHMENT 5 Neighborhood Meeting Minutes Prominence Square September 20, 2002 Z02-0045 (Prominence Square) Neighborhood Meeting - Monday September 20, 2002 Attendees: Tiffanie Willis (Planning Staff Kyle Robertson & Ron Slovecek, represents applicant Eight citizens Kyle presented a brief presentation on the single-family development. Neighborhood Comments: · What will house sizes be? (actual size Unknown at this stage; but the development code does contain a minimum house size, the developer speculated 1,800 to 1,900) · We don't want small-lot homes; we don't want affordable housing abutting our property. Appficant response: The Development code has aesthetic standards that will address house design. · Will you develop this yourself or will you sell this property once it's been rezoned? If so, what's to keep you from selling off to if the rezoning request goes thru? · Does the platting process require a public hearing? (No) · Would the applicant consider constructing an 8 foot masonry fence as prescribed in the ordinance? · What is the timeframe for this development? · We appreciate the good faith you have shown here today however the Planned Development 191 states various requirements that should be upheld. · Applicant is trying to preserve some of the existing trees, which I appreciate. And what about the noise quality behind my home?? · Why is Prominence being constructed and Audra Lane being abandoned? Why not extend existing the road? · I don't want traffic from this development to inundate my rural neighborhood. · Will any development be coordinated with other proposed residential projects in the immediate area? · Something's going to happen to this land whether we like it or not. And the buffer MUST be above 6 feet and of better quality than the stockade fence. · Our neighborhood needs to remain vigilant; this developer is too unpredictable. · I wish the applicant had larger lot sizes for single-family tracts, but will the applicant work with us regarding the design of this project? · The applicant needs to be able to make a profit; I'd like to see larger single family. · I'm concerned about traffic, the school children. · What is the purpose for the 2.33 acres of land that is in the flood plain? That land is of no significant for residential dwelling units. · The applicant has tried to accommodate us; we can live with this development and the fence must be built before development. · Applicant committed to working with the residents by contacting the City about the drainage problems and a report discussing the traffic issues as according to TXDOT and the Mobility Plan options will be forth coming. · Maybe the land owners should form small group committees to meet with the city regarding some of these issues. ATTACHMENT 5 Neighborhood Meeting Minutes Prominence Square October 21, 2002 Z02-0045 (Prominence Square) Neighborhood Meeting - Monday October 21, 2002 The Planning and Zoning Commission has continued this rezoning request to allow for additional dialogue between the applicant and land owners within the Prominence Square vicinity. The citizen attendees included Mary and Les Holland, Nancy Tunnell, along with the developers Kyle Robertson presented a brief summary and Ronald Slovacek concluded with the presentation of a letter stating some possible considerations for the proposed development. (See Attachment 4) Neighborhood Comments: · Neighborhood still desires the 8-foot masonry fence as prescribed in the ordinance? · Is fencing a requirement? Yes, within the PD 191 but only between adjacent commercial and residential sites according to the Development Code. · Privacy and security are the main issues and the cases should be withdrawn if these matters cannot be resolved. · The applicant shared that the CCR of the subdivision would be responsible for maintaining the fence. · Masonry panels were discussed but are not acceptable - because it is an eye sore. · Neighborhood citizens were concerned about the noise quality behind the home. · I don't want traffic from this development to inundate my rural neighborhood. · Will the proposed information provided by the applicant comply with the standards of the Denton Code? No screening required between residential and single-family uses. · A landscape buffer was discussed and the neighborhoods might consider that as a possibility. · What will house sizes be? (actual size unknown at this stage; but the development code does contain a minimum house size, the developer speculated 1,800 SF to 1,900 SF) · We appreciate the good faith you have shown here today however the Planned Development 191 states various requirements that should be upheld. ATTACHMENT 4 MIXED USE COLLECTOR ~ECONDARY AFITE~iAL Vt' INITY MAP Square ............. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Prominence Square A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT TRACTS ONE THROUGH EIGHT r, CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS ~r 110.90 ACRES dua~dln h W. LLOYD SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO,?~'4 20 FE~.ROARY 2001 ORmNANC . NO 4agZ2 2_ / AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF .DENTON, TEXAS TO PROVIDE FOR A ZONING PLAN FOR'111 ACRES LOCATED MTHIN AGRICULTURE (A), GENERAL .RETAIL (GR), AND SINGLE FAMILY (SF-7) ZONING DISTRICTS; TO CHANGE TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR SINGLE FAMILY, RETAIL, PARKLAND, AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES; THE SUBIECT PROPERTY BEING LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOOP 288 AND LrNIVERSITY DRIVE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (ZP-00-011). WHEREAS, on February 1, 2000 and March 2, 2000, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2000-046 and Ordinance No. 2000-069, respectively, which established certain residential and nonresidential interim regulations (the Interim Regulations"),; WHEREAS, the Interim Regulations established, among other things, a Zoning Plan requirement in the event of a request to rezone property; and WHEREAS, on June 28, 2000, SENT, Inc., on behalf of Henry Rife, applied for a change in zoning for 111 acres of land 'located on the southeast comer of LOop 288 and University ' Drive, from 'Agriculture (A), General Retail (GR), and Single Family (SF-10).zoning?!s~ct ,~.¢tassfficat,on-~jfia~an~use~'demgn~fion~th-thwmte~..~.;_ X[~ ~~ .... :,--.- ~. includes Single Family, Retail, P~kland, and L~ght Industrial uses; ~d WHEREAS, said applicant has submitted for approval a Zoning Plan for this property under the Interim Regulations, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" (the Zoning Plan"); and WHEREAS, on October 11, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the requested change in zoning and the submitted Zoning Plan; and WHEREAS, the City.Council' finds'that the Zoning Plan, with the conditions imposed herein, meets the requirements' of the Interim Regulations and is consistent with the approved 1999-2020 Denton Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. The zoning district classification and land use designation of the 111 acres property described in the legal description attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A (the "Property") is changed from Agriculture (A), General Retail (GR), and Single Family (SF- 10) zoning district classifications and land use designations to Planned Development (PD) zoning district classification and land use designation under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas to allow for a mixed use development that includes single family, retail, parkland, and light industrial uses. The Zoning Plan and said change in zoning are hereby adopted, subject to the following conditions: 1. Areas C' and D shown on the Zoning Plan Shall conform to the provisions for Neighborhood Centers land uses, limitations, and general regulations set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference. 2. The applicant shall strike from this Zoning Plan the 100,000 square foot of floor area reference from the plan notes for Areas C and D. 3. The details of the street sections shall be removed from the Zoning Plan and will be deferred to the specifics addressed in the Project Plan. The location of Prominence Parkway may shift from that indicated on the Zoning Plan, based upon negotiations with the Texas Department of Transportation, and the exact location and access will be deferred to the specifics addressed in the Project Plan. 5. An eight foot high brick fence with a concrete base shall be installed along the south side of the Property adjacent to the existing single family development before construction may begin on the Property. Prope~. The remaining houses shall be a minimum of 1800 squ~e feet in size. 7. Access to utilities on the Property will be allowed to property on the south side of the Property. 8. Retail and service uses shall be restricted to the retail and service uses set forth in Exhibit "D" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference. SECTION 2. The City,s official zoning map. is amended to.sh°w the change in zoning district classification. . '... SECTION 3. If any provisions 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. That 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. 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 PAGE 2 be published twice in the Denton Record Chronicle, official newspaper of the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the' //P°""' .clay'Of ~~ .... ,2000. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY PAGE 3 ATTACHMENT 7 Photograph I:~r 0mill eric ¢ Sq u ar ~i Panorama View North View from Site Cond~nsvltTM Page 33 t COMMISSIONER APPLE: Moving fight along to 2 Item No. 24 which is another public heating, Ms. Willis 3 with the City staff will present. And I'1t open the 4 public hearing. 5 MS. WILLIS: Good evening, Planning and 6 Zoning Commissioners. I present to you this evening 7 Prominence Square zoning change request for three parcels 8 of land. 9 The applicant is proposing to go from the 10 Planned Development, ?D-191, to three new zoning areas. 11 The applicant is proposing park land. Here is the 2.3 12 acre area. And then this site indicated here is actually 13 divided into two parcels of land. They're proposing the 14 NR-6 use there. 15 The applicant has taken the liberty, as 16 staff has encouraged, to consult with the neighborhood and 17 has been successful in that stead. In the packet that was 18 handed out to you this evening are several updates from 19 the information that was provided to you in your staff 20 report. 21 If you take a moment to open the packet, 22 there on the first sheet you see the listing of persons 23 opposing or supporting the case tonight, as well as a 24 listing follow-up information from a recent neighborhood 25 gathering where the applicant and the neighborhood Page 34 1 reviewed some items per PD-lgl. 2 This evening we did receive a recent 3 opposition letter from a Mr. Smut, I did review the 4 record and he is included in the 200-foot area. 5 COMMISS~O~reR ^POLE: xhank you. Is the 6 applicant presem? If you'll give us your name and 7 address, please. 8 MR. BUSSELL: Yes, ma'am. My name is Alien 9 Bussell. I'm employed by Surveyors and Engineers of North 10 Texas, 1621 Amanda Court. Ym here representing Ronald 11 Slovecek tonight. 12 For Prominence Square, in a single-family, 13 a couple of YOu were here when this was zoned a couple of 14 years ago. The property is strangely shaped mostly 15 because, if you'll member, this area up in here is part 16 of the pr> being dedicated to park land. We wanted to go 17 ahead and acquire that and rezone it so we wouldn't have 18 to do a detaited plan for just a park. So we've barred 19 this land, and included it as a part of this and zoned it 20 ~a-2 so it really couldn't physically act as a 21 single-family area because it's too narrow r/gbt there. 22 One of the comments from the City staff 23 report I got was Mr. Smelser had a question about the 24 drainage or a concern about the drainage, so I wanted to 25 address that real quick. Took the aerial photograph of PLANNING AND zolqllqG COMMISSION Page 35 I our boundary and the City of Denton tope, overlaid that 2 and I connected the bridges and created a drainage area, 3 and I looked at how the water is flowing. And this shows 4 you pretty much how the water is going through there. And 5 as you can seed Mr. Smelser's property is located right 6 here, he's kind of draining into us instead of the other 7 way around. So we're not affecting him drainage-wise. 8 It's actually going around his property. 9 You also mentioned transportation. We're 10 building two largo reads. One of those being a 11 combination of a commercial collector or mixed use 12 collector and a residential avenue. The residential 13 avenue is shown here in this cross section as 37 feet back 14 of curb to back of curb and 65-foot right-of-way and 15 eight-foot sidewalks. This will be built, total section 16 thc whole way from Loop 288 to Mayhill Road. t7 Basically, what we'll do is we'll get rid 18 of Audra and make this intersection, take the intersection 19 for Audra away from the ramps, which makes that a safer 20 intersection. Can't do it on the other side, but when 21 they develop on the other side, they'll have to connect. 22 Secondary arlerial on Mayhill Road is the 23 other one we're btfilding. We're building half of this 24 section is 28 foot back of curb to back of curb divided 25 section, five-foot sidewalk. So we're handling the Page 36 1 traffic on there like that. 2 I want to go through just a little bit of 3 the history on here. A couple of years ago before the 4 Development Code was approved, this was how the property 5 was zoned. Actually before the l,o was approved, also. 6 Tlfis section here being sF-~0, ^gricultural over that, and 7 we had some Oeneral Retail over h~re on thc Loop, and 8 south of Mr. Holland and his neighbors was Ag and then we 9 have Fnu^ down here. I don't remember what that zoning 10 is. It's just off the map there. But we have e'rJ on thc 11 east. 12 As you-guys recall, in the interim 13 ordinance you start out with a base of 3.0 units per acre. 14 And the more things that you had in your subdivision, the 15 more amenities you had, you got a point for each one. We 16 got that up to 3.63 units per acre which is kind of a 17 bizarre number, but that's what we got out of the interim .18 ordinance. 19 And one of the conditions was building an 20 eight-foot masonry wall prior to any construction 21 cormnencing in this eD from Loop 288 basically across the 22 southern boundary of the propea~. There were other 23 conditions, too, but that was the major one. And that 24 was, as I recall, to prevent vehicles from coming on to 25 Holland Lane, which is a private road and to semen the SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 33 - Page 36 CondcnscltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 t5 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 37 southern houses from the proposed single-family and t commercial development and keep people out and the noise 2 out and the lights out, et cetera. 3 I wanted to see what the real effect was of 4 that, so, once again, I took the City of Denton topo and I 5 took our property and, basically, I laid out from thc 6 north to the south what the average lot width would be 7 right-of-way west, and came up with this layout here. 8 I wanted to see what the effect a two-story 9 home would have and a one-story home would have with a 10 six-foot fence instead of an eight-foot. I want to be 11 conservative. Put the tree canopy per the City of Denton 12 aerials and put the home locations per the aerials. And 13 then looking from the second story from Mr. Smelser's 14 home, you can see here these tree canopies here, what I 15 did is I trimmed those to six feet above the ground. 16 They're probably not trimmed. They're probably closer to 17 four foot. Once again, I pushed it up to be conservative. 18 But you can see from the second story, it's 19 screened completely and you can't really see the actual 20 house, in fact. From the one-story room you can see a 21 little further but, once again, it stops about this 22 location here. 23 The view to Mr. Holland's home is a little 24 different. Mr. Holland's home is a little further away 25 Page 38 but the elevation changes a little less. So, once again, 1 the house, the six-foot fence, from the second story you 2 can just beady see his foundation through the trees. 3 From the first stow you can actually see his house. But 4 to get a sense of -- get a sense of how far this is, what 5 you're really looking at, from the house you're looking at 6 an area about two and a half feet above the wall. This is 7 a six-foot. Another 340 feet approximately to his house. 8 And from that you can see about four feet at the bottom of 9 his house. 10 We would like to put instead of an 11 eight-foot masonry wall, a six-foot wood fence, cedar 12 fence with metal poles. And I understand that's -- you 13 cannot concl/.fion zone. We've got a letter signed by Mr. t4 Slovecek that he would do that and dedicate a maintenance 15 easement so the HOA can maintain that fence and repair it. 16 So that even though it's a wood fence, an eight-foot wood 17 fence, there will an easement back there so that one 18 entity can take care of it instead of having all the 19 property owners take care of it separately. And we 20 believe that's a good compromise for the cost of a masonry 21 wall back there we couldn't do. 22 · What we'd like to do is match the zoning to 23 our south which is NR-4. It's also NRMU-12 and NRMU. BUt 24 adjacent to us for the most part is NR-4. Then right 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Page 39 above that as the densities or the intensities increase across the street, across the collector street there and you have multi-family or town houses at 12 units per acre and then commercial retail, put that as NR-6. what that basically does to us if you average those two out, it's about an Na-5. so, basically, from 3.63 units per acre, NR-5. we're asking about 1.4 units per acre additional density is all we're asking for. And that's alt I have, if you have any questions. COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioners, do you have any questions of the applicant? Commissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: Yes. Would you say again, Mr. Bussell, what's going to happen on Audra Lane, the western section will be closed? Is that what you're saying? MR. BUSSELL: NO) IlO~ nO, The e,,astgrtl section we'll abandon and rebuild a new street. But we're going to move that intersection away from the ramps. Now, when the west side develops, I'm sure the City will make them connect. COMMISSIONER ROY: ACROSS Loop 288? MR. BUSSELL: Away from that intersection so that it creates a safer intersection. And this was agreed to when we did the eD. we haven't changed anything since then. We've talked to TxDoT and the City about this Page 40 for awhile. COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you. MR. BUSSELL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER APPLE: cotramissioner Powell. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I'm not sure -- I believe you were here, but I'm not sure I remember. Why you were fencing with a masonry wall? Help me out here. MR. BUSSELL: I think our main focus here was the mixed use, the commercial sites. And I believe Mr. Rife was focussed on that. And the intensities of those were much higher than the existing zoning or land use to the south and we didn't find it that inappropriate at that time. And, of course, you have to understand development costs have gone up since then with the new Development Code, higher standards, the drainage standards, et cetera. So the cost of development is higher so things have changed. Of course, the zoning has changed since that. But at that time it was mostly to · screen him out as much as we could, and this was an agreement between Mr. Rife and Mr. Holland and Mr. Holland's neighbors, I should say, all of them, to build an eight-foot masonry wall. COMMISSIONER POWELL: If you had an agreement at that time for an eight-foot masonry wall, wh5 would you go to the six-foot fence now? SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 37 - Page 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 CondcnscltTM Page 41 MR. BUSSELL: NO. I showed that in the 1 illustration because I wanted to be conservative on what a 2 wall there screens, and so I took the lower side because I 3 wanted to show even a six-foot wall screens pretty well. 4 An eight-foot fence there would make it very difficult for 5 children to climb over the wail and that was one of their 6 concerns. And that's fine. We've agreed to that. 7 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Our consideration 8 tonight what we are talking about, what I misunderstood 9 you to say is we're talking about an eight-foot fence with 10 steel posts? i 1 MR. BUSSELL: That's correct. And I want 12 to, once again, reiterate that can't be a condition of the 13 zoning. That's just an agreement between us. 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I heard a six-foot 15 fence, also. Commissioner Mulroy. 16 COMMISSIONER MULROY: yeah. Mr. Bussell, a 17 couple of questions. Would you show again with your 18 pointer the existing homes that were screened, please? 19 MR. BUSSELL: okay. There's one right 20 here. There's one right here. 21 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. Thank you. M3 22 second question is looking at your schematic here with the 23 fence shown, you've given the distances from the fence at 24 the property line to the tree canopy to the houses. Now, 25 Page 42 going north from the property line, what are the setbacks going to be? What are the actual conditions? What is the 2 nearest a structure would be placed? 3 MR. BUSSELL: without actually [aying that 4 out and doing a plat, it's unknown. You know, you always 5 place your tighter homes along the streets because those 6 arc the least desirable homes and you place your more 7 desirable homes to the back because those are more 8 private. And so, you know, what I did is I took 100 feet, 9 or actually it's 120 on the tn'st row, and then 100-foot 10 lots after that, and then put 50-foot right-of-ways 11 between them. And any slop I had over I put on the south. 12 There's not really any setbacks without actually doing a 13 plat on this and laying it out tight. I don't know. 14 COMMISSIONER MULROY: wetl, but just 15 roughly speaking from Mr. Holland's north property line 16 which would be your south on the NR-4, and I'm going to 17 surmise that that's going to be the end of lots. There 18 won't be street there. It will be the back yard of 19 people's houses. 20 MR. BUSSELL: That's right. 21 COMMISSIONER MULROY: And so typically 22 you're really not going to be in a setback arrangement 23 because that really weighs heavier on the side and the 24 front yards. Your back yards, you're going to make it 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Page 43 fairly good size or as large as you can. You're going to say, you know, 60, 70 feet. What is -- MR. BUSSELL: 70 feet. I think I had about 130 feet left over there, 50 foot long. COMMISSIONER MULROY: SO some conservative number between 50 and 70 feet would be the size of the back yard. So your next -- your structure, the dimensions you're showing, you really would be adding another 70 feet to go from structure to slx'ucture or structure to canopy? Ma. ~USSELL: Right. But like I said, I don't know that yet so I didn't put a foot number on it, but you're correct. COMMISSIONER MULROY: But that's in the reahn? MR. BUSSELL: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MULROY: YOn're not going tO have a two-story townhouse butted up here looking down to his property. MR. BUSSELL: NO, because it doesn't lay out that way. COMMISSIONER MUL.ROY: It's going to be a back yard of a single-family dwelhng? MR. BU$SELL: Right. COMM[SS[ONER MULROY; Thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: If there are no other Page 44 questions, I have a question. MR. BUSSELL: YeS, ma'am. COMMissIONER APPLE: I just want to make sure that I understood what you said because I heard you say that instead of an eight-foot masonry fence, as was initially agreed to in the Pt), I heard you say now we were doing a six-foot wood fence. But did you -- you misspoke? MR. BUSSELL: If I said that, I misspoke. COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. So it's a eight-foot wood fence? MR. BUSSELL: Eight-foot cedar fence on metal poles which goes along the entire -- COMMIS@IONE~ APPLE: SO you're just absolutely opposed to do the masonry fence? MR, BUSSELL: 'l'hat's corr(~t. COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. Thank you. MR. BUS.qELL: YeS, ma'am. COMMISSIONER APPLE: This iS a public heating and I have several cards of people who wish to address this item. If anyone else is here that has come in late, if you wish to address this item whether you'd like to speak or just express an opinion, you can get these cards out in the hail. If you'd fill one out and send it up, we'll address it. I have a card from a Mr. Holland. Mr. SEPTEMBER 25TIt, 2002 Page 41 - Page 44 CondcnseltTM Page 45 1 Holland, are you here? Would you like to come down and 2 address the Commission? Good evening, sir. If you'd 3 please speak into that microphone and give us your name 4 and address, please. 5 MR. HOLLAND: Thank you. And I want to 6 thank the Commission for giving me time to defend my 7 property. g COMMISSIONER APPLE: well, you're very 9 welcome. 10 MR. HOLLAND; And I have a letter for you. 11 Mr. Smelser hurt himself in an accident Monday. 12 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Okay. If you'll give 13 that to Ms. Willis, she'll pass that to us. 14 MR. HOLLAND: And he is unable to attend 15 the meeting and asked me to speak for him. 16 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Afl right. Thank you. 17 MR. HOLLAND: I had understood that -- 18 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Mr. Holland, give us 19 your -- just give us -- 20 MR. HOLLAND: Oh, I'm sorry. 21 COMMISSIONER APPLE: That's okay. 22 MR. HOLLAND: L.T. Holland, 3760 Holland 23 Lane in Denton. 24 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. 25 MR. HOLLAND: I've been here so many times, Page 46 1 I think cvc~cybody knows me. 2 C'OMMISSIONERAPPLE: It's just for that 3 nice young lady over there who's taking our minutes. 4 Thank you. 5 MR. HOLLAND: AS a matter of fact, I 6 member spending my 80th birthday down here at 2:00 7 o'clock in the morning on this thing three and a hail 8 years ago, so it goes on. 9 COMMISSIONER APPLE: YeS, sir, I member 10 that. 11 MR. HOLLAND: Judging from what other 12 people have handed you, I guess I've been a little 13 presumptive. I understood that all of the material that 14 we had submitted to the staff would be furnished to the 15 Commissioners so they can read it, and I was trying to 16 save them time by not reproducing and handing out a bunch .17 of additional material that you already had. 18 COMMISSIONER APPLE: NOW, We do have items 19 in our backup, letters from individuals that were written. 20 Do you have anything additional? 21 ~m. HOLLAND: well, yes, I want to add some 22 things. 23 COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. Well, try to 24 think of the most imporlant things because you only have a 25 few minutes to talk. So try to hit on the high points. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Page 47 I MR. HOLLAND: All right. As I understand 2 the developer, and we've met with him recently, his 3 primary objection to the present zoning is the Item 5 and 4 6, I believe, the size of the lots and 5 and 6 on page 2. 5 That's the size of the lots and the fence. In working 6 with Mr. Rife and working out this agreement, we were 7 attempting to get somettfing that satisfied his 8 requirements, gave a minimum damage to us, and still met 9 City requirements. 10 And its zoning, instead of being by lot 11 size, we agreed on house sizes. And as you'll notice in I2 the handout, there were so many houses 2,500 feet, one's 13 facing our property. There was 14 of them 2,500 feet or 14 more. Then the others went down to the lower size and we 15 did that so we could -- he could have smaller lots on that 16 opposite side from -- is that telling mc I'm through 17 already? 15 COMMISSIONER APPLE: well, it is. 19 Commissioners, are you obliged to give Mr. Holland more 20 time? I would be, too. Continue, please. We'll give you 21 two more minutes. 22 MR. HOLLAND: Okay. The proposal to cancel 23 our present PD-191 does not address the size of the lots 24 versus the size of the house. It just splits the property 25 from an NR-6 to NR-4. We prefer to keep what we agreed to Page 48 1 with Mr. Rife. Incidentally, we went through an awful lot 2 of hassle to arrive at this agreement. 3 And everything that's in here that we are 4 asking for, Mr. Rife agreed to. For example, the 5 eight-foot fence, he said he had no objection to it. In 6 fact, he might put it all the way around the place. He 7 wanted a quality development. 8 If this developer thinks this -- he says 9 this is economically unviable bemuse of the cost, 10 primarily on the road cost on each of the two sides. If 11 it's too costly for him, maybe he can get Mr. Rife to 12 reduce the price -- the price of his land or for him to 13 provide the fence that he agreed to provide in the first 14 place. 15 Primary concession Mr. Rife wanted for us 16 -- from us, which we gave him was to agree to the retail 17 zoning on the southwest comer of the property. And the 18 thing we asked for in return was these two items. And he 19 agreed to it and it was read in as part of the ordinance 20 and agreed to by him right at this podium. 21 I apologize for the -- incidentally, I may 22 look like a clown, but I don't feel like one. Sometimes 23 other matters take priority over even your health. I 24 found myself in this condition and couldn't do a thing 25 about it except miss the hearing, and I didn't want to do SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 45 - Page 48 CondenseltTM Page 49 1 that. i apologize for a disoriented presentation to you. 2 I had -- I didn't realize three minutes went so fast. 3 COMMISSIONER APPLE: YOU did just fine. 4 MR. HOLLAND: I would Brge you to read what 5 was given to you in writing because it's -- 6' COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. Let's see if 7 the Corm~ssioners have any questions for you. There are 8 no questions. Thank you, Mr. Holtand. 9 MR. HOLLAND: Thank you, 10 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I have a card from 11 Albert Wright. Is Mr. Wright here? If you'll come 12 forward, please. And speak into the microphone and give 13 us your name and address. 14 MR. WRIGHT: All right. My name is Albert 15 Wright at 980 North Mayhill Road which is across the road 16 from where they're planning on this. 17 One thing is the extra traffic that's going 18 to be on that narrow road, I'm opposed to. It's hard 19 enough to get in and out of your driveway to try to go to 20 work now. You'll sit there sometimes as much as ten 21 minutes waiting to get out because of all the school 22 traffic and everything that comes through. And if you put 23 a housing project there, it's just going to' add more 24 traffic. 25 The other thing is where he showed the Page 50 I drainage come through is into a small branch that crosses 2 that road. The house that is next to that branch, I've 3 seen it where you could swim a horse there. Now, he's 4 planning on putting in more concrete, more asphalt which 5 is going to dump more water into that little old branch 6 that can't handle what it gets at this time. 7 And that's, you know, that's about all I've 8 got to say for it. The water, the traffic, it's only i 9 going to increase and the roads are not capable and the i10 ditches are not capable of handling it. 11 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, Mr. Wright. 12 Kenneth Stout. 13 MR. STOUT: My name is Kenneth Stout and I 14 live out in the east end of town, 4608 Mills Road. I have 15 two houses down the street that's east of this property. 16 Tonight/s thc first night that I have had a chance to 17 even know that this thing was going on. I should have 18 been notified, I feel. 19 Two things -- two or three things that 20 bothers me. If the road is going to be improved on 21 Mayhill Road, then we need to know whether we can hook 22 into their sewer, into their water, and then how long is 23 it going to be before the City comes in and fixes Cooper 24 Creek Bridge, about a $4 million project. I've seen water 25 in this particular house up over the front porCh. We know Page 51 1 that there's going to be a lift station that's put in 2 which is for sewer mains from the Cooper Creek clear up to 3 Mills Road. I found that out this summer. We need to 4 know what we can get as residents thafs been in there 40 5 years. 6 And to give you a little bit of knowledge 7 of 40 year's worth of being around out there, that little 8 one-lane bridge down there on Cooper Creek won't do the 9 job. If the school district won't appeal to y'all to put 10 one in there, I'll appeal to you to be conservative out 11 there and build us a road that wiI1 work. You put the 12 dump ground on the south end of Mayhill and the two red 13 lights. Perfect planning just far enough you've got to 14 stop at two red lights now to get on thc thing. 15 We do thank you for some stop signs that : 16 you put in there, but this project, we need to know a 17 little bit about it. He says he's going to do half of 18 Mayhill Road. I'm congratulating you on that. What are 19 we going to do about the other half?. Can we hook onto 20 some utilities? 21 And I think that it's kind of sad that I 22 wasn't notified in years past that this project was even 23 going in. I tlmnk you for your time. It's important. We 24 do ncrxl it. If you don't think -- come visit us, get out 25 there about 8:00 o'clock in the morning with the school Page 52 1 district and then try to get out there in the afternoons. 2 The school has built a big building in there. They built 3 the maintenance facility in there. And we are just 4 flooded with vehicles. I thank you for your time. 5 COMMISS£ONER APPLE: Thank you, Mr. Stout. 6 I believe we have a question. Commissioner Powell. 7 COMMISSIONER POWELL: EXCUSe me. You made 8 a conmaent about the house existing that had been flooded. 9 Tell me where it is. 10 Ma. STotrr: If you'll look -~ if this is 11 Audra Lane that coming right here. You can't even get a 12 fire truck across here. The houses are right in this area 13 here. And that's the only thing that' is out of the flood 14 area outthere. Wehavegota flood problem. Imcan, a 15 terrible flood problem. I2 you don't believe me, you just 16 try to get out there one day when it's raining. We 17 appreciate it. I8 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: IS that the same house 20 that Mr. Wright was mentioning? 21 MI~. STOCrr: well, it's built right in there 22 ia front of where the Wrights live, true. It's just a 23 little bit further south than where the houses I've got in 24 there. But I've gotten down there several times. And if 25 you don't believe me, well, you just watch how it's washed PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 49 - Page 52 CondcnseltTM Page 53 i out. 2 COMMISSIONER ^Pea. n: okay. Thank you. I 3 was wondering if Mr. Salmon could shed any light on any of 4 his road and bridge concerns. Thank you, Mr. Stout. 5 MR. SALMON: cooper Creek Bridge is going 6 to be replaced by the Texas Dt~partment of Transportation I 7 believe next year, so that problem should be solved very 8 shortly. 9 COMMISSIONER ROY: EXcuso me. Could you 10 show us specifically this bridge. Is that the one just i 1 north of Andre? 12 Me. SALMON: The bridge is just north of 13 Audra Lane. And then if and when this property is 14 platted, we will start addressing issues such as drainage. 15 And I'm assuming at this point that the developer is 16 6ther going to have to provide detention so that there is 17 no increased runoff coming off of this propzrty or they 18 are going to have to do sufficient downstream drainage 19 improvements to make sure that their increased runoff does 20 not cause any damage to downstream properties. 21 Our Code allows thzm to take either option. 22 So we haven't gotten that far yet because this is zoning 23 and we typically don't talk about specific engineering, I 24 guess, ideas or concepts until they come in the door with 25 the plat. I'll be glad to answer any other questions you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 t4 15 I6 t7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 55 mentioned, either detention or some sort of downstream, you know, improvement to the drainage system so that their increased runoff doesn't cause any additional harm. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. I have one more card of someone who'd like to speak. Asa Wright. And, Mr. Wright, if you'd give us your name and address, please. MR. Wi:tIGHT: Asa Wright, 970 North Mayhi[1 Road. The biggest problem we've got is, like I said, the traffic and the water. Putting a new bridge in down at Cooper is not going to help us a bit. We've got some houses right in from of us that when we get a big rain, they open the back doors and they open thc front doors and they let the water go through. When it's over, they replace sheet rock. There's a big hill between us and Cooper Creek and the water is not going to run uphill. We've got a little creek ~at goes through by our house down there and that's where all the water comes from both sides of the hill down. And cars come through there and they nearly go off the road whenever it's, you know, flooding. And the grass down there on Mayhill where the City is supposedly supposed to have been mowing it, they might get om there once a year and mow it. We keep all of ours mowed down there but still they won't take us Page 54 I might have about the ~oads or the drainage in this area. 2 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Holt. 3 COMMISSIONER HOLT: what is the timeline on 4 Mayhill Road? 5 MR.. SALMON: We're at the end of our 6 current capital improvements program. We're hoping that ? we may have another bond election in early 2004 and 8 Mayhill Road will be one of the top priorities, at least 9 from a staff perspective in tenus of funding in that 2004 10 bond election, assuming that that's when it's held. So 11 that would be the soonest them would be any appreciable i2 improvements. 13 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Roy. 14 COMMISSIONER ROY: If we were to deny the 15 request to rezone and kept it at the PD and if the 16 developer continued along the PI) mute, would he have to 17 do the same work in drainage area as he would under the 18 new Code? 19 MR. SALMON: Yes. Regardless, fight' now I 20 understand it's already zoned to build houses so whether 21 they build under the existing zoning or whether they build 22 under the proposed zoning, they will still be requited to 23 build the same road improvements we've talked about this 24 evon[ng. They will sfi[! be required to build the same 25 drainage improvements that I just a few minutes ago Page 56 1 in the City and do ail this. What are they going to do 2 when they get there? That's about all I've got to say. 3 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, Mr. Wright. 4 Is there anyone else present who would like to address 5 this item? Yes, sir. If you'll come to the podium and 6 give your name and address, please. 7 MR. SLOVECEK: commissioners, my name is 8 Ron Slovecek. I live at 7 Fox Hollow Run in Shady Shores, 9 Texas. I am intending on purchasing this property. Allen 10 has been taking the zoning application for me. rma 11 local builder. I plan on building houses over here. If 12 you're a local builder, if you know any local builders, 13 the last several years it's been tough to be a local 14 builder in Denton. And we saw this piece of property. We 15 looked at the PD. we saw the problems with the eD and 16 decided that we liked the current Code, we liked the 17 curr~nt zoning, and wanted to pursue building houses on 18 this piece property under that current Code and current 19 zoning. 20 I think the people who have spoken in 21 opposition bring up some good points, especially the last 22 people that spoke about the drainage issues. And those 23 issues will be addressed whoa we go to platting. 24 I've been meeting with several of the 25 neighbors over there, Mr. Holland and his daughter and PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 53 - Page 56 CondenseltTM 1 2 3 $ 6 7 g 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 t7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 57 son-in-law and everybody else, and we've had several meetings. And you may or may not remember but we made a run of this application a few months ago and we initially went for the whole site with NR-6. Our intent was not to build six units to the acre. Our intent was TO build closer to five units but we don't have an ~m-5 so we had to go to the next best thing. Mr. Holland and the rest of his family came to us and said, well, we don't want that, among other issues. I think the density over there was an issue. So we went back and I said, Allen, let's see what we can do to meet some of their concerns, and I think we've done that and I think Mr. Holland would probably agree that we've done that. We've come to heads on one particular issue and that issue is an eight-foot masonry fence. In fairness, I think when the PV was first agreed upon, the zoning of the surrounding properties was different. COMMISSIONER APPLE: One minute. MR. SLOVECEK: okay. Thank you. Thc zoning of the surrounding properties was different. Now all we're doing is matohing the zoning on the property TO the south of us and increasing the density a little bit when we head north. And in reality, you look at the Po, you look at what we're doing now, we're only asking for Page 58 I about 1.4 units per acre more. And we did make an offer 2 to address Mr. Holland and the neighbors' concerns 3 regarding privacy, safety, and security, to build for 4 them, and it is eight-foot. 5 We offered -- even though an eight-foot 6 fence, in my opinion, and to our subdivision is going to 7 be visually detrimental, we're willing to concede that and 8 address Mr. Holland's concerns. And I think an eight-foot 9 tall wood fence with metal posts, with which we have also 10 agreed to have our own homeowner's association maintain 11 and also give an easement for the fence should handle 12 this. But, anyway. I would appreciate your positive vote 13 on this and thank you for your time. 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I believe we have some 15 questions. 16 MR. SLOVECEK: okay. Great. 17 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Watkins. 18 COMMISSIONER WATKINS: Yes, Madam Chair. 19 Awhile ago when staff was talking about the drainage, I 20 wish to ask when is the rebuilding of Loop 288 that's 21 going to really work on Mayhill Road? 22 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Okay. So that's a 23 question you'd like to address to Mr. Salmon? 24 COMMISSIONER WATKINS: ~md to this 25 petitioner. We also understood that maybe there were some Page 59 1 ways that you could retain the water rather than let it 2 all -- as I understand this print, it's either in or out. 3 Just have one to MayhiI1 and one up -- 4 MR. sLOVEcE~c: That question is probably 5 best handled by Allen or by the engineers. I'ra not an 6 engineer. I'm a home builder. 7 COMMISSIONER WATKINS: I understand. 8 MR. SLOVECE~C: And I think -- I know that 9 current City requirements are'-- especially the drainage 10 requirements are pretty stringent and we intend to, of 11 course, work with the City Drainage Department and address 12 all their issues. 13 COMMISSIONER W^TraNS: okay. Thank you. 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Roy. 15 COMMISSIONER ROY: Am I tO understand, sir, 16 that you believe that Mr. Holland now agrees to the t 7 eight-foot wood fence? 18 M~, SLOV~CEK: NO. I don't think he agrees 19 to it but we made the offer to him. And the last -- and I 20 just had a meeting with him on Monday. I sat and had 21 coffee with him over at Dairy Queen. And because we had a 22 previous meeting earlier the previous week and said, well, 23 Mr. Holland, let me do some research and let me get back 24 with you. 25 So the main concern that was brought to me Page 60 1 at not the last meeting we had but thc prior one was we're 2 concerned about safety. We're concerned about visual 3 intrusion into their privacy. I don't think an eight-foot 4 masonry fence necessarily is the only solution. It's an 5 extremely expensive solution, especially when you're the 6 one paying for it. 7 So in order to address his concern, I told 8 him that -- and his concern also, we told him -- he 9 brought up about a wood fence, he was concerned about how 10 they were going to look. And, again, if you'll mad the 11 letter that I addressed to him, I tell him we would put 12 that fence entirely within a fence maintenance easement 13 and we would make it a requirement of the homeowner's 14 association there to make sure it stays visually 15 acceptable and structurally acceptable. 16 COMMISStOmm ROY: One follow-up, please. I7 This was my second point. You just stated, as I 18 understand, it would be a requirement that the homeowner's .19 association maintain that fence? i20 MR. SLOVECEK: Yes, sir. 21 COMMISSIONER ROY: SO people buying homes 22 in this subdivision will be forced TO join a homeowner's 23 association and pay dues; is that correct? 24 M~. SLOVECEK: Ye$~ that is. I mean, we 25 intend on having entry feature. We're going to have -- PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 57 - Page 60 CondenseltTM Page 61 I we're going to be required to have perimeter fencing, as 2 well, according to City Co&. So we're going to have a 3 homeowner's association to make sure that things are 4 maintained. 5 COMMISSIONER ROY: A mandatory homeowner's 6 association? 7 MR. SLOVECEK: Yes, sir. 8 COMMISSIONER ROY: Thank you. 9 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Holt. I0 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Yes. Mr. Holland was 11 also concerned about lots versus house size. And 12 evidently the homes toward his property will be a little 13 bit larger than the ones on the other side. Is this what 14 you understood? Is this something you-all discussed? 15 MR. SLOVECEK: I think what our intent, and 16 I think we've discussed it with Mr. Ito!land too, as you 17 can see by the zoning, we've got NR-4 zoning abutting his 18 property and NRb6 on the northern portion of it. 19 'What I see, my vision for this property is 20 to make use of the fact that we are abutting some nice 21 open land behind us. And I think that's a premium for 22 the lot. It's a premium for the home. And that would be ;23 our intent for, actually, larger lots and larger houses to :24 be back there. You know, it makes sense and market-wise 25 it works that way. Did I answer your question? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 62 COMMISSIONER HOLT: I think so. MR. SLOVECEK: okay. COMMISSIONER HOLT: Did you answer Mr. Holland's question? COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Powell. COMMISSIONER POWELL: How many more houses would you build in this configuration than we would have built in the existing configuration or existing zoning? And I don't mean down to the houses, another ten, another 20, 50. What are we looking at? MR. SLOVECEK: I think we picked up probably another 20 houses. Allen? 34, about another 34 houses Over 35 acres or so. COMMISSIONER POWELL: okay. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. There are no further questions. MR. SLOVECEK: okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: IS there anyone else in the audience who would like to address this item before we close the public hearing? Yes, ma'am, if you'll come down to the podium and give your name and address. MS. TUN-NELL: Good evening. I'm Nancy Tunnell. We live at 3776 Holland Lane. It was the house that was not mentioned to you. It's the third house in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 63 that area. We have studied this extensively, as you know, for years. We see no compelling reason to change the current zoning to this to add the additional houses. The fence was agreed by. It's in the ordinance that was drawn up for this property. Now, when the zoning was changed, we do not feel that that's an unreasonable request. We would like to see it complied with the way it is now and we urge that this not, that this change not be accepted. The density of traffic is unbelievable since the truck route has been changed to the Loop, since the last traffic study was done. And to add any more volume on there right now is just a very dangerous thing to even get on and off the road. And sometimes a 20-minute wait to get there. So we feel that any additional burden on the roads at this time is not feasible, nor do we want the additional housing. The fencing, we don't stay just in the house. We're outside, too. We certainly want the noise abatement that a masonry fence would give us in addition to the solid closure. We don't want that connecting with our property due to the reasons that have been mentioned before. And we would appreciate your consideration of these things and the current ordinance.and zoning that we agreed to earlier. Thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, Ms. Page 64 1 Tunnell. Is there anyone else in the audience who would 2 like to address this item? Seeing no one, t will offer 3 rebuttal period to you. 4 MR. BUSSELL: The exact number of -- first 5 of all, on the number of lots. 6 COMMISSIONER APPLE: If you'll give your 7 name again. 8 MR. BUSSELL: Sure. It's Allen Bussell, 9 SENT corp., 1621 Amanda Court. 10 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. 11 MR. BUSSELL: Number of lots, we don't know 12 exactly what the difference is because we haven't plotted 13 it out completely so we don't know but I'm thinking it 14 would be maybe 30 more, 33 more, 34, somewhere in that 15 range. So it's not exact until you do the engineering on 16 it. 17 I think, you know, for the extra drainage i8 and the extra traffic, any extra anything, the PD ha8 it 19 at 3.63 units per acre right now. We're asking for an 20 average of 5.0. It's a 1.4 units per acre increase is 21 what we're asking. So the increase above what is 22 currently approved is extremely nominal, and I wanted to 23 make that point. That was, I think, about it. 24 MR. SLOVECEK: The only thing I'd add is 25 the viability of this project rests on really a couple of PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 61 - Page 64 CondcnscltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 ~11 12 13 14 I5 16 17 18 19 2O 21 !22 !23 !24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 65 issues. And that is, one, the increased density. Again, he said it's really about 28 units to the acre more. And, basically, losing the cost of an eight~foot tall masonry fence along one portion of the property. I think that if you look at the site, as well, about 50 percent or more of the perimeter of our site is going to require major improvements to roads, Mayhill and Prominence Parkway, and that just puts an incredible burden on a site of only 35 acres and 150 or so units. That was it. Thank you. Page 67 know that. But the answer of why it wasn't changed, if you remember there were 15 POS that were kept when the Development Code was adopted. Those were eD's that were recently approved in relationship to the Development Code being approved. The idea was that those projects were recently passed. There have been negotiation, that they should be able to continue on with their development under those eDs so they were left alone, and Prominence Square was one of them. And, Tiffanle, it was approved, do you COMMISSIONER APPLE: I have just a comment I guess. You had mentioned earlier that it was 1.4 extra units per acre. And figured times your acreage, that actually comes out to be 49.28 additional units. ~m. UUSS~L~.: I think when you actually lay the roads in there and just spacing them out, you're not coming anYwhere close to that. COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay, Okay. And then the other issues that I heard that were concerns were the square footages of the homes that had been agreed upon and the masonry fence, of course. Are you aware of any other issues that -- MR. BUSSELL: I think those ~ the main ones that were also discussed at the meeting we had with the neighbors. COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. Thank you. I'm Page 66 sorry. Commissioners, do you wish to hear additional comment from -- okay, I apologize. Is there anyone else who would like to address this item? Wetre going to close the public hearing and Commissioner Roy has a question. 10 have a date? 11 MS. WILLIS: November 7th, 2000. Yes, sir.. 12 MR. POWELL: of 2000. So in terms of-- 13 COMMISSIONER POWELL: SO less than two 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 years ago? MR. POWELL: Yes. So in ~rms of development scale, it was recently approved. COMMISSIONER POWELL: One more question. Is it staff's opinion if the houses were built to the existing zoning, the same problems for the neighbors on Mayhill Road would exisff Let's assume that today they went and applied for -- to get these built in the existing zoning. We're still going to cause a lot of drainage problems under the new zoning or old zoning. MR. POWELL: The real issue is the development of the property. Right now you're looking at Page 68 1 a predevelopment condition where it's flooding, but 2 development of this property does not require it to be 3 platted. The density really didWt change significantly. 4 COMMISSIONE~R POWELL: ^nd one more thing. COMMISSIONER ROY: Yes, a question I guess but maybe to legal staff. Is there an option we have tonight? Obviously, we could vote yes or no on this issue. But is there an option that we can take to provide more time to solve the discrepancy, the differences, I can say, between the applicant and the developer -- I mean, the applicant and the neighbors? MS. PALUMBO; The Commissioners can either choose to vote on this item tonight or choose to move to continue it to another date for consideration. The 5 Always one more thing. I'm sorry. This wall in question, 6 is it actually part of the existing zoning? 7 MR. eOWEL[: under the existing Planned 8 Development, it would have to be built there. The only 9 other option would be to come back and try to amend the 10 Planned Development, amend those conditions which would I 1 require a public hearing. 12 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you very much. 13 COMMmSIONER ^CPi. E: Commissioner Mukoy. 14 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes. Thank you, Development Code though does not provide for conditional zoning as the prior code did. COMMISSIONER ROY: YeS. Thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Commissioner Powell. COMMISSIONER POWELL: A question of staff, if I may. Help me out a little bit. When was the eD approved and why was not the er> changed to zoning when the City was rezoned like a lot of others were? Help me out here a little bit. lyre. ?OWELL: Madam Chairman. If staff could look up the actual date it was approved, I don't 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Madam Chair. A question of staff. If development were to proceed under the Po ordinance, then would the construction and the amenities have to comply with the new E~velopmcnt Code or would they be under the old Development Code? Ma. POWE[L: tf I may. It all depends on the zoning issue. Under the old eo such as the brick wall so the zoning would be done under the old Code, but the platting would still fall under the new Code. COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, how about ~ite design? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2002 Page 65 - Page 68 CondcnscltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t0 lI 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 69 MR. POWELL: The site design standards would not be imposed on the PD, this development PD. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. So I'm going to carry this the next couple of steps for collective thinking. See, the tradeoff here from the old to the new to the new, you've negated a little bit of sprawl and you'ye upped your amenities and the quality of construction because you comply with the new design standards. Whereas, under the old, yes, you have a bigger lot but not necessarily any enforcement on the quality of construction. So there's pluses and minuses going forward and when we're looking at limiting sprawl and higher density is part of the Comp Plan. So from my thinking, the biggest stumbling block is the wall that has been promised as part of the old ordinance. But, you know, ho~ do we interpret that is the question. COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Powell. COMMISSIONER POWELL: okay. With the commercial retail zoning and that is part of this PD, SO we're only changing part of this PD. So the property owner at that time came to the City, and if I'm wrong you stop me or whatever, came to the City and said, I want a PD that will include commercial retail on the Loop, and I believe it was residential if my memory is correct. But Page 70 now we're changing less than two years later, if I'm correct, and we want to change -- well, we want to leave the commercial retail alone. We only want to change the retail -- I mean, the residential. So we're only changing part of this PD. I had to think that through. Mr. Powell, shaking your head was a big help. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Commissioners, any further questions? Commissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY'. I gl.less I don't have a lot of problem with the new level of density but I have a lot of problem with the dropping of the commitment that was made to the landowners before. I understand the cost issue but this gives me a lot of heartburn to just come in and drop that and I'm having difficulty with that issue. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Commissioner Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I would like to make a motion that we continue this for two meetings and allow the applicant some further time to mitigate what seems to be the sticking point. COMMISSIONER POWELL: second. COMMISSIONER APPLE: We have a motion and a second to continue until I presume our October 23rd meeting? COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 71 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: I heard you say two meetings. Did you mean two weeks or did you mean two meetings? COMMISSIONER MULROY: TWO meetings due to notification requirements. COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. COMMISSIONER APPLE: [ have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Vote, please. Motion carries 7-0. MR. POWELL: Can I ask a question? COMMIsSIoNER APPLE: oirector Powell has something he'd like to -- MR. POWELL: Before we leave this item, I wanted to make sure that the continuance was for the applicant and the adjoining propm'ty owners to try to work out their issues, and wasn't sure if there was anything you directly asked of staff to bring back to you. And so if you do have something you want us to do, I didn't pick up anything, please let us know and we'll try to do that. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, Mr. Powell. Commissioner Powdl has requested a break. We will break for 15 minutes. We'll rc~m~ at 7:45. OBrmk.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 t4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 72 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TIt, 2002 Page 69 - Page 72 CondenseltTM Page 17 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Item No. 8 is to continue a public hearing. I'd like to open the public hearing. And Ms. Willis with the City Planning Staff will present. MS. WILLIS: Thank you, Madam Chair. Planning and Zoning Commission, we present to you the continued case for Prominence Square. The Planning and Zoning Conunission continued this case on September 23rd to 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 19 allow the applicant and the owners within the vicinity of this property to come together and discuss some outstanding issues. Prominence Square is located north and south of Audra Lane there east of Loop 288. The neighborhood meeting was held on October 21st. Unresolved issues wore no~d. And the neighborhood meeting minutes are contained in your manila folder provided to you prior to the public hearing tonight. No resolution for the fence requirement was achieved. No additional information has been provided in the staff report. In your manila folder, you should find the October neighborhood meeting summary, the applicant's position and letter presented to the neighbors that attended the neighborhood meeting. Thirdly, the viewpoints expressed of six citizens as well as a 200 foot notification letter signed by Mr. Jess Wallace who is in Page 18 looks at it in land use. Engineering looks at it just in a factual point of view, traffic, drainage, water, waste wa~r. You as, Cnunissioners, have another point of view. You look at the neighbors. And thc neighbors have another point of view. They want to know -- it's fairly short-term thinking. What does this affect -- how is this affecting me right now? What are you doing to me right now? And I understand that. 9 Lighting and noise and traffic, drainage 10 always an issue. You guys take all that in, make a 11 reconunendation to Council. And they respect your 12 recommendation. And so you're careful about that. I have 13 to take all of those points of view as the consultant and 14 creak: a plan that works and create a yes win/win 1 $ situation for everybody as much as I can using thc 16 Development Code and the Denton Plan. That's my job is to 17 do that. And it requires also long-term thinking. If 18 there's an adjacent piece of property that's like zoned 19 next to me, I've got to think bow's that going to develop? 20 How am I going to address that if I get that job to 21 develop that piece of property in ten years, what am I 22 doing to myself?. And i'm getting better at that. It's 23 sometimes tough to look at things like that. But you have 24 to. 25 And so it demands a Iong-tem~ thinking, not 1 favor of the Prominence Square case. He also provided a 2 letter indicating his position on the eight-foot masonry 3 fence. I believe that the applicant and the property 4 owners are in the audience this evening and they can 5 answer additional questions. Staff has no further 6 comments. 7 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Is the 8 applicant present? 9 Ma. BOSS£LL: My name is Allen Bussell. I 10 work for Surveyors and Engineers of North Texas I621 11 Amanda Court in Ponder. I have come before you guys a lot 12 in the last few years. And I hope I still have the 13 integrity l started out with. Ithinkldo. Wealllook 14 at zoning cases a little differently, different view 15 points. I do computer animation on the side for fun. And 16 I do 3D objects and I move the camera around. And when 17 you do that, you render individual frames, and you look at 18 those individual frames. And each frame has a little 19 different aspect of the object that you built. And zoning 20 cases are much like that. 21 The client has fairly short term view 22 usually of development -- a developer, usually two to 23 three years. In this case, he's the builder so he has a 24 little bit longer view because he has his reputation of 25 the houses. The City has another view. Planning staff Page 20 1 five years, but twenty, fifty years in the futura. How is 2 this going to work for the future? And so that's what I'm 3 here tonight to speak to you about. Long-term thinking. 4 The eight-foot masonry wall, what's it going to do the 5 development here? How is it going to affect future 6 development of the adjacent land? It's going to create 7 separation between these uses. They're like uses. 8 They're single family uses. 9 It will in the long-term separate them. It 10 may create -- because of the £cl to the south, the 11 already there, if the Ect develops into an office park 12 environment with no public roads, it may create a 2000 13 foot long cul-de-sac. And Mr. Wallace and you have his 14 letter in there, it may be because he has a small creek 15 between him and Mayhill, it may tandlock him and that's 16 why I brought up the cul-de-sac because he has -- his 17 zoning and the crock may be economically unviable to build 18 a bridge to Mayhill. 19 This is the proposed zoning and as you see, 20 we arc proposing the same zoning adjacent. And an 21 increased density next to the major roads where you would 22 expect increased density to be. It's also next to thc 23 increased intensities of the multi-family or the 24 townhomes, 12 unit per acre townhomes and the commercial 25 retail. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 23RD, 2002 Page 17 - Page 20 CondenseItTM Page 21 1 And it's still located close to a park, so 2 the park, the 20-acre park or so is available up there for 3 the extra homes. So it matches the zoning. Line of 4 sight, I just put this in there, again, to reiterate, once 5 again, that just a six-foot fence adequately visually 6 buffers the neighbors. 7 Once again, they're 300 and some odd feet 8 away. And so you're actually looking through a hole about 9 that big 300 feet away to see four feet of a building. I 10 understand when they're driving down the street it doesn't 11 buffer it there. I understand that. I think the 12 long-term solution that I would recommend and I've 13 recommended to my client is the six-foot fence that the 14 builders would build and a landscape buffer of one tree 15 every 50 feet and two ornamental trees in between to 16 soften the walI and also long-tea-m, if it doesn't develop 17 for ten years, it will create a nice buffer. If it does 18 develop, they get to keep those trees, and it actually 19 adds an improvement to the land. 20 I don't know another way to do that. If 21 you do an eight-foot masonry wall, you require a 22 maintenance easement. What happens when it develops? Now 23 you have a no man's land in between the wall, a 24 maintenance easement and the future fence. Long-term 25 thinking. It doesn't make sense. Thank you. Page 22 1 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. 2 Commissioners, do you have any questions? Commissioner 3 Mukoy. We do have one, Mr. Bussell. 4 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Pul sorry. Mr, 5 BusselI, would you just restate again your willingness to 6 put the six-foot fence and then some additional landscape. 7 Ma. BUSSE~.t: And I think the builder's -- 8 the builder's going to put a six-foot fence up. 9 COMMISSIONER MULRoY: okay. 10 Ma. BUSSELL: I would recommend the builder 11 because you've got grading. 12 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Right. 13 MR. BUSSELL: And if you put it up, you may 14 create a problem. You've got to grade the lots first and 15 then put the landscaping in and then build the houses, 16 build the fences. And then it's okay -- yeah. Sothe 17 fence and the landscape buffer. 18 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Is what your 19 willingness to do -- 20 MR. BUSSELL: what's what I've recommended 21 to my client. 22 COMMISSIONER ROY: NOW, did -- 23 MR. BUSSELL: I'm sorry, lust a second. 24 We did offer our neighbors to the south six different 25 options of how to address this other than an eight-foot Page 23 1 masonry wall. 2 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yeah, I want to 3 refresh our memory was -- and I don't have the minutes 4 from the meeting two weeks ago -- two times ago, but I 5 believe thc wording was similar to seeans that thc sticking 6 point is really the fence. Let's take a few weeks and try 7 to work that -- some kind of compromise, work it out. 8 MR. BUSSELL: l~ight. 9 COMMISSIONER MI. YLROY: An accommodation. 10 You're saying you've offered six different ways and none I 1 of them was found acceptable? 12 M[~. BUSSELL: Right. And I'm still 13 recommending and I think my client's in agreement that we 14 still provide -- 15 COMMISSmNER MU~ROV: YOU still would put a 16 fence in for separation. 17 MR. BUSSELL: And the landscape buffer. 18 And I think long-mi wise, it improves both properties. 19 And it's prettier than looking at just any type of wall 20 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER nePLE: Mr. Snyder would like 22 to add something. 23 MR. SNYDER: i just want to remind the 24 Commission. We've gone over this before. He's asking to 25 change the planned development to a straight zoning Page 24 I classification under the new Code and our new Code docs 2 not allow for a condition such as that to be placed. And 3 I just wanted to remind the Commission -- Commissioenrs of 4 that fact. And so if such a thing were worked out with 5 the abutting owners, it would have to be a restricted 6 covenant just between them. 7 MR, BUSSELL: That's right. 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Thank you, 9 Mr. Busscll. We have two cards who wish to speak to this 10 issue. We have one card in support, Mr. Jess Wallace. 11 Would you please come down? (}ood evening. And you'll if 12 you'll just give us your name and address for the record. 13 MR. W^LL^Cg: Madam Chair, thank you. 14 Ladies and gentlemen, my name is less Wallace. I live at 15 1018 North Lindale Lane, Richardson, Texas. And excuse me 16 just a second. I'm sorry. I'm an adjacent landowner to 17 this subject property. I have approximately 8 acres that 18 border this property on the south side, the length of my 19 property, that is next to this subject is about 700 feet. 20 I grew up in Denton. I spent 28 years 21 here. I'm not a person that lives in Richardson and just 22 have an investment out there. It's something I've bought. 23 This small acre farm has been in my family for almost 85 24 years. My parents are deceased and they have left it to 25 me. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 23RD, 2002 Page 21 - Page 24 CondcnseltTM Page 25 I I'm pleased to see the City taking some 2 action and I'm in favor of this reference zoning case. I 3 have a problem with the fencing requirement in the current 4 planned development. I have not been receiving these 5 letters. This is where -- 15 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Sir, we need you to 7 stay at the microphone. I'm sorry. 8 MR. WALLACE: That's okay. 9 COMMISSIONER APPLE: We can't hear you. 10 MR. WALLACE: I apologize. 11 COMMISSIONER APPLE: That's okay. 12 MR. WALLACE: I understand. I'm so sorry. 13 I have not been receiving my letters from -- that advise 14 me of these meetings that y'aIl have and I came up to City 15 16 17 18 19 20 2t 22 23 24 25 Page 27 1 all right with y'all? We'll give you one additional 2 minute. 3 MR. WALLACE: Okay. That's all I need. 4 I just don't want that fence put up there. And the most 5 important thing is if you put it in it's going to landlock 6 me on one side just like the gentlemen said. I already mn 7 landlocked on the back side. And there's water that goes 8 over the very front part of my property. It will be very 9 expensive for me to develop it. Please consider my 10 request. 11 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. We have a 12 question for you, sir. Commissioner Roy. 13 COMMISSIONER ROY: Yes. Sir, there's a map 14 here on the -- could you indicate where your property is Council about two ~- maybe two and a half years ago when this started. One of my neighbors called me and said there was going to be a meeting, that they might going to be developing the property. Getting up here by 6:30 coming from Richardson is difficult when you work until 5:30. Anyway, i got here late and I was not aware that there was going to be any kind of fence put through there. And this is the first I've heard about it. I just got ahold of this about four days ago. And, anyway, let me get back to my notes because I have to have them. I was not involved -- excuse me. I was not Page 26 I involved -- 2 COMMISSIONER APPLE: YOU have one minute 3 left. 4 MR. WALLACE: okay. I have one minute 5 left? I didn't know I was on a time. Okay. All right. 6 Listen, there's some things that I want -- I don't want to 7 see this fence built down through there. I do not like 8 barrier-type walls. To build a fence, brick or wood down 9 the Loop to Mayhill Road, it will take away from the 10 beauty. I'd much rather see it landscaped with nice I 1 trees, evergreen trees. 12 Where you're wanting to build that fence, 13 there's a ditch, and when the water comes through there, I 14 don't think -- I don't feel like it will hold the 15 foundation. I think it will tear up the fence and it will 16 lean over and not look good. My most important thing is 17 when they build this fence through there, where is this 18 water going to go that's coming down off of the Holland 19 Hill if this fence is there? It's going to be like a dam. 20 And if this water comes down, where is it going to go? 21 It's going to come down over my property. And I don't 22 want that. And nobody in this room wants that to happen. 23 Think about that. Can I go a little farther since I 24 haven't been able to come to any of these meetings? 25 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Commissioners, is it 15 t6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 on this map? MR. WALLACE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ROY: .1Bst point to it with your pencil or -- MR. WALLACE: okay. All right. Let me see here. Okay. It is right here. COMMISSIONER ROY: That -- MR. WALLACE: Right. It's 7.86 acres. COMMISSIONER ROY: That sqLlare there is yours? MR. WALLACE: Huh? yours? Page 28 COMMISSIONER ROY: That square there is MR. WALLACE: Yes, sir. 4 COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. Thank you. 5 MR. WALLACE: That's all you need? 6 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. We have 7 one card from someone who wishes to speak in opposition. 8 Mr. Les Holland. Good evening, Mr. HolIand. If you'd 9 state your name and address for the record, please. 10 MR. HOLLAND: Thank you, Commissioner Apple 11 and the rest of you for allowing me the time. I'm Les 12 Holland, 3760 Holland Lane. Concerning the last 13 statement, we have not been able to contact this gentlemen 14 during these hearings either. We were unable to -- so far 15 as, we mentioned early in the stage, that this fence down 16 here is not important to us. It doesn't adjoin our 17 property. If they wanted to cut that fence out for his 18 benefit, we would have no objection to that part of the 19 thing. 20 This is a serious economic and emotional 21 issue for all of us. We're talking about time and 22 investments, our homes, our quality of life. Brick fence 23 up by our property is needed before other construction 24 begins to protect our private road and provide privacy and 25 serve as a noise barrier when all the construction starts PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 23RD, 2002 Page 25 - Page 28 CondcnscltTM Page 29 I next door. 2 After the construction it will provide 3 privacy on both sides. Without thc fence, users of thc 4 road would be looking in the neighbors' back yard, people 5 going down our street. Approving the developer's proposal 6 will result in severe damage to our property with no 7 chance to ever recover. We agreed to PD 191 in good faith 8 after careful consideration and agreement with Mr. Rife on 9 every detail. 10 We thought the agreement was -- would 11 benefit the City, help Mr. Rife, protect our property, and 12 hopefully, put an end to the years of hearings we've had 13 over the years. We urge that the PD 191 be upheld in its 14 entirety and that you deny the proposed change. 15 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Are there 16 any questions? Thank you, Mr. Holland. 17 MR. HOLLAND: Thank you. 18 COMMISSIONER APPLE: IS there anyone else 19 present who would like to address this issue? If you will 20 give us your name and address for the record, please. 21 MR. SLOVACHEK: My name is Ron Slovachek. 22 I live at 7 Fox Hollow Run in Shady Shores, Texas. Allen 23 is representing me in this application and I thank y'all 24 for the opportunity to stand up and speak to y'all about 25 this. I've been here before and through the Page 30 Page 31 1 ordinance. Ordinances can be changed due to changed 2 circmnstances. This is one of those times. 3 Now, going back to the recommendation of 4 the Corm~issioners to sit down and try to work something $ out with the property owners. We did -- does that mean I 6 have a minute left now? 7 COMMISSIONER APPLE: You have one minute. 8 MR. 8LOVACHEK: Thank you. We did. We met 9 with them. Had several discussions, offered -- just to 10 refresh y'all's memory, thc initial proposal they brought 11 was an eight-foot tall wooden fence to be contained 12 entirely within an easement that the neighbors in 13 opposition would have no responsibility in maintenance at 14 all. It would be written within the restrictive covenants I5 of our subdivision, the HOA would maintain it. It would 16 satisfy his security and privacy issue. 17 Wasn't good enough. We went and brought 18 back six other alternatives including anything from a 19 six-foot wall with a berm to a complete landscape buffer, 20 just, you name it. I also asked if they had anything, if '21 there were any suggestions they had that we could try to 22 implement. There were none. And we were informed that 23 they were not -- at yesterday about 3:00 o'clock, that 24 they were not going to work with us on this issue at all. 25 One more minute, please? Page 32 I recommendation of one of your Commissioners, you said, 2 let's -- why don't you go meet with the property owners 3 over there and see if you can work something out. 4 Before I get into that, I want to back up 5 because my understanding of this piece of propca-ty, and 6 you can probably go back and look at your old zoning, and 7 your old records here for meetings was -- when this -- 8 whatever promise that is referenced to was made, there was 9 a different time over hero. Even though it was only a 10 couple of years ago, there was different zoning, 11 Tho property owners who an: opposed to this 12 had different zoning. You can look at it, sE-10. Their 13 zoning has changed. All we're asking for is to match what 14 they have now. You have just heard from another gentleman 15 hc-m who is for our rezoning application who says ho never 16 kalew about an eight-foot stone wall that was forced down 17 thc line of his property. · 18 I have deep empathy for the neighbors in 19 opposition, I know they have meant a lot to tho City of 20 Denton. Good citizens have participated. They do 21 participate. They come up here. They make these meetings 22 because they care, just as I care, Still we can have 23 different viewpoints. I think that you need to weigh in 24 your consideration, circumstances were different when this 25 so-called promise was made. It was made in the form of an i COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioners? One 2 more minute. 3 MR, SLOVACHEK: I'm going to reiterate 4 again, that I'm a local buildor, local developer looking 5 for a place to build quality homes for current and new 6 upcoming or incoming residents here in Denton. The vision 7 we have for this neighborhood is quiet, peaceful. We plan 8 on -- I'm mean, it's going to be tree line streets. We're 9 going to immediately improve the adjacent park across the 10 street, so that we can -- so the incoming residents and I 1 the existing residents can benefit it immediately. 12 So I think what we're trying to do is we're 13 trying to implement what the Council and the Cormnissioners 14 crone up for the vision of Denton. And I ask you the 15 opportunity to Iot me do that. Thank you. 16 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. 17 Colmnissioners, any questions? Thank you. 18 COMMISSIONER HOLT: I have a question. I'm 19 sorry. 20 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I'm sorry. 21 Commissioner Holt does have a question. 22 COMMISSIONER HOLT: YeS. Could you tell me 23 -- are you planning to -- if this goes as you would like 24 it to go, would you be planning to put the fence up before 25 you started building to protect them from any building PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 23RD, 2002 Page 29 - Page 32 CondenseltTM Page 33 I noises and things? 2 MR. SLOVACHEK: Are you talking about a 3 fence that we would agree to put up or what -- I mean, I'm 4 -- we've had so many proposals out there. Are you talking 5 about -- 6 COMMISSIONER HOLT: well, just -- yeah, 7 just say an eight-foot fence. Like you said, an 8 eight-foot fence with the landscaping and the berm, would 9 you put that up before you started or would you wait and 10 put that up at the end? 11 MR. SLOVACHEK: I think that might be more 12 of an engineering question that has to do with how the 13 grading is going on. If we are able to put it up 14 initially, I think we would. I think I'm not qualified to 15 answer that question without actually engineering being 16 done on the property. It wouldn't make sense to put up a 17 fence and then create a future issue. So I wouldn't be 18 opposed to the issue, I mean, the idea, if it was 19 feasible. 20 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Okay. Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Roy. 22 COMMISSIONER ROY: I have a question. I 23 don't know who to ask it of. We are here to consider 24 rezoning. And if we say yes to the rezoning, I'm not sure 25 what fence agreement we're -- is in this proposal or is Page 34 1 this part of the consideration tonight. I'm confused a 2 little bit on this point. 3 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Mr. Snyder. 4 MR. SNYDER: AS I said earlier, there is no 5 consideration in this zoning for the fence. This -- you 6 can't make that a condition of this. He's asking for 7 straight zoning. And it will just have to be something 8 that's worked out between them and the property owner. 9 That will not be a part of the zoning ordinance itself. 10 COMMISSIONER ROY: So our vote wollld not be 11 -- include any -- any agreement that's reached or -- 12 MR. SNYDER: correct. 13 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Cormnissioner Mulroy. t4 COMMISSIONER MLILROY: Yes. I would like 15 Mr. Slovachek to review -- your consultant stated that his 16 recormnendation, I believe, would be a six-foot fence with i7 additional landscape buffers. Is that your understanding 18 of his recommendation? 19 MR. SLOVACHEK: That'8 his recommendation. 20 My understanding of his recommendation is as the builders 21 build their homes, they would build a six-foot fence and 22 install landscaping as well, consisting of, like, a tree 23 -- species tree every 50 foot with two ornamentals. 24 COMMISSIONER MULRO¥: oh, I was 25 understanding different. I was understanding that perhaps Page 35 1 you were going to run a six-foot separation fence with 2 some landscape nodes spaced along the fence for aesthetic 3 and noise reasons. 4 MR. SLOVACHEK: I think we're willing to do 5 that, I think. 6 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. So -- well, 7 let's -- I'm just -- let's see if I can quantify this. 8 Six foot -- now as far as timing, I know that you -- it 9 would be difficult to put the fence in before your grading 10 is done. But you're not going to build houses until the 11 grading is done. 12 MR. SLOVACHEK: We won't build houses until 13 utilities are in, so -- 14 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Right. So would it 15 be a prudent statement to say it would be a better time to 16 put the fence up once it's graded, but before your houses 17 are constructed if we're going to have one continuous 18 fence and not individual homeowner's fence? 19 MR. SLOVACHEK: I think that would be the 20 most feasible time, the best opportunity to put it up. 21 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. And that would 22 accomplish what was intended in the old PD. 23 MR. SLOVACHEK: 1 think it would. I'm not 24 sure that we'd get agreement to it, but, yeah. 25 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Btlt anyway, I want an Page 36 1 understanding, when we're talking about a barrier, let's 2 talk the same barrier. Six foot with landscape to go in 3 before housing construction starts even though we can't 4 make it a condition. 5 MR. SLOVACHEK: That was actually contained 6 within one of the six, if you reference my letter that's 7 probably in your file. it's Item No. 4, maybe. I can't 8 recall what it is. But it's a six foot fence with 9 landscape screening. 10 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay~ So let's -- 11 just so from here on, we're all talking about the same 12 fence? 13 MR. SLOVACHEK: okay. I just want -- can I 14 make one clarification as well? It's my understanding 15 that Mr. Wallace is, I think, opposed to the eight-foot 16 stone fence as welI as to any other future fence. Is that 17 y'all's understanding as well? 18 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Yes. 19 COMMISSIONER MULROY: That's my 20 understanding. 21 COMMISSIONER APPLE: JUSt to clarify, 22 though, something that Commissioner Mulroy said, even 23 though we may speak of these things this evening as 24 alternatives and things to do, there is no guarantee that 25 that will occur. It's verbiage. So just keep that in the PLANNING AND zoIqING COMMISSION OCTOBER 23RD, 2002 Page 33 - Page 36 CondcnscItTM Page 37 1 back of your mind. Commissioner Roy. 2 COMM[SS~O~r~R ROY: ~ am still confused by 3 that point. I heard our -- my fellow Cormrfissloner clarify 4 what his understanding was. I saw the developer agree to 5 this. But we cannot make that a condition, so I'm very 6 reluctant to cons/der approving rezoning of this when 7 there's no assurance that anything will be done for the 8 neighbors. If I'm misunderstanding this point, I would 9 appreciate some clarification from staff or legal or I 0 someone. 11 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Mr. Snyder. 12 MR. SNYDER: There is one other option that 13 could be done, but not with this zoning case. The 14 applicant could re-file a new zoning case for planned 15 development amending the planned development and keeping 16 it as a planned development, and then, therefore, you 17 could put -- keep the conditions on it. But in its 18 present state as a request for straight zoning of file new 19 Code, you cannot put conditions on it. 20 COMMISSIONER ROY: BUt if ho maintains the 21 planned development status that he has now, he would not 22 be required to meet the new Development Code? 23 MR. SNYDER: That's correct. 24 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Is there 25 anyone else who wishes to speak to this itean7 Yes, ma'am. Page 3 8 1 If you'i1 please give your name and address. 2 MS. ~EL: Thank you for allowing me to 3 speak. I'm Nancy Tunnel. I live at 3776 Holland Lane. I 4 believe that PD 191 was in effect prior to the last change 5 in zoning. I may be incorrect, but I think that's the way 6 it was. And he says we want to make no concessions. We 7 felt like we conceded all we could before er) 191 was done. 8 It took a lot of soul searching. We went a little further 9 than we really wanted to at that point. And then he has 10 asked us to concede again and again on this area. He has 11 no continuity with what exists, that he is not asking for 12 the exception on. The property in front that Mr. Rife 13 would still have and the property in back, this would be a 14 section in the middle that would be contrary to the rest 15 of the property where the agreement is to have the fence. 16 He wants an exception for one section. 17 I've been traveling looking at fences a lot 18 lately. A six-foot fence driving down the road doesn't 19 get you but half way through the level -- the window of a 20 iower level. It does nothing as far as protecting 21 privacy. I've seen places where people have built on top 22 of their fences for more privacy. 23 We feel Iike the original PD 191 was 24 approved and covered all areas. The only thing we can see 25 that is a gain for him is additional profit. The property Page 39 I is already zoned for single family dwelling development. 2 And we urge that you consider lettlng it continue as it 3 is. Thank you. 4 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, ma'am. Is 5 there anyone else who wishes to address this issue? 6 Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public 7 hearing and ask for comments or a motion from 8 Commissioners. Commissioner Watkins. 9 COMMISSIONER WATKFNS: Thank you, Madam 10 Chair. I guess the question should be to legal. I 11 understand in our backup that the public infrastructure, a 12 drainage study for the entire Prominence Square 13 Development is currently underway. This has nothing to do 14 with the rezoning that wilI be done before anything takes 15 place there? 16 MR. SNYDER: C0rrcl3t. 17 COMMISSIONERWATKINS: Thank you. 18 COMMISSIONER APPLE: conmfissioner Powell. 19 COMMISSIONER POWELL: 3USt a comment, 20 Madam Chairman. And I made this conunent the last thne and 21 went through a lot of mish-mash to figure out the date. 22 But keep in mind that present zoning is less than two 23 years old. The present -- tile zoning was a result of a 24 lot of negotiations and a lot of time spent before this 25 particular Conmfission and both the property owner and the Page 40 1 neighbors were happy, at least the neighbors that came 2 here. And thc property owner was happy. He got what he 3 wanted. The neighbors were happy that he got it. And 4 they got what they wanted. Less than two years ago. 5 Total amount of my conunent. 6 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Roy. 7 COMMISSIONER ROY: I return to the basic 8 problem that I've had with this situation from the 9 beginning. I like the idea of rezoning, but I don't like 10 the idea of the requirements of the PD in this particular 11 instance not being met. So I have a big problem to 12 approve this zoning. And I think it's mgre~ble that no 13 solution was reached, so I'm leaning towards not agreeing 14 with the rezoning. 15 COMMISSIONER APPLE: would you hke to 16 frame a motion? 17 COMMISSIONER ROY: I will. But I will hold 18 and see if there is additional discussion. If not, I 19 will. 20 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Johnson. 21 COMMISSIONER JOFINSON: Yes, ma*am. Not 22 having the background that a lot of the people in here 23 have, I'm curious about Commissioner Powell's comment. It 24 appears to me from what I see in the background that eD 25 191 was what was agreed to by everybody. What we're doing PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 23RD, 2002 Page 37 - Page 40 1 2 4 $ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 i5 16 I7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CondenseltTM Page 41 now is we're trying to rezone this thing to get away from Po ~; is that right? So I'm assuming that the agreement that we're speaking about is the agreement to do PO l~l. COMMISSIONER POWELL: CO~t. I'm sorry, Madam Chairman. I assumed you were asking me. And if so, Page 43 of seeing time -- what's happened in our development philosophy in the last two and a half, three years has been, you know, through a threshold where we are, in fact encouraging slightly higher density to £imit sprawl. We have cconomic times that are different whereas a massive I'm saying yes. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: okay. I just needed that clarification. That's all. COMMISSIONER APPLE: If there are no more comments, I'll entertain a motion. Commissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: I move tlmt we deny the rezoning as proposed. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Second. COMMISSIONER APPLE: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Holt. COMMISSIONER HOLT: ! want to make sure that we undersland this completely. If we vote to deny this, this can be built under the Pt) standards, which are lower than our standards for the zoning that they are requesting; is this correct? MR. REICHHART: This PD WaS approved as we were going through the process of developing the standards for the Development Code. And a lot of the -- I won't say conditions, but the way the proposals -- the details in this Development Plan are very similar to the Development Page 42 I Code, it may be a little bit different. I don't know if 2 it's less, quite honestly. 3 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Any major difference 4 tike density or -- 5 MR. REICHHART: well, they're asking for an 6 increase in density over what the original PO would be. 7 COMMISSIONER HOLT: okay. So that will be 8 lower? 9 MR. REICHHART: Yes. 10 COMMISSIONER HOLT: okay. What about the 11 landscaping? 12 MR. R£{C}tU~mT: I believe it's very 13 similar. I think we have street trees required and 14 perhaps the applicant could answer that better. But I 15 think it's very similar. And quite honestly, the new 16 Development Code requires less than what we use to do for i7 residential. What we require is street trees and not 18 anything in the lawn. There may be conditions in this eD 19 that each lot gets a tree, which was very similar. 20 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. 21 Commissioner Mulroy. 22 COMMISSIONER MULROY: YeS, I don't -- I'll 23 be voting against the motion because I don't have tho 24 background that some of my fellow Conmfissioners have from 25 the early inception of the Po. And so my perspective is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 PD may not be right for development. But the residential 7 lots, there may be a demand for. g I'm looking at this map. I'm seeing that 9 the gentlemen that has the greatest concerns has the same 10 zoning that the new owners of this property are asking 11 for. And I think part of the -- again, the new Code is 12 higher density, but higher esthetics. And I don't see i3 what they're requesting is inconsistent with the overall 14 philosophical threshold that the City planning has moved 15 through. And then I find it unfortunate that the 16 gentlemen that's most concerned could not achieve some 17 type of compromise accommodation, that it was just a flat 18 no, I'm not going to move, because, you know, times do 19 change. And circumstances change. And for this property, 20 every development -- and I don't know, but you could 21 sun,aise that there has to be a cause for the original 22 holder to want to sell off part of that ?~. so if, you 23 know, maybe we won't have development if we don't haw 24 this incremental approach. I don't know. I'm just saying 25 you have to -- as an individual, I would broaden my Page 44 thinking that times do change. And as you look at the zoning map, I can't see what is so objectionable about additional NR-4 next to what the other property owner has. Thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: AI~ th~:~.'e any more comments? We have a motion and a second. I'll be voting in favor of the motion for the reasons cited by Commissioner Powell and Conunissioner Roy. Vote, please. COMMISSIONER ROY: A yes vote or a no vote -- COMMISSIONER APPLE: we're voting in favor of deniaI or against. COMMISSIONER ROY: Favor of denying. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Motion carries 5-2, (COMMISSIONER HOLT AND COMMISSIONER MULROY VOTING IN OPPOSITION.) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 23RD, 2002 Page 41 - Page 44 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, REZONING APPROXIMATELY 35.3 ACRES OF LAND IN THE CiTY OF DENTON FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 191 (PD-191) ZONING DISTRICT TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESiDENTiAL 2 (NR-2), NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 4 (NR-4) AND NEIGHBORHOOD RESiDENDiTAL 6 (NR-6); SAID REAL PROPERTY BEING GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF MAYHiLL ROAD BETWEEN AUDRA AND HOLLAND WITH AN APPROXIMATE 2.27 ACRE PORTION EXTENDING NORTH OF AUDRA; PROVIDING A PENALTY CLAUSE WITH A MAXIMUM FiNE OF $2000.00 PER DAY FOR A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE; A SEVERABiLiTY CLAUSE; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z02-0045). WHEREAS, the owner has initiated a change in zoning for approximately 35.30 acres of land from a Planned Developmem 191 (PD 191) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residemial - 2 (NR-2), Neighborhood Residemial - 4 (NR-4), and Neighborhood Residemial - 6 (NR-6) zoning district; and WHEREAS, said 35.30 acres of land is described in three tracts or parcels of land as an approximate 16.93 acre parcel or tract of land more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the "16.93 Acre Tract"), as an approximate 16.09 acre parcel or tract of land more particularly described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the "16.09 Acre Tract"), and as an approximate 2.27 acre parcel or tract of land more particularly described in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the "2.27 Acre Tract"); and WHEREAS, on September 25, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the requested zoning; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the zoning is consistem with the Comprehensive Plan, NOW, THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The 16.93 Acre Tract is hereby changed from Planned Developmem 191 (PD 191) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residemial - 4 (NR-4) zoning district under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of DeNon, Texas. The 16.09 Acre Tract is hereby changed from Planned Developmem 191 (PD 191) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residemial - 6 (NR-6) zoning district under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of DeNon, Texas. The 2.27 Acre Tract is hereby changed from Planned Developmem 191 (PD 191) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residemial - 2 (NR-2) zoning district 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 classifications. 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. if any section, subsection, paragraph, semence, phrase or word in this ordinance, or application there of to any person or circumstance is held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance, and City Council of the City of Demon, Texas hereby declares it would have enacted such remaining portions despite any such invalidity. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Demon Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Demon, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2002. EULiNE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Page 2 of 5 Exhibit "A" FIELD NOTES to all that certain tract of land situated City of Denton in the W. Lloyd Survey Abstract Number 774 and in the M. E. P. & P. R.R. CO. Survey Abstract Number 1469, Denton County, Texas and being a part of the called 36.666 acre tract described in the deed from H. Edward Downs et ux to Henry Rife recorded under Clerk's File Number 00-R0096311 in the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas and a part of the called 13.815 acre Tract 1 described in the deed from Frances Kathryn Cluck to Henry Rife recorded under Clerk's File Number 00-R0075751 in the said Real Property Records; the subject tract being more particularly described as follows; BEGINNING for the Southeast comer of the herein described tract, in Mayhill Road at the Southeast comer of the 36.666 acre tract, South 89 Degrees 38 Minutes 41 Seconds East a distance of 17.0 feet, from a ½ inch iron rod set with a yellow plastic cap stamped "SENTCORP RPLS 4001" on the proposed West line of Mayhill Road; THENCE North 89 Degrees 38 Minutes 41 Seconds West with the South line of the said 36.666 acre tract, a distance of 679.74 feet, to a 1/2 inch iron rod found on the East line of the 5.00 acre tract, described in the deed from John L. Stallings et ux to Charley Lesley Smelter recorded in Volume 1177, Page 436 of the said Deed Records; THENCE North 01 Degrees 00 Minutes 57 Seconds East with the East line of the 5.00 acre tract, a distance of 77.08 feet, to a 1/2 inch iron rod found at the Northeast comer thereof; THENCE North 89 Degrees 38 Minutes 21 Seconds West with the South line of the 36.666 acre tract, a distance of 762.84 feet, to a 1/2 inch iron rod set with a yellow plastic cap stamped "SENTCORP RPLS 4001" for the Southwest comer of the herein described tract; THENCE North 03 Degrees 55 Minutes East across the 36.666 acre tract passing the North line thereof and continuing across the 13.815 acre tract a distance of 480.08 feet; THENCE South 89 Degrees 25 Minutes East passing the East line of the 13.815 acre tract and continuing across the 36.666 acre tract, in all, a distance of 1432.40 feet to the East line of thereof in Mayhill Road; THENCE South 02 Degrees 30 Minutes West along Mayhill Road with the East line of the 36.666 acre tract a distance of 550.85 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING and enclosing 16.93 acres of land. Page 3 of 5 EXHIBIT "B" FIELD NOTES to all that certain tract of land situated City of Denton in the W. Lloyd Survey Abstract Number 774 and in the M. E. P. & P. R.R. CO. Survey Abstract Number 1469, Denton County, Texas and being a part of the called 36.666 acre tract described in the deed from H. Edward Downs et ux to Henry Rife recorded under Clerk's File Number 00-R0096311 in the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas and a part of the called 13.815 acre Tract 1 described in the deed from Frances Kathryn Cluck to Henry Rife recorded under Clerk's File Number 00-R0075751 in the said Real Property Records; the subject tract being more particularly described as follows; BEGINNING for the Southeast comer of the herein described tract in Mayhill Road on the East line of the 36.666 acre tract, North 02 Degrees 30 Minutes East a distance of 550.85 feet from the Southeast thereof; THENCE North 89 Degrees 25 Minutes West across the 36.666 acre tract passing a West line thereof and the East line of the 13.815 acre tract and continuing, in all, a distance of 1432.40 feet; THENCE North 03 Degrees 55 Minutes 42 Seconds East across the 36.666 acre tract, passing the North line thereof and continuing, across the 13.815 acre tract, passing at a distance of 199.50 feet, a 1/2 inch iron rod with a yellow plastic cap stamped "SENTCORP RPLS 4001" found and continuing, in all, a total distance of 261.15 feet, to the centerline of a proposed street; THENCE with the centerline of a proposed street the following 3 calls: 1. North 40 Degrees 13 Minutes 51 Seconds East a distance of 115.43 feet, to the beginning ora curve to the right having a radius of 450.00 feet from witch an 1/2 inch iron rod set with a yellow plastic cap stamped "SENTCORP RPLS 4001" for bears South 49 Degrees 46 Minutes 09 Seconds East a distance of 36.5 feet; 2. With the said curve an arc length of 394.82 feet, (chord bearing North 65 Degrees 21 Minutes 56 Seconds East a distance of 382.27 feet) to the end of curve form with an 1/2 inch iron rod set with a yellow plastic cap stamped "SENTCORP RPLS 4001" South 00 Degrees 30 Minutes 20 Seconds West a distance of 32.5 feet; 3. South 89 Degrees 30 Minutes 00 Seconds East, 32.5 feet South of and parallel to the North line of the 13.815 acre tract, and the 36.666 acre tract, a distance of 1014.87 to The East line of the 36.666 acre tract, in Mayhill Road, South 02 Degrees 30 Minutes 00 Seconds West a distance of 32.5 feet, from the Northeast comer of the 36.666 acre tract and being South 29 Degrees 40 Minutes 31 Seconds West a distance of 37.22 feet from 1/2 inch iron rod set with a yellow plastic cap stamped "SENTCORP RPLS 4001"; THENCE South 02 Degrees 30 Minutes 00 Seconds West along Mayhill Road with the East line of the 36.666 acre tract, a distance of 514.35 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING and enclosing 16.09 acres of land. Page 4 of 5 EXHIBIT "C" FIELD NOTES to all that certain tract of land situated in the W. Lloyd Survey Abstract Number 774 and in the M. E. P. & P. R.R. Co. Survey Abstract Number 1469, Denton County, Texas and being a part of the called 36.666 acre tract described in the deed from H. Edward Downs et ux to Henry Rife recorded under Clerk's File Number 00-R0096311 in the Real Property Records of Demon County, Texas and a part of the called 64.073 acre tract described in the deed from Leslie T. Holland to Junction 288 Partners recorded in Volume 347, Page 152 in the said Real Property Records; the subject tract being particularly described as follows; BEGINNING for the Southeast comer of the herein described tract, on the cemerline of a proposed road, South 02 Degrees 30 Minutes West a distance of 33 feet and North 89 Degrees 30 Minutes West a distance of 380 feet from the Northeast comer of the said 36.666 acre tract; THENCE North 89 Degrees 30 Minutes West across the 36.666 acre tract with the centerline of a proposed road a distance of 104.88 feet; THENCE North 00 Degrees 28 Minutes East a across the 36.666 acre tract passing at a distance of 32.5 feet the North line thereof and continuing across the said 64.073 acre tract, in all, a total distance of 319.62 feet; THENCE North 88 Degrees 49 Minutes West across the 64.073 acre tract a distance of 207.61 feet; THENCE North 34 Degrees 15 Minutes West across the 64.073 acre tract a distance of 172.47 feet; THENCE North 85 Degrees 24 Minutes East across the 64.073 acre tract a distance of 437.75 feet; THENCE South 03 Degrees 21 Minutes West across the 64.073 acre tract and with the East line thereof, passing at a distance of 470.84 feet the Southeast comer thereof and cominuing across the 36.666 acre tract a distance of 503 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING and enclosing 2.27 acres of land. Page 5 of 5 Item 5H AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET November 19, 2002 Planning and Development Department Dave Hill, 349-8314 SUBJECT - Z02-0050:(2309 Hinkle Drive) Hold a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning approximately 1.1 acres from a Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning district. The site, commonly known as 2309 Hinkle Drive, is generally located 300 feet north of Greenbrier Street along the west side of Hinkle Drive. No development is proposed at this time. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval. (6-1). BACKGROUND Applicant: Kelly Brooks Denton, TX The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 1.1 acre of land from a Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning district. The property is located between two existing NRMU 12 zoning districts. A previous zoning request for this property was denied on July 16, 2002. The applicant was not present at the public hearing or the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Public notification and property owner responses are provided in Attachments 3 and 4. As of this writing, staff has received two (2) responses in favor and two (2) responses in opposition from property owners within 200 feet of the subject site. Currently, 3.25% of the land within 200 feet of the subject property is in opposition to the request. As there is less than 20% opposition, a simple majority vote by City Council is required to approve this request. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Deny. 3. Postpone consideration. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-1). Vicki Holt opposed. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The subject property is not platted. A final plat is required prior to the issuance of any building permits. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology of Z02-0050, commonly known as 2309 Hinkle Drive: Application Date - September 25, 2002 DRC Date - October 10, 2002 P&Z Date: - October 23, 2002 No neighborhood meeting was held. FISCAL INFORMATION Developmem of this property will district. increase the assessed value of the city, county, ATTACHMENTS 1. StafYAnalysis 2. Maps 3. Public Notification (Property Owner Notification Map) 4. Property Owners Reponses Map 5. Planning and Zoning Commission October 23, 2002 Minutes 6. Ordinance Prepared by: Deborah Viem, AICP Planner II Respectfully submitted: Douglas S. Powell, AICP Director of Planning and Development and school 2 ATTACHMENT 1 Staff Analysis Summary of Zonin~ Request After the conclusion of the previous zoning request, the applicant contacted the Planning and Development Department inquiring on the status of the zoning case. When informed of the City Council's vote, the applicant stated that he had not been informed of either public heating. Although the applicant had been called several times prior to the meeting, staff was never able to talk to the applicant. Further, although staff mailed a legal notice, the letter was incorrectly addressed and therefore returned. Staff believed that this new application should be processed to allow the applicant the opportunity to argue why the zoning change is appropriate. The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 1.1 acre of land from a 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, approximately 300 feet north of Greenbrier Street. 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. Prior to the adoption of the Development Code, the property was zoned Agricultural (A) Adjacent zoning and land uses. North: South: East: West: Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) vacant (DHA property) Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU- 12) office Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) Good Samaritan Village. Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) vacant. The property is located between two existing NRMU 12 zoning districts and is currently undeveloped. Comprehensive Plan Analysis The subject site is located within a Developed Areas Neighborhoods / Infill Compatibility future land use areas. of Floodplain and Existing Although the majority of the sits is located within developed floodplains, it is possible to reclaim portions of the property after the appropriate drainage studies have been approved. New development within the Existing Neighborhoods/ Infill Compatibility land use areas should respond to existing development with compatible land uses, patterns and design standards. The Denton Plan recommends that existing neighborhoods within the city be vigorously protected 3 and preserved. Housing that is compatible with the existing density, neighborhood service, and commercial land uses is allowed. Development Review Analysis The current NR-3 zoning basically allows for single-family homes with a maximum of three and one half (3 V~ units per acre. Although the proposed NRMU-12 zoning district allows for a greater number of uses (single-family, duplexes, attached single-family, apartments, and offices and retail uses with limitations) and higher densities (12 units per acre), the standards in the Development Code ensure that minimum standards will be met. Additionally, the proposed revisions to the NRMU-12 zoning district would require a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for multi- family development on this property because it is within 200 feet of existing single-family houses (houses on the north side of Greenbrier). STAFF FINDINGS The proposed Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with adjacent zoning classifications and land uses. 4 ATTACH MENT 2 Maps NORTH Location/Zoning Map Scale: None 5 NORTH Land Use Map Scale: None 6 ATTACH MENT 3 Public Notification Notification Map NORTH Newspaper Notification Date: October 12, 2002 Percent of land within 200' in opposition: 0% 200' Legal Notices* sent via Certified Mail: 16 500' Courtesy Notices* sent via 1 st Class Mail: 55 · All properties with street addresses are within 500 ft. of the subject property. · All properties highlighted are within 200 ft. of the subject property. · See Table 1 for 200 ft. property owner information. *A copy of the notification list can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 Scale: N~ 7 TABLE 1 200 FT. PROPERTY OWNERS NFORMATION SITUSADDR OWNERNAME ADDRESS1 ADDRESS2 CITY ST ZIP CODE C/O DENTON 2500 HINKLE DP, EV LUTHERAN GOOD GOOD 2500 HINKLE 76201- ; SAMARITAN SEC SAMARITAN VLGE DR DENTON TX 0739 1301 HAGGARD DR; NYGREN, LYNDA S PO BOX 2793 DENTON TX 76202 2329 HINKLE DR DENTON HOUSING THE CITY OF 1225 WILSON ; AUTHORITY OF DENTON ST DENTON TX 76205 1213 HAGGARD 76202- LN; HIMES, CURTIS L P O BOX 2558 DENTON TX 2558 2402 HAGGARD; NYGREN, LYNDA S PO BOX 2793 DENTON TX 76202 1221 HAGGARD 76201- DR; GARRE"FI', DAMIANA 1221 HAGGARD LN DENTON TX 0723 2402 HAGGARD; NYGREN, LYNDA S PO BOX 2793 DENTON TX 76202 1221 HAGGARD 76201- DR; GARRE"FI', DAMIANA 1221 HAGGARD LN DENTON TX 0723 2309 HINKLE DR PILOT 76258- ; BROOKS, KELLY L 511 E THOMAS ST POINT TX 4445 2301 HINKLE DR 76202- ; DBR CONSTRUCTION PO BOX 828 DENTON TX 0828 C/O DENTON 2500 HINKLE DR EV LUTHERAN GOOD GOOD 2500 HINKLE 76201- ; SAMARITAN SEC SAMARITAN VLGE DR DENTON TX 0739 1230 1230 GREENBRIAR 76201 - GREENBRIAR ST SALTER, STEVEN K ST DENTON TX 1764 1226 GREENBRIAR KIZER, DANIEL S & 1226 GREENBRIAR 76201- ST; GWENDOLYN ST DENTON TX 1764 1222 GREENBRIAR HORNSBY, JAMES H 1222 GREENBRIAR 76201- ST; & DONNA M ST DENTON TX 1764 1218 DAUGHTREY, 1218 GREENBRIAR 76201- GREENBRIAR; MARTHA A ST DENTON TX 1764 2905 1214 JCJ FAMILY PENNSYLVANIA GREENBRIAR PARTNERS DR DENTON TX 76205 1210 GREENBRIAR LEAKE, TRUI"FI' G 1210 GREENBRIAR DENTON TX 76201 1206 GREENBRIAR DUCHEMIN, JOHN E 1206 GREENBRIAR DENTON TX 76201 1200 1829 GREENBRIAR STEWART, JOHN GEORGETOWN DENTON TX 76201 8 Attachment 4 Property Owners Responses Map NORTH 2309 sITE Good Samaritan Number of Responses tO 200 ft. Legal Notice Opposed :2 Favor: 2 Neutral: 0 Percent of land within 200' in opposition: 3.25% 9 CondenseltTM Page 53 1 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Item No. 11 is a 2 public hearing and Ms. Viera with the Planning Staff will 3 present. I will open the public hearing. 4 MS. VIERA: The Commission has heard this 5 application before. This application came before you on 6 lune 12th, 2002. At that time due to a problem with the 7 notification process, the applicant, Mr. Kelly Brooks was 8 not able to attend to the public hearings. Therefore, 9 staff believed that it was appropriate to bring that 10 application back to you. 11 The application still is for NRMU-12 zoning 12 designation. This is a 1.1 acre site located along Hinkle 13 Drive. Thc site is also located between two existing 14 NRMUq2 zoning districts. I would also like to update you 15 about the amendments to the NRMU zoning designation. 16 According to City Council, City Council has postponed a 17 decision about allowing multi-family uses with a Specific 18 Use Permit if the site is located within 200 feet of a 19 single family use. So that decision will come up some 20 time during December. I believe on December the 5th. 21 MR. REICHHART: It's the first meeting in 22 December. I'm not sure of the date -- the 4th? 23 MS. VIE~,~: staff has found that the 24 proposed zoning is compatible to the existing zoning 25 adjacent to the proPerty and it also is in compliance with Chair. Mitchell. Page 54 I the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has received two letters in 2 opposition so far and that represents 3.25 percent of the 3 land within 200 feet. Copy of those responses were 4 submitted to you during the Work Session time. With this 5 I conclude my presentation. 6 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Is the 7 applicant -- Conmaissioner Roy has a question. 8 COMMISSIONER ROY: I tin,ember a significant 9 discussion on this issue before. Do you have the percent 10 of opposition that was in the first set of discussions? 11 MS. WERA: NO, I don't. 12 COMMISSIONER ROY: DO yOU have the minutes 13 with you of our meeting from that first discussion? 14 MS. VIERA: NO, I don't. I believe one of 15 the main concerns was the flood plain. But I don't have 16 the minutes with me, sir. 17 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Is the 18 applicant present? 19 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I have a question. 20 COMMISSIONER APPLE: cormnissioner Mulroy. 21 COMMISSIONER MULROY: l'm sorry, Madmn 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I'm sorry, Ms. MS. MITCHELL: That's okay. Page 55 I COMMISSIONER MULROY: I have a question of 2 Ms. Viera, please. On the information you related to us 3 about the City Council's decision -- so my understanding 4 is what is proposed is that on in-fill condition, you $ would need an suP, but that is not approved yet by City 6 Council. So we are under the existing definition NRMV-t2 7 wherein multi-family is allowed by right? 8 MS. VIERA: That is correct. 9 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. Thank you. 10 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, 11 Commissioner Mukoy. Ms. Mitchell. 12 MS. MrTCHE~.t.: lhank you. Madam Chair, 13 members of the Planning and Zoning Comanission. Thank you 14 for allowing me to come before you this evening. My name 15 is Karen Mitchell with Mitchell Planning Group, 7823 Nine 16 Mile Bridge Road in Fort Worth. 17 When I first was asked to get involved in 18 this particular case, I do what I normally do and that is 19 I go and visit with the City Staff. I obtain as much 20 infornmfion as I possibly can to understand the history of 21 this piece of property. As a former City Planner with the 22 City of Denton and also a current City Planner in other 23 areas, when I look at a zoning map that shows that you 24 have NRMU-12 to the north and the south and also owr to 25 the east of the site, nay question immediately comes to Page 56 1 play as something must have happened somewhere in thc 2 process that left this one out. And I didn't know exactly 3 what happened. 4 It's my understanding that when the City 5 was going through the overall rezoning process, that this 6 parcel was actually slated as NRMU-12 and I may have to 7 ask Mr. Reichhart to explain why it didn't happen that 8 way. I'd like to back up just a second and explain to you 9 what happened at the last meeting. Again, this was before 10 my time. The applicant was not notified of the meetings, 11 and -- for either case, for the P&Z or the City Council, 12 because I assure you he would have been at both of these 13 meetings had he been notified of them. 14 And then when he contacted the City to kind I5 of see what was happening with his zoning case, they said, 16 oh, they denied your case. And he was, like, what. And 17 so that's the reason why he was not present at this 18 meeting. It was not because of concern that it wasn't 19 important enough to him to be at the hearing because it 20 certainly was important for him to be at the hearing. 21 In looking at this particular piece of 22 property, again, we've got a one-acre tract of land that 23 has NRMU-12 tO the north, to thc south, to the east. 24 There's approximately 50 feet, maybe 50, 55 feet in the 25 back part that is actually abutting the NR-3 zoning PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 23RD, 2002 Page 53 - Page 56 CondenseltTM Page 57 I district. 2 In looking at this piece of property in 3 detail, and what goes along with it when you develop a 4 piece of property, there's approximately 70 percent of 5 this site that's actually in the flood plain. From a 6 developmental standpoint, if somebody were to come in and 7 even put -- and I doubt if it would actually happen, but 8 try to put single family residential on this piece of 9 property, just going through the platting process alone 10 and having to pay for the engineering studies alone for 11 the drainage and the flood plain situation, it causes a 12 huge increase in the cost of what it would take to 13 actually develop this out as single family residential. 14 At the time this property does get 15 developed, again, with about 70 percent of it being in the 16 flood plain, there's going to have to be extensive 17 engineering studies done on this piece of property for 18 drainage purposes. 19 In looking at it again from a Planning 20 standpoint and allowing it to be an l,m-3 zoning, as a 21 consumer, if I'm looking at property to purchase a piece 22 of property, I'm going to look at what thc zoning is to 23 the north and the south of me. And if I look at the north 24 and the south of me as well as across the street from me 25 and I see you've got a Zoning District thc~e that's ~mMU- Page 59 1 spoken with her on the phone. She did say she was going 2 to be at the meeting tonight in favor of our request. So, 3 hopefully, she's here. If not, I wanted to share with you 4 that I did have that conversation with her. 5 So with the two letters of opposition that 6 you received, you also received two letters in favor of 7 this request. With that, I would be more than happy to 8 answer any questions that you-all may have. 9 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I don't see any 10 questions. I do have one. What do you plan to put there? 11 COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: The property is in 12 negotiations right now to be put under contract. We are I3 looking at putting probably about two quadraplexes at this 14 location. That's all we're probably going to be able to 15 get on this piece of property due to the development 16 constraints that go with it. So we are looking at most, 17 and, again, I'm kind of -- we haven't gotten into the nuts 18 and bolts of it at this time. But just in looking at the 19 amount of flood plain that's on this piece of property, 20 what kind of money it's going to take to actually develop 21 this, even if we're not developing in the flood plain, if 22 we're trying to keep it out of the flood plain, we're 23 looking at most -- I'm seeing that we would get at least, 24 you know, two quadraplcxes at that location. 25 COMMISSIONER APPLE: TWO four-plexes? Page 58 1 12, I'm going to be very concemcd about investing in a 2 piece of property to put a single family residential house 3 in that area when you already have zoning in place, us 4 being basically sandwiched into this piece of property. 5 I went back and read the minutes and, 6 incidentally, Mr. Roy, I have a copy of the minutes if you 7 want to take a look at those unless you don't have them. 8 I do have a copy that I'd be more than happy to share with 9 you. But in going back and looking at the minutes, I can 10 appreciate the concern that you all had at that time 11 especially in light of the fact that thc owner of the 12 property was not present to answer any questions that you 13 all had. 14 He is here tonight and will be able to 15 answer questions. Hopefully, I'll be able to answer them 16 for you. But in the event I can't, we can go ahead and 17 ask Mr. Brooks to come forward. 18 One of the things I'd like to point out. I I9 did receive a phone call yesterday from Linda Nigran who 20 owns these two parcels right here. She is within the 200 21 foot. She also shared with me and this is something staff 22 -- well, actually, it's a moot issue at this point. She 23 said she also did not get notification the last go round. 24 But, again, it's a moot issue because she did get 25 notification this time. I haven't met her. I've only Page 60 1 MS. MITCHELL: Right. Correct. 2 COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. Thank you. 3 Commissioner Roy. 4 COMMISSIONER ROY: Yes. Do you have a map 5 with you that shows the creek bed and how it runs through 6 this property? 7 MS. MITCHELL: This is what was provided to 8 us by the City. This being our site, the creek actually 9 would come across. Let me see if I can just kind of draw 10 it on there. 11 COMMISSIONER ROY: That'S thc existing 12 creek bed? 13 MS. MITCHELL: The creek bed itself looks 14 like it's about right -- approximately fight here. So it 15 would take in just this portion of the property. The 16 remainder of it is considered the flood plain. But if I'm 17 looking at this correctly, it looks like this is the creek 18 that comes through right here and so it looks like it's 19 just this very end of the property, the northern part of 20 the property. 21 COMMISSIONER ROY: Thank you. 22 MS. MITCHELL: You're welcome. 23 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. I don't 24 see any more questions. This is a public hearing. Is 25 there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 23RD, 2002 Page 57 - Page 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CondenseltTM Page 6 issue? Yes, ma'am. If you'll come down to the podimn. And if you'll just give us your name and address, please. MS. RICYamDS: Thank you. My name is Leigh Richards. I'm with DBRCOnStmction Company. Our address is 2301 Hinkle Drive. I'm representing osn as I said and thank you for letting me speak for a moment tonight. I'm not a Planner or Zoning person. But I have one thing, I think, on this piece of property. Ours is just south, the little tract -- COMMISSIONER APPLE: can you point on the map? MS. RICHARDS: Certainly. Right there. COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. MS. RIertaRDS: And, anyway, one advantage I do have is I go hem every day to this office and our two concerns at this point are, number one, we did get tho notification. But then it said we would receive legal notification in the mail. We never received that. We received just that notice they kind of posted. Does anyone have that. And I'll show you exactly the wording where it says, if you're within 200 yard, you'll receive further legal notification. Anyway, we did not receive that. COMMISSIONER APPLE: SO you received file one to resident not certified? MS. RICHARDS: That's correct. We just Page 62 1 2 nx_cived a little flyer. 3 COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. 4 MS. RICFamOS: And so we would really like 5 to receive that. We did not. 6 COMMISSIONER ^CPI.E: Ali right. 7 MS. RtCU,~qr)S: And number 2, it is an issue 8 to us about the flooding, the flood zone there. Because 9 public works that would take place on that land would 10 greatly affect ours, because we're just a little hit, kind 11 of in a slope there. And, also, we have a concern about 12 traffic, because, again, we have about five employees at 13 our company that are in the office, that work in the 14 office and we come and go out of our little driveway every 15 day. And the traffic is very precarious right there. 16 And we're very concerned about being more '17 traffic on that -- on Hinkle Drive. And we're also 18 concerned because of tho light where Hinkle intersects -- 19 well, it doesn't intersect actually. It's perpcndicular 20 to University Drive. It's also very precarious. 21 So at this point, really, we just have some 22 more questions that we don't feel like we've really been 23 notified of things yet, where we can discover things on 24 our own and have some feedback. And also we have one more 25 question. Page 63 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Page 64 1 that the applicant is requesting. It does allow for some 2 small offices, a little bit o£ multi-family at 12 units 3 per acre, the duplexes, four-plexes, just allows a little 4 bit more flexibility in the zoning than just straight 5 single family is what it's currently zoned. 6 MS. RICHARDS: well, we've been trying to 7 build like a -- just a closed~in building behind our 8 company. It used to be a Montessofi schooi, and so when 9 it got -- we got the zoning to have our business there, 10 actually it cut down the traffic a lot from a school to a 11 business with five employees. And we can't seem to get 12 our zoning done to build a little building. 13 So it's quite frustrating to us to sec 14 zoning possibly being approved for multiffamily living 15 right next door to our property. We feel like it kind of 16 decreases the value of our own property as far as 17 development. I know that's neither here nor there, 18 though, I guess in this hearing. 19 MR. REICHHART: But I would like to talk to 20 you about that. 21 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Staff can address that 22 with you personally. 23 MS. RICHARDS: Okay. Weli, I won't take 24 any more of your time. I just wanted to -- it may be on 25 record that we got notification, but I was advised that we OCTOBER 23RD, 2002 Page 61 - Page 64 I COMMISSIONER APPLE: YOll have one minute. 2 MS. RICHARDS: okay. One more question and 3 this is what exactly the distinction of the new zoning is, 4 but I think that's something that y'alI are working out as 5 well, not the MR-3, but the mixed business thing. 6 COMMISSIONER APPLE: would Mr. Reichhart or 7 Ms. Viera like to address her question? 8 MS. VtEPoX: This is a copy of the legal 9 notice that you are supposed to -- I just want to clarify. [0 This is a list of property owners that were notified 11 within the 200 feet as part of your backup. I would like 12 to meet with the lady hero and just double check if the 13 mailing address that we have in our database is the 14 correct mailing address for them, however, staff shows 15 that that company was notified. 16 COMMISSIONER APPLE: ~rhank you. That's a 17 good idea. And Mr. Reich_hart would like to answer your -- 18 if you'd repeat your question about the difference between 19 the designations for him? 20 MS. aICr~am>s: xes. I understand right now 21 we're zoned multi-business -- 22 MR. REICHHART: NRMU-12, 23 MS. RICHARDS: yes. Traits what we're '24 zoned right now? 25 MR, REICHHART: YeS. It's the same zoning CondcnscItTM Page 65 I had not. I don't know. Maybe it slipped through the 2 cracks somewhere. But we would -- that's our main 3 concern. 4 COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. Thank you SO 5 much. And Ms. Viera can help you with that just aftex 6 this case finishes. 7 MS. RICHARDS: Thank you for your time. 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: IS th~ve anyone else 9 here who would like to address the Commission? Seeing no 10 one coming down, I'd like to see if Ms. Mitchell would 11 like to address her concerns? 12 MS. MITCHELL: Not really. I know the 13 Montessori School, because my stepson went there when it 14 was in business. I picked him up many times from there 15 when he was very young. Again, there's really nothing 16 move than I can add other than the fact that Mr. Reichhart 17 shared with her that the zoning that we've requesting is 18 exactly the same zoning that they have on their property. 19 And, you know, with zoning, whether you've got, you know, 20 your vacant property right here, and you have something 21 right here, you don't know -- I mean, you've looking at 22 all of the uses that go with the NRMU-12 zoning District. 23 And so even though this is vacant and when I looked back 24 at the minutes of it, it was said that the housing 25 authority was putting low density residential, there's no Page 66 1 guaranta: unless it's a Po or a specific site plan or a 2 building pemfit has been issued on that property as 3 exactly what's going to go on that piece of property. And 4 thc same holds true down here that there is nothing to say 5 that at some point they may say, you know what, we've 6 going to sell it and we've going to put multi-family in 7 this location as well. 8 We're just asking at this time to be given 9 the same -~ the same treatment as the other properties 10 that are located in this block to the north, south and 11 east of us. 12 COMMISSIONER ^PPLE: Thank you. I will 13 close the public heating. And ask for comments or a 14 motion from the Commissioners. Commissioner Mulroy. 15 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes, Madam Chair. 16 I'm ready to make a motion. I movc approval of the Zoning 17 Change. It just makes sense at this time to match up the 18 zoning. And we had earlier concerns several months ago 19 that had to do with what was going to happen on the 20 in-fill condition, that Council has had the opportunity to 21 do something. I don't know where they ave. But at this 22 time, I'm for changing the zoning. 23 COMMISSIONER APPLE: We have a motion. 24 L-X)MMISSIONER Jo~mSON: second. 25 COMMISSIONER APPLE: And a second. Is I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 t4 15 16 17 18 19 20 2I 22 23 24 25 Page 67 there any discussion? Vote, please. Motion carries 6-1. (COMMISSIONER HOLT VOTING IN OPPOSITION.) COMMISSIONER APPLE: It'S been requested that we take a break. So we will take a break and return at 8:25. (Break taken.) Page 68 PLAN[NIN[G AND ZONING COMMISSION[ OCTOBER 23RD, 2002 Page 65 - Page 68 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM NEIGHBORHOOOD RESIDENTIAL 3 (NR-3) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO NEIGHBORHHOD RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE 12 (NRMU-12) ZON1NG DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 1.1 ACRES OF LAND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 2309 HINKLE DRIVE AND GENERALLY LOCATED 300 FEET NORTH OF GREENBRIAR STREET ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF HiNKLE DR1VE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY iN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z02-0050) WHEREAS, Kelly Brooks initiated a change in zoning for approximately 1.1 acres of land commonly known as 2309 Hinkle Drive, being Tract 68 of the Beaumom Survey and as depicted on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the "Property") from Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning district classification and use designation; and WHEREAS, on October 23, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission concluded a public hearing as required by law, and recommended approval of the requested change in zoning; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change in zoning is consistem with the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The zoning district classification and use designation of the Property is changed from Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning district classification and use designation. This zoning change extends to the cemerline of all adjacem street rights-of-way. SECTION 2. The City's official zoning map is amended to show the change in zoning district classification. SECTION 3. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid by any court, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. SECTION 4. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the DeNon Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Denton, Page 1 of 3 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 M~.~DOW R!DGE DRj SITE 2309 Page 3 of 3 Item 51 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET November 19, 2002 Planning and Development Department CM/DCM/ACM: Dave Hill, 349-8314 SUBJECT - Z02-0048: (Race Trac at Fort Worth Drive) Hold a public heating and consider adoption of an ordinance approving a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a gas station on an approximate 2-acre site. The site is located approximately 1,200 feet north of Interstate 35 E on the east side of Fort Worth Drive. The property is in a Downtown Commercial General (DC-G) zoning district. A convenience store and gas station is proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval with conditions. (7-0) BACKGROUND Applicant: Kimley-Hom & Associates Dallas, Texas The proposed convenience store is permitted by right in this location. However, the gas station component of the proposed development requires a Specific Use Permit. The applicant is proposing ten (10) gas pumps, a steel post prefabricated canopy, and the accessory facilities typical of gas stations. Public notification and property owner responses are provided in Attachment 3. As of this writing, staff has received 3 responses in favor from property owners within 200 feet of the subject site. As opposition is less than 20%, a simple majority vote by City Council is required to approve this application. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Approve with conditions. 3. Deny. 4. Postpone consideration. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0) with the condition that the site plan be revised to show street trees along Fort Worth Drive. The applicant submitted a revised site plan addressing the condition. The revised draft ordinance with the site plan therefore does not list a condition. 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 ofZ02-0048, commonly known as Race Trac at Fort Worth Dr.: Application Date - DRC Date- P&Z Date - September 6, 2002 September 19, 2002 October 23, 2002 No Neighborhood meeting was held. FISCAL INFORMATION Development of this property will increase the assessed value short-term public improvements that are the responsibility of the city. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff'Analysis 2. Maps 3. Public Notification (Property Owner Notification Map) 4. Site Plan 5. Applicant's Letter 6. Planning and Zoning Commission October 23, 2002 Minutes 7. Ordinance Prepared by: of the city. It will require no Deborah Viera, AICP Planner II Respectfully submitted: Douglas S. Powell, AICP Director of Planning and Development ATTACHMENT I Staff Analysis Summar~ of Zoning Request The gas station component of the proposed development requires a Specific Use Permit. The applicant is proposing ten (10) gas pumps, a steel post prefabricated canopy, and the accessory facilities typical of gas stations. The proposed convenience store is permitted by fight in this location. There are additional gas stations along both sides of Fort Worth Drive. Existing Condition of Proper ,ty Property History. February 20, 2002 - The subject property was placed in the Downtown Commercial General (DC-G) zoning district and land use classification by Ordinance 2002-040. Prior to the adoption of the Development Code, this property was zoned Commercial (C). Adjacent zoning. North: Downtown Commercial General (DC-G) South: Downtown Commercial General (DC-G) East: Downtown Commercial General (DC-G) West: Downtown Commercial General (DC-G) There are existing structures on site that will be demolished prior to the redevelopment of the site. Comprehensive Plan Analysis The subject site is located in the "Downtown University Core District" future land use area. This area is intended to have a mix of educational, residential, retail, office, service, government, cultural and entertainment development. It is a place where residents can live, work, learn, and play in the same neighborhood. Development Review Analysis Transportation Trip Generation. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been submitted to staff and is currently under review. Access. The development will have access from Fort Worth Drive. The proposed development provides a cross access easement to the adjacent properties to the south for future vehicular connectivity. Environmental Quali ,ty Impacts No environmental impacts from the proposed development have been identified. Development Code/Zoning Analysis Section 35.6.5 of the Development Code states that a Specific Use Permit shall be issued only if all of the following conditions have been found: That the specific use will be compatible with and not injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property nor significantly diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity; The development of the proposed gas station should not diminish or impair property values in the immediate vicinity. That the establishment of the specific use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property; It is unlikely that establishment of this specific use will impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding property. That adequate utilities, access roads, facilities have been or will be provided; All necessary supporting facilities are in place. drainage and other necessary supporting The design, location and arrangement of all driveways and parking spaces provides for the safe and convenient movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic without adversely affecting the general public or adjacent developments; The proposed development provides a cross access easement to the adjacent properties to the south for future vehicular connectivity. The existing parking lot and driveway meet the requirements of the City of Denton. That adequate nuisance prevention measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration; No offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise or vibration are anticipated. That directional lighting will be provided so as not to disturb or adversely affect neighboring properties; and All lighting within the proposed development must be in compliance with the Light and Performance requirements established by the Development Code ((Subchapter 35.13.12). That there is sufficient landscaping and screening to ensure harmony and compatibility with adjacent property. The Downtown Commercial General (DC-G) zoning classification requires 20% of the site to be landscaped. The applicant is proposing approximately 41% of the site to be landscaped. However, Section 35.6.6 allows the Commission to recommend additional conditions on the proposal to protect the public interest and the welfare of the community that include, but are limited to the following: B. C. D. F. G. H. K. L. M. N. 0. P. Regulation and limitation of uses Regulation of setbacks and spacing Regulation of fences and walls Requirement to submit a Development Plat, to insure the proper dedications and public improvements are made. Regulation limiting the magnitude of traffic generated Regulation of points of vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress Regulation of signs Regulation of building materials, textures, colors and architectural features Regulation of landscaping, including screening and buffeting where necessary to increase compatibility with adjoining uses Regulation of noise, vibration, odors or similar nuisances Regulation of hours of operation and the conduct of certain activities Regulation of the period of time within which the proposed use shall be developed. Regulation of the duration of the use. Regulation of any Environmental Sensitive Areas as allowed under Subchapter 17 Regulation of any site development condition permitted by Subchapter 13 Such other conditions as will make possible the development of the City in an orderly and efficient manner and in accordance with the provisions of the Chapter 35 that are reasonable. STAFF FINDINGS 2. 3. 4. The proposed gas station is in compliance with The Denton Plan. The proposed gas station is compatible with the land uses in the vicinity. Gas stations are located along both sides of Fort Worth Drive. The proposed development satisfies the criteria established in Subchapter 35.6.5 for the approval of Specific Use Permits. ATTACHMENT 2 Maps NORTH Location/Zoning Map Scale: None NORTH Land Use Map Scale: None ATTACHMENT 3 Public Notification NORTH Notification Map 701 Scale: None Newspaper Notification Date: October 12, 2002 Percent of land within 200' in opposition: 0% 200' Legal Notices* sent via Certified Mail: 16 500' Courtesy Notices* sent via 1st Class Mail: 55 All properties with street addresses are within 500 ft. of the subject property. All properties highlighted are within 200 ft. of the subject property. See Table 1 for 200 ft. property owner information. TABLE 1 200 FT. PROPERTY OWNERS INFORMATION SITUS_ADDR OWNER_NAME ADDRESS_I ADDRESS_2 CITY ST ZIP_CODE 207 W FORT BALLARD, HICKORY ST 76201- WORTH DR; CLINTON C JR STE 109 DENTON TX 4148 520 FORT 520 FORT 76201- WORTH DR; PAYNE, BILL C WORTH DR DENTON TX 7133 4228 N 525 FORT AMERICAS 2911 TURTLE CENTRAL 75206- WORTH DR; STORAGE P/S CREEK BLVD EXPY STE 300 DALLAS TX 6547 600 FORT 600 FORT 76201- WORTH DR; SKEEN, GARY WORTH DR DENTON TX 7135 207 W 601 FORT BALLARD, HICKORY ST 76201- WORTH DR; CLINTON C JR STE 109 DENTON TX 4148 602 FORT RODGERS, 602 FORT 76201- WORTH DR; MIKE WORTH DR DENTON TX 7135 611 FORT KNIATT, 1003 HOPKINS 76205- WORTH DR; STEPHEN G DR DENTON TX 8117 612 FORT 2005 76205- WORTH DR; MERKI, DON HOLLYHILL LN DENTON TX 8243 616 FORT CRAN DALL, 5901 CROW 76266- WORTH DR; WAYNE D WRIGHT RD SANGER TX 8869 606 GOEN, 190 W 10TH ST NEW 10014- LINDSEY; GEORGE C III 5A YORK NY 6419 701 FORT HOME DEPOT 30348- WORTH DR; USA Bll TAX DEPT PO BOX 105842 ATLANTA GA 5842 ]! Property Owner Responses Property Owner Name and In favor/neutral/ Comments Address /opposed* George Goen Favor No comments 620 Fort worth Dr. Clinton Ballard, Favor No comments 601 Fort Worth Dr. Stephen G. Kniatt, Favor No comments 611 Fort Worth Dr. t, lUaLnq~ilV Attachment 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, inc. October I, 2002 Ms. Deborah Viera City of Denton 221 N. Elm Denton, Texas 76201 OCT 0 1 O0Z REVISION - P & D Re; RaceTrac #701 Specific Use Permit (Z02-0048) Suite 1800 12700 ParkCentral Drive Dallas, Texas 75251 Dear Ms. Viera: RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. wishes gain approval of a Specific Use Permit to construct a convenience store with fuel sales on Ft. Worth Drive (US 377) immediately north of the existing Home Depot store. The following criteria has been successfully addressed: 1. The specific use will be compatible with and not injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property nor significantly diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity. 2. The establishment of the specific use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property. 3. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary supporting facilities have been or will be provided. 4. The design, location and arrangement of all driveways and parking spaces provides for the safe and convenient movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic without adversely affecting the general public or adjacent developments. 5. Adequate nuisance prevention measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise, and vibrations. 6. Directional lighting will be provided so as not to disturb or adversely affect neighboring properties. 7. Sufficient landscaping and screening will be provided to ensure harmony and compatibility with adjacent property. These statements have been provided as required by Section 35.6.5 and the Specific Use Permit Plan has been compiled in accordance with City of Denton guidelines. Please contact me with any questions. Sincerely, i~TES, INC. Project Manager 10-O1-O2P04:O8 RCVD cc: Julie Diamond, RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. TEL 972 770 1300 FAX 972 239 3820 CondenseltTM Page 69 1 COMMISSIONER APPLE: we'll re. convene our 2 meeting now. Itexn No. 12 is to hold a public hearing. 3 And Ms. Viers with the City Staff will present. I'll open 4 the public hearing. 5 MS. WERA: C, ood evening, again, 6 Commission. The applicant is requesting a Specific Use 7 Permit for a gas station. The site is located north of 8 Home Depot at Fort Worth Drive. A site plan has been 9 included in your backup for your reference. Staff finds 10 the proposal to be consistent with the land uses adjacent 11 to file site and also is in compliance with the Development 12 Code. However, we would like to bring to your attention, 13 that the Commission may want to consider to add a 14 condition as a part of the Specific Use Permit addressing 15 the landscaping to show street trees along Fort Worth 16 Drive. That concludes my presentation. 17 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Is the 18 applicant present? If you'll give us your name and 19 address, plcase. 20 MS. DIAMOND: Thank you, Commission for 21 hearing me tonight. My name is Julie Diamond. I'm 22 representing Race Trac Petroleum. And my address is 300 23 Technology Court in Smyrna, Georgia. Our property that we 24 are proposing, a new Race True store with gas sales is 25 located on Fort Worth Drive. And it's existing of a Page 70 1 property that is currently vacant as well as Mr. Knight's 2 property which is an existing AC store. We're really 3 excited about this property. We actually have two other 4 properties that have been held for construction. One is 5 at Dallas Drive. And another one at University Drive. 6 And the mason that we delayed those was when we were 7 hearing that the City of Denton was revising their 8 Development Code to have more strict architectural 9 requirements. We wanted ail three of the buildings to be 10 conforming. 11 And we have now submitted revised building 12 plans to Grog Mitchell on those two properties. And so 13 all three properties if we get approved for this Specific 14 Use Permit, all three of them would have our new prototype 15 building for Denton, consisting of a brick building as 16 well as with architectural future of a dormer which is our 17 standard -~ our standard building is a gray block building 18 without the donner, which is similar to what you see on 19 Loop 288, which was the first store that we have 20 constructed here in Denton. 21 But we think that this puts together a 22 nicer image for Race Trac as well as exceeds the Code for 23 -- tho new Development Code for file City of Denton. But 24 we do look to start construction on those other two 25 properties here very shortly, most likely at the beginning PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Page 71 1 of November. In addition to the brick building, we're 2 also proposing instead of just the steel canopy columns, 3 to also brick enclose those as well. And something else I 4 wan~xt to add was -- that is mentioned in the staff report 5 is to use directional lighting. And that will be used and 6 we will have the flat lands on the canopy, which does not 7 allow for extra glare as far as our typical Race Trac 8 canopy has the canopy lights that protrude below the 9 canopy bottom fascia. And we will be using the fiat lands 10 on this. I'll be happy to answer any questions. And also I 1 Chris Frysinger, who is our engineering consultant froln 12 Kimley-Horn, he would like to make mention of the 13 landscape plan as well. 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. 15 MR. FRYSINOER: Good evening, Commission 16 mcunbers. My name is Chris Frysinger. I'm at 12700 Park 17 Central in Dallas. I wanted to address the comment 18 regarding the landscape plans. At a point after we -- 19 COMM£SS[ONERAPPLE: If you'll pull that 20 microphone over. 21 Mt~. FRYSINGER: EXCUSe me. At a point 22 after we submitted the suP, we put forth a request and I 23 guess the timing was a bit unfortunate. It was not meant 24 to be a request for the variance for the suP, something to 25 consider in the future was moving the street trees back. Page 72 I And right here you'll see the property line along Fort 2 Worth Drive, and you will see the original landscape plan 3 that we had agreed on, which the trees are clustered here 4 along the street. 5 We submitted a request at staff levei to 6 see if they could moved - an approval could be made by 7 staff at that level to move them back beyond this proposed 8 sign right here. We were not requesting that as part of 9 the suP. That was more of a question of how the procedure 10 would take place if we wanted that to happen. I guess the 11 point of this is that we do have street trees proposed on 12 here currently, and that was the originaI intent. If you 13 have any questions I would be happy to answer them. 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. This is a 15 public hearing, and I have only received one card from 16 someone who does not wish to speak but would like to offer 17 support is Steve Kniatt, K-n-i-a-t-t, 611 Fort Worth 18 Drive. 19 Is there anyone in the audience who wishes 20 to address this item? Seeing no one coining forward, I 21 will close the public hearing. Cormnlssioner Roy. 22 COMMISSIONER ROY: Yes. Question for 23 staff, please. I'm a little confused about the issue of 24 the landscaping. In the backup, I believe it indicates 25 that they are providing a higher level of landscaping than OCTOBER 23RD, 2002 Page 69 - Page 72 CondenseltTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 73 required. But in your opening comments, you made some statement about they may want to do something about the landscaping. Could you explain? MS. VIERA: They exceed the required landscape for that site, however, because the site plan doesn't show street trees on the site plan, and this site plan will become part of the ordinance, we would like to make that clarification. And that's why we brought that to your attention. But in that, they exceed the landscape percentage for that site. COMMISSIONER ROY: And would you say again what you want us to do? MS. VIERA: It just -- we brought -- I brought to your attention that you may want to put a condition that street trees along Fort Worth Drive to be provided. COMMISSIONER ROY: Okay. COMMISSIONER APPLE: colnmissioner Roy, Mr. Reichhart would like to help you out. MR. REICHHART: Typically, with Specific Use Permits, one of the attachments that we always put with the ordinance is the site plan. It is a requirement to obtain an suP. And if you look on your backup on page 10, on the site plan, it's attachment 4. It shows the landscaping and all the trees as were mentioned. It's the Page 74 site plan. It shows the trees beyond -- so we just want to make sure we get the site plan that was presented during the presentation included in the ordinance. And that's all we're looking for. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 75 properties develop along Fort Worth Drive, it would then be in harmony with those. And that's thc only reason and quite honestly, it is a little convoluted in that we are looking at this as what is the affect of having the gas pumps and that type of operation on this property. And that's what we're typically focused on. But in addition to that, it is the landscaping to some degree too. COMMISSIONER MULROY: SO if I may, then -~ which site plan is being incorporated as part of the Sill'? MR. REICHHART: t would -- the simple condition would be that the site plan presented tonight would be incorporated. And then if we just get that copied, then we can add it to the ordinance. It wouldn't even have to be a condition as it goes on to City Council. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Right. So in the future, it would be better if you had a site plan in hand that you'd already approved, we wouldn't have any extraneous language -- MR. REICHHART: Correct, yes. COMMISSIONER MULROY: -- we would just approve the pump operation. That helps me. Thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Watkins. COMMISSIONER WATKINS: Thank you, Madmn Chair. I would like to move approval of Z-02-00048 with the condition unless the applicant wishes to take Page 76 1 exception at this time. 2 COMMISSIONER APPLE: We unfortunately 3 aren't able to couch a motion like that because we don't 4 have the opportunity at this point with a motion to 1 2 3 4 5 COMMISSIONER ROY: Thank you. I didn't 6 catch that difference in the drawing. 7 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thallk you. 8 Commissioner Mulroy. 9 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes. I appreciate i0 that clarification. In the future I would prefer we i i didn't mix what we were doing. We're really considering 12 an sup for the gas pump operation and not really under 13 consideration or anything special for landscape or site 14 plan even though it happens to be contained in the context 15 of that site plan. So I would hope that we would focus on 16 the gas pump operation. Thank you. 17 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Mr. Reichhart would 18 like to respond. 19 MR. REICHHART: ^nd it's just -- in 20 concept, I do agree with that. That the seven criteria 21 that must be met in order to approve the Specific Use 22 Permit, criteria number 7 is that there is significant 23 landscaping and screening to ensure harmony and 24 compatibility with adjacent properties. And with the new 25 Development Code requiring street tries, as future 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 question the applicant. COMMISSIONER WATKINS: May I do that rather than make the motion? COMMISSIONER APPLE: I'll defer to Mr. Snyder. MR. SNYDER: You'll have to get permission of Chair. COMMISSIONER WATKINS: certainly. Certainly. I would defer. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Mr. Reichhart has some information that may be helpful. MR. REICHHART: In conversations with the applicant, they indicated they had no problem with the -- building the landscape plan that was presented tonight. COMMISSIONER WATKINS: But the staff asked that that be placed on it. MR. REICHHART: Because it -- in the backup you had the other site plan. COMMISSIONER WATKINS: Okay. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Does that he[p, Commissioner Watkins? Does that make you feel PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 23RD, 2002 Page 73 - Page 76 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 ~3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CondenseItTM Page 77 comfortable? Okay. Would you like to restate your motion? COMMISSIONER WATK1NS: Yes. I would like to move approval of Z-02-00048. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank yoB. COMMISSIONER HOLT: Second. COMMISSIONER APPLE: We have a motion and a second. Comanissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: Just as a comment. I believe I heard the applicant very clearly state his intention to provide those street trees. So I think it's in a matter of public record that he will do that. And just a slight editorial comment. I noticed that the one on Loop 288 and Brinker Road, that they did make some effort to save several very large trees, and I appreciated that. COMMISSIONER APPLE~ Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, vote please. Motion carries 7-0. Page 78 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 t2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 79 Page 80 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 23RD, 2002 Page 77 - Page 80 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A GAS STATION ON APPROXIMATELY 2 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED 1,200 FEET NORTH OF INTERSTATE 35 E ON THE EAST SIDE OF FORT WORTH DRIVE, WITHIN A DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL GENERAL (DC-G) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION; PROViDiNG FOR A PENALTY iN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROViDiNG FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z02-0048) WHEREAS, Del Lago Ventures Inc. has applied for a specific use permit for a gas station on approximately 2 acres of land within a Dowmown Commercial General (DC-G) zoning district classification and use designation located 1,200 feet north of interstate 35E along the east side of Fort Worth Drive as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, on October 23, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the specific use permit; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the specific use permit will be in compliance with The Denton Plan Policies; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 35.6.5 of the DeNon Developmem Code, the City Council finds that all of the following conditions exist: That the use will be in conformance with all standards with the DC-G Zoning District, and is in conformance with the DeNon Plan and federal, state and local law. That the gas station will be compatible with and not injurious to the use and enjoymem of other property nor significantly diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity; That the establishment of the gas station will not impede the normal and orderly developmem and improvemem of surrounding property; That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary supporting facilities have been or will be provided; That the design, location, and arrangemem of all driveways and parking spaces provides for the safe and conveniem movemem of vehicular and pedestrian traffic without adversely affecting the general public or adjacem developmems; That adequate nuisance prevention measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise, and vibration; PAGE 1 That directional lighting will be provided so as not to disturb or adversely affect neighboring properties; That there is sufficiem landscaping and screening to ensure harmony and compatibility with adjacem property; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. A specific use permit is hereby granted to allow a gas station on the Property, within a Dowmown Commercial General (DC-G) zoning district classification and use designation. The specific use permit is subject to the approved site plan a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference as Exhibit "B". The specific use permit extends to the centerline of all adjacem street rights-of-way. 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 Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: PAGE 2 Exhibit A Metes and BOunds Description 1.975 Acre Alexander Hill Survey, Abstract No. 623 City of Denton, Denton County, Texas BEING a tract of land situated in Alexander Hill Survey, Abstract No. 623, in City of Denton, Denton County, Texas and being alt of that certain 0.611 acre tract of land described in deed to Clint Ballard, JR, recorded in Clerk's File No. 95- R0032768 of the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas, all that certain 0.506 acre tract of land described in deed to Clint Batlard, JR, recorded in Clerk's File No. 93-R0016393 of the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas and all of that certain 0.862 acre tact of land described in deed to Stephen Kniatt & wife, Nancy L. Kniatt, recorded in Volume 1231, Page 995 of the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a 5/8-inch "KHA" capped iron rod set in the easterly right-of-way line of Fort Worth Avenue, a.k.a.U.S. Highway 377 (150' ROW) for the most westerly northwest corner of Lot 1R, Block 1 of Eagle Point Shopping Center Addition, an addition to the City of Denton, Texas, according to the plat thereof recorded in Cabinet R, Page 272 of the Plat Records of Denton County, Texas; THENCE along the said easterly right-of-way line, North 24°12'18'' East, a distance of 137.64 feet to a 1/2-inch found for the southwest corner of the beforementiOned 0.611 acre tract of land and the northwest corner of the beforementioned 0.862 acre tract; THENCE continuing along the said easterly right-of-way line, North 23°52'59'' East, a distance of 219.64 feet to a 1/2-inch found for the northwest corner of the beforemention 0.506 acre tract of land and the southwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1 of Village Office Park and Mini Storage, an addition to the City of Denton, Texas, according to the plat thereof recorded in Cabinet D, Page 14 of the Plat Records of Denton County, Texas; THENCE along the most westerly south line of said lot, North 89°26'23'' East, a distance of 198.42 feet to a cross mark cut in top of a existing drainage structure for the northeast corner of the 0.506 acre tract; THENCE along the common line of said tract and tot, South 00°22'31'' East, a distance of 200.00 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod found in the most easterly north line of Lot 1R, Block 1 of Eagle Point Shopping Center Addition for the most easterly southeast of Lot 1, Block 1 of Village Office Park and Mini Storage; THENCE along the said most easterly north line, South 87°27'34" West, a distance of 18.98 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod found for most easterly northwest corner of Lot 1R, Block 1 of Eagle Point Shopping Center Addition; THENCE along the most northerly west line of Lot 1R, Block 1 of Eagle Point Shopping Center Addition, South 00°32'20'' East, a distance of 125.00 feet to a 5/8-inch "KHA" capped iron rod set for an interior corner of said lot; THENCE along the most westerly north line of said lot, South 89°27'34" West, a distance of 327.40 feet to the Point of Beginning and containing 1.975 acre of land, more or less. / / C2', i C.Y', 8 ,!q.tqx~ Item 6A AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET November 19, 2002 Engineering David Hill, 349 - 8314 ,~?;::~'i SUBJECT Consider approval of an exaction variance of Section 35.20.2(L.2.) of the Code of Ordinances concerning perimeter paving. The 1.0-acre parcel is located on the easterly side of Mockingbird Lane and just south of Mingo Road. The property is currently in a Neighborhood Residential (NR-4) zoning district. The property is presently being subdivided into two (2) lots and one residence on one of the lots currently exists. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the full variance (6-0) (V02-0023) BACKGROUND Mr. Weldon McBride, the applicant and the owner of this property (the Weldon Addition) has applied for an exaction variance of section 35.20.2(L.3.a.) (concerning improvements to a perimeter street) of the Code of Ordinances regarding relief from the costs of construction of Mockingbird Ln. along the frontage of this development. The subject section of the ordinance requires any development on an unimproved perimeter street to "dedicate the right-of-way and improve or reconstruct the street to the same extent as is required for new perimeter streets", and, "in no case shall that portion of the street provided be less than a pavement width of twenty-five (25) feet plus required bicycle lane in the case of an arterial.". The applicant did not provide any information as to the cause of this request and so it is assumed that it is wholly a result of the costs. Mockingbird Ln., in this area, is a two (2) lane rural type asphalt roadway with essentially no shoulder and with borrow ditches, that connects to Mingo Rd. to the north and Audra Ln to the south and is designated as a collector street on the Denton Mobility Plan, Roadway Component. As such the City will eventually cause this roadway to be constructed to City standards (a 37fi wide residential avenue with sidewalk) in combination with developer monies and/or City capitol improvement bonds. Currently partially constructed pavement exists on the easterly side of Mockingbird Ln. for one lot on each side of Oakshire St. In addition, the Bel Aire North Addition (located in the northwest comer of Mockingbird Ln./Audra Ln.) is being developed and will construct approximately 960fi of 25fi width pavement along the westerly side of Mockingbird Ln. north ofAudra Ln. The Weldon Addition fronts Mockingbird Ln. for approximately 167ft. The City Council may approve an exaction variance if the following criterion is met: b) Criteria for variances from development exactions. Where the commission finds that the imposition of any development exaction pursuant to these regulations exceeds any reasonable benefit to the property owner or is so excessive as to constitute confiscation of the tract to be platted, it may recommend approval of variances to waive such exaction's, so as to prevent Page 1 such excess, to the City Council. Waiver of developmental exactions shall be approved by the City Council. The price the applicant paid for the parcel, or the cost of the proposed building improvements is not a factor in determining reasonable costs. The City Council must decide if the costs associated with the public improvements required by city regulations are reasonable and consistent for the type of development proposed and are proportional to the demand for services created by the development. OPTIONS 1. Approve Full variance 2. Approve Full variance with conditions 3. Approve a partial variance 4. Deny variance RECOMMENDATION Staff recommended approval of a partial variance, resulting in the developer's payment of a total of $5,400.00 in lieu of pavement design and construction improvements to both Bonnie Brae and Corbin Rd. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the Full variance, on October 9, 2002. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 60 to recommend approval of the Full variance on October 9, 2002. FISCAL INFORMATION City staff estimates that current construction costs for 25 ft of pavement width with curb/gutter is $75/linear ft. Given there is approximately 167 feet of frontage, the estimated construction costs are = $12,525.00. City staff understands the cost to construct perimeter paving for Mockingbird Ln. to City standards is prohibitive in the development of a residential lot with a frontage as noted above. Current City ordinance has allowed for a per lot average cost (of a typical lot in a residential area in Denton) payment in lieu of the costs that are associated with the design and construction of Full improvements. City staff has determined that the average cost per residential lot for perimeter paving improvements as being $5,400 for 25ft wide pavement with curb and gutter. Because one of the lots currently has a residential structure on it, staff believes the $5,400.00 fee should be attributed only to the one lot that is being developed, not both. In the past staff has recommended and the City Council has granted partial variances for similar developments, based on the cost of such improvements for an average sized lot in the City of Denton. In accordance with the current ordinance, the fee associated with the costs of construction may be posted with the City in lieu of actual construction. The City maintains this money in an interest beating account and if the improvements are not complete, under construction or under design within 10 years (of the time of deposit of this money), the City i~ required to return the money to the payee(s) with interest. ATTACHMENTS 1. Site location map 2. Current/proposed standard pavement/sidewalk locations Page 2 3. Plat 4. P & Z minutes Prepared By: David Salmon, Assistant Director Engineering Respectfully submitted: Charles Fiedler Director, Engineering Page 3 / © ® l CondonsoltTM 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 COMMISSIONER APPLE; Good evening. I'd 3 like to call to order the regular meeting of the Planning 4 and Zoning Commission for the City of Denton, Texas for 5 this Wednesday, October the 9th, 2002. If you'll please 6 join us in standing to say the pledge of allegiance to the 7 United States flag and the Texas flag. 8 (Thereupon, the Pledges of Allegiance were 9 recited.) 10 COMMISSIONER APPLE: JUst for informational 1 1 purposes this evening, Commissioner Powell has an excused 12 absence this evening. And Commissioner Roy has called and 13 let us know that he will be late. We do have a quorum, so 14 we'll just jump right into our Consent Agenda. No, I'm 15 sorry. The first item is to consider approval of the 16 minutes for September the 25th, 2002. Conm~issioners, do 17 I have any corrections or a motion? Commissioner Mukoy. 18 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Ye, i. Help my memory. 19 I don't believe -- member seeing Mr. Snyder here 20 September 25th. 21 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I would agree with 22 that. That's probably a correction that needs to be made. 23 The minutes do indicate that Ed Snyder was present rather 24 than Dogie Palumbo. And I don't think Dottle would 25 appreciate that, getting those mixed up. Page 2 1 I had one small correction, also. Oa page 2 75, next to the last cormnent. Commissioner Apple, it says 3 it was "significant." That should read it was 4 "insignificant." Are there any more corrections? We have 5 a motion -- 6 COMMISSIONER MULROY: second. Is there a 7 motion on the floor? 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: No. Is there a 9 motion.'? We have corrections -- 10 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. I move 11 approval -- move approval with the two corrections. 12 COMMISSIONER WATKINS: second. 13 COMMISSIONER APPLE: W6 have a motion and a 14 second, and I see Commissioner Roy has joined us. Vote, 15 please. Since you joined us late, Commissioner Roy, we're 16 voting on the minutes of the previous meeting. 17 COMMISSIONER ROY: Madam Chairman, I can't 18 vote because I don't know what the corrections were. I'm 19 sorry. So I will abstain. 20 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Motion 21 carries 5-0 with one abstention by Cormnissioner Roy. Thc 22 next item is our Consent Agenda, which has Items 3, 4, 5A 23 and B and 6A and B -- I'm sorry. Items 3 and 4. I'm so 24 sorry, i'm trying to move too quickly. Are there any 25 comments or -- Page 3 I COMMISSIONER MULROY: I'm ready to make a 2 motion, Madam Chair. 3 COMMISSIONER A?PLE: All right. 4 Commissioner Mulroy. $ COMMISSIONER MULROY: I move approval of 6 the Consent Agenda. 7 COMMISSIONER ROY: second. 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: We have a motion and a 9 second to approve the Consent Agenda. Is there any 10 discussion? Vote, please. Commissioner Mulroy and hanto,. lotl r es/% I - 14 individual consideration, And I believe Mr, Vokoun with 15 the City staff will bring you the presentation. 16 MR. voKotn,~: Good evening, Madam Chair. 17 Ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, Bud Vokoun, 18 Engineering. You have before you a request by Mr. Weldon 19 McBride, the applicant and owner of this property. The 20 Weldon Addition, who has applied for two exaction 21 variances. The one acre parcel is loca~xt on the easterly 22 side of Mockingbird Lane and just south of Mingo Road. 23 The property is located in a neigllborhood residential 4 24 zoning district. 25 The property is presently being subdivided Page 4 t into two lots and one resident on one of the lots 2 currently exists. The first request is for variance 3 02-0021, which concerns Section 35.20.3B of the Code of 4 Ordinance concerning parameter sidewalks. 5 Thc second request is for variance 02-0023 6 that concerns Section 35.20.2L3A of the Code of Ordinance 7 concerning parameter streets. Site is right in this area. 8 There currently is a residence in this area and they're 9 subdividing to provide another residence in this area. 10 The request is for parameter paving and sidewalk. 11 Staff agrees that the applicant because of 12 the type of development and the size of the development 13 should not be required to pay the full requirements of the 14 design of construction, both the sidewalk and of the 15 paving, however, we do -- staff does believe that the 16 applicant should be -- pay its fair share, not unlike what 17 a normal subdivision for a large development is where a 18 developer comes in, builds the roads, builds the 19 sidewalks, builds the other infrastructure and then passes 20 that cost on to each of the lots, and then the homeowner. 21 We feel that the homeowner should be 22 required to pay an average and, therefore, staff is 23 recommending a partial variance for both of these. 24 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. 25 Commissioners, do we have any questions? Commissioner PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 9TH, 2002 Page 1 - Page 4 CondenseItTM Page 5 I Johnson, 2 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: The -- the sidewalk 3 would run along the western side of the property; is that 4 right? 5 MR. VOKOUN: Yes, sir. The requirements 6 for parameter sidewalk, which would include the -- which 7 is thc sidewalk on the east side of Mockingbird or the 8 west side of thc property. 9 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: And it would 10 terminate at the railroad? 11 MR. VOKOUN: It would terminate at the 12 northem property, which is the southern right-of-way for 13 the railroad, just to give you an idea of current 14 situation out there. We have a large development if 15 you've driven out there recently, that's presently being 16 constructed in which they're being required to put both 17 sidewalk and roadway on this side of Audra and 18 Mockingbird. There's currently sidewalk and full road 19 width on this side of the road. And there's sidewalk and 20 road width on this -- and as well as in this area. 21 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: And the ordinance is 22 -- give me an idea exactly what the ordinance says 23 regarding the sidewalks. !24 MR. VOKOUN: The ordinance requires full 25 installation of sidewalk. In this case here, it's eight 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 i4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 7 Page 6 i feet wide required because Mockingbird is a collector 2 street. And it's required to be installed along a full 3 frontage. 4 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay. And there are 5 no provisions in the ordinance for anyplace where a 6 sidewalk might be deemed inappropriate. It just says 7 period. If it's a collector street, there's a sidewalk, 8 right? 9 MR. VOKOCrr~: That's correct. In this case I0 here we're saying that -- we're asking that the applicant 11 provide the money for the cost of this. It will be put in 12 an account that will be held for ten years with interest. 13 At the end of ten years, if the City hasn't either 14 constructed, is in the process of constructing the 15 improvements, then the applicant gets the money back. 16 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: okay. Does the 17 ordinance allow for reduction of the amount to be charged? 18 I mean, what you're doing is you're recommending that he 19 not be charged the full amount for the sidewalk, but 20 charged as if this was an average lot? 21 MR, VOKOUN: That's correct. 22 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON,. Okay. Then the 23 ordinance provides for that? 24 MR. VOKOUN: The ordinance provides for a i25 partial exaction, yes. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: okay. MR. voKou'~: 'the fee was determined based upon calculations by City staff some years ago. That doesn't mean that Planning and Zoning Commission could recommend an even smaller amount. That's just a typical average that we bring to the Commission. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Mr. Vokoun, Mr. Powell would like to help address Commissioner Jolnlson's question. MR. POWELL: If I may, a variance is the process by which a standard in the Code whether it's subdivision or zoning is to be not imposed on a property as it's developed. So the mechanism under the Code is to seek a variance. You can grant a full variance and say that no sidewalk or parameter paving is required. What staff has proposed to you is, is them something in between there as Mr. Vokoun pointed out? There also is two different types of variances, a hardship variance, which someone is physically unable, in our opinion, to build something or do it. And then there's an exaction variance where it really relates more to their desire not to do it primarily because of cost factors. In this case there's no obstruction or reason why they couldn't build the sidmvalk or couldn't do Page 8 I the parameter paving and that's why it's an exaction 2 variance and not a hardship variance. 3 MR. SALMON: one other item that I would 4 like to add is that in this ease the ordinance does allow 5 as Mr. Vokoun indicated fees in lleu of actual 6 construction. And the reason we're proposing a partial 7 variance is because one of the lots already has a house on 8 it. So even though the subdivision is two lots, we've 9 only calculated the fee based on one lot because they're 10 only adding one house. They're not building two brand new 11 houses. 12 C~MMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Arc there 13 any more questions? Commissioners? Is the applicant 14 hem, Mr. Vokoun? 15 MR. VOKOUN: I'm not aware that he is. Oh, 16 yes. 17 COMMISS~OtqeR ^PeLE: would you like to 18 address the Commission at all? 19 MR. MCSmr)E: oh, I guess I could. I have 20 a hearing problem. I heard most of what he said. 21 COMMISSIONER APPLU: If yOU would just 22 speak into that microphone and give us your name and 23 address. 24 Ma. Me,SIDe: okay. Weldon McBride. I've 25 had the property for a couple of years. I've sold a lot PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 9TH, 2002 Page 5 - Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I2 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 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CondenseltTM Page 9 to this Mexican couple about a year ago if I can get it 1 subdivided. The sidewalk in question leads up to the 2 railroad track. So that's -- you know, that's why I asked 3 for the variance. It would be -- a sidewalk would be 4 incompatible with the neighborhood. There's not any 5 around. The property adjacent is -- no sidewalk. The 6 property across the street, no sidewalk. There is a 7 sidewalk -- let's sec, up on the hill by a subdivision, g It had a three foot sidewalk, but that's it. 9 Then it crosses a little ravine that's in 10 the -- I think it's in the flood plain, the little ravine 11 is. It's a low, low elevation. So that's all I -- you 12 know, that -- I've already spent more on the property than 13 I think that -- I mean, on getting it done than I'm going I4 to get. If I built a sidewalk, I wouldn't -- if I had to 15 build a sidewalk, I won't sell the property because it 16 would be cost-prohibitive. Wouldn't be -- wouldn't be an' 17 good. Thank you. 18 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Are there any 19 questions for Mr. McBride? Thank you, sir. ; 20 MR. MCBRIDE: Sure. 21 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Holt. 22 COMMISSIONER HOLT: rll make a motion that 23 the exaction variance be approved. 24 COMMISSIONER MULROY: second. 25 Page 10 COMMISSIONER APPLE: It's been moved and 1 seconded. Any discussion7 Vole, please. Motion carries 2 6-0. 3 Next addressing Agenda Item 5B. 4 COMMISSIONI~t. HOLT: Make a motion that the 5 variance be approved, the exaction variance be approved 6 for 5B. 7 COMMISSIONER MULROY: second. 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: we have a motion and a 9 second. Any discussion? Vote, please. Commissioner 10 Mukoy, your vote didn't register. Thanks. Motion 11 carries 6-0. 12 The next item for individual consideration 13 is Itmn 6 regarding Gary Addition. And, again, Mr. Vokoun 14 will present. 15 MR. VOKOUN: Thank you, again. Mr. lerald 16 Yensan representing Mr. Shun-Wen Chang, the developer of 17 this property, the Gary Addition has applied for two 18 exaction variances. The 4.357 acre parcel is located on 19 the southwesterly comer of Bonnie Brae and Corbin Road. 20 The property is located in a neighborhood 2 zoning 21 district. A single family residence is proposed. This 22 concerns variance 02~002, which concerns Section 35.20.3B 23 of thc Code of Ordinance concerning parameter sidewalk as 24 well as variance 02-0024, it concerns Section 35.20.2L2 25 OCTOBER 9TH, 2002 Page 11 concerning parameter paving. Same situation as the previous ittan. Tho site located right hem. A closer view indicates that it has property both on Corbln as well as on Bonnie Brae. Staff's recommendation is for a partial variance. Staff is concerned with the property owner being required as by Code to build both and improve Corbin and Bonnie Brae, both pavement and sidewalk, we feel that the costs are exorbitant for this type of situation and, therefore, recommending the partial variance. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Commissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: Mr. Vokoun, in the backup material, the applicant states that he applied for and received these exaction variances for the property just to the south of it. I seem to recall that was the case, but could you verify that for me, please? MR. VOKOU~: Yes, they got a full variance on both the sidewalk and the pavement. And the property is this property right hem. COMMISSIONER ROY: thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: IS the applicant present? Commissioners, what's your pleasure? Commissioner Mukoy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I'm going to make a Page 12 motion to approve the variance as submitted, and with a short explanation that I know we have some history, but I'm looking at the City staff having reduced the pain to a small level to accommodate an extraordinary situation, and it seems their recommendation is reasonable in proportionality to the lot. So I'm moving approval as presented. COMMISSIONER HOLT: second. COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Mukoy, could you clarify that's the full variance? COMMISSIONER MULROY: AS presented by staff. COMMISSIONER APPLE'. And that is for Item A. We do need two separate motions again. We have a motion as presented by staff and a second. Any discussion? Cormuissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: Yes. It was just confirmed to us that the site just south of it, this Commission reviewed and provided a full variance for thc sidewalk in a very recent meeting, as I recall. So I will be voting against the motion because I feel that we need to be consistent in our judgment. And I don't see any differcnee between this case and the property just to the south of it. So I will be voting against the motion which I understand to be as Page 9 - Page 12 CondcnscItTM Page 13 1 per the staff recommendation to just provide a smaller fee 2 than what would normally be provided. So I will be votin 3 against the motion. 4 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Any further 5 discussion? Coma~issioner Johnson. 6 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Is that a true 7 statement that it was a full variance? Do we absolutely 8 know that? 9 MR. VOKOUN: Yes, sir. It was a full 10 variance. 11 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay. Maybe 12 Commissioner Mulroy could help me out with this a little 13 bit. Why would we go part way on one if we've gone all 14 the way on the other one? Is that a legal question? 15 COMMISSIONER MLILROY: If you address it to 16 the Chair. 17 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Mulroy, 18 I'll let you answer his question because he needs that -- 19 to know that. 20 . COMMISSIONER MULROY: And I do not recall 21 the specifics of the previous case. I guess them was -- 22 that case came along with the context of discussions of 23 Bonnie Brae and, perhaps, the City did not have a firm 24 plan at that time of what was going to happen and some 25 discussion occurred on estate-type lots in neighborhoods. Page 14 I This particular -- as time has passed, I 2 recognize with my earlier comment, that staff has put 3 forth a greater effort and a higher level of recognition 4 as to proportionality on variances and costs. And the 5 proposition by slaff to come with a partial variance and 6 narrow the financial contribution to really a pretty small 7 amount compared to past requirements, I thought 8 dcrnonstrated a great degree of consideration by the City, 9 so I'm -- in this case as in front of us does represent a 10 contribution by a homeowner to the public improvements 11 that will happen. If they don't happen they'll get their 12 money back and the proportionality of what's proposed 13 seems to make sense at this time. My recollection is Mr. 14 Johnson last time I think the hardship, because we didn't 15 have -- is -- the benefit of this type of compromise, the 16 hardship, I believe was much greater. So we took the 17 other choice and granted a full variance. This is -- you 18 know, my view is pretty nominal sum for the -- for four 19 acres. 20 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, 21 Conunissioner Mulroy. Did that help, Comanissioner Johnson? 22 Is there any further discussion? Vote, please. The vote 23 carries 6-1 -- I'm sorry, 5-1. Can't add tonight. 24 (COMMISSIONER ROY VOTING IN OPPOSITION.) 25 NOW, for 6B. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION presented. Page 15 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I move approval as 1 2 3 COMMISSIONER APPLE; We have a motion. 4 COMMISSIONER MULROY: FOr the same reason 5 that the reasonableness demonstrated by the City has 6 brought this down to a nominal sum. Thank you. 7 COMMISSIONER APPLE: DO we have a second7 8 COMMISSIONER HOLT: second. 9 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Roy. 10 COMMISSIONER ROY: For the same reason as 11 before, it has been I'm guessing no mom than two months 12 ago that we addressed this same issue and decided to grant 13 a full variance to the next-door neighbor and I don't s~ 14 any reason why we should make any difference. I accept my 15 esteemed colleague's comments, but I feel that it's more 16 important to be consistent. And espechlly considering 17 the extreme rural nature of this road, I'm going to be 18 voting against this proposal. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Mr. Powell, could you 20 offer any additional information in regard to -- 21 MR. POWELL: well, I do think it was more 22 than two months ago, and I don't know if Mr. Vokoun or if 23 Mr. Sahnon -- but I was thinking it was more in terms of 24 probably four or five months, six months, Time kind of 25 flies, and I really don't think it was on your Agenda as Page 16 I near as two months ago. 2 MR. VOKOtr~: I would agree that it was 3 somewhere in that area, and I think also that it was a 4 split vote. 5 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. 6 Commissioner Mulroy. 7 COMMISSIONER MULROY: If I may add a 8 cormnent. I understand where Commissioner Roy is coming 9 from, but it also cuts the other way. I tlfink part of our 10 rationale in granting a full variance is because the 11 choices were such that perhaps the City's position 12 occurred to us as being unreasonable, so, therefore, the 13 full variance was passed. 14 Tonight I tl~nk we should at the same -- if 15 that was our position then, then it's logical to me we 16 should reward tho efforts of City staff of being 17 reasonable with -- if their proposition makes sense, that 18 we should pass it. Thank you. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Roy. 20 COMmiSSIONeR ROY: with all due respect, I 21 don't think it's important whether it was two months or 22 four months or five months. It was very recent, and we 23 had an exlensive discussion. And as I recall I think I 24 voted against the issue at that time, and was ouwoted. 25 So I've come to accept the fact that that OCTOBER 9TH, 2002 Page 13 - Page 16 CondcnscltTM Page 17 1 road is going to be maintained rural. And I believe -- we 2 had the option at the time we made the vote on the 3 adjacent property, we could have done this. Maybe we just 4 didn't think about it or City didn't present to us. But I 5 feel if we gave full variance to the neighbor under the 6 same conditions, I don't see any logic to applying 7 different conditions to this person. So I will -- again, 8 I will be voting against this. 9 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Holt. 10 COMMISSIONF-~ HOLT: Yes. A difference to 11 me is that this is a corner lot and the other was an 12 interior lot. This has two sides that could be the 13 beginning of, you know, si&walks and roads out there, if 14 it ever happens. And the money is being put back and if 15 it never happens, then the money gets returned. So I 16 think there's a big difference in those two sites because 17 if -- we didn't know this one on the corner was coming up, 18 and if we had known, maybe we would have done something 19 different, but we didn't. Thank you. 20 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Watkins. 21 COMMISSIONER WATKINS' Thank you, Madam 22 Chair. I hear us talking about a rural road and I don't 23 think this is a rural road. I think the University of 24 North Texas bought Liberty Christian School which is a 25 short distance down the road. And wbcn you look at our Page 18 1 map, we're going to have to a way to Fort Worth Drive. It 2 may not be Bonnie Brae. And it may not be Roselawn. But 3 it's not a rural road anymore. That's the way I like to 4 remember it going to Hills and Hollows, but it's -- to Boy 5 Scout Camp. But it -- I've got gray hair and it's not a 6 rural road anymore, I think. 7 COMMISSIONER ^PPLE: Thank you. Is there 8 any further discussion? Vote, please. Motion carries 9 5-1. 10 (COMMISSIONER ROY VOTING IN OPPOSITION.) 11 COMMISSIONER APPLE: That just leaves 12 future A~ocnda items. Mr. Powell. 13 M~. POWELL: well, actually, before you get 14 off tiffs last one, I just want to briefly and I didn't 15 really want to impose on your deliberation, but maybe for 16 the benefit of the new members, I really do think that 17 variances and how the Board has treated variances has 18 changed over the last two years. 19 A year ago we had added the regulation that 20 allowed for payment in lieu of actual construction. And 21 I'm not sure if our analysis in terms of the impact or the 22 costs associated with the partial fee has gotten better, 23 but I do think that there has beeu somewhat of a change 24 from a year ago of how variances are looked at, and partly 25 due to the new regulations that we do now have. I don't 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 t9 know if that helped, but -- COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Commissioner Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Are we on the future Agenda items now? COMMISSIONER APPLE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I would like to have examined this ordinance that provides the return of the money after ten years. If they could bring the history of that ordinance and the rationale of the ten years. Perhaps, we might -- it might be beneficial to be looking at five year windows for some of these properties or even three might be more appropriate. And that's just what I would like to review. Thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Staff if you'll take note of that. Without objection, we are adjourned. ?LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 9TH, 2002 Page 17 - Page 19 Item 6B AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET November 19, 2002 Engineering David Hill, 349 - 8314 ~-~' SUBJECT Consider approval of an exaction variance of Section 35.20.3 (B.) of the Code of Ordinance concerning perimeter sidewalks. The 1.0-acre parcel is located on the easterly side of Mockingbird Lane and just south of Mingo Road. The property is currently in a Neighborhood Residential (NR-4) zoning district. The property is presently being subdivided into two (2) lots and one residence on one of the lots currently exists. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the full variance (6-0) (V02-0021) BACKGROUND Mr. Weldon McBride, the applicant and the owner of this property (the Weldon Addition) has applied for an exaction variance of section 35.20.3 (B.) (conceming improvements to perimeter sidewalk) of the Code of Ordinances regarding relief from the costs of construction of sidewalk on Mockingbird Ln. along the frontage of this development. The subject section of the ordinance requires construction improvements along the frontage of the development with city standard sidewalk. The applicant did not provide any information as to the cause of this request and so it is assumed that it is wholly a result of the costs. Mockingbird Ln., in this area, is a two (2) lane rural type asphalt roadway with essentially no shoulder and with borrow ditches, that connects to Mingo Rd. to the north and Audra Ln to the south and is designated as a collector street on the Denton Mobility Plan, Roadway Component. As such the City will eventually cause this roadway to be constructed to City standards (a 37ft wide residential avenue with 8ft sidewalk) in combination with developer monies and/or City capitol improvement bonds. Currently sidewalk exists on the easterly side of Mockingbird Ln. for one lot on each side of Oakshire St. In addition, the Bel Aire North Addition (located in the northwest comer of Mockingbird Ln./Audra Ln.) is being developed and will construct approximately 960ft of sidewalk along the westerly side of Mockingbird Ln. north ofAudra Ln. The Weldon Addition fronts Mockingbird Ln. for approximately 167ft. The City Council may approve an exaction variance if the following criterion is met: b) Criteria for variances from development exactions. Where the commission finds that the imposition of any development exaction pursuant to these regulations exceeds any reasonable benefit to the property owner or is so excessive as to constitute confiscation of the tract to be platted, it may recommend approval of variances to waive such exaction's, so as to prevent such excess, to the City Council. Waiver of developmental exactions shall be approved by the City Council. Page 1 The price the applicant paid for the parcel, or the cost of the proposed building improvements is not a factor in determining reasonable costs. The City Council must decide if the costs associated with the public improvements required by city regulations are reasonable and consistent for the type of development proposed and are proportional to the demand for services created by the development. OPTIONS 1. Approve full variance 2. Approve full variance with conditions 3. Approve a partial variance 4. Deny variance RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the partial variance, resulting in the developer's payment of a total of $2,300.00 in lieu of sidewalk design and construction improvements on Mockingbird Ln. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the full variance, on October 9, 2002. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 60 to recommend approval of the full variance on October 9, 2002. FISCAL INFORMATION City staff estimates typical installation of 8-foot wide sidewalk, required adjacent to a collector street such as Mockingbird Ln., at $20/foot. Given there is approximately 167 feet of frontage, the estimated construction costs are = $3,340.00. City staff understands the cost to construct perimeter sidewalk along Mockingbird Ln. to City standards is prohibitive in the development of a residential lot with a frontage as noted above. Current City ordinance has allowed for a per lot average cost (of a typical lot in a residential area in Denton) payment in lieu of the costs that are associated with the design and construction of full improvements. City staff has determined that the average cost per residential lot for perimeter sidewalk improvements as being $2,300 for 8ft wide sidewalk. Because one of the lots currently has a residential structure on it, staff believes the $2,300.00 fee should be attributed only to the one lot that is being developed, not both. In the past staff has recommended and the City Council has granted partial variances for similar developments, based on the cost of such improvements for an average sized lot in the City of Denton. In accordance with the current ordinance, the fee associated with the costs of construction may be posted with the City in lieu of actual construction. The City maintains this money in an interest beating account and if the improvements are not complete, under construction or under design within 10 years (of the time of deposit of this money), the City is required to return the money to the payee(s) with interest. ATTACHMENTS 1. Site location map 2. Current/proposed standard pavement/sidewalk locations 3. Plat 4. P & Z minutes Page 2 Prepared By: David Salmon, Assistant Director Engineering Respectfully submitted: Charles Fiedler Director, Engineering Page 3 / © ® l CondonsoltTM 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 COMMISSIONER APPLE; Good evening. I'd 3 like to call to order the regular meeting of the Planning 4 and Zoning Commission for the City of Denton, Texas for 5 this Wednesday, October the 9th, 2002. If you'll please 6 join us in standing to say the pledge of allegiance to the 7 United States flag and the Texas flag. 8 (Thereupon, the Pledges of Allegiance were 9 recited.) 10 COMMISSIONER APPLE: JUst for informational 1 1 purposes this evening, Commissioner Powell has an excused 12 absence this evening. And Commissioner Roy has called and 13 let us know that he will be late. We do have a quorum, so 14 we'll just jump right into our Consent Agenda. No, I'm 15 sorry. The first item is to consider approval of the 16 minutes for September the 25th, 2002. Conm~issioners, do 17 I have any corrections or a motion? Commissioner Mukoy. 18 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Ye, i. Help my memory. 19 I don't believe -- member seeing Mr. Snyder here 20 September 25th. 21 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I would agree with 22 that. That's probably a correction that needs to be made. 23 The minutes do indicate that Ed Snyder was present rather 24 than Dogie Palumbo. And I don't think Dottle would 25 appreciate that, getting those mixed up. Page 2 1 I had one small correction, also. Oa page 2 75, next to the last cormnent. Commissioner Apple, it says 3 it was "significant." That should read it was 4 "insignificant." Are there any more corrections? We have 5 a motion -- 6 COMMISSIONER MULROY: second. Is there a 7 motion on the floor? 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: No. Is there a 9 motion.'? We have corrections -- 10 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. I move 11 approval -- move approval with the two corrections. 12 COMMISSIONER WATKINS: second. 13 COMMISSIONER APPLE: W6 have a motion and a 14 second, and I see Commissioner Roy has joined us. Vote, 15 please. Since you joined us late, Commissioner Roy, we're 16 voting on the minutes of the previous meeting. 17 COMMISSIONER ROY: Madam Chairman, I can't 18 vote because I don't know what the corrections were. I'm 19 sorry. So I will abstain. 20 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Motion 21 carries 5-0 with one abstention by Cormnissioner Roy. Thc 22 next item is our Consent Agenda, which has Items 3, 4, 5A 23 and B and 6A and B -- I'm sorry. Items 3 and 4. I'm so 24 sorry, i'm trying to move too quickly. Are there any 25 comments or -- Page 3 I COMMISSIONER MULROY: I'm ready to make a 2 motion, Madam Chair. 3 COMMISSIONER A?PLE: All right. 4 Commissioner Mulroy. $ COMMISSIONER MULROY: I move approval of 6 the Consent Agenda. 7 COMMISSIONER ROY: second. 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: We have a motion and a 9 second to approve the Consent Agenda. Is there any 10 discussion? Vote, please. Commissioner Mulroy and hanto,. lotl r es/% I - 14 individual consideration, And I believe Mr, Vokoun with 15 the City staff will bring you the presentation. 16 MR. voKotn,~: Good evening, Madam Chair. 17 Ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, Bud Vokoun, 18 Engineering. You have before you a request by Mr. Weldon 19 McBride, the applicant and owner of this property. The 20 Weldon Addition, who has applied for two exaction 21 variances. The one acre parcel is loca~xt on the easterly 22 side of Mockingbird Lane and just south of Mingo Road. 23 The property is located in a neigllborhood residential 4 24 zoning district. 25 The property is presently being subdivided Page 4 t into two lots and one resident on one of the lots 2 currently exists. The first request is for variance 3 02-0021, which concerns Section 35.20.3B of the Code of 4 Ordinance concerning parameter sidewalks. 5 Thc second request is for variance 02-0023 6 that concerns Section 35.20.2L3A of the Code of Ordinance 7 concerning parameter streets. Site is right in this area. 8 There currently is a residence in this area and they're 9 subdividing to provide another residence in this area. 10 The request is for parameter paving and sidewalk. 11 Staff agrees that the applicant because of 12 the type of development and the size of the development 13 should not be required to pay the full requirements of the 14 design of construction, both the sidewalk and of the 15 paving, however, we do -- staff does believe that the 16 applicant should be -- pay its fair share, not unlike what 17 a normal subdivision for a large development is where a 18 developer comes in, builds the roads, builds the 19 sidewalks, builds the other infrastructure and then passes 20 that cost on to each of the lots, and then the homeowner. 21 We feel that the homeowner should be 22 required to pay an average and, therefore, staff is 23 recommending a partial variance for both of these. 24 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. 25 Commissioners, do we have any questions? Commissioner PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 9TH, 2002 Page 1 - Page 4 CondenseItTM Page 5 I Johnson, 2 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: The -- the sidewalk 3 would run along the western side of the property; is that 4 right? 5 MR. VOKOUN: Yes, sir. The requirements 6 for parameter sidewalk, which would include the -- which 7 is thc sidewalk on the east side of Mockingbird or the 8 west side of thc property. 9 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: And it would 10 terminate at the railroad? 11 MR. VOKOUN: It would terminate at the 12 northem property, which is the southern right-of-way for 13 the railroad, just to give you an idea of current 14 situation out there. We have a large development if 15 you've driven out there recently, that's presently being 16 constructed in which they're being required to put both 17 sidewalk and roadway on this side of Audra and 18 Mockingbird. There's currently sidewalk and full road 19 width on this side of the road. And there's sidewalk and 20 road width on this -- and as well as in this area. 21 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: And the ordinance is 22 -- give me an idea exactly what the ordinance says 23 regarding the sidewalks. !24 MR. VOKOUN: The ordinance requires full 25 installation of sidewalk. In this case here, it's eight 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 i4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 7 Page 6 i feet wide required because Mockingbird is a collector 2 street. And it's required to be installed along a full 3 frontage. 4 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay. And there are 5 no provisions in the ordinance for anyplace where a 6 sidewalk might be deemed inappropriate. It just says 7 period. If it's a collector street, there's a sidewalk, 8 right? 9 MR. VOKOCrr~: That's correct. In this case I0 here we're saying that -- we're asking that the applicant 11 provide the money for the cost of this. It will be put in 12 an account that will be held for ten years with interest. 13 At the end of ten years, if the City hasn't either 14 constructed, is in the process of constructing the 15 improvements, then the applicant gets the money back. 16 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: okay. Does the 17 ordinance allow for reduction of the amount to be charged? 18 I mean, what you're doing is you're recommending that he 19 not be charged the full amount for the sidewalk, but 20 charged as if this was an average lot? 21 MR, VOKOUN: That's correct. 22 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON,. Okay. Then the 23 ordinance provides for that? 24 MR. VOKOUN: The ordinance provides for a i25 partial exaction, yes. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: okay. MR. voKou'~: 'the fee was determined based upon calculations by City staff some years ago. That doesn't mean that Planning and Zoning Commission could recommend an even smaller amount. That's just a typical average that we bring to the Commission. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Mr. Vokoun, Mr. Powell would like to help address Commissioner Jolnlson's question. MR. POWELL: If I may, a variance is the process by which a standard in the Code whether it's subdivision or zoning is to be not imposed on a property as it's developed. So the mechanism under the Code is to seek a variance. You can grant a full variance and say that no sidewalk or parameter paving is required. What staff has proposed to you is, is them something in between there as Mr. Vokoun pointed out? There also is two different types of variances, a hardship variance, which someone is physically unable, in our opinion, to build something or do it. And then there's an exaction variance where it really relates more to their desire not to do it primarily because of cost factors. In this case there's no obstruction or reason why they couldn't build the sidmvalk or couldn't do Page 8 I the parameter paving and that's why it's an exaction 2 variance and not a hardship variance. 3 MR. SALMON: one other item that I would 4 like to add is that in this ease the ordinance does allow 5 as Mr. Vokoun indicated fees in lleu of actual 6 construction. And the reason we're proposing a partial 7 variance is because one of the lots already has a house on 8 it. So even though the subdivision is two lots, we've 9 only calculated the fee based on one lot because they're 10 only adding one house. They're not building two brand new 11 houses. 12 C~MMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Arc there 13 any more questions? Commissioners? Is the applicant 14 hem, Mr. Vokoun? 15 MR. VOKOUN: I'm not aware that he is. Oh, 16 yes. 17 COMMISS~OtqeR ^PeLE: would you like to 18 address the Commission at all? 19 MR. MCSmr)E: oh, I guess I could. I have 20 a hearing problem. I heard most of what he said. 21 COMMISSIONER APPLU: If yOU would just 22 speak into that microphone and give us your name and 23 address. 24 Ma. Me,SIDe: okay. Weldon McBride. I've 25 had the property for a couple of years. I've sold a lot PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 9TH, 2002 Page 5 - Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I2 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 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CondenseltTM Page 9 to this Mexican couple about a year ago if I can get it 1 subdivided. The sidewalk in question leads up to the 2 railroad track. So that's -- you know, that's why I asked 3 for the variance. It would be -- a sidewalk would be 4 incompatible with the neighborhood. There's not any 5 around. The property adjacent is -- no sidewalk. The 6 property across the street, no sidewalk. There is a 7 sidewalk -- let's sec, up on the hill by a subdivision, g It had a three foot sidewalk, but that's it. 9 Then it crosses a little ravine that's in 10 the -- I think it's in the flood plain, the little ravine 11 is. It's a low, low elevation. So that's all I -- you 12 know, that -- I've already spent more on the property than 13 I think that -- I mean, on getting it done than I'm going I4 to get. If I built a sidewalk, I wouldn't -- if I had to 15 build a sidewalk, I won't sell the property because it 16 would be cost-prohibitive. Wouldn't be -- wouldn't be an' 17 good. Thank you. 18 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Are there any 19 questions for Mr. McBride? Thank you, sir. ; 20 MR. MCBRIDE: Sure. 21 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Holt. 22 COMMISSIONER HOLT: rll make a motion that 23 the exaction variance be approved. 24 COMMISSIONER MULROY: second. 25 Page 10 COMMISSIONER APPLE: It's been moved and 1 seconded. Any discussion7 Vole, please. Motion carries 2 6-0. 3 Next addressing Agenda Item 5B. 4 COMMISSIONI~t. HOLT: Make a motion that the 5 variance be approved, the exaction variance be approved 6 for 5B. 7 COMMISSIONER MULROY: second. 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: we have a motion and a 9 second. Any discussion? Vote, please. Commissioner 10 Mukoy, your vote didn't register. Thanks. Motion 11 carries 6-0. 12 The next item for individual consideration 13 is Itmn 6 regarding Gary Addition. And, again, Mr. Vokoun 14 will present. 15 MR. VOKOUN: Thank you, again. Mr. lerald 16 Yensan representing Mr. Shun-Wen Chang, the developer of 17 this property, the Gary Addition has applied for two 18 exaction variances. The 4.357 acre parcel is located on 19 the southwesterly comer of Bonnie Brae and Corbin Road. 20 The property is located in a neighborhood 2 zoning 21 district. A single family residence is proposed. This 22 concerns variance 02~002, which concerns Section 35.20.3B 23 of thc Code of Ordinance concerning parameter sidewalk as 24 well as variance 02-0024, it concerns Section 35.20.2L2 25 OCTOBER 9TH, 2002 Page 11 concerning parameter paving. Same situation as the previous ittan. Tho site located right hem. A closer view indicates that it has property both on Corbln as well as on Bonnie Brae. Staff's recommendation is for a partial variance. Staff is concerned with the property owner being required as by Code to build both and improve Corbin and Bonnie Brae, both pavement and sidewalk, we feel that the costs are exorbitant for this type of situation and, therefore, recommending the partial variance. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Commissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: Mr. Vokoun, in the backup material, the applicant states that he applied for and received these exaction variances for the property just to the south of it. I seem to recall that was the case, but could you verify that for me, please? MR. VOKOU~: Yes, they got a full variance on both the sidewalk and the pavement. And the property is this property right hem. COMMISSIONER ROY: thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: IS the applicant present? Commissioners, what's your pleasure? Commissioner Mukoy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I'm going to make a Page 12 motion to approve the variance as submitted, and with a short explanation that I know we have some history, but I'm looking at the City staff having reduced the pain to a small level to accommodate an extraordinary situation, and it seems their recommendation is reasonable in proportionality to the lot. So I'm moving approval as presented. COMMISSIONER HOLT: second. COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Mukoy, could you clarify that's the full variance? COMMISSIONER MULROY: AS presented by staff. COMMISSIONER APPLE'. And that is for Item A. We do need two separate motions again. We have a motion as presented by staff and a second. Any discussion? Cormuissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: Yes. It was just confirmed to us that the site just south of it, this Commission reviewed and provided a full variance for thc sidewalk in a very recent meeting, as I recall. So I will be voting against the motion because I feel that we need to be consistent in our judgment. And I don't see any differcnee between this case and the property just to the south of it. So I will be voting against the motion which I understand to be as Page 9 - Page 12 CondcnscItTM Page 13 1 per the staff recommendation to just provide a smaller fee 2 than what would normally be provided. So I will be votin 3 against the motion. 4 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Any further 5 discussion? Coma~issioner Johnson. 6 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Is that a true 7 statement that it was a full variance? Do we absolutely 8 know that? 9 MR. VOKOUN: Yes, sir. It was a full 10 variance. 11 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay. Maybe 12 Commissioner Mulroy could help me out with this a little 13 bit. Why would we go part way on one if we've gone all 14 the way on the other one? Is that a legal question? 15 COMMISSIONER MLILROY: If you address it to 16 the Chair. 17 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Mulroy, 18 I'll let you answer his question because he needs that -- 19 to know that. 20 . COMMISSIONER MULROY: And I do not recall 21 the specifics of the previous case. I guess them was -- 22 that case came along with the context of discussions of 23 Bonnie Brae and, perhaps, the City did not have a firm 24 plan at that time of what was going to happen and some 25 discussion occurred on estate-type lots in neighborhoods. Page 14 I This particular -- as time has passed, I 2 recognize with my earlier comment, that staff has put 3 forth a greater effort and a higher level of recognition 4 as to proportionality on variances and costs. And the 5 proposition by slaff to come with a partial variance and 6 narrow the financial contribution to really a pretty small 7 amount compared to past requirements, I thought 8 dcrnonstrated a great degree of consideration by the City, 9 so I'm -- in this case as in front of us does represent a 10 contribution by a homeowner to the public improvements 11 that will happen. If they don't happen they'll get their 12 money back and the proportionality of what's proposed 13 seems to make sense at this time. My recollection is Mr. 14 Johnson last time I think the hardship, because we didn't 15 have -- is -- the benefit of this type of compromise, the 16 hardship, I believe was much greater. So we took the 17 other choice and granted a full variance. This is -- you 18 know, my view is pretty nominal sum for the -- for four 19 acres. 20 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, 21 Conunissioner Mulroy. Did that help, Comanissioner Johnson? 22 Is there any further discussion? Vote, please. The vote 23 carries 6-1 -- I'm sorry, 5-1. Can't add tonight. 24 (COMMISSIONER ROY VOTING IN OPPOSITION.) 25 NOW, for 6B. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION presented. Page 15 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I move approval as 1 2 3 COMMISSIONER APPLE; We have a motion. 4 COMMISSIONER MULROY: FOr the same reason 5 that the reasonableness demonstrated by the City has 6 brought this down to a nominal sum. Thank you. 7 COMMISSIONER APPLE: DO we have a second7 8 COMMISSIONER HOLT: second. 9 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Roy. 10 COMMISSIONER ROY: For the same reason as 11 before, it has been I'm guessing no mom than two months 12 ago that we addressed this same issue and decided to grant 13 a full variance to the next-door neighbor and I don't s~ 14 any reason why we should make any difference. I accept my 15 esteemed colleague's comments, but I feel that it's more 16 important to be consistent. And espechlly considering 17 the extreme rural nature of this road, I'm going to be 18 voting against this proposal. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Mr. Powell, could you 20 offer any additional information in regard to -- 21 MR. POWELL: well, I do think it was more 22 than two months ago, and I don't know if Mr. Vokoun or if 23 Mr. Sahnon -- but I was thinking it was more in terms of 24 probably four or five months, six months, Time kind of 25 flies, and I really don't think it was on your Agenda as Page 16 I near as two months ago. 2 MR. VOKOtr~: I would agree that it was 3 somewhere in that area, and I think also that it was a 4 split vote. 5 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. 6 Commissioner Mulroy. 7 COMMISSIONER MULROY: If I may add a 8 cormnent. I understand where Commissioner Roy is coming 9 from, but it also cuts the other way. I tlfink part of our 10 rationale in granting a full variance is because the 11 choices were such that perhaps the City's position 12 occurred to us as being unreasonable, so, therefore, the 13 full variance was passed. 14 Tonight I tl~nk we should at the same -- if 15 that was our position then, then it's logical to me we 16 should reward tho efforts of City staff of being 17 reasonable with -- if their proposition makes sense, that 18 we should pass it. Thank you. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Roy. 20 COMmiSSIONeR ROY: with all due respect, I 21 don't think it's important whether it was two months or 22 four months or five months. It was very recent, and we 23 had an exlensive discussion. And as I recall I think I 24 voted against the issue at that time, and was ouwoted. 25 So I've come to accept the fact that that OCTOBER 9TH, 2002 Page 13 - Page 16 CondcnscltTM Page 17 1 road is going to be maintained rural. And I believe -- we 2 had the option at the time we made the vote on the 3 adjacent property, we could have done this. Maybe we just 4 didn't think about it or City didn't present to us. But I 5 feel if we gave full variance to the neighbor under the 6 same conditions, I don't see any logic to applying 7 different conditions to this person. So I will -- again, 8 I will be voting against this. 9 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Holt. 10 COMMISSIONF-~ HOLT: Yes. A difference to 11 me is that this is a corner lot and the other was an 12 interior lot. This has two sides that could be the 13 beginning of, you know, si&walks and roads out there, if 14 it ever happens. And the money is being put back and if 15 it never happens, then the money gets returned. So I 16 think there's a big difference in those two sites because 17 if -- we didn't know this one on the corner was coming up, 18 and if we had known, maybe we would have done something 19 different, but we didn't. Thank you. 20 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Watkins. 21 COMMISSIONER WATKINS' Thank you, Madam 22 Chair. I hear us talking about a rural road and I don't 23 think this is a rural road. I think the University of 24 North Texas bought Liberty Christian School which is a 25 short distance down the road. And wbcn you look at our Page 18 1 map, we're going to have to a way to Fort Worth Drive. It 2 may not be Bonnie Brae. And it may not be Roselawn. But 3 it's not a rural road anymore. That's the way I like to 4 remember it going to Hills and Hollows, but it's -- to Boy 5 Scout Camp. But it -- I've got gray hair and it's not a 6 rural road anymore, I think. 7 COMMISSIONER ^PPLE: Thank you. Is there 8 any further discussion? Vote, please. Motion carries 9 5-1. 10 (COMMISSIONER ROY VOTING IN OPPOSITION.) 11 COMMISSIONER APPLE: That just leaves 12 future A~ocnda items. Mr. Powell. 13 M~. POWELL: well, actually, before you get 14 off tiffs last one, I just want to briefly and I didn't 15 really want to impose on your deliberation, but maybe for 16 the benefit of the new members, I really do think that 17 variances and how the Board has treated variances has 18 changed over the last two years. 19 A year ago we had added the regulation that 20 allowed for payment in lieu of actual construction. And 21 I'm not sure if our analysis in terms of the impact or the 22 costs associated with the partial fee has gotten better, 23 but I do think that there has beeu somewhat of a change 24 from a year ago of how variances are looked at, and partly 25 due to the new regulations that we do now have. I don't 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 t9 know if that helped, but -- COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Commissioner Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Are we on the future Agenda items now? COMMISSIONER APPLE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I would like to have examined this ordinance that provides the return of the money after ten years. If they could bring the history of that ordinance and the rationale of the ten years. Perhaps, we might -- it might be beneficial to be looking at five year windows for some of these properties or even three might be more appropriate. And that's just what I would like to review. Thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Staff if you'll take note of that. Without objection, we are adjourned. ?LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 9TH, 2002 Page 17 - Page 19 Item 6C AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET November 19, 2002 Engineering David Hill, 349 - 8314 ,~?;::~'i SUBJECT Consider denial of an exaction variance of Section 35.20.2 (P. 1.) of the Code of Ordinance concerning coordination with surrounding streets and connectivity. The 5.0-acre parcel is located on the westerly side of Old North Road and across from Chebi Lane (approximately 900 feet north of US380/University Drive). The property is located in a Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning district. No development currently exists. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial of the variance (7-0) (V02-0020) BACKGROUND Mr. Marvin Morgan, the applicant and owner of this property has applied for a full exaction variance of section 35.20.2(P.1.) (conceming coordination with surrounding streets and connectivity) of the Code of Ordinances regarding relief from the connectivity component. The subject section of the ordinance requires the street system for each development to be connected with existing, proposed and anticipated streets within and outside the development and shall be extended to the property boundary of the subdivision so as to provide for adequate access, and the safe and effective movement and circulation of traffic in accordance with the connectivity component of the City's Mobility Plan. This property abuts 1. Old North Rd. to the east which then abuts (as one continues easterly), a NR-3 completed and occupied residential district, 2. a NR-3 completed and occupied residential district to the north, 3. a NRMU completed and occupied multi-family district to the south and 4. a NR-3 undeveloped district to the west. A proposed public street that is to service this development connects to Old North Rd. and aligns with Chebi Ln. The cause of this request is the developer's concern for the safety of the future residents of this development, which is to be marketed and deed restricted to people over 50 years of age. The applicant's letter provides additional information concerning this item. The code requires that public street(s) extend through a development so as to provide connectivity to/from other adjacent undeveloped property (in this case, to the west). In general, the basis for this section of the ordinance is to not only promote access and circulation (thus promoting adjoining neighborhood interaction) but safety. The lack of connectivity can increase police, fire and ambulance response times to an area where there is limited access because of the possibility that one or more (of the limited number of) routes are restricted or blocked (due to construction, an accident, or the like) and/or restricts the shortest possible route (because police are on patrol, they can respond from any given direction more quickly to a situation because of a more direct route because of multiple Page 1 entrances, than a circuitous route to a limited number of accesses) to a location in need of these services. In addition, multiple access points allow for a greater dispersion of traffic to the traffic system. In reference to a comment in the applicant's letter concerning TxDOT. TxDOT has suspended the access management requirements until sufficient public input is obtained and reviewed. When TxDOT does adopt an access management program, staff expects it to include a part that the requirements are only applicable if a county or city agency has not adopted its own access management criteria. As the City of Denton has adopted an access management program, it is expected that TxDOT will allow the City's standards to prevail. In any case, City staff disagrees with the applicant that access management in any form will, in itself, cause noticeable traffic from properties ~long US380/University Dr. to use a roadway through this development. Certainly there could be more traffic through this development from the proposed, but as of yet undeveloped, residential development to the west because it would be a route to Old North. However, when the development to the west is submitted to the City, staff will be sure that there are connections to Foxcroft (to the north), Mistywood (to the west, at its intersection with Nottingham) and to US380/University Dr. in order to minimize traffic concentrating on the route through this development to Old North. City staff does not feel that the makeup of the residents (elderly) of this proposed development have any more physical restrictions than any other residential development that can include both young children as well as the elderly. Sidewalks will be required in this development so as to separate pedestrians from vehicles. Traffic calming will be suggested in this development, as well as in the development to the west to reduce vehicle speeds. In addition, a through street from this development to the development to the west would allow the elderly in this development to better access the potential commercial sites along the north side of University Dr./US380, west of Old North, without having to drive on Old North Rd or University Dr. Furthermore, the construction of the sidewalk along this through street would promote walking rather than driving to these potential commercial sites. It should be noted that if this development's proposed one-way street is not connected to the west, other City code violations will need to be considered including, but not limited to: 1. it services more than 21 lots and therefore invokes the requirements of a collector street, which includes: a. a 65fl ROW rather than a 50fl ROW, b. a minimum 37fl pavement width, there is no indication from the material provided by the developer what width is proposed for this street, but staff would expect it to be less than the 37fl, c. an 8fl wide sidewalk rather than a 5fl wide sidewalk and d. it would require alley access to garages, 2. it does not meet the City's maximum block length of 600fl requirement, 3. a vast majority of the proposed street is a one-way and similar in circulation to a City's Courtyard St., but violates the street length requirement ora maximum of 150fl. 4. the roadway is effectively a one-way couplet and therefore: a. single family residential driveways are not permitted access to it, b. parking bays are not permitted in the median but, are required on the outside edges. 5. In addition, staff is concerned that because of the length of this one-way street, that drivers will drive the wrong way (to the south) so as to more quickly access properties immediately to the south of this development's entrance, rather than drive the entire length of the street. Page 2 In summary, even if the connectivity requirement was not required, there would be other code violations/requirements and circulation concerns about the design of this development and it's roadway, which would cause less safe walking and driving conditions, especially for the elderly residing in this development. The City Council may approve an exaction variance if the following criterion is met: b) Criteria for variances from development exactions. Where the commission finds that the imposition of any development exaction pursuant to these regulations exceeds any reasonable benefit to the property owner or is so excessive as to constitute confiscation of the tract to be platted, it may recommend approval of variances to waive such exaction's, so as to prevent such excess, to the City Council. Waiver of developmental exactions shall be approved by the City Council. The price the applicant paid for the parcel, or the cost of the proposed building improvements is not a factor in determining reasonable costs. The City Council must decide if the costs associated with the public improvements required by city regulations are reasonable and consistent for the type of development proposed and are proportional to the demand for services created by the development. OPTIONS 1. Approve full variance 2. Approve full variance with conditions 3. Approve a partial variance 4. Deny variance RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the exaction variance requested by the applicant. Commission voted 7-0 to recommend denial of the variance, on October 23, 2002. The Planning & Zoning PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend denial of the variance on October 23, 2002. FISCAL INFORMATION City staff does not have an estimate of the cost for the amount of ROW required to be dedicated for the section of roadway to connect to the west, additional pavement at $75 per linear It of 25fl wide pavement, for approximately an additional 120ii of length would be approximately $9,000.00. Slaff feels that the additional ROW and street pavement costs would not be substantially different (and could be less) than would be required if all of the other City codes were complied with. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map 2. Concept plan 3. Applicant's letter 4. P & Z minutes Page 3 Prepared By: David Salmon, Assistant Director Engineering Respectfully submitted: Charles Fiedler Director, Engineering Page 4 N 00°15'08" E 411,7C~ m OLD NC~TH ROAD S 00°1508" W ~0c~82' Hardship variance for Old North Park. Connectivity Size: 5 Acres Location: See graphic. Located to west of Chebi, south of Foxcroft, and north of University Dr. 1) Granting this variance will not be detrimental to the public safety, heath, or welfare on injurious to other property owners. a) The variance will not be detrimental to the above PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 2) The conditions upon which the request for a variance is based are unique to the property for which the variance is sought and are not applicable generally to other property. a) A connected street is required to join Chebi Lane to the west adjoiner per the city ordinances addressing connectivity. Because of the zoning of the adjacent uses and the new Texas Department of Transportation requirements for reduction of the number of curb cuts along all state roads, an undue amount of traffic may be directed through this property to Old North Road. 3) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of these regulations is carried out. a) The property is infill with Chebi street located off-center across Old North. This street would be required to extend through this property and connect to the west adjoiner creating a connection for the NR-3 and NRMU traffic to Old North. This street would be classified a residential street with or without the connectivity and may create a pedestrian hazard in this development. 4) The variance will not in any manner vary the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Denton Development Plan, Master Plan, or studies, except that those documents may be amended in the manner prescribed by law. a) The Variance would vary none of the above 5) The special or peculiar conditions upon which the request is based did not result from or were not created by the act or commission of the owner or any prior owner, subsequent to the date of creation of the requirement from which the variance is being sought. a) The conditions affecting this property did not occur because of any action by the owner or prior owner. P~NN[NG & DEVELOPMENT Additional information. Proposed use: A senior active adult project. The project would be deed restricted to persons over 50 years old. The developer believes a through street is unnecessary in this location with connectivity provided for the adjacent property from the existing north street and connectivity for higher densities forced to the south on US 380 / University Drive. Additionally a busy street through this property is contrary to what a senior buyer would require in a home. Thank you 531 .gl' ................. _~_ _.D._S._U._.E._ _ _. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT CondenseltTM 2002 Please join 8 ~f All~giancc were 9 10 The next ~' cormcxtons a mouon? 14 I move 15 we have a motion second. Any discuss~fir? Vote, please. Motion 7-0. 22 vall bej~dling_It~m No, 5. We have a amis, 23 has ~p~nterest in that property have to 24 re~Xfs~ hira~lf from that item. 2.~_ dm .~ilg I7,,3 emd 4 I Commi$$ione~ Holt '2 COMMISS[O~ HOLT: ! make a motion 3 approw 3 and 4 of/~ Cons~t ~..nda. 4 eou~s~o~. ~uu~ov: s~o.d. / S c~llss~o~ ~PLn: we have a m~ gland 6 second ~prov~ Itera~ 3 and 4 7 Any~dj~ussion? Vo~, please. Motion $ ~ssione~ Mulroy. 9// ~o~,.~s~!o~,~.ov../~, ~ chair. 10/ I'll respectfully r~cusc myself fr~n ~o next i~'m duo ~o / conffict of interest. / 12 Col~a~,ss,o~pl'l~ Thankyou.. / 121 / at thi ~~ an affidavit and .it 7 8 9 10 1! 17 19 20 21 Pag~ 3 COMMISSIOI~!R APPLB: motion and a to approve Item No. 5, ' discussion? Motion carries 6-0. Ittm No. 6 is of a plat approval, with the City M~. Thank you. Item with th~ Estates. It is Bra~ north of~ Tho June 2000. It has a five year so 2005. The final for phase one and phase one plat expires end of this month. f after, the will t~my are extended. As 2005, and thc final~ have to preliminary plat, roason not to ext~msion, to April 23rd, I'[[ be qta~stions. POWELL: to approve COMML~;SIONER Si~olld. COMMISSIONER CommissionstrMulroy, CO [SS,, )~ Y: No.~ co [s~ ~F_~ we halsa motion and a / ' // . . Page 4 I second. Any assi~m? Vol~, plea,,~ Commlssioae~ 2 Mulroy, : did not lake. 'l~iaks. Morion carries 3 7-0. 4 Igra No. 7 is an Rom for individual 5 consideration width will I~ pres~t~l by Mr, Vokoun of tl~ 6 city ~ngineering staff. 7 l~m. VOKOUN: oecd cv~nlng, Madam Chair, 8 ladies and gexl~ of ~ Commission. Bud Vokoun, 9 engineering. You hav~ before you Varianc~ 02-0020, which 10 concerns a request by Mr. Marvin Morgan, the applicant of 11 this property, who has applied for a frill variance of 12 Scgtiotl 35.20.2 (P.1.) conco'nln8 coordination with 13 sttrrounding s~ and connectivity of the Code of 14 Ordinances. Tho five acre paroe/is located on tl~ 15 westerly sld~ of North -- Old North Road and across from 16 Chebi Lane approximately 900 fe~t north of U.S. 380, which 17 is also University Drive. 1~ Th~ property is locat~xl in a neighborhood 19 residential zooing dis~ct. No development cun~atiy 20 ~xists, Staff has provided the Commission with a 21 subslantial amount of information in tl~ gport. A ~ 22 brief highlights are the properties on tI~ sides. 23 Prop~i~s to the north ar~ f-ally dcwei~ as 24 residential. The property immadiatgly to the south is a 2:5 developgd apartment complex. And the ~sidentlal area Page 1 - Page 4 CondcnscltTM Page I a~ross the street of Old Nonti is 6~lly developed, also. ~ The reason for this section of thc Code is ore to promote 3 adjoining neighborhood interaction. 4 It's felt that many times rcsi~ntial a~tas 5 have a situation where they ar~ within tbem~lves and not 6 able to get out and join in with other neighborhoods. The 7 s~c. ond mason for the section of the Code is to provi& 8 more points of entry, which provide, greater safety. In a 9 ~ of this proposed property, they're proposing 10 entry to come into the siu:. The conn~ivlty would I 1 require that they also provide somu sort of an access to 12 the property that's undeveloped to the west, thus, 13 promoting interdaion between tlc neighborhoods to tbs 14 west. This would also promote traffic to go down to tho 15 retail area that's promoted along 380 without having to 16 get on Old North Road and then onto University. 17 They would be reqtlir~ to put in sidewalk, 18 which would s~urate them -- the tmfftc from pedestrians. 19 And with that, staff conclud~ its presantation. 20 COMM~SmO~R APPLe: mhank you. Is the 21 appllcantpresent? Ooodevening. If you would, pleasu, 22 give us your name and address. 23 MR. MORGAN: Good evening. Y~s. My narn~ 24 isMarvin Morgan. Iliveat 1325 FM2tSL Fortlgpast :15 several years, I have had people c, om~ to me and ask mo to Page 7 I all tbs homes in tha area, then moro of tho neighbors are 2 able to observe tho cars going in and out of their 3 community. 4 The second concern is safety. The strset 5 being in somewhat of a circle makes it impossible to sp~xl 6 through this area, making it much safer than an area with 7 a through street. We are now building through slreets, 8 and then we rome back and add spocd breaks to it to slow i} traffic down. This will be eliminated if we arc able to 10 do that. 11 The third cone, em is sense of community. 12 Most people like to live with their peers. In this 13 dev¢lopmant it would be restricted to people ovcr 50 years 14 of age. The homes will have big front porches and thc 15 houses wilt be pulled closer to the streets, so the people 16 that will walk on tho sidewalks will be able to converse 17 with their neighbors on the porches. IS Thc park will be provided for the neighbors Ii} to gather and even ha,to a place for their grandchildren to 20 play. This park also acts as a buffer so that when you 21 sit on your front porch you took out into thc park iustcad 22 of your neighbor's front porch. 23 The garages arc tucked in back of thc homes 14 so it will allow to gcc more of thc houses instead of tbs 25 unsightly guragc doors. It will also allow for moro Page 6 1 develop an a~a for older p~ople that do not requiru 2 asslstcd living. Then6 folks are people that desL~ to 3 dowasize their preset houses due to eitlgr grown 4 chiklr~ loss of spouses, or just leas mainlenance, both 5 physically and finargially. 6 The~ people still drive and take care of 7 themse, lves and do not ztquir~ assimnce from others. 8 These peopl~ have three major concerns in the developm~t~ 9 security, safety and s~nse of community. Their bi.st 10 concern is security. When yon think of s~curity in a 11 housing deve.!opmmt, you first think of pe~itrg~ fances 12 gags, and key pads for entry. I thousht about that in 13 ~ development. But I soon rmli2rd that th~ people 1'4 living h~re might ~ forgot their code. forget how 15 use the equipment, may have friends coming over that 16 coukln't use th~ equipment. The equipment malfunctions or 17 either they just hit that key pad that's stuck out there 18 like my wife did several years ago. 19 In cith~ case, this type of sccurily is 20 not fo~ this project. I feel like I have come up with a 21 good alternative, and that is th~ variance that is before 2:2 you tonight. As you can se~ a ooe-wey street into 23 development around the park and back out again, This 24 would do away with unwanted cars coming throngh the area 25 going some placc else. Since all tt~ cars have to pass Page 8 I parking in tho driveways. 2 In-fiR development is very difficult most 3 of tha tin~. If it wcru ~asy, th~ tracts lilg this would 4 Ig d~velolgd many years ago. Most of u'~ time it ~ 5 conocasion on ~ parts of th~ dovelolgr and the City in 6 order to make in-fill d~velop~mt work. In this 7 particular case is a couneciivity variance. I ask that 8 you give it your favorable consid~ation. Thank you. 9 oo~ssmsv, a ~r,~ ?hank you, Mr. Morgan. 10 Commissioners, do you have any questions? Thank you. 12 COMMISSlCr~.R ~t'~,'~ commisslouer Pews, Il. 13 COMM~SSlOC~R t'OWgLL: My button was broken 14 again. I'm sorry. I have a question of siaff. And I 15 don't know who on s~aff, just whoov~ can h~lp me he~. I I6 have U) assume that tho road in and tha road out there at 17 the eatrancu would bu suffioi~t for fire tacks. And tha 15 mad around would t~ wi& ~ though R's oue-way trailk 19 for two-way traffic. Is that a safe assmuption? 20 M~t vozou~: we haven't been provid~ 21 information sufficient enough to wa.a_ke that as a qualif'gd 22 answgr. 23 COMMISSIONILR POWELL: well, I understand in 24 this Sl~cific project. But I'm spmking, I guess, in 25 g~ncralities. Tha City wouldn't bc likely to appreve a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 23RD, 2002 Pagu 5 - Page 8 Cond~s~ItTM Pag~ 9 I project that didn't include roads of that type, This would be a public road and not a priva~ road, is that 4 MR. VOKOUN: That would be correct. 5 COMMISSIONER POWBLL: I 1~11~$$ that answers 6 tl~ qtw~tiou I had. Thank you. 7 coMMms~o~ma APi, I~ Init oth~ quosfious? 8 I would ~nt~tain a motion. 9 COMMISmOIq~a i'OWELL: I~ somewhat past 10 tbe 50 ymr mark - I'll ~ you my butlon iR broke. 11 Being som~vhat pasi 1t~ 50 y~ar mark, I sympathiz~ with 12 this. I also am bo~ha'ed by tho feel that thea~'s no 13 oth~' enlranc~ or ,xl.t from an ,na=g~ney point of view. 14 That bothixs n~. And I'm bottmaxl by tho fact that 15 th~'s no d~velolm~nt of r~ord to go by h,~. Wc'r, 16 8ivlng a variance on a blank pi~co of land that could be 17 dm, dop~ in any way th~ developer wants in tho futur, as 18 loug as it rra:t code. It could be this conf~am~tion or 19 some other configuration. It could be s~nior-style 20 housing or ~omv other housing. Right now we'r~ looking at 21 staler housing. But later wben i~ comes back to us a y~r 22 from now, it may have been sold twice. I'm not assuming 23 it will be. I'm saying it could bo, sold twice and ¢om~ 24 back m us with an entity diff{r~t conflgniratton. And 25 w~'w al~ady pas~ tl~ variance. Page 10 I 80 cwm though my heart's with th~ 2 gentlemen, I'm going to be voting -- I'm going to be 3 voting to not give the variant. 4 COMMISSIONER APPLE: COIrallissioner Powol[, 5 Mr.'R~chhart would like to weigh in on this. 6 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I'd love to hay© 7 somebody beside~ me weigh in on this. 8 MR. REICHHAWI~. This -- as this is a 9 variance, you can put conditions on it that it is built in 10 this configuration or somewhat similar configuration. 11 MR. ¥OHOUN: May I add something to that? 12 COMMISSIONER POWELL: AbsoItlt~ly. 13 COMMISSIONER At'el.E: Mr. Vokotm. 14 MR. VOHOIIN: If it'S within this 15 configuration there are a numb~ of other issues with tl~ 16 Code, tl~ configuration that you so~ shows it as basically 17 a courtyard, but it do~m't -- the courtyard co~ is 18 ~onsiderably smalla' than this. Also tbem's probl~ns 19. with -- if it's defined then as a cul-de-sac, it can 20 exceed that. Also, the Cod~ deals with the number of 21 houses that am on one street and that it will caus~ -- if 12 LMre's 21 or more residents on a strut, then it becomes 23 a collector street. So there's a peagetuation and a 24 domino effect that if this is not allowed to connect to 25 the property to tho v~st, then ~ ar~ other issues, and Page 11 I th~ ¢oaf~uration will -- should -- will probably change 2 considerably. 3 co~ss/o~..~,,~t~ commissior~r PowdI 4 pushed his button. ~ ' COMMISilONER POWI~LI~ It worked this time. 6 I'm assuming that th~so thh~gs that you'v~ meotion~l, sir, 7 could be overcome with an sup or some similar implca~nt, 8 some typo of design that could cor~ bdor~ us that 9 could pass it as a whole and most of tt~ things that you 10 spoke of could bo - oould be ovc~omo. Is that a fact? ] l COMblffiSlONI~ APPI,~: Mr, Rgiohhart, 1:2 ~m. P.~Cl-mA~T~ eossibly some of fl~ra 13 could, hut I lhink tl~ majority would take additional ! 4 variance. 15 COMMI$,~IONE. R POWLaLL: Thank you. 16 coM~t~ss~ol, t~t Al'ln.l~: cornmission~r Mulroy. 17 co~aM~sazo~a MCr~OY: Yes. In ligta of 118 mcmt discussion and my follow Conunlssiona' Pow~II's i 19 ~arller commoms, I would like io underscore th~ 120 for life saf~,y abow all oa tho a¢c~s and ~gross of 21 emerg~cy vehicle. We'v~ had that discussion on otl~r 22 casm aM tho~ may be a possibility that flushexl om - 23 som~ confisuration c, loso lo ltgs might work, but w, doa't 24 have enough dmails in front of us tonight. On~ ~xoepfion 25 is l~ading to another. So I'm 8oing to make a motion that Page 12 I we deny the variam~. 2 COMMISSIONER POWELI~ sccond. 3 COMMISSIONER APPLE: We have a motion and a 4 second. Commissioner Hell 5 COMMISSIONER HOLT: I think thc 6 conn~'tivity down ~ on th~ w~s~ ~nd of this pkco of 7 property is really important Ix~aus~ that -- in that ar~a 8 of town that one big lot that's ov~r there is one of the 9 f~v ames ldt for any kind of dowlopa~nt. So I think 10 connectivity on that end is really important and I would I 1 hate to see us clo~o this area off this way bocaus~ 12 there's a big church going in across the street. And this 13 neighborhood to the north, they could us~ some diffor~t 14 ways to get in and out. And I think it would bo r~al 15 important to have that corm~tivlty. 16 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, 17 Commissioner Holt. Commissioner Roy. 18 COMMISSIONER ROY': I shax~ th¢se sam~ 19 concerns that have been expressed. On the other hand, I 20 like tho general concept. And I va'y mu~h like the 21 conoopt that it's an in-fill d~velopment. But I think 22 it's just not appropriate for us to give so many 23 variants, I don't think, one aft~ another. And I just 24 sense the developer will have to come back tirt~ and time 25 again. PLANNING AND ZONINO COMMI~ISION OCTOBER 23RD, 2002 PaRe 9 - Page 12 ~ondcnscltTM 9 10 !1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 14 16 17 15 19 22 Page 13 So I think it's best to lot this go and take another look at it. But I hope he continues to develop something along the, so lines becaus~ I think tlgre's a ne~d for it. And I lik~ tho loca6on g,mcrally from an in-fill point of view is a good idea. So I will also bo voting against this. COMMISSIONER APPLB: If th6~ al~ no oth.~r comments, I'll add my two cents. I agree with Commissioner Roy's statements. I -- my mother actually lived in a development very similar to this in Longview. And it was higause of tho fact that people couid not cor~ in and out, and it was not a through street, and that made her feel very safe.~d secure. And I definitely think with all ofwe boomers getting to the age where we're going to be looking for appropriate neighborhoods, I think this is a wonderful idea. Unfortunately, I don't think that it has be~n defined ~nough for us here tonight, so I, too, wilt be voting for ttg motion. We have a motion and a second. Any moro discussion? Vote, please. Motion carries 7-0. Page 14 I 2 4 8 10 II 12 14 15 I? 18 1 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 15 Page 16 PLA]qNIlqG AND ZONING COMI~SSION OCTOBER 23RD, 2002 Page 13 - Page I6 S:\Onr Docmments\TXU Settlement Agenda lnfb Sheer 111902.doc Item #6D AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET November 19, 2002 Legal Department Herbert Prouty, City Attorney SUBJECT: An ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas finding, after reasonable notice and hearing, that TXU Gas Distribution's rates and charges within the City should be changed; determining just and reasonable rates; adopting general service rates including rate adjustment provisions and miscellaneous service charges to be charged for sales and transportation of natural gas to residemial, commercial and industrial customers; providing for recovery of rate case expenses and the City' share of rate case expenses related to GUD Docket Nos. 9267-9270, 9278-9279, & 9284-9288; preserving regulatory rights of the City; providing for repeal of conflicting ordinances; and providing for an effective date. BACKGROUND: On March 1, 2002, TXU Gas Distribution, a division of TXU Gas Company (TXU Gas) filed for a rate increase in the North Central Texas area. On the 26~ day of March, the City Council passed a Resolution suspending the effective date of this requested rate increase, which would have generated an annual increase of $33,853,710 in over 100 cities within the Dallas/Fort Worth area. The Resolution also recognized Spencer Stati)n Generating Company, L.P. as a party in this proceeding, authorized Denton to join a coalition of cities who hired Geoffrey Gay of the law firm of Lloyd, Gossilink, Blevins, Rochelle, Baldwin & Townsend, P.C., and Diversified Utility Consultants, Inc. to review the rate increase request. The City also authorized the hiring of the Law Offices of Jim Boyle to assist the other consultants in this rate case, especially with regard to the impact of the rates on the Spencer Electric Generating Station. The increase would have been 7.09% overall. It would have been significantly more if the cost of gas, which is subject to market fluctuations, had not been included. In Demon's case, the amount requested would have increased Demon rate payers bills by $1,2)7,538 or a 10.34% increase with the cost of gas included. It would have been more than double that percemage with the cost of gas excluded. Dallas and several other cities settled the rate case with TXU. Fort Worth and a number of other cities where ultimately dropped by TXU from the rate increase request. Fiftyone cities, including the City of Demon, passed resolutions denying the rate increase. One city, the City of Carrolton, actually passed a resolution reducing TXU's rates. TXU then appealed this matter to the Texas Railroad Commission. The case is currently pending in GUD Docket No. 9313 before the Commission. During the past several months, our consultants have been working with TXU to arrive at a favorable settlement of this matter. PROPOSED SETTLEMENT. The consultants have recommended to the City a settlement which would increase rates $7.5 million for the remaining cities whose cases are pending in S:\Our Docmments\TXU Settlement Agenda lnfb Sheer 111902.doc GUD Docket No. 9313 before the Railroad Commission. The key terms of the proposed settlement are as follows: Overall, this would amount to an average increase of about 2.72% for the 51 cities with the industrial class receiving an increase of 5.53% and residemial and commercial classes receiving average increases of 2.66%. The residemial rate designed includes an $8 customer charge or flat commodity charge as well as a $14 commercial customer charge. In Demon's case, the increase would be $317,675, an overall increase of 2.72%. This is about 26% of the original request foran annual $1,207,538 increase. Rates for Demon's residential customers would increase by 4.23% or $273,600 annually. Rates for commercial customers would increase by 15.60% or $219,587 annually. Industrial rates would actually decrease by 15.27% or $175,512 annually. 4. The new rates will not take effect until after February 1, 2003. TXU may implement a two-part surcharge over the twelvemonth period to recover the rate case expenses. Denton will seek to recover its rate case expenses in the notre ordinance case that was appealed by TXU. The Railroad Commission ruled in our favor and in favor of eight other Texas cities when it rejected TXU's Appeal of our notice ordinances. The City of Demon's share of these expenses which are related to GUD Docket's Nos. 9267-9270, 9278-9279, & 9284-9288 are $22,567.98 from the Law Offices of Jim Boyle. Other benefits of the settlement and information concerning the settlement are contained in the City Attorney's status report. I spoke briefly with G. Gail Watkins, of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Field, who are legal counsel for Spencer Station Generating Company, L.P. (Spencer). After I explained the basic terms of the settlement to Ms. Watkins, she indicated that they were in negotiation with TXU to convert from a gas distribution to a pipeline customer. I have sent a copy of the ordinance accepting the settlement to Ms. Watkins for her comments. TXU has also been notified by sending a copy of the ordinance to their Denton Town Manager, James Johnson. I have also spoken with Dan Lawton, of Diversified Utility Consultants, Inc. He believes this is a good settlement for the cities and that Denton should accept the settlement. He did indicate if Spencer has a problem with the settlemem and you are uncomfirtable with approving the settlement because of that fact, you can refuse to set industrial rates. Those rates would then be set by contracts negotiated between TXU and its industrial customers. I have attached to this information sheet a copy of a chart showing the increases under the settlement in all customer classes for all of the 51 cities who are involved in this rate case before the Railroad Commission. OPTIONS: 1) 2) The City can pass the ordinance authorizing the settlement authorizing TXU to increase gas rates in the City of Demon by $317,675 annually in accordance with the Tariff attached to the ordinance. The City Council can pass the ordinance but refuse to set industrial rates or make any other changes in the ordinance, which the City Council deems necessary. Page 2 S:\Our Docaments\TXU Settlement Agenda lnfb Sheer 111902.doc 3) The City Council can refuse to pass the ordinance and can continue to litigate this matter and GUD 9313 before the Texas Railroad Commission. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that you choose Option 1 and pass the ordinance as written. If Spencer should object to the industrial rates as they apply to Spencer Station and you are concerned about this, we would suggest that you pass the ordinance without setting industrial rates leaving those rates to be negotiated between TXU andits industrial customers. There is some risk that TXU might not agree to settle on the abovomentioned terms if you refuse to set industrial rates. FISCAL IMPACT: If you pass the ordinance the industrial gas rates will increase by $317,675 per year or an overall increase of 2.72%. Denton should recover all of its rate case expenses including those of the Law Offices of Jim Boyle. TXU will have the right to surcharge those expenses to ratepayers over a twelve-month period. Respectfully submitted, Herbert L. Prouty City Attorney Page 3 I S:\Our D ocmm ent s\Or din an ces\02\TXU Settlement Ordinance.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS FiNDiNG, AFTER REASONABLE NOTICE AND HEARING, THAT TXU GAS DiSTRiBUTiON'S RATES AND CHARGES WITHIN THE CITY SHOULD BE CHANGED; DETERMINING JUST AND REASONABLE RATES; ADOPTING GENERAL SERVICE RATES INCLUDING RATE ADJUSTMENT PROVISIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS SERVICE CHARGES TO BE CHARGED FOR SALES AND TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS TO RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS; PROViDiNG FOR RECOVERY OF RATE CASE EXPENSES AND THE CITY' SHARE OF RATE CASE EXPENSES RELATED TO GUD DOCKET NOS. 9267-9270, 9278-9279, & 9284-9288; PRESERVING REGULATORY RIGHTS OF THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLiCTiNG ORDINANCES; AND PROViDiNG FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the suspended the effective rates in the City in order City of Demon ("City"), acting as regulatory authority, has previously date of TXU Gas Distribution's ("Company") application to increase to study the reasonableness of that application; and WHEREAS, the City or a consultant retained by the City evaluated the merits of the Company's application; and WHEREAS, the City in a reasonably noticed public hearing considered the Company's application; and WHEREAS, the City incurred rate case expenses in this case and in GUD docketsNos. 9267-9270, 9278-9279, & 9284-9288 which were related to this rate case and which involved City Ordinance No. 2002-073 requiring more comprehensive notice by the Company of the effect of this requested rate increase on residential and commercial rate layers; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the Company's rates within the City should be changed and that the Company's application should be granted, in part, and denied, in part; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. On March 1, 2002, TXU Gas Distribution, a division of TXU Gas Company ("Company") filed with the governing body of this municipality a Statemem of intern to Change Residemial, Commercial and industrial Rates charged to consumers within this municipality. Also filed was the Tariff for Gas Service in the North Texas Metroplex Distribution System ("Tariff for Gas Service") and the supporting Cost of Service Schedules ("Schedules"). SECTION 2. That the existing rates and charges of TXU Gas Distrbution are hereby found, after reasonable notice and hearing, to be unreasonable and shall be changed as hereinafter ordered. The changed rates resulting from this Ordinance are hereby determined to be just and reasonable rates to be observed and in forcewithin the City. S:\Our D ocmm ent s\Or din an ces\02\TXU Settlement Ordinance.doc SECTION 3. The Company has agreed to modify the rates proposed in its Statement of Intent and the modified rates are reflected in the revised Tariff for Gas Service attached hereto as Exhibit A. SECTION 4. The maximum general service rates for sales and transpiration of natural gas rendered to residemial, commercial and industrial consumers within the city limits of Denton, Texas by TXU Gas Distribution, a division of TXU Gas Company, a Texas corporation, its successors and assigns, are hereby fixed and approved as set fourth in the revised Tariff for Gas Service attached hereto as Exhibit A. The rates reflected in the attached Rate Schedules entitled Residential Service, Commercial Service, industrial Sales, industrial Transportation and industrial Sales & Transportation are found to be reasonable. Nothing comained herein shall limit the right of industrial and transportation customers with comparative options to negotiate rates with the Company that differ from approved tariffs. SECTION 5. All electric generation customers are included as Industrial Transportation customers under the applicable transportation rate schedule. SECTION 6. The Rate Adjustment and Surcharge Provisions set forth in the revised Tariff for Gas Service attached hereto as Exhibit A and emitled Gas Cost Adjustmem, and Tax Adjustment, are approved. SECTION 7. The Company shall have the fight to collect such reasonable charges as are necessary to conduct its business and to carry out its reasonable rules and regulations. Such miscellaneous service charges are idemified in Rate Schedules 9001 through 9008 of the attached revised Tariff for Gas Service. SECTION 8. Cities' rate case expenses are found to be reasonable and shall be reimbursed by the Company including, without limitation, the City of DeMon's expenses related to GUD Docket Nos. 9267-9270, 9278-9279, & 9284-9288 in the amoum of $22,567.98. The Company is authorized to recover the rate case expenses reimbursed to Cities and the Company's rate case expenses, up to the amount agreed to, through a per Mcr surcharge as set forth in the Rider emitled Surcharges in the attached revised Tariff for Gas Service. SECTION 9. The aforesaid rate schedules and riders herein approved shall be effective for bills rendered on or after February 1, 2003. SECTION 10. The rates set forth in this Ordinance may be changed and amended by either the City or Company in any other manner provided by law. Service hereunder is subject to the orders of regulatory bodies having jurisdiction, and to the Company's Rules and Regulations currently on file with the City. SECTION 11. Only TXU Gas Distribution and Spencer Station Generating Company, L.P. have been admitted as parties to this proceeding. SECTION 12. it is hereby found and determined that said meeting at which this Ordinance was passed was open to the public, as required by Texas law, and that advance public notice of the time, place and purpose of said meeting was given. Page 2 S:\Our Docmments\Ordinances\02\TXU Settlement Ordinance.doc SECTION 13. This Ordinance shall be served on TXU Gas Distribution by U.S. Mail to the Company's authorized representative, Autry Warren, Rates Manager, TXU Business Services, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-3411. SECTION 14. Nothing contained in this Ordinance shall be construed mw or hereafter in limiting or modifying, in any manner, the right and power of the City under law to regulate the rates and charges of TXU Gas Distribution. SECTION 15. All ordinances, resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict with this Ordinance are repealed to the extent of such conflict. Examples of such ordinances or resolutions that are deemed repealed are all ordinances or resolutions concerning Military Rates N, Cost of Service Adjustments, Plant Investment Cost of Adjustments, and Weather Normalization Adjustments. To the extent Public Authority Rates, Commercial Contract Rates or Military Rates-N are in effect in the city those rates are specifically repealed as they are now a part of the Commercial rates and are calculated in accordance withthe revenue requirement for Commercial customers. SECTION 16. The rate schedules included in the Tariff for Gas Service supercede and replace all other tariffed services provided by TXU Gas Distribution except as expressly contained within the Tariff for Gas Service and, as per Section 9 above, shall become effective for bills rendered on or after February 1, 2003. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2002. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY MARK BURROUGHS, MAYOR PRO TEM BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Page 3 TXU TARIFF FOR GAS SERVICE IN THE NORTH TEXAS METROPLEX DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM TXIU GAS DISTRIBUTION EXHIBIT A TO OR'DINANCE NO. Tariff for Gas Service - NT Metro System - Appeal Cities TXU Gas Distribution RATE SCHEDULE:~] Index of Rates I No. 4630 APPLICABLE TO: See List of Applicable Cities Below REVISION: 0 DATE: PAGE: 1 of 2 INDEX OF RATES & LIST OIF APPLICABLE CITIES RATES: 4631 4632 4641-4643 4644 4651 Residential Service Commerci.al Service Industrial Sales Industrial Transportation Industrial Sales and Transportation RATE ADJUSTMENT PROVIISlONS: 8041 8042 8O43 Gas Cost Adjustment Tax & Franchise Fee Adjustment Surcharges MISCELLANEOUS SERVICE CHARGES: 9001 9002 9003 9004 9005 9006 90O7 9008 Connectio,n Charge Read for Change Charge Returned Check Charges Delinquent Notification Charge Main Line Extension Rate Excess Flow Valve Charge Certain Stand-by Gas Generators Temporary Discontinuance of Service Tariff for Gas Service - NT Metro System - Appeal Cities TXU Gas Distribution I RATE SCHEDULE: Index of Rates I No. 4630 APPLICABLE TO: See List of Applicable Cities Below REVISION: 0 DATE: PAGE: 2 of 2 LIST OF APPLICABLE CITIES: North Texas Metroplex Distribution System (NT Metro System) Appeal Cities Addison Allen Argyle Arlington Balch Springs Bedford Blue Ridge Carmllton Colleyviile Coppell Corinth Corral City Dalworthington Gardens Denton DeSoto Double Oak Duncanville Euless Fairview Farmers Branch Flower Mound Frisco Garland , Glenn Heights Grapevine Hickory Creek Highland Village Hurst Hutchins Irving Justin Keller Lewisville Lincoln Park Little Elm Mansfield McKinney Murphy Northlake Pantego Piano Princeton Richardson Rowlett Sachse Seagoville Southlake The Colony Trophy Club Westlake Wylie Tariff for Gas Service - NT Metro System - Appeal Cities TX:U Gas Distribution~ RATE SCHEDULE: I Residential Service I No. 4631 APPLICABLE TO: REVISION: DATE: EFFECTIVE DATE: PAGE: I OF RESIDENTIAL SERVICE Monthly Rate: Subject to applicable adjustments, the following rates are the maximum applicable to residential consumers per meter per month orfor any part of a month for which gas service is available at the same location. Customer Charge (Minimum Bill) $ 8.0000 All Consumption @ 0.8848 Per Mcf If the service period is less than~ 28 days in a month the customer charge is $.2857 times the number of days service. If the consumption contains a portion of an Mcr, a prorata portion of thee per Mcr charge will be made. Bills are due and payable when rendered and must be paid within fifteen days from monthly billing date. OTHER APPLICABLE RATE SCHEDULES Rate Adjustment Provisions: 8041 8042 8043 Gas Cost Adjustment Tax & Franchise Fee Adjustment Surcharges Miscellaneous/Service Charges: 9001 9002 9003 9004 9005 9006 9007 9008 Connection Charge Read for Change Charge Returned Check Chargtes Delinquent Notification Charge Main Line Extension Rate Excess Flow Valve Charge Certain Stand-By Gas Generators Temporary Discontinuance of Service Charge Tariff for Gas Service - NT Metro System - Appeal Cities TX:U Gas Distribution RATE SCHEDULE: I Commercial Service I No. 4632 APPLICABLE TO: REVISION: 0 DATE: EFFECTIVE DATE: PAGE: 1 OF 1 COMMERCIAL SERVICE Monthly Rate: Customer Charge (Minimum Billl) $ 14.0000 First 30 Mcf @ 0.9978 Per Mcf Next 320 Mcf @ 0.8928 Per Mcf Over 350 Mcr @ 0.8214 Per Mcr If the service period is less than~ 28 days in a month the customer charge is $.5000 times the number of days service. If the consumption contains a portion of an Mcr, a prorata portion of th.e per Mcf charge will be made. Bills are due and payable when rendered and must be paid within fifteen days from monthly billing date. OTHER APPLICABLE RATE SCHEDULES Rate Adjustment Provisions: 8041 8042 8043 Gas Cost Adjustment Tax & Franchise Fee A,djustment Surcharges Miscellaneous/Service Charges: 9001 9002 9003 9004 9005 9006 9007 9008 Connection Charge Read for Change Chaqge Returned Check Chargles Delinquent Notification Charge Main Line Extension Rate Excess Flow Valve Charge Certain Stand-By Gas Generators Temporary Discontinuance of Service Charge Tariff for Gas Service - NT Metro System - Appeal Cities TXU Gas Distribution RATE SCHEDULE: I Industrial Sales , t Nos. 464H thru 4643 APPLICABLE TO: REVlSIO~N: 0 DATE: EFFECTIVE DATE: PAGE: I OF 2 INDUSTRIAL SALES Monthly Rates: The following rate schedules are hereby amended or superseded as follows: Rate Schedule Nos. 48-N Industrial Rates-N -Texas (Amended) 3291 Industrial Rates-NNEMETRO - Northeast Metro (Amended) 4111-4113 Industrial Sales - Corinth / Lincoln Park (Superseded) : 4121-4123 Industrial Sales - Northwest Metro / Mid Cities Distribution System (Superseded) 4211-4213 Industrial Sales - East Region Distribution System (Superseded) Subject to Company's limitations on the availability of each rate, Customer shall receive service under its choice of one of the following rates in accordance with the rate selected by Customer as provided in the contract: RATE 4641 First 125 Mcf or less $ 325.00 All over 125 Mcf @ $ 1.940 per Mcf RATE 4642 First 600 Mcf or less $ 800.00 All over 600 Mcf @ $ 1.769 per Mcf RATE 4643 First 1,250 Mcf or less $ 1,450.00 All over 1,250 Mcf @ $ 1.592 per IMcf In all other respects, the above, listed amended rate schedules remain in effect as filed with the Cities listed in Rate Schedule No. 4630. 100% of the increase in industrial margin is to accrue to the benefit of TXU Gas Distribution. The above listed rates are close,d to new customers as of the effective date of this rate schedule. Current customers taking service pursuant to this rate schedule will no longer be eligible for this service upon contract termination. Current ctustomers may convert their existing contract to new Rate Schedule No. 4651. When the final contract subject to this rate expires or is terminated, this rate schedule will be cancelled. Tariff for Gas Service - NT Metro System - Appeal Cities T~(U Gas Distribution RATE SCHEDULE: I Industrial Sales t Nos. 4641 thru 4643 APPLICABLE TO: REVISION: 0 DATE: EFFECTIVE DATE: PAGE: 2 OF 2 APPLICABLE RATE SCHEDULES: Rate Adjustment Provisions: 8042 Tax & Franchise Fee A,djustment 8043 Surcharges Tariff for Gas Service - NT Metro System - Appeal Cities TXIU Gas Distribution RATE SCHEDULE: I Indu:strial Transportation I No. 4644 APPLICABLE TO'. REVISIO~i: 0 DATE: EFFECTIVE DATE: PAGE: I OF 1 INDUSTRIAL TRANSPORTATION Monthly Rates: The fee for industrial tmnsport~ation service is $ 0.915 per MMBTU delivered pious applicable taxes exclusive of the backup fee. The above transportation fees include both the fees incurred to move the gas from the receipt point on the transmission system to the city gate and the fee incurred to move the gas from the city gate to the customers facility. If the fees for transportation service on the transmission system change, the ;~bove, fee will be adjusted to reflect the overall transportatiion rate charged to customers. For Industrial Transportation customers, the quantity of transportation gas receivedl into the Compam/s distribution system for the cus:tomefs account will be reduced by the Compans/s current lost and unaccounted-for-gas percentag,e as reflected in the volume factor on Rate Schedu.ie No. 8041. 100% of the increase in transportation fees incurred to move the gas from the city gate to the customer's facility is to accrue to the benefi't of TXU Gas Distribution. This rate schedule is closed to new customers as of the effective date of this rate schedule. Current customers taking service pursuant to this rate schedule will no longer be eligible for this service upon contract termination. Current customers may convert their existing contract to new/Rate Schedule No. 4651. When the final contract subject to this rate schedule expires or is terminated, Rate Schedule No. 4644 Will be cancelled. APPLICABLE RATE SCHED~ULES: Rate Adjustment Provisions: 8042 Tax & Franchise Fee A,djustment 8043 Surcharges Tariff for Gas Service - NT Metro System - Appeal Cities TXIU Gas Distribution RATE SCHEDULE: I Industrial Sales & Transportation I No, 4651 APPLICABLE TO: REVISION: 0 DATE: EFFECTIVE DATE: PAGE: 1 OF 2 INDUSTRIAL SALES AND TRANSPORTATION Monthly Rates: RATE 4651- S (SALES) Customer Charge (Minimum Bill) $200.00 per meter Rate/MMBtu Btu transported per month First 1,500 MMBtu $0.5043 -. Next 3,500 MMBtu $0.4617 Next 45,000 MMBtu $0.3667 Over 50,000 MMBtu $0.1404 RATE 4651-T (TRANSPORTATION) Customer Charge (Minimum Bill) $200.00 per meter Btu transported per month Rate/MMBtu First 1,500 MMBtu $0.5043 Next 3,500 MMBtu $0.4617 Next 45,000 MMBtu $0.3667 Over 50,000 MMBtu $0.1404 Availability: Availability is subject to Texas ILItilities Code (TUC) Section 104.003(b). In the absence of TUC Section 104.003(b) rates, the rates shown in this rate schedule are available to industrial custc~mers. Rate 4651-S (Sales) is not available to electric generation customers. Adjustment for Gas Cost: Each industrial customer receiving sales service under this rate schedule shall pay' the Company's cost of gas plus applicable transportation, storage, and other costs incurred to acquire the gas and move it to the city gate on a per MMBtu basis. The above gas cost will be adjusted by multiplying it by the volume factor referenc,ed in Rate SchedulE, No. 8041. Retention: For Industrial Transportation customers, the quantity of transportation gas received into the Company's distribution, system for the customer's account will be reduced by the Company's current lost and unaccounted-for-gas percentage as reflected in the volume factor on Rate Schedule No. 8041. Tariff for Gas Service - NT Metro :System - Appeal Cities TX~U Gas Distribution RATE SCHEDULE: I Ind,ustrial Sales & Transportation I No. 4651 APPLICABLE TO: REVISIOIN: 0 DATE: EFFECTIVE DATE: PAGE: 2 OF 2 APPLICABLE RATE SCHEDULES: Rate Adjustment Provisions: 8042 Tax & Franchise Fee Adjustment 8043 Sumharges Tariff for Gas Service - NT Metro System - Appeal Cities TXU Gas Distribution Ii Gas Cost Adiustment I No. 8041 RATE SCHEDULE: APPLICABLE TO: REVISION: 0 DATE: EFFECTIVE DATE: PAGE: I OF 1 GAS COST ADJUSTMENT Each monthly bill shall be adjus'ted for gas cost as follows: (1) The city gate rate applicable to current billing month sales shall be calculated to the nearest $0.0001 per Mcr based upon: (a) A volume factor of 1.0273 determined in establishing the above rate for the distribution system as the ratio of adjusted purchased volumes divided by adjusted sales volumaes. Said factor shall be adjusted annually following determination of the actual lost and unaccounted for gas percentage based upon year ended June 30. (b) The city gate rate applicable to volumes purchased during the current calendar m ,onth, expressed to the nearest $0.0001 per Mcf (shown below as "CGR") In summary, the gas cost adjustment (GCA) shall be determined to the nearest $0.0001 per Mcf as, follows: GCA = 1.0273 x CGR Tariff for Gas Service - NT Metro System - Appeal Cities TX:U Gas Distribution RATE SCHEDULE: I Tax & Franchise Fee Adjustment I No. 8042 APPLICABLE TO: REVISlOIN: 0 DATE: EFFECTIVE DATE: PAGE: 1 OF 1 TAX & FRANCHISE FEE ADJUSTMENT For customers inside the city limits of an incorporated city, each monthly billing, as adjusted, shall be adjusted for municipal fr~anchise fees (street and alley rental assessments) and the state gross receipts taxes imposed by Sections 182.021 - 182.025 of the Texas Tax Code.. Municipal franchise fees are determined by each city's franchise ordinance. Each city's franchise ordinance will specify the percentage and applicability of franchise fees, Each monthly bill, as adjust, ed, shall also be adjusted by an amount equivalent to the proportionate part of any new tax, or any tax increase or decrease, or any increase or decrease of any other governmental imposition, rental fee, or charge (except state, county, city and special district ad valorem taxes and taxes on net income) levied, assessed or imposed subsequent to September 30, 2001, upon or allocated to the Company's distribution operations, by any new or amended law, ordinance or' contract. Municipal franchise fees (sttreet and alley rental assessments) and the state gross receipts taxes imposed by Sections 182.021 - 182.025 of the Texas Tax Code shall continue to be collected pursuant to individual indus;tdal contracts. Tariff for Gas Service - NT Metro System - Appeal Cities TXU Gas Distribution RIDER: Surcharc.,leS I No. 8043 'APPLICABLE TO: REVlSIOIN: 0 DATE: EFFECTIVE DATE: PAGE: I ,OF 1 SURCHARGES Rate Case Expense Surcharge: Rate case expenses will be recovered through a surcharge designed for a twelve-month nominal recovery period. The surcharge per Mcr will be calculated by dividing the rate ,case expense to be recovered by the adjusted annual sales volume to residential, commercial, Industrial Sales, and Industrial Transportation customers. Other Surcharges: TXU Gas Distribution will recover other surcharges as authorized by the relevant municipality, the Railroad Commission of Te:(as or the Texas Utilities Code. Tariff for Gas Service-NT Metro System - Appeal Cities TX:U Gas Distribution RATE SCHEDULE: I Miscellaneous Service Charges I Nos. 900,1 thru 9008 APPLICABLE TO: As Referenced REVlSlOIN: 0 EFFECTIVE DATE: As Referenced PAGE: I OF 2 MISCELLANEOUS SERVICE CHARGES: 9001 Connection Charge The following connection charges apply: Schedule Business Hours After Hours (Residential & Com~mercial) Charge $ 35.00 52.50 For each reconnection of gas service where service has been discontinued at the same premises for any reason, for the initia. I inauguration of service, and for each inauguration of service when the billable party has changled, with the following exceptions: ~ (a) For a builder who uses gas temporarily during construction or for displ,ay purposes. (b) Whenever gas service has been temporarily interrupted because of system outage or service work done by Company; or (c) For any reason deemed necessary for company operations. 9002 9003 9004 9005 Read For Change Charge (Residential & Corn mercial) A read for change charge of $12.00 is made when it is necessary for a company employee to read the meter at a currently sewed location because of a change in the billable pan~j. Returned Check Charges (Residential & Corn mercial) A returned check handling charge of $16.25 is made for each check returned Ito the Company for any reason. Delinquent Notification Clharge (Residential & Com~mercial) A charge of :$4.75 shall be made for each trip by a Company employee to a culstome?s residence or place of business when there is an amount owed to the Company that is past due. This charge shall not be made when the trip is required for safety investigations or when gas service has been temporarily interrupted because of system outage or service work done by Company. Main Line Extension Rate (Residential & Com~mercial) The charge for extending mains beyond the limit established by Franchise for ~residential, and commemial customers shalll be based on the actual cost per foot of the extension. Tariff for Gas Service-NT Metro System - Appeal Cities TX:U Gas Distributior~ RATE SCHEDULE: I Miscellaneous Service Char~es I Nos. 9091 thru 9008 APPLICABLE TO: As Referenced REVISION: 0 EFFECTIVE DATE: As Referenced PAGE: 2 OF 2 9006 9007 9008 Charge for Installing and Maintaining an Excess Flow Valve (Residential) A customer may request thee installation of an excess flow valve on a new service line or on a service line being replaced provided that the service line will serve a single residence and operate continuously throughout the year at a pressure of not less than 10 psig. The customer will pay the actual cost incurred to install the excess flow valve. That cost will include the cost of the excess flow valve, the labor cost required to install the excess flow valve, and other associated costs. The estimated total cost to install an excess flow valve is $50.00. This cost is based on installing the excess flow valve at the same time a service line is installed or replaced. The excess flow valve will be installed on the service line upstream of the customer's meter and as near as practical to the main. A customer requiring maint,enance, repair, or replacement of an excess flow valve will be required to pay the actual cost of locating and repairing or replacing the excess flow vallve. The cost to perform this service will normally range from $200.00 to $2,000.00, dependingl on the amount of work required. This cost witll be determined on an individual project basis. This tariff is being filed in accordance with the U.S. Department of Transportation rule requiring the installation of an excess flow valve, if requested by a customer, on new or replaced service lines that operate continuously throughout the year at a pressure of not less than 10 psig and that serve a single residence. The rule further states that the customer will besr all costs of installing and maintaining the excess flow valve. Recovery of Connection Costs Associated with Certain Stand-By G=s Generators (Commercial) Commemial customers installing stand-by gas generators to provide service in the event of an interruption in electric service in facilities where gas service is not otherwise provided will reimburse TXU Gas Distril~ution for the actual cost of acquiring and installing the regulator, service line, and meter required to provide gas service for the stand-by generators. Gas service provided for the stand-by generators will be billed at the applicable commercial rate. Charge for Temporary Discontinuance of Service (Residentiall & Commercial) Whenever service under thais rate schedule has been temporarily disconnected at the request of the customer, a charge of $47.00 for residential and $73.75 for commercial plus the appropriate Connection Charge will be made to reestablish such service for that customer at the same address. ~0~0 ~0 ~ Line 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 North Texas Metroplex Distribution System For the Test Year Ending September 30, 2001 Residential Rate Design Description (a) /bi (c) (d) Residential Revenue Requirement Less Revenue Related Taxes @ 5.0760% Less Gas Cost Less Revenue From Customer Charge Revenue Required From Consu~mption Rate Residential Block I MCF/1/ Residential Block 2 MCF/1/ Residential Block 3 MCF/1/ Total Residential MCF Block I Consumption Rate Block 2 Consumption Rate Block 3 Consumption Rate 1 Consumption Rate 5,009,389 x I 0.9245 0.8700 0.8031 0.8848 $8.oe J Total 188,123,404 9,549,215 112~085~835 $66,488,353 40,075,112 $26~413,241 11,689,685 15,243,974 2~919~468 29,853,127 One Consumption Rme $0.8848 -'$0.8848 $0.8848 Line Description (a) North~ Texas Metroplex Distribution System For the Test Year Ending September 30, 2001 Commercial Rate Design (b) (c) (d) (e) Total (f) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Commercial Revenue Requirement Less Revenue Related Taxes @ Less Gas Cost Less Revenue From Customer Charge Revenue Required From Consumption Rate Commercial Block 1 MCF/1/ Commercial Block 2 MCF/1/ Commercial Block 3 MCF/1/ Total Commercial MCF Block 1 Consumption Rate Block 2 Consumption Rate Bl~ck 3 Consumption Rate 5.0760% 400,008 x I $14.00 85,412,948 4,335,593 60,450,600 $20,626,754 5,600,112 $15,026,642 4,571,32O 9,098,761 2,651,515 16,521,596 $0.9978 $0.8928 $0.8214 Line 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Description Industrial Revenue Requirement Less Revenue Related Taxes @ Less Gas Cost Less Revenue From Customer Charge Revenue Required From Consumption Rate Industrial Block 1 MCF/I/ Industrial Block 2 MCF/1/ Industrial Block 3 MCF/1/ Industrial Block 4 MCF/1/ Total Industrial MCF Block I Consumption Rate Block 2 Consumption Rate Block 3 Consumption Rate Block 4 Consumption Rate North Texas Metroplex Distribution System F~r the Teat Year Ending September 30, 2001 Industrial Rate Design 5.0760% 3,540 x I, Total (el 8,031,860 407,700 2T132~98t $5,491,178 $200.00 I 708,000 ii $417831178 3,067,262 2.564,867 4,434,262 2~140~975 12,207,366 BTIU Factor MMBtu Rate $0.5179 1.027 $ 0.5043 $0.4741 1.027 $ 0.4617 $0.3766 1.027 $ 0.3667 $0.1441 1.027 $ 0.1404 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 25 29 3O 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 49 50 51 52 53 North Texas Metroplex Dlatribution System For the Teat Year Ending September 30, 2001 Induatria! Rate N Design Industrial Revenue Requirement - Industrial Rate N Less Revenue Related Taxes @ Less Gas Cost 1,093,640 Proposed Base Rate Revenue Rate 1 Existing Rate First 125 Mcr or lass 202.3900 Over 125 Mcf 1.5800 2.69~36 Billing Units 2,544 801 ,g58 Rate 2 First 600 Mci or less 905.2600 84 Over 600 Mcr 1.4340 31,114 Rate 3 First 1250 Mcf or less 1,748.1200 36 Over 1250 Mcf 1.3740 20,875 GCA Revenue 1,093,640 Subtotal Gas Cost 1,093,640 Margin For Transportaton $900,608 Adjusted Revenue Requirement with Transportation Proof of Revenue at the Prooosed Ra:{w 1.6906 2.6~)06 ~3.5 Rate 1 Proposed Rates Billing Units First 125 Mcf or less 325.00 2,544 Over 125 Mcr 1.940 801,9158 Subtotal Rate 2 First 600Mcforless 800.00 Over 60OMcf 1.769 Subtotal Rate 3 First 1250 Mcr or less 1450.00 Over 1250 Mcf 1.592 Subtotal Subtotal of Rates 1, 2, and 3 GCA Revenue Subtotal Revenue Related Taxes Total 1,093,640 31,1'14 36 20,875 1.69106 $4,226,268 214,527 2~942~548 $1,069,193 Revenue $514,880 $1 ~267~094 $1,781,973.70 $76,042 $44~617 $120,658.98 $62,932 $28~683 $91,614.84 "$1,648,908 $3,643,155 $2,942,548 $450,304 $4,676,571 Revenue $826,800 $1~555~798 $2,382,598.40 $67,200 $65~049 $122,240.25 $52,200 $33~233 $65,433.32 $2,5g0,272 $1~848T908 4,439,180 237.384 $4,676,564 zi/ig/2ee2 12:34 9403497707 COD PLANNTNG DE'PT Hand6eFLEtoeCounciI lurfu m~ mmTBK, Tlal, mL Pbam 940 4~13843 AxgK0 321 12~ City of De,ton Dmt~ Te~s Re~ Old North Park variance V02-0020 Tow~m~yexmeer~ Pleue ;emove the above ~ request Eom the November ! 9, 2002 City Cc)ua:il agenda. 1 1-1 g-O2AlO.-O0 RCVO Cbiali~ Homes Siu~ 19'76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 PUB Minutes for Nov. 19, 2002 City Council Meeting Agenda Item(s) # 4 G, H, I, J and K Handout to Council DRAFT PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD MEETING MINUTES November 18, 2002 9:00 A.M. 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, November 18, 2002, at 9:00 a.m. in the Service Center Training Room, City of Denton Service Center, 901-A Texas Street, Denton, Texas. PRESENT: Dick Norton, George Hopkins, Charldean Newell, Dick Smith, Don White and Bill Cheek EX OFFICIO,ME ,MB, ERS Mike Conduff, City Manager Howard Martin, Assistant City Manager EXCUSED: Jim Wilson ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION: 3) Consider approval of Bid No. 2899 to Texas Electric Utility Construction Inc. for the 18" Reuse Waterline to the Oakmont Country Club project, in an amount not to exceed $1,147,995.37 and for approval of the Effluent Reuse Water Contracts. Jim Coulter, Director of Water/Wastewater, presented this item. Coulter gave a brief explanation of the reuse water transmission line that will tie into the existing 18" line previously installed between Spencer and Edwards Roads to provide irrigation water for the Oakmont Country Club project. Board Member George Hopkins asked if staff had projected revenues from the sale of effluent water. Coulter responded that the three customers (Denton State School, Denton Regional Medical Center and Oakmont Country Club) would bring in $80,400 a year. The debt service for the installation of the line is approximately $85,000, therefore, revenue from the three contracts would be adequate to cover the debt service. Coulter advised the Board that staff is also negotiating with the principals of a 9-hole golf course, interested in using the City's effluent water. They are considering a location just south of the landfill. Coulter predicted that the demand for effluent water would increase when the public becomes aware that it is available. 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 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 PUB Minutes for Nov. 19, 2002 City Council Meeting Agenda Item(s) # 4 G, H, I, J and K Martin pointed out that the beneficial reuse contracts with Oakmont, Denton State School and Denton Regional Medical Center and the necessary elevated storage tank and easement acquisition documents with Denton State School were included as an integral part of the construction project agenda. He also commented that approval of the construction bid must include approval of these associated documents for successful project operation and funding. Martin informed the Board of possible negotiations regarding the development of a park facility at Briarcliff and the possible purchase of land from Denton State School. Additionally, the Unicorn Lake Project is a short distance away. He stated that there is a definite probability of additional customers. Board Member Dick Smith asked if the three contracts include maximum volumes per day. Coulter responded that Oakmont would use water as needed during the summer without a limit. Staff anticipates their usage at 750,000 million to 1 million gallons a day during dry conditions, in addition to groundwater and surface runoff water that they also use for irrigation. Coulter informed the Board that the line would carry 5 million gallons a day. Board Member Bill Cheek moved to approve Bid No. 2899 to Texas Electric Utility Construction, Inc., and approval of the Effluent Water Contracts, with a second from Board Member Don White. The motion was approved unanimously with a vote of 6-0. Charldean Newell, Chairman Howard Martin, Assistant City Manager/ Utilities Lynn Pedrick, Secretary